When I came up with the concept of the URARS (Uniform Residential Appraisal Reporting Standards), it was "all about communication", between us and the clients, readers, reviewers and underwriters. I thought that if we had better communication, we would have fewer problems, so I proposed such things as "de facto standards" to replace "subjectivity with objectivity".
I also proposed that we enlist "a la mode, Inc." to once again "step up and help us help ourselves", similar to what they did with the HVCC petition. Both suggestions met with favorable responses, but with some raised eyebrows as well, as so before we take a step forward, I want to take a step backward and do what I originally set forth to do when Brian Davis and I created the "Clarification of Scope of Work Addendum" (COSOW) , "clarify what we should be doing and why".
The "de facto standards" I am advocating will not be similar to Wayne Brady’s Las Vegas act, "Making $%# Up", which seems to be the opinion of some. We won’t be pulling "de facto standards out of the air" so that appraisers can use them to justify actions or procedures that are contrary to good judgment or inappropriate for the requirements of the assignment.
Since I am advocating "de facto standards", let’s revisit the meaning of "de facto".
"De facto is a Latin expression that means "of the fact" or "in practice" but not ordained by law. It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "by law") when referring to matters of law, governance or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact". The term de facto may also be used when there is no relevant law or standard, but a common practice is well established, although not universal".