flickr/beanhead4529
As the debate over potentially enlarging the boundaries of the Carroll Gardens historic district intensifies, I went back to the NYC IBO’s 2003 study, The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values, to refresh my memory on whether or not historic districts have constrained the appreciation in residential property values.
The answer is NO.
So if property values are not constrained, how does one make the argument that it is more expensive to maintain a property in a landmark district? How could it be more expensive if your long term appreciation is greater than that of a comparable property outside of a landmark district?
The impact of any improvement will result in a positive return on that particular capital investment. So in actuality, making improvements or maintaining property that is located inside of landmark districts is less expensive than for comparable property outside of a landmark district.
So what am I missing? What is the other side of this argument? Is it more about emotion or is there some sort of rational explanation about how landmarking makes improving property more expensive? Numbers would be helpful. Someone please enlighten me.
