As far as property values being affected by one's neighbors, that happens everyday. Case in point: when we purchased the place we live on now, there was an empty 2 acre plot right below us. After purchasing however, a business concern moved onto this property and began manufacturing wooden pallets. It was a mess, and looked the part. Giant, 30-40 foot bonfires to get rid of excess pallet wood, No sewer system, (denied by the county), Pneumatic nailers running all hours of the day and night. Huge floodlights illuminating his property and ours. No zoning then...it was a free for all.
Keep in mind, the property line was 350' from the proposed site of our home. When it came time to begin OUR construction however, guess what...the lending institution sent an independent appraisal firm out, and they said no way. We're not loaning you any money with that nightmare next door. Fortunately, all we lost was some good faith money. And eventually, we got our home. And we got the lights angled down away from our bedrooms. And I was reimbursed for my tree that died, due to the huge fires that were burning against the property line. But all of that took time and money, while we proved in court that pallet guy's idea of "damage", wasn't anywhere near what a normal, average member of the neighborhood would consider damage to be. If he had simply considered interests other than his own, we probably could've settled it much more amicably.
Do you really think that the condition of your neighbors property doesn't affect yours when the real estate appraiser comes to give their assessment? It absolutely does. It's not up to what I think, or what you think, it's about what the bank thinks. That's why they have estimates of value based on similar pieces of property, and pay you a visit before moving the value of your place either up or down.
Tony, I'm truly glad you prevailed. Personally though, absent other damage done, I'd defend the pallet company's right to do business as far as the aesthetics and light go. You were probably lucky they had killed your tree and done other actual, actionable damages, or you'd have likely lost.
Purely playing Devil's advocate here....Buying next to an empty lot in an area zoned for many things is the definition of Caveat Emptor. I don't see where your property was devalued. Yes, it had less value to you, but that was more sentimental than actual. Had you chose not to build and instead chose the monetary gain route, some company that used a lot of pallets may have paid a premium for the land just to be close to the pallet maker and get free use of the extra lighting.
YOU had an avenue to fight for your rights, and prevailed...It gets expensive to fight for and enforce your rights...I lost over a quarter million dollars when we were legally, illegally locked out of our property.
I am fairly sure you consider your ponds enhance your property's value. Using your comments on a right for no one to be able to devalue your property by their actions, what if the new EPA authority makes your ponds a huge liability to any potential buyer, effectively making your land worthless as long as it has water...?
But, bringing this back directly to the EPA, by EPA regulation, you can NOT dispute an EPA ruling in court, UNLESS they try collecting money...and even then, you can only fight the money sought, not the underlying rights violated.
That was the crux of the latest SCOTUS ruling against the EPA, that directly rebuked the regulation the recent executive order gave.... is that EPA circumvented due process by not allowing any challenge of their authority in court. Claiming the EPA's decision are the final, supreme authority, and therefore, not subject to judicial review. Essentially, though the court did rebuke the EPA for over reaching in it's jurisdiction, the only thing the Sackett's won, was the right to sue the EPA.
The Supreme Court, as ideologically split as it is, disagreed 9-0, against the EPA.
Here is the Syllabus and opinion of the Court's ruling....
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
