I never intended to do a Part 2 (Here is Part 1).
At what point does the Commonwealths’s sexual offender notification website become a means by which to unfairly devalue property?
State Code requires disclosure of a Purchaser’s need to perform their own due diligence:
E. The disclosure and disclaimer forms shall contain a notice to purchasers that whether the owner proceeds under subdivision A 1 or A 2, purchasers should exercise whatever due diligence they deem necessary with respect to information on any sexual offenders registered under Chapter 23 (§ 19.2-387 et seq.) of Title 19.2, including how to obtain such information.
I wrote earlier this year about the impact that a sexual offender has on a home’s value. These theoretical valuations are based on perceived accurate data. Referencing the house in Crozet (above link) – the sexual offender no longer resides where the State website says he does. How many potential purchasers of the house on the market on that street or the adjoining neighborhood may have been lost?
If there is no trust in the value and accuracy of the information, how can one be reasonably expected to exercise thorough due diligence? What is a Seller to do in response to such inaccurate data?