Black couple sues after they say home valuation rises nearly $300,000 when shown by White colleague

[Cardinal]

The reason race is being discussed is because the couple made it about race.

They didn't mean to.

Also, just because the difference is big (300k), it does not necessarily mean race must have played a part.

 

[Moon]

There may be legitimate differences in the appraisals, which would result in the kinds of reasonable variations you see from appraisal to appraisal. However, something really weird, something unique and...off...would have to happen to explain the $300,000 jump. So if race is being discussed, it's because it's the most glaringly off thing, and the thing that absolutely shouldn't be happening.

Race is being discussed because it’s the grounds the plaintiffs are using, and it obviously resonated with whoever at CNN wrote the article. It could be the plaintiffs found an appraiser who was friendly to their particular situation and overstated the value in the second appraisal. Was that even the second appraisal or did they have others done and liked the highest result the best? It could certainly be racism, but considering this is a civil suit and it’s in the plaintiff’s interest to overstate things that help their case, it could just be a difference based on the location of the home. It’s irresponsible to immediately jump to the conclusion that the first appraiser was racist when there are a lot of unanswered questions.

 

[Cardinal]

Race is being discussed because it’s the grounds the plaintiffs are using, and it obviously resonated with whoever at CNN wrote the article. It could be the plaintiffs found an appraiser who was friendly to their particular situation and overstated the value in the second appraisal. Was that even the second appraisal or did they have others done and liked the highest result the best? It could certainly be racism, but considering this is a civil suit and it’s in the plaintiff’s interest to overstate things that help their case, it could just be a difference based on the location of the home. It’s irresponsible to immediately jump to the conclusion that the first appraiser was racist when there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Well, it would appear that they did find an appraiser that was friendly to their particular situation: being white.

After a certain point, you'll find yourself explaining away every instance of redlining, and arguing that black people keep getting their homes under-appraised because those appraisers are always having bad hair days.

 

[Tiny]

So where do you draw the line between government outlawing theft and outlawing discrimination? Why do you put theft on an altar?

I don't place theft on an altar.

I say theft should be punishable by law because most people agree that theft is wrong and should be illegal. However, it is not such that most people agree discrimination is wrong and should be illegal. You have never proven how discrimination is inherently wrong other than how it can hinder minorities.

The whole issue can really be boiled down to this: you personally think discrimination is wrong. So, you pass laws to prohibit it. You did not consult the public whether they wanted this law.

That's because you're missing the backdrop to this story, which is redlining. If you're aware of redlining, then you know that this story is absolutely credible.

Doesnt' matter what I know or don't know about redlining. You cannot prove the appraiser was acting out of racism.

Sure, I could be wrong about this particular incident in the same way that I could be wrong about anything. But I'm reasonably confident, based on the facts and the backdrop it happened against, that racism is indeed the explanation.

And I am saying you can be wrong, despite how confident you feel.

Redlining - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We don't need to prove it to the unworkable standard you've created.

Just because you don't like my standard it doesn't mean it's unworkable.

Yes, people get things wrong. So what?

So people wrongly accuse a person of discrimination, which might result him in facing a suit, is not a serious matter to you?

 

[Tiny]

Well, it would appear that they did find an appraiser that was friendly to their particular situation: being white.

Again with your baseless accusation. Prove that the reason it was higher was due to the applicant being white.

After a certain point, you'll find yourself explaining away every instance of redlining, and arguing that black people keep getting their homes under-appraised because those appraisers are always having bad hair days.

You are mischaracterizing his position. That's not what he said.

He said that you cannot act like it must be due to racism and you know this is right because you feel very confident about it. It's like moon said, there could be other reasons that have nothing to do with race.

 

[911Sparky]

True. However, as long as someone hasn't broken a law, it should not be anybody's business to infer whether he's racist.

I don't want to derail this thread but truthfully I have objections to these laws that prohibit discrimination/racism.

Wait a minute, are you saying we should be allowed to discriminate based on race?

 

[Rickeroo]

Initially though, it sounds bad... but the fact that they are both professors and that he actually teaches about redlining:

More to your point, it seems that the plaintiffs did a little redlining of their own. In order to discredit "comp #2", they assert that it's not in the Homeland neighborhood, and make a purposeful dip in the map of Homeland at it's northeast corner. Multiple sources, including this one, Google Maps, and Zillow, have the northern border going straight across. I demonstrate in this post.

