Skip to main content

Another Myth: Declining Property Values

At every recent local event at which antinuclear activists have spoken, at least one has lamented the "certain" decline of property values around Lake Anna that would accompany construction of a new power plant.

In contrast, Addison Hall, a colleague of mine, showed me a story in the November, 2004 issue of Money (subscription required). The article is titled "Why Would Anyone Own Florida Real Estate?" and explores the social and financial reasons that, despite popular belief, disasters like hurricanes rarely harm home prices.

To support his contention, the author states:
Two studies found that the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island had no discernible impact on local home prices. That's right: The neighborhood nuke comes this close to a meltdown—and property values don't even shudder.
On a personal note, property values in Louisa and Spotsylvania counties have risen so much in the past few years that I, and most people that I know, cannot afford lakefront property anywhere near the North Anna plant. In fact, one recent news story said that property tax assesments in Louisa County have increased by 35 percent over the past two years -- hardly an indication of declining property values.


Kelly L. Taylor said…
There have been extensive studies done on how local unwanted land use can affect property values - meaning, is my land worth less because of its proximity to some nasty industrial facility? Here is a link to an analysis and overview of several studies. But the upshot is that, contrary to popular quotes in the news otherwise, the Three Mile Island newsfest of 1979 did not affect property values in that area. It might make interesting discussion to review what types of facilities that actually DO affect property values, when a nuclear power plant does not...
Anonymous said…
Hmm I'm wondering if Chernobyl effected property values in Pripyat. Oh wait, it's a ghost town now! hmph.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…