speaking of afecting property values....

Started by BrianB • 17 replies • 1863 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

apparently, a study by the US department of energy finds that windfarms DO NOT affect property values.

Luckily, there's no bias in that independent study...

actually, the study found no conclusive evidence that they harmed property values...

so, if having a huge wind powered electricity-generating windmill (or fifty) in your view/property/backyard/neighborhood doesn't impact property values, what are the odds that the perfect shade of off-beige and ecru trim really matters all that much?

http://ecopolitology.org/2009/12/03/dept-of-energy-wind-farms-have-no-impact-on-property-values/

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Oh good.

That's a relief.

Now we can just go and junk and trash all our covenants, because, heck, they probably all are a waste of time and effort, then!

Whew.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Brian,

A fact of life is that we all will have to adapt how we live to ensure that we will have power and water in the future thru wind, solar power and other conservation means. But will I have to look at a purple house? Hopefully my documents will protect me from that. Times change and if it is the norm to have a windmill in my back yard and so does everyone else around me, then so be it. Will it devalue my property if the windmill means that there is power to my neighborhood? Probably not. We MUST!!!!! think outside of the normal in order to survive down the road.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Donna,

So how do you feel about solar panels mounted on your neighbors roof reflecting in the sun?

We should at least acknowledge Brians point. If obscuring the view a property has doesn't affect property values - and we all know it does (otherwise how is people are willing to pay higher prices for hotel rooms that have ocean/mountain views vs. parking lot views). Then some of the guidelines should be revisited (as they are in place to protect property values).

However, if guidelines (using Brian's example) of paint colors protect property values, then why is it a study comes out that says there is no evidence that obstructed views don't affect property values. Next they might say toxic dumps don't affect property values either.

Let's at least be honest with ourselves and demand honesty in government reports.

Wouldn't have been better to say something like, wind turbines may affect property values due to changing the view of the landscape. However, this may be a necessary evil in order to become energy independent.

Tim

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

As I said in an earlier thread, people seem to confuse property values with aesthetics. IMO, they are two different things. Check with a property appraiser to find out exactly what determines property value. Aestetics deal with how something fits in with the surrounding neighborhood. For example, a tin shed with a corrugated roof fits right in in a low-cost neighborhood; whereas it would stick out like a sore thumb in a high-end neighborhood. This is more of an aesthetics issue than one that affects property values.

MichaelK11 (Texas)
Posts: 432

Posted:

What exactly are property values?

Appraisers may not include certain (positive or negative) aesthetics in their calculations, but such visuals could certainly change who will make an offer for a home and how much buyers are willing to pay.

I think we are using "property values" to mean different things:
• Appraised values.
• Actual sale prices.
I think appraisals may be based on past transaction values (I'm not sure – I'm know little about real estate), but functional and aesthetic qualities that are not directly included in the calculations may affect current and future sales.

I suspect many of us are interested in appraised values, so I don't mean to discount them entirely, but I also think most homeowners are concerned about whether a windmill next door will reduce what they could get for their home if they actually sold it (and its appraised value after the neighbor down the street sells theirs. Of course, the guy with the windmill may be happy to get more for his house from a buyer who expects electricity bills to go up in future. These are all property valuations that may be important to HOA's.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

You said: "I think we are using "property values" to mean different things". You hit the nail on the head with regard to far too many boards. They use the "property value" mantra to justify the denial of everything under the sun -- malibu lights, lawn ornaments, even certain trees and plants. Everything that is denied is because it will hurt the "property values". In most instances it's the aesthetics (albeit the ones in their minds only) that may be affected, not the property values. When I say property value, I'm talking about the appraised property value because that's the one that really counts. So, if you are unable to sell your home because your neighbor is not maintaining his property; would you say he has reduced your property value?

MichaelK11 (Texas)
Posts: 432

Posted:

You have a good point, but is it just semantics?

If a homeowner is unable to sell (or gets less) because a neighbor degrades the appearance of the neighborhood, then he and many homeowners in his HOA may say his property value is reduced. If they are using the term incorrectly (but they all understand each other), then keeping up [not actually their property values] is clearly important to them.

