Can trees reduce property values?

[rfwoodvt]

Good Morning!

We have all heard that trees Improve property values but that of course relies on healthy specimen trees that are well maintained.

I'd like to approach this from the other direction. So, here are a couple of questions:

"How much can poorly maintained, non-maintained, damaged or declining trees REDUCE property values?"

And for those of you who do appraisals on a regular basis I'd like you to consider a single tree but in several different conditions.

Pick any good medium aged shade tree you commonly see in your work (something in the 40' to 50' and 24" dbh to 30" dbh range) and then give us an idea how much different the values would be for the following conditions. Please express values as percentages based on "Specimen" being 100% (if you could give a species and value range for your "specimen" example that would be helpful too!)

• The tree is well and frequently maintained and in specimen condition.
• The tree has not had any maintenance done in the past 25 years and there are broken branches, limb tip dieback or other "problems."
• the tree has been topped recently
• the tree was topped 5 years ago, no further maintenance done.
• the tree was topped 10 years ago, no further maintenance done.

Opinions supported by research, anecdotal experience as well SWAGS and personal theories on this are all welcome. Just let us know which one your respose is!

ThanX!

fwiw, I'm going to post this on several "other" web-boards. should be a good discussion!

 

[Timberhauler]

I am not sure of an answer there,but I do have several real estate compaines that are always having me take out trees on property and around houses they are trying to sell.

 

[John464]

I am not sure of an answer there,but I do have several real estate compaines that are always having me take out trees on property and around houses they are trying to sell.

same here. we are on the preferred company list at Century 21 and do many jobs for them per year. It usually involves pruning away from a house, removing visible dead wood, or removals.

It is up to the real estate agent and seller to suggest what may attract buyers. So, yes, trees can deter current market values and they can also add to them. The key is property maintenance, a home let go of it can decrease values vs a home kept up to par can add to property values.

 

[Ed*L]

For a "problem" tree, the property would be devalued by the removal cost or charges incurred for inspection/maintaince by an arborist.
Other than this, I really don't see how you could even begin to assess any value loss.
Ed

 

[rfwoodvt]

I really don't see how you could even begin to assess any value loss.
Ed

I agree Ed, thats why I often find it intriguing that people can say that trees increase the value of the property xx%. Based on what? I do know that even minor problems with an otherwise good item can kill the value.

I suppose, for example that a $1 million dollar home, with a 24-7 "crack" house down the block could kill the value of the house. perhaps just the same as a condemned building next door could hurt the value of an otherwise great property.

So it makes sense that if 10 "good" trees can give a 15% boost then why can't one "bad" tree knock it down a bunch?

Great replies! Lets keep 'em coming!

 

[Tree Machine]

Value is that which is perceived by the customer or realtor. Tree lovers will assess value if there are trees on the property, people who've had negative tree experiences in their past may see it much differently. Those who love trees will assume tree care into the cost of the purchase and accept that. If the tree is dead, it won't pass inspection anyway and will be negotiated, either remove it before we buy, or knock of X amount so we can have it removed after we take posession. Most often a realtor will suggest hazard or unkempt trees be dealt with in advance so the home will show better.

The decline of the property value would then be equal to the cost of the correction or elimination of the problem; usually a drop in the bucket as compared to the cost of the home and property.

I think it's fair to say that most people see value in trees. But do feel free to call me crazy on this idea.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I agree that the loss of value is the cost of cure for the cause of the perceived loss. The cost is usually determined by the three bid method.

 

[charlesfarm]

We bought our home with two problem trees in the back yard. Hind-sight is always 20-20, but I really wish I had written into the contract to have those removed before closing ...

The two trees were about 100 year old silver maples about 15-20 feet behind the house and about 20 feet apart from each other. The larger one was hollow to the ground and the smaller one looked fine from the "outside". but was actually hollow to the ground as well. Shortly after moving in, I priced having a local guy put them on the ground -- $500 for the pair. $700 if I wanted them taken away. We didn't have the cash at the time and were going to wait a bit.

Fast forward to July when a major thunderstorm blew through. 80 mph hour straightline winds (and maybe a little funnel up there not touching down -- we'll never know for sure) toppled the larger tree right at the ground and dropped it on the house. The trunk missed the house by only a couple feet, but the largest limb smashed rafters, destroyed the chimney, poked holes in the 2nd story roof ... etc.

The total cost of the damage was right at $10,000. If the trunk had hit the house, we would have been looking at $50,000 or better.

So, in a long winded way, I'm saying that you can also think about a "potential loss" cost for problem trees. Hope this helps.

