Models for Neighborhood Revitalization in Historic Districts

Prepared by: Michael Sacks·Professor of Sociology·Trinity College
Hartford, CT 06106·(860)297-2345

Prepared for: Citizens for Action in New Britain·19 Chestnut Street
New Britain, CT 06051·(860)225-7683

Trinity Center for Neighborhoods
190 New Britain Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-3100
(860)297-5170
Maria Simao, Project Director
Research Project 14
February, 1997

There are a wide variety of historic districts across the United States, and the local restrictions on construction or incentives to promote preservation can be very different from one location to the next. Studies of the economic impact of historic district designation typically entail comparison between just a few communities, and it is not surprising that findings are often contradictory. The information that is available, however, provides some sobering lessons for those contemplating strategies to bring about the revitalization of an urban area.

BACKGROUND
The preservation of properties of historical importance has a long tradition in the United States. Congress gave the Department of War responsibility for maintaining national landmarks in the 1790s (Benson and Klein 1988: 223). But legislation to protect whole areas of historic and architectural importance is relatively recent. The first areas designated as historic districts were Charleston, South Carolina in 1931 and New Orleans, Louisiana, six years later. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program to "preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States" (National Park Service 1993: 1). Few areas were added during the next two decades, although interest in preservation was growing during the 1950s and 1960s. It was recognized that "historic resources of less than national significance were being lost" (Ibid.; Gale 1991: 325).

This concern culminated with passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This act provided for the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places administered by the National Park Service. Having set in place a national policy favoring the creation of historic districts, additional legislation soon followed. Enactments beginning in the 1970s provided significant tax incentives to stimulate investment in the redevelopment of historic buildings (Benson and Klein 1988:224). The Economic Recovery Act of 1981 provided a substantial increase in incentives and apparently gave a great boost to historic rehabilitation projects (Asabere et al. 1994: 226). By the early 1990s there were over 1200 historic districts across the country.

The federal tax benefits, however, have been curtailed. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act of 1995 now seems stalled in Congress as result of rising concerns about the budget deficit (see Appendix A). The reduced tax credits, according to one observer, "ha[ve] state and local governments scrambling to find ways to provide incentives to developers who are willing to renovate rather than demolish and build anew" (Beaumont 1991: 18).

CONCERNS OF DEVELOPERS
Developers often have interests that come into conflict with those striving to preserve historic areas. In anticipation of problems, property owners and business people in some communities have resisted applying for historic district designation. For example, the plans to make Newtown, Ohio an historic district provoked opposing viewpoints: "Some call the plan a timely effort to set standards to upgrade the area before construction erases the village's history, while others fear imposing restrictions on development will only serve to keep developers away" (Bowling 1994). Recently the Mayor of Denver, Colorado rejected granting historic district status to a plaza in the city on the grounds that such a designation "limits the options for . . . successful development" (quoted in Gottlieb 1995).

Development can bring unwelcome population growth, noise and parking and traffic problems. At other times it may be opposed for quite the opposite reason. Merchants in Cave Creek historic district in Arizona, for example, were fighting a developer who wanted to build a luxury townhouse in the middle of the downtown because of their "fear that the presence of residents downtown would bring the district's freewheeling atmosphere to an end. They say homeowners would flood the town with complaints about the noise from the district's cowboy bars and tourist attractions" (Azula 1995)!

Builders may find it onerous to adhere to standards established to receive federal tax credits. One regulation, for example, is that "most of the external wall (75%) of a certified historic structure must be retained during rehabilitation" (Asabere et al. 1994: 227). But the greatest constraints are often imposed by cities or towns (Cohen 1996):

Weighty as it sounds, a listing on the National Register of Historic Places, administered by the National Park Service, is purely a recognition, awarded after the approval of a lengthy application. In nearly all, cases, property owners can do anything they want to their buildings, including demolishing them. Some states have their own recognition programs, too.
But local regulations are the ones with teeth. Generally, they encompass entire neighborhoods, and are established after a majority of homeowners agree to the designation. Often, a local review board must approve all changes visible from the public right-of-way.

