[quote=bearishgurl]
zk, almost every single one of your sentences (above) has the words “school district” in it. You must know that individual school performance varies widely in a single school district.
[/quote]
You follow that with a lot of defensive ranting about how great the schools are in your area (and shrill harping about the PUSD – which, by the way, isn’t the school district along the west half of the 56). I’m sure your schools are lovely. Never said they weren’t. What I was talking about applies to any good school district. Or any school district that is “better” than another school district that a homebuyer might be comparing it to or deciding between.

[quote=bearishgurl]
And uh, zk, the “rich” don’t typically buy tract homes located in CA subdivisions for their personal residences. They buy custom homes (or heavily remodeled former “tract” homes) far, far away from any possible freeway noise.
[/quote]
Well, uh, bg, try to keep up. Let me go slow, here. Flyer said “Why would anyone want to live close to any freeway–regardless of convenience?” I said, “because they’re not rich.” I went on to explain how “not rich” people have to make tradeoffs, and rich people don’t. If flyer can’t understand why anyone would want to live close to a freeway, it’s because Flyer can’t see from a “not rich” person’s perspective and understand that they chose to live near a freeway as part of a tradeoff. So, by saying…

“And uh, zk, the “rich” don’t typically buy tract homes located in CA subdivisions for their personal residences. They buy custom homes (or heavily remodeled former “tract” homes) far, far away from any possible freeway noise.”

…in your typically shrewish fashion, you’re making my point for me.

[quote=bearishgurl]

I’m with flyer in that I would never purchase a property near a freeway, especially one which was subject to unrelenting freeway noise 24/7. If a property owner can’t have any peace living in his own property (or his/her tenants can’t have it and thus keep turning over), then what is the point of owning or renting the property? The size of the house doesn’t matter because the price to live there will always be too high. That price is the act of giving up daily peace and tranquility. Yes, it’s a personal preference but it is also a fact that properties with freeway noise have a built-in “economic obsolescence” that cannot be cured and this is a salability issue.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t buy a house near a busy freeway either. That’s not the point. The point is that some people would. Some wise buyers would. They would buy a house near a freeway with the full knowledge that they’ll have to put up with noise and that their house will never be worth as much as the hypothetical “same house” would be if it wasn’t near a freeway. But then, they’re not paying as much for it as they would for that hypothetical house. To say, “I wouldn’t buy a house near a freeway” is completely different from saying “I don’t understand why anyone would” or “no wise buyer should ever.” It’s really not that complicated.

[quote=bearishgurl]

The affected property may have not had this issue when it was built but over the years/decades acquired it due to later nearby freeway, underpass, overpass or ramp construction. At one point when the freeway construction was nearly underway, an owner may have gotten compensated by the govm’t for that economic obsolescence but that does nothing for subsequent owners. Therefore, in my mind, there is no reason to purchase a property for residential purposes which has this problem (even for an investment).[/quote]
With all your “economic obsolescence” talk, you seem to be saying that the “subsequent owner” in this situation, or a buyer of any house near an existing freeway, will pay a price for the house that doesn’t take the freeway noise into account, and then sell if for one that does. That’s not how it works. Houses with freeway noise are discounted when you sell them and when you buy them. “Economic obsolescence,”according to the link you provided, means, “loss of value from all causes outside the property itself.” Such as a freeway. So, while not doing your homework and paying full price for a home where a freeway will be built in the future would be unwise, buying near an existing one, for people willing to knowledgeably make the tradeoff, would not be.

[quote=bearishgurl]
My posts had nothing to do with my “feelings”
[/quote]

That gave me a chuckle.
[quote=bearishgurl]

Understand, FlyerInHi. But would you offer “market price” for such a house or condo … or would you discount your offer based upon the doctrine of “economic obsolescence?”
[/quote]
bg, here you indicate that you don’t think “market price” takes into account freeway noise. It does. That’s what economic obsolescence means, right? If “market price” were the same, regardless of the freeway noise, then you’d be able to sell it at “market price” and economic obsolescence wouldn’t be a factor.