Res No 090-11-13404RESOLUTION NO. 90 -11 -13404
A Resolution of the City of South Miami, Florida,
authorizing the City Attorney to submit an Agency
Report supporting an Alternate Corridor to the US1
transmission corridor proposed by Florida Power and
Light Co; and providing for an effective date.
Whereas, Florida Power & Light Co. ( "FPL ") has filed an
application for an administrative hearing before the State Of
Florida Division Of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) which was
granted and assigned Case No. 09- 3575 -EPP and styled IN RE:
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. , TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 AND 7 POWER
PLANT SITING APPLICATION NO. PA03 -45A3; and
Whereas, FPL has proposed installing a new high - voltage
transmission line through the City of South Miami; and
Whereas, the City Commission has previously expressed a
desire to propose an alternate corridor for FPL's transmission
line; and
Whereas, the City of South Miami contracted with Dr.
Richard Weisskoff, an economic professor at the University of
Miami, for the preparation of an economic report concerning the
economic effects of FPL's proposed transmission lines on the US
1 corridor, and which supports the Village of Pinecrest's
Alternate Corridor Proposal that would bypass the City of South
Miami; and
Whereas, Dr. Weisskoff's report projects considerable
economic harm to the municipalities along the US 1 corridor in
the event that the transmission lines are built as proposed by
FPL; and
Whereas, the City is a party to FPL's case before DOAH and
the judge in that case has ordered that all agency reports,
including those by municipalities, either in support or in
opposition to FPL's planned power plant and its proposed
transmission line corridor be filed by June 15, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1: The City Attorney for the City of South
Miami is directed to file an Agency Report on behalf of the
City, which incorporates the economic report prepared by Dr.
Page 1 of 2
Res. No. 90 -11 -13404
Richard Weisskoff, and which recommends and supports the
proposed alternate corridor.
Section 2. This resolution shall become effective upon
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June 2011.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
TY CLERK MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE: 5 -0
Mayor Stoddard: Yea
Vice Mayor Newman: Yea
Commissioner Palmer: Yea
Commissioner Beasley: Yea
Commissioner Harris: Yea
Page 2 of 2
Corridor to Nowhere: Economic Impacts of FPL's
Proposed Transmission Line on the US I Corridor
By Richard Weisskoff, Ph.D.
Submitted to the City of South Miami
May 27, 2011
Draft 3.2
(this page left blank, inside cover page)
Executive Summary
FPL's proposed Eastern 230 kV Transmission Corridor, proposed to route power from two new
nuclear power plants proposed for construction at Turkey Point, would occupy an economically
critical segment of the US I corridor stretching from the Falls to Brickell that currently lacks
such transmission lines. Since the mid 1990's, the US I Corridor north from Broward to St.
Lucie County had become the cornerstone of the South Florida Region's strategy of compact
growth, "Eastward, Hot" and has been incorporated into the South Miami-Dade Watershed
Study of 2007. These studies form the basis of the current anti- sprawl and compact growth
policies of the South Florida Region. (Section 1).
The introduction of high voltage transmission lines on 105 ft high, 4 -foot diameter, concrete
poles from the Falls to Brickell on US I inserts a major disamenity or blockage into this
gateway to Miami and into its rapidly growing southern neighborhoods. Addition of
aboveground transmission lines shatters the strategy of compact growth, changes the nature of
the urban corridor, and will produce severe and deleterious economic effects. Projected
economic consequences of FPL's proposed transmission lines on the existing and future
economy of the US I corridor have not been included in the combined operating license
application (COLA) for Turkey Point nuclear reactors 6 & 7. This report details the probable
consequences on the existing economy.
• FPL's proposed US I transmission line corridor directly affects a minimum of 173,000 people
or 72% of the county's residents (derived from the ZIP Code map, Figure 2.2 and Table 2.1).
But seen as the gateway to the South Miami -Dade Watershed region and areas to the forth
including the City of Miami, Coral Gables, South Miami, Pinecrest, and Palmetto Bay, the area
is a portal and corridor for almost a million people or 38% of the county's residents (Table 2.2).
The value of the 4,091 parcels (buildings and land) within two blocks on both sides of the
transmission line route was assessed at $4.03 billion in 2010, including FPL Corridor Option 1
at Brickell, 16a' to 136 Street SW, and FPL's proposed corridor around Dadeland (Table 3.3).
We examined the literature on effects of transmission Iine proximity on property values.
Overall we found a high degree of concordance between surveys of real estate professionals
and statistical analyses by academicians, with industry consultants consistently publishing
lesser effects. Real estate professionals reported a 10.3% decline, academicians a 12.6%
decline, and industry consultants a 2.7% decline. A detailed regression study of an area with an
urban density most comparable to that found along US I revealed a 10% decline in value (Des
Rossiers, 2002; Table 4.2).
We have applied an array of loss rates: 5 %, 10 %, 20 %, and 34% to reflect the range of findings
from studies done in other regions. Based on the literature, our best conservative estimate
is to expect a minimum of 10% property loss from construction of transmission lines on
US 1, but losses as high as 20% could occur as this value was found in the higher income
neighborhoods of Montreal in the study by Des Rossiers (2002). The 10% and 20% loss rates
applied to the FPL transmission line corridor would create declines in property values of $400
and $800 million respectively.
• At a 10% property loss rate, local municipalities would lose an aggregate of $9.3 million
in property taxes annually (Table 5.1). Total revenue losses would be approximately $24.5
million annually.
• The 10% property value loss rate translates into a total job loss ranging from 4,382 to
8,040 jobs, depending on the labor - intensity of the job sectors that are most affected.
The economic cost of the average expected job loss is $300 million per year.
• We note two anecdotal cases of urban power lines in South Florida associated with economic
loss and urban blight:
1. A set of power lines occupy the portion of West 63`a St., North Miami Beach that fronts
6205 Laguna Path, a 4 story, $1.5 million townhouse, part of the Aqua project on Allison
Island that was purchased in 2005 prior to construction, on the basis of the promoter's
models and drawings. Once built, however, the owner realized that the spectacular living
room view of the channel was marred by the powerlines and poles in the center stage. The
owner has therefore kept the property off the market due to the severe penalty caused by the
disamenity of visible aboveground power lines.
2. The State Road 7 / US 441 corridor in Broward County has, since 2004, been designated
as a growth corridor by the both County and the South Florida Regional Planning Council.
However, the transmission lines along the route may have effectively turned investors away
(Section 6).
• Our best prediction of economic loss to municipalities along the proposed US 1 corridor is
severe: approximately $400 million in property losses, $300 million a year in household
income from job losses, and $25 million a year in losses to municipal revenue.
• We caution that the path proposed by FPL to transmit the energy needed for economic
growth in the region will likely become both the assassin and graveyard of economic
activity and growth, a "corridor to nowhere ".
H
Economic Impacts of the FPL 'Transmission Lines in the US I Corridor
Contents
Executive. Summary 3
1: History of the Corridor, References 7
2: Population 10
3. Value of Corridor Property 12
4. Literature Review: Effect of Transmission Lines on Property Value, References 13
5. Value of Property and Job Loss in Miami -Dade County 18
6. Stories of the Special Case & Conclusion . 20
List of Graphics
Tables
1.1 Measures of sprawl and South Florida appetite for land, 1995 -2010
2.1 IMPLAN socio- economic data of the FPL Corridor by ZIP Codes
2.2 Projecting Population Growth and Expansion in the Corridor
3.1 Sample appraisal valuation of properties near transmission lines, 26 -36 St.
3.2 Sample of County land use codes found in Table 3.1 above
3.3 Summary Table of summed appraisal values by segments, Brickell to SW 136 St.
4.1 Review of survey results: transmission line effect on property prices
4.2 Review of statistical (regression analysis) studies of transmission line effect on property prices
4.3 Statistical analysis of possible bias in percent value losses across the different literature types
5.1 Summary: property adjacent to the transmission lines
52 Employment impacts at 5, 10, 20, and 34% loss levels: IMPLAN, various sectors
53 REMI Model: Job losses over time: different scenarios and time periods
5.3 Economic effect of job loss
Figures
2.1 Watershed interactive network (Williams, 1995)
2.2 ZIP Code map of the FPL proposed Eastern corridor and Southern Corridor
2.3 Minor statistical areas for the FPL proposed Eastern corridor and Southern extension (M -D P &Z)
2.4 South Miami -Dade Watershed Plan corridor map (2007)
5.1 Blocks of the REMI Model and some connections
Graphs
5.1 How long the job loss? Effects of 10% property loss on different time spans
5.2 How deep the trough? Effects on jobs of different sectors taking the hit of spending cuts
(page left blank)
Section 1. History of the Corridor: Between Ocean and Swamp
The growth of Miami in the past decades has been an alternating clash between "sprawl -
and- spread" growth, on the one hand, and "compact - and - compressed" growth with higher
densities, on the other. One would think that Miami, a city constrained between the
ocean and the swamp, would have been forced to grow upward, not outward. Geography
alone would dictate that compactness and density would win over sprawl.
The record shows otherwise. indeed, of Florida's counties on the lower East coast,
Miami -Dade is already the most densely populated with 8:4 people per urban acre, more
than Broward with 7.2 inhabitants per acre. (See Table 1. 1, col. 3, lines 1 -2.) But the
average for the nine South Florida counties is half Miami - Dade's density or 4.8 people
per urban acre.
More important than density is a measure of the historical "responsiveness" of
urban land absorption as the population grows. Economists call this responsiveness "the
elasticity of demand for urban land with respect to urban population growth" and we
measure it in terms of the percentage change in land relative to the percent change in
urban population for a given time period and county. We computed the elasticities for a
number of counties using two comparable land use studies done in 1988 and 1995 (Table
1.1, col. 4). The value for Miami -Dade is 0.910, or almost unity, which means that
historically, a 10 °/u increase in urban population has been associated with a 9.1 % increase
in urban land occupancy. Note that the elasticity value for Miami -Dade is the highest of
all the counties in Table 1.1. Indeed, only the values for St. Martin (0.76) and for the
lower West coast counties (0.88) approach Miami - Dade's "sprawl tendency."
This sprawl tendency means simply that Miami -Dade incorporated 44.5 thousand
new urban acres from 1995 to 2010 to accommodate its growing population (Table 1. 1,
col. 9). This kind of land- intensive growth expresses itself in the periodic wars to push
the Urban Development Boundary westward and to fill in ecologically precarious lands,
reduce parklands, and build on any kind of open space. Palm Beach County took 44.6
thousand acres, and that, with a lower elasticity (0.55) but a higher rate of population
growth (33% vs. 20% for Miami- Dade). But on Florida's lower West coast, the
7
population of the four sprawl - setting counties grew by 108% (Table 1. 1, col. 7) and
transformed 284 thousand acres into urban land.
