Subject: [NEXTEL-1] The Impact of Wireless Towers on Residential Property Values- Good Read!

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:28:49 -0400

The Impact of Wireless Towers on Residential Property Values
Source: Assessment Journal
Publication date: 2003-07-01
Arrival time: 2004-04-21

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorized the Federal
Communications Commission (FGC) to expand the wireless telephone
industry by auctioning off six personal communication services (PCS)
licenses per geographic area. Because wireless communication antennae
must he mounted on high, unobstructed locations, the build out of the
PCS industry has led to the need for additional communications towers.

Abutters and neighbors of these communication towers have often opposed
their construction, citing aesthetic and health concerns, and alleging a
consequent decrease in property values. Such opposition has primarily
targeted towers located in residential zones, where such towers are
generally less harmonious with surrounding structures. This article
examines the impact of proximity to a wireless tower on residential
property values.

Mundy (1992) and Patchin (1991) report that a nuisance feature, or
source of stigma, typically reduces the market value of a property. It
is the perceived undesirability of a source of stigma that leads to
reduction in property value. As Farber (1998) explains, perceived risks
are a function of subjective risk factors as well as statistical risks;
whether the source of the perception is quantitative or subjective, the
effect on property values may be the same.

In Komis v. City of Sante Fe, the Supreme Court of New Mexico awarded
damages for the perceived decline in property value resulting from a
source of stigma, even when no objective evidence demonstrated that the
perceived nuisance was unsafe, and when market loss was not proven by
comparable sales data. The Criscuola decision established the "fear in
the marketplace" theory of damages, by allowing fear in the marketplace
regarding transmission lines, rather than actual epidemiological
evidence of adverse health effects from electromagnetic frequencies
(EMF), to affect appraised valuation. The literature (for example, Mundy
1992, Levitt 1995, and Harrison 1989) includes high-tension wires and
utility poles as sources of stigma to a property.
Are wireless towers also a source of stigma? Because most wireless
towers have been constructed recently, timeseries data for a valid
empirical study of the impact of wireless towers on property values are
virtually unavailable. Therefore, the first step is to review research
on the impact of electric power lines and towers on property values,
because they may have effects similar to wireless towers. If it is found
that (1) proximity to electrical lines reduces residential property
values, and (2) the factors causing reduced valuation near electric
lines also apply to proximity to wireless towers, and (3) these factors
have led to significant concern about proximity to wireless towers, then
it may be inferred that proximity to a wireless tower may reduce
residential property values.

POWER LINES AND PROPERTY VALUES: SOME EVIDENCE

The scientific community has conducted numerous studies of the health
effects of proximity to power lines. The first epidemiological study
linking EMF exposure and cancer incidence was published in 1979. In June
of 1998, a panel convened by the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences concluded that low- frequency EMF should be classified
as a Group 2B human carcinogen under the International Agency for
Research on Cancer classification scheme. This means the agent is
possibly carcinogenic to humans. The California Department of Health's
1999 Fact Sheet on EMF points out that epidemiology studies of childhood
leukemia provide enough evidence to classify EMF as a possible human
carcinogen.

Numerous studies have examined the impact of proximity to power lines on
property values:
Kinnard (1967) reported that proximity to a tower line had little
negative impact on residential market values in several Connecticut
subdivisions.  Higher priced subdivisions showed slightly greater
negative impact from power line proximity.

Colwell (1990) found that proximity to power lines was associated with
diminished selling prices in two Illinois subdivisions.
In Delaney and Timmons's (1992) survey of appraisers, 84 percent
responded that the market value of residential property is negatively
affected when located proximate to a high voltage electric power line;
on average, market price is 10.01 percent lower than the price of
comparable properties. The most frequently cited factors for property
value reduction were visual unattractiveness and issues of health and
safety.

Kung and Seagle's attitudinal survey (1992) found that 53 percent of the
Tennessee homeowners surveyed considered transmission lines and towers
an eyesore. Once informed of possible health risks, 87 percent felt
power lines and towers would adversely affect property values.

