Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was as big of a problem as this board makes it out to be, the homes is Palisades would simply not continuously sell for as much as they do. We recently moved away from the area. It was nothing compared to the helicopters you constantly hear on the Hill (where we lived previously), which was also fine. I don’t get this fixation.

Is it your contention that it doesn’t diminish the value of those homes?

My contention is that there is a small, loud minority that is fixated on this issue—people who are overwhelmingly wealthy and have little else to worry about. It is a lovely area, full of lovely and very expensive homes. It is, and likely always will be, generally priced somewhere between Glover Park and Wesley Heights given the overall character of the neighborhood. If you want to show me a property value decline in response to changing flight paths, go at it and good on you for being “right.”

But more than anything, I think [b]the vocal minority continuously drawing outsized attention to some airplanes is more of a risk to property values than the actual planes.

Palisades is still in the city, despite its suburban feel. But from living there, enjoying our backyard nearly every night there was even decent weather, and taking our kid to parks continually during the weekend…I don’t get this crusade. Be grateful to live in the neighborhood you do—it’s a good one.

That all may be true, but this is exactly why the disclosures are warranted. Give people the facts, and then it’s a free and informed choice. There are many buyers who felt gaslit and didn’t have the information or the time to appreciate the problem (“some planes” = approaching a 1,000 per day). It’s a lovely neighborhood, but it has a disclosable problem. I know people who are not only miserable after the NextGen, but feel negative effects of the attitudes of their neighbors too (being mocked etc). It’s not fair. Make it fair and then enjoy your choice as you wish. People will still buy there, and someone upstream said there is no effect on real estate. Ok, but today’s situation is not fair to the buyers. It’s also imho not fair to the residents and it’s hard to influence the change when a whole bunch of people don’t want to draw attention to the issue.

It escapes me why something that is public knowledge, i.e. the existence of a flight path, needs to be disclosed by the seller. Assessing the neighborhood is on the buyer. It is a much different thing than hiding something about the house that cannot be discovered until you live there, e.g. that the basement floods with every storm.

I agree. I think PP bought a house in 2021-22 with no inspection, escalation clause, etc and now has buyers remorse because they didn’t actually put any effort into checking out the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was as big of a problem as this board makes it out to be, the homes is Palisades would simply not continuously sell for as much as they do. We recently moved away from the area. It was nothing compared to the helicopters you constantly hear on the Hill (where we lived previously), which was also fine. I don’t get this fixation.

Is it your contention that it doesn’t diminish the value of those homes?

My contention is that there is a small, loud minority that is fixated on this issue—people who are overwhelmingly wealthy and have little else to worry about. It is a lovely area, full of lovely and very expensive homes. It is, and likely always will be, generally priced somewhere between Glover Park and Wesley Heights given the overall character of the neighborhood. If you want to show me a property value decline in response to changing flight paths, go at it and good on you for being “right.”

But more than anything, I think [b]the vocal minority continuously drawing outsized attention to some airplanes is more of a risk to property values than the actual planes.

Palisades is still in the city, despite its suburban feel. But from living there, enjoying our backyard nearly every night there was even decent weather, and taking our kid to parks continually during the weekend…I don’t get this crusade. Be grateful to live in the neighborhood you do—it’s a good one.

That all may be true, but this is exactly why the disclosures are warranted. Give people the facts, and then it’s a free and informed choice. There are many buyers who felt gaslit and didn’t have the information or the time to appreciate the problem (“some planes” = approaching a 1,000 per day). It’s a lovely neighborhood, but it has a disclosable problem. I know people who are not only miserable after the NextGen, but feel negative effects of the attitudes of their neighbors too (being mocked etc). It’s not fair. Make it fair and then enjoy your choice as you wish. People will still buy there, and someone upstream said there is no effect on real estate. Ok, but today’s situation is not fair to the buyers. It’s also imho not fair to the residents and it’s hard to influence the change when a whole bunch of people don’t want to draw attention to the issue.

It escapes me why something that is public knowledge, i.e. the existence of a flight path, needs to be disclosed by the seller. Assessing the neighborhood is on the buyer. It is a much different thing than hiding something about the house that cannot be discovered until you live there, e.g. that the basement floods with every storm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was as big of a problem as this board makes it out to be, the homes is Palisades would simply not continuously sell for as much as they do. We recently moved away from the area. It was nothing compared to the helicopters you constantly hear on the Hill (where we lived previously), which was also fine. I don’t get this fixation.

Is it your contention that it doesn’t diminish the value of those homes?

My contention is that there is a small, loud minority that is fixated on this issue—people who are overwhelmingly wealthy and have little else to worry about. It is a lovely area, full of lovely and very expensive homes. It is, and likely always will be, generally priced somewhere between Glover Park and Wesley Heights given the overall character of the neighborhood. If you want to show me a property value decline in response to changing flight paths, go at it and good on you for being “right.”

But more than anything, I think [b]the vocal minority continuously drawing outsized attention to some airplanes is more of a risk to property values than the actual planes.

Palisades is still in the city, despite its suburban feel. But from living there, enjoying our backyard nearly every night there was even decent weather, and taking our kid to parks continually during the weekend…I don’t get this crusade. Be grateful to live in the neighborhood you do—it’s a good one.

