We are fighting placement of a 190 foot cell phone tower in a
semi-rural Ohio community. I am looking for information that supports
any or all of the following statements:

1. A cell phone tower near a residential property lowers the current
value of that property.

2. A cell phone tower near a residential property limits or reduces
the otherwise expected increase in the resale value of that property.

3. It is very difficult to sell a home that is near a cell phone tower.

4. The presence of a cell phone tower in a neighborhood curtails
building of new  homes.

5. The presence of a cell phone tower in a neighborhood encourages the
presence of lower income housing, such as trailer parks.

I would also like the following information with documentation:

Based on a 190 foot cell phone tower, residential property values are
____ % lower for properties within sight of the tower.

Based on a 190 foot cell phone tower, residential property values are
____ % lower for properties within 1500 feet of the tower.

Based on a 190 foot cell phone tower, residential property values are
____ % lower for properties "in the shadow" of the tower.

This is the second attempt to do this. The first one they tried to put
in was 290 feet tall! Is there a database or list of towers in various
areas including height, so we can see if the ones they are trying to
put in here are unusually tall for this type of area?

Any other info that you feel would be relevant and useful is appreciated! 

We really don't want them to rip out the beautiful woods a block from
our home and put in a cell phone tower there instead. Please help us
gather some good, well-documented ammunition.

I've seen them put the cell phone tower inside a church steeple.  You
don't see it there and the church gets some revenue.  That way you
don't see it and it shouldn't reduce the property values.  Is there
such a structure nearby?  I have also seen them put it on top of
existing water towers.

There are several other sites they can use, including a water tower.
We're trying to get them to consider other options than on top of the
residences.

- Hammer

(1) In a paper presented at the Ninth Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society
Conference, Brisbane, Australia 19-22 January 2003, titled "The Impact
Of Cellular Phone Base Station Towers On Property Values", Sandy Bond
et al. have shown a decrease in perceived property value in New
Zealand following the installment of Cellular Phone Base Station
Towers (CPBSs): those who don't have a CPBS installed in their area
expressed concerns, objection, etc.

Read it here: 
Bond, Sandy. et al. 2003. "The Impact Of Cellular Phone Base Station
Towers On Property Values", paper presented at the Ninth Pacific-Rim
Real Estate Society Conference, Brisbane, Australia 19-22 January
2003, <http://business.unisa.edu.au/prres/Proceedings/Proceedings2003/Bond_The_Impact_Of_Cellular_Phone_Base_Station_Towers_On_Property_Values.pdf>
(PDF document).

There are varying rates of decrease in value, theoretical ("if there
had been" a  CPBS), indicated in this study and I could not locate a
reliable study on the actual decrease.

Media reports indicate the same: 
"Los Altos residents Jackie Wright and Christine Vieira Sellers expect
a property value drop of 10 percent or more resulting from the Verizon
monopole to be erected near their homes. [...] but Zachary Carter, a
planning consultant with Cingular, said people, conversely, may opt
out of buying a home due to poor cell-phone coverage. "It comes down
to money. 'It's going to depreciate the value of my home,'" Carter
said, repeating comments he has heard repeatedly as he has worked with
neighborhoods across Silicon Valley about antenna placement. "But as
time goes on, they have to have cell-phone service. They won't buy the
house without it." [...] "Cell-phone towers affect people's
perceptions," said Bobbi Lynn Taylor, a resident near the SDA church.
"There's a perception that cell-phone towers cause cancer. As long as
there's a perception, our property is going to be less marketable and
valuable." (SOURCE:  Bruce Barton , "The antenna dilemma", April 14,
2004 <http://latc.com/2004/04/14/news/news01.html>).

Sorry I couldn't help.

Thanks, politicalguru!

- Hammer

You have to take which company is placing the tower.  For example
Nextel purposly hides their towers so they can not be seen.  They have
towers that look like cactus and statues and other such  things.  If
it is Nextel you will not even knbow the tower is there.  Google
"nextel" towers "cactus" and one result with geek in the title
actrually has a picture of a cell tower disgised as a tree.  Modern
cell towers do not necessarily effect property values or sky lines

Hello.

