Tag Archives: historic district

Buck-A-Home

Posted on by

abandoned house

The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch quoted me (from an AP story) in Kansas City Presses To Sell Eyesore, Vacant Homes for A Buck. It reads, in part,

Drawn to the idea of buying a house for just a buck, Dorian Blydenburgh paced through the century-old digs in south Kansas City and didn’t mind tree limbs on the living room floor, holes in the ceiling and a funky mold smell.

“This is one everyone is gonna want, and there’s gonna be a fight for this,” said Blydenburgh, 56, a contractor looking at the three-bedroom, 1,500-square-foot house at 4124 Chestnut Avenue as a makeover prospect for a friend, who later applied to buy it. “Some of these places you need a bulldozer to fix, but this is doable. For a dollar, it looks like a go.”

That’s what Kansas City, Mo., officials were hoping to hear. The city and the Land Bank of Kansas City have offered 130 derelict, generally unlivable structures for sale for $1 each to those willing to make them livable again within a year. The buyer’s reward is an eventual $8,500 rebate — the amount it would have cost the city to flatten the houses.

*     *     *

But it’s buyer beware. Applicants must undergo a background check — applicants who are registered sex offenders or have drug-dealing or prostitution convictions are disqualified — and prove through bank statements or unused credit card limits they have at least $8,500 to devote to the rehab.

Ultimately, the program’s backers warn, rehabbing the properties might cost tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps involving installing or repairing roofs, electrical systems, plumbing, heating and air conditioning or foundations. And that’s beyond the cost of tackling troubling unknowns such as lead or asbestos.

“Most of those buildings on the dangerous list are going to have to come down. We know that,” Mayor Sly James said. “But there are other homes on that low level that could be salvaged, and we want people to know they are out there.”

Other cities have tried similar approaches. In Detroit, with the help of tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers, the city has torn down about 7,100 of an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 vacant houses since May 2014, with the mayor planning to have an additional 15,000 homes gone by 2018. More than 1,300 other homes have been auctioned, Detroit Land Bank Authority spokesman Craig Fahle said. Buyers of those properties, many fetching just the opening bid of $1,000, are required to bring the house up to code and have it occupied within six months — nine months if it’s in a historic district.

Chicago and Milwaukee have are unloading vacant lots. Chicago has sold more than 400 vacant parcels since 2014. In Milwaukee, homeowners next to a vacant lot can buy it for $1.

David Reiss, a Brooklyn Law School professor who focuses on real estate issues and community development, urges would-be buyers to understand the expenses beyond the price tag, including property taxes, upkeep and liability insurance.

“A house for a dollar may be an albatross around your neck,” he said. “I would look at it case by case. If it sounds too good, it probably is.”

Tag

Does Historic Preservation Destroy Affordable Housing?

Posted on by

Spencer Means

The Real Estate Board of New York released a report about Rent Regulated Units in Landmark Districts. The report opens,

This analysis was conducted to examine the frequent assertion that landmarking helps preserve existing affordable housing. It is based on data that recently became publicly available that provides a snapshot of the number of rent-stabilized units in 2007 and again in 2014.

Contrary to statements made by advocates, affordable housing is not preserved at higher levels in NYC’s historic districts. The data shows that properties located within New York City’s historic districts showed a greater net loss of rent regulated apartments than those located in non-landmarked parts of the City.

FINDINGS

An analysis of the data found that, from 2007 to 2014, the decline in the number of rent regulated apartments located within New York City’s landmarked properties was four times higher than in non-landmarked parts of the City.

Citywide, landmarked properties showed a much greater decrease in the number of rent stabilized units (-22.5%) than non-landmarked properties (-5.1%). At the end of this seven year period, there was a net loss of nearly 10,000 rent-stabilized units in landmarked districts in the City.

The Manhattan and Brooklyn numbers are particularly startling. Manhattan landmarked properties lost 24.5% of their rent-stabilized units compared to a loss of 11.5% in nonlandmarked properties. And Brooklyn landmarked properties lost 27.1% of their rent-stabilized units compared to 3.4% in non-landmarked properties.

The historic districts that had the highest net loss of rent stabilized units were Greenwich Village (-1432 units) and the Upper West Side/Central Park West (-2730 units). Combined, these two historic districts showed a decrease of 30% in rent stabilized units during this seven-year period. (1, footnotes and references omitted)

This study has been criticized for conflating causation with correlation. I think the criticism is warranted. The relevant question appears to be whether landmarking causes an increase or decrease in the number of rent stabilized units. The REBNY study does nothing to demonstrate causation.

Intuitively, it would seem that residents of hot neighborhoods like Greenwich Village would both seek to keep out new, large developments (which landmarking would achieve) and see higher and higher rents over time (which would lead to a reduction in rent-regulated units through a variety of mechanisms). It is not obvious how landmarking itself would lead to a reduction in rent stabilized units.

It is a shame that the REBNY study is so flawed. It raises important questions, but just leaves us more confused than before. There are serious arguments that historic preservation reduces affordable housing overall. If REBNY wants to take a meaningful position in this debate, it should produce a serious study.

Rebirthing NYC Neighborhoods

Posted on by

One can imagine Mayor de Blasio thinking about his ambitious housing plan with one voice saying “Density!” over one shoulder and another voice saying “Preservation!” over the other.  But which voice is the angel’s and which is the devil’s?

Peter Byrne has posted a short essay, The Rebirth of the Neighborhood, to SSRN. The essay represents the voice of Preservation and engages with Edward Glaeser, a voice of Density. Byrne argues that

new urban residents primarily seek a type of community properly called a neighborhood. “Neighborhood” refers to a legible, pedestrian-scale area that has an identity apart from the corporate and bureaucratic structures that dominate the larger society. Such a neighborhood fosters repeated, casual contacts with neighbors and merchants, such as while one pursues Saturday errands or takes children to activities. Dealing with independent local merchants and artisans face-to-face provides a sense of liberation from large power structures, where most such residents work. Having easy access to places of sociability like coffee shops and bars permits spontaneous “meet-ups,” contrasting with the discipline of professional life. Such a neighborhood conveys an indigenous identity created by the efforts of diverse people over time, rather than marketing an image deliberatively contrived to control the perceptions of customers. At its best, a neighborhood provides a refuge from the ennui of the workplace and the idiocy of consumer culture, substituting for churches (or synagogues), labor unions, and ethnic clubs that structured earlier urban social life. (1596-97)

Byrne argues that the “three chief legal tools for neighborhoods have been zoning for urban form, historic district preservation, and environmental protection.” (1597) In criticizing Glaeser and his ilk, Byrne writes that they often complain “such “laws destroy or take private property.” (1603) Byrne replies that “historic district regulations enhance property values by protecting the setting within which any urban property sits and from whence it derives most of its value.” (1603)

I am not going to resolve this debate in a blog post, but I will make a few points. First, a lot of these assertions are not self-evidently true and should be empirically tested, if possible. Second, the perspective of the Essay is that of the “new urban residents” who actually make up a small proportion of the total residents of a city.  Those “old urban residents” are more likely focused on the affordability of their own homes, the quality of their children’s schools and the safety of their streets. Third, it is possible that Preservation and Density can work together intelligently as we rework the urban fabric.

As Mayor de Blasio struggles with the implementation of his housing plan, it is worth remembering that Preservation and Density can each be an angel, can each be a devil. It is the Mayor’s job to make both of them listen to their better natures.