Kroll and Priestley (1992) reported that the perceived impact of
transmission lines cluster's into three areas: health and safety,
aesthetics, and property values. They concluded that overhead
transmission lines have the potential to reduce the sales price of
single-family homes by zero to 10 percent.

Gimmy's (1994) research on power lines and California residential
property values found diminutions of between 18 and 54 percent in lot
values from properties abutting power line easements.

Studying residential home prices in Vancouver, Canada, Hamilton and
Schwann (1995) reported that properties adjacent to 60 kV power lines
lost 6.3 percent of their value due to proximity and the visual impact.
According to the Cowger, Bottemiller, Cahill study (1996), the value of
Oregon single-family residential property fell by less than 10 percent
because of proximity to overhead transmission lines.
Gregory and von Winterfeldt (1996) determined that the public perception
of health risks associated with proximity to power lines led to a
reduction in property value: post-1979 property valuation studies showed
a decline in values of 5 to 10 percent.
According to Bolton and Sick (1999), real estate professionals, (even
those performing studies for power line companies) believed that concern
about the adverse health effects of EMF from power lines resulted in a
reduction in the values of nearby properties. Bolton's earlier study
(1994) found that the general public's perception that EMF were harmful
drove down the values of adjacent property.
Jaconetty (2001) concluded that, on a subjective level, most people
believe that the electromagnetic fields generated by high- voltage
towers and lines adversely influence real property values, primarily
because of health concerns.
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN POWER LINES AND WIRELESS TOWERS
According to the studies cited above, proximity to electric lines and
towers is associated with a reduction in residential property values
because of aesthetic and health concerns. In this section, the
similarities between the aesthetic and health effects of electric lines
and wireless towers are examined.
Consider first aesthetic similarities. The literature states that the
view enjoyed from a property may affect its value-a poor view, such as
that of utility poles and high-tension wires, detracts from value. The
aesthetic effects of transmission lines and wireless towers are similar.
Both electric lines and wireless towers rise above building height in
typical single-family neighborhoods; therefore, they arc visible for
some distance. Unless camouflaged, these structures typically do not
complement rural or suburban landscapes.
Are health concerns surrounding clectric lines also applicable Lo
wireless Lowers?
Technically, radio waves from wireless antennae differ from the
electromagnetic fields produced by power lines. Although both radio
waves and EMF are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, electric power
in the United States operates at 60 Hz, while cellular phones operate at
860-900 MHz, and PCS phones operate at about 2000 MHZ. As Moulder (1998)
explains, radio waves are non-ionizing, that is, the energy of the
particles is too low to break chemical bonds. Power lines are
nonthermal, that is, they produce no significant nonionizing radiation.
Fields from power lines do not radiate energy into space, and the fields
cease to exist when power is turned off.
However, the technical distinction between radio waves emitted by
wireless antennae and low-frequency EMF emitted by electric lines is not
generally understood. The federal government has issued guidelines
regarding safe levels of exposure for both power lines and wireless
antennae, but there is ongoing controversy within the scientific
community about whether these government guidelines are too lax. Because
a final verdict on the safety of both electric lines and wireless
antennae is still moot, many people are fearful about living in
proximity to either type of structure. As Rikon (1996) points out, the
fear in marketplace argument established by the Criscuola decision
regarding EMF has also been invoked regarding health concerns about cell
towers.
EVIDENCE OF CONCERNS ABOUT WIRELESS TOWERS
In this section, evidence is presnted about the significant level of
concern about the aesthetic and health effects of wireless towers. The
evidence is grouped into three categories: (1) lawsuits regarding
wireless tower construction, (2) organizations and conferences dealing
with theharmful effects of wireless towers, and (3) municipal moratoria
on wireless tower construction and mandatory visual impact studies.
Lawsuits
Numerous lawsuits have been filed regarding the actual or proposed
construction of wireless towers. As Foster and Carrel (1999) discuss,
case law on the issue is somewhat ambiguous. Some courts have ruled for
the municipality opposing wireless tower construction. In Franklin v.
Nextel, for instance, the court found that a 120 foot wireless tower
erected in a residential neighborhood was so incongruous and damaging to
the neighborhood that it must he dismantled. In Jacksonville, Florida,
in 1996, community opposition to a 150 foot tower in a residential
neighborhood led the wireless company, InterCel, to take it down.
In other cases, courts have ruled for the wireless companies, finding
that community opposition was not sufficient grounds for denying a
permit for tower construction. For instance, in Westinghouse v. Hampton,
the court found that the Telecommunications Act preempts tower
regulation based on perceived health concerns and that "aesthetics
alone... [are not]... an adequate reason to deny... use of...property."
OMP-USA, dealing specifically with the location of towers in residential
neighborhoods, found that "towers cannot always be compatible with the
character of the surrounding property. [I]n order to
meet...demand...towers have to be...located in...residential,
commercial, and rural areas.
Organizations, Conferences, and International Concerns

