Most people are familiar with the fable of Chicken Little. In most versions of the story, things don't end well for the characters who allow themselves to be whipped into mass hysteria.
This week, beginning with the power point presentation given by the Park Ridge O'Hare Airport Commission and continuing with reports in the local rags, we've had the dubious pleasure of watching the beginnings of the story of Chicken Little take root.
As reported in an online article in the Herald-Advocate, PROAC chairman Jennifer Perry "acknowledged the city's current economic challenges and cuts being made to the city's budget, but said that if the city does not look at "solutions" in the coming year, property values will plummet.
"We can't afford not to protect our home values," Perry said. "And putting any more airport expansion on this city is going to destroy the fabric of our town."
In other words, the sky is falling! Or more accurately, the values are falling!
Well, property values have fallen. That's not an unusual happening during economic downturns and severe credit market crunches. And the current economic climate is just about as severe as it's ever been. Falling values are also not an unusual happening when speculative bubbles begin to burst.
Unfortunately for Ms. Perry and other members of the PROAC, we can't find much in the way of support for her claim that, without $500,000 to begin a legal fight against O'Hare modernization, "property values will plummet...destroy(ing) the fabric of our town."
What the PRU Crew has been able to find is that very high-end real estate may lose 25% of it's value, in a worst case scenario. Another study we read attempted to assign a dollar amount (loss in value) to increased decible levels -- that study (.pdf) concluded, "Hence, a given property located at 55 dB would sell for about 10-12 percent less if it was located at 75 dB, all other things held constant. Stated differently, under these same circumstances, a $200,000 house would sell for $20,000 to $24,000 less, which yields a hedonic price of $1000 to $1200 per dB."
In light of what we've been able to find, we would ask Ms. Jennifer Perry and the Park Ridge O'Hare Airport Commission to either support their claims of the potential for plummeting property values as a direct result of increased jet noise, or stop the panic peddling.
March 4, 2010
The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Fallilng!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Our friends on the PROAC seem to be confusing the role of a city commission with the role of a lobbying organization.
A commission should gather information, weigh the evidence, and offer helpful guidance to the aldermen. Instead, we're getting panic, conclusory statements and fearmongering.
Such was the approach taken several years ago, when Mayor Wietecha and the rest of his bunch cried about "crash zones" and the big, bad bogeyman to the southeast. The result: over half a million Park Ridge taxpayer dollars paid into the Joe Karaganis retirement fund.
That was money down a rathole. Let's not send any more down there.
It is funny how fear mongering is all relative. Let me explain the way it works. If "they" are expousing a postion you disagree with, they are guilty of fear mongering. If you agree with their position, they are fine!!!
Anonymous @ 2:40,
You may perceive a relativity...but that doesn't mean your perception is correct.
If you raise an alarm without evidence to support the extent of your claim, then you are fear-mongering...
If you raise an alarm WITH evidence to support the extent of your claim, then you are rightly providing a warning to the community.
...but feel free to ignore the fundamental difference...
Bean:
If only people looked at it that way. Even though my prior post was a bad attempt at humor, I believe there is a great deal of truth in it. All one needs to do is look at current debate over health care. Those on one side do not look at "death panels" as fear mongering and those on th other side do. With all respect, I think there are cases here in PR where authors and/or politicians fear monger to further their own agenda(s).
Maybe you are different, Bean, but I see many people who have a far different standard of what qualifies as evidence on things they agree with versus those they don't.
Pru, thank you for throwing some cold water on the chicken littles.
According to Freddie Mac, every region of the nation has experienced flat or declining home values.
I think it is safe to say not every region of the nation is now under new flight paths.
Sorry for going off topic but I just got my HA. What is the deal with the fire chief?
3:27
You are assuming that "death panels" are a fact and not a construct of the opposing side ... thereby, already choosing a side.
Facts are facts... and by the way, one of the reasons I chose to live in PR, was BECAUSE O'Hare was nearby and I travel for work.
Please don't assume we're all on the same side re: O'Hare modernization efforts, either.
3:27:
I have not even stated what side of the issue I am on in this thread. It is you who is assuming what side I am on.
For the purposed of my prior post, my opinion on death panels does not even matter. I was simply using it as an example. You would agree that there is a group of people who would thing that the entire death panels discussion ws nothing but fear mongering - yes?? You would also agree that there is another group who does not see it that way at all - correct? The information or facts if you will remain the same but these different groups look at it differently.
