Subject: Antennas & property values (Jonsson)..
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 113244 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
........Forwarded by EMF-L......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:39:20 -0500
From: azul@flash.net
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: [Fwd: Antennas & property values]
This was written by Jennifer Taub.
Suzanne
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Antennas & property values
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:13:24 -0500
From: azul@flash.net
To: Matthew Mckeever
CC: "Roy L. Beavers"
B. Is there a causal relationship between the location of antennas and
property values?
1. Relationship to Power Lines
a. Quote from Brokers
I found some interesting information by speaking to two real estate
brokers. One broker is from Lexington the other from Hingham, a town
that has many similarities to Lexington, such as a historic district and
equivalent property values.
The first comment made by both brokers is that antennas carry a stigma
and promote a fear and because of this they are starting to be viewed
like high-tension power lines. It was emphasized to me that buying a
home is a very emotional purchase as it is generally a long-term
investment and where a family will be raised. Buyers are often more
willing to compromise other attributes such as the size or location of a
home before they will purchase a home that carries a stigma.
The broker from Hingham stated it is difficult to prove an actual
devaluation from a closely located antenna because you need to have two
otherwise very similar homes for sale at the same time. She has seen
downward adjustments made to the values of property closely located to
antennas in the appraisals prepared for lending institutions.
She also said that an explanation of the stigma is not helpful and
buyers are not willing to educate themselves. As an example, she
referred to a home she had listed that had tension lines in the
backyard. A phone number was provided to buyers, where they would learn
that the lines only carried 60% more power than normal electrical lines
but this explanation did nothing to protect the value of the home.
b. Power Line cases
As both brokers had stated that antennas were being viewed similarly to
high-tension lines I explored the casual relationship between power
lines and property devaluations. A study taken in 1992 showed that 87%
of the homeowners located near high-tension lines said they would have
paid less if they knew they had bought homes next to perceived risk. I
then reviewed an article that outlined the lawsuits that have developed
as a result of property devaluations caused by high-tension lines.
In San Diego, a class-action lawsuit was filed against a utility company
based on the property devaluations alleged to be caused by the addition
of eight more high-tension lines to an already existing utility line.
When the homeowners attempted to sell their homes, they were
unsuccessful even after reducing the price by _ to $750,000.
Significantly, the lawsuit alleged that the homeowners should be
compensated because the value of their property had fallen due to an
unfavorable perception of power lines, even though the validity of that
perception had not been established.
Courts in other states such as Florida and New York also have allowed
homeowners to by-pass a validation of the stigma associated with power
lines and allow recovery if a "phobia" exists which lowers the value of
the property. In a landmark decision, the New York Court of Appeals only
required that credible evidence of the "phobia" be documented to
establish a correlation to the property’s devaluation. Furthermore,
courts have held that high-tension lines do not need to be on the
owner’s property for recovery to be available.
2. Cases concerning visual antennas
I was also able to find recent cases specifically addressing cellular
antennas and property devaluations. In Houston, Texas last year, in what
has been called the first decision of its kind, a jury ordered GTE
Wireless to pay $1.2 million to a couple who claimed a 100 foot cellular
phone tower near their home lessened the value of their property and
caused them mental anguish. The mental anguish recovery was for
$350,000.
GTE paid their attorneys $400,000 in legal fees to fight the precedent
setting decision because they feared it would lead to similar suits
where towers are erected in or near residential areas. Interestingly,
this was a nuisance case and the jury never decided whether the zoning
ordinance had been violated. The City was also named in the lawsuit, but
settled for an undisclosed amount.
Another case, which outlines the controversy that can occur in a town
due to the siting of a cellular antenna, has been filed in a Chicago
suburb. Here, an Ameritech antenna was built in a residential area. The
plaintiffs have alleged that the tower causes "visual pollution" and are
requesting that the tower be removed. Soon after the tower was built,
the town assessor reduced the property values of 14 closely located
properties by about 7 — 11%. The Town sued the assessor but the
assessor's devaluations were confirmed.
3. What about concealed Antennas? Does a seller/broker need to disclose
the antenna?
The cases I noted involved visual antennas. Both cases raised the
perceived risks of an antenna, but it is not evident how this affected
the damage award in the Houston case or the assessor’s devaluation in
the Chicago case. It is unlikely that the plaintiffs in the Houston case
would have received $350,000 for mental anguish if the structure had
been a water tower.
Property devaluations caused by concealed antennas are less obvious and
need further study. Also, what does a broker need to disclose? The
broker from Hingham said she would disclose a visual antenna, an antenna
camouflaged on a structure such as a water tower and even one hidden by
trees. As to an antenna concealed in a steeple, she said it is gray, but
she would lean toward disclosure.
Even if a concealed antenna is not disclosed, a potential buyer can also
learn of the antenna through the newspaper or other means. This happened
in the State of Washington. A couple had made an offer to purchase a
home near a church, when they learned an antenna was to go in the
steeple. They put a hold on signing, stating their concern with the
perceived risks and their ability to resell. The deal did close but the
broker had to agree to a reduced commission if the couple later resold
the property and it had devalued because of the antenna. Today’s buyers
are better educated, well informed and more skeptical.
I ask you to consider the question yourself, would I pay the same amount
for a house located near an antenna? Does my answer change if the
antenna is concealed or camouflaged?
excerpt from presentation to Lexington planning board requesting a
moratorium on new antenna permits
Feb. 2000
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com