Windows are a common area of contention. Replacements that match the original style are often expensive and may not be energy efficient. (Installing storm windows on the interior has been one way of getting around this.) It can be very costly trying to meet modern building codes and fire regulations while simultaneous preserving substantial parts of the building (Cohen 1996; Beaumont 1991).

HOMEOWNER OBJECTIONS
Homeowner, of course, must also contend with the guidelines established for an historic district and may be at far greater disadvantage than the developers. An industrialist sought to make the village of Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin an historic district after he had completed construction of luxury condominium units on a 65 acre prime real estate lot. Local residents complained that he was simply seeking to protect his investment through control over the appearance of nearby homes: "'The average homeowner in the (proposed) historic district can't afford the cost of bringing their property up to the standards that Mr. Gentine [the developer] expects,' said Ribbens Rohde, who spearheads a committee of irritated residents who want a more lenient policy" (Maller 1995).

Gale (1991: 327) has found that the "rise of private reinvestment and gentrification in older inner city neighborhoods during the late 1960s and 1970s contributed substantially to local government designation of more historic districts." These changes commonly brought rising property values. Residents with low or moderate-income as well as small businesses were often pushed out by increased taxes and higher rents. In 1970s and 1980s groups in many communities staged protests against "historic district commissions, local preservation offices, planning commissions, and other units of local government" (Ibid.).

THE BENEFITS OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION
There were homeowners who welcomed the prospect of higher and more secure property values. They would agree with the contention of Schaeffer and Millerick (1991: 311) that "historic district may serve a function similar to that of a designer label: it guarantees the quality of the merchandise, reducing the uncertainty facing the buyer regarding the future value of the purchase." Like the developer, Mr. Gentile, middle class families had little trouble supporting efforts that would protect their single largest investment by far: the family home. "A well maintained or restored property will not be as valuable in a neighborhood of poorly maintained properties as it would be if the surrounding areas were similar" (Ford 1989: 355; Cohen 1996).

Others see the historic district designation as functioning in a multiplicity of ways to foster an area's economic vitality. The New Jersey Historic Trust, a "quasi-public agency with the state's Department of Environmental Protection," has provided partial funding for the restoration of buildings that were owned by government agencies or nonprofit groups. The Trust argues that such projects bring new investment into the area, increase tourism and result in substantial job creation. Early results from research currently being conducted by The Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers are very encouraging (Garbarine 1996):

The findings showed that every $1 million invested in preserving historic sites generated 25 jobs and $1.1 million in economic activity, and that when matched equally the impact was greater. Each dollar the trust grants a project attracts $9 from outside sources, said Harried C. Hawkins, the trust's executive director.

The historic designation may have important political consequences. The label brings greater public attention; it signals that the "community recognizes the area's significance." Schaeffer and Millerick (1991: 304) argue that being in the spotlight in this way "makes it politically more difficult for governments to neglect the areas in the provision of basic services and the maintenance of infrastructure." Supporters of historic district designation also include, of course, those who are most strongly motivated by the desire to stop change that would alter or eliminate buildings of historic and architectural merit. Historic district designation increases community control over development projects. Indeed, David Ransom (1997) argues that the most common stimulus to seek historic district designation is the perception by residents that developers are planning major change in the community.

ARE THE BENEFITS REAL?
While some groups worry that historic designation will bring increased property value, others fear that it will not. There is clearly a great deal of hype concerning the whole issue. Fortunately, there is also a sizeable body of empirical research. A review of that research suggests that the connection between historic designation and property values or economic development is unclear and likely to vary considerably from one area to another.

The impact of historic district designation often cannot be separated from the wide range of other factors that can influence the economy of an area. Studies of some early historic districts showed that these areas prospered. But they had much going for them other than the designation: All were "located in growing metropolitan areas near bodies of water and geared toward tourism" (Benson and Klein 1988: 226).

An important contrasting case was Cleveland, Ohio. Its two historic districts had no such positive factors working in their favor. Indeed these areas were facing the type of changing population composition and economic conditions typical of deteriorating cities. For developers being in the historic districts meant facing "additional costs and legal entanglements" and proved a strong disincentive to investment. The continued deterioration of large buildings in the areas was particularly glaring. Interestingly though, areas adjacent to the historic districts appear to have benefitted economically from proximity to these districts. Building close to the district rather than in it meant avoiding all the regulations while benefitting from the image. The researchers conclude that "creating historic districts is not a panacea for urban decline unless accompanied by a serious interest in dealing with many other issues" (Benson and Klein 1988: 231).