Concerns about wireless towers have resulted in the formation of
organizations and the scheduling of conferences to voice these
concerns.  The EMR Alliance argues that electromagnetic radiation from
wireless antennae is hazardous to life and public health. The
Communication Workers of America and the EMR Alliance jointly published
Your Community Guide to Clellular Phone Towers to help consumers
mobilize against the placement of wireless transmission facilities that
could adversely affect their health, safety, property values, or the
aesthetics of the community.
The 2000 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting included
testimony from numerous scientists on the health effects of exposure to
high frequency EMF. Several questioned the safety of current standards
for exposure to radiation from wireless antennae.
The US Supreme Court, in January 2001, denied a writ for certiorari
filed by the Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about the Federal
Communications Commission Health and Safety Rules (AHA). Fifty-four
petitioners filed as co petitioners; similar appeals by the
Communications Workers of America and The Cellular Phone Task Force were
consolidated with the AHA case. The AHA had charged that the FCC's
ruling, that adverse health effects cannot be discussed in reviewing
zoning rules or permit applications for cell towers, denies the public
their first amendment right to free speech.
In Europe, opposition to cell tower construction has led to lawsuits and
the destruction of wireless equipment. In an attempt to quell concerns
about the health effects of wireless towers, one Italian mobile phone
operator, Omnitel, launched an Internet site on which residents can
check the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted by nearby cell
phone towers and antennas.
Municipal Regulations
Responding to community concerns about the negative impact of wireless
towers, more than 150 municipalities have adopted temporary moratoria on
wireless tower construction. Although the Telecommunications Act
prevents a municipality from permanently banning wireless tower
construction, the Act does allow municipalities to establish criteria
based on aesthetic-but not health-considerations.
Community concern has also led to
municipal enactment of zoning ordinances regulating wireless tower
construction by
* Requiring that the visual impact of wireless towers be disclosed prior
to construction
* Limiting tower construction to municipal sites, or encouraging such
sites
* Encouraging co-location and the use of concealed structures