Related to PROAC, there is no way that they are ever going to come up with a number on home devaluation. As a prior poster points out, home values are down all over the place. There is no way to seperate the loss in general value into economy, o'hare, flooding, etc. We all know that.
My issue with PROAC is not a lack of belief that the my home has affected the value of my house - I very much believe it has. If someone has a home along Belle Plaine there lost value in that property becuase of the new runway. My issue has more to do with the likelyhood success in court.
Lastly, the word plummet is a matter of opinion as well. In the original post the example of a 200 K home was used. If you look at quit a few homes in PR they are more then double that figure. A 600K home would be a drop of 60-72,000. That is a bit more than pocket change!!
2:40 PM
It isn't a question of who agrees with whom. "Fear mongering" is using fear to undermine reason.
The argument that O'Hare expansion is responsible for our diminished property values sounds like fear-mongering because no empirical data is given to prove O'Hare is the cause of that effect.
Although not fear-mongering, the notion that we can win litigation with O'Hare also seems unsupported by any data. That woman who spoke with Perry about getting an injunction against somebody sounded like she was talking out of her hat.
Bad information makes for garbage in, garbage out discussions.
I don't know why the City is even involved, we need to go higher up to do anything about O'Hare.
I guess I would have to ask of someone who lives in the area where the planes used to fly over (NW side) before the "Belleplaine" runway....
Is your house worth MORE now that you don't have as may planes flying over?!?
Perhaps the OHAC might want a stab at that one.
...heh...I've been waiting for somebody to get around to asking the obvious...
The answer for me is no...but because of when and for how much we purchased our home..."on paper" and according to Zillow...we are still in the "gain" column...or at the worst, a break-even point.
However, if I only look at the height of the market (late '06/early '07) vs. now...our home's value has "plummeted" by roughly $200K...despite the planes no longer flying over my home on a regular basis...
Also, if I recall correctly, according to Zillow (which a friend of mine tells me isn't all that reliable) 93% of all properties in Park Ridge have lost value...overall, a 13% drop in the last 12 months.
Since we're playing this game, I'll posit that the value of the average house in Park Ridge is now more that 100 times what it was back when O'Hare opened. Look at what all the airport expansion over the past 60 years has done for our property values!
I am a bit skeptical about some of the "facts" listed as part of the PROAC info. One in particular on first glance but Im sure others too would seem just as odd upon further thought:
A minimum of 68% of all flights in and out of O’Hare will travel over Park Ridge air space
I would like to see where this one came from. Is there a cited reference where it could be verified?
Does this seem like fuzzy math to anyone else?
25 years ago we had planes flying directly over Park Ridge taking off and landing straight down Touhy Ave.they were five times noisier than the ones you have today.The kerosene smell the blanket of exhaust landing on your food in the summertime you could not sit outside and carry a conversation while waiting every 20 seconds. I used to videotape them flying over us and call and complain every day.I bought a DB meter and recorded them to no avail.on Sunday mornings you could hear them taking off like they were next-door. All the money thrown into this was for nothing it came down to modern technology the old planes are parked in the desert and the new planes are now flying over your house on Belle Plaine good luck been there done that don't waste our money. The government does not care it's all about money.the only ones that got rich were the lawyers.
Guess I should have never quit smoking. After all, how do I really know that people get cancer from smoking. It could be environmental factors, or chemicals in food, or the sun, or genetic or....I mean people who have never smoked get cancer right(i.e. people who do not live under the new runway have lost value in their homes too!!!)...Please!!!!!
Look, if that is the way you want to look at it you are technically correct. There is never going to be a way to remove all other factors and get a number for exactly how the new runway changed real estate prices. Hell, I hope over time some of these other factors go up and I see a rebound in the value of my house. But I remember when my wife and I were looking at our house as potential buyers on a wonderful summer day. We looked at all these factors (neighborhood, schools, size of home, etc, ect, etc). If we would have been in the same situation standing in the front yard thinking about making a offer with plane after plane flying over we would not even have made an offer. We would have looked elsewhere. Less traffic and less offers translates into a lower sale price.
Anon@7:29 --
Correct is still correct, technically or otherwise.