Clearly, with these historical parameters, the continued growth of the cities in
their traditional manner is unsustainable. If the historical tendencies are not checked, the
future of the Everglades is doomed as the cities seek more and more of the marshy land
to fill in and build upon.
In the southern suburbs of Miami, however, developers had learned early to make
peace with precarious coastal lowlands due to the high water table, frequent floods, the
exuberance of the hurricanes, and the multitude transversal creeks and canals, simply in
order to capitalize on the sheer beauty of the place. Dan Williams' South Dade
Watershed Project (1995) offered a planner's visualization of the region, which could
work neatly with another approach that could be realized in South Florida. The
Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, which started to meet monthly
in the mid - nineties, began to promote a more compact development by pushing eastward,
not westward, in order to remove pressure on the agricultural lands and on the water
collection areas of the Everglades. As the Everglades were to be "re-hydrated" and water
levels raised, the adjacent cities would require great flood protection and better drainage.
The built area would have to be kept back, intensified, filled in, and the economic
impetus to sprawl — the reward for converting freshwater marshland into houses — would
have to be kept in check (see SF Regional Planning Council 1996, and Burchell 1999).
At the same time, researchers were showing that the "sprawl- model" by which
most of Florida had been developed was merely shifting the costs of infrastructure from
the private developer (who took his profit up front) to the counties and municipalities
who then had to tax the new residents to cover their new costs. Burchell computed the
detailed costs of sprawl for New Jersey (2000), most major U.S. cities (2002), and the
saving that South Florida could realize by compact development (2003). A special six -
volume study was completed in 2002 on the retention of the agricultural land and those
strategies and policies that would keep the South Dade farmer in business (Degner &
Morgan, eds., 2002).
Miami -Dade County, together with the other agencies, sponsored a million dollar
South Miami -Dade Watershed Study (2007) which today offers a clear plan which
comprehends and builds on these earlier visions. The drive to sprawl could be checked,
the farm lands protected, and the Urban Development Boundary held, all by focusing
development on the US I corridor which had several distinct advantages: a rapid transit
system; an exclusive busway; the high coastal ridge to minimize flooding in view of
future sea level rise; home to a variety of income groups and land uses.
A series of charettes propelled the ideas: the cities and towns would become focal
points for development along the corridor: Coral Gables, South Miami, Kendall,
Pinecrest, Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay – and the small towns too – Leisure City, Naranja,
Princeton, Goulds, Cutler Ridge,'Perrine —and the endpoints, Florida City and
Homestead. With commercial, residential, and industrial growth concentrated along the
straight and naturally elevated US I corridor, the remaining agricultural lands and open
spaces would be retained and the urban infrastructure consolidated. The Plan (2007) was
widely publicized and the collaborating towns and cities along the route began laying the
groundwork for new city- centers, higher densities, and more compact zoning.
Into this setting enter the FPL transmission lines. They clash, head -on, with two
decades of work by the local communities and county planners. Along this very route are
to be strung the three 230 KV lines with 80' to105' high concrete poles every 3.00 ft.,
held in place by guyed wires where needed. Possibly three or more "underbuilf' lines are
to be strung lower down the poles. The poles themselves measure almost 4 feet in
diameter, such that the hands of two grown men hugging the poles on opposite sides
barely reach one another. The poles dwarf the neighboring buildings, hospital, shops and
schools; they block the sidewalks if they are placed near the curb to suspend the lines
over the roadway.
What are the economic impacts of running the lines from the Falls up US I to
Brickeli? What would the true cost be to the society which has already launched itself
onto a risky but rational venture of compact growth along that very corridor?
General References for Chapter 1: Introduction to the Issues
Arranged Chronologically:
1. South Dade Watershed Project, 1995. Planning Document. Miami: Center for Urban
and Community Design, University of Miami, and South Florida Water
Management District.
2. South Florida Regional Planning Council, 1996. Eastward Ho! Revitalizing Southeas t
Florida's Urban Core. (Initiative of the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
South Florida). Hollywood (pamphlet; also posted on s£rpc.com website).
3. Burchell, R.W., 1999. Eastward Ho! Development Futures: Paths io More Efficient
Growth in Southeast Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Dept. of Community Affairs.
4. Burchell, R.W., 2000. The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Growth Patterns: The
Impact Assessment of the New Jersey State Plan. New Brunswick, NJ: State
University of New Jersey (Rutgers), Center for Urban Policy Research, Bloustein
School of Planning and Public Policy,
5. Burchell, R.W. et al., 2002. Costs of Sprawl. 2000. Transit Cooperative Research
Program, TCRP Report 74. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
6. Degner, R.L. & Morgan, K.L., eds., 2002. Miami -Dade County Agricultural Land
Retention Study (6 Vols.), FAMRC Industry Report 02 -02, Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
7. Burchell, R.W., et al., 2003. Projected Development in the GEER (Greater Everglades
Ecosystem Restoration) Region and Potential Resource Savings by Employing a
Compact Development Growth Regime. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University,
Center for Urban Policy Research.
8. Weisskoff, R., 2005. Economics of Everglades Restoration: Missing Pieces in the
Future of South Florida. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
9. Miami -Dade County, 2007. South Miami -Dade Watershed Study and Plan: Planning
for a sustainable healthy environment and economv. Posted at:
http • / /southmiamidadewatersbed.net!
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Smart Growth Implementation Assistance
Program, 2010. Growing for a Sustainable Future: Miami -Dade County Urban
17- 10.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2011.
10
Section 2. Population in the FPL Corridor
How many people will be affected directly by FPL's proposed transmission line corridor
onus I?
We used three sources for deriving population figures:
I) ZIP Code zones along the route.
2) Miami -Dade Planning and Zoning Dept. Projections from the year 2000
onwards for minor statistical areas.
3) South Miami -Dade Watershed Study estimates and projections for the region.
The IMPLAN file for Miami -Dade County provides economic information on population
and business activity for all 79 ZIP Codes of Miami -Dade County. We have selected the
eight ZIP Codes through which FPL's proposed Eastern Corridor passes (see
accompanying Map 2.1). The population of the "ZIP Code corridor" is almost 207,000
persons living on 49 square miles, making for a density of 4,218 people per square mile;
Table 2. 1, lines 2 -4, col. 1). This population constitutes 8.6% of the County's total
population, living on 2.5% of the land area, creating a density that is 3.4 times the
countywide average (Table 2. 1, col.3, lines 2-4).
Almost 160,000 people are employed in the corridor, or 11.1% of the County's total
workforce. Total personal income is $12.6 billion, which is 14% of the county total.
Household income averages $145,000, or 145% of the countywide average of $100,322
(Table 2.1, lines 7 -8, cols. 1 -3).
By extending the US i corridor all the way to Homestead (Table 2. 1, col. 4), we add
more area and more families. The entire corridor encompasses 16% of the county's
population, households, and workforce (Table 2. 1, lines 2, 5, 6) and 21% of its total
personal income. The overall population density of the entire corridor is lower than the
FPL Eastern corridor on US 1, but is still 2.2 times the countywide. average, and
household income averages $127,000, which is 127% of the countywide average.
In summary, then, the ZIP Code corridor is the narrowest economic area around the
FPL proposed Eastern corridor and encompasses 9% of the population, 11% of the jobs,
and 14% of the county's personal income. Its density is 3.4 times higher than the county
I
average, and household incomes average 45% higher than the county average. It is the
high -end corridor into Miami.
A statistical "cut" of the corridor, which is broader than the ZIP Code file, is
provided by the Miami -Dade County "minor statistical areas" (Table 2.2.). According to
this measure, the population of the FPL Corridor was 349,000 in 2000 or 15.5% of the
county, projected to reach 402,000 by 2015. The addition of five more statistical areas
for the "southern extended" corridor adds another 176,000 people, totaling 23% of the
County's population in 2000 and projected to reach 38% of the County by 2025. (Table
2.2, line 9).
The broadest boundary around the FPL proposed Eastern corridor on US I is drawn
by the South Miami -Dade Watershed Study (Table 2.2, line C), which views the entire
region as a single unit of almost a million people or 38% of the County's population.
In summary, the ZIP Code file gives the narrowest number of people in the zone, or
207,000 or 8.6% of the county's population. The County's Planning and Zoning
"Statistical Areas" draws a larger corridor boundary with 349,000 people or 15.5% of the
county, and the Watershed Study comprehends an even larger area with about a million
people or 38% of the county.
But in addition to the sheer number of people living in the corridor area, our
concern now turns to the economic value likely to be affected by the addition of new
above - ground transmission lines on the corridor in question.
12
Section 3. The Value of Corridor Property
We divided the FPL Corridor Route into 13 segments, from SW 16`s to SW 136 St., plus
Option 1 at Brickell and the "noose" around Dadeland. We examined a total of 4,09I
properties on two blocks on both sides of the transmission line route. We noted their
CLUC (land use codes), address, square footage, value of land, value of building, and
total market value (see sample in Table 3.1).
The variety of land uses is broad. In the sample of properties shown in Table 3.1
which refer to SW 26 -36 Streets, on both sides of US 1, we recorded 21 different land
uses, including commercial, industrial, institutional, residential, and many vacant
properties. These data could be valuable research tool for identifying potential areas for
land use improvements in the corridor (see Table 3.2 for a summary of the Land Use
Codes found in the sample properties).
We have found that the total market value for all land and buildings, two blocks on
both sides of US I is $4,031,771,963 just over $4.03 billion (Table 3.3.)i:
This estimate raises three further questions, only one of which will we attempt to
answer in this report. The first and most important question is, "What is the impact of the
transmission lines on the value of these properties and the economic activity they
generate ?"
The second question is not explored here, but is extremely important nonetheless.
If the current value of local properties has already lost perhaps half of their value in the
recent economic meltdown, then to what extent will the future (and presumably
recovering) value be affected by FPL's proposed transmission lines on the US I corridor?
This question assumes that the recovery continues, as FPL assumes, and which is the
entire basis of the need for the new transmission lines in the first place (e.g., Statement of
Need, approved by the Public Service Commission on 1 I April 2008).
