Circle C vs Westlake Hills (Howe, Impact: neighborhoods, buyer, movies)

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Steve, is the pipeline something that those people buying those homes are informed about as a matter of course? Because if not, then one can't assume that they don't have concerns.

Buyers inform themselves. Do we promote "gas pipeline in back yard" on the flyer? Of course not. But buyers are so hyper-saturated with date nowadays that they know. Concerns would be reflected in longer days on market and lower prices. And they aren't.

I'm getting ready to list one that backs right up to the pipeline in VOWO. You walk into the back yard, look over the fence, and see a giant greenbelt with yellow warning signs every so many feet. It's impossible to miss.

Are there individuals who won't accept that? Yes. But there are also many who would love taking their dog out the back fence to run in the open space and who enjoy sitting in the back yard without other houses looming over the rear view.

Steve

[TexasHorseLady]

Not do you promote it, is it disclosed? My point was not really this specific pipeline, but the assumption that everyone, of course, knows about the pipeline and the jet fuel (or whatever the relatively hidden possible danger of a given neighborhood is) and it's not an issue to them, when most buyers might not know it's there (assuming that the house doesn't back right up to it, as yours does), so that kind of assumption is a fallacy.

[jobert]

Why wouldn't someone just pay $15K extra for a greenbelt lot that runs hundreds of feet behind their house to a creek instead? Why does the house have to back up to a 20ft strip of land with a jet-fuel pipeline underneath it?

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Not do you promote it, is it disclosed? My point was not really this specific pipeline, but the assumption that everyone, of course, knows about the pipeline and the jet fuel (or whatever the relatively hidden possible danger of a given neighborhood is) and it's not an issue to them, when most buyers might not know it's there (assuming that the house doesn't back right up to it, as yours does), so that kind of assumption is a fallacy.

Agents don't disclose information, sellers do. Sellers are mandated in Texas to disclose those items listed on the TREC promulgated Seller's Disclosure form (or the more detailed TAR, or the even more detailed 8-page ABOR forms), nothing more.

None of those forms ask about or mention gas pipelines. So, no. It's not "disclosed" because it's not a required disclosure.

I see where you are heading, so let's just go there.

If a buyer in Circle C or VAWO, after closing (because they and their agent were too stupid to look over the back fence, at the survey and/or at the aerial view in Google Maps), then discovers they are adjacent to a gigantic swath of vacant land with highly visible yellow warning signs that say "GAS PIPELINE" on them, and said buyer feels like someone should have held their hand and walked them out there and pointed this all out, does the buyer have legal recourse available? Have they been "wronged"?

The answer is an unequivocal "no", they haven't. Was it the seller's duty/responsibility, or that of the agent, to "imagine" what sort of things might concern buyers and tell them and amend/extend the seller's disclosure to include all sorts of extra stuff stuff not required on the Seller's Disclosure Notice? No.

Would this mean the seller and/or agent are trying to keep it a "secret"? No.

It's simply not a required disclosure because the laws deems the buyer to be the one responsible for learning about things that might concern them, whether it's overhead power lines, school boundaries, pipelines, noise from the nearby freeway, odor from the nearby pig farm, neighbors garage band, or whatever it might be.

Steve

[TexasHorseLady]

Actually, you don't see where I'm going. (And, by the way, I very carefully asked "is it disclosed", not "do you, the agent, disclose it", so I'm not quite sure what your first remark was on about.)

I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about, if all buyers in that area were absolutely aware of the pipeline at the time they made the decision to purchase there, your statement that it isn't a concern might be accurate. However, given that pipelines don't generally cross most folks' radar, and that most buyers aren't going to think to ask if there's a pipeline down the street (they're going to be more focused on things like how old is the roof and high speed internet and what are the schools and maybe, just MAYBE, oak wilt), and people that see greenbelt with warning signs, unless they go right up and read them (and how many do) are going to think they're those signs that say, "drainage, danger in high water" or whatever that we see all over the place in the Austin area, I don't see how you can make such a statement with any confidence.

Nothing whatsoever to do with legal liability, in other words.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Agents don't disclose information, sellers do. Sellers are mandated in Texas to disclose those items listed on the TREC promulgated Seller's Disclosure form (or the more detailed TAR, or the even more detailed 8-page ABOR forms), nothing more.

