I’d like to talk a little about compromise. In the last council meeting, Mayor Fagan, Council member Allen, and David Guida talked about finding a compromise on Tatlock field lighting. Every time I’ve heard a compromise discussed, it involves reducing the hours from 10 PM to 9 or 8:30. On the surface, this sounds like an even compromise, splitting the difference between sunset and 10 PM, but it’s not even at all. The residents surrounding Tatlock are being asked to give way more than the sports community.
To demonstrate the difference, I’m going to talk a bit about something that hasn’t really been discussed…property values. That’s right…I’m going to be a Nimby and complain about my property value.
One of my neighbors heard from a realtor that stadium lights would depreciate property values in the surrounding area. Out of curiosity, I did some reading and found that home appraisers have a term for this type of thing,”external obsolescence”, defined as “depreciation caused by factors off the property and beyond the homeowner’s control.” As an example of this, HomeLight.com says “Nearby eyesores or high noise levels can […] lower your home’s appraised value.”
In case you’re thinking “how bad could it be?” or “I’m sure these lights wouldn’t be that much of an eyesore or nuisance”, I want to hammer home how close some of us are to the field. My house and some of my neighbors’ houses are 70 yards from the proposed light poles. That means a 70 foot light pole would be closer to my son’s bedroom window than it would be to the end zone on the other side of the field. And if you really need any more evidence that these lights would be undesirable, just drive down my street and look at the “Stop the Stadium” signs.
So now let’s try to put a number to this “external obsolescence”. Specifically, let’s look at houses that would be most affected. This map shows all of the houses that are within 200 yards or 2 football field lengths of where a stadium light would be installed. I’ve also limited this to houses that would have an unobstructed view of the proposed stadium lights. Does anyone want to guess the total property value of the 66 homes highlighted on this map?
It’s $91 million. There are 66 homes within 2 football fields of the proposed stadium lights valued at $91 million.
In reading about “external obsolescence”, I found that the effects can be 5% on the low end to 25% for things like living next to a garbage dump. To be conservative, let’s use 5%, although it may be worse for some of us. 5% would mean that a million dollar home would lose $50,000 of value. I think it’s probably reasonable to say that a million dollar home would have to drop its price to $950,000 to sell with something undesirable across the street.
So with our $91 million estimate, as soon as stadium lighting gets installed, the 66 homes within 2 football fields of Tatlock field would drop in value to $86.5 million. That’s an immediate loss of $4.5 million. In this compromise, DCP and council would be asking 66 families in their community to immediately sacrifice $4.5 million dollars in their home values.
But this just takes into account the immediate drop in value. How does this look over time?
On average, US home prices increase by 4.6% year over year. What does this $4.5 million difference become when we take into account the difference in appreciation?
Councilman Smallwood…I’ve heard this is up your alley. Can you tell me what this $4.5 million would become with 20 years of appreciation at 4.6%, assuming we compound monthly?
It’s $11.4 million. Installing stadium lights at Tatlock would cost the 66 homeowners within 2 football fields $11.4 million over 20 years.
Now, does this seem like a fair compromise? The Department of Community programs is giving up an hour or two of field time, while the surrounding neighbors are sacrificing $11.4 million in property value over the next 20 years.
I’d like to finish by saying that for a plan that’s been in motion for 6 years and is expected to cost $1.6 million, I’m shocked at how little anyone has been able to articulate the need for stadium lighting.
I keep hearing “we’re short on field space” without any evidence other than some vague or hypothetical situations to back it up. In fact, the Department of Community Program’s FAQ has just one example of how the extra time could be used. I challenge DCP to provide a proper document describing the need for stadium lights, what alternatives have been considered, and the full impact on the neighborhood.
Before asking taxpayers to put up $1.6 million and members of your community to sacrifice $11.4 million of value in their homes, we deserve a more compelling argument than…we would like to move second, third, and fourth grade girls field hockey practice from 7 PM to an earlier time.
For more details, see the Tatlock Stadium Lighting: Estimated Effect on Home Price Slides and Worksheet.