In response to community concerns about the aesthetics of wireless
towers, so-called stealth towers-in the form of pine and palm trees-have
been erected in more than 200 locations in the United States. The issue
of the visual impact of wireless towers has also been addressed by
placing antennas on silos, church steeples, tall buildings, and water
towers.
CONCLUSION
It has been shown that aesthetic and health concerns about electric
lines and towers lead to a reduction in the valuation of nearby
residential properties. There are similar concerns about wireless
towers; these concerns are widespread and have been expressed in
multiple venues.  Therefore, proximity to a wireless tower needs to be
considered as a negative amenity that may reduce residential property
valuation. However, the severity of the aesthetic impact may be
mitigated by screening and concealment of the wireless towers.
Such opposition has primarily targeted towers located in residential
zones, where such towers are generally less harmonious with surrounding
structures.
...perceived risks are a function of subjective risk factors as well as
statistical risks; whether the source of the perception is quantitative
or subjective, the effect on property values may be the same.
In other cases, courts have ruled for the wireless companies, finding
that community opposition was not sufficient grounds for denying a
permit for tower construction.
REFERENCES
Albany Law School. 1998. Case Law Decisions Under the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 Local Zoning Provisions (Sec. 704).
Bolton, David R. 1994. Properties NearPower Lines and Valuation Issues:
Condemnation or Inverse Condemnation? Institute on Planning, Zoning, and
Eminent Domain, 1-10.
Bolton, David R., and Kent A. Sick. (Spring) 1999. Power Lines and
Property Values: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The Urban Lawyer
31:331-334.
Colwell, Peter F. (Spring) 1990. Power Lines and Land Value. The Journal
of Real Estate Research, 117-127.
Cowger, J.R., Steven C. Bottemiller, and James M. Cahill.
(September/October) 1996. Transmission Line Impact on Residential
Property. Right of Way.
Delaney, Charles J., and Douglas Timmons. (Summer) 1992. High Voltage
Power Lines: Do They Affect Residential Property Value? The Journal of
Real Estate Research, 315-329.
Denison, D.C. (March 28) 2001. Q. Which is the Tower? A. Both, Boston
Globe, A1, A13.
Farber, Stephen. 1998. Undesirable Facilities and Property Values: A
Summary of Empirical Studies. Ecological Economics 24:1- 14.
Federal Communications Commission Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
(April 23) 1996. Fad Sheet #1. Washington, DC:FCC.
Foster, Robert B., and Mitchell A. Carrel. (Fall) 1999. Towers of
Babble:
The Continuing Struggle Over Wireless Siting Issues Under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Urban Lawyer, 849-862.
Gimmy, Arthur. 1994. The Potential Impact of EMF on Property Values.
New Orleans; EMF Regulation and Litigation Institute.
Gregory, Robin and Detlof von Winterfeldt. 1996. The Effects of
Electromagnetic Eields from Transmission Lines on Public Fears and
Property Values. Journal of Environmental Management 48:201-214.
Grissom, Terry. 1994. Fundamentals of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed.
New York, NY: Real Estate Education Company.
Hamilton, Stanley W., and Gregory M. Schwann. (November) 1995. Do High
Voltage Electric Transmission Lines Affect Property Value? Land
Economics 71:436-444.
Harrison, Henry S. 1989. Appraising Resi- dences and Income Porperties.
New Haven, CT: H2 Company.
International Conference on Cell Tower Siting-Linking Science and Public
Health, (June 7-8) 2000. Proceedings Salzburg, Austria: International
Conference on Cell Tower Siting.
Jaconetty, Thomas A. (May/June) 2001. Do You Want Your Children Playing
Under Those Things?: The Continuing Controversy About High Voltage
Electromagnetic Fields, Human Health, and Real Property Values.
Assessment Journal, 23-30.
Kinnard, William N., Jr. (April) 1967. Power Lines and Residential
Property Values, The Appraisal Journal 269-284.
Kroll, Cynthia A. and Thomas Priestley. (July) 1992. The Effects of
Overhead Transmission Lines on Property Values. Edison Electric
Institute Siting and Environmental Planning Task Force.
Kung, Hsiang-te, and Charles F. Seagle. (July) 1992. Impact of Power
Transmission Lines on Property Values. The Appraisal Journal, 413-418.
Levitt, B. Blake. 1995. Electromagnetic Fields. New York: Harcourt Brace
and Company.
Moulder, John E. (August) 1998. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health.
[email-masked].
Mundy, Bill. (January) 1992. Stigma and Value. The Appraisal Journal,
7-13.
Naik, Gautam. (January 5) 2001. Towers of Babble: Cell-Phone Sites Fan
European Anxieties. Wall Street Journal, A1, A6.
Patchin, Peter J. (April) 1991. Contaminated Properties: Stigma
Revisited.
The Appraisal Journal, 167-172.
Rikon, Michael. (January) 1996. Electromagnetic Radiation Field Property
Devaluation. The Appraisal Journal, 87-90.
Senville, Wayne. (Fall) 1997. A Wireless Miscellany. Planning
Commissioner's Journal 28:10-20.
Case LAW REFERENCES
Alexandra Cellular Corp. v. Town of Rochester, slip.op (Sup.Ct. Ulster
Co.
1997).
American PCS v. Fairfax County ZBA, 40 Va. Cir.211 (Cir. Ct. Va. 1996).
AT&T Wireless v. City of Chamblee, 10 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga 1997).
AT&T Wireless FCS v. City Council of Virginia Beach, 979 F. Supp. 416
(E.D. Vi 1997).
AT&T Wireless Services of Fla. v. Orange County, slip op.(M.D.Fl.1997).
AWACS. Hearing Board of Newtown Township, 702 A.2d 604 (Pa.
Commw. 1997).
Bell Antlantic Nynex Mobile v. Lonergan, slip op. (Sup. Ct. West. Co.
1997).
BellSouth Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners,
944F. Supp.923 (N.D. Ga 1996).
Campanelli v. AT&T Wireless Services, slip op. (Ohio Ct. Appl. 1997).
Cellular Telephone Company v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F. 3d 490 (2d Cir.