Third, what is the loss of investment in expansion and new construction that would
be scheduled for the high- density corridor that now, with the transmission lines, might be
deterred and seek other places if not other counties? What is the cost of returning to the
t The team of University of Miami graduate students participating in this project were: Vania Baker,
Meisha Brisbane, Ali Bustamame, Sepbanie Cazobon, Patricia Guia - Martini, Andrej Lampe, Carl Mbao,
Meissa Meade, Martha Rodriguez, Mathieu Root, Sarah Slater and Lina Sokol. Edward Laird constructed a
40 ft. array of panels using aerial photographs of the entire proposed US I. Corridor. Mr. Laird also created
a full -size cardboard replica of the base segment of a typical 4 ft. diameter transmission line pole,
13
sprawling, non - compact growth pattern if high -rise residential and business construction
shuns the transmission line corridor?
In the absence of published studies of the impact of transmission lines on property
values in Florida, we shall turn now to a detailed review of the published literature and
their findings.
14
Section 4. Literature review of the decline in property value adjacent to
transmission lines.
Two types of studies have been applied to measure the economic impacts of transmission
lines on property value: the questionnaire-survey and statistical regression analysis. The
former asks questions of industry experts and buyers of property. The latter uses data of
sales and detailed records of the characteristics of those properties.
One type of direct survey inquires as to the magnitude of the loss or gain due to
transmission lines, and a second asks simply if is the properties experience a loss or gain
of value. Among the responses to the questionnaires sent to appraisers, real estate
professionals, and purchasers overwhelmingly cite transmission lines as a disamenity,
that is, a downward influence on price. (Table 4. 1, cols. 6 -7). Only one survey found no
effect (Table 4. 1, line 6). The average loss for the 12 reporting cases was 10.3 %.
Among the I I surveys inquiring simply if there was a gain or loss due to
transmission lines, (without estimating the magnitude of that loss or gain), an average of
57% of respondents reported a loss; in 3 studies, 46% of the respondents said "no loss, no
gain," and 2 surveys, 10.5 %, reported gains, usually due to larger parcel sizes or to the
recreational amenities and low traffic associated with transmission line easements (Table
4. 1, cols. 11 -13, bottom line).
In the statistical regression analysis, the researchers use multivariate statistical
techniques to measure the "contribution" of the transmission line to the value of the
house. This variable itself may get redefined into other dimensions: distance from the
transmission line, front or rear sighting, noise, plus the wide array normal variables, such
as year of construction, rooms, lot size, and other amenities.
But these observations appear, and measurements can be "made", only when the
houses are sold. What if the house cannot be sold, as may occur if the owner is unwilling
or unable to take the market loss and chooses to hold on to his otherwise "devalued"
property? ltt such cases, the "loss of value" is never realized, the measurement is never
made, and the "observation" never appears in the data set. Moreover, the "loss" of
housing or commercial construction foregone due to the transmission line is not recorded
in these data. For this reason, empirical data sets may provide an overly optimistic
estimate of actual property values adjacent to transmission lines.
15
Including all eighteen regression studies, the mean recorded loss attributable to
transmission tine proximity was 6.4% (Table 4.2, line 22, col. 7; Table 4.3). However,
we consider the possibility of bias within these studies. For instance, studies published in
peer - reviewed journals are universally considered more reliable than those published
without peer review. Likewise, studies performed by industry consultants are likely to
find outcomes favorable to industry because a consulting firm stands to be hired again if
its results favor the industry's interest. We analyzed. the literature for evidence of these
two potential biases, journal type and author employment (Table 43).
We found that studies by industry consultants reported significantly lower mean
(average) property devaluations from transmission line proximity than studies by
academics, 2.7% vs. 12.6% (p= 0.004, Table 4.3). For non - statisticians, the Fisherian
significance value, "p= 0.004" can be interpreted to mean that elves rolling dice would
only obtain a difference in mean roll scores as extreme or more extreme than the
difference in reported devaluation means no more than four times in a thousand. In other
words, such an extreme difference between the author groups (industry consultant vs.
academic) is extremely unlikely to have been obtained by chance alone, and thus likely
has an underlying cause. We posit this cause to be financial conflict of interest
experienced by industry consultants.
Examining the effect of journal type, we found that the non- peer - reviewed
literature reported a lesser decline on average than the peer reviewed literature, 4.25% vs.
8.6 %. While the difference is not statistically significant (t-test, i- tailed, unequal
variance, t =1.38, p= 0.09), one data point falls more than three standard deviations beyond
the mean, the accepted statistical standard for outlier exclusion; a study prepared by the
University of Quebec for Hydro - Quebee found transmission line proximity associated
with a 17% decline in property value. Omitting this statistical outlier from this analysis,
the mean value decline in non - peer - reviewed literature is a 2.67% and the difference
between peer - reviewed and non- peer - reviewed literature is statistically significant
(t--2.18, p= 0.03). Even within the peer - reviewed literature, industry consultants reported
significantly lower devaluations than academics, 2.3% vs. 13.3% (t =2.99, p= 0.01).
Which group of studies is most accurate? The question is resolved by the
corroboration of the academic regression studies by the real estate professional
Irr
questionnaire surveys. Surveys of real estate professionals reported an average 10.3%
loss of property values due to transmission line proximity, a figure in concordance with
the 12.6% average reported in the academic studies, and much higher than the 2.7%
reported by industry consultants. We place confidence in the concordance between the
realtor surveys and the academic regression studies.
Seeking studies most geographically and economically similar to US I, we
iinagined the ideal study in which urban property values along a major thoroughfare were
measured before and after the construction of a high - voltage transmission line. It hasn't
been published yet. Most published studies analyzed corridors that pass through small
towns between major cities, but the study by Des Rossiers (2002) examined the city of
Brossard in the Greater Montreal Area (Table 4.2, line 7), a region directly comparable to
the urban character of FPL's proposed US 1 corridor. That city of 69,000 is smaller than
our corridor of 207,000 people (as measured by the ZIP Code areas, Table 2.1 above), but
Brossard's density of 4,059 people per sq. mile is very similar to our corridor's density of
4,218 people per sq mile. Des Rossiers (2002) used a sample of 507 single- family houses
sold between 1991 and 1996, but the high - voltage transmission line corridor was itself
two miles long and 200 ft. wide, and not built alongside a major thoroughfare: their 315
kV lines were run on high pylons down the middle of its exclusive corridor, whereas US
I would feature 230 kV lines situated along the roadway. Des Rossiers' study is
outstanding in the number of variables tested (62), the numerous geographical and class
divisions of the city, the number of models tested, and the forms of the equations fitted.
In Brossard, Des Rossiers found transmission line proximity produced on average a 10%
loss of residential property value and a maximum loss of 20% in certain locations. An
earlier of another Quebec site (Table 4.2, line 7, Universite du Quebec, 1982) found a
maximum of 34% value loss.
The concordance between Des Rossier's study (10% loss), the realtor surveys
(10.3% loss), and the academic regression studies (12.6% loss) give us confidence that
10% is a reliable and conservative figure for the property value loss within two
blocks of FPL's US 1. Below we apply a range of property loss rate projections to the
property corridor: 5%,10%,20%, and 34 %, then select 10% for our remaining
calculations.
17
In our review of 42 studies, important questions arise, for example:
1) For how long does the disamenity last? One year? Ten years? Some studies found
that prices "normalized" after 20 years.
2) Over what distance is the disamenity "effective"? One block? Two blocks? 200
meters? The literature shows that distance depends on the field of vision, the height of
the towers, and intervening structures and foliage.
3) Some studies report no loss of sale price, but rather a longer time period to sell the
property at the asking price. Such an economic effect fails to show up in the regression
analysis but requires the conversion of the lost time into the price variable.
4) Literature shows that the perception of the disamenity is itself the "real" cause of lost
value, so that, for example, developers of upscale restaurants, car dealerships, hospitals,
and daycare centers are likely to avoid the transmission line corridor altogether.
Section 4: References
A. General — Transmission Lines and Property Values:
1. Fik, T.J., D.C. Ling, & G.F. Mulligan, 2003. "Modeling Spatial Variation in Housing Prices: A Variable
Interaction Approach." Real Estate Economics 31, 4, pp. 623 -646. professors at University of
Florida and University of Arizona. Theoretical models: dummy, distance, access don't explain
location; need a unique "location value signature" and other site, structural and independent
attributes plus interactions.
2. Wilson, A. R. 2006. "Real Property Damages and Rubber Rulers." Real Estate Issues, Summer, pp. 25-
31. Private consultant in Woodland Park, CO. Damage diminution, location discussion.
3. Pitts, J. M. and T.O. Jackson, 2007. "Power Lines and Property Values Revisited." Appraisal Journal,
Fall 2007 pp. 323 -325. (general descriptive; not original).
Stigma:
4. Elliot, P. & D. Wadley, 2002. "The Impact of Transmission Lines on Property Values: come to terms
with stigma." Prom Mana eg merit 20,2 pp. 137 -152. U, of Queensland, Australia
Legal issues, "just compensation"
5. Furby, L, R. Gregory, P. Slovic, & B. Fischhoff,1988. "Electric Power Transmission Lines, Property
Values, and Compensation." Journal of Environmental Magaeement 27, pp. 69 -83. All are private
consultants in Eugene, OR.
6. Oral, L.J., 1994(7), "Perceived Risks of EMFs and Landowner Compensation," University of New—
Hampshire Law Review, vol 6, Winter. htto Aaw unh edu /risk/vo16 /wintexlorel hhn
7. Gell, C. 1999. "Shocking Overheads — Power Lines." National Association of Real Estate Appraisers
(UK).
Review of General Statistical Studies and Issues:
IN
8. Bolton, D.R. & K.A. Sick, 1999. "Power Lines and Property Values: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,"
Urban Lawyer, Spring, 31, 2. Authors are consultants in Austin,. TX. Early lit review.
Detailed Review of All Types of Statistical Studies:
9. Kroll, C.A. & Priestley, T., 1992: "The Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines on Property Values: A
Review and Analysis of the Literature." Report prepared for the Edison Electric Institute Siting
and Environmental Planning Task Force, Internet Edition (Washington, D.C.)
survey Questionnaires:
Nation -wide survey:
10. Delaney, C.J. & Timmons, D., 1992. "High Voltage Power Lines: Do They Affect Residential Property
Value ?" Journal of Real Estate Research 7, 3, Summer, pp. 315 -329. Prof., Baylor University,
Waco, TX, and UT, San Antonio, TX.