In his study of districts in the western suburb of Chicago, Coffin (1989) finds that the historic district designation had a small positive impact on the price of housing. He notes, however, that (1) the associated conversion from rental to owner-occupied housing displaced many original residents, (2) if the historic district did not draw more population from outside the area, the population shift to the historic district may have adversely influenced housing prices in adjacent communities, and (3) "additional efforts to provide public services (police protection, more frequent or better trash pickup, street repairs, new street lighting, etc.) within the historic district" could be a real cause of the rise in the value of housing rather than the historic designation (Ibid.: 227).

Gale (1991) examined change in historic and non-historic districts in Washington, D.C. over the period between 1975 and 1987. He found, "no support for the argument that official recognition of the historic and architectural merits of residential neighborhoods leads to accelerating property values." Gale argues that an understanding the cycles of investment in urban areas may explain why his conclusions differ from those of other studies. Over a period of years investment in an area tends to increase and then fall off. If an area is designated as an historic district at an early point in the cycle, the research will show economic benefits. But, as is more commonly the case, historic designation comes only after improvements have already progressed quite far, and the area will consequently fail to show any benefits accruing in the years following the designation.

It is important to also consider that rules regarding construction vary greatly among historic districts, and, as noted above, it is the local regulations that are of greatest importance (Asabere et al. 1994: 226):

From the perspective of the development community, incentives are more desirable than regulation because they reward historic preservation by making it more economically attractive than demolition or nonhistoric alteration. Incentive programs can be built into zoning codes through provisions for lot mergers, transfer development rights, or zoning bonuses, or tied to historic preservation through inducements such as grants, low interest rate loans, and property tax abatements. The impact of historic preservation on property values would likely vary depending on the nature of the local ordinances.

Research in Philadelphia showed that federally certified historic districts enjoyed higher residential property values than areas outside the district. The economic payoff to living in a publically recognized historic environment seems particularly clear (Asabere and Huffman 1994: 401): "Because investment tax credits, generally assumed to be the benefit associated with federal historic districting, are unavailable to owners who rehabilitate owner-occupied property, we attribute the premium to the positive externality effects that flow from the historic designation of a district or zone." Quite different results occurred in the historic districts of the same city that received local historic designation and, therefore, were subject to far more restrictive guidelines. Controlling for a number of relevant variables that can influence housing prices, the study showed that the apartments in these areas commanded substantially lower rent as compared with apartments in areas without the local historic district designation (Asabere et al. 1994).

Finally, it should be noted that from one study to the next there is great variation in the measures of economic benefit and loss as well as other aspects of their methodology. This also explains the inconsistent findings.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?
The prestige value of living or doing business in an historic building or area can be enhanced through the right type of public relations campaign. The 1997 Preservation Conference sponsored by The Historic Districts Council of New York City had a working session entitled, "Getting the Word Out -- Promoting Your Historic District." It concerned the use of "public relations professionals, the press and the latest technology to make your neighbors and the broader public aware of your special district" (Historic Districts Council 1996). It is interesting to note the important role of The Landmarks Preservation Commission of New York as described on their website (www.ci.nyc.us/nyclink.html.lpcbene.html):

Public Recognition of Building's Special Character - Many owners of historic buildings observe that landmark designation enhances the "cachet" of the building and/or the district to potential tenants. Landmark status is regularly noted in both commercial and residential real estate advertisements. For individual landmarks, the Commission prepares a detailed "designation report" describing the history of the building; the architect; its architectural, cultural and/or historical significance; and other information. (For buildings in historic districts the designation report provides such information in abbreviated form.) Some owners use these reports to help them market their buildings. Individual landmarks are also listed and described in the popular book entitled Guide to New York City Landmarks (Preservation Press, 1992).

