Comments on 'Land Rent Reset Arbitration in Hawaii: Credibility and Transparency'

摘要

The Winter 2015 issue of The Appraisal Journal contained my previous letter to the editor, commenting on the article "Land Rent Reset Arbitration in Hawaii: Credibility and Transparency," by R. J. Rirchner, SRA (Fall 2014). After reading Mr. Rirchner's response to my comments, I feel there may be some misunderstandings that need clarification in furtherance of the discussion. My comments on Mr. Rirchner's response will follow the order in which they were presented. 1. I believe Mr. Rirchner may have misunderstood my point as to the function of appraisers on arbitration panels. There are three different functions that an appraiser might fulfill in valuation arbitration. The first is the function of appraiser-arbitrator, where the appraiser makes an appraisal of the property and then, together with the other two appraiser-arbitrators, following whatever process is called for, reach a majority decision. The second function is, acting as an appraiser, testifying as to value before a single arbitrator or an arbitration panel; and the third function is, acting only and solely as an arbitrator, taking evidence presented by the parties in a hearing or by submission in writing.