[MassHistPres] property values
Provencher, Shaun (DCR)
Shaun.Provencher at state.ma.us
Mon Jan 5 09:59:48 EST 2009
Some other material regarding property values in LHDs might be found at
Donovan Rypkema's website:
http://www.placeeconomics.com/publications.html
Shaun
Shaun Provencher
Historic Preservation Planner
Office of Cultural Resources
MA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 700
Boston, MA 02130
-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of
masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:51 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1
Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. economic impact of local historic districts
(Prof. James Wald (der Geist, der stets verneint))
2. TEA easement clauses (Dennis De Witt)
3. Re: TEA easement clauses (jade)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:23:22 -0500
From: "Prof. James Wald (der Geist, der stets verneint)"
<jwald at hampshire.edu>
Subject: [MassHistPres] economic impact of local historic districts
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Message-ID: <4159146E-2997-4177-9D16-BAA2C1C69729 at hampshire.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Yes, the majority of the literature describes the situations anecdotally
and suggests that property values stay stable or increase. In general,
however, the rigorous studies that I have seen confirm this pattern of
rising values.
This is good news from from many points of view--e.g. for home owners
seeking a return on their investment, and for municipalities seeking tax
revenue--but has raised some questions in the context of affordable
housing, infill (though mainly in more urban areas, as far as I can
tell), or other goals whose achievement a rise in property values could
jeopardize or at least complicate.
A few examples of detailed studies:
The NYC study of 2003 (to which you refer): http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/
Kentucky: http://www.martin.uky.edu/~web/programs/mpa/Capstones_2007/
Vogel.pdf
South Carolina: http://www.state.sc.us/scdah/propval.pdf
A study of the economic impact of preservation in general from Florida
(http://www.law.ufl.edu/cgr/pdf/Tech-Exec-Summary.PDF; ch. 1:
http://www.law.ufl.edu/cgr/pdf/Tech-Chapter1.PDF)
contains a lengthy bibliography with annotations of selected studies at
the end; some touch on local districts:
http://www.law.ufl.edu/cgr/pdf/Tech-Bibliography.PDF
One study that criticizes the methods of some showing increases in
value--but does not substantially alter the results. Preview/summary:
http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/11/1973
There was one study that did show a price reduction on urban apartment
buildings. Preview/summary:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mx3733754r5766r6/
(conservative libertarians have taken to citing this as an argument
against "hysterical preservationists"--but this seems to be precisely
because such findings are the exception rather than the rule)
Further references from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (in
addition to the 2003 NYC study)
http://www.achp.gov/economic-propertyvalues.html
Various state studies (including some of the above--again, not concerned
only with local districts), from National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
http://www.ncshpo.org/current/impact.htm
In haste during a busy week,
Jim Wald
Chair, Amherst Historical Commission
On 28 Dec 2008, at 12:00, masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu wrote:
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. R.E. values in LHDs (Dennis De Witt)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:02:39 -0500
> From: Dennis De Witt <djdewitt at rcn.com>
> Subject: [MassHistPres] R.E. values in LHDs
> To: MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Message-ID: <53B2B50A-EFA9-48A8-A096-9DCD2E46A6EA at rcn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I just came across a story first published in the New York Times on
> 7/8/07 about the Jackson Heights LHD in NYC ?it is the city's 88th ?
> which includes the following citation re the effect of being in an LHD
> on real estate values. Given the scarcity of non-anecdotal numbers on
> this issue, any rigorous study (even one in NYC) is worth knowing
> about. It's also nice that it shows an increase, but nothing
> suggestive of significantly higher taxes.
>
> A 2003 study by the city's Independent Budget Office found that market
> values of properties in historic districts are higher and appreciate
> at a slightly greater rate than those outside historic districts. For
> example, the study, which covered the years 1975 to 2002, found that
> the inflation-adjusted prices of properties within historic districts
> rose by an average of 5.3 percent a year, while those outside historic
> districts rose by an average of 4.2 percent.
>
> The article is called "Jackson Heights; Color War" ? a somewhat
> inappropriate and misleading reference to the brown (vs. green) street
> name signs used in NYC's LHDs.
>
> Dennis De Witt
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/
> attachments/20081228/ed8dd5e6/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>
>
> End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 34, Issue 18
> ********************************************
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:11:51 -0500
From: Dennis De Witt <djdewitt at rcn.com>
Subject: [MassHistPres] TEA easement clauses
To: MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Message-ID: <453FD788-649E-4B10-A269-5262BA2D171C at rcn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Brookline's Selectmen recently approved the town's fourth facade
easement to be held by the Trust for Architectural Easements (formerly
National Architectural Trust) as the easement holder. The three
previous easements were all in LHDs, as is typical with TAE easements.
(During the course of our negotiations with them their counsel told us
that 80-85% of their easements are in LHDs.)