Mempbls, TN:
I I. Kung, 14. & Seagle, C.P., 1992, "Impact of Power Transmission Lines on Property
Values: A Case Study." The Appraisal Journal, 60, 3, Jul, pp. 413 -418. Sponsored by Memphis
State U and Memphis Area Assoc of Realtors Hue. Foundation. Authors: geography professor at
Memphis State University and real estate appraiser. (Concludes: value sensitivity depends on
awareness and perception of power line dangers.)
Minnesota:
12. Mitterress, C. and S. Mooney. 1998. "Power Line Perceptions: Their Impact on Value and Market
Time." Paper presented at ARES Annual Meeting 1998-14 pp (Review of 6 surveys; asks buyers.
SS (Professor at St. Cloud State University, MN).
Regression -type studies:
Reviews of Regression studies
13. Gallimore, P. & M.R. Jaye, 1999. "Public and Professional Perceptions of 1JVOTL risks: the Problem
of circularity." Journal of Prouetty Research 16, 3, pp. 243 -255. Reviews early regression model
results. Professor at Nottingham Trent University & Staffordshire University Business School,
UK.
14, Jackson, T.O. & J. Pitts. 2010. "The Effects of Electric Transmission Lines on Property Values: A
Literature Review." Journal of Real Estate Literatu re, 18, 2. pp. 239 -259. Authors are Texas
A &M professors and real estate consultant; no funding source given. They conclude there are no
effeetsJ
Original regression studies
Academic:
Decatur, ILL:
15, Colwell, P.F. & Foley, K.W., 1979. `Electric Transmission Lines and the Selling Price of Residential
Property." The Appraisal Journal Oct., pp. 490 -99. Prof. at U Ill, Urbana- Champaign and real
estate agent with Illinois Power Company. The first study to find falling price with proximity to
Power Lines.
16. Colwell, P.F, 1990. "Power Lines and Land Value." Journal of Real Estate Research, 5, 117 -27. Finds
the "power line price - effect" diminishes over time.
Montreal:
I7. Des Rossiers, Francois, 2002. "Power Lines, Visual Encumbrance and House Values: A Microspatial
Approach to Impact measurement." Journal of Real Estate Research 23, 3, pp. 275 -302. Professor
at Laval University, Canada.
W,
Washington & Oregon:
18. Woverton, M.L. & S.C. Bottemiller, 2003. "Further Analysis of Transmission Line Impact on
Residential Property Values." The Appraisal Journal 71,3 July, pp. 244 -252.
Professor at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, chief appraiser at Bonneville Power
Administration, USDOE.
UK and Scotland:
19. Sims, S. and P. Dent, 2005. "High- voltage Overhead Power Lines and Property Values: A Residential
Study in the UK." Urban Studies 42,4 (April), pp. 665 -694. Authors are at Oxford Brookes
University. Excellent statistical work; also references.
Cleveland:
20. Simons, R.A. and J.D. Saginor 2006. "A Meta - Analysis of the Effect of Environmental Contamination
and Positive Amenities on Residential Real Estate Values." Journal of Real Estate Research, 28, 1
pp. 71 -104. Authors are at Cleveland State University. No funding source given.
Industry sponsored:
NY, ME, CA (Land & 1- family)
2I. Kinnard, W.N. Jr. & S.A. Dickey, 1995. "A Primer on Proximity Impact Research: Residential Property
Values Near High - Voltage Transmission Lines." Real Estate Issues, 20, d, Apr. pp. 23 -29.
Emeritus Professor from Canada and consultant in California.
Conn. & MA: (1 family)
22. Chalmers, J.A. & F. A. Voorvaart. 2009. "High- voltage Transmission Lines: Proximity, Visibility, and
Encumbrance Effects," The Appraisal Journal. Summer. Pp, 227 -245. Funded by Northeast
Utilities; authors are private appraisers and litigation consultants.
Rural and suburban Ct , MA. See comments in Fall 2009 and Summer 2010 Appraisal 7oumal.
See comments by E. Razzi, "Pay Attention to Power Lines," Washington Post, Aug. 8, 2009.
B. Other Studies on the Economic Impact of Amenities:
General dsamenities:
23. Boyle, M.A., and K.A. Kiel. 2001. "A Survey of House Price Hedonic Studies of the Impact of
Environmental Externalities." Journal of Real Estate Literature 9, 2, p 117 -144. All kinds:
pipelines, nuclear plants, smelters, landfills, but no specific power line studies included. Funded
by US EPA. Professor at MIT and College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA
24. Jackson, T.O.2001. "The Effects of Environmental Contamination on Real Estate: a Literature
Review." Journal of Real Estate Literature % 2, pp. 93 -116. funded by NSF, Lincoln Institute,
Consultant in Bryan, TX
Evaluation of Visual Disamenities:
25. Harrison, S., 2002. "Visual Disamenity in the Queensland Wet Tropics: Estimating the Economic
Impacts of Overhead Transmission Lines." Economic Analysis and Policy 32, 2, June, pp. 173-
188. U. Queensland, Australia. (Impact on Tropic tourism; farmland values).
Transmission Line Siting:
26. Vajjhala, S.P. and P.S. Fischbeck. 2007. "Quantifying Siting Difficulty: A Case Study of US
Transmission Line Siting." Energy Policy 35, pp. 650 -671. (Resources for the Future; Carnegie
Mellon U). Good bibliography.
Wind Mills as Disamenities:
27. Hoen, B., R. Wiser, P. Cappers, M. Thayer, & G. Sethi. 2009. "The Impact of Wind Power Projects on
Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi -Site Hedonic Analysis." Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. 146 pp. (revision #1). Funded by US DOE. Excellent bibliography
20
Tunnels and roads as disamenities:
28. Kilpatric, J.A., R.L. Tbroupe, J.I. Carruthers, & A. Krause. 2007. "The Impact of Transit Corridors on
Residential Property Values." Journal of Real Estate Research, Jul -Sept, 29, 3, pp. 303 -320.
Funded by HUD. Authors are from U. Denver, private consultants, and HUD. (superhighways, I-
95's, tunnels)
C. Safety Discussion:
29. Jaconetty, T.A. 2001. "Do You Want your Children Playing Under Those Things? The Continuing
Controversy about High Voltage Electro- magnetic Fields, Human Health, and Real Property
Values." Assessment Journal May /June, P. 23 -30. Author is Chief Deputy Commissioner, Cook
County Board of Review. (Review of many factors; no conclusions).
30. Silicon Valley Real Estate Info: "High Voltage Transmission Lines, Electric and Magnetic Fields
(EMFs) and How They Affect Real Estate Prices." Jan. 3, 2008.
31. Kennebec Journal "As transmission lines plans proceed, homeowners ponder offers, safety concerns.
May 18, 2008.
Energy Efficiency in Florida:
32. Florida PIRG Education Fund, 2005. "Redirecting Florida's Energy: the Economic and consumer
Benefits of Clean Energy Policies." Tallahassee. 24 pp. (written by Navin Nayak). Funded by
Energy Foundation, a renewable energy industry consortium.
33. Elliot, R.N, & M. Eldridge, A.M. Shipley, J. Laimer, S. Nadel, 2007. "Potential for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy to Meet Florida's Growing Energy Demands." Report No. E072.
American Council for an Energy - Efficient Economy, Washington, DC
34. Petition to determine need for Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7 electrical power plant, by Florida
Power & Light Company. DOCKET NO. 070650-El, ORDER NO. PSC-08- 0237- FOF -Ei
http: / /www.floridapsc. comp ibrary/ filings /O8 %SCO2812.08 %SCO2812- OS.pdf
21
Section 5. Value of Property and Job Loss in Miami -Dade County
5.1 Loss in property values
In Section 3 above, we identified property valued $4.03 billion in the two -block corridor
along the FPL's preferred route. At loss rates of 5 %, 10 %, 20 %, and 34 %, respectively,
the corresponding losses in property values are $203 million, $403 million, $803 million,
and $1.37 billion for the respective loss rates (Table 5.1, lines A.1- A.4.). The
corresponding losses of property tax revenues (valued on the Miami -Dade County
millage rate of 22.992) range from $4.6 to $31.5 million annually (Table 5.1, lines B.1-
BA.). At the "best - estimate" loss rate of 16 %f the projected property value loss
from transmission lines on US 1 is $403 million, roughly twice FPL's upper estimate
of $200 million required to underground these lines.
5.1 Loss in municipal revenues
A property value loss of 10% translates to annual property tax losses of $9.3 million
(Table 5. 1, B). The losses in other municipal revenues are more difficult to model, but
we can make an approximation. Ad- valorem taxes in South Miami constitute 38% of
annual municipal revenues, so assuming the hit to property value affects other activities
such as construction and retail by a proportional amount, we can assume that total
annual revenues lost would be $24.5 million ($9.3 million / 0.34). Loss rates of 20%
would produce annual ad- valorem tax loss of $18.6 million and total revenue losses of
$49 million. At a 10% value loss, the lost municipal revenues alone would exceed the
cost of undergrounding in eight years, and at 20% value loss, municipal revenue
losses would exceed the undergrounding costs in four years.
5.2 Job Losses
How do property value losses affect the number of jobs in the economy? How does
"dollar property loss" translate into "job loss "? Fortunately economists have developed
two standard models for measuring' economic impacts of different "events" or policy
changes, IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planners) and REMI (Regional Economic
Modeling, Inc.; see IMPLAN.com and REMI.com). Both are excellent analytic tools;
22
each gives a different dimension of the economy, and both must be used to obtain a
complete projection of economic impacts. IMPLAN measures the impacts for a single
time period. It assumes the full "Ioss" ripples through the economy all at once. It
collapses or consolidates all the economic effects into a single "solution," even if the
effects take years to work themselves out and occur at different points in time. IMPLAN
deals primarily with the backward or production linkages, with the inter- industry
connections, and also with the consumption effect of workers' spending as a result of an
impact or policy change. These effects are specified as "direct, indirect, and induced"
effects on jobs; their sure is the total job impact. IMPLAN gives us an "X -ray" of the
economy. Alter one economic entity, such as land value, and IMPLAN will trace which
other components are connected to it and quantitatively how much value flows from one
economic entity to another. REMI (Regional Economic Modeling, Inc.) is analogous to a.
video MRI of the patient yesterday, today, tomorrow, and for the next 40 years. The
REMI model measures the interactions between the interconnected economic
components. This modeling system includes "blocks" that trace flows and relationships
between output, capital and labor dernand, population and labor supply, wages, prices,
and profits, and market shares (see the sketch of the economic pieces in Figure 5.1). Both
tools give the analyst significant insights into the impacts of a disamenity.