 

[Tiny]

Wait a minute, are you saying we should be allowed to discriminate based on race?

I think that if the government and related institutions want to be fair to all, that's fine. But they shouldn't compel private citizens to do the same.

 

[Moon]

Well, it would appear that they did find an appraiser that was friendly to their particular situation: being white.

After a certain point, you'll find yourself explaining away every instance of redlining, and arguing that black people keep getting their homes under-appraised because those appraisers are always having bad hair days.

“Keep getting their homes under-appraised” is what I’m talking about. You make an accusation without any supporting evidence, not unlike the poster who claimed systemic racism. I’ve been involved in a couple of civil suits filed against companies I was working for at the time. It’s amazing how loose plaintiffs can be with the facts. I’m much more interested in what actually happened than in how it looks.

 

[Cardinal]

I don't place theft on an altar.

I say theft should be punishable by law because most people agree that theft is wrong and should be illegal.

Yes, but...why?

However, it is not such that most people agree discrimination is wrong and should be illegal. You have never proven how discrimination is inherently wrong other than how it can hinder minorities.

The whole issue can really be boiled down to this: you personally think discrimination is wrong. So, you pass laws to prohibit it. You did not consult the public whether they wanted this law.

I've done more than that. I've explained why discrimination is wrong.

Doesnt' matter what I know or don't know about redlining. You cannot prove the appraiser was acting out of racism.

If you don't know anything about redlining, then you don't actually understand what this topic is about.

I linked to it already for you.

And I am saying you can be wrong, despite how confident you feel.

I don't have a problem with that. If I did, I wouldn't assign a level of confidence to something like this, I would just know it to be true.

Just because you don't like my standard it doesn't mean it's unworkable.

It is unworkable, and it can't be applied to society, justice, or anything. Your standard can only work when we have telepathy. Until then, we determine intent through words and deeds.

So people wrongly accuse a person of discrimination, which might result him in facing a suit, is not a serious matter to you?

Wrongful accusations happen. So does redlining, and it looks like that's what happened here.

 

[Cardinal]

“Keep getting their homes under-appraised” is what I’m talking about. You make an accusation without any supporting evidence, not unlike the poster who claimed systemic racism. I’ve been involved in a couple of civil suits filed against companies I was working for at the time. It’s amazing how loose plaintiffs can be with the facts. I’m much more interested in what actually happened than in how it looks.

First of all, do you accept that redlining is a thing?

 

[911Sparky]

I think that if the government and related institutions want to be fair to all, that's fine. But they shouldn't compel private citizens to do the same.

The government cannot tell private citizens what to think, but they certainly can compel private citizens to act in a given way. Try renting out your house and refusing to allow a minority couple to view the unit. Try hiring an employee for your company and refusing to accept applications from minorities.

 

[Tiny]

Yes, but...why?

I can't tell you why without getting into how human morality evolved and operates. But I can tell you that most people think theft is wrong while a lot of people don't think discrimination is wrong.

I've done more than that. I've explained why discrimination is wrong.

I don't care why YOU THINK discrimination is wrong. The important thing is a lot of people don't feel the same way as you. Yet you want to impose your morality on them.

If you don't know anything about redlining, then you don't actually understand what this topic is about.

I do know what it is but I don't see how it proves anything. You still can't prove the appraiser was acting out of racism.

I don't have a problem with that. If I did, I wouldn't assign a level of confidence to something like this, I would just know it to be true.

And some people just know God exists. And see how well that's working out for them.

You really should have have a better basis for something other than your gut feelings.

It is unworkable, and it can't be applied to society, justice, or anything. Your standard can only work when we have telepathy. Until then, we determine intent through words and deeds.

I don't care how many times you say telepathy. You have no business trying to infer whether someone has a racist intent. First of all, you could be wrong. Secondly, it's none of your business whether someone is a racist.

Wrongful accusations happen. So does redlining, and it looks like that's what happened here.

Prove that redlining/discrimination occured, other than "I feel very confident about it".

 

[Tiny]

The government cannot tell private citizens what to think, but they certainly can compel private citizens to act in a given way.