In a brochure from the National Park Service, Lawson et al. (1993) discuss a variety of practical strategies to garner public support and win over opponents. The National Trust offers a variety of literature on this theme (see Appendix C).

Federal tax credits are still available for some types of businesses located in the historic districts listed in the National Register (Slavitt 1993; see also Appendix B). Credits had originally been for up to 25 percent of the cost of rehabilitation work; this has been reduced to 20 percent. It may be possible to combine federal tax credits with Connecticut Department of Housing credits for constructing low income housing. This could prove a valuable strategy to deter gentrification and the associated displacement of the original residents in historic areas. Ransom (1997), adjunct professor in the American Studies Program at Trinity College, has done consulting on routes to obtaining federal tax credits in historic districts. He suggests that those seeking this combination of state and federal tax credits should work with developers or non-profit groups who have had experience with low income housing. He also suggests contacting Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office in Hartford (566-3005).

The Main Street Center of The National Trust was established in 1980 "as a human resource and technical reference center to stimulate economic development in the context of historic preservation in towns and small cities" (The National Trust 1996). To take advantage of the resources of the Main Street Center requires the commitment of seed money by the local community. The Connecticut legislature had declined to make this commitment. Last year, however, Northeast Utilities has provided such funding for four communities in Connecticut. The National Trust and Northeast Utility are now working with these communities. Not only urban historic districts but a variety of downtown business areas are eligible to be in the program (Ransom 1996). Additional information can be obtained from: Connecticut Main Street Program, Northeast Utilities Service Company, 107 Selden Street , Berlin, Connecticut 06037, telephone: 665-5168.

It may be useful to join Preservation Action, a "grassroot lobby for historic issues," to remain informed about the very latest legislative effort. The organization issues newsletters and a weekly update on developments in Washington, D.C. Appendix A was obtained from their website.

CONCLUSION
Given the general political environment at present, it is necessary to look increasingly to private and state funding for economic revitalization as well as preservation. It is important to recognize that historic designation cannot magically reverse problems that are bringing about urban decline or stagnation. Yet historic areas do have potential that can be drawn upon as part of broader economic revitalization efforts.

Economic benefits can accrue from applying aesthetic and quality standards associated with historic districts and from public relations efforts to enhance appreciation of the district's assets. This can increase tourism, bolster property values and promote the prestige of living and working in the district:

[S]ince creation of an historic district provides people with additional information about the nature, significance, and quality of structures within the district, it may . . . increase the demand for properties by identifying a set of attributes of the property which are valuable to people and which would have gone unobserved in the absence of the creation of the district (Coffin 1989: 221).

The public has shown enthusiasm about supporting efforts to preserve buildings that have architectural merit and which embody our historical heritage. Careful planning and regulating can make preservation compatible with modern living and business requirements. Studies of actual districts, however, show that such potential is likely to be realized when the area has more going for it than simply an historic designation.

Finally, it is important to recognize that there are very diverse interests involved. The benefits and liabilities of historic district designation are not likely to be the same for developers, homeowners, renters, and local business people.

REFERENCES

Asabere, Paul K. and Forrest E. Huffman. 1994. "Historic Designation and Residential Market Values." The Appraisal Journal (July): 396-401.

Asabere, Paul K., Forrest E. Huffman and Seyed Mehdian. 1994. "The Adverse Impacts of Local Historic Designation: The Case of Small Apartment Buildings in Philadelphia." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 8 (May): 225-234.

Azula, Alfredo. 1995. "Few People Neutral on Townhouse Plan Developer: Cave Creek Must Change." The Arizona Republic/The Phoenix Gazette. December 20, p. 6.

Beaumont, Constance. 1991. "What's New in Preservation." Planning 57 (10):18-20.

Benson, Virginia O. and Richard Klein. 1988. "The Impact of Historic Districting on Property Values." The Appraisal Journal 56 (2): 223-32.

Bowling, Anne. 1994. "Cafe Signals Birth of Historic Newtown." The Cincinatti Enquirer. August 11, p. Z01.

Coffin, Donald A. 1989. "The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values." Eastern Economic Journal 15 (3): 221-28.

