MV effect of meth addict group home

[JSmith43]

Anyone with data on the effect on market value of a group home for meth addicts placed by state permit amidst a pocket development of SF residences (moderate+ value homes on 2+ acre parcels).

Public officials have conjectured that there would be little effect on market value, so, why not a poll among appraisers, just in case no one posts info. regarding a relevant market study?

 

[Otis Key]

No info on group homes but I do have it on individual properties that are contaminated by it. So does DB. I would think it would have as much of an impact (or lack thereof) as other drug group housing set ups in other areas. I have noticed that the city has tended to put these here in less than "desired" developed areas (those where most of the problems already exist).

BTW, blame the double post on Wayne having the AF on spin cycle.

 

[JSmith43]

No info on group homes but I do have it on individual properties that are contaminated by it. So does DB. I would think it would have as much of an impact (or lack thereof) as other drug group housing set ups in other areas. I have noticed that the city has tended to put these here in less than "desired" developed areas (those where most of the problems already exist).

BTW, blame the double post on Wayne having the AF on spin cycle.

Thanks for the info, Otis. I put the poll here, since it is a normal residential consideration now a days. Check out the real life scenario I posted in the Commercial forum. That question is along the lines of a possible uncompensated taking. But, this poll is related.

I hope the two functions are distinct enough so that the mods don't consider it a double post. It is a very important emerging situation, IMO.

 

[Otis Key]

I meant right here in the general residential folder. Hmmm, uncompensated taking? That could generate a long lasting lawsuit against the city, IMHO.

 

[JSmith43]

I meant right here in the general residential folder. Hmmm, uncompensated taking? That could generate a long lasting lawsuit against the city, IMHO.

Actually, it is the state putting a hammer lock on the local zoning authorities with state wide pre-emption language. It appears that they can issue permits and drop these half way houses, or whatever they are called into existing SF neighborhoods.

Personally, I think it would be more acceptable to locate an accounting firm amidst a SF residential neighborhood as opposed to a half way house for drug addicts. In one instance, the conformity of use is disrupted a bit and in the second instance, the neighborhood would have the appeal of a swimming pool with a floating "Baby Ruth". And who hasn't seen the reaction to that in Caddy Shack

What is next? Ex cons as a protected class? I'd like the opinion of appraisers on the value question. And, I'd love to see the opinion of appraisers as voters on the Fair housing aspect.

Is this fair housing card being played too often, to the possible future detriment of protected classes that are obviously in need of such consideration by society? I'm concerned about a legitimate backlash reaction to an overreach leading to resentment, not fair treatment.

 

[Doug Wegener]

Recovery homes

Anyone with data on the effect on market value of a group home for meth addicts placed by state permit amidst a pocket development of SF residences (moderate+ value homes on 2+ acre parcels).

Public officials have conjectured that there would be little effect on market value, so, why not a poll among appraisers, just in case no one posts info. regarding a relevant market study?

No study but some observations. When I appraised in a small town in Oregon there was a group recovery home located in a section of town known as "felony flats" by some. In other words, there was a lot of drug use and crime going on in that neighborhood (lots of rentals too) and everybody knew it.

Putting a recovery home in that neighborhood wasnt an "injury". As a matter of fact, the recovery home was supervised and the residents tested. So I think it very much depends on the neigborhood. As everyone knows all neighborhoods are not created equal.

 

[JSmith43]

Doug says:

Putting a recovery home in that neighborhood wasnt an "injury". As a matter of fact, the recovery home was supervised and the residents tested. So I think it very much depends on the neigborhood. As everyone knows all neighborhoods are not created equal.

Is that kind of like the difference in reaction to a Baby Ruth floating in a pool vs a Baby Ruth floating in a toilet?

If there is already a concentration of meth labs and addicts in a particular area, an addict group home may not seem like a significant addition.

I would think the answer would be to clean up the blighted areas rather than blight up the clean areas Of course, I am only one easily intimidated and guilt ridden voter. And, yes, I swallowed hard before introducing this topic and am now cowering behind the second amendment parchment

 

[Doug Wegener]

And how do you write up the report?:

"No significant injury due to a rehab facility being nearby as this conforms well to the area, much like a "baby ruth" in a toilet."

Colorful.

 

[Mike Boyd]

Roger....I have done appraisals on many homes converted to care facilities but none related to drug rehab. However, in my market area there seems to be 1 or 2 incidents a year where the public gets up-in-arms about allowing such in a residential neighborhood. The objections seem to be related to proximity to schools, 24 hour a day activity, derelict appearing residents walking the streets and other subjective objections (is that a contradictory combination of words or what?) No one has been able to effectively stop this type of activity as the public "need" outweighs individual fears. In my area, a use permit is needed which is accompanied by public meetings where neighbors and interested parties are asked for their input. All this seems to provoke restrictions on how many residents are allowed, monitoring of the resident's activities, and, in one case I recall, the recidividism of the residents selected for the home. I do not recall a single flat out rejection of the use permit. The biggest squables come from applications made in neighborhoods that are considered "prime" rather than average.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Anyone with data on the effect on market value of a group home for meth addicts placed by state permit amidst a pocket development of SF residences (moderate+ value homes on 2+ acre parcels).

Public officials have conjectured that there would be little effect on market value, so, why not a poll among appraisers, just in case no one posts info. regarding a relevant market study?

Halfway houses for drug, sex and other parole of criminals may be allowed by the state, however, it does not fit within the normal activity and use of a neighborhood of track housing.

I know that if parents with young children know ahead of time that a registered sex offender is living on the same street or within blocks of the house for sale, they will not even consider buying a home in such a neighborhood. So if that is the case, the demand will be cut by the amount of parents with children looking to buy. It could affect value, especially is a slowing market with inventory build up.

If you are in a buyer's market, why would anyone choose to buy near a halfway house of any kind?