Once the real estate market "recognizes" the disamenity and prices react, say, by a
decline of 10 %, what is the next step? Do the homeowners and business owners see
themselves as "poorer," and if so, how is that expressed? If prices and appraisals fall,
then taxes will fall and government spending will fall. But the private citizen's reaction
to losing 10% of the value of his house may vary widely. The aggregate loss in the
Miami -Dade economy of $403 million, ahnost a half billion dollars when the lines are
completed, spread across 4,000 property owners, may lead to different scenarios. How
will individuals, families, and businesses express this loss? Will they out spending across
the board, invest less, or save more? Will they cut discretionary spending on restaurants,
jewelry, and travel, or insist on cuts in social services, such as nursing care and
education? The precise responses of different property owners to declining property
values determines how the value losses resonate through the economy.
23
5.2a IMPLAN Job Loss
We use IMPLAN as a fast "X -ray" guide to these alternatives, designing alternative
programs to evaluate the impact of different levels of value reductions (5%,10%, 20 %,
and 34 %) on different arrays of sectors (Table 5.2, lines A 1 -6). At 10% property
devaluation, the affected neighborhoods along the corridor would experience from
4,382 to 8,040 jobs lost, with the precise number depending on the economic sectors
present and affected by spending reductions (Table 5.2). For instance, if just the real
estate sector and government- spending take the full hit, then a total of 4,382 jobs will be
lost at the 10% property loss level (Table 5.2, col. 2, line A). But if the cut in sector
spending hits air travel, private colleges, and retailing (Table 5.2, line 2), then 5,170 jobs
will be lost. The most service - intensive "basket" of cuts is our last scenario (Table 5.2,
col. 2, line 6) which reduces $403 million in spending on private education, real estate,
nursing care facilities, food and drinking places, and jewelry manufacturing. In this case,
8,040 jobs would be lost.
All the numbers above assume that the effects are compressed into a single year.
We must now turn to REMI and play out similar scenarios with a more complex regional
economic model and for a longer time span.
5.2b REMI Job Loss
The basic REMI model for Miami -Dade County gives results that are similar to the
IMPLAN findings. At a 10% property loss, REMI finds the first year reduction in jobs of
3,790, compared to the IMPLAN loss of 4,382 jobs. (Table 5.3, line A). But REMI
allows us to keep the disamenity in place for a number of years and watch as its
"unattractiveness" disappears. The underlying assumption entered into REMI is that the
disamenity causes an initial drop in value, then people gradually get used to the
disamenity and business as usual returns. In a low quality economic area (e.g., industrial,
used motor homes, fast food), the assumption of disappearing disamenity may be
founded. In upscale retail and residential areas, however, the desired development may
simply move to a location lacking the disamenity, to be replaced by activities of lower
economic value. In the former scenario (gradually returning value), the number of lost
jobs declines gradually to 3,056 in five years (2015) and to 2,132 in ten years (2020). If
24
the disamenity lasts 30 years, then the impact is still a loss of 838 jobs by 2040. The
length and depth of the trough (job loss) due to the disamenity is shown in Graph 5.1 for
the 10% rate. Under the second scenario, if the jobs return at all they would be at lower
pay grades.
The depth of the trough might also vary, as we discovered already from our
IMPLAN experiments. For a five -year disamenity, if only the real estate sector is
affected, then the REMI model finds that 2,586 jobs per year will be affected for each
year, falling to 2,142 jobs per year in five years. (Table 5.3, line BI) If the business
service sector takes the bit (line 132), then 7,536 jobs will be affected, falling to about
6,000 jobs in 5 years. If, however, nursing takes the hit, then 10,680 jobs per year will be
lost, falling to 8,238 jobs by 2015 (line 133). If the disamenity lasts long and affects the
service or health industries, then the impact on jobs could be quite severe.
5.3 Economic Effect of Job Loss
Let us calculate the economic cost of jobs lost from a 10% property value decline. We
assume average income is $50,166, half the countywide family total income of $100,322,
We assume the expected job loss number is the average value in Table 5.2, 5955 jobs.
The annual cost of the job loss is $298,738,530, approximately $300 million.
Recognize that these loss figures do not include the effects of transmission lines on
the recovery of property values and jobs lost in the recent economic hyper - recession.
Nor do these loss figures include the cost in future development desired for the US 1
corridor. Nor do these loss figures include the extreme cost of infiastructure needed to
service the urban sprawl that would result from failure to create density along this
corridor. Actual costs to the region could be an order of magnitude higher than those
projected in this study.
The potential gains of value to society from enhanced electrical transmission must
be fairly offset by the economic losses from citing aboveground transmission lines on the
US 1 corridor.
25
Section 6. Epilogue - Stories of the Special Case: a Corridor to Nowhere
The entire US I development strategy, a decade of collaborative planning and action on
the part of local and county government, is jeopardized by FPL's transmission line
project, and the anti - sprawl program of compact growth along the corridor is likewise
threatened. As a prologue, we provide two cautionary case studies that will never be
featured in the regression analysis literature.
In 2005 Howard Taft and Charles Gelman bought a 4 -floor town house at 6205
Laguna Path, a part of the famous Aqua Project on Allison Island in North Miami Beach.
They paid $1.4 million prior to construction on the basis of models and architectural
renderings. Their corner lot was to have a corner window and a spectacular view of the
bay channel. However, after it was built, the frontage was marred by a spectacular view
of poles and power lines rurming up West 63`d Street. The owners replaced the corner
picture window with opaque glass that lets in light but no images. To this day, the prices
Taft and Gelman have been offered for the property, even by the current tenants, is far
below the market value of comparable properties that lack power lines in front. The
owners have been unwilling to sell at the "disamenity" price, thus the property will not
appear among data on disamenity losses.
The second case is another transmission corridor that, perhaps, gives us a glimpse
of what US I with transmission lines might come to look like. In Broward County, State
Road 7 / US 441 had been targeted as a "future growth corridor" by the South Florida
Regional Planning Council. About 17.5% of Broward's residents reside within a mile of
the transmission lines. In 2004, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) identified five major
development centers along the corridor and forecast growth of office space, retailing,
hotels, and new residences in a study commissioned by the SR 7 / US 441 Collaborative.
Yet the corridor never developed and remains a semi - moribund zone. Is it because of the
landfill along part of the route? The casino? The remains of an old incinerator site? Or
maybe it is the miles of high - voltage transmission wires that parallel and cross the route?
We find it ironic indeed that the very conveyance of the energy needed for
economic growth can itself prevent the same growth. Siting a new transmission corridor
though a developing urban region may create a graveyard monument to the economic
potential it destroyed, a corridor to nowhere.
26
Table 1.1
Measures of Sprawl and South Florida Appetite for Land, 1995 -2010
1995 1960.1995 2010 1995.2010
Urban
Urban Denslfy Land- Urban Pop. abs. 1-9- % new urban
Pop. Land (People! Pop. Pop chnge. chga land
_. . ... _ ..1-, I ,..,., land (thou. ac.1
A. Lower East Coast (LEC)
2,085 248 8.4 0.910
21496
411
19.7
17.9
44.5
1 M -Dade
2 eroward 1,438 199 7.2 0,532
1,748
310
21.6
32
11.5
17.8
22.8
44.6
3 Palm Beach 995 250 4.0 0.546
697 6.5 0.693
1,320
5,564
325
1,046
-7
23.2
16.1
111.9
Sum (3 counties) 4,518
B. Upper East Coast MEC)
50 13 0.763
146
32
28.1
21.4
1017
4 Martin 114
173 73 2.4 0.137
278
105
60.7
8.3
6.1
5 St. Lucie
287 123 2.3 0.286
424
137
47.7
13.7
16.8
Sum (2 counties)
C Lwr. E. Coast (5 counties) 4,805 820 519 0.637
5,988
1,183
24.6
15.7
128.7
D. Lower West Coast (LWC)
(Collier, Glades, Lee, Hendry)
2.1 0.879
1,289
669
107.9
94.8
284.4
Sum (4 counties) 620 300
E Sum: 9 counties 5,425 1,120 4.8 11080
7,277
1,852
34.1
36.9
413.1
Sources and Methods:
1995 from SEBR, Fla, Statistical Abstract 2002, Table 120.
col. 1: Population
111, "Land Use, National Wetlands
Inventory',
West Palm
Beach, 1997.
colt: Urban land 1995 from SFWMD GIs Data, CD -ROM
col. 3: Computed col.1 1col. 2.
4: Elasticity from Weisskoff 2005, Econ of Everglades Restoration, Table 4.2, p. 87.
See computations there.
coL
Elasticity is defined as the % change in land divided by the %change In population.
city - Sonde-
2000 -2010
-new
col. 5: Population from BEBR, Table 1, hnp:llw .bebru0.edulcontent/ census- population-couniscountyand-
col.6 =col. 5 -mi. 1.
col. 7 = (col. 5 - col. 1N(coL 1)
col. 8 = col 4 col, 7.
col. 9 =col. 8' mi- 2
Table 2.1 IMPLAN Socio- Economic Data of the FPL. Corridor by Zip Codes
Narrow and Extended, 2008 Data.
2 Population
206,682
% FPU
Entire
% Entire
FPL
M -D
County
Corridorto
Corr /County
Corridor
County
col 1lool 2
Homestead
col 4 /col t
1
2
3
4
5
1 Number of Zip Codes* 8
79
10.1
14
17.7
2 Population
206,682
2,398,245
8.6
387,150
16.1
3 Area (sq.miles,)
49
1,945
2.5
137
7.0
4 Density (pop /sq mi)
4,218
1,233
342.1
2,816
228.4
5 Employment
159,527
1,441,182
11.1
223,096
15.5
6 No. households
87,078
901,127
9.7
147,673
16.4
7 Total personal income
$12.649
$90.402
14.0
$18.754
20.7
(bill. $)
8 Income per household $
$145,257
$100,322
144.8
$126,999
126.6
9 No. IMPLAN sectors **
222
384
57.8
245
63.8
Notes:
• Zip codes for FPL Corridor are: 33129, 30, 33, 43, 46, 56, 58, & 76.
Zip codes for the rest of the US1 Corridor include: 33157, 189, 170, 032, 033, & 030
• "The IMPLAN model has potentially 440 producing sectors, but
not all are found in any single area. The number of sectors in any given region
indicates the number of inter - industry linkages operating in the region.
Source: IMPLAN zip -code data files for Miami -Dade County, 2008.
Table 2.2 Projecting Population Growth and Expansion in the Corridor:
M -D P &Z Dept. and South Miami -Dade Watershed Study.