When the last one came up we had requested and got clauses requiring
that vinyl windows in that particular house would have to be replaced
with windows consistent with our LHD guidelines when the time came to
replace them (no like-kind replacement of vinyl with vinyl), that LHD
design review would happen first, and that the Brookline Preservation
Commission would become the successor easement holder if TAE should ever
expire.
As this most recent easement (for an NR Greek Revival house) was not in
an NRD we got an advisory design review role for the Commission written
into the easement, as well as a modified version of the successor
clause.
Here are the two clauses that were added to the standard TAE easement
language.
The added language relating to advisory design review begins with
"provided however . . . ." in the first paragraph:
Grantor and Grantee agree to abide by the Change Approval Guidelines
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment C, and such Change
Approval Guidelines will not be amended without the express written
consent of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (the ?MHC?);
provided, however, that nothing in the Change Approval Guidelines shall
limit the Town of Brookline?s right, as set forth below, to provide
meaningful comment on any Proposed Modification Request.
In order to approve this Agreement, the Town of Brookline requires
that Grantee shall provide notice to the Brookline Preservation
Commission (the ?BPC?) of any Proposed Modification Request submitted by
Grantor and shall allow the BPC the opportunity to provide Grantee with
(a) historic and architectural information regarding the Property and
(b) a Statement of Applicability with respect to the Proposed
Modification Request of any relevant provision of the BPC?s Design
Guidelines for Local Historic Districts adopted by the BPC on October
12, 2005 and attached hereto as Attachment E (?Brookline Guidelines?).
In connection with the Town of Brookline?s notice requirement, Grantor
and Grantee hereby agree as follows:
(i) Grantee shall notify the BPC?s Preservation Planner at the
Department of Planning and Community Development, Preservation Division,
Town Hall, 333 Washington Street, Brookline, Massachusetts,
02445 (?BPC Staff?) each time it receives a Proposed Modification
Request or revision thereto from Grantor. (?PMR Notice?). The PMR
Notice shall be in writing, shall include the Proposed Modification
Request form (excluding attachments) and may be sent via email to BPC
Staff.
(ii) BPC Staff shall have three (3) business days following receipt of
the PMR Notice to notify Grantee in writing, including email, that BPC
either requests or does not request a copy of the Proposed Modification
Request and to indicate which portions or attachments of the request to
provide to BPC Staff. Failure by BPC Staff to respond to the PMR Notice
within 3 business days shall be deemed by Grantor to indicate that BPC
does not intend to comment on the Proposed Modification Request. If
timely requested, Grantee shall provide a copy of the specified portions
of the Proposed Modification Request (?PMR Plans?) to BPC Staff. The
cost of reproduction, if any, shall be the responsibility of Grantor,
and all reasonable efforts will be made to deliver electronic copies of
the PMR Plans to BPC Staff.
(iii) Grantee agrees to review and consider any historic and
architectural research or information relating to the Property and the
BPC?s Statement of Applicability of the Brookline Guidelines, if such
information is provided to Grantee within seven (7) business days
following the BPC Staff?s receipt of the PMR Plans.
(iv) If Grantee?s final determination regarding the Proposed
Modification Request, as may be modified by Grantor, is inconsistent
with the BPC?s Statement of Applicability, including subsequent
communications between Grantor and BPC Staff, Grantee agrees shall send
written communication to BPC Staff providing Grantee?s rationale for
issuing a final statement of no objection to Grantor?s Proposed
Modification Request.
Grantee and Grantor hereby further agree and acknowledge that the
Property is not subject to the Town of Brookline Preservation Commission
and Historic District Bylaw 5.6 as of the date of this Agreement.
Further, as stated above in this Section 1, Grantee?s consent shall only
be given if in compliance with standards set forth in Applicable
Preservation Laws and such consent may be withheld, conditioned or
delayed in the sole and absolute discretion of Grantee.
And this is the added language relating to succession:
c) Grantee agrees that if in the future it shall be required, either for
financial or legal reasons, to transfer all or substantially all of its
assets to other qualified organizations it shall transfer, assign and
otherwise convey its rights under this Agreement to the BPC, assuming
that at the time of the transfer, the BPC (i) is a ?qualified
organization? described in Section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and controlling Treasury regulations,
(ii) is an organization whose purposes are to promote preservation or
conservation of historical, cultural or architectural resources, and
(iii) agrees to continue to carry out the conservation purposes for
which this Agreement was created.
Dennis De Witt
Brookline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20090
103/5e68db46/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:50:21 -0500
From: "jade" <jade at crocker.com>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] TEA easement clauses
To: "Dennis De Witt" <djdewitt at rcn.com>, "MHC listserve"
<masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Message-ID: <9C1D4A26776F4C60BFDB108A4CCD9B22 at jadePC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
your clauses sound quite thorough and i wish you luck in your
preservation commitments...
i think it would be prudent for area realtors to be aprised of historic
commission by-laws...
