In a roundtable discussion and at the weekend retreat increasing the number and type of incentives for historic preservation and simplifying the process for others was considered. Many good financial incentives for preservation already exist, but are under-utilized in New York City. Participants speculated that many private owners are unaware of the incentives, or consider them insufficient in relation to the complexities and demands of the rehabilitation process. Many assume that the large investments beyond standard construction costs that are required for historic buildings are not feasible, or are better expended on other things. It was noted that it is problematic, and also difficult to rationalize, large public credits and subsidies that benefit the upper middle class that comprises most property owners in New York.
At the outset it was noted that, at present, the preservation profession is not providing sufficiently convincing incentives. Landmark status is often avoided, resented, and associated with unwanted expense and annoyance. Successful incentive programs in other cities, Chicago in particular, were discussed along with new ideas that could reduce the real and perceived barriers surrounding historic rehabilitation projects. For non-profit owners and religious institutions, the special demands of historic rehabilitation often seem onerous; many complain about the hoops, permits, fees, incursion of property rights and design restrictions that come with historic property ownership -- noting also the cost of existing financial incentives, like the assorted federal and state tax credits for rehabilitation, which require special accounting, filings, tax return preparation and specialized professionals.
Participants noted that many owners do not really know what the actual scope and cost of rehabilitation would be, lacking the specialized technical support needed to undertake a comprehensive conditions survey and funding required to pay for it. It is often assumed that existing benefits and incentives would not compensate for the costs and difficulties that rehabilitation incurs, and it is not yet clear how often this is actually true.
Participants noted that strong models exist for innovative alteration to land transfer taxes, building fees, and property taxes. It was observed that significant savings could be provided through property tax increment finance districts, abatement programs, and rate increase caps for historic property owners. Other financial incentives discussed were demolition taxes, home insurance subsidies, and federally subsidized low interest home loans that would encourage investment at the point of property sale. Non-financial incentives discussed were federal job training for specialized technical services, highly affordable architectural services provided by the municipality, and coordination of a network of professional service providers-private law and accounting firms.
It was agreed that a bundle of incentives should be developed and presented to the public in a clear, concrete, and persuasive way, invoking the logic of sustainability, energy-modeling, and long-term agendas for financial benefit. It was also noted that looking for ways to streamline and simplify the permit and tax credit process would be an important step.
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.
