that because JCHE paide 500,000 for a piece of property they needed for their
project and then sold that property for 288000 later on that JCHE has had a
negative impact on prpeprty values. If you want to demonstrate a decrease in
property value - please provide actual specific numbers to support your
assertion. In looking at the town's records, the property assessments in that
area have NOT decreased since JCHE - they have stayed the same or increaased
(not that assessed values are the best indicators of property value but we can
use them for this discussion). The piece of property they paid 500,000
probably would have sold for the same 288,000 or so without JCHE. By their own
admission the original seller (and yours in comments to the MWDN at the time)
insisted on an overpayment for the property and they essentially had JCHE by
the horns and could demand pretty
much any price since JCHE wasn't going to walk away from the project. When
JCHE went to sell the property they had to sell the property for what is worth
(not what they paid for it since they knowingly overpaid for it).
Your statement "without disclosing that the development was imminent" implies
some trickery on behalf of the seller (and assumes the buyer didnt know about
the development) and that had the seller disclosed the development the price
would have been lower (which you cannot support).
As far as your implications about 40B, the true meaning of the clause is that
local boards cannot use the impact on property values as a determining factor
in issuing permits. Would you say the same thing if 40B said "increasing
housing values is no reason to allow such development"? Would that imply that
prices going up would be a natural outcome?
Study after study after study has shown that 40B developments have NOT had the
downward impact on property values. In fact, studies have shown increases in
property value near many 40B developments. A simple "googling" of 40B and
property values will lead to these studies.
Barry Kling
Framingham, MA