None of those forms ask about or mention gas pipelines. So, no. It's not "disclosed" because it's not a required disclosure.

I see where you are heading, so let's just go there.

If a buyer in Circle C or VAWO, after closing (because they and their agent were too stupid to look over the back fence, at the survey and/or at the aerial view in Google Maps), then discovers they are adjacent to a gigantic swath of vacant land with highly visible yellow warning signs that say "GAS PIPELINE" on them, and said buyer feels like someone should have held their hand and walked them out there and pointed this all out, does the buyer have legal recourse available? Have they been "wronged"?

The answer is an unequivocal "no", they haven't. Was it the seller's duty/responsibility, or that of the agent, to "imagine" what sort of things might concern buyers and tell them and amend/extend the seller's disclosure to include all sorts of extra stuff stuff not required on the Seller's Disclosure Notice? No.

Would this mean the seller and/or agent are trying to keep it a "secret"? No.

It's simply not a required disclosure because the laws deems the buyer to be the one responsible for learning about things that might concern them, whether it's overhead power lines, school boundaries, pipelines, noise from the nearby freeway, odor from the nearby pig farm, neighbors garage band, or whatever it might be.

Steve

I didn't think that's what THL meant - the whole thing about legal recourse. I think she just meant that when you say it doesn't bother most buyers because there is no price difference in housing running along it compared to homes that don't, unless it is obvious, it may be that most buyers are simply not aware and therefor they may purchase without taking it into consideration. I cannot speak for most buyers obviously, but I can speak for myself and there is no way I would buy a house that backs up to a pipeline. I know it is a very small risk, but it's one of those small risks I am not willing to assume because I didn't have to. I was able to find a perfectly suitable house that did not back up to the pipeline.

[austin-steve]

OK, understood. You think buyers are just **not aware** of it, and that's why there is no price differential?

But then, if it's such a "not on the radar" issue, doesn't that in and of itself answer the question "are people concerned?". No, in general, there is no concern about the pipeline running the CC/VAWO, otherwise people would be aware and the awareness/concern would be reflected in values.

That's not to say that for some individual buyers, like Jen, it won't be a deal-breaker, but that's true of a lot of things. My wife would NEVER live on a street named "Gun Fight" or "Shoot Out" which are in Shady Hollow. But those names haven't hurt sales values on those street. I know people who won't drink bottled water from a plastic bottle because they "have concerns", but that hasn't affected bottled water sales.

So, I still maintain that the answer to the question, as asked, is "no".

Steve

[TexasHorseLady]

No, what I'm saying is that pipelines, in and of themselves, are not things that people buying in nice residential neighborhoods think are things that they should be concerned about because they don't think they EXIST in nice residential neighborhoods. It doesn't ping their radar the way it might in a more rural setting, for example. The things that ping their radar are things that they expect to be issues in a nice residential neighborhood. I'm sure they don't think about there being mobile homes one street over in Circle C, either, because to most buyers, that's so unlikely as to not be something they think they NEED to concern themselves with because, obviously, is wouldn't be there in such a nice neighborhood. Actually, to be accurate, the mobile home concern would be MORE likely to ping their radar than would a jet fuel pipeline.

My sole point is that you are making an assumption that doesn't take that into account.

[austin-steve]

Well, not to belabor the point, but the assumption is "rationale agnostic", and remains correct as validated by actual buyer behavior and the lack of discount for homes near a pipeline.

People are either "concerned" about it or not. If they are not concerned because they are not aware, they are still not concerned. We can debate whether someone should be concerned, but that wasn't the question.

Steve

[Trainwreck20]

I live in this area of VOWO, and no one gives a flip about the pipeline. It is a popular area to walk dogs, though, since most people don't feel the compulsion to 'scoop' their doggies business out there . Everyone is aware of the pipeline, it is hard to miss - you drive right across it on Escarpment and Beckett, as well as numerous other streets. I suppose if you were buying a house a couple of blocks off it, you may not know it is there - but there is no reason to be concerned about it. Is it going to rear up and spray gasoline at you? Is it going to blow up like an action movie (mind you, it is several feet underground)? The only *real* concern is environmental, and that is a large area effect (aquifer) rather than a local effect. I am also not going to warn people that an acquaintance of mine swears he saw a cupacabra in the PArk at Circle C, but the 'danger' from it is about equal to the pipeline....