Cohen, Joyce. "A Shopper's Guide to Historic Properties." Wall Street Journal, May 3, 1996, p. B8.

Ford, Deborah Ann. 1989. "The Effect of Historic District Designation on Single-Family Home Prices." AREUEA Journal 17 (3): 353-62.

Gale, Dennis E. 1991. "The Impacts of Historic District Designation: Planning and Policy Implications." Journal of the American Planning Association 57 (3): 325-40.

Garbarine, Rachelle. "Grants That Aim to Use the Past to Help the Present." The New York Times, August 4, 1996 (via the Internet).

Gottlieb, Alan. 1995. "Council Refuses to Preservce Parabolooid Development Favored by 8-2 Vote." The Denver Post, June 20, p. A1.

Historic Districts Council. 1996. Pages from Internet in January: http://www. preserve.org/hdc

Lawson, Barry R., Ellen P. Ryan and Rebecca B. Hutchison. 1993 Reaching Out, Reaching In: A Guide to Creating Effective Public Participation for State Historic Preservation Programs. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division.

Maller, Peter. 1995. "Detour Puts Resort Developer, Residents on Collision Course." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 24, p. 1.

The National Park Service. 1993. Federal Historic Preservation Laws. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. The National Trust. 1996. Variety of information located on the Internet in January: http://web.nthp.org.

Ransom, David. Telephone interview January 30, 1997. (Ransom teachers a course on Hartford Architecture in the American Studies Program at Trinity College and has expertise on historic districts.)

Schaeffer, Peter V. and Cecily Ahern Millerick. 1991. "The Impact of Historic District Designation on Property Values: An Empirical Study." Economic Development Quarterly 5 (4): 301-12.

Slavitt, Lesley. 1993. Preserving and Revitalizing Older Communities: Sources of Federal Assistance. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division.

Appendix A:
IMPORTANT PENDING LEGISLATION

The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act is particularly important because federal tax incentives currently apply only to income producing properties. Below is a further description of the legislation provide by Preservation Action (http://www.preservenet.cornell.edu /presaction/pres.htm). David Ransom (1996) argues that even if the legislation were to be passed, serious problems were likely to arise because of the lack of administrative personnel to manage the program.

Do you live in a historic home and find the costs of rehab higher "because it's historic?"
Are there neighborhoods in your city that are old and run-down that could be brought back to their original beauty if owners had an incentive to take on a rehabilitation project?
Did you know that there is a bill before the Congress to assist owners of historic homes with a tax credit for certified rehabilitation of the home if it is their primary residence?

If this sounds interesting, read on.

THE HISTORIC HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1995
HR 1662 and S. 1002

What is the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act of 1995?
Two bills have been introduced in Congress as "The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act of 1995: H.R. 1662 in the House of Representatives and S. 1002 in the Senate. H.R. 1662 was introduced in the House by Clay Shaw (R-FL) and Barbara Kennelly (D-CT). S. 1002 was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R-RI) and Bob Graham (D-FL).

The bills highlight a Historic Homeowners Tax Credit as a method to encourage the re-use of historic building stock as primary residences. This tax credit will help to revitalize declining areas in our cities and towns and will make homeownership a real possibility for lower income families.

Important news:
What is the Historic Homeowners Tax Credit?
THE HISTORIC HOMEOWNERS TAX CREDIT is NOT another large federal program but an incentive for people willing to rehabilitate rundown structures for their primary residences. The credit reaches out to current homeowners as well as families on the cusp of homeownership. Rehabilitation activities provide jobs for area residents of diverse incomes. This reinvestment in historic neighborhoods would improve the local tax base, take advantage of existing infrastructure (sewer systems, roads, parks, and schools), and save taxpayer dollars.

Who would be eligible for the tax credit ?
OWNERS OF QUALIFYING PROPERTIES would be able to take an income tax credit equal to a portion of their rehabilitation costs. The owner must consider the qualifying property as their primary residence. QUALIFYING PROPERTIES include single-family and multi-family residences, and condominiums. Cooperatives listed as historic would qualify and the credit could be taken for the portion of a qualified building used as a principle residence.

