New Haven Independent

Posted by: Cindy Leffell | May 12, 2008 10:25 AM

Ann-Marie Foltz incorrectly cites the final tally from the previous vote in 1990. It was not 59% in favor. It was 49% in favor, not a majority and a long way from the 67% needed to pass the measure.

Also, an assertion has been made by the proponents of the local historic district that having such a designation will help our property values increase more than in neighboring districts. This is hardly a given. A study published in The Appraisal Journal, a leading periodical for the real estate appraisal profession - which stands to gain nothing from the proliferation of historic districts, looked at this issue in the Shaker Square Historic District in Shaker Heights, Ohio. Shaker Heights is a very desirable suburb adjacent to Cleveland. Being a third generation Clevelander, I know this firsthand. As one of the earliest planned suburbs, it has a variety of neighborhoods with housing ranging from working class apartment buildings to grand estates.

The Shaker Square neighborhood is a mixed commercial and residential area. It was designated a local historic district in 1980, after a decade-long decline in the social and economic make-up of the neighborhood. A 4-year study of property transfers both inside the district and in neighborhoods immediately surrounding the district showed that properties just outside the district had a greater increase in sales prices than properties within the district. The study theorized that neighboring properties capitalized on the proximity to the district without having the burden of following the district guidelines.

The study report for the Saint Ronan-Edgehill neighborhood discusses the eclectic and highly varied architecture of the neighborhood. It emphasizes that cohesiveness is achieved not by architectural styles but by the compatibility of scale of the houses. This compatibility is achieved by the existing restrictions of the RS-1 zone.

The proponents look around and see a neighborhood threatened on both sides of the economic scale - nouveau riche McMansions on one side and tacky vinyl siding on the other side. This fearmongering could potentially be more harmful to property values. I look around and see a neighborhood that has evolved beautifully. I see my new neighbors as people who bought property here because they love it just as it is. I see not McMansions, but new construction done with taste and quality. I see people who are not speculators but who have the ability and desire to protect their investment. I see people who have worked hard and saved money to buy their dream house, like we did. I have no desire to have to appear before a committee of strangers to ask that our aesthetic choices for our private property be certified as appropriate.

Posted by: anon | May 12, 2008 3:59 PM

Instead of using Cleveland as an example (irrelevant), how about looking at New Haven, or using a national study?

New Haven has three LHDs and have for a number of years. Last time I checked, property values in those areas were relatively high when compared with surrounding or similar areas.

According to numerous national studies by various universities (e.g., Penn State, Rutgers etc), which adjusted for other factors, properties in local historic districts appreciated in value between 10% and 25% more quickly than adjacent properties not located in local historic districts.

If this is all true, why not make the entire core area of New Haven an LHD?

Posted by: Cindy Leffell | May 12, 2008 4:54 PM

Anon,
The other districts in New Haven are significantly different from the Saint Ronan Edgehill district. There is a significant differece between a neighborhood of owner-occupied homes and a neighborhood with investment properties, landlords and tenants. There is a significant difference between a stable neighborhood at the top of the market and a neighborhood in need of stabilization. These are basic real estate principles.

Here is an example that perfectly suits our neighborhood. Last spring, there was a movement to form a local historic district in the Library Place neighborhood in Princeton, New Jersey. This neighborhood is very similar to the one here in question - stately older homes on the edge of the university campus, one of the nicests areas in Princeton borough. The issues presented on both sides were very similar to our situation. 75% of the residents opposed the district, and the issue died.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | May 12, 2008 8:09 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight. I only aspire to one day live in such a beautiful neighborhood as St. Ronan.

One thing I know well, though, is that when government is invited in, government takes more than it gives. Cindy Leffell is exactly right about home values as well. St. Ronan has weathered the ups and downs of the market quite well, developed, expanded and maintained its identity without government coming in to steal away property rights and dictate windows and such.

Property owners who have the incomes to support expensive primary homes, are highly unlikely to denigrate that investment with sorry construction and McMansion mentalities. Turn this expensive erosion of property rights down.

Posted by: ROBN | May 13, 2008 9:17 AM

This isn't pervasive aesthetic control, but it wouold be nice and simple and effective if New Haven would just ban vinyl siding everwhere. It looks like hell, its poisenously carciogenic at the source of production and also (ask your local firefighters)...if it burns it turns into one of the most poisenous substance on earth; dioxin)