About four percent of the value of your home. That’s what the economists Leigh Linden and Jonah Rockoff (both of Columbia University) concluded in a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper called “There Goes the Neighborhood? Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values From Megan’s Law.” Here’s how the NBER Digest summarizes their findings:
They combine data from the housing market with data from the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry to find that when a sex offender moves into a neighborhood, houses within a one-tenth mile area around the sex offender’s home fall by 4 percent on average (about $5,500), while those further away show no decline in value. “These results suggest that individuals have a significant distaste for living in close proximity to a known sex offender,” the authors conclude.
I am well known for admiring economists, but even I have to admit that that last sentence is a little, um … obvious? More significantly, however: I wonder when, or if, homesellers will be routinely required to notify potential buyers of a nearby sex offender. Linden and Rockoff note that is already the case in some states, but I am guessing it is rare. On the other hand, it’s already pretty easy to search for registered sex offenders in a given neighborhood, so maybe this is just one more element of home-shopping that people will become accustomed to. Finally, I can imagine that if the Linden-Rockoff findings become common knowledge, it will make people scream even louder about having a registered sex offender placed in their neighborhoods.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I really don’t think convicted sex offenders should have any rights, especially those who have committed sexual acts on children; those are the ones that bother me most. We need to stick a huge sign out in their yard, take away their right to vote, and make it hard for them to get jobs, so they don’t end up in good neighborhoods where we [try to] keep our children and loved ones. I say this, because I have to wonder if the housing value would decrease with such measures. Personally, even if I had children, if I knew and I knew others in the neighborhood were entirely aware of where some dirt bag lived, I’d be more willing to live there. I think I and others would also be more willing to comfortably pay the actual value of the house (not that that’s possible with the housing bubble, anyway) if we knew, for sure, that everyone was aware and on watch against certain people who have been previously convicted of sexual crimes. Just my opinion. In terms of the study, though, I think zbicyclist makes a point, too.
The problem is that society handles sex offenders in the same way that it handles most problems. It restricts its individuals of good behavior, but that never affects the lives of sex offenders. That’s pretty stupid, when you get down to it.
Also, Brian, you act awfully nonchalant about a statutory rape, even if it was “three decades ago,” as you gave for example. I’m sure the person who was raped would feel a bit differently, though, and the phrase “never say never” comes to mind whenever I hear people say, “Oh, they aren’t dangerous anymore.” It only takes one crime to change multiple lives forever, and you never know when someone who’s previously done something will get the urge to do it again.
I really don’t think convicted sex offenders should have any rights, especially those who have committed sexual acts on children; those are the ones that bother me most. We need to stick a huge sign out in their yard, take away their right to vote, and make it hard for them to get jobs, so they don’t end up in good neighborhoods where we [try to] keep our children and loved ones. I say this, because I have to wonder if the housing value would decrease with such measures. Personally, even if I had children, if I knew and I knew others in the neighborhood were entirely aware of where some dirt bag lived, I’d be more willing to live there. I think I and others would also be more willing to comfortably pay the actual value of the house (not that that’s possible with the housing bubble, anyway) if we knew, for sure, that everyone was aware and on watch against certain people who have been previously convicted of sexual crimes. Just my opinion. In terms of the study, though, I think zbicyclist makes a point, too.
The problem is that society handles sex offenders in the same way that it handles most problems. It restricts its individuals of good behavior, but that never affects the lives of sex offenders. That’s pretty stupid, when you get down to it.
Also, Brian, you act awfully nonchalant about a statutory rape, even if it was “three decades ago,” as you gave for example. I’m sure the person who was raped would feel a bit differently, though, and the phrase “never say never” comes to mind whenever I hear people say, “Oh, they aren’t dangerous anymore.” It only takes one crime to change multiple lives forever, and you never know when someone who’s previously done something will get the urge to do it again.
I have two kids and live in a neighborhood with a halfway house (about a quarter mile away) that typically has 3-4 registered sex offenders living there. It does make me more aware of who is hanging around when we’re at the park and who might be walking around. A couple of observations.
