Mount Washington Potential Use Survey

We are in the process of appraising a parcel of land located on the summit of Mount Washington, the highest mountain in the Northeast. This very unique site is slated to be transferred to the federal government later this year. Since a well-defined market for such properties does not exist we are collecting survey data to gauge the potential, (theoretical) demand for using the site for a variety of outdoor activities.

If anyone within this news group has done trips to the White Mountains, and in particular, the Presidential Range, I am hoping that you may be able to assist us by completing the survey. The more responses we get the easier it is to finish our work and facilitate the incorporation of this site into the White Mountain National Forest.

The survey is in ASCII format below. Respond via e-mail. I can also e-mail a Microsoft Word document if anyone would rather print out the survey and fax in his or her response. The attachment will have been scanned by anti-virus software.

Thank you for any assistance you may be able to give us. We really appreciate it. If you know others who may be able to help us please forward the survey to them.

Ross Phelps Armstrong Appraisal & Consulting

Survey - Mt. Washington Land Parcel

Potential Demand of a Mt. Washington Land Parcel for Private Outdoor Recreational Use

The federal government is in the process of acquiring a 4.218 acre parcel just off the summit cone of Mount Washington. This land will be annexed to and become part of the White Mountain National Forest.

Armstrong Appraisal & Consulting has been engaged by the federal government to develop an estimate of market value for this parcel if it were placed on the open market, so they will have a basis for compensating the landowner, a willing seller.

As part of our analysis, we are conducting a survey to gauge the potential interest of guide services, outdoor schools, outing clubs, outdoor equipment manufacturers, and outdoor enthusiasts in using the site for high altitude camping/training and equipment testing.

This is a strictly theoretical analysis - the land will not be used for these purposes.

1. What seasons of the year would you want to use the

Assuming this is not a joke, it makes the argument for anarchy as strongly as I've seen. I wonder how much this consulting contract is costing us.

First I figured it for a joke, then decided it could* be for a costing estimate for the federal sale/transfer. However, asking it on the newsgroups makes it lean toward the joke idea. If they were serious, they'd be better asking all the local outfitters and a few of the near enough big city ones.

Unless the asker is not very 'Net savvy and is assuming the feds aren't either. Which flows for me.

How is asking about this on the newsgroup a 'joke'? A lot of hikers and backpackers who use Mt. Washington read and post here. I'm sure Ross IS asking the local outfitters, etc. too; this is just another way to get more data. The more data an appraiser has, the better off he or she is. This is an easy (and certainly cheap!) way to get additional data easily. I myself filled the thing out and e-mailed it to Ross this morning.

I'm an appraiser in New Hampshire myself, and can assure you that the original poster's company *is* reputable. And his problem is not unusual; I myself was solicited by the State of New Hampshire about 15 years ago for info on a similar piece of land atop Mt. Washington, and had the exact same problem.

A major part of the appraisal process is to employ 'comparable sales' to analyze and try and put a value on a property (in this case, a piece of land). Since sales on mountain-top land like this are basically non-existent, the only *other* way to place a value on such a parcel is to figure out what kind of cash flow it would generate. This is called the 'Income Approach to Value'. And this is what Ross here is trying to do. No joke, my friend.

Maybe you should wonder how much the contract is saving us, instead! That's assuming we're not arguing whether the government should acquire land.

The way the system works is that Forest (Park, etc.) boundaries get set by Congress and the land is acquired as available. However, the agency involved (e.g. USFS) is not allowed to pay more that fair market value for tha land. This is a *good thing*(TM) because it keeps the cost low and also prevents shady deals with OUR money.

Sometimes, the 'fair market value' doesn't seem fair to the seller. Groups like the Access Fund Land Trust can broker such deals by paying higher than market rate for the parcel and turning around and selling it back to the government at a loss. Non-government funds makes up the difference - imagine that! By the way, two separate appraisals are done in cases like this - one for each transfer of the land.

It is very difficult to find comparable land in cases like this, so I'm not surprised to see the appraisers having some trouble. How would *you* determine a fair price for this land? Anyway, the cost of appraisals is usually a tiny fraction of the cost of a land deal. It is generally money well spent.

Not only that, but the organization was kind enough to not only ask for help but inform the climbing community of an up and coming government deal, instead of letting us find out about it after the fact and 'then' letting us figure out what the access issues are...things can be dealt with a lot easier before the fact then after...

The Rockrat...

Because anyone can answer it any way they please. No quality control. I could answer it, if I didn't necessarily care about being truthful and I've only seen an occasional picture of the place. Mel could answer it and give his ideas. MV, too. Does the 'joke' factor begin to come into focus? There is no way to check for truth in the persona of the respondent. Any 'Net survey, in fact any voluntary questionnaire, suffers the same problem, just the 'Net more easily than most.

What if someone even clued in legitimate (or almost) groups? What if Mel got anyone who rents or sells ORVs in the area to saying that it'd make a great practice spot for spinnies?

On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:55:59 GMT, 'King Pineapple'

But WHY would they do so?

>No quality control.

Just curious, WHY would anyone WANT to give a FALSE answer on this?