God bless,
Chris

 

[treeseer]

• The tree is well and frequently maintained and in specimen condition.
  90-100
• The tree has not had any maintenance done in the past 25 years and there are broken branches, limb tip dieback or other "problems."
  70-90
• the tree has been topped recently
  0-60
• the tree was topped 5 years ago, no further maintenance done.
  0-60
• the tree was topped 10 years ago, no further maintenance done.
  0-60

The RE agents I work with are much more inclined to have maintenance done to enhance curb appeal. Clearing roof, deadwood etc. If they talk to someone who's geared toward removal, they will hear different.

I agree with TM re value.

i don't get the point of this thread, rick. If you want to know about appraisal, buy the book.

 

[curdy]

Great topic. First let me start by saying I'm not in the tree or the real estate business. And I purchased my first home back in 7/05.

However, I can share my story since we had experiences directly related to this subject.

I think everyone who has commented so far would be correct. Deficiencies in need of negotiation would be based on the cost to bring them to code. However, that doesn't always mean they are negotiated. We purchased our home under the description of "Fixer-upper". The house needed work, but not the major stuff like foundation, plumbing and electrical. It DID need updating to be on the same level as the rest of the homes in the area...and the property itself was a mess.

We did negotiate a couple of things that weren't typical like the 1000 sq ft of carpet that needed to be replaced due to pet urine. Overall, we felt the price of the home was fair for what we were getting and really had the necessary improvements pretty much factored into the price.

Soooo, I stared cutting...a lot. Hired a tree guy to come in and just drop the dead trees and limb dead wood. I cut up everything for firewood and rented a chipper for the branches.

Here's the bottom line info you want: we refinanced around 1/06 for a better rate. Well, the home was appraised for $100,000 more than 6 months earlier when we bought it. Other than the outside work we did, I hadn't done much to the inside. Some painting (which I've heard doesn't affect much "appraisal"-wise) and we tore out that carpet and refinished the 1000 sq ft. of oak flooring underneath.

I can give some more details if anyone wants them, but I didn't want to add more to what is already one of my longest posts!

 

[Magnum783]

Nice work buddy. That looks great, at least for what I can see. Nice work and enjoy the cash when you sell.
Jared

 

[rfwoodvt]

The RE agents I work with are much more inclined to have maintenance done to enhance curb appeal. Clearing roof, deadwood etc. If they talk to someone who's geared toward removal, they will hear different.

I agree with TM re value.

i don't get the point of this thread, rick. If you want to know about appraisal, buy the book.

hey Guy!

Not so much interested in the individual trees per se. I'm trying to understand how it affects the overall value of the property.

Searched online there are many references to "Average of 10%" or "up to 15%" of your property's value is due to it's trees. It is interesting to note, that nowhere I have found (yet) says anything about the overal condition of the trees required in order to account for 15% of the value.

Homeowners, therefore, can and do assume that ANY tree adds value.

So, given what has been discussed so far, why are appreciation and depreciation due to trees seemingly treated differently?

Lets Say that we take a home on a bare lot, sans-trees, originally valued at $100k.

Now, lets spend $20k planting some 4" caliper trees, all appropriate, all according to a good plan.

Using the cost of cure considerations then the property should now be worth $120K.

If like other "improvements" to the property the acutal increase in value likely will not be mathematically linear. Some will produce appreciation less than the cost of the improvement, others more.

On the other side of the coin, a single "Trash tree" that dominates the landscape may cost only $1000 to remove, but once it is gone the overall appeal and value of the property might increase by several $1000s.

Clearly the "cost of cure" does not accurately reflect how much the property was devalued by the presence of that tree.

Cost of cure gives us a starting point but if we use that valuation on all individual trees an existing landscape I suspect that their sums would not be the same as the value they add to the property.

A realtor Friend put it this way about houses...A $500 coat of paint can garner a couple of thousand more at sale time. Peeling paint can make a house reduce the sale price by a couple thousand more.

The value of the paint job not is not only the amount it increased the sale price, it must include the loss that would likely be faced.

So again, it is the overall value of the property and the mechanics of how it is affected that prompts the question.

 

[rebelman]

Just for a scenario, say the added value of healthy trees of favorable species and size, with good health and structure and good crown ratios add thirty percent to the value. Non maintained would detract very little unless the root zone was non mulched. Poorly maintained would be loss of ten percent, and lawn maintenance would probably detract further. Topped trees would drop the percentage five points for each decade since the work was done. Real consultants will probably have a field day with this post, but what the hell.

 

[treevet]

Some real estate companies in my area have already started featuring ash-less yards. We don t have eab yet but it is in the adjacent county just north on the I75 corridor. It will be here in the coming months and eventually all the untreated ashes will die causing expense and loss of property value they had prior to infestation (the impending and inevitable threat).