Fault Lines on a D.C. Real Estate Board

MENTION BRPAA to any D.C. resident, and the likely response will be a blank stare; mention the acronym (pronounced BUR-pa) to any official charged with the city's fiscal health, and the common reaction is eyes rolled in exasperation. This obscure but important board decides challenges to real property assessments, and it's long been troubled. Officials may have been able to ignore these deficiencies in a flush economy, but it's past time for an overhaul of a body that directly affects a quarter of the District's revenue.

Inept management, a lack of transparency, illogical decisions and failure to adhere to statutory requirements are some of the problems that have afflicted the Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals. The board is the second level of appeal (after the assessors) for residential and commercial property owners who think city assessors made a mistake. D.C. Auditor Deborah K. Nichols was unsparing in her criticism in a review last year, and there seems to have been little improvement. Vacancies on the 18-member board caused a staggering backlog of cases as the incoming chairman was beset with allegations of misrepresenting her experience and politicizing the board.

Most troubling was the auditor's finding that cases were being decided with no seeming rationale. The auditor cited, for instance, a reduction in assessment of $1,315,217 that carried this explanation: "The parties agreed to the assessment value as noted here." In tax year 2008, the board made downward adjustments to proposed real property tax assessments totaling $2.9 billion with a corresponding loss of revenue of $49.7 million. The bad economy and depressed property values were factors, but BRPAA has so undermined confidence in its judgments that there's an effort underway to give the District the ability to appeal board decisions to D.C. Superior Court.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and the D.C. Council would do better to devise a system ensuring fair and expert judgments. The key is adequate staffing of the panels that hear cases; that is particularly important for complicated commercial cases in which the property owner often has the advantage of expert legal representation. Currently, residents with some experience in real property are appointed to the board and paid $50 an hour to hear cases on a part-time basis. Such a system works in Virginia and Maryland, but the District has been unable to consistently attract or retain candidates with the ability or interest to do the job. A suggestion to open appointments to non-city residents who do business in the District has merit. Better yet, though, would be to professionalize the operation with full-time experts. Such a system would cost more, but it would produce dividends in revenue and public confidence.