9 ms·

My wife grew up near a naval base and I always thought it was funny how regularly you’d hear stories about people buying houses under the flight path and then c

by ksdale 6y ago

My wife grew up near a naval base and I always thought it was funny how regularly you’d hear stories about people buying houses under the flight path and then complaining to the base. It seems useful to me to allow people to build houses in less desirable locations, and it also seems... not wrong(?) to expect people to deal with a “nuisance” that they knew existed when they purchased their house (especially if they got their house for way cheaper than they would have otherwise!) I understand the impulse of people wanting to make their nuisances disappear, but I’m not sure this particular problem (zoning where people choose to build near industry) is one that needs solving.

acoard 6y ago
It's also worth mentioning that this can be a financially motivated move if the "nuisance" has an impact on the property's value.
cjrp 6y ago
In the UK there is a case[1] (based around cricket, of course) which set the precedent that even if you "come to the nuisance", you can still force people to stop. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson
- corin_ 6y ago
  Interesting, thanks for sharing! But actually that wiki page says the judgement regarding "coming to the nuisance" was based on precedent set by a different case almost 100 years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman
- wahern 6y ago
  A famous U.S. case often cited in the context of Law & Economics involves a residential development built near a pre-existing feedlot. Like in the UK case the court found an exception to the general rule that a court won't grant injunctive relief to those coming to the nuisance, and it ordered the feedlot to shutdown. However, the court made the developer pay damages to the feedlot to cover their losses--loss of business, relocation costs, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E._Webb_Development_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E....
  - gowld 6y ago
    That's Coase's Theorem in action: any inconvenience can be compensated, so it's fine to mandate the globally economically optimal decision and use transfer payments to make them locally fair.
    - wahern 6y ago
      Sort of? AFAIU, according to the Coase theorem the courts should never have needed to be involved. Indeed, the rule prohibiting relief for those coming to the nuisance is designed to prevent people from using the courts as an end run around bargaining with the nuisance owner. The characterization of the judgment as achieving global optimality using transfer payments brings to mind Kaldor–Hicks. Here's an interesting paper that discusses the case's relationship to the Coase theorem: Coming to the Nuisance: An Economic Analysis from an Incomplete Contracts Perspective, https://www.dartmouth.edu/~csnyder/491.pdf https://www.dartmouth.edu/~csnyder/491.pdf
btilly 6y ago
How do you know that the people knew that the nuisance existed? "Sometimes really loud jets take off really early" is not something that you would want to put into a realty listing, and is not necessarily something that would happen when you see the house. It might have been disclosed somewhere, but do you know how much paperwork there is with buying a house? I can easily see someone not realizing that they would have this issue until after they move in. As much as they "should have known", they truly may not have. Likewise with power plants, "You'll get a stench when the wind blows the wrong way" is again not something you advertise and not necessarily something you'd notice when you see the house. (Of course, "You have to disclose all this crap" is part of why there is so much paperwork, which might or might not include some of it now...)
- cjrp 6y ago
  Naval bases (and airfields) are pretty obvious on a map.
  - btilly 6y ago
    If you're on a flight path then you can be impacted by a base several miles away...when the wind is from a certain direction. Other houses at the same distance get no noise. Flight paths do not tend to be marked on maps. (Note, I used to contract for a small airline. Noise is more complicated than you'd think.)
- bradstewart 6y ago
  At some point, the buyer has to be responsible for their own due diligence. It's not like an airfield is small or hard to notice on a map. I wouldn't buy a house without looking at the surrounding area in detail, just like I wouldn't buy a house without having an inspector check it out.
  - nullc 6y ago
    I left an audio recorder over night at my place before a bought it. But even that only goes so far-- e.g. it didn't capture that the local high school had suspended night games while lights were being replaced and after they restarted it produced a large amount of noise weekly. Fortunately we're far enough away and the buildings are well constructed enough that it's not an issue. ... but I would have missed it equally for a property closer to the school. This is a place where I think cities should have wide-scale long-term noise studies and maps. It's an unreasonable cost to expect every buyer to conduct a local noise study, especially since you'd really need to run it for minimum of a week if not a month.
dv_dt 6y ago
I agree with some of the broad ideas here, but I also understand that doing this systematically pushes lower income people into higher "nusiance" areas which often end up being higher disease and lower lifespan areas from environmental pollution - which is inherently unfair as well as increasing the costs borne by lower income classes. So we end up with a pretty ugly societal tradeoff if we only look at this as some sort of voluntary choice, when it is not really so.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Yeah we should basically mandate that the cost of housing within areas varies more than between....or just have far more public housing.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    Yep I’ve learned that reduced rate public housing is super common in Europe but in the USA we don’t talk about it much. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...
