Residential properties next to amusement parks.

Friday, February 6, 2004 10:37 PM
For some reason this had me wondering(like alot of things) :)

Do property values for residential real estate with there neighborhoods butting up against amusement parks tend to be lower compared to a similar house in the same town but not next to a park? Anything that is a turnoff or making it harder to sell houses tends to lower values.

Any real estate agents here who can shed light on this? Does anyone own a house next to a park?

Note: Don't answer this thinking like an enthusiast. Come back down to earth and think like a homeowner who wants the best equity.

+0
Friday, February 6, 2004 11:13 PM
Most places it does tend to hurt the property value. It's the facts of traffic, noise and a ton of other things. Kids dumping beer bottles in your yards etc...

One of the few places that I've seen the reverse would be Cedar Point. However, before anyone starts in on me with the whole 'you're just a fanboy' thing. I dare you to look at the price of a house near CP on the Chausee (Cedar Point Drive). You don't have 2 mil.. you're not getting anywhere CLOSE to the end of the road.

The thing about it is though, I don't think the park has alot to do with it but the propety values would probably be even higher just for location if not for the park.

+0
Friday, February 6, 2004 11:19 PM
Probably not a good example Rob considering the park(CP) itself is not really butting against a backyard and those houses you speak of are probably right near the water (Lake Erie) which tends to raise values. *** Edited 2/7/2004 4:20:19 AM UTC by Chitown***
+0
Friday, February 6, 2004 11:21 PM
I can see most factors such as noise and the inevitable straglers from the park wandering around your neighborhood dropping property values like a rock. The one thing that I think equalizes things and maybe in the long run makes the property worth more is the possibility of a park looking at that property when expansion plans loom and hoping that the buyout is a big price.
+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 1:05 AM
I know around Canobie Lake Park in NH new home developments have popped up all around the park...and then the people who move in (knowing full well a amusement park is in their back yard) complain of the noise levels, etc. Canobie had to install a weird plastic tube over the Boston Tea Party chute-the-chutes ride in an attempt to muffle the screams after neighbors complained. Kind of like people who buy a house next to an airport and then complain of noise! Anyhoo...a bit off topic but my two cents.
+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 7:15 AM
Also the average person may not want to see a 200 foot coaster out their back door every day
+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 9:05 AM
I wonder if the Cedar Point does hurt the property value of the houes on the Chausee. Sure, they cost 2 mil but would they cost even more if CP wasn't there?

Hard to know since CP probably predates most of those houses anyway.

+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 12:41 PM
There's a huge neighborhood behind Dorney, and I think that was one of the other reasons they had to close Hercules. The wooden "out of control" sound was probrably a nuisance to neighbors, so that is why they are replacing it with a B&M Floorless. Personally, I wouldn't mind living near an amusement park, I think it would be cool to hear the sounds of coasters during the summer.
+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 1:18 PM
I wonder how they market these condos?

Noise seems to be the #1 complaint for residential parks, yet noise seems to be a non-factor for all the condos I saw spring up right next to the train lines in Chicago. I guess if the noise is related to convenience, it's OK?

Colin D., who grew up three blocks from a train line, and three miles north of O'Hare.

+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 1:45 PM
Regarding noise, I don't know about other b and m rides but kraken was engineered to be really quiet, because of putting sand in the train or something i forget. Why don't other parks do that, although it still doesn't solve the problem of screaming riders.
+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 2:35 PM
Well... what I can tell you from local experience is that Timberhawk in Seattle started off without any sound dampeners along the track, but two months later, they were in place. And there are houses within fifty feet of the ride. I took this picture from a guy's driveway:

http://rcdb.com/installationgallery1862.htm?Picture=2

I know that the city of milton had a lot to say about the building of this ride, so they were obvously thinking that property values would go down. To the south of the park is a relatively recent housing development - and it's full. So... hard to say. Personally, I wouldn't mind living next to one, but then I lived in a house that had TRAIN TRACKS in the backyard once.

