6 ms·

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

by 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.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    It isn't the city's job to de-risk every private transaction. Why is it unreasonable for you to pay for your own study, but reasonable to expect me to pay for it. Numerous alternatives also exist, such as asking the neighbors, checking next-door, or moving out. Lastly, many such maps already exist: https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a303ff5924c9474790464cc0e9d5c9fb https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html...
    - nullc 6y ago
      Sound pollution is a matter of public concern which is already regulated by the state. An appropriate study takes weeks or months, since it would still be bad news to find out after the fact that one week out of the month or every other month has serious noise problems. -- which is an unreasonable amount of delay to stick on the private transaction (in particular, as a buyer you'll be sniped by someone less cautious). Moreover, the data needed is essentially the same for all properties in an immediate area. This is a natural shared cost, and redoing it once off for each would be extraordinary wasteful. Finally-- this entire thread sub-thread is about reducing state intervention by buyers being empowered to not purchase places where they're going to have problems with the noise. They can't do that without the information, they can't gather the information themselves on a reasonable time scale. The buyer can't demand the seller provide it (because by the time they meet the seller it's too late to start collecting it). I don't see this as too much different from things like flood maps (which require rather expensive flyover lidar and historical watershed information, etc. to construct) that cities already provide. > Lastly, many such maps already exist: Yes, I'm aware. Which is also why I didn't think it was unreasonable to suggest. (though the DOT maps are understandably focused just on highway noise).
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Digging deeper, I think my reaction was to the idea that this is a real need and necessary civic expenditure. While sound pollution is a concern to some, and regulated in some cases. IF this were on the ballot in my city, I would vote no, as I don't think it is a productive use of civic funds. It seems that it is a zero sum initiative that would provide a marginal benefit to a very small minority of citizens. In this case it would benefit people who are: sensitive to noise,have the luxury to choose between options, know and use the service, and afraid or disinclined to talk to locals. It would also disadvantage people who are willing to put in more due diligence or have fewer options. I see this a very different than flood maps, which ensure safety and help mitigate massive costs of rebuilding communities. That said, perhaps there is a commercial market for such information. How much would you pay for such a map before buying a house?
- btilly 6y ago
  As I pointed out to another commentator, an airport 2 miles away might or might not produce noise for you. And whether it does depends on the flight path, which is not marked on your map.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    For the airport issue, you can just look at satellite imagery and see the orientation of the runway(s). At two miles out the flight paths will be pretty well aligned with the runway, so it's not difficult to figure out if you'll have low-flying planes over your house or not.
    - btilly 6y ago
      Yes, if you know how flight paths work, then you'll realize that. For most people it is another thing that they won't think about.
      - jimktrains2 6y ago
        It's funny how everything is fairly obvious and easy to do once you think of it, but the hard part of any transaction, decision, or plan is actually having the thought about each of those things ahead of time.
VBprogrammer 6y ago
We have an issue in our house about one week a year they close the M25 overnight (the main ring road around London) and the diversion brings large trucks along the residential roads though our town. It's not a problem as such but definitely something I wouldn't have possibly known about before moving in.
01100011 6y ago
I bought a house a few miles from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego and signed several pieces of paper relating to noise and the potential for unexploded ordinance. I think CA has pretty good laws on the books for disclosing stuff like that. I could see people overlooking it, even if it was shoved in their faces. Buying a home is an overly emotional process where people are influenced by inconsequential factors("I love the color", etc) but overlook serious flaws.
- gowld 6y ago
  Well placed typo. California's laws are indeed unexploded ordinance.
  - reificator 6y ago
    The post makes sense to me with the supposed typo, are you sure it wasn't intended?
    - dmurray 6y ago
      https://www.grammarbook.com/homonyms/ordinance-ordnance.asp https://www.grammarbook.com/homonyms/ordinance-ordnance.asp
      - reificator 6y ago
        Homonyms are not typos though. I'm familiar with both definitions of the word.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Homonyms are not typos though. Homonyms that are close in spelling can be typographical errors, and, because they aren't as visually-wrong as non-words, are particularly likely to escape notice when they are. They can also be a different class of errors. > I'm familiar with both definitions of the word. You mean “the definitions of both words”, surely?
outworlder 6y ago
> How do you know that the people knew that the nuisance existed? Anecdotal, but the HOA I'm living in holds meetings about airport pollution. It's a major airport, that pre-dates these houses. It's almost directly in the flight path. They had to know that an airport... has planes landing and taking off? It's not even that noisy as there are noise abatement procedures that are pretty effective. But as long as the noise level is above the birds they will complain.