Only in the sense that they can compel us to not commit crimes. However, discrimination in a lot of cases is not a criminal matter. It's a civil matter. If people want to be jerks and discriminate, it shouldn't be the government's business.

Try renting out your house and refusing to allow a minority couple to view the unit. Try hiring an employee for your company and refusing to accept applications from minorities.

These things are only illegal because the government says they are illegal.

 

[Moon]

First of all, do you accept that redlining is a thing?

I understand the concept of redlining, but I think it’s a term that’s used too broadly.

 

[911Sparky]

Only in the sense that they can compel us to not commit crimes. However, discrimination in a lot of cases is not a criminal matter. It's a civil matter. If people want to be jerks and discriminate, it shouldn't be the government's business.


These things are only illegal because the government says they are illegal.

Isn't that true of all laws? Speeding is illegal because our local government says it is. Murder is illegal because our state government says it is. Discrimination in housing is illegal because our federal government says it is.

 

[Tiny]

Isn't that true of all laws? Speeding is illegal because our local government says it is. Murder is illegal because our state government says it is. Discrimination in housing is illegal because our federal government says it is.

Murder is malum in se. Speeding can be argued as malum prohibitum.

Discrimination laws fall under malum prohibitum.

 

[Atomic Kid]

View attachment 67407751


https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/19/us/black-couple-home-appraisal-lawsuit-reaj/index.html

dramatically undervaluing their home in an appraisal because of Plaintiffs' race and their home's location adjacent to a Black census block, notwithstanding that it is also located within Homeland, an affluent, mostly white neighborhood,"
The suit claims this valuation came back at $750,000, more than a quarter of a million dollars higher than 20/20 Valuations' appraisal of $472,000

Lawsuit and street address is public information. Rarely do I laugh out loud while typing here for DP, but this item in the lawsuit really amused me:

Dr. Connolly’s scholarship focuses primarily on issues of racism, capitalism, politics, cities, and migration in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Dr. Mott’s scholarship focuses primarily on twentieth century African-American and American literature and history.

Capitalism, right. Here are actual sale prices, with distance in linear feet from the house in question:

View attachment 67407752

Were they lowballed? Sure. But $300k and front page news?

First I'll admit that it's so rare for us here at DP to laugh out loud at the absurdities you type out. Doctors Connally and Mott live on Churchwardens Road on the corner Churchwardens Road and the E Northern Parkway. I went to Google maps and to the Street View tab and pretty sure this is it pretty much matches up with all the elements in the CNN article picture of them standing outside of their home. This is what it looks like.


Pretty nice home, wouldn't you say?

 

[Rickeroo]

Race is being discussed because it’s the grounds the plaintiffs are using

Correct. I'm not sure of the motive behind questioning the reason for the lawsuit. The text is readily available. The last time I did a large-scale word search was for "whiteness" on school district websites. At 35 pages, the lawsuit is one of the most race-dense documents I have seen. It's quite impressive.

dramatically undervaluing their home in an appraisal because of Plaintiffs’ race and their home’s location adjacent to a Black census block
because of their race, Dr. Connolly and Dr. Mott did not belong in Homeland
There is no race-neutral or legitimate business justification for DefendantLanham’s decisions
Discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a sale of a
dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection
therewith, because of race
indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, or national origin
Both are Black.
Dr. Connolly and Dr. Mott are both Black.
removing the many indicia that aBlack family lived there
children’s drawings of Black people
his beliefs that aBlack family did not genuinely belong
with a predominantly Black population
with a relatively small percentage
of Black people
9.6% Black
58% Black
significant Blackpopulations
which ismajority-Black
half of thepopulation is Black
African art
the percentage range of each census
block’s population that is Black:
Homeland Black Population Density Map
selected the “Black or African American” box
all of whom are Black
proud markers of the family’s Black identity
predominantly Black area at the edge
with other Black subjects
books featuring Black characters
themes relating to the Blackexperience
a poster for the movie Black Panther, and more.
the homebelonged to a Black family
devaluing Black homes
because they are Black
because thehomeowners are Black
borders the majority Black area
majority-Black census block
this tiny majority-Black area
a home with Black homeowners
adjacent to a predominantly Black area
devaluing homes in Black or Latino
appraising homes in Black or Latino
they are a Black couple
a Black homeowner
removes markers of Black identity
Black homeowners regularly
other markers of Black identity
as a Black couple
because of racial discrimination
intentional racial discrimination
appraisal was racially discriminatory
was infected by racial bias
stand up in the face of racial discrimination
was unjustifiably low and raciallydiscriminatory
the nation’s racial wealth gap * Rickeroo's favorite
the undervaluation to be caused by racial discrimination
It is predominantly white
This time they “whitewashed” the house
items borrowed from white friends
enlisted a white colleague
Homeland is a majority white neighborhood
77.5% white
“White” is used herein to indicate non-Hispanic white
28% white
majority-nonwhite
predominantly white neighborhood
he ignored majority-white areas
an attractive and predominantly white neighborhood
if it were in the whiter areas
appraising homes in white neighborhoods
comparison to homes in white neighborhoods
generally white neighborhood
in the whiter “heart of Homeland,”
Whitewashing Experiment
enlists a white person
owned by white people
under whitewashing experiments
The increased prevalence of whitewashing
borrowed from white friends
signifying whiteness *love this one, it's a close second
a white pin-up model