How much would the tax credit be worth?
THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWABLE TAX CREDIT would be a 20% FEDERAL INCOME TAX CREDIT to homeowners who rehabilitate a historic house, or, buy a qualified rehabbed historic house. The credit is limited to $50,000 for each principal residence. Expenditures must be greater than $5,000 or the adjusted basis, with exceptions for buildings in low income census tracts targeted as distressed, and Enterprise or Empowerment Zones where the minimum would be $5,000. 5% of the total rehabilitation expenditure must be spent on the exterior.

What if I would like to rehab a historic house and then sell the property to a home owner ?
A "PASS THROUGH" FEATURE is included in the bill to encourage development of historic residences. A developer may rehab a qualifying property and sell it to a homeowner but must give the credit to the homeowner. The homeowner may apply the credit to tax liability over a number of years. If the qualifying property is sold before 5 years has passed, the tax credit is subject to ratable recapture.

What if my tax liability is very small or, what if I am on the cusp of home ownership?
THIS BILL CAN HELP LOWER INCOME FAMILIES AFFORD REHABBED HOUSING! Taxpayers with little or no tax liability may convert the tax credit into a mortgage credit certificate which could be used by the mortgage lender who, in turn, would reduce the interest rate on the mortgage of the homeowner. With the benefit of a lower interest rate, families who are just out of reach of owning their own home will finally be able to!

Are their any restrictions on the tax credit?
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION are required to be complied with during the rehabilitation process. However, the final certification will consider such factors as location of the property in a "targeted area", Enterprise Zone, or Empowerment Zone. This restriction is in addition to the restrictions stated above. (Those being that the property must be a qualifying one, the primary residence of the owner, and must be retained for 5 years.)

What is happening in Congress with these bills?
IN THE HOUSE: There are 85 co-sponsors of HR 1662 in the House of Representatives which include both Republicans and Democrats AND Newt Gingrich and Dick Gephardt. Unfortunately, support for this measure in the Ways and Means Committee are dimmed by the need to reduce the budget deficit, the GOP interest in a flat tax, and the failure, to date, to enact the tax package promised in the "Contract With America." A campaign is being organized by Preservation Action to go into effect after the November election to get 150 co-sponsors "signed on" in the House before the end of January 1997. You will be hearing more about this on the webpage as we move to spotlight the impact that the Homeowners Assistance Act would have on historic neighborhoods large and small.

For more information on how you can help in this campaign. contact PA at 202-659-091 or e-mail us at presact.worldweb.net.

CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL CO-SPONSORS OF hr 1662: Clay Shaw (R-FL) and Barbara Kennelly (D-CT) with McCrery (R-LA), Neal (D-MA), Zimmer R-NJ), Johnson (R-CT), Gephardt (D-MO), Goss (R-FL), Moakley (D-MA), Hutchinson (R-AR), Torkildsen (R-MA), Maloney (D-NY), Richardson (D-NM), Hinchey (D-NY), Clyburn (D-SC), Nadler (D-NY), Rangel (D-NY), Hastings (D-FL), Young (R-AK), Kennedy (D-RI), Baker (R-LA), Mollohan (D-WV), Jefferson (D-LA), Jacobs (D-IN), Sabo (D-MN), Frazer (IND-VI), Ward (D-KY), Oberstar (D-MN), Gingrich (R-GA), Cardin (D-MD), Dias-Balart (R-FL), Wolf (R-VA), Bilbray (R-CA), Livingston (R-LA), Mfume (D-MD), English (R-PA), Kleczka (D-WI), Kingston (R-GA), Johnson (D-SD), Dunn (R-WA), Minge (D-MN), Wilson (D-TX), Ehrlich (R-MD), Boehlert (R-NY), McHale (D-PA), Stockman (R-TX), Bereuter (R-NE), Skeen (R-NM), Hefner (D-NC), Johnston (D-FL), Bishop (D-GA), Nussele (R-IA), Vento (D-MN), Walsh (R-NY) Duncan (R-TN), Houghton (R-NY), Smith (R-NJ), McCollum (R-FL), Lewis (R-KY), Bliley (R-VA), Lewis (D-GA), Meek (D-FL), Cramer (D-AL), Kildee (D-MI), Rogers (R-KY), Smith R-TX), Tejeda (D-TX), Fowler (R-FL), Hayes (R-LA), Lipinski (D-IL), Bonior (D-MI), Serrano (D-TX), Traficant (D-OH), Gonzalez (D-TX), Bentsen (D-TX), Goodlatte (R-VA)