That all may be true, but this is exactly why the disclosures are warranted. Give people the facts, and then it’s a free and informed choice. There are many buyers who felt gaslit and didn’t have the information or the time to appreciate the problem (“some planes” = approaching a 1,000 per day). It’s a lovely neighborhood, but it has a disclosable problem. I know people who are not only miserable after the NextGen, but feel negative effects of the attitudes of their neighbors too (being mocked etc). It’s not fair. Make it fair and then enjoy your choice as you wish. People will still buy there, and someone upstream said there is no effect on real estate. Ok, but today’s situation is not fair to the buyers. It’s also imho not fair to the residents and it’s hard to influence the change when a whole bunch of people don’t want to draw attention to the issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was as big of a problem as this board makes it out to be, the homes is Palisades would simply not continuously sell for as much as they do. We recently moved away from the area. It was nothing compared to the helicopters you constantly hear on the Hill (where we lived previously), which was also fine. I don’t get this fixation.

Is it your contention that it doesn’t diminish the value of those homes?

My contention is that there is a small, loud minority that is fixated on this issue—people who are overwhelmingly wealthy and have little else to worry about. It is a lovely area, full of lovely and very expensive homes. It is, and likely always will be, generally priced somewhere between Glover Park and Wesley Heights given the overall character of the neighborhood. If you want to show me a property value decline in response to changing flight paths, go at it and good on you for being “right.”

But more than anything, I think the vocal minority continuously drawing outsized attention to some airplanes is more of a risk to property values than the actual planes.

Palisades is still in the city, despite its suburban feel. But from living there, enjoying our backyard nearly every night there was even decent weather, and taking our kid to parks continually during the weekend…I don’t get this crusade. Be grateful to live in the neighborhood you do—it’s a good one.

Anonymous wrote:Also much better schools and proximity to nature than in many of the areas you listed

I don’t know if you mean DC, in which case that’s not my experience. I think many posters who claim it’s not a big deal rely on how things used to be, but they really have become so much worse that it’s difficult to imagine how this would be a sound and sustainable real estate proposition. There are several houses for sale that have been sitting for a long time and several that never sold (for years, even at the height of the market). It’s buyer beware, but it seems so bad that the government ought to step in with subsidized and mandatory retrofits to protect the people (including from themselves). I’m just astounded when people say it doesn’t affect their quality of life. DCA is not losing flights, it’s only adding to the about 1k per day we have today. That’s a crazy number of flights to not notice.

Agree to disagree. It’s just not sustainable to have the level of airplane noise and pollution, and no depreciation. DC is not Manhattan, there are alternatives

Also much better schools and proximity to nature than in many of the areas you listed

Anonymous wrote:But why is that the choice? $ for $ but no planes
Wesley Heights
Observatory Circle
Mass Ave Heights
Glover Park
Chevy Chase
Woodley Park
Cleveland Park
Garfield
Georgetown East
Kalorama
I could go on, which is why I don’t think the prices won’t diverge in the future.

Because the people living here don't care about the noise and these areas already have better air quality because they're not as congested! Much nicer than AU park for example

Plus:
Forest Hills
Cathedral Heights
Wakefield
Equally leafy, great schools, no planes or pollution. Better traffic.

But why is that the choice? $ for $ but no planes
Wesley Heights
Observatory Circle
Mass Ave Heights
Glover Park
Chevy Chase
Woodley Park
Cleveland Park
Garfield
Georgetown East
Kalorama
I could go on, which is why I don’t think the prices won’t diverge in the future.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how that’s possible in the longer term. People are becoming more aware of the link between the environment and health, and the noise and planes are now impossible to miss and getting worse. From a pure investment point of view, I think it’s a rocky investment and will depreciate. Everywhere else it’s at a significant discount except here.

Don't think so. Reasonable people know that the issue is nuanced and there are risks everywhere. You could move away from the flight path and closer towards Bethesda. In many areas youll end up closer to the beltway or in more congested areas. Plenty of research on the health impacts of living close to a major highway like 495. If you want to talk about risks on cardiovascular health, let's start talking about air pollution from living next to a major highway. Or you could move from Palisades to Logan Circle. How does walking around the city streets breathing in car exhaust compare to living in a green or area like Palisades? I would bet that the data show that you are better off in Palisades. Furthermore, many of the neighborhoods that you're talking about, like 20816, are adjacent to the canal and the river, huge long stretches of greenery and fresh air. It's most likely that the net impact of air pollution from airplanes is equivalent to living in other areas, given that these areas are already better off than a place like Chevy Chase. There are risks everywhere. Like Pp said, the ZIP Codes that you mentioned are some of the best places to live in this area because of the proximity to nature. Previous posters are completely over blowing the risks of being close to the flight path.

I don’t see how that’s possible in the longer term. People are becoming more aware of the link between the environment and health, and the noise and planes are now impossible to miss and getting worse. From a pure investment point of view, I think it’s a rocky investment and will depreciate. Everywhere else it’s at a significant discount except here.

I find it hard to believe that home prices will be impacted.

20815, 20816, 20016 are three of the wealthiest, and most educated, zip codes in the country. Do you think we all went into buying 1,2,5M+ homes without realizing planes fly overhead?

News shock, the vast majority of residents/buyers do not care.

Anonymous wrote:That’s fair! What’s the future hold in your opinion?

Status quo with very small shifts in the flight path from time to time. Neighborhoods under and near the flight path will continue to be very expensive, though perhaps less than they would be without the flight path.

That’s fair! What’s the future hold in your opinion?