1999).
Century Cellunei of So\. Mich. v. City of Ferrysburg, slip op. (W.D. Mi
1997).
Crown Communications v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of
Glenfield, 679 A.2d 271 (Pa. Commw. 1996).
Franklin, MA v. Nexlel Comm. (Appeals Ct. Mass, March 2000).
Genesee Telephone Co. Szmigel, slip op. 1997 W.L. 800699 (Sup. Ct.
Monroe Co. 1997).
Illinois RSA No.3, Inc. v. County of Peoria, 963 F. Supp 732 (C.D. Ill.
1997).
In re Graeme, 975 F. Supp. 570 (D. Vt. 1997). Iowa Wireless Services v.
City of Moline, 29 F. Supp. 2d 915 (C.D. Ill. 1998).
Kapton v. Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile, 700 A.2d 581 (Pa. Commw.
1997).
New Brunswick Cellular Telephone Co. v. Borough of South Plainfield
Board of Adjustment. 701 A.2d 1281 (N.J. Super. 1997).
Omnipoint Communications MB Operations v. Town of Lincoln, 107 F.
Supp. 2d 108 (D. Mass. 2000).

OPM-USA Inc. v. Brevard County, 7F. Supp. 2d 1316 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

Paging, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeal, 957 F. Supp. 805 (W.D. Va.
1997).

Smart S MR of New York Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn Board of Adjustment,
slip op. (N.J. 1998).
Sprint Spectrum LP v. Jefferson County, 968 F. Supp. 1457 (N.D. Al.
1997).

Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Town of Easton, 982 F. Supp.47 (E.D. Mass.
1997).

Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Town of Farmington, 1997 U.S. Dist LEXIS 15832
(D. Conn. Oct. 6, 1997).
Sprint Spectrum v. Medina, 924 F. Supp. 1036 (W.D. Wash. 1996).

Sprint Spectrum LP v. Willoth (Town of Ontario), slip op. (W.D. N.Y.
February 19, 1998).

Sprint Spectrum LP v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Guilderland, slip op.
(Sup. Ct. Alb. Co. 1997).

Sprint Spectrum LP v. Zoning Hearing Hoard of East Nottingham Township,
slip op. (E.D. Pa. 1997).
Sprint v. Town of West Seneca, slip op (Sup. Ct. Erie Co. 1997).
TCG Detroit, v. City .of Dearborn, 977 F. Supp. 836 (E.D. Mi. 1997).
Virginia Metronet v. Board of Supervisors, 984 F. Supp.966 (E.D. Va.
1998).

Westel- Milwaukee Co. v. Walworlh County, 205 Wisc. 2d 242, 556 N.W.
2d 107 (Ct. Appl. Wisc. 1996).

Western PCS II Corp. v. Extraterritorial Zoning Authority, 957 Supp.
1230 (D.N.M. 1997).
Western PCS II Corporation v. Santa Fe, 957 F. Supp. 1230 (D.N.M. 1997)
Weslinghouse Electric Corp. v. Council of Town of Hampton, 686 A.2d 905
(Pa. Commw. 1996).
BY CAROL C. McDONOUGH, PhD

Carol C. McDonough, PhD, is professor of economics at the University of
Massachusetts in Lowell, Massachusetts.
Copyright International Association of Assessing Officers Summer 2003
Publication date: 2003-07-01

http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=50111754&ID=cnniw&scategory=Telecommunications%3AWireless&

--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com.  Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/