CO-SPONSORS of S.1002 IN THE SENATE: Chafee (R-RI) and Graham (D-FL) introducers with Johnston (D-LA), Pryor (D-AR), Simon (D-IL) Pell (R-RI), Cochran (R-MS), Leahy (D-VT), and D'Amato (R-NY) as co-sponsors.

APPENDIX B:
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BENEFITS AND PROGRAMS

I. The Landmarks Preservation Commission in New York City website (www.ci.nyc.us/nyclink/html/lpc/html/lpcbene.html) has information on benefits that accrue from having the historic landmark designation. Many of these are specific to New York, but the following were website listings pertaining to federal programs:

Federal Tax Credits - Certain income-producing historic buildings are eligible for a federal income tax credit equal to 20 percent of the cost of qualified rehabilitation work, provided that the owner spends an amount on the renovation that is at least equal to the adjusted cost basis of the building. LPC designation can help owners become eligible for these credits. Note: Federal legislation has been introduced that would extend the twenty percent credit to homeowners. (For non-residential buildings that were built before 1936 and are not on the National Register of Historic Places, substantial rehabilitation work is eligible for a federal income tax credit equal to ten percent of the rehabilitation cost if at least 50% of the external walls are retained; at least 75% of the remaining external walls are retained as external walls; and at least 75% of the internal structural framework is retained in place.)

More Flexibility Regarding Handicapped Access Requirements - The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that certain of the law's access requirements may be modified for locally designated landmarks if the State Historic Preservation Officer determines that complying with the ADA would harm the historic integrity of the structure. The LPC can help with this process. Local Law 58, the local law governing handicapped access, contains no similar waiver provision, but the City may be willing to work with owners of significant historic buildings to devise alternative means of access, where strict compliance would substantially compromise the building's significance.

Priority for Government Tenants - The federal Public Building Cooperative Use Act requires federal agencies to use office space in existing historic buildings where possible, rather than constructing new buildings. Similarly, the New York Public Buildings Law requires state agencies to give first priority to the use of buildings of historic, architectural, or cultural significance when they are seeking office space for more than one year. Landmarks and contributing buildings in historic districts are considered "historic buildings" under these laws.

II. Some financial assistance is available through The National Trust. The following programs were listed on their website (http://web.nthp.org):

PRESERVATION SERVICES FUND provides matching grants ranging from $500 to $5,000 to nonprofit organizations , universities and public agencies to initiate preservation projects. Funds may be used to support consultants with professional expertise in areas such as architecture, law, planning, economics, and graphic design; conferences that address subjects of particular importance to historic preservation; and curriculum development in preservation directed at select audiences.

THE INNER-CITY VENTURES FUND offers below-market rate loans of up to $150,000 to nonprofit organizations for site-specific projects and $200,000 for revolving funds to help revitalize older, historic neighborhoods for the benefit of low-and moderate-income residents. Funds may be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, and related capital costs for projects that offer housing, neighborhood services, and commercial opportunities for area residents. Priority will be given to organizations and neighborhoods participating in the National Trust's Community Partners for Revitalization program.

THE NATIONAL PRESERVATION LOAN FUND provides below-market rate loans of up to $150,000 to nonprofit organizations and public agencies to help preserve properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Funds may be used to create or expand local and statewide preservation revolving funds, for site acquisition, or rehabilitation work. This year priority will be given to projects that (I) increase the capacity of state and local preservation organizations, (ii)assist properties damaged in natural disasters, and (iii) are included in the National Trust's list of 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.

THE JOHANNA FAVROT FUND offers grants ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 to nonprofit organizations, government agencies, for-profit businesses and individuals for projects that contribute to the preservation or the recapture of an authentic sense of place. Funds may be used to obtain professional expertise in areas such as architecture, planning, archeology or media relations; sponsoring preservation conferences and workshops; and designing and implementing innovative preservation education programs.

