4 ms·

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 hou

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?
      - nullc 6y ago
        I would have probably paid a considerable amount (and not just for buying but as part of my search). Part of the problem though is with the exception of people who are weirdly sensitive[1] or keep unusual hours, most people just don't know that sound would be an issue for them until they're in a situation where sound is an issue for them. The end result of this is a significant amount of cost on the public arising out of disputes, including distorting pressure on zoning. Munis do astronomical amounts of data collection already, e.g. to maintain culverts, curbs, and storm drains they have street-view like data collection performed. They already do targeted sound studies (e.g. for roadways and public facilities). Some urban areas have gunshot detection and localization networks. It might well be possible to make a case that a sound study could lower costs to the public by lowering code enforcement costs and reducing zoning conflicts (esp. if the marginal cost of adding it on top of other data collection programs was minimal). [1] I wouldn't say that I am particularly sensitive, but being in a quiet location was part of my justification for the purchase that I was trading off against other considerations-- so I would have been unhappy if it didn't turn out to be what I expected. ... I'm happy with the result, and having lived here a few years I think I significantly underestimated how nice it would be.
- petertodd 6y ago
  FWIW, decibel meters with logging functionality are pretty cheap these days, if you want to reassure a prospective seller concerned about privacy. $60 on Amazon: https://www.amazon.ca/Backlight-Measuring-30dB-130dB-Instrument-Professional/dp/B06Y59XZWH/ https://www.amazon.ca/Backlight-Measuring-30dB-130dB-Instrum...
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.

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?
    - nullc 6y ago
      I would have probably paid a considerable amount (and not just for buying but as part of my search). Part of the problem though is with the exception of people who are weirdly sensitive[1] or keep unusual hours, most people just don't know that sound would be an issue for them until they're in a situation where sound is an issue for them. The end result of this is a significant amount of cost on the public arising out of disputes, including distorting pressure on zoning. Munis do astronomical amounts of data collection already, e.g. to maintain culverts, curbs, and storm drains they have street-view like data collection performed. They already do targeted sound studies (e.g. for roadways and public facilities). Some urban areas have gunshot detection and localization networks. It might well be possible to make a case that a sound study could lower costs to the public by lowering code enforcement costs and reducing zoning conflicts (esp. if the marginal cost of adding it on top of other data collection programs was minimal). [1] I wouldn't say that I am particularly sensitive, but being in a quiet location was part of my justification for the purchase that I was trading off against other considerations-- so I would have been unhappy if it didn't turn out to be what I expected. ... I'm happy with the result, and having lived here a few years I think I significantly underestimated how nice it would be.
petertodd 6y ago
FWIW, decibel meters with logging functionality are pretty cheap these days, if you want to reassure a prospective seller concerned about privacy. $60 on Amazon: https://www.amazon.ca/Backlight-Measuring-30dB-130dB-Instrument-Professional/dp/B06Y59XZWH/ https://www.amazon.ca/Backlight-Measuring-30dB-130dB-Instrum...

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.