-Escher

+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 3:35 PM
The people who bought houses on the fringe of Knotts have managed to get noise abatement orderances passed that cutail the blowing of locomotive whistles at 9:00 PM and also limits the use of pyrothecnics. Now keep in mind that when Knotts was first built there was nothing around them. Even when the trains were added in the 1950's there was literally no developement in that area of what was to become Buena Park. The late 1950's early 1960's the houses began to creep up around the Farm. It would be a good twenty years before the complaining would begin. Before that if you didn't like hearing steam locomotive whistles and the sound of band organs whafting across the street, you didn't buy the property. Now they buy it knowing full well whats there and then file complaints.
+0
Saturday, February 7, 2004 6:49 PM
There is a really RICH neighborhood way back beind PKI's Waterpark on Western Row Road. You can see both lift hills of the Beast from one of the driveways back there. Their backyards ae right against the edge of park property
+0
Sunday, February 8, 2004 11:38 AM
l. It is very comparable to subdivisions out on the edge of a city. People come out and look at the homes (or lots) and see that they will be surrounded by prosperous farms. They think that looks charming. Then they move in. Within six months, they're filing petitions to force the farmers to stop running tractors and other equipment early in the morning, from letting livestock graze too close to the fence, from spraying fertilizer, pesticides or herbicides, and from operating tractors, haywagons, etc. out on the paved roads.

2. One exception is Indiana Beach. The homes (and a few B & Bs) across the swinging bridge from the park have very high value. They can look out their windows or sit in their yards and watch Hoosier Hurricane, Cornball Express, LoCoSuMo, and The Giant Wheel, including all the flashing lights at night.

+0
Sunday, February 8, 2004 12:14 PM
I'm sure it depends on the park its by, the city its in, and type of property, the homes its surrounded by. Personally I wouldn't want to live to close to a park.

Think about it if your talking the houses next to KW's PR, then talking about the homes on the Chausee by CP your talking two different worlds.

I love the people that build or buy houses near freeways, airports, golf courses, vaccant lots that are zoned for commerical or buisness, and amusement parks. Then they complain about noise and traffic. You have to do yor homework before you buy.

Then you have people like my girlfriends mom, had a nice house in the country, gets remarried, sells its then moves into condos, where you can see Perry Nuke plant in the horizon, and the Lake Co work-release/overflow jail and Lake Co waste management facility is basically in their back yards. Then 2 minutes up the street is a redneck titty bar. The sad part is the condos are not cheap. *** Edited 2/8/2004 7:23:21 PM UTC by Snap43***

+0
Sunday, February 8, 2004 11:23 PM
Wow, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Disney World yet. There's a resort that basically created all of the housing development around it, let alone drive UP the prices. Now, the houses aren't backing on to any of the parks, but you can see and hear some of the fireworks every night, and you'd think that people would complain about that.
+0
Sunday, February 8, 2004 11:41 PM
I personally would love on Lake Shaffer and be able to peer across the lake to Indiana Beach, I'd find it horribly relaxing, which is odd from the amount of energy that park seems to exude. Of Course I'd pay a million dollars for a house dead in the center of Holiday World.
+0
Monday, February 9, 2004 2:26 PM
The site of the coasters wouldnt bother me. But all of the additional traffic and bottlenecks that are casued by a theme/amusement park would bother me and would have to have some effect on the property value.
+0
Monday, February 9, 2004 3:36 PM
Here is a very basic legal analyses of this situation. I am not saying that I agree with it, but in many places, this is how it works. (zoning and law use law varies dramatically by jurisdiction, so every park has different issues.)

There is an old common law principle called "nuisance." What this basically says is that you cannot use your property in a way that unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of somebody else's land. While I would personally love to see and hear a rollercoaster out of my bedroom window, most people would not. Also, in addition to the noise issues, you have pollution, traffic, etc.... Anyway, a landowner (must be the owner, a renter is not protected) can file a suit against the property that is causing the problem and have a restraining order issued. While many people have raised the issue of "coming to the nuisance," in most places, this is not a defense. (something I disagree with). Technically, it doesn't matter who was there first person to a location. I could theoretically buy a piece of property next to cedar point, which has been there in some form for over 100 years, and claim that the park was a nuisance.

However, there are a couple reasons why nuisance suits are not that common. First, they take a long time. A lawsuit will probably stretch a couple of years. If the outcome is appealed, you can add several more years on top. Second, a legal battle of this kind (usually against a corporation can get very expensive. Also, there is the free-rider problem. If there are five houses next to a nuisance, only 1 of the homeowners needs to sue to get the nuisance shut down. If my neighbors are suing, why should I contribute money... I will get just as much of a benefit letting them pay as I would if I contributed.

An interesting caveat of nuisance suits is that the restraining orders that are granted state that the violating use must stop - it cannot dictate ways that the use can continue. For example, the restraining order would state that the park could not run their rollercoaster - it could not state that it could run it during certain hours - even if this would make the use ok.

Local zoning laws (most made at the town or county level) deal with land use issues more subtely. For example, a park may be ordered run a rollercoaster only during certain hours. It is important to remember that zoning has not taken the place of nuisance suits. Even with zoning, they still exist.

Anyway, this post is getting long and if anyone cares, I can get into the zoning aspects later.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...