A. Miami Dade Planning & Zoning
Minor Statistical Areas 2000 2015 2025 Abs.Chge %Change
1 2 3 4 5
3 South Extension:
41,575
76,248
99,332
2000 -2025
2000 -2025
1 FPL Corridor
55,893
79,106
92,559
36,666
65.6
52
53
120,126
126,766
131,814
11,688
9.7
5.5
80,111
88,586
96,165
16,054
20.0
5.6
32,431
35,168
36,720
4,289
13.2
25,346
28,104
30,131
4,785
18.9 .
57
40900
QRR
3 South Extension:
41,575
76,248
99,332
57,757
138.9
7.1
72
39,327
58,490
73,199
33,872
86.1
7.3
32,367
43,205
50,854 -
18,487
57.1
7.4
48,364
104,187
146,118
97,754
202,1
7.5
14636
36,024
•--
49,979
........,
35,343
4 N
241.5
aoM n
5 Sum Entire Corridor
6 Total: Miami -Dade County
7 % FPL Corridor( County
8 % So. Extension only /County
525,216 720,405 855,500 330,284
2,253,362 2,724,623 3,046,081
15.5 14.8 14.3
7.8 11.7 13.8
792,719
%0
30.7
62.9
35.2
9 % Entire Corridor /County
23.3
26.4
� 28.1 41.7
S Watershed Project Region
952,779
1,033,751
1,161,016 208,237 21.9
% of County:
, 38.2%
37.9
38.1
Sources:
A. Miami -Dade County, Dept of Planning and Zoning, Research Section,
Population Estimates and Projections, Feb. 2008.
B. South Miami -Dade Watershed Study, 2007, Table 2.1, p. 2.6.
Table 3.1
Sample Appraisal Valuation of "Power Line Properties ", 2636 St., Two blocks in, both sides of U51
Property Adj Sq
Folio No. Cluc Address Footage lot size land
Building
Market
Value
101 -0116 - 117 -0010
47
0
5.17A4res
1,466,380
0
1,466,380
201 - 4116.038.0010
34
2900 SW 28 LN
11,214
25,432 SQ FT
$1,525,920
$256,518
$1,782,438
301 - 4116 -0$e -0020
81
2940 SW 28 LN
0
12,129 SQ FT
$727,740
0
$727,740
401-4116 -038 -0070
12
2950 SW 7.8 LN
2,175
6,250 SQ FT
$375,000
$99,873
$474,623
501 -4316 -076.0020
37
2990 SW 28 LN
81,533
29,18S SO FT
$1,751,100
$3,041,190
$4,792,290
6 01-4116-037 -0350
2
2902 SW 27 LN
1,916
10,167 SQ FT
$66,086
$119,062
$785,148
7014116.037 -0351
1
2966 SW 27 LN
1,015
6,69654 FT
$43,572
$58,575
$102,147
8014116-037 -0360
1
2978 SW 27 LN
1,797
8,122 SQ FT
$52,820
$112,473
$165,293
9014116. 037 -0370
1
2990 SW 27 LN
1,074
8,432 SQ FT
$55,310
$63,204
$118,514
10014116.03S -0320
3
2796 SW 30 AVE
1,741
4,500 SQ FT
$40,162
$61,032
$101,194
11014116 -035.0330
3
3010 SW 27 LN
1,961
4,500 SQ FT
40,162
$64,864
$105,026
22 014116.035 -0331
3
30205W 27 LN
1,918
4,500 SO FT
$40,162
$63,2S3
$103,435
13 01. 4116435 4)340
3
3036 SW 27 LN
3,394
9,000 SO FT
$80,325
$139,482
$219,807
1401-4116 -035 -0350
3
3040 SW 27 LN
1,834
4,500 SQ FT
$40,162
$64,293
$104,455
15014116 -D35 -0360
3
3050 SW 27 IN
1,834
4,500 SQ FT
$40,162
$64,293
$104,455
16014116.035 -0370
3
3060 SW 27 LN
1,834
4,5,00 SQ FT
$40,162'
$64,293
$104,455
17014116035.0380
3
3070 SW 27 IN
1,834
4,50054 FT
'$40,162
$64.293
$104,455
18014116035 -0390
3
3074 SW 27W
1,834
4,500 SQ FT
540,162
$64,293
$104,455
14014116. 035.0400
3
1,834
4,500 SQ FT
$40,162
$64,293
$104,455
20 014116.035.0401
3
3090 SW 27 LN
1,304
3,375 SQ FT
$30,122
$46,732
$76,854
21014116-035-0410
3
3094 SW 27 LN
11293
3,137 54 FT
$27,998
$46,347
$74,345
2201-4116035 -0590
13
3001 SW 28 LN
6,934
10,620 SQ FT
584,100
$21,360
$605,460
23014116 - 035.0580
81
3015SW28ST
0
2,250SQFT
$123,750
$0
$123,750
2401-4116035 -0570
81
3025 SW 28 ST
0
2,250 SQ FT
$123,750
$0
$123,750
25 014116035 ,4560
81
3035 SW 28 ST
0
2,250 SQ FT
$123,750
$0
$123,750
26014116,435 -0530
32
3029 SW 28 ST
3,660
6,750SQFT
$371,250
$1,000
$372,250
27014116-035 -0510
36
3051 SW28 ST
3,380
4,500 SO FT
$247,500
$56,519
$304,019
28014116.035 -0500
81
3055 SW 28 ST
0
2,250 SQ FT
$123,750
$0
$123,750
29014116 -035.0490
81
3057 SW 28 SF
0
2,2505QFT
$123,750
$0
$123,750
3001-4116. 035 -0480
81
3061 SW 28 ST
0
2,2505QFT
$123,750
$0
$123,750
3101-4116435-0470
81
3071 SW 28 ST
0
2,2505QFT
$123,750
$0
$123,750
3201.4136 ,435-0440
37
3075 SW 28 ST
31850
6,75054 FT
$371,250
$90,960
$462,210'
33 01 -4116. 035-0420
81
3085 SW 28 ST
0
5,963 SQ FT
$327,965
$0
$327,965
3401 -4116435 -0430
37
3099 SW 28 SF
5,339
3,038 SQ FT
$167,090
$165,911
$333,001
35014116438 -0350
13
3010 SW 28 LN
6,550
12,300 SQ FT
$738,000
$401,627
$1,139,627
36014116438 -0420
34
2801 SW 31 AVE
16,824
11,6505QFT
$699,000
$405,774
$1,104,774
37 01 411603 &0260
11
3000 SW 28 LN
51,312
27,973 SQ FT
$1,678,380
$2,848,215
$4,526,595
38 014116 -038 -0270
41
3044 SW 26 LN
4,568
6,250 SQ FT
$375,000
$203,017
$578,017
39 01 -4116038-0330
37
3054 SW 28 LN
98,373
25,00054 FT
$1,500,000
$7,000.000
$8,500,000
40014116 -038 -0340
37
2851 SW 31 AVE
82,863
26,809$0 FT
$1,608,540
$5,491,460
$7,100,000
4101 -4116 -036-0010
42
2805 SW 32 AVE
36,424
9.91ACRES
$2,916,776
$504,399
$3,421,175
4201 -0116017.0100
2
3201 SW 29 ST
2,360
7,494 SQ FT
$48,711
$153,510
$202,221
4301 -0116. 017 -0090
2
2890 SW 32 AVE
2,620
6465SQFT
$42582
$170,892
$213,474
44014116- 017-0080
2
2880 SW 32 AVE
2,200
6,465 SQ FT
$42,582
$141,488
$184,070
45 01 4116. 017 -0130
2
2863 SW 32 CT
2,260
13,899 SQ FT
$90,107
$129,475
$219,582
46014116017 -0120
2
2893 SW 32 CT
1,886
7,584 SO FT
$49,597
$117,211
$166,808
4701 -4116 -017 -0300
1
2892 SW32CT
883
4,276 SQ FT
$27,879
$50,717
$78,596
480141164174310
1
3261 SW 29 ST
612
2,69554 FT
$17,518
$36,064
$53,582
4901. 4116 -017 -0290
2
2886 SW 32 CT
1,194
6,94950 FT
$45,053
$71,964
$117,017
5001-4116 -017 -0281
1
2876 SW 32 CT
1,157
6,949 SO FT
$4S,053
$71,907
$116,960
5101 -41160174280
1
2870 SW 32 CT
1,752
6,94954 FT
$45,053
$97,303
$142,356
52014116 -017 -0350
1
2877 SW 33 AVE
1,378
6,949 SO FT
WOS3
$82,531
$127,584
53014116 -017 -0340
1
2867 SW 33 AVE
1,128
6,949 SQ FT
$45,053
$65,333
$110,386
54014116 -017 -0330
2
3281 SW 29 ST
2,200
6,583 SQ FT
$42,957
$138,118
$181,075
55014116 -017 -0320
2
3285 SW 29 ST
2,195
7,374SQFT
$47,931
$137,067
$184,998
5601 -0116022 -0150
2
32605W 295T
1,371
17,0385Q FT
$71,148
$106,021
$177,169
5701.4116 -022 -0140
41
3270 SW 29 ST
4,576
16,819 S4 FT
$109,324
$204,662
$313,986
5801 - 4116018-0440
1
29115W 33 CT
1,522
7,869 SO FT
$51,148
$45,809
$96,957
59014116 -018-0430
2
2901 SW 33 CT
2,419
6,100 SO FT
$39,820
$152,944
$192,764
60014116 -0184420
2
2891 SW 33 CT
1,502
6,100 SQ FT
$39,820
$87,327
$127,147
61014116 -0184410
1
28815W 33 CT
1,435
6,300 SQ FT
$39,820
$75,889
$115,709
62014116 -018-0400
81
0
91150SQFT
$59,729
$0
$59,729
63014116.01&OS70
2
2920 SW 33 CT
2,906
10,5S7 SO FT
$68,620
$177,678
$246,298
6401 -4116-018 -0560
1
3351SW29TER
1,182
7,540 SQ FT
$49,338
$68,230
$117,568
65014116418 -0553
2
3363SW29TER
1,746
6,250$Q FT
$40,500
$114,982
$155,482
66014116418 ,4552
2
3369 SW 29 TER
1,892
7,622 SQ Fr
$49,872
5119,275
$169,147
670141160184550
2
3375 SW 29 TER
1,431
3,582 SQ FT
$23,283
$87,873
$1111156
68014116-018.0551
1
3373 SW 29 TER
1,150
5,434 SQ FT
$35,321
$69,840
$105,161
6901-4116018.0541
1
3377 SW 29 TER
2,390
7,075SQFT
$46,172
$154,826
$200,998
70014116.018.0540
2
2935 SW 34 AVE
4,589
7,$00 SQ FT
$49,150
$338,480
$387,630
71014116-018 -0530
1
2929 SW 34 AVE
1,426
7,500 54 FT
$49,150
$80,212
5152,752
$129,362
$201,902
7201,1116- 018 -0520
2
2927 SW 34 AVE
2,400
7,500 SQ FT
FT
$49,150
$44,421
$68,052
$112A73
73014116-019 -1390
1
2960 SW 34 AVE
1,182
1,801
6,795 SQ
7,250 SQ FT
$47,593
$79,652
$127,445
7401 - 4116-019-1380
1
2950 SW 34 AVE
3,339
7,250 SQ FT
$47,593
$204,667
$252,260
75014116 - 019.1372
2
2946 SW 34 AVE
2940 SW 34 AVE
2,576
7,250 SQ FT
$47,593
$161,964
$209,557
76014116. 019.1371
77014116.019.1430
3
2
2939 SW 35 AVE
2,774
7,250 SQ FT
47,593
$143,358
$190,951
78014116 -019.1440
2
2941 SW 35 AVE
1,378
7,250 SQ FT
$47,593
$47,593
$86,963
$122,339
$134,5$6
$169,932
7901 -0116-019.1450
2
2951 SW 35 AVE
1,935
2,013
7,250 SO FT
7,250 SO FT
$47,593
$124,520
$172,113
80014116 -019.1460
2
2961SW35AVE
3443 SW 29 TER
2,241
10,572SQFT
$68,718
$141,039
$209,757
81014116-019 -1470
8201 -0116419 -1220
2
1
2980 SW 35 AVE
2,127
7,000 SQ FT
$45,540
$137,569
$183,109
83014116 - 019-1230
13
299D SW 35 AVE
6,201
7,000 SO FT
$45,500
$488,000
$56,647
$533,500
$102,187
8401 -0116-019 -1310
1
29655W 36 AVE
954
7,000 SO FT
7,000 SQ FT
$45,540
$45,540
$137,246
$182,786
85014116-019 -1320
2
2973 SW 36 AVE
2,201
0
14,7565QFT
$885,360
$18,525
$903,885
86014116- 019.1330
65
3555 SW 29 TER
4,119
13,48954 FT
$1,031,908
$10,000
$1,041,908
87014121 - 002 -1550
12
36215 DIXIE HWY
1209154 FT
$924,962
$1,0DO
$925,962
8801 - 4121 -0D2 -1470
19
066
29,290,676
5 1,222,742
sum north side
536,019
South of US i
Taj 3,1 coot.
