It could be the tax incentives for historic properties encouraged homeowners to repair and maintain their homes. So, it wasn’t the protection, but actual improvements that cost money.

It could be that it is a desirable area with little infil sites available. Thus, the restrictions prevented new supply being developed that would compete.

It could be the tax deductions, credits, and other incentives instantaneously create value for the property owner.

It could be something completely different.

It could be the tax incentives for historic properties encouraged homeowners to repair and maintain their homes. So, it wasn’t the protection, but actual improvements that cost money.

It could be that it is a desirable area with little infil sites available. Thus, the restrictions prevented new supply being developed that would compete.

It could be the tax deductions, credits, and other incentives instantaneously create value for the property owner.

It could be something completely different.

In Houston’s Old Sixth Ward, the city’s first fully protected district, property values have shot up 27 percent in the last year. When given the chance, historic preservation works.

Was the increase in property values clearly attributed to the designation as a historical district? Or is it possible that this is the result of a mistaken “correlation = causation” type of argument?

Personally, I tend to favor preservation but when I see numbers without supporting cited data or comparison I tend to ask questions about what the cause of such a great increase in property values is compared to similar non-historic neighborhoods.

As for the forming of corporations in order to communally control facades, easements, etc, I think with a small amount of organization and capital it is a smart solution for neighborhoods that may not be protected as historical districts. It’s not much different than living in a subdivision community and agreeing to keep your home and property up to a certain standard (not that I am a fan of gated communities), and the tax incentive is a nice benefit for the property owners as well.

In Houston’s Old Sixth Ward, the city’s first fully protected district, property values have shot up 27 percent in the last year. When given the chance, historic preservation works.

Was the increase in property values clearly attributed to the designation as a historical district? Or is it possible that this is the result of a mistaken “correlation = causation” type of argument?

Personally, I tend to favor preservation but when I see numbers without supporting cited data or comparison I tend to ask questions about what the cause of such a great increase in property values is compared to similar non-historic neighborhoods.

As for the forming of corporations in order to communally control facades, easements, etc, I think with a small amount of organization and capital it is a smart solution for neighborhoods that may not be protected as historical districts. It’s not much different than living in a subdivision community and agreeing to keep your home and property up to a certain standard (not that I am a fan of gated communities), and the tax incentive is a nice benefit for the property owners as well.

Not everyone would have to join the corporation. But, if the value of having a preserved neighborhood is real, then there is a financial incentive to each owner to join such a corporation.

How is the cost of the corporation financially prohibitive? Is it really that expensive?

Having a municipally designated district also gives residents the right to appeal a ruling on construction, demolition, etc. through a reliable body of citizens.
How would the corporation prevent this? And who is the reliable body of residents? People who have historic buildings, or people who want to impose their will on others?

restrictive, and does not meet the broader needs of the community.
Restrictive by what standard or metric? Who should decide which needs of a community are priorities? Individual participants, donors, and private property owners or over-ruling authorities who wish to impose their desires on other people?

Not everyone would have to join the corporation. But, if the value of having a preserved neighborhood is real, then there is a financial incentive to each owner to join such a corporation.

How is the cost of the corporation financially prohibitive? Is it really that expensive?

Having a municipally designated district also gives residents the right to appeal a ruling on construction, demolition, etc. through a reliable body of citizens.
How would the corporation prevent this? And who is the reliable body of residents? People who have historic buildings, or people who want to impose their will on others?

restrictive, and does not meet the broader needs of the community.
Restrictive by what standard or metric? Who should decide which needs of a community are priorities? Individual participants, donors, and private property owners or over-ruling authorities who wish to impose their desires on other people?