...jade mortimer
heartwood building & restoration
hawley, ma
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis De Witt
To: MHC listserve
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 9:11 PM
Subject: [MassHistPres] TEA easement clauses
Brookline's Selectmen recently approved the town's fourth facade
easement to be held by the Trust for Architectural Easements (formerly
National Architectural Trust) as the easement holder. The three
previous easements were all in LHDs, as is typical with TAE easements.
(During the course of our negotiations with them their counsel told us
that 80-85% of their easements are in LHDs.)
When the last one came up we had requested and got clauses requiring
that vinyl windows in that particular house would have to be replaced
with windows consistent with our LHD guidelines when the time came to
replace them (no like-kind replacement of vinyl with vinyl), that LHD
design review would happen first, and that the Brookline Preservation
Commission would become the successor easement holder if TAE should ever
expire.
As this most recent easement (for an NR Greek Revival house) was not
in an NRD we got an advisory design review role for the Commission
written into the easement, as well as a modified version of the
successor clause.
Here are the two clauses that were added to the standard TAE easement
language.
The added language relating to advisory design review begins with
"provided however . . . ." in the first paragraph:
Grantor and Grantee agree to abide by the Change Approval Guidelines
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment C, and such Change
Approval Guidelines will not be amended without the express written
consent of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (the ?MHC?);
provided, however, that nothing in the Change Approval Guidelines shall
limit the Town of Brookline?s right, as set forth below, to provide
meaningful comment on any Proposed Modification Request.
In order to approve this Agreement, the Town of Brookline requires
that Grantee shall provide notice to the Brookline Preservation
Commission (the ?BPC?) of any Proposed Modification Request submitted by
Grantor and shall allow the BPC the opportunity to provide Grantee with
(a) historic and architectural information regarding the Property and
(b) a Statement of Applicability with respect to the Proposed
Modification Request of any relevant provision of the BPC?s Design
Guidelines for Local Historic Districts adopted by the BPC on October
12, 2005 and attached hereto as Attachment E (?Brookline Guidelines?).
In connection with the Town of Brookline?s notice requirement, Grantor
and Grantee hereby agree as follows:
(i) Grantee shall notify the BPC?s Preservation Planner at the
Department of Planning and Community Development, Preservation Division,
Town Hall, 333 Washington Street, Brookline, Massachusetts, 02445 (?BPC
Staff?) each time it receives a Proposed Modification Request or
revision thereto from Grantor. (?PMR Notice?). The PMR Notice shall be
in writing, shall include the Proposed Modification Request form
(excluding attachments) and may be sent via email to BPC Staff.
(ii) BPC Staff shall have three (3) business days following receipt of
the PMR Notice to notify Grantee in writing, including email, that BPC
either requests or does not request a copy of the Proposed Modification
Request and to indicate which portions or attachments of the request to
provide to BPC Staff. Failure by BPC Staff to respond to the PMR Notice
within 3 business days shall be deemed by Grantor to indicate that BPC
does not intend to comment on the Proposed Modification Request. If
timely requested, Grantee shall provide a copy of the specified portions
of the Proposed Modification Request (?PMR Plans?) to BPC Staff. The
cost of reproduction, if any, shall be the responsibility of Grantor,
and all reasonable efforts will be made to deliver electronic copies of
the PMR Plans to BPC Staff.
(iii) Grantee agrees to review and consider any historic and
architectural research or information relating to the Property and the
BPC?s Statement of Applicability of the Brookline Guidelines, if such
information is provided to Grantee within seven (7) business days
following the BPC Staff?s receipt of the PMR Plans.
(iv) If Grantee?s final determination regarding the Proposed
Modification Request, as may be modified by Grantor, is inconsistent
with the BPC?s Statement of Applicability, including subsequent
communications between Grantor and BPC Staff, Grantee agrees shall send
written communication to BPC Staff providing Grantee?s rationale for
issuing a final statement of no objection to Grantor?s Proposed
Modification Request.
Grantee and Grantor hereby further agree and acknowledge that the
Property is not subject to the Town of Brookline Preservation Commission
and Historic District Bylaw 5.6 as of the date of this Agreement.
Further, as stated above in this Section 1, Grantee?s consent shall only
be given if in compliance with standards set forth in Applicable
Preservation Laws and such consent may be withheld, conditioned or
delayed in the sole and absolute discretion of Grantee.
And this is the added language relating to succession:
c) Grantee agrees that if in the future it shall be required, either
for financial or legal reasons, to transfer all or substantially all of
its assets to other qualified organizations it shall transfer, assign
and otherwise convey its rights under this Agreement to the BPC,
assuming that at the time of the transfer, the BPC (i) is a ?qualified
organization? described in Section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and controlling Treasury regulations, (ii) is an
organization whose purposes are to promote preservation or conservation
of historical, cultural or architectural resources, and (iii) agrees to
continue to carry out the conservation purposes for which this Agreement
was created.
Dennis De Witt
Brookline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
WHOLE LIST.
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20090
103/68425579/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1
*******************************************
More information about the MassHistPres
mailing list