You have to look at the root causes for 'why' the property prices are
expected to decrease following the constructon of a cell-phone tower.

There are two main reasons, I think:

- Perceived health problems and the danger of living so close to the antenna
- The destruction of natural landscape and scenery which can lead to
the area around the house looking unattractive.

Let us first look at perceived heath problems. This is a controversial
issue, and in your arguement you do not need to proove that a health
problem exists, only that a PERCEIVED health problem exists. In other
words, people FEEL that it is unsafe. This will definately affect
house prices, since who would want to live in an area which is unsafe
for you and your family.

There have bee several studies conducted into the health effects of
living near mobile phone masts. Listed hereunder are five studies
showing the effects of mobile phone masts (from Dr Grahame Blackwell)

1. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile
phone base stations. (Santini et al.) - Pathol Biol (Paris)
[Pathologie Biologie (Paris)] 2002; 50: 369

Found significant health effects on people living within 300 metres of
mobile phone base stations. Conclusions include the recommendation:
"it is advisable that mobile phone base stations not be sited closer
than 300 meters to populations"

2. Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) -
Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing,
Spatial Planning and the Environment, and Health, Welfare and Sport
Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On
WellBeing and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without
Subjective Complaints" (September 2003)

Found significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of
internationally-recognised criteria (including headaches, muscle
fatigue/pain, dizziness etc) from 3G mast emissions well below
accepted 'safety' levels (less than 1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines).

3. The mimcrowave syndrome - further aspects of a Spanish Study -
Oberfeld Gerd1, Navarro A. Enrique3, Portoles Manue12, Maestu
Ceferino4,Gomez-Perretta Claudio2 1. Public Health Department
Salzburg, Austria 2. University Hospital La Fe. Valencia, Spain 3.
Department of Applied Physics, University Valencia, Spain 4.
Foundation European Bioelectromagnetism (FEB) Madrid, Spain -
Presented at an International Conference in Kos (Greece), 2004.

This study found significant ill-health effects in those living in the
vicinity of two GSM mobile phone base stations. They observed that:
"The strongest five associations found are depressive tendency,
fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and
cardiovascular problems." As their conclusion the research team wrote:
"Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for
levels not higher than 0.02 V/m forthe sum total, which is equal to a
power density of 0.0001 µW/cni2 or1 µW/m2, which is the indoor
exposure value for GSM base stations proposedon empirical evidence by
the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburgin 2002."

4. Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter
station. Ronni Wolf MD1, Danny Wolf MD2 1. The Dermatology Unit,
Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine,
Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL. 2. The Pediatric Outpatient
Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL. Published in:
International Journal of Cancer Prevention Volume 1, No. 2, April
2004.

This study, based on medical records of people living within 350
metres of along-established phone mast, showed a four fold increased
incidence of cancer generally compared with the general population of
Israel, and a tenfold increase specifically among women, compared with
the surrounding locality further from the mast.

5. Naila Study, Germany (November 2004) - Report by researchers (five
medical doctors).

Following the call by Wolfram König, President of the Bundesamt für
Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency for radiation protection), to all
doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the
risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine
whether people living close to cellular transmitter antennas were
exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors. The
basis of the data used for the survey were PC fi1esof the case
histories of patients between the years 1994 and 2004. While
adheringto data protection, the personal data of almost 1.000 patients
were evaluatedfor this study, which was completed without any external
financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form
of a register.

The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing
cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had
lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from
the cellular transmitter site, which bas been in operation since 1993,
compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients
fell ill on average 8 years earlier. In the years 1999-2004, i.e.
after five years' operation of the transmitting installation, the
relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the
area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants
of Naila outside the area.

--

Now, that will definately affect the value of the house. If you read this article 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,963154,00.html

you will find some very interesting quotes regarding the pric of
property in respect to cell phone masts. For example:

"Once it was the nightmare of a new motorway being built on their
doorsteps that haunted homeowners anxious to preserve the value of
their houses. But now a new threat is wiping tens of thousands of
pounds off the value of properties across Britain: mobile phone
masts."