The premise of the PROAC and Ms. Perry's presentation to the Council -- asking for $500,000, $335,000 of which is for pursuit of litigation -- was offerd on the basis of protecting home values or those home values will plummet and the expansion of the airport will destroy the fabric of our town.
That is the ground on which the PROAC has chosen to make the case. They now have to see it through, technically or otherwise.
Perhaps those screaming about their homes losing 45-50% if it's value based on puchase price (presumably because of the planes) may have payed too much for their house to begin with.
Funny how folks had no problem when people talked about how 4 billboards might adversely affect home values and change the fabric of our town.
Anon@8:26 --
Funny how what those people were asking for was nothing more than enforcement of the current zoning ordinance.
I believe that the most important thing we need to protect in Park Ridge is “the fabric of our community”. My family bought a house in Park Ridge over 15 years ago because of it’s schools, parks, and neighborhoods filled with children. We loved that it had block after block of beautiful, unique, well kept homes that gave the appearance that the people who lived there cared about their community. The relatively quiet, tree lined streets gave it the feel of a park even though Park Ridge is located near the airport and transportation routes. These are the things that give a city it’s reputation and value. When we bought our house we chose an area where we did not get constant, low flying planes. We had some air traffic which we felt was not excessive. We would not have bought a home in Park Ridge if there was low flying air traffic blanketing most of the city. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. I appreciate what the PROAC is trying to do to protect the “value” of our community. Value it not always just about the money.
PRU:
What "they" were asking for does not have a bearing on the validity of the argument.
Anon 9:40 AM,
Ok let's say you're right for minute. I bought my house on the North end of town four years ago. The plane noise was heavy, but I went ahead and bought it anyway because I was aware the new runway would divert the planes away from my house once that runway opened and it did.
So now PROAC comes along and suggests that my tax money should go to help shut down the new runway and push the planes back over my house?
If you want to file suit on someone go ahead, but leave my tax money out of it.
PRU:
Related to the "fabric of our community", I know how that is all relative but riddle me this. I realize these issues involve personal opinion and taste, but how is it that the preseverationsits screaming about new houses being built (within city zoning laws) passes the "fabric" test and yet 200+ planes flying down Belle Plaine doesn't.
You love to pretend it has something to do with the validity of the argument when it really has more to do with how you feel about the issue.
Anon@9:40 and Anon@9:46 --
The emotional appeal wrapped in platitudes doesn't work in this instance for a number of reasons
Anon@9:40 -- were you unaware of the OMP plans? What efforts have you undertaken before now?
Anon@9:46 -- "They" didn't wait for the zoning ordinance to be changed and billboards to be erected before they showed up to plead their case.
And do remember, control of the zoning ordinance is the strict purview of the City Council.
We understand the willingness to provide Ms. Perry and members of the PROAC with pats on the back for leading the charge. Unfortunately for Ms. Perry and other members of the PROAC, the lead they've chosen to take is fundamentally flawed.
Anon@10:10 --
What we really love is the free entertainment provided by people like you.
We're not pretending to care about the validity of the arguments being put forth by Ms. Perry and the members of the PROAC -- we really do find the validity of the arguments lacking. And so we have challenged Ms. Perry and members of the PROAC to support their claims or cease and desist panic peddling.
PRU:
How does whether they waited or not have any bearing on the validity of the argument? They came forward and took the position that real estate prices will plummet. You do not want the city to give them the money (at least on this we can agree) so you say their argument is invalid. That was the point of your post right?? The whole chicken little thing claims that they are making statemnets they cannot prove for the purposes of getting what they want - correct?? That is all well and good except that the same tactic was used in billboards and preservationists and,hell, even PADS.
Anon@10:25 --
The validity of the argument being made by Ms. Perry and the members of the PROAC is highly in question because their claims remain unsupported.
The fact that the OMP has been discussed and in place for approximately a decade, while at the same time property values soared, refutes the claims being made by Ms. Perry and members of the PROAC.
We haven't staked out a position on the presevation ordinance.
We feel we fully researched and supported any and all claims we made on this blog regarding the PADS issue.
As for billboards -- our concern is as much with whom the City would be doing business as it is the business of billboards. We have never stated nor agreed with statements made concerning property values near billboards.
In matters of public policy concern, yes -- we do actually expect parties to support their claims. And if we disagree, our demand for such support is likely to be fairly vigorous.