Folio No.
Cluc
Property Address
Ad! Sq Footage
lot Size
Land
Building
Market Value
101 -0115 - 041,0580
11
26005 DIXIE HW
14,098
24,180 SQ FT
$2,418,000
$764,8$5
$3,182,855
$629,754
2014115-041 -0570
11
7.6105 DIXIE HWY
1,956
5,580$QFT
$558,000
$71,754
$74,436
$911,436
301 -0115-041 -0560
11
26985 DIXIE HWY
1,196
8,370 SQ FT
$837,000
$752,040
$378,300
$1,130,340
401. 4115 -041-0720
11
2795 SW 27 AVE
7,691
8,647
8,3565QFF
54,979 SQ FT
5,745,306
$576,239
$6,321,545
5014116 -078.0010
26
27755W 28 TER
2710 S DIXIE HWY
4,928
29,228 SQ FT
$2,922,800
$518,948
$3,441,748
6014116.0784020
7014116478-0030
11
11
2720 S DIXIE HWY
18,962
63,190 SO FT
$5,371,150
$1,253,523
$6,622,673
8014116- 028 -0130
13
2900 SW 28 TER
46,958
25,593 SQ FT
$1,279,650
$4,362,953
$2,805,771
$5,642,603
$5,139,243
9014116428.0110
3
2950 S DIXIE HWY
64,769
52,320 SQ FT
46,D735QFT
$2,333,472
$2,073,2885
$1,426,715
$4,000,000
10014116407 -0250
3
2890 VIRGINIA ST
60,229
993
7,532 SQ FT
$248,556
$24,537
$273,093
11014116 - 007 -0220
1
2923 SW 30 CT
0
6/107 SOFT
$42,286
$12,513
$54,799
1201-0116 - 0034070
65
2906VIRGINIAST
2914WRGINIAST
2,997
8,680SQFT
5286,440
122,616
$409,056
1301 -0116 - 0014080
14 014116- 007.0110
2
3
3050 S DIXIE HWY
14,354
17,705 SQ FT
$672,790
5774,615
$1,447,405
15014116, 007.0090
1
2920 SW 30 CT
1,249
6,32254 FT
$208,626
$70,460
$279,106
$1,785,905
16014116-027 -0150
40
2901 BRIDGEPORT AVE
8,517
13,797 SQ FT
$1,034,775
$749,130
$142,162
$517,162
17014116427.0140
13
292169IDGEPORTAVE
1,828
7,500 SQ FT
$375,000
$337,500
$100
$337,600
18014316. 027.0130
1
2919 BRIDGEPORT AVE
853
6,750$0 FT
$0
$0
$177,720
19014116.027 -0320
10
2925 BRIDGEPORTAVE
1,156
3,213 SOFT
$0
$0
$177,720
20 01,4116. 027,0310
1
2923 BRIDGEPORTAVE
1,156
L6,831
2,676 SQ FT
23,68054 FT
$1,894,400
$1,175,290
$3,069,690
21014116 -027 -0160
13
3100 5 DIXIE HWY
AVE
3,887
20,25D SO FT
$534,600
$58,627
$593,227
22014116427 -0220
3
2942 BRIDGEPORT
106,807
8.23ACRES
$17,931,450
$10,000
$17,941,450
23014116 -048 -0010
2401 -0116
11
11
2999 SW 32 AVE
2935 MCDONALD ST
2,053
11pS85Q FT
$973,930
$203,132
$1,177,062
-0454010
2501 -0116442-0010
62
31985 DIXIE HWY
1,846
11,761 SQ FT
$1,058,490
$121,397
$445,053
$1,179,887
$3,077,553
26014116-0224130
11
320OSDIXIEHM
4,183
29,2SOSQFT
$2,632,500
319,500
$163,494
$482,994
2701 -0116-022 -0120
3
322OW DIXIE HWY
3,155
6,39DSQFT
13,292 SQ FT
$797,520
$168,508
$966,07.8
28014116-0224110
13
32505 DIXIE HWY
2,573
3,619
7,500 SQ FT
300,ODO
$173,962
$473,962
2901 -0116 -022 -0071
3
3244 W TRADE AVE
14,633
28,000 54 FT
$1,260,000
$665,904
$1,925,904
30 014116422.0040
3
3250 W TRADE AVE
3270WTRAOEAVE
10,812
15,00054 FT
$600,000
$646,040
$1,246,040
31014116 -022 -0080
32014116422 -0090
3
3
328OWTRADEAVE
4,136
7,500 SQ FT
$300,000
$178,627
$478,627
33014116449 -0010
3
3300 S DIXIE HWY
45,059
32,226SQFT
$2,730,710
$758,660
$3,489,370
$663,353
34014116 -022 -0030
1
3265 SIRDAVE
2,0D4
13,00054 FT
$650,000
513,353
$0
$392,050
3501 -0116 -061 -0010
81
3335 BIRD AVE
0
7,84154 FT
$392,050
$0
$202,500
36014116 -003-0070
81
3355BIRDAVE
0
4,050 SQ FT
$202,500
$0
$335,500
37014116447-0030
81
3375 BIRD AVE
0
6,71054 FT
17,897 SQ FT
$335,500
$1,521,245
$584,834
$2,106,079
38014116 -047 -0020
13
3350 S DIXIE HWY
3400 S DIXIE HWY
9,088
5,040
32,735 SQ FT
$2,946,150
$377,777
$3,323,927
39014116-047 -0010
4001 -0116 - 046-0010
19
26
3490 S DIXIE HWY
2,912
14,331SQFT
$1,218,230
$170,943
$1,389,078
41014221 -001 -0150
1
3000 ELIZABETH 9
1,052
5,896SQFT
$188,672
$28,404
$217,076
$256,154
4201 -0121. 001 -0260
1
3420 BIRD AVE
1,543
6,600 54 FT
FT
$211,200
$192,000
$44,954
$30,354
$222,354
43014121. 0014180
1
3011 NEW YORK ST
1,078
8,738
6,000 SQ
41,101SQFT
$2,109,284
$605,838
$2,715,122
4401 -0121 - 0024250
11
3490BIRDAVE
925
45,300 SO IT
$4,303,500
$17,399
54,320,899
45014121 -002 -0560
98
3500 S DIXIE HWY
514,511
tl
73,100,007
21,27,197
94,725,649
gum south side=
Source: Miami -Dade County, County Appraiser's Files on line, Accessed Oct-Dec, 2010
h4 // amfdad RO 7p /P PertV Y h P
Table 3.2
Sample of County Land Use Codes (CLUC) found in Power Line Property
from Table 3.1.
Commercial
0011
Retail Outlet
0012
Repairs, Non - Automotive
0013
Office Building
0019
Automotive or Marine
0026
Service Station - Automotive
Industrial/Warehouse
0032
Light mfg and food processing
0034
Canneries , bottler
0036
Heavy Industry or lumber yard
0037
Warehouse or Storage
Institutional
0040
Municipal
0041
Educational, private
0042
Club or hall, private
0047
Dade County
0098
Federal
Multi- Family
0003
Multi- family 3 or more units
Not used
0062
Railroad Assessment
0065
Parkin / /vacant lot enclosed
Single Family
0001
Residential, single family
0002
Duplex
0010
Townhouse
Vacant
0081
Vacant land
Source: Selected from Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser's Office, Web site,
from CLUC that appear in our Table 3.1, Col. 2.
Table 3.3
Summary Table of Summed Appraisal Values by Segments, Brickell to 136 St, Both Sides of US 1.