First, I DO want to know the difference between sex offenses. I think that such information should be part of a database. A statutory rape conviction typically means consensual sex with a teenage minor too young to legally give consent. I am in no way condoning or minimizing statutory rape as a crime, but I do see a really big difference between say, an 18 year old convicted of having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and a guy convicted of raping his 8 year old neice. The second person is much more likely to offend again and is much more likely to be a danger to my family.
The need for more information on sex offender lists is particularly true in a neighborhood where you get a half dozen or so notices from law enforcement every year about sex offenders moving into your neighborhood. It is easy to get a little blase about the notices. More information would make it easier to think about risk.
This brings me to deep concern about strategies used to insure that sex offenders not end up in “good neighborhoods.” In our country, the perceived goodness of a neighborhood is correlated with the perceived wealth of the neighborhood. Such strategies typically mean sex offenders end up in POOR neighborhoods. Places where kids are the most vulnerable. Places where the offenders are most likely to find new victims. Places where the crimes are less likely to be reported, investigated, prosecuted and punished.
I have two kids and live in a neighborhood with a halfway house (about a quarter mile away) that typically has 3-4 registered sex offenders living there. It does make me more aware of who is hanging around when we’re at the park and who might be walking around. A couple of observations.
First, I DO want to know the difference between sex offenses. I think that such information should be part of a database. A statutory rape conviction typically means consensual sex with a teenage minor too young to legally give consent. I am in no way condoning or minimizing statutory rape as a crime, but I do see a really big difference between say, an 18 year old convicted of having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and a guy convicted of raping his 8 year old neice. The second person is much more likely to offend again and is much more likely to be a danger to my family.
The need for more information on sex offender lists is particularly true in a neighborhood where you get a half dozen or so notices from law enforcement every year about sex offenders moving into your neighborhood. It is easy to get a little blase about the notices. More information would make it easier to think about risk.
This brings me to deep concern about strategies used to insure that sex offenders not end up in “good neighborhoods.” In our country, the perceived goodness of a neighborhood is correlated with the perceived wealth of the neighborhood. Such strategies typically mean sex offenders end up in POOR neighborhoods. Places where kids are the most vulnerable. Places where the offenders are most likely to find new victims. Places where the crimes are less likely to be reported, investigated, prosecuted and punished.
I have a small child and am very interested in keeping him safe. However, I am skeptical of sex-offender registries, because they give people a false sense of security. The absence of a registered sex offender is NOT the same as the absence of a child predator. The recidivism rate for sexual predators is very high, and the cure rate is very low. If state law enforcement agencies are really concerned about the safety of their residents, then they should do a better job of keeping true sex offenders (NOT people who were convicted of consensual gay sex in a mens’ room in the 1950s and are forever branded in the same way as pedophiles) away from children or the people they might prey on.
I have a small child and am very interested in keeping him safe. However, I am skeptical of sex-offender registries, because they give people a false sense of security. The absence of a registered sex offender is NOT the same as the absence of a child predator. The recidivism rate for sexual predators is very high, and the cure rate is very low. If state law enforcement agencies are really concerned about the safety of their residents, then they should do a better job of keeping true sex offenders (NOT people who were convicted of consensual gay sex in a mens’ room in the 1950s and are forever branded in the same way as pedophiles) away from children or the people they might prey on.
There is another interesting possibility about this. If a person found out that a sex offender was living near them, but not on the register their natural inclination would be to notify whoever keeps the register up-to-date.
Is there now a slight incentive for homeowners to not make that notification? In most cases the notification would still be made, but if a homeowner was thinking about moving…
I seem to recall that the book dealt largely with incentives and here is a good example. TomHynes makes a good point, but for such an incentive to start having an effect it is enough for people to believe that there is a 5% effect whether its true or not. When that is not sensational enough, the media might start talking about 10%…
There is another interesting possibility about this. If a person found out that a sex offender was living near them, but not on the register their natural inclination would be to notify whoever keeps the register up-to-date.
Is there now a slight incentive for homeowners to not make that notification? In most cases the notification would still be made, but if a homeowner was thinking about moving…
I seem to recall that the book dealt largely with incentives and here is a good example. TomHynes makes a good point, but for such an incentive to start having an effect it is enough for people to believe that there is a 5% effect whether its true or not. When that is not sensational enough, the media might start talking about 10%…