4 ms·

“Houses nearby highways are low value because the owners are too lazy to manicure their lawns” is an explanation I don’t buy one bit. It’s too “just so” for my

“Houses nearby highways are low value because the owners are too lazy to manicure their lawns” is an explanation I don’t buy one bit. It’s too “just so” for my tastes, and it also contradicts my own personal experience of having my house value go up despite us purposefully killing the yard. Home values change for a lot of reasons outside the owners control; blaming it on the owners for not caring sufficiently about curb appeal doesn’t hold water. A more likely explanation is that living near a highway sucks. Very few people want to hear traffic noise from their back yard, let alone smell exhaust fumes while trying to grill outside. People who can afford to will pay a premium for a quiet and peaceful backyard, and houses with traffic noise close to them will command a lower price to compensate for the lowered quality of life. The fact that we see a similar effect near airport runways is a supporting data point. I would in fact argue that you’ve got causation backwards. The curb appeal of houses near the highway is low because the home values are low. The people who live there are aware that nothing they can do will push the home value up because of the highway, or they lack the time and resources to focus on a manicured lawn.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>“Houses nearby highways are low value because the owners are too lazy to manicure their lawns” Well you're in luck because if you re-read my comment without the intent of building a strawman you'll see that that's not my explanation. My explanation is more or less "selection bias" I tried to offer some examples as to the mechanisms of such selection but you read right past them. >A more likely explanation is that living near a highway sucks. I like it specifically because people "who are willing to pay a premium for a quiet and peaceful back yard" do not elect to live in places like this if they have the option of paying that premium. This means I am free to use power tools into the evening, the business across the street is free to use heavy equipment in the morning, my neighbors are free to play loud music, have barking dogs, yell at their kids, etc. etc. etc. Things like not having to be anal about cutting our grass and keeping our houses nice follow quite naturally from that. If you don't care about other people's business in a similar manner the cost savings from living in this environment are tempting. >The fact that we see a similar effect near airport runways is a supporting data point. Yes, people who care about noise avoid those too. What's your point. >I would in fact argue that you’ve got causation backwards. The curb appeal of houses near the highway is low because the home values are low Values are low because a subset of people don't want to live here. Selection bias applies to both groups increasing the disparity. You are foolishly projecting your opinions onto everyone. Some people simply don't care about the noise. They cluster where it is noisy because why would they pay more to avoid something they don't place a high value on avoiding. Are these people a minority when you look at the population overall? Probably. Are these neighborhoods composed of many people who simply tolerate noise because they have no other rational option. You call this blight but I call this a reflection of our priorities.
robocat 5y ago
I suspect a significant causation could be that living near a highway is low status, and having a beautifully manicured lawn is often about trying to signal high status. Why bother with a high status lawn on a low status property?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Probably a bit of both.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>“Houses nearby highways are low value because the owners are too lazy to manicure their lawns” Well you're in luck because if you re-read my comment without the intent of building a strawman you'll see that that's not my explanation. My explanation is more or less "selection bias" I tried to offer some examples as to the mechanisms of such selection but you read right past them. >A more likely explanation is that living near a highway sucks. I like it specifically because people "who are willing to pay a premium for a quiet and peaceful back yard" do not elect to live in places like this if they have the option of paying that premium. This means I am free to use power tools into the evening, the business across the street is free to use heavy equipment in the morning, my neighbors are free to play loud music, have barking dogs, yell at their kids, etc. etc. etc. Things like not having to be anal about cutting our grass and keeping our houses nice follow quite naturally from that. If you don't care about other people's business in a similar manner the cost savings from living in this environment are tempting. >The fact that we see a similar effect near airport runways is a supporting data point. Yes, people who care about noise avoid those too. What's your point. >I would in fact argue that you’ve got causation backwards. The curb appeal of houses near the highway is low because the home values are low Values are low because a subset of people don't want to live here. Selection bias applies to both groups increasing the disparity. You are foolishly projecting your opinions onto everyone. Some people simply don't care about the noise. They cluster where it is noisy because why would they pay more to avoid something they don't place a high value on avoiding. Are these people a minority when you look at the population overall? Probably. Are these neighborhoods composed of many people who simply tolerate noise because they have no other rational option. You call this blight but I call this a reflection of our priorities.

robocat 5y ago

I suspect a significant causation could be that living near a highway is low status, and having a beautifully manicured lawn is often about trying to signal high status. Why bother with a high status lawn on a low status property?

ashtonkem 5y ago
Probably a bit of both.