West If pities
1,255
streets
Adj 5q Ft
land Value
Bldg Value
sum Market v
of US 1 18
opt 1
3rd Ave,
122,023
12,978,780
13,441,935
26,420,715
4th Stto 15th Rd
276,551,566
109
a
15 -26
$05,656
26,812,968
27,426,144
56,188,017
88
b
26 -36
538,019
23,992,066
27,230,676
51,222,742
29
c
36-46
163,032
72,688,020
6,556,191
79,244,211
40
d'
46 -56
135,598
35,702,734
7,616,392
45,744,776
142
d"
46 -56
411,448
38,493,510
30,070,002
68,563,512
21
a
57 -66
1,162,416
50,195,938
70,231,925
194,332,949
75
f
66 -76
4,555,411
118,371,353
123,369,756
553,541,109
134
g
78 -88
1,066,884
78,259,882
49,461,447
127,721,329
27
h
86 -96
2,533,060
57,525,060
30,571,005
385,096,065
301
1
96 -106
1,455,400
66,649,510
50,881,298
145,889,438
48
j
106 -116
328,413
22,569,132
8,563,183
40,706,555
49
k
116 -126
104,445
10,975,862
5,621,235
16,597,097 $,
25
1
126 -136
322,777
22,729,183
16,437,273
38,663,800
1,086
I above
total above
13,282,559
624,965,218
454,036,527
1,803,511,600
1,106:h opts 13,404,58Z 637,943,998 467,478,462 1,829,932,315
East # prties
1,255
streets
Adj Sq Ft
Land Value
Bidg Value
sum Market v
of US 1 49
optl
3rd Ave,
395,204
21,393,737
19,893,141
41,749,688
4th St to 15th Rd
276,551,566
118
a
16 -26
468,389
48,206,038
31,960,019
80,166,057
45
b
26 -36
514,511
73,100,007
21,270,197
94,725,649
89
c
36 -46
352,192
57,219,860
18,174,221
75,394,081
175
d
46 -56
472,020
36,126,784
21,751,656
86,839,120
14
d'
46-56
47,921
7,822,717
5,690,738
13,513,455
259
a
57 -66
1,425,739
100,688,124
76,432,895
229,896,429
98
f
66 -76
1,757,825
229,502,100
57,371,638
370,773,738
122
g
78 -88
1,878,164
299,507,454
91,947,705
391,455,159
23
h
86 -96
516,340
79,399,934
23,202,218
102,602,152
196
1
96 -106
660,124
81,568,397
34,767,012
137,459,739
21
1
106 -116
401,699
58,510,480
20,926,779
79,437,259
33
k
116 -126
551,775
89,149,900
28,881,863
121,535,388
13
1
126 -136
517,320
81,138,049
18,102,119
99,240,168
1,206
I above
9,564,019
1,241,939,844
450,479,060
1,8$3,038,390.
Source & Method: The power line route wastraced on Miami -Dade County Appraiser's File, and all Properties were listed,
as In Appendix Table 3.L These were then summed and presented in this Table.
1,255
total -with optl
9,959,223
1,263,333,581
470,372,201
1,924,788,082
Total
# prties
Adj Sq Ft
Land Value
Bldg Value
sum Market v
276,551,566
Dadeland
West
1,730
1,106
total -with optl
13,404,582
637,943,998
467,478,462
1,829,932,315
East
1,255
total -with optl
9,959,223
1,263,333,581
470,372,201
1,924,788,082
4,031,271,963
SUM:
4,091 '
Source & Method: The power line route wastraced on Miami -Dade County Appraiser's File, and all Properties were listed,
as In Appendix Table 3.L These were then summed and presented in this Table.
N
d
U
S
a
c
0
a
C
O
U
W
O
J
`m
0
a
n
z
m
N
�^ O
e
m�
d
�a
8
"d o
���o
4
p�
3
C
4
ffi
a
8
m
G
a°
o°
� �€
s,g
� �a
.�
a
a
b
s
c
3
i
0
S
F
w
rrc
g^ N
E„, a
9' n
2 �
asp
2.. N
$aa
°m< m
a�
a'
S ¢
F 1l
Tnhla Aft _ Statistical analysis of literature
percent value loss
Study type Author Journal type n Mean SID
Survey
Realtor
all
12
10.29%
9.57%
Regression
All
all
18
6.43%
6.81%
Regression
All
peer - review
9
8.60%
7.74%
Regression
All
non -peer- review
9
4.26%
5.30%
Regression
Academic
all
7
12.64%
6.90%
Regression
Industry
all
6
2.72%
2.42%
Regression
Hybrid
all
5
2.18%
2.99%
Regression_
Academic
peer- review
5
13.30%
7.09%
Regression
I Industry
peer- review
4
1 2.73%__l
3.15%
Statistic Author Journal Type t p
Academic vs.
T -test
Industry
Peer - reviewed
2.99
0.013
Academic vs.
T -test
Industry
All
3.59
0.004
All
Peer- reviewed vs.
T test
non -peer- reviewed
1.39
0.093
All
Peer - reviewed vs.
non -peer- reviewed
T -test
(removed outlier)
1 2.18
1 0.027
Table 5.1
Summary: Property Adjacent to the Power Lines
# nrepertle5 Adj Sq Ft Land Value $ Bldg Value $ Sum Market
1 Dadeland 1,730 276,551,566
2 West (Wl Opt 1) 1,106 13,404,582 637,943,998 467,478,462 1,829,932,315
3 East(w /opt 1) 1,255 9,959,223 1,263,333,581 470,372,201 1,924,788,082
A nz4 97A QR t
A. Loss in Property Value
% loss rate:
$ value lost:
1. Lower boundary, all studies
0.05
201,563,598
2, Aver. Montreal urban, 2002
0.10
403,127,196
3. Upper boundary, 2002
0.20.
806,254,393
4. Un. Quebec (1982)
0.34
$1,370,632,467
B. Loss in Property Taxes per year*
0.05
4,634,370
1. Lower boundary, all studies
010
9,268,741
2. Aver. Montreal urban, 2002
0.20
18,537,482
3. Upper boundary, 2002
0.34
$31,513,719
4, Un. Quebec (1982)
( *Miami -Dade millage rate: 22.9921)
Source: Sum of individual property records, Miami -Dade county Property Appraiser Office, on line.
Table 5.2 ,
Employment Impacts of 5, 10, 20, and 34% Loss of Property Value: IMPLAN Model
Various Sectors, Single Year Only
Total Jobs Lost: Direct., Indirect and Induced
Modal at5 %loss at 10%; at 20% at34% IMPLAN easier Nos.
1 2 3 4 6
A Bast. loss of real estate value &
2,191
4,382
8,764
14,899
360,437
government spending
1 Money. real estate, hospital, drink & dining,
2,349
4,698
9,396
15,973
397, 413,354,360,133
retail, pharmaceutical mfg.
'
2 real estate, air travel, private colleges,
2,685
6,170
10,340
17,578
392, 329, 360, 332, 359
retailing
3 Boat building, pedormg arts, scientific
2,979
6,958
11.916
20,267
402, 376, 135, 291, 383
research, blol prep, travel agencies
4 Museums, family care services, private
3,392
6,784
13,568
23,066
406, 400, 397, 330, 32125, 395,394
hospitals, retail, home care, allies physicians
5 Frances centers, food, drinking, surgical
31327
6,654
13,308
22,624
407, 413, 305, 319,113
instruments, wholesale, printing
Private education, real estate, nursingg
6 facilities, food services, Jewelry
4,020
8,040
1080
27,336
391, 413.398.310, 360
manufacturing
total
20,843
41,686
83,372
141,732
Saurce: Computations using IMPLAN Model with Miami -Dade County Data
Table 5.3 REMI Model: Job Loss over Time: Different scenarios and Time Periods
Model or Sector of Impact:
No. yrs:
%value
loss Year.
1 ...
2011 ...
Jobs Lost per Year
5 ... 10 ...
2015 ... 2020 ...
20 ...
2030 ,,,
30
2040
A General Reduction
5' /6
1,895
1,528 ...
3,056
1,066 ..,
2,132
639 ...
1,278
419
838
.
100/6
20%
3,790
7,580
6,112
4,264
2,556
1,676
34%
12,886
10,390
7,249
4,345
2,849
B Sector Impacts on Economy:
5%
1 293 ...
1,071
1 Real Estate, only
10%
2,586
2,142
20%
5,172
4,264
34%
8,792
7,283
2 Business Services, only
5%
31768 ...
2,954
10%
7,536
5,908
20%
15,072
11,816
34%
25,622
20,087
3 Nursing, only
5%
10%
5,340 ...
10,680
4,119
8,238
20%
21,360
16,476
34%
36,312
28,009
Source: REMI Model for Miami -Dade County, with 2008 Data Base, run in Dec. 2010
See accompanying graphs
MIAMI -DADS COUNTY, FLORIDA
�3)75 it X33365 'T
ZIP CODE BOUNDARY
M)'4 1
it
33055 5306
0-� 33015 . ..... si i 3169
33793
T
A.
33019
Pity
33196
33185
�3)75 it X33365 'T
M)'4 1
it
. . . . . . ta5173 . J
31183
33793
T
A.
33786K 3726
33196
33013
-k
x«wmsr
33030
..133166
W.
i,33172
11182
33
33192
NM
'33
343
33 184-!;--
33145. A I
33185
�3)75 it X33365 'T
it
. . . . . . ta5173 . J
31183
33793
T
A.
33786K 3726
33196
p. +!� .'•
..0 63W ]I
7,77-j'4
.'v m
sw
�3034 33035
•
LEGEND
inland and Coastal Water
Major Strom and Highways
0M
DEPARTMENT Opp ,7?E�NINC,L'17AIIIN13
RESEARCH SECTION
001
06/16/02 TUB 13:25 FAX 3053752560 DAOE"PLAN DEV EEG 12 FL
Popul'ton Ptgj' Uoos by Min" Statistical Axes
0
U
fi
ti
G
n
.y
O
W
(ji
N
F
O
d
A
L
PEA
W
A
3a
X
v!
a
!�
E
w
N
g
W
E
C
C
L
N O
O N
-0 O�
5
a/ O
L
IL
Fo
O
O
C E
� o
c
c�
m
e
d
C9
O
-� - --
{
C
0
N
i
O
N
€ N
O
° o
N
4
N
LO
Ns —
M
o °n °a t o i°
N N M c7
)Sol sgop
0
s
o °n °a t o i°
N N M c7
)Sol sgop
0
\
£
�
J
2
/
\
]
0
�
&
;
£
f
CL
�
}
\
/
&
Lo
CM
cq
cq
cq
CN
t \2{
§) \e
0
\o2
§
0
f *m
\ \§)(
�
\
e
\
\
�
~
\
r
k
!
#
k
(D a
g
\]
%
ƒ
�
_—
Ci
7
\
\
}
a
/
Isol r