I'll save you the trouble of looking . . . there is no such law.
I can’t believe Cheryl’s audacity.
Does she really believe it’s appropriate for your office to demand I pay at least “70% of assessed value” for any properties I buy?
Do you not see at least, I don’t know, a million things wrong with that?
Show me the law
Are AAG’s from your office allowed to make up demands and create their own set of “feel-good” rules, absent of all legal authority?
Shouldn’t the Revised Code of Washington come into play at some point?
Or maybe even the U.S. Constitution?
I’d like to see the law, Rob, that requires real estate investors in this state to pay at least “70% of assessed value” for their real estate purchases.
Show me the law or, seriously, don’t go there.
Just for me?
Here’s the demand Cheryl deems appropriate . . .
Not to negotiate to purchase any interest directly from a property owner for less than 70% of assessed value. — Cheryl Kringle, former AAG
5/9/2007 Settlement Proposal
I’ll save you the trouble of looking . . . there is no such law.
Nor can there be such a law. Buyers and sellers have the right to freely contract and attempting to fix your issues with my investment strategies by mucking up fundamental property rights is a dumb approach.
Were I to agree to your settlement demands, (don’t hold your breath), I’d be the only investor in this state (to my knowledge) held to that standard.
You don’t see a problem with that?
Cheryl wouldn’t know, we get that, but you should. Assessed values are basically meaningless in terms of what a property is actually worth.
Using assessed value as a measure of worth isn’t something anyone other than an out-of-control AAG with no real estate understanding would suggest.
My recent purchase
I’ve mentioned earlier, I bought a property in the upcoming tax sale recently for $200. That’s two hundred dollars. That’s $100 + $100 = $200. Not $2,000 or $200,000, but exactly $200.
What’s it assessed for?
I just checked, $111,000.
According to Cheryl, I should be required to pay no less than $78,000.
Psssst . . . it’s not worth $78,000.
It may not even be worth the $200 I paid (I won’t know until it goes through the tax sale process).
Disservice to the Seller
But for argument’s sake, lets say it’s worth a solid $50,000, and as an investor forced under threat of financial ruin to settle with your office, I’m required to pay 70 percent of the assessed value.
So, I agree to your settlement terms (again, don’t hold your breath), find this particular deal, only to realize the seller and I can’t do this deal because your office demands I pay no less than $78,000.
And what about that seller?
If I’m his last hope, that property gets sold at auction and that $50,000 I would have been happy to pay him is gone.
Sure, there may be overage at the sale that bails him out, or there may be zero. And if there’s no one at the sale interested (it takes at least two, actually, to create a bidding war), he walks away with zero.
Don’t look now but your office has just cost him $50,000.
That’s what happens when you mess around with these kinds of things. You don’t see the innumerable flip sides and in doing so, you create more and bigger problems than the one you’re attempting to fix.
Ham-handed fixes that trample my fundamental rights is what your office demands I submit to, Rob. I expect you to protect my rights (as you promised under oath), not brutalize them beyond all recognition.
Good grief, Rob
Demanding I waive my constitutional rights in order to settle with your office is evidence of out-of-control AAG’s gone wild.
Are you okay with blatantly infringing upon my rights?
I suspect so, because that is exactly what you’re demanding here.