There's a version of this which has actual played out several times in the US: Many motor racing tracks were built decades ago in what was at the time the middle of nowhere. Over time new developments sprung up around these tracks and their residents companied about the noise coming from the race cars. In practice the "we were here first" defense has proven rather weak as many such tracks have been forced to shut down.
This seems like something that the market could address.
The new neighbors could come together and buy out the racetrack. Take out a mortgage to turn it into an apartment building or something, then sell the building to pay off the mortgage.
If the value to the neighbors of not having a racetrack there is at least as much as the value to the rest of the market of having a racetrack instead of an apartment building, this should be economically viable. If it isn't, isn't that a solid case for leaving the racetrack there?
What you're really getting at is that the end of the racetrack might increase property values by quite a lot, even if the existing residents don't have the money to make the investment.
But then someone else could do it. Rich investor goes around to everyone in the neighborhood and offers to buy their house for $25,000 over market, contingent on enough people (including the racetrack) agreeing to sell to make it worth their while. Then if that many people sign up, they resell all the properties for a profit now that the racetrack is gone and all the property values have gone up by $50,000 each.
The result is that the people who live there now might not be able to live there after, but that's only because the racetrack is the reason they can afford to live there now. Otherwise the property would have been more than they can afford from the start.
