Follow me on Twitter @Brennanrealty and get real time feedback when I am out looking at brownstone Brooklyn properties.
Also, you can get the inside scoop by “Liking” Brennan Realty Services on Facebook
Tap into Donald’s expertise as he attends open houses and gives his “2 Cents” about the Brooklyn Brownstone real estate market.
As the debate over potentially enlarging the boundaries of the Carroll Gardens historic district
intensifies, I went back to the NYC IBOâ€™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.