94% of respondents said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact value or interest in a property. Another study showed a 21% reduction after a cell phone base station was built nearby.
  • 82
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    82
    Shares
by ElectromagneticHealth.org | see original news release
94% of respondents said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact value or interest in a property

cell tower infrastructure on rooftopsThe National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s survey Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability? initiated June 2, 2014, has now been completed by 1,000 respondents as of June 28, 2014. The survey, which circulated online through email and social networking sites, in both the U.S. and abroad, sought to determine if nearby cell towers and antennas, or wireless antennas placed on top of or on the side of a building, would impact a home buyer’s or renter’s interest in a real estate property.

The overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it.
And 79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antenna.

  • 94% said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact interest in a property or the price they would be willing to pay for it.
  • 94% said a cell tower or group of antennas on top of, or attached to, an apartment building would negatively impact interest in the apartment building or the price they would be willing to pay for it.
  • 95% said they would opt to buy or rent a property that had zero antennas on the building over a comparable property that had several antennas on the building.
  • 79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas.
  • 88% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property with a cell tower or group of antennas on top of, or attached to, the apartment building.
  • 89% said they were generally concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood.

The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP) was curious if respondents had previous experience with physical or cognitive effects of wireless radiation, or if their concern about neighborhood antennas was unrelated to personal experience with the radiation.

Of the 1,000 respondents, 57% had previously experienced cognitive effects from radiation emitted by a cell phone, wireless router, portable phone, utility smart meter, or neighborhood antenna or cell tower, and 43% had not experienced cognitive effects. 63% of respondents had previously experienced physical effects from these devices or neighborhood towers and antennas and 37% had not experienced physical effects.

The majority of respondents provided contact information indicating they would like to receive the results of this survey or news related to the possible connection between neighborhood cell towers and antennas and real estate decisions.

Comments from real estate brokers who completed the NISLAPP survey:

“I am a real estate broker in NYC. I sold a townhouse that had a cell tower attached. Many potential buyers chose to avoid purchasing the property because of it. There was a long lease.”

“I own several properties in Santa Fe, NM and believe me, I have taken care not to buy near cell towers. Most of these are rental properties and I think I would have a harder time renting those units… were a cell tower or antenna nearby. Though I have not noticed any negative health effects myself, I know many people are affected. And in addition, these antennas and towers are often extremely ugly–despite the attempt in our town of hiding them as chimneys or fake trees.”

“We are home owners and real estate investors in Marin County and have been for the last 25 years. We own homes and apartment building here in Marin. We would not think of investing in real estate that would harm our tenants. All our properties are free of smart meters. Thank you for all of your work.”

“I’m a realtor. I’ve never had a single complaint about cell phone antennae. Electric poles, on the other hand, are a huge problem for buyers.”

Study: 21% reduction in property value if cell phone tower built

towers-copyConcern was expressed in the comments section by respondents about potential property valuation declines near antennas and cell towers. While the NISLAPP survey did not evaluate property price declines, a study on this subject by Sandy Bond, PhD of the New Zealand Property Institute, and Past President of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES), The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods, was published in The Appraisal Journal of the Appraisal Institute in 2006. The Appraisal Institute is the largest global professional organization for appraisers with 91 chapters.

The study indicated that homebuyers would pay from 10%–19% less to over 20% less for a property if it were in close proximity to a cell phone base station. The ‘opinion’ survey results were then confirmed by a market sales analysis. The results of the sales analysis showed prices of properties were reduced by around 21% after a cell phone base station was built in the neighborhood.”

Additional comments

The Appraisal Journal study added,

“Even buyers who believe that there are no adverse health effects from cell phone base stations, knowing that other potential buyers might think the reverse, will probably seek a price discount for a property located near a cell phone base station.”

 James S. Turner, Esq., Chairman of the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy and Partner, Swankin & Turner in Washington, D.C., says,

“The recent NISLAPP survey suggests there is now a high level of awareness about potential risks from cell towers and antennas. In addition, the survey indicates respondents believe they have personally experienced cognitive (57%) or physical (63%) effects from radiofrequency radiation from towers, antennas or other radiating devices, such as cell phones, routers, smart meters and other consumer electronics. Almost 90% are concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas generally. A study of real estate sales prices would be beneficial at this time in the Unites States to determine what discounts homebuyers are currently placing on properties near cell towers and antennas.”

 Betsy Lehrfeld, Esq., an attorney and Executive Director of NISLAPP, says,

“The proliferation of this irradiating infrastructure throughout our country would never have occurred in the first place had Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 not prohibited state and local governments from regulating the placement of wireless facilities on health or environmental grounds. The federal preemption leaves us in a situation today where Americans are clearly concerned about risks from antennas and towers, some face cognitive and physical health consequences, yet they and their families increasingly have no choice but to endure these exposures, while watching their real property valuations decline.”

