Another State Report Trying to Bamboozle Falmouth

Relationship between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts (* see http://images.masscec.com/uploads/attachments/2014/01/Relationship%20between%20Wind%20Turbines%20and%20Residential%20Property%20Values%20in%20Massachusetts.pdf

Neither researcher (Carol Atkinson-Palombo Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Connecticut or  Ben Hoen, Staff Research Associate, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) are licensed appraisers!  

No Appraiser’s License – Credibility Lacking

Here are items of information from a slide presentation delivered at the Appraisal Institute Annual Meeting 2012.  (*see http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/aiconnect/presentations/02aug/Advanced-Statistical-Methods-in-Real-Estate-Appraisal2.pdf)

When and how do techniques of “economists” and real estate professors (acedemics) rise to the level of becoming “recognized” and “generally accepted”?

Standards Rule 1-1 –“In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must: (a) be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those RECOGNIZED methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal.”

Scope of Work Rule

–Scope of Work Acceptability – 2012-13 USPAP

–“The scope of work must include the research and analyses that are necessary to develop credible assignment results.”

–Scope of work is “acceptable when it meets or exceeds: . . . what an APPRAISER’S PEERS’ actions would be in performing the same or a similar assignment.”

Definitions

Appraiser’s Peers – “other APPRAISERS who have expertise and competency in a similar type of assignment” USPAP, 2010-2011 Ed. p. U-14, Lines 408-409 and The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraising

–Question: Are economists an appraiser’s peers?

–Answer: No – unless they are also appraisers!

–Question: Are academic professors of real estate an appraiser’s peers? 

–Answer: No – unless they are also appraisers!

–Publications of the economics profession are not an appropriate source of information on recognized & generally accepted methods of the real estate appraisal profession.

–Publications by real estate professors are also not automatically an appropriate source of information on recognized & generally accepted methods of the appraisal profession unless they have also been recognized by the Appraisal Profession.

True Appraisals – Real Facts

"The MassCEC explains, (*see http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12474) Massachusetts has expanded the number of wind energy projects in the state from just 3 MW and three turbines installed in 2007 to more than 100 MW and dozens of turbines installed now throughout the commonwealth."

Yet, during this expansion MassCEC neglects to mention that in 21 municipalities where turbines have been sited, local residents have reported health problems as a result.  

“Properly sited renewable energy projects like wind turbines can deliver clean energy for our citizens and boost our local economy,” says MassCEC CEO Alicia Barton.  The key concept seemingly eluding Ms. Barton however, is the phrase "properly sited renewable energy projects."  She further explains that “This report is designed to provide fact-based research to inform decision-makers on potential impacts wind turbines could have on nearby property.”   

Truth be told, the design of this report is just another attempt to discredit another aspect of the local community's professional knowledge base.  Local professional appraisers and realtors, those (licensed) citizens, often ‘home-grown,’ that live, work and play in the place we call home. Who better than a local professional to know the community’s property value facts and provide accurate fact- based property value appraisals?

The MassCEC  ‘Ross Perot’ antics of academic graphs and equations can’t dismiss what local professionals and property owners already know (*see Falmouth Real Estate — “The Turbine Effect”).  Falmouth decision makers, after our town’s wind project siting mistake, have learned the hard way.  Little confidence remains in agenda driven political appointees, especially those without credentials.

The Report

A more thorough review of the report's Pg33 - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS - illustrates why this report couldn’t possibly be used as a tool for decision makers. 

The report is framed around 5 research questions.

Q1) Have wind facilities in Massachusetts been located in areas where average home prices were lower than prices in surrounding areas (i.e., a “pre-existing price differential”)?

Q2) Are post-construction (i.e., after wind-facility construction) home price impacts evident in Massachusetts, and how do Massachusetts results contrast with previous results estimated for more rural settings?

Q3) Is there evidence of a post-announcement/pre-construction effect (i.e., an “anticipation effect”)?

Q4) How do impacts near turbines compare to the impacts of amenities and disamenities also located in the study area, and how do they compare with previous findings?

Q5) Is there evidence that houses that sold during the post-announcement and post-construction periods did so at lower rates than during the pre-announcement period?

Strikingly, the question at the heart of the matter was never asked, thus never examined and clearly would have better served decision makers and home sellers/buyers alike – the REAL question needing an answer -

Is there evidence that post-construction property sale rate/volume in areas close to turbine(s) significantly differed from property sale rate/volume in areas further away from turbine(s)?

But then the next paragraph states "The results of this study do not support the claim that wind turbines affect nearby home prices." (unless of course you refer back to the comment made immediately preceding this paragraph - "Nuisances from turbine noise and shadow flicker might be especially relevant ..." ).   

Couple what this report is TRYING to say about the effect of nuisance on property values and a professional appraiser’s report of property value loss attributed to turbines, and you have a clear picture of “nuisance stigma” effecting properties close to our town turbines.