Comments: According mining people: "No statistical evidence exists to show that uranium mining has a negative effect on real estate values in the vicinity of the operation according to mining companies", please read the list below which proves mining ruins the real estate market! Breaking news, GMU reports on How Great Uranium Mining will be for VA, yeah right! Maybe some revision needs to be done! The Info below proves to County Supervisor's: Keep The Ban!
7 neighborhood threats to your home's value
Who — or what — is next door can affect how much people will pay for your home.
A “bad” neighbor can also be a business or government enterprise whose very existence drives down the value of your property. Here are seven surprising neighbors that can reduce your home’s value:
Power plants. The data are fairly clear on the impact of a power plant on nearby home values — it usually hurts them. A study (PDF) from the University of California at Berkeley shows that home values within two miles of a power plant can be decreased between 4% and 7%.
Landfills. A study (PDF) from the Pima County, Ariz., assessor’s office shows that a subdivision near a landfill loses 6% to 10% in value compared with a subdivision that isn’t near a landfill — all other residential factors being equal, including house size, school quality and residential incomes.
Robert A. Simons, an urban planning professor at Cleveland State University, says that if you live within two miles of a Superfund site — a landfill that the government designates as a hazardous-waste site — your home’s value could decline by up to 15%.
Instream Gravel Mining and Related Issues inSouthern Missouri
On the other side of economic benefits of gravel mining is the possi-bility of negative effects in wetlands, recreational areas, riverine habitat, and a potential loss of land. A study conducted by Arkansas State Univer-sity (Kaminarides and others, 1996), in an area similar to southern Mis-souri, determined that the economic benefits of instream gravel mining did not outweigh the environmental costs in Crooked Creek and Kings, Spring, Illinois, and Caddo Rivers in Arkansas. The environmental costs were listed as money lost from farms, real estate, fisheries, and recreation. These conclusions indicated that cal changes can result in increased although instream gravel mining was stream turbidity and temperature. an important industry, mining would The removal of the larger gravel par-not be acceptable or safe in some ticles releases fine sediment into the streams as it was being practiced.
The Impact of Surface Coal Mining on Residential (used other studies)
Property Values: A Hedonic Price Analysis
Boxall, et al. (2005) examined the implicit costs of rural residential property values near oil and gas facilities. They found that property values within 4 kilometers of the facilities were estimated to be reduced between 4 and 8 percent.
Finally, Ihlanfeldt and Taylor (2004) also carried out a study examining the impact of hazardous waste sites on property values. They found that the loss in value of all properties, not just residential properties, in Fulton County, Georgia, could be as large as $1 billion.
All of these studies were able to focus on a small number of counties and use geographic software to estimate the exact distance of a property to a certain undesirable entity.
Their results consistently show that as a property gets closer to this undesirable factor, the market value of the property lowers significantly. This supports our hypothesis that an increase in surface coal mines will have a negative impact on residential property values.
Tom Power, professor emeritus of the University of Montana Department of Economics, said that mining’s impact on the local economy “often isn’t that spectacular. …Mining doesn’t always bring prosperity.” The industry’s boom and bust nature sometimes leaves poverty and joblessness in its wake. People stick around mining communities after the most of the jobs are gone, hoping they will be the lucky ones who will be hired for what’s left of the mining operation.
Power conducted a long-term study that showed population grown near zero in former mining communities, per capita incomes 20 percent lower than in other areas, and payrolls that grew on average only half as fast as in non-mining-dependent communities.
Power suggested four reasons for this:
1) The worldwide market for minerals is volatile; 2) as technology develops, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work; 3) environmental restoration is an economic drain; and 4) other “more viable” industries are displaced.
Power recommended more critical evaluation of the long-term costs and benefits of mining projects.
What will the community do with the houses, streets, schools, and fire halls it built during the boom period? What will home values be?
Power has studied the economy of the Iron Range and found that when mining jobs decreased, other sectors of the economy expanded, diversifying the overall economy.
Businesses have moved to where workers and customers are located, and with a “significant increase in retirement-related income flowing into Iron Range communities,” medical and health services jobs have seen rapid growth. Small communities, good schools, low crime, scenic beauty, wildlife, and outdoor recreation have attracted people to the area, he said.
“Environmental quality is not just a matter of 'prettiness,' or aesthetic preferences,” said Power. “it is a central part of any region’s economic base and its potential for economic vitality.
wman-info.org/.../Dr%20Tom%20Power- ...Share
Thinking about the “Economics” of Mining: New Mexico Uranium Mining Thomas Michael Power Research Professor Department of Economics The University of
Scoping Comment Document:
Analyses of Economic Costs of the Proposed Rosemont Copper Project
Prepared by THOMAS MICHAEL POWER, PhD
Consulting Economist
Power Consulting
920 Evans Avenue
Missoula, Montana 59801
Prepared for and with assistance from: The Mountain Empire Action Alliance
For submittal to: Coronado National Forest
Rosemont Copper Project EIS Project
Reta Laford, Acting Forest Supervisor
Overview
This Scoping Comment Document consists of the materials indexed on the following page. These materials have been prepared as formal Scoping Comments on the Proposed Rosemont Copper Project, specifically in response to the Rosemont Economic Impacts Study and the Tucson Forum sponsored and conducted by Rosemont.
A review of the Rosemont Economic Impact Study, the press articles that followed the release of the Rosemont study, and the widespread public relations campaign mounted by Rosemont and focused solely on the alleged economic benefits of the proposed mine, clearly warranted an informed response. Somewhat ironically, the study reporting on the Rosemont Economic Impacts, actually focused exclusively on the purported economic “benefits”, with virtually no mention of any “costs” or “adverse impacts” to either the public or private sector.
In light of this unbalanced story of the economic effects of the Rosemont proposal, the Mountain Empire Action Alliance, a Sonoita-based community organization dedicated to maintaining the quality of life and livelihoods in the greater Sonoita Basin, commissioned Dr. Thomas Power, Research Professor and Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana, to conduct an independent, objective study of the economic impacts of the proposed Rosemont Mine.
Dr. Power was specifically asked to address the adverse economic impacts that the proposed Rosemont Mine would pose to our local businesses, regional economy, and quality of life.
Dr. Power is a nationally recognized expert on the economic impacts of industrial exploitation of natural resources on surrounding communities, and is the author of “LOST LANDSCAPES AND FAILED ECONOMIES: THE SEARCH FOR A VALUE OF PLACE.”
In his book, Dr. Power makes a persuasive case that preservation of the natural landscape can be more valuable to the local community’s long-term economic development and health than the short-lived value of extracting and processing local natural resources. For almost 40 years, Dr. Power has been applying the analytical tools of Natural Resource Economics and Regional Economics to public policy issues, focusing on how extractive industries such as mining are intertwined with and adversely impacting environmental factors central to local economic vitality and well being. During his career, Dr. Power has assisted over 50 local and state governments, non-governmental organizations, and Tribal governments.
The scoping comments set forth herein were specifically prepared as scoping comments in order to assist the Coronado National Forest and their associated consultants in preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement that incorporated a full discussion of the economic and non-market costs and benefits of the proposed Rosemont Copper Project.
1. [PDF]
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
by TM Power - 2007 -
Thomas Michael Power. Economics Department. University ... New Metal Mining for Minnesota: Economic Boom or Set-Back to. Diversification and Sustainability ...
2. [PDF]
http://www.mn.water.usgs.gov/.../TMPower%20Benefis
A More Holistic Economic. Evaluation of Mining: Considering Benefits and Costs. Thomas Michael Power. The University of Montana and. Power Consulting, Inc.
