Coming Soon? Maybe (and Define, “Soon”)
The Twin Cities’ Southwest Light Rail line sure has traveled a bumpy path.
And that’s just the discussion phase — never mind the actual route.
The latest, uhh . . speed bump:
Whether a stretch of the line in Minneapolis is to traverse Lake of the Isles and Cedar Lake in one or two underground tunnels (or perhaps none, i.e., travel above ground).
All of which leaves nearby, would-be home Sellers (and their agents) in a quandary: in the meantime, what (if anything) should they tell prospective Buyers in the Seller Disclosure?
(Note: at least in Minnesota, agents have an independent duty to disclose material facts known to them about the home.)
Not-So-Golden Silence
Given the uncertainty, I don’t think Sellers are obliged to say much.
On the other hand, I don’t think they should sidestep the issue altogether.
Put it this way: if you bought a $1 million (or more) home in Kenwood, and a year or two later your backyard was a busy tunnel construction site . . . you might not be so happy with your Seller.
I suppose you’d be even unhappier if the tunnels didn’t get built, and instead the light rail trains traveled nearby above ground.
Buyers from Mars — or Just LA(?)
Unless the Buyers are from Mars, though, I think any Seller in such a predicament could credibly defend themselves by arguing that the Buyer wasn’t entitled to rely on their disclosure (or lack thereof).
That’s because: a) the existing tracks are plainly visible (“open and notorious,” in legalese); and b) the light rail debate has been so public, for so long, that a reasonable Buyer (or at least their Realtor!) should already have known about the issue (judges place a lot of weight on “reasonableness”).
Or, at least known enough to ask some good questions.
Still, I think the issue of reliance is murky enough — and the potential litigation costs/liability risk is high enough — that savvy Sellers should preclude the matter with a brief disclosure.*
Something like:
“This [home/townhome/condo] backs up to the planned Southwest Light Rail corridor. If the line’s current location is approved, at some future date light rail may pass by this property either in a tunnel or above ground.”
Frankly, even more succinct than that would probably suffice.
“At Some Future Date” (and Other Qualifiers)
While I do think Sellers are obliged to address the issue, I think it’s perfectly fair to include such qualifiers as “at some future date,” “may pass by,” etc.
That’s because, even if the line is ultimately approved, its final route is still uncertain, and the timetable is likely years out.
“Waiting For Godot the Transportation Dept.”
Years ago, about one mile west, I encountered a similar situation selling a home that backed up to Highway 100 in St. Louis Park’s Fern Hill neighborhood.
The Minnesota Transportation department had wanted to widen that stretch of Highway 100 since . . . forever.
But, the timing and exact plan were still uncertain.
So, that’s exactly what the Seller disclosed.
That was way back in 2005.
Since then, the home has been bought and sold two more times.
P.S.: For that matter, revisit my post titled, “Southwest Light Rail Line and Property Values” — written almost 5(!) years ago).
See also, “Getting Light Rail Right: a Recommendation”; and “LRT Deep Tunnel Alternatives: Don’t Bury Trains. Instead, Elevate Bikes”.
*Alternatively, I suppose Sellers could just print out this blog post and hand it to their Buyer. 🙂
