Marijuana Odor Lowers Property Value?

[Ariba]

A property owner complained that a Marijana farm operation lowered their property value by about $30,000. The court, in this case, ruled against the homeowner throwing cold water on future legal challenges. Is that right if you can show by doing an appraisal that there is an impact? How would you go about this and be ready to testify in court?

 

[TRESinc]

research

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Sales of impacted properties compared to those not impacted--survey of agents.................

 

[Dublin ohio]

The court, in this case, ruled against the homeowner

I would look through case documents. Had to be some kind of evidence (or lack thereof) presented on both sides. Might be a good starting point.

 

[glenn walker]

This was filed as racketeering lawsuit under RICO alleging proximity to pot operations hurts their property value and this was a case arguing that marijuana farms are violating Federal Drug laws. If they would have prevailed every marijuana operation in the State would have been closed down and basically made it illegal for States to allow it to be grown. Basically a slick tactic by plaintiffs but dead in the water.

RICO was a federal law passed to go after organized crime, drug dealers and other syndicated organizations, this pot farm was deemed to be legal and licensed by the State and the Jury did not buy the plaintiffs claim of damages. The California case is going nowhere because half the jurors are pot smokers.

 

[Carlos Danger]

well that's an important bit of info.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

racketeering lawsuit under RICO

That is a very stupid mistake for a lawyer to make. I was sued for the same thing when I appraised a chicken farm and was accused by the defaulting borrower six years later of colluding with the bank to cheat them. Really...it was literally laughed out of Federal court. As Glenn said...this was intended for organized criminal mobs and the courts explicitly said so when dismissing the charges.

 

[Phil McDonald]

I think the RICO argument will be difficult. They went down this path because it is illegal on a federal level but it is legal on a local level and the federal government is not taking action against the local legalization.

It would not be difficult to prove that there is an adverse impact on value, that part is easy. Awarding damages is much more difficult.

If damages could be awarded for this then everytime a change of zoning happened allowing a commercial use or different use then homeowners could file suit for damage. Everytime a road was built or improved to handle more traffic then homeowners could file suit.

The fresh aroma of pot constantly impacting your property is going to have an adverse impact on value just like the fresh aroma of cow manure from a feedlot or dairy is going to have an adverse impact on value.

Caveat emptor. If you are concerned about a grow facility then don't buy a property in a county which is actively recruiting grow facilities because one might end up next door.

 

[Elliott]

I did an appraisal a month ago, had a grow operation of a dozen plants. I took a photo, included it in the report and only labeled it "grow plants."

Couple weeks later the AMC wanted a 1004D with the "plants" gone. Which I did. I take that is the state of federal lending. They don't want to see a property with any kind of an operation.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

If you are concerned about a grow facility then don't buy a property

Yep, I was by the Happy Camper Cannabis Company in your state just a few days ago... dopey name but whatever. I wouldn't want to live there.