There's 15 more "white" references but it's late.

 

[Atomic Kid]

View attachment 67407771

Homeland, MD. House location in green. A short distance to the east is Bellona Ave, where property values drop off precipitously. E Northern Parkway is a 4 lane road. Not included in the OP was 5419 Saint Albans Way, which abuts the parkway and sold for $166 a square foot.

The lawsuit asserts that the apprasier "failed to consider houses throughout Homeland, both north and south of Northern Parkway, that were more similar to Plaintiffs’ house than ones he used for his valuation". St Dunstan's Road is in the center of Homeland, a home like this is what the lawsuit says the property is worth, at $307 a square foot.

This may come as a shock to some, but even when a homeowner focuses primarily on issues of racism, capitalism, politics, cities, and migration in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, he still can't move his house from a busy road on the outskirts of a primarily white neighborhood and pretend it's at the center of said neighborhood.

Is anyone else "not seeing" $750k houses along E Northen Parkway, or am I alone here?

I clicked on the Zillow map link you linked to in post. But I took it a little further than you did. First I zoomed in the area where the home located on Churchwardens Road and E Northern Parkway, then I went to satellite view layer and this is what turns up.

Doctors Connally and Motts home is the at the corner Churchwardens Road and E Northern Parkway. It is valued at $683,000 dollars and has 2600 sq. ft. of living space. Which works out to about $263 per sq. ft. If you look to the left of it you will see that there are at least 3 homes nearby that are along side of the E Northern Parkway that are valued above $750,000 dollars, and if you go down the road on which they live, Churchwardens Road, you will see that there are more than few homes on that road that are valued above $750,000 dollars.

 

[Cardinal]

I can't tell you why without getting into how human morality evolved and operates. But I can tell you that most people think theft is wrong while a lot of people don't think discrimination is wrong.

You don't need to go into morality to explain why theft is a crime. Modern civilization (the kind that was created ~6000 years ago) requires the concept of private property, or else you can't have trade. And you can't have private property if everybody keeps taking each other's stuff.

So in other words, civilization literally can't exist without laws to protect people from theft. From that came the concept that a role of government is to protect its people from predators. Thus rules against fraud, scams, theft, murder, arson, rape, etc.

Discrimination has always been much harder to pin down, but it also results in the predation of the weaker or the fewer by the stronger or the more numerous. It causes real, measurable harm.

I don't care why YOU THINK discrimination is wrong.

Hey, you've made the choice to talk to me. You don't have to if you don't want to.

The important thing is a lot of people don't feel the same way as you. Yet you want to impose your morality on them.

You consider theft a moral issue, and you have no problems imposing that morality on others.

I do know what it is but I don't see how it proves anything. You still can't prove the appraiser was acting out of racism.

It makes it part of a pattern of behavior. What made this story so remarkable is the thing you hate about it: the homeowners tricked the appraisers into giving their home a higher value, just by creating the appearance of being white.

And some people just know God exists. And see how well that's working out for them.

You really should have have a better basis for something other than your gut feelings.

You're the one who can't explain why theft is a crime.

