wreck90:sbiddle:wreck90: This is right outside the window and her property will have dropped in value.
Would anyone be happy?
It's interesting to see this claim being used all the time in the cellsite battle - and yet not a single person seems to be able to produce a single piece of evidence to back the claim.
Surely there must be an anti cellsite campaigner somewhere in the country who has followed through with their threats of moving and has has sold their house and got and sold for well under it's value. Why haven't we heard from them?
On what basis do you think a property with a celltower has the same value as without?
My reasoning is that there are many people who dislike celltowers and this reduces the buyer pool for such a property. A buyer will always look for reasons to reduce price, and a classic would be, 'hhm, nice house, shame about the celltower, will offer you 20k less".
Just because you are unaware of evidence does not mean there is none.
In fact, there have been studies and they do show statistically significant decreases in property value although every situation is different (outlooks, distance etc) and the decrease is not huge.
And exactly the same arguments could be used that houses with no cellular coverage. I'm aware of an area in Houghton Bay where there is no coverage from any network. The person selling it used to get continual feedback that the house was nice but there was no mobile coverage.