    - Wohlf 6y ago
      Because we tried it and it didn't go well, they were called the projects and it concentrated poverty and crime.
      - gowld 6y ago
        We should have tried the version without crack cocaine and general access handguns and systemic racism in education and employment.
        emiliobumachar 6y ago
        The USA, among others, tried very hard to get rid of crack cocaine, arguably way too hard to the point of making things way worse in poor neighborhoods.
pstrateman 6y ago
I think the issue is that people who move to these places are largely unaware of the specific issues when they make the decision to move. I know it sounds ridiculous that someone wouldn't understand that moving next to a naval base would put you under a flight path, but I'm sure it happens. (It would be kind of embarrassing to admit to that as well).
mc32 6y ago
Right, the first things I’d do would be look at google traffic historic patterns (morning, night), look at any big facilities around (large campuses, depots, stations, etc.) what do they produce?, superfund sites, topography (low lying, historical flood maps, etc) and drive around the neighborhood, check it out. What’s the vibe? You don’t usually buy sight unseen.
tw04 6y ago
I would expect a mandatory one-page waiver, literally printed on paper of a unique color (not white), that people are forced to sign before buying the house. Too often things like this get buried in a mountain of paperwork, and while they SHOULD read through it all, the average buyer won't take the time. Americans (maybe people in general) are lazy.
- clairity 6y ago
  rather than mishmash of obscure legal paperwork, every home should be accompanied by a standardized booklet with a report card on the front (with various important metrics, like heating/cooling efficiency, electrical reliability/safety, structural integrity, environmental risks, pollution measurements, water tightness, etc.). the innards would have the gory details, architectural drawings, schematics, repair history, modifications/additions, and such. this booklet could then be provided to interested buyers for review, with the stipulation that any serious distortions/omissions could be subject to sanctions and legal recourse. this isn't far off from what we do now, but the standardization away from overly wordy legalese would be a material advance. we're collectively under the false impression that legalese protects us from risk, but it's more a form of regulatory capture for the legal industry.
  - quesera 6y ago
    The required disclosures for buying houses vary _widely_ between different US states. In California, it is not unusual to receive a packet six inches thick. In "other" states, a couple dozen pages will suffice. I think your standardization idea is an excellent one.
BurningFrog 6y ago
Housing under a noisy flight path is an interesting example. In an ideal world, I think that would be an excellent place for deaf people to live. They're not disturbed by the noise, it would be cheaper than other areas, and living in a community of other deaf people seems like something many would really enjoy. The typical regulation approach has no room for adjustments like these, and I think it's bad for everyone.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  Deaf people have kids and partners who won’t like the noise. You could make an apartment for single deaf people. But that’s like... a very specific group of people.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    It would of course be voluntary to move there... My impression is that the deaf mostly date other deaf people.
    - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
      Right but is it only for deaf people? If it is, it’s a small effect. If it isn’t, then actually it will just be housing for poor people and “deaf people” becomes a political Trojan horse. Seems like a weird or non solution when perhaps the land should just be zoned for industrial use. Unless I’m not getting something...
      - BurningFrog 6y ago
        If Emperor Regulator, I would maybe make the area a "Designated Noise Zone", which means you have no right to complain about noise there. Then whoever want to live there under those conditions can do so. To me, this is better than letting the area go to waste. I imagine it would be a good deal for deaf people, but if it's the best deal for for some poor people, that's also good in my book. I don't fully understand your "political Trojan horse" phrase, but we probably have different underlying philosophies.
threatofrain 6y ago
If you allow people to build on a floodplain they will. Now they are a humanitarian risk.
- sagarm 6y ago
  See: Houston. Homes were built in areas that would be intentionally flooded in an extreme weather event like Harvey.
rapind 6y ago
There’s housing developments built on Rainier’s mudslide...
DoctorOetker 6y ago
why isn't there more research into active noise canceling (where the source noise can be known micro or milliseconds in advance) so airplanes can lift off more silently and similar inside the cabin? alternatively use WHISPER technology helicopters to transport passengers to and from the plane at height
skocznymroczny 6y ago
In Poland it's common for people to build their houses near rivers in areas that are in a risk of flooding. When buying the land, they are warned of the consequences and advised to insure the house against flood. Of course, no one does it, because "what are the odds", and then they are the first ones to seek government aid because their livelihoods got destroyed.