I'm all for using correct terms. It's more than 'aesthetics', unless we say the bigger number on the buyer's check looks prettier. :-)

I agree that it's better if they differentiate between appraisals and whatever we should call the impact on actual real estate transactions. It may not matter much to the homeowners in a particular HOA, but I agree that we would benefit from articulating this distinction in this forum.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Tim,
I am pretty sure that Brian was using a hypothetical example of wind generators. Now, when you mess with me on Solar, I can give good arguement because my Husband IS a Solar engineer and designer for commercial installations and especially applications for the military and in Africa.

FYI, the new solar panels are almost flat mountings against the roofline or whatever structure they are being used for. They now come in some colors so they are NOT black monsters in view of a neighbor. They are much more compact and store more "juice" than the older systems. It's a fact of life that we will need to get used to but I totally agree with the fact that anyone using these systems should consider their neighbors.

We are installing a solar system right now at the Chattanooga Area Food Bank and they are NOT roof mounted but hidden behind a row of evergreens.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

All,

The sales price, appraised value and aesthetics all tie together.

Aesthetics is the appearance of the neighborhood

Sales price is the amount someone is willing to pay for the home. How the neighborhood appears does have an impact on what someone is willing to pay.

Appraised value is what an appraiser believes your home is worth, based on the size, condition and comparable sales in the neighborhood.

Therefore, it all ties together and property values can mean either of these terms or a combination of these terms.

Tim

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Donna,

Brian probably was discussing a hypothetical. However, it has become an interesting discussion.

As for solar panels, I had researched them earlier in the process of rewriting our guidelines and discovered the same thing. The new technology is better and more pleasing to the eye. I've actually proposed a guideline to allow them in our development providing they are on the rear slope of the home.

Thanks for the info.

Tim

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Good job in dong the research. One important factor is that all systems may not work on the rear roofs. The orientation of them for maximum use must use a south, slightly southwest installation. Facing north won't get enough direct sun to work a system. They are now working on a prototype that would use mere photosynthesis but so far, the cost is---well you know----

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

i was also pointing out that a study, conducted by the DOE, which has a HUGE investment in seeing more wind power generators in the country to make their boss happy, reported that there's no detrimental impact to putting them up everywhere.

if the study had been bought and paid for by "HOA's for NIMBY laws", i wonder if the results would have reflected their views?

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Tim, your proposed requirement that the panels be placed on the rear of the house may be an effort made in vain.

There is a bill currently winding its way through Congress that will essentially disallow HOAs and condo association and CIDs from placing restrictions on alternate energy, including solar panels.

Very shortly solar array panel restrictions will be similar to any satellite dish restrictions, unenforceable.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Remember the original sattelite dishes? The monster space ships in front yards? The industry then designed the current 18 inchers. Same with solar panels. They used to be monsters and stuck up like protrusions from a wayward space ship. Now they are compact, almost flat against the roof and barely visable. Florida has the renewable energy act which has told HOAs and others that you cannot restrict homeowners from using renewable energy resources. I'll say it again--this is the way of the future so we better adapt our HOA way of thinking and governing.

EllenS1 (Florida)
Posts: 1,148

Posted:

Tim,

I agree with you. I will believe this study when the folks who put it out put windmills in their neighborhoods. The recent report on not having mammograms until the age of 50 is a prime example of how much one should believe these reports. I'm curious if any members that put out the mammo report were women.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MicheleD on 12/04/2009 12:04 PM
Tim, your proposed requirement that the panels be placed on the rear of the house may be an effort made in vain.

There is a bill currently winding its way through Congress that will essentially disallow HOAs and condo association and CIDs from placing restrictions on alternate energy, including solar panels.

Very shortly solar array panel restrictions will be similar to any satellite dish restrictions, unenforceable.

The bill may impact us, but then again, Congress may never get around to it considering everything else they are doing.

However, it's an interesting thing to know.

RogerB (Colorado)
Posts: 5,067

Posted:

Ellen posted "The recent report on not having mammograms until the age of 50 is a prime example of how much one should believe these reports. I'm curious if any members that put out the mammo report were women." May I add

Brian posted "Luckily, there's no bias in that independent study..." May I add

And "actually, the study found no conclusive evidence that they harmed property values..." hard to find something you are not looking for Brian. I got your drift, another

And may I add all those jobs that have been filled or "SAVED".

These examples typify the baloney we are being asking to swallow!!

Please forgive me for this inappropriate post to this Board but my pressure cooker blew its top when I read Ellen's post.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here