The National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP) in Washington, D.C. was founded in 1978 to bridge the gap between scientific uncertainties and the need for laws protecting public health and safety. Its overriding objective is to bring practitioners of science and law together to develop intelligent policy that best serves all interested parties in a given controversy. Its focus is on the points at which these two disciplines converge.

NISLAPP contact:
James S. Turner, Esq.
(202) 462-8800 / jim@swankin-turner.com
Emily Roberson
er79000@yahoo.com

If you can support NISLAPP’s work, please donate at the bottom of this page.

* * *

Commentary from ElectromagneticHealth.org:

Response to EMF real estate survey conducted by The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy:

ElectromagneticHealth.org suggests real estate agents and homebuyers be aware at this time that there are indeed perceived risks associated with real estate properties located in proximity to cell towers and antennas impacting both 1) interest in a given property and 2) a property’s price.

Real estate agents are advised to:

  1. Familiarize themselves with AntennaSearch.com to be able to find antennas and hidden antennas in a neighborhood,
  2. Learn to work with an RF meter to be able to competently assess a property and neighborhood for RF electromagnetic fields from both external infrastructure sources and in-home devices,
  3. Learn how real estate properties with high RF exposures can be physically remediated or mitigated (and when this is not practical),
  4. Understand at what distance from cell towers and antennas research is indicating biological and health effects, including the increased incidence of cancer. (See cell tower studies in Some Studies Showing Cell Tower Health Impacts”)
  5. Learn the potential health consequences of the new radiating utility meters, called ‘smart meters’, and be able to identify and evaluate them.
  6. Understand the special importance of low RF in bedrooms, from all sources, and especially in the bedrooms of children.
  7. Be able to advise clients on improving home safety from internal and external electromagnetic fields.

Given there are over 220,000 cell phone towers in the United States, over 50 million wireless networks and untold numbers of antennas on or even inside buildings, and new risks from utility meters and the wireless networks that support them, real estate agents would best be conversant in the risks, and perceived risks, of electromagnetic fields. If ElectromagneticHealth.org can be of help to real estate agents, please do not hesitate to be in touch at info@ElectromagneticHealth.org.

Josh del Sol Beaulieu

Josh del Sol Beaulieu is the creator of Take Back Your Power, a documentary about 'smart' meters which won the AwareGuide Transformational Film of the Year, the Indie Fest Annual Humanitarian Award, and a Leo Award. In 2017, Josh co-founded InPower Movement, pioneering a process using commercial liability to halt harmful technology such as 'smart' meters, 5G and mandatory vaccinations. Josh is passionate about human rights, consciousness, decentralized energy, safe technology and being a dad.

View all posts

3 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • It is a very argumentative topic as in real estate cell towers has it’s own advantages & disadvantages. Considering the fact the only disadvantage that people think of living in areas with cell towers is the health issue. The percentage of radiation level that is dissipated by cell towers is less than 1% and it is being wrongly judged by people. The advantage of that area is that the cell phone reception, the signals would be excellent, secondly there are chances for landowners to earn money for providing their land for cell tower lease to other cell companies as well. Nowadays, cell tower lease rates are dependent on various factors and if the location is favorable, people can earn a decent amount for a considerable length of time because of agreement.

    • Respectfully, you are misinformed, sir. See the BioInitiative Report which is the latest, most authoritative, independent science-based report. Authored by 29 scientists, including 21 PhDs and 10 Medical doctors from 10 countries, it should help clear up a few things for you. You may also want to visit the International Commission on Electro Magnetic Safety (ICEMS). Don’t confuse ICEMS with ICES, which is a committee of the IEEE. ICES’ key members are the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel-Lucent and Bell, so one would be wise to look elsewhere for the truth. ICEMS on the other hand is an entirely independent body of international scientists. Also view the Salzburg Resolution of 2000. Or the Seletun Statement 2010. One should note that no insurance company will insure against health-related claims attributed to any wireless techology! Within the U.S. Government, the EPA (on 3 occasions spanning many years) plus the FDA, Consumer Affairs Commission, NIOSH and OSHA, and NIEHS have all tried either to have the U.S.’ egregiously high radiation Exposure Limits drastically reduced and/or have the USA (like Canada) admit that non-thermal radiation – the kind that is emitted by all of today’s wireless devices – is harmful not just to people but to all forms of life. The USA, like Canada, the WHO and ICNIRP all recognize only THERMAL radiation! Sadly, as we learned with tobacco and asbestos, money corrupts even nice otherwise decent people! Regards, Jerry

  • Those antennas will make Willow Glen look Hideous. Gives that feeling of when you enter a run-down neighborhood with barb wire fences all around.
    You say the cost of wireless phones will go down, who’s kidding who? Prices more than likely will be raised, if not already to cover the cost of these antennas,

    I already feel sorry for all the people who had those metal boxes placed near their homes.

    Enough is enough, I just want to walk around my neighborhood and enjoy the trees and the beauty,,,not more metal.