Not surprisingly, the need to bring more revenue into all aspects of preservation work in the city was frequently mentioned. Respondent suggestions included: increased tax revenues on such things as filming in the city, tourism, parking, hotels, real estate broker commissions in historic districts, and demolition, with revenues accruing to a fund for preservation work in the city; requiring developers receiving public subsidies to incorporate some preservation work into their projects or fund others and/or create a size bonus for developers for bigger buildings if they preserve another building; creation of a Preservation Superfund; freezing taxes for up to 25 years for preserved buildings.
Serious research and data were considered integral to enhanced funding. If steps are taken to develop more research funding streams might open to preservation that were previously untapped. Building better arguments and a new approach could attract more and different donors. Going further, some respondents argued that the preservation field should be more proactive in helping foundations set their priorities instead of always fitting preservation work into their guidelines. More education and a better case for preservation could help cultivate new donors - younger professionals, more members and volunteers.
This report is only partial summary of discussions hosted and feedback received by the Preservation Vision: NYC project. Every attempt was made to convey the breadth and content of these exchanges between participants, but brevity demanded that many useful contributions were simplified, combined, or left out altogether. In no case are the assertions and assessments summarized here a reflection of the organizers' opinions or best knowledge; they belong only to the participants and contribute to an open process of deliberation. A final report will provide a more comprehensive and nuanced reflection of these deliberations along with a synthesis of project participants’ visions for the future.
