Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it’s not true for most of DMV. Most of DC gets none! This gaslighting is really tiresome!

An example of a disclosure

https://www.loudoun.gov/5657/Airport-Impact-Overlay-District-Update

An example of a consequence

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/real-estate/fl-bz-real-estate-col-03202017-story.html

I know which I’d rather have, and I sense we disagree b/c you want to, to borrow the language, punk the next punter

I spend plenty of time at lots of places around the DMV watching lax, and I'm struggling to think of any built-up area in close-in DC that doesn't get airplane (or helicopter) noise. Where is this magical place?

I don't see any measurements on that Loudon county map, but it looks like the AOID area is, at most, three miles around the airport (and more like two miles around the majority of the perimeter). If you applied that to DCA, it wouldn't capture much residential areas outside Alexandria. Certainly not the Palisades.

Everywhere else. OMG. There was a map posted on this thread. You know, emulating the other posters, if you can’t do your own homework, too bad. Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever. I don’t think so, I think there should be very explicit guidelines and disclosures in place. I think the Palisades and Foxhall exceeded the Loudon County zoning rules for the residential use zoning a while ago, and so did the communities across the river. I don’t think it’s the seller and buyer contract issue any longer, because it’s objectively harmful to the health of the residents, and children in particular, as well as exceeding the DC noise regulations, and it’s completely unfair to leave it to the two parties to sort it out. I wouldn’t be surprised seeing how we’ve never sorted out the Spring Valley.
But I can assure you, being somewhat young, that all our peer homebuyers in fact pay attention. So either sort it out fairly and transparently, with the government footing the bill as needed, or the next generation will not fall for it, and frankly this is a public health hazard. I can’t see it being done while your own neighbors are undermining you. At the very least, if you come to dcum, you won’t be punked. By Good luck and good night

I assure you someone will buy the house. I’m sorry you were too stupid to notice the planes before you bought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it’s not true for most of DMV. Most of DC gets none! This gaslighting is really tiresome!

An example of a disclosure

https://www.loudoun.gov/5657/Airport-Impact-Overlay-District-Update

An example of a consequence

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/real-estate/fl-bz-real-estate-col-03202017-story.html

I know which I’d rather have, and I sense we disagree b/c you want to, to borrow the language, punk the next punter

I spend plenty of time at lots of places around the DMV watching lax, and I'm struggling to think of any built-up area in close-in DC that doesn't get airplane (or helicopter) noise. Where is this magical place?

I don't see any measurements on that Loudon county map, but it looks like the AOID area is, at most, three miles around the airport (and more like two miles around the majority of the perimeter). If you applied that to DCA, it wouldn't capture much residential areas outside Alexandria. Certainly not the Palisades.

Anonymous wrote:No it’s not true for most of DMV. Most of DC gets none! This gaslighting is really tiresome!

An example of a disclosure

https://www.loudoun.gov/5657/Airport-Impact-Overlay-District-Update

An example of a consequence

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/real-estate/fl-bz-real-estate-col-03202017-story.html

I know which I’d rather have, and I sense we disagree b/c you want to, to borrow the language, punk the next punter

Anonymous wrote:Whatever. I don’t think so, I think there should be very explicit guidelines and disclosures in place. I think the Palisades and Foxhall exceeded the Loudon County zoning rules for the residential use zoning a while ago, and so did the communities across the river. I don’t think it’s the seller and buyer contract issue any longer, because it’s objectively harmful to the health of the residents, and children in particular, as well as exceeding the DC noise regulations, and it’s completely unfair to leave it to the two parties to sort it out. I wouldn’t be surprised seeing how we’ve never sorted out the Spring Valley.
But I can assure you, being somewhat young, that all our peer homebuyers in fact pay attention. So either sort it out fairly and transparently, with the government footing the bill as needed, or the next generation will not fall for it, and frankly this is a public health hazard. I can’t see it being done while your own neighbors are undermining you. At the very least, if you come to dcum, you won’t be punked. By Good luck and good night

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sensitive to noise and will be forever grateful to the sellers who did not conceal their window inserts during the open house. It was a very subtle and very fair disclosure. House sold to someone who hopefully didn’t find the planes distracting. It’s a nice example of a fair transaction. I have only seen this left in situ in one situation but know that many use these in their houses.

Just curious -- how did they disclose? Are you just saying that they left the inserts in place and you noticed them, or did they do something more affirmative to disclose the noise?

Anonymous wrote:I’m sensitive to noise and will be forever grateful to the sellers who did not conceal their window inserts during the open house. It was a very subtle and very fair disclosure. House sold to someone who hopefully didn’t find the planes distracting. It’s a nice example of a fair transaction. I have only seen this left in situ in one situation but know that many use these in their houses.

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP and that’s definitely not the case. As you can maybe tell from my coming out in favor of the disclosure proposals, I have no desire to add a flight path or the jet emission pollution to the things I voluntarily add to my (and DCs life). However, there are PPs on this thread who have said as much (some have since moved).

I just happen to think that disclosures are the safest and easiest move that protects any side in this type of real estate market. Fair aside, DC is a consumer protection state so it may be just a matter of time before someone takes someone to court and is successful. There are sufficient precedents in FL and WA. Even IAD has a general disclosure related to the real estate.

But it’s interesting that your first instinct is to mock someone in the hope they are shamed into being quiet. Why is that?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In my experience, not only is it hard to tell during 1-2 visits that were the max possible in the buyer’s market, but the real estate agents have purposefully minimized the situation to the prospective buyers. We once insisted on sitting in the bedroom in an otherwise modern house to see how bad it would be (it was borderline on a Sunday, a disaster on Monday). That made it clear how distracted we tend to be during the open house or home visit; these are quick and there is a lot to see plus there’s quite din typically. Didn’t know about the pollution then. We walked and like the other PP are very glad we did. That was our personal choice, and we respect that the others have theirs and a higher tolerance. But it’s not fair to claim it’s not an issue.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.