My take on PRU'S view is.... where were their arguments and concern of these planes let's say over the past 10-20 years (or more) that "affected" the fabric of our community? It seems that planes are o.k. for some to live with but not others.
What I'm saying is, this is not a new fight. These concerns have been addressed by others in the past, but now since there are "new" dogs in the fight there is somehow new validity in the argurment?
By the way... if you scream to anyone who'll listen that "your" property has lost value due to planes... you're conceeding to a future "low-ball" offer on your home. You may also be lowering the value of every other home in town runway or not. So be very careful when presenting your arguments as they may come back to bite you in the ass later.
Anon. 10:52 is right on the money. Not so long ago, Ron Wietecha was yelling about how the planes are endangering us and ruining the quality of life in the town. That can't have helped real estate sales values.
Not much new under the sun.
So real estate prices would be just fine if we would just stop talking about it!!
Anon@12:11 --
Follow your bliss.
PRU... You can only lead a horse to water.....
The idiots who keep predicting planes crashing into Maine South and people dying from cancer caused by jet fuel and exhaust are the ones doing more damage to our property values than the damn planes.
New dogs in the fight seems to sum it up for me (Anon 10:52). No peep from the south end of town while planes roared over the north side. NOW it's a problem.
I agree this is new to some folks so now they are interested in fighting this. I think we already lost the fight and so I don't want to waste any more money on lawyers. I watched the video and heard the one man say there aren't any guaranties and the novel theories some lawyers have. Our town would be way ahead if we didn't waste our money on lawyers and there theories.
Why don't the lawyers put some skin in the game. If they are so sure they can make some real changes then they should be willing to take this on a contingency basis. They get X amount of dollars when goal X is met. Y amount when goal Y is met etc. I am not foolish enough to think that Daily is going to rip up his new 1/2 billion dollar runway but I would certainly be willing to pay for some REAL results not some pie in the sky "were going to get the runway closed".
anon 7:17 PM:
You touch on my main issue and that is likelyhood of success. I just cannot grasp that there is going to be any willingness to make meanful changes when they have spent all those millions on that runway. I am of the belief that the best possible result is bringing the project to completion to at least devide up the flights on multiple runways.
There is a problem about your mentioning guarantees. With many things, there are no guarantees - period!! Take a look at the proposals thus far from the flood task force. Do you see any guarantees??? If you take a look at the history and the general lay of the land we could buy the truck, float a HUGE bond (exponentially more than 500K)and do everything suggested and have a significant number of people still flood. One could take the argument you made and apply it to not spending money on a flood control project.
9:14:
Not a lawyer here so I hope some follow along here and can comment. I believe that the idea behind contingency is when someone is looking for monitary damages. In this case I believe the case would be looking for changes in proceedures and not monitary damages. I cannot see how a contingency would even apply to this case.
Fee can be contingent upon success. But instead of saying "1/3 of the recovery" as in a damages case, they could say "$250,000 when runway is closed" or "$300,000 when flights over Belle Plaine are ended" or something of the kind. Unusual, but possible.
Good luck with this. I don't recall Joe Karaganis taking any contingent fees. He got his money up front (as with any loser case).
I am not a lawyer either. When I wrote my post contingency it is the only term I could think of. Call it what you like; preset payment for some predetermined goal posts.
Just for discussions sake. The lawyers are asking for $350K how about they get $50k to start. Another $50K to have operation hours put in place, like no flights from 10 PM to 8 AM. $50K for a reasonable limit on flights over PR as a whole. $50 K for limiting the size of the jets using the Belleplaine runway. Etc. Etc. Etc. I doubt we will ever get the runway closed but if they can get it done, they deserve a jackpot.
I know I am smoking some wacky weed thinking these lawyers would EVER take such a deal but if they are so confident in their abilities to get things changed then why not. Even if it cost us more, at least we know our money will have gotten us actual results.
What I see happening is that after PR bucks up the first $500K the lawyers will come back to us saying that they need more to continue their work. They will tell us a tale of how they got things "opened up". Maybe they will get the FAA to agree to hold some hearings. But in the end nothing will get accomplished except for PR being relieved of $500K or more.
Annon 10:22. This issue is quite different form the flood control issue. It is very possible but NOT very probable to get a guarantee on flights NOT overflying PR. Either the planes fly down Belleplaine or they don't. Where as flood control has an uncountable number of variables involved in guaranteeing that no house will flood.
Post a Comment