by ksdale 6y ago

acoard 6y ago

It's also worth mentioning that this can be a financially motivated move if the "nuisance" has an impact on the property's value.

cjrp 6y ago

In the UK there is a case[1] (based around cricket, of course) which set the precedent that even if you "come to the nuisance", you can still force people to stop. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson

corin_ 6y ago
Interesting, thanks for sharing! But actually that wiki page says the judgement regarding "coming to the nuisance" was based on precedent set by a different case almost 100 years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman
wahern 6y ago
A famous U.S. case often cited in the context of Law & Economics involves a residential development built near a pre-existing feedlot. Like in the UK case the court found an exception to the general rule that a court won't grant injunctive relief to those coming to the nuisance, and it ordered the feedlot to shutdown. However, the court made the developer pay damages to the feedlot to cover their losses--loss of business, relocation costs, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E._Webb_Development_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E....
- gowld 6y ago
  That's Coase's Theorem in action: any inconvenience can be compensated, so it's fine to mandate the globally economically optimal decision and use transfer payments to make them locally fair.
  - wahern 6y ago
    Sort of? AFAIU, according to the Coase theorem the courts should never have needed to be involved. Indeed, the rule prohibiting relief for those coming to the nuisance is designed to prevent people from using the courts as an end run around bargaining with the nuisance owner. The characterization of the judgment as achieving global optimality using transfer payments brings to mind Kaldor–Hicks. Here's an interesting paper that discusses the case's relationship to the Coase theorem: Coming to the Nuisance: An Economic Analysis from an Incomplete Contracts Perspective, https://www.dartmouth.edu/~csnyder/491.pdf https://www.dartmouth.edu/~csnyder/491.pdf

btilly 6y ago

How do you know that the people knew that the nuisance existed? "Sometimes really loud jets take off really early" is not something that you would want to put into a realty listing, and is not necessarily something that would happen when you see the house. It might have been disclosed somewhere, but do you know how much paperwork there is with buying a house? I can easily see someone not realizing that they would have this issue until after they move in. As much as they "should have known", they truly may not have. Likewise with power plants, "You'll get a stench when the wind blows the wrong way" is again not something you advertise and not necessarily something you'd notice when you see the house. (Of course, "You have to disclose all this crap" is part of why there is so much paperwork, which might or might not include some of it now...)

cjrp 6y ago
Naval bases (and airfields) are pretty obvious on a map.
- btilly 6y ago
  If you're on a flight path then you can be impacted by a base several miles away...when the wind is from a certain direction. Other houses at the same distance get no noise. Flight paths do not tend to be marked on maps. (Note, I used to contract for a small airline. Noise is more complicated than you'd think.)
bradstewart 6y ago
At some point, the buyer has to be responsible for their own due diligence. It's not like an airfield is small or hard to notice on a map. I wouldn't buy a house without looking at the surrounding area in detail, just like I wouldn't buy a house without having an inspector check it out.
- nullc 6y ago
  I left an audio recorder over night at my place before a bought it. But even that only goes so far-- e.g. it didn't capture that the local high school had suspended night games while lights were being replaced and after they restarted it produced a large amount of noise weekly. Fortunately we're far enough away and the buildings are well constructed enough that it's not an issue. ... but I would have missed it equally for a property closer to the school. This is a place where I think cities should have wide-scale long-term noise studies and maps. It's an unreasonable cost to expect every buyer to conduct a local noise study, especially since you'd really need to run it for minimum of a week if not a month.

dv_dt 6y ago

I agree with some of the broad ideas here, but I also understand that doing this systematically pushes lower income people into higher "nusiance" areas which often end up being higher disease and lower lifespan areas from environmental pollution - which is inherently unfair as well as increasing the costs borne by lower income classes. So we end up with a pretty ugly societal tradeoff if we only look at this as some sort of voluntary choice, when it is not really so.