by btilly 6y ago

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.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  It isn't the city's job to de-risk every private transaction. Why is it unreasonable for you to pay for your own study, but reasonable to expect me to pay for it. Numerous alternatives also exist, such as asking the neighbors, checking next-door, or moving out. Lastly, many such maps already exist: https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a303ff5924c9474790464cc0e9d5c9fb https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html...
  - nullc 6y ago
    Sound pollution is a matter of public concern which is already regulated by the state. An appropriate study takes weeks or months, since it would still be bad news to find out after the fact that one week out of the month or every other month has serious noise problems. -- which is an unreasonable amount of delay to stick on the private transaction (in particular, as a buyer you'll be sniped by someone less cautious). Moreover, the data needed is essentially the same for all properties in an immediate area. This is a natural shared cost, and redoing it once off for each would be extraordinary wasteful. Finally-- this entire thread sub-thread is about reducing state intervention by buyers being empowered to not purchase places where they're going to have problems with the noise. They can't do that without the information, they can't gather the information themselves on a reasonable time scale. The buyer can't demand the seller provide it (because by the time they meet the seller it's too late to start collecting it). I don't see this as too much different from things like flood maps (which require rather expensive flyover lidar and historical watershed information, etc. to construct) that cities already provide. > Lastly, many such maps already exist: Yes, I'm aware. Which is also why I didn't think it was unreasonable to suggest. (though the DOT maps are understandably focused just on highway noise).
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Digging deeper, I think my reaction was to the idea that this is a real need and necessary civic expenditure. While sound pollution is a concern to some, and regulated in some cases. IF this were on the ballot in my city, I would vote no, as I don't think it is a productive use of civic funds. It seems that it is a zero sum initiative that would provide a marginal benefit to a very small minority of citizens. In this case it would benefit people who are: sensitive to noise,have the luxury to choose between options, know and use the service, and afraid or disinclined to talk to locals. It would also disadvantage people who are willing to put in more due diligence or have fewer options. I see this a very different than flood maps, which ensure safety and help mitigate massive costs of rebuilding communities. That said, perhaps there is a commercial market for such information. How much would you pay for such a map before buying a house?
btilly 6y ago
As I pointed out to another commentator, an airport 2 miles away might or might not produce noise for you. And whether it does depends on the flight path, which is not marked on your map.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  For the airport issue, you can just look at satellite imagery and see the orientation of the runway(s). At two miles out the flight paths will be pretty well aligned with the runway, so it's not difficult to figure out if you'll have low-flying planes over your house or not.
  - btilly 6y ago
    Yes, if you know how flight paths work, then you'll realize that. For most people it is another thing that they won't think about.
    - jimktrains2 6y ago
      It's funny how everything is fairly obvious and easy to do once you think of it, but the hard part of any transaction, decision, or plan is actually having the thought about each of those things ahead of time.

VBprogrammer 6y ago

We have an issue in our house about one week a year they close the M25 overnight (the main ring road around London) and the diversion brings large trucks along the residential roads though our town. It's not a problem as such but definitely something I wouldn't have possibly known about before moving in.

01100011 6y ago

I bought a house a few miles from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego and signed several pieces of paper relating to noise and the potential for unexploded ordinance. I think CA has pretty good laws on the books for disclosing stuff like that. I could see people overlooking it, even if it was shoved in their faces. Buying a home is an overly emotional process where people are influenced by inconsequential factors("I love the color", etc) but overlook serious flaws.

gowld 6y ago
Well placed typo. California's laws are indeed unexploded ordinance.
- reificator 6y ago
  The post makes sense to me with the supposed typo, are you sure it wasn't intended?
  - dmurray 6y ago
    https://www.grammarbook.com/homonyms/ordinance-ordnance.asp https://www.grammarbook.com/homonyms/ordinance-ordnance.asp
    - reificator 6y ago
      Homonyms are not typos though. I'm familiar with both definitions of the word.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Homonyms are not typos though. Homonyms that are close in spelling can be typographical errors, and, because they aren't as visually-wrong as non-words, are particularly likely to escape notice when they are. They can also be a different class of errors. > I'm familiar with both definitions of the word. You mean “the definitions of both words”, surely?

outworlder 6y ago

> How do you know that the people knew that the nuisance existed? Anecdotal, but the HOA I'm living in holds meetings about airport pollution. It's a major airport, that pre-dates these houses. It's almost directly in the flight path. They had to know that an airport... has planes landing and taking off? It's not even that noisy as there are noise abatement procedures that are pretty effective. But as long as the noise level is above the birds they will complain.