I don't care how many times you say telepathy. You have no business trying to infer whether someone has a racist intent. First of all, you could be wrong. Secondly, it's none of your business whether someone is a racist.

Someone can be racist all day long if they want. They just can't harm others in the process of being racist.

Prove that redlining/discrimination occured, other than "I feel very confident about it".

Sure, but first prove that discrimination exists.

I understand the concept of redlining, but I think it’s a term that’s used too broadly.

You're calling it a "concept." You don't actually believe it's real, do you?

 

[Tiny]

You don't need to go into morality to explain why theft is a crime. Modern civilization (the kind that was created ~6000 years ago) requires the concept of private property, or else you can't have trade. And you can't have private property if everybody keeps taking each other's stuff.

So in other words, civilization literally can't exist without laws to protect people from theft. From that came the concept that a role of government is to protect its people from predators. Thus rules against fraud, scams, theft, murder, arson, rape, etc.

Discrimination has always been much harder to pin down, but it also results in the predation of the weaker or the fewer by the stronger or the more numerous. It causes real, measurable harm.

I am not arguing about whether discrimination causes harm. I am trying to explain to you why theft is a crime while discrimination isn't, or shouldn't be, a crime. And this is what the public has determined, not me, so don't take it up with me.

Hey, you've made the choice to talk to me. You don't have to if you don't want to.

I didn't say I don't want to talk to you. I am telling you what you personally consider to be wrong doesn't matter. You are not the only person in the world. Other people's morality matters, too.

You consider theft a moral issue, and you have no problems imposing that morality on others.

I am not imposing anything on others. People themselves voluntarily decided that theft is wrong and should be a crime.

It makes it part of a pattern of behavior. What made this story so remarkable is the thing you hate about it: the homeowners tricked the appraisers into giving their home a higher value, just by creating the appearance of being white.

Just because they created the appearance of being white does not prove that it's due to racism.

If you claim the 2nd appraisal is higher strictly because the applicant was white, you need to prove it. Other than, "well, it's very obvious to me it's racism".

You're the one who can't explain why theft is a crime.

I don't want to get into a huge philosophical debate but here's the short and sweet of it so you can stop this line of questioning: theft is a crime because people feel that theft is wrong and should be illegal. And the reason they feel this way has nothing to do with me. I am not the one who made these people and made them believe this way, so stop asking me these questions. I am NOT responsible for any of this. I am merely someone who tries to tell you that people feel theft should be a crime. I am not proclaiming that I personally feel theft should be a crime.

Besides, it doesn't matter why theft is a crime. The important thing is that a lot of people don't think discrimination is wrong. As such, you shouldn't pass laws to compel them to not discriminate.

Someone can be racist all day long if they want. They just can't harm others in the process of being racist.

If they harm someone, then punish them for that. Period. Whether this is due to them being racist shouldn't matter.

You just want to punish people extra hard because you personally hate racists.

Sure, but first prove that discrimination exists.

I don't need to prove anything. You shouldn't accuse someone of being a racist just because you "feel very confident about it".

You're calling it a "concept." You don't actually believe it's real, do you?

Redlining shouldn't be a crime.

 

[Rickeroo]

It is valued at $683,000 dollars and has 2600 sq. ft. of living space.

I appreciate the research, but Zestimates aren't very accurate. This property has been on the market for over a year, nothing wrong with it except it's on the parkway. At the time of the doctor's apprasial, that house was on the market for $605k, $276 a square foot and did not sell. This one sold for $435k, a bit dated but much larger than 209 Churchwarden. It's on the parkway.

I'll provide pictures of the parkway that the house in question has frontage on, house is visible on the right. Note the strategically planted pine trees:



Same position, camera looking in the opposite direction:



For $750k you can get into the "heart" of homeland (mentioned three times in the lawsuit as a whiter and more desireable area), get more square footage, and not have frontage on a highway.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I just don't understand the point of such an expensive house. The house I have is quite nice (three bedrooms, two living rooms, a man cave, and a sun room for example) and its only 163% of my yearly income.

 

[Rickeroo]

I just don't understand the point of such an expensive house. The house I have is quite nice (three bedrooms, two living rooms, a man cave, and a sun room for example) and its only 163% of my yearly income.

I bought my house in 1999 at 144% household income. It is the single best financial decision I've ever made.