Ericson2314 6y ago
Yeah we should basically mandate that the cost of housing within areas varies more than between....or just have far more public housing.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  Yep I’ve learned that reduced rate public housing is super common in Europe but in the USA we don’t talk about it much. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...
  - Wohlf 6y ago
    Because we tried it and it didn't go well, they were called the projects and it concentrated poverty and crime.
    - gowld 6y ago
      We should have tried the version without crack cocaine and general access handguns and systemic racism in education and employment.
      - emiliobumachar 6y ago
        The USA, among others, tried very hard to get rid of crack cocaine, arguably way too hard to the point of making things way worse in poor neighborhoods.

pstrateman 6y ago

I think the issue is that people who move to these places are largely unaware of the specific issues when they make the decision to move. I know it sounds ridiculous that someone wouldn't understand that moving next to a naval base would put you under a flight path, but I'm sure it happens. (It would be kind of embarrassing to admit to that as well).

mc32 6y ago

Right, the first things I’d do would be look at google traffic historic patterns (morning, night), look at any big facilities around (large campuses, depots, stations, etc.) what do they produce?, superfund sites, topography (low lying, historical flood maps, etc) and drive around the neighborhood, check it out. What’s the vibe? You don’t usually buy sight unseen.

tw04 6y ago

I would expect a mandatory one-page waiver, literally printed on paper of a unique color (not white), that people are forced to sign before buying the house. Too often things like this get buried in a mountain of paperwork, and while they SHOULD read through it all, the average buyer won't take the time. Americans (maybe people in general) are lazy.

clairity 6y ago
rather than mishmash of obscure legal paperwork, every home should be accompanied by a standardized booklet with a report card on the front (with various important metrics, like heating/cooling efficiency, electrical reliability/safety, structural integrity, environmental risks, pollution measurements, water tightness, etc.). the innards would have the gory details, architectural drawings, schematics, repair history, modifications/additions, and such. this booklet could then be provided to interested buyers for review, with the stipulation that any serious distortions/omissions could be subject to sanctions and legal recourse. this isn't far off from what we do now, but the standardization away from overly wordy legalese would be a material advance. we're collectively under the false impression that legalese protects us from risk, but it's more a form of regulatory capture for the legal industry.
- quesera 6y ago
  The required disclosures for buying houses vary _widely_ between different US states. In California, it is not unusual to receive a packet six inches thick. In "other" states, a couple dozen pages will suffice. I think your standardization idea is an excellent one.

BurningFrog 6y ago

Housing under a noisy flight path is an interesting example. In an ideal world, I think that would be an excellent place for deaf people to live. They're not disturbed by the noise, it would be cheaper than other areas, and living in a community of other deaf people seems like something many would really enjoy. The typical regulation approach has no room for adjustments like these, and I think it's bad for everyone.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
Deaf people have kids and partners who won’t like the noise. You could make an apartment for single deaf people. But that’s like... a very specific group of people.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  It would of course be voluntary to move there... My impression is that the deaf mostly date other deaf people.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    Right but is it only for deaf people? If it is, it’s a small effect. If it isn’t, then actually it will just be housing for poor people and “deaf people” becomes a political Trojan horse. Seems like a weird or non solution when perhaps the land should just be zoned for industrial use. Unless I’m not getting something...
    - BurningFrog 6y ago
      If Emperor Regulator, I would maybe make the area a "Designated Noise Zone", which means you have no right to complain about noise there. Then whoever want to live there under those conditions can do so. To me, this is better than letting the area go to waste. I imagine it would be a good deal for deaf people, but if it's the best deal for for some poor people, that's also good in my book. I don't fully understand your "political Trojan horse" phrase, but we probably have different underlying philosophies.

threatofrain 6y ago

If you allow people to build on a floodplain they will. Now they are a humanitarian risk.

sagarm 6y ago
See: Houston. Homes were built in areas that would be intentionally flooded in an extreme weather event like Harvey.

rapind 6y ago

There’s housing developments built on Rainier’s mudslide...

DoctorOetker 6y ago

why isn't there more research into active noise canceling (where the source noise can be known micro or milliseconds in advance) so airplanes can lift off more silently and similar inside the cabin? alternatively use WHISPER technology helicopters to transport passengers to and from the plane at height

skocznymroczny 6y ago

In Poland it's common for people to build their houses near rivers in areas that are in a risk of flooding. When buying the land, they are warned of the consequences and advised to insure the house against flood. Of course, no one does it, because "what are the odds", and then they are the first ones to seek government aid because their livelihoods got destroyed.