So it seems that just like living next to a freeway or large road may
decrease the value of your house, there is a perception that living
near a cell phone tower will do the same.

Another interesting quote from the article is: 

"It can be a bit like dealing with negative equity. Some houses just
become very, very difficult to sell and if you need to move quickly
for your job or family reasons, then you are going to have a real
problem,' said Alasdair Philips, founder of Powerwatch, an anti-phone
mast lobby group"

And, a really stunning quote from the article which should really
drive home your point to any who are unconvinced that house prices may
decrease near a cell phone tower:

"Melfyn Williams, chairman of the National Association of Estate
Agents, said in some cases a mast could see a home reduce in value by
between 5 and 10 per cent. 'It is not scaremongering. It is more about
a growing fear of the unknown of what the health risks are, especially
among those with young children,' he said.

Campaigners are considering legal action to seek compensation for the
loss in value of their properties or to get the masts removed. Last
week, seven householders in Swindon won sums of between £10,000 and
£20,000 each from their local council after it mistakenly allowed a
mast to be erected in the middle of their residential street, causing
their properties to crash in value."

SO, according to the chairman of the National Association of Estate
Agents (i.e. a professional in the field of property, not just a
layman) house prices might decrease between £10,000 - £20,000! That is
quite a statistic! £10,000 is about $18000 USD.

A study which you may wish to consider was condected by Hometrack
(which is described as an independent property database company, I
believe their website is www.hometrack.co.uk ) found that Mobile
phone/telecoms masts decreased the home value about 3%. Just for
example, if your property was worth $250,000 - then if this study can
be accurately applied to your conditons; 3% is $7,500!

You can find details here:
http://www.gafs.co.uk/OP/GAF/Help-The-perfect-neighbourhood.htm

There is also quite a thorough article regarding the topic here, which
you should read: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf08353e.html

It describes the evidence that property values are impacted by the
placement of antenna towers. Here is an intresting quote:

" There are at least two instances in Canada where the assessed value
of residential properties were reduced due to close proximity to
commercial antenna towers. In Red Deer, Alberta, a three percent
downward adjustment was made recently to the assessments of eight
residential properties that back directly onto a microwave tower site.
The justification for the reduction was the impact of the tower upon
the aesthetics of the neighbouring lands. (Footnote 336)

In 2001, the assessed values of sixteen residential properties located
in Colwood, British Columbia were reduced by BC Assessment by an
average of 7.2% (approx. $9,500 each) due to the aesthetic impacts of
a broadcasting antenna tower installation that had been recently
upgraded. (Footnote 337) "

There are quite a few studies referenced in that article which you can
look at by clicking on the 'Footnote'

I hope you find these statistics useful. To summarise, in one example,
the professional estimated a decrease of 5 - 10% in house prices,
which is quite large and obviously undesirable. In the other example,
a professional organisation estimted decreases of about 3%, which is
still substantial. The Canadian case examples cited thereafter also
show a decrease, again of substantial amounts, attributable to the
installation of cell phone towers; of 3% in one, and 7.2% in the
other.

Moreover, there is the health effect to consider - do you really want
to live so close to a cell phone tower which may not prove to be safe
in the long-term for yourself or your family? I certainly would not.

Try and make a petition and get all your neighbours to sign it, it
that is feasible.

I hope this answer helps you.

Sorry, in the Canadian examples cited, it doesn't specifically mention
cell phone towers, but just 'antenna towers', even though they might
have been for cell phones. The point is though, according to that
article, such a large decrease in value was due to *aesthetic*
considerations, not health considerations. So the same aesthetic
considerations may apply in you case, where the tower is so tall and
they want to put it in a beautiful area.

Thanks.

In the northeast, perception of cell tower views or proximity to
towers is negative.  I am currently seeking quantative data for help
to homeowners to further support these opinions and perceptions.  I
will share this information as information becomes available.