Day: June 11, 2016

It’s always an amusing surprise to me when I see Dr. Sandy Bond’s 2007 research on cell towers and property values quoted in public hearings.  It happened again a few days ago during a hearing in which I participated, when a resident told the government leaders that cell towers lower property values by 21% (not 20%; not 22%, but 21%).

Here’s the citation to Bond’s 2007 report in case you’d like to read the source materials (most people don’t):

Sandy Bond (2007) Cell Phone Tower Proximity Impacts on House Prices: A New Zealand Case Study, Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 13:1, 63-91, DOI:10.1080/14445921.2007.11104223

I find it fascinating that the people who cite the number have no idea about what’s in the report, or that Dr. Bond’s research methodology has been roundly criticized by Filippova and Rehm (2011).

Here’s the cite to Filipova and Rehm’s research strongly challenging Bond’s 2007 research:

Filippova, O. and Rehm, M. (2011), “The impact of proximity to cell phone towers on residential property values”, International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 244-267.

Go ahead and read both documents, and then make an informed decision as to whether you would want to be associated with the 21% number.  I certainly don’t.

Finally, in about 90 days I’ll be publishing my findings on hedonic price modeling to assess the dis-amenity value of a cell site near a home, this time a bit closer to the U.S., specifically in Calabasas, California.  My research discloses that hedonic price modeling–if it ever had a valid place in research–is no longer any sort of useful tool in this line of research for reasons discussed in my thesis that could not have been known to Bond, Filippova, or Rehm, or to the few researchers to who followed down the same rabbit hole.

Living 5G Large, baby!