Living next to godliness: Residential property values and churches

Abstract

This article extends the analysis concerning the impact of neighborhood churches on residential property values by investigating nearly 5,000 residential property transactions in Henderson, Nevada, between January 1986 and December 1990. We find that real property values decrease, at a decreasing rate, as distance from a neighborhood church increases. This result is the opposite of that reported by Do, W'tibur, and Short in a previous edition of this journal. We bolster our findings by showing that distance from the site of a future church has little or no impact on residential property values, whereas distance from an existing church is associated with lower property values. Our evidence indicates that neighborhood churches are amenities that enhance the value of neighborhood residential property. Finally, we demonstrate that larger churches (as measured by square foot of lot size) tend to have a greater positive impact on residential property values.In a recent article in this journal, Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994) (hereafter referred to as DWS) reported that a church can constitute a negative externality on residential property values much as does a powerline, hazardous waste dump, landfill, or nuclear waste repository. 1 That a church should, a priori, constitute a negative externality is not clear, however. Although DWS suggest that such items as increased traffic or the noise of church bells 2 may produce a negative effect, churches can also be viewed as amenities, much like shopping centers and quality schools. It is well-known that where there exist desirable neighborhood amenities, the value of which are reflected in property prices. 3 In the case of churches, one could hypothesize, for example, that elderly homeowners, religious because of their temporal proximity to meeting Him or Her and loathe to drive, may place a high value on being within walking distance to their house of worship. Other, equally appealing reasons can be offered suggestive of a positive effect on property values. 4If a church can be seen, a priori, equally as a positive or as a negative externality, then certain questions arise. Why did DWS obtain the results that they did? Would other tests in other localities produce the same result? Can all churches (denominations) be seen as either negative or positive externalities? 5 Is there a difference in the relationship between church locations and property values if the sale of the home occurs before or after the construction of the church building?

The Impact of Small Brownfields and Greenspaces on Residential Property Values

“…In addition, a conceptual problem results in the interpretation of the quadratic function after the minimum or maximum has been reached. 14 Utilizing 75% of the maximum distance, while somewhat arbitrary, conforms closely with the zero-effect distance found by Carroll et al (1996) in their study of residential proximity to churches. While their quadratic function estimated a zero-effect distance of 5.48 miles, they found the Bmajor impact'' of the nonlinear effect occurred within 2,910 feet, or approximately the 0.5 miles we are using here.…”

“…For example, recently in this journal, Hite et al (2001) examined the impact of landfills; Carroll et al (1996) estimated the impact of churches on residential property values; and, Kiel and Zabel (2001) calculated the benefits from cleaning up Superfund sites. 3 In this study, we apply a hedonic pricing model to investigate the simultaneous impacts of brownfields and greenspaces on residential property values and obtain more accurate estimates of the benefits of brownfield remediation.…”

The effects of cultural heritage on residential property values: Evidence from Lisbon, Portugal

“…To our knowledge, the few existing studies have focused on specific types of immovable cultural heritage such as churches and places of worships (Do et al 1994, Carroll et al 1996, Brandt et al 2014 or examined global average effects of a pool of aggregated historic monuments (Lazrak et al 2014). …”

“…Focusing specifically on the impact of proximity to churches, Do et al (1994) estimate that houses closest to churches have decreased prices, however Carroll et al (1996) using a similar strategy find a positive relationship. Both studies were conducted prior to the widespread use of spatial modeling techniques, and therefore ignore potentially important spatial autocorrelation in the data in which housing prices near each other are similar in price.…”

Tom Whipple and the Formal Object of the Discipline

“…It is evident that these changes in net acceptable quality of life have been absorbed into house prices (Small 2009). There is considerable evidence that infrastructure benefits that are intended to improve the quality of life are negated in part by property value increases (Bajic 1983;Carroll, Clauretie et al 1996;Seo and Simons 2009;Small 2009). …”