Hacker News Reader

Comment by EMM_386 | Hacker News Reader

> I.e. the price per square foot might make a property look like a steal, while something like a sewer main nearby, or problematic neighbor

This is the real problem.

Even if they have the historical data for that exact house/unit, it won't help them in cases such as:

* That nice view of the woods out the window is now blocked by a massive radio antenna that was just built there

* The river running through the back yard is now heavily polluted by something up-stream

* The new neighbor across the street is a huge nuisance and says they will never move

* The house just had a mass-murder event in it

Just because something is now cheaper than "comps" at price/sq ft and other metrics doesn't mean it's comparable.

View on HN

This is the key insight. Systems like Zillow's model a dozen or so big factors that are easy to collect (square footage, exact location, nearby comps, sales history, etc.) -- and then treat the rest as minor random noise.

Minor? Usually.

Random? Not at all. A minor annoyance like a cracked driveway ($1,500 to fix) is also likely to be associated with older kitchen appliances, faulty water pressure, deteriorating deck; poorly seated windows, etc. And then, buying that house for what the algo tells you -- or even algo minus 3% -- isn't likely to be a happy choice. Its fair market price may be algo minus 10% or worse.

Also worth bearing in mind, the Realtor community is not going to make life easy for Zillow. Once it's known that Zillow is loading up on clunkers, buyers' agents are likely to tell their customers: There's a Zillow house on the market, too. It's probably got problems. I'd demand a full inspection and some indemnities if I were you.

Common flaw of market disruptors. They assume that the existing players will remain neutral and indifferent to their arrival. The real world tends to be much tougher.

anectodal evidence, but yes, an apartment I lived in was 30k cheaper than everything in the house, and the estimate. So I was really happy to have caught a bargain. Then after moving in it turned out the neighbors were unbearable. The father had developed a DIY habit during covid and he would regularly put together furniture at 11PM. Then they had two monsters for kids. Would literally jump around uncontrollably for hours, and for some reason, through some defect or lack in the sound proofing, the sounds were even amplified. Every time they went down to the playground the kids were literally screaming at the top of their lungs the whole way down. I nearly lost my sanity and fortunately could sell it at at 2k loss in a year.

You could sue your seller for failure to disclose.

Apart from that of course you can sue anybody for anything (with more or less success); why would that be the case here? I mean isnt if neighbours are annoying a subjective thing? Do you know of any court ruling which implies one has to disclose the state of the neighbours?

There is a famous (among first year law students) case[1] that seems relevant given the nature of the issue is one a buyer would not reasonably be able to ascertain on their own. One possible point of differentiation: ghosts are a permanent defect on the value of the property while loud children living next door would probably only torment the homeowner for a decade or so at most.

The opinion is famous not just for its unusual fact pattern but also because the Judge clearly had quite a lot of fun working in other-worldly puns and references while writing it.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley

Despite quoting the ruling at length multiple times in the article, there's not a single link to the actual ruling on that page, so far as I can find. Never change, Wikipedia.

This seems to be the opinion: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=329068483649083...

Yes, and even if something is super annoying, it might be legal. For example they listened to music until 2-3 in the morning a lot of cases. Thumping reggaeton. And while it for sure wasn't over legal limit by decibel, the bass made my bed shake.

It all depends. But in general you have a common law right to peaceful enjoyment of your property.

http://bryancrews.com/private-nuisance-right-peace-quiet/

The one noise ordinance I've read in full also said that, even if the decibel limit is not exceeded, an audible beat or bass can also be cited.

You indeed can if there are nuisance neighbors and I believe that is considered a material fact in most states. However, most documents, I believe contain a Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement which would have had a line indicating a "yes" if there were nuisance neighbors and it would have been up to you to ask for more details.

"i never really noticed"

Yes, you'd have to be prepare to counter that with e.g. testimony from neighbors, or friends who heard the previous owners complain. It's not a slam-dunk, but it is an actionable tort.

Also good luck getting positive ROI on that multi-year lawsuit over things that buyer can reasonably say ‘never bothered me really, I don’t know what they’re talking about - sounds like they’re just irritated at life’. Especially when you factor in all the legal fees and several years of hassle going through the courts.

None of these things are necessarily unusual in most neighborhoods. All at once is irritating to most people - but hard to objectively prove are a true nuisance in a legal sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com