Comment

Comment by Kathy Sherman on March 12, 2015 at 10:41pm

It may differ by state, but in Massachusetts the DEP is the agency charged with policies such as noise that infringe on property rights, so not home values directly. But often the factors diminishing home value are the nuisances that they do regulate.

Comment by alice mckay barnett on March 12, 2015 at 9:19pm

DEP is the sole agency to determine harm.  Property value don.t count

Comment by arthur qwenk on March 12, 2015 at 9:03pm

Pigs Have Wings AS WELL.

Comment by Whetstone_Willy on March 9, 2015 at 1:53am

Turbine Tax Abatement

The past week contrary to Mass. CEC’s claim of no loss of value because of nearby wind turbine placement, a Falmouth home and half acre at  Ridgeview Drive in Craggy Ridge was this week granted an abatement of $855 on this year’s property tax by Falmouth’s Board of Assessors.    

That is ~$132,000 off of their $589,500 initial assessment.    

This is a 22% decline.  

In January of 2012 the home was valued at $714,000 for a refinance.    

This coupled with the Falmouth ZBA’s 4-0 decision that the turbines are indeed anuisance with a mitigation order to the Town should begin to convince many local residents of the detriment wind turbines impose on their property value when these TOO CLOSE TOO BIG wind turbines are situated in their back/front yards.     

http://patch.com/massachusetts/falmouth/falmouth-allows-turbine-tax...

Comment by Whetstone_Willy on March 8, 2015 at 11:30pm

One of the Big Lies told by this crooked "industry" is that a nearby array of 500' tall, beating, whomping, thrashing and flashing industrial machines in a setting chosen for its beauty and quietude by residents does not hurt property values. It is an insult to us all and a sad,sad commentary that the legislature, mainly the Democrats, side with the fraudsters on this lie. 

Comment by Rick Conrad on March 8, 2015 at 7:23pm

    The only way to insure turbines will have no effect on property values is don't allow them to be built near houses.  That means you must have setbacks for turbine construction from nonparticipating homeowners. And local governments must consider  how turbine construction will limit future home construction when permitting turbines.  

Comment by Kathy Sherman on March 8, 2015 at 2:36pm

The impact on property values will be heavily dependent on such things as where they are in the terrain, as well as distance. Hoen's national study in '09 white paper indeed did not have much to say about property values within 1 mile, what he called the nuisance zone for acoustic pollution, visual impact and industrial stigma, and in great measure he could hardly conclude much because there were so very few sales within that distance amongst the 1000s. He could only conclude that viewshed or vista was a huge influence, and again the numbers were limited, so he could not even conclude what the impact of putting industrial turbines in the premium viewshed is. It would seem that the bulk of home sales with premium vista were likely in Oregon where views of the river from up on a bluff where much closer than the windfarm below and at an angle. That's very different from ridgeline turbines in Maine. Please note that the same Hoen talk that advocated property value guarantee, also seemed to have taken note of Vinalhaven by advocating SODAR or LIDAR studies to detetmine wind shear and avoid the noise exceedances that DEP's consultant had forewarned of for FIW turbines in the permitting. A similar forewarning was presented to Intl. Energy Agency in 2005 when the conditions for I.E.C. sound power measurements were explained.

I am surprised that the editorial did not mention the more recent Hoen 'research' in Massachusetts denying property value impacts -, it is heavily weighted by Hull MA and smaller 'grid scale' turbines that are significantly quieter, etc. Wind shear happens to be 'normal' in Hull; it's a nice place but has industrial backdrop and is in flight path of Boston's airport so homes already had sound mitigation; etc., etc., leading Hoen to exclude Hull as 'atypical' of wind development in the U.S. in 2009. The study was funded by the quasi-state agency funded by MA ratepayers to push wind energy throughout New England, including the map of wind resource for Vinalhaven.

DEP should care about property values for what they represent - a degradation of the environment that impacts human reporters, but also wildlife that is not able to do so.

But, let's not lose sight of this being published as an 'editorial' rather than a paid advertisement. Very troublesome.

Comment by alice mckay barnett on March 8, 2015 at 9:54am

DEP has no jurisdiction over property values...you cannot use it as a valid comment.

Comment by Rick Conrad on March 8, 2015 at 9:50am

     The first study mentioned here the Berkley study, concluded that windfarms had only a small impact on property values.   They did not find that there was no effect.  This was a totally misleading study.  The study was able to show that windfarms only had a small effect on property values by including homes many miles  from the turbines,   This allowed them to diminish the average by greatly increasing the number of homes"effected"  and greatly increasing the average distance.     This totally  overlooks the dramatic  30% or decrease in property value of residences less than one mile from a turbine.  

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page