III. Another important program listed by The National Trust is described below. Again, this comes directly from their website.

GIFTS OF HERITAGE: The Gifts of Heritage program has been developed to provide owners of significant homes a means of ensuring that their homes will be preserved for future generations while realizing significant tax savings and, if desired, continuing to live in their homes. In many cases the best means of preserving a home is for it to remain in private ownership with a family that will continue to maintain the property as a home and to care for it.

The basic elements of the program are as follows:

Houses of architectural or historic significance are donated to the Trust through a variety of options, including outright gifts, gifts retaining a life estate, charitable remainder trusts, and bequests. Donors remain responsible for the maintenance, insurance and property taxes on their homes until the Trust actually takes possession.

After the Trust takes possession, a comprehensive protective plan for the house and grounds is developed. The plan may include ecologic, archaeological and environmental components, in addition to historic and architectural studies. In general, houses are protected through preservation easements on the significant elements of the property.

The Trust finds a preservation-minded buyer for the house. A portion of the sale proceeds are earmarked for an endowed fund established for the specific purpose of maintaining the easement; the remainder of the proceeds are allocated to the Historic Properties Preservation Fund.

Easements are inspected on an annual or biannual basis to ensure proper stewardship of the property. If the house not properly maintained, funds are available for litigation.

The Gifts of Heritage program offers participants several advantages: Donors receive federal and state tax savings by taking the appraised market value as a charitable deduction. The Trust takes full responsibility for disposition of the property, relieving the former owners of the logistical hassles of maintenance and sale of the property. The protective plan and maintenance endowment ensure the preservation of the property. With the donation of the property to the Trust, the donor supports the preservation of America's rich cultural heritage.

For more information, contact Susan Gutchess at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 673-4175.

IV. For a useful but somewhat dated listing of federal programs, see also Slavitt 1993.

Appendix C
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS OF THE HISTORIC TRUST

The following is a selection from the website of The National Trust (http://WEB.nthp.org/daughter/06.html):

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
1. Revitalizing Downtown.
Designed to train revitalization coordinators in the Natl Main Street Center's preservation-based approach to economic development, this handbook explains the Main Street methodology, a comprehensive strategy to improve downtown's image and management. The manual contains information on organization, promotion, design and economic restructuring, plus an extensive bibliography and useful list of organizations. Pages: 185 pages. Date: Rev. 1991. Price: $35. Order #: MR-10. Contact: 202/673-4219

2. Step-by-step Market Analysis: A Workout for Downtown Development.
This spiral-bound workbook provides a step-by-step process for analyzing market conditions in traditional downtown and neighborhood commercial districts. Describes methods of measuring the market, defining the trade area, measuring sales gap and more. Complete with worksheets and sample surveys. Pages: 75. Date: 1995. Price: $40. Order #: MR-81. Contact: 202/673-4219

3. Fill-in-the-Blank Business Recruitment: A Workbook for Downtown Business Development.
This practical workbook offers hands-on guidance in the process of developing a successful downtown business expansion and recruitment program. Include information on developing and analyzing retail clusters, using market information, helping existing retailers capture a larger share of the market, and approaching potential new businesses. Pages: 110. Date: 1995. Price: $40 Order #: MD-82.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Economics of Rehabilitation, by Donovan D. Rypkema.
Often preservationists must justify preserving a building in economic, not only in architectural and historical, terms. This booklet explains clearly & concisely how to demonstrate the economic benefits of preserving historic buildings, defining real estate terms and comparing the costs of rehabilitation with new construction. Sample charts make it easy to apply rehab costs to any particular project. Pages: 24. Illus: 7 Tables. Date: 1991. Contact: 202/673-4286. Price: $6. Order #: Info Series 2I53

HERITAGE TOURISM
1. Getting Started: How to Succeed in Heritage Tourism, by Cheryl Hargrove.
This 4-color guide helps communities to combine preservation and tourism to obtain manageable economic growth. Pages: 48. Illus: 30+. Price: $25. Order #: I015. Date: 1993. Contact: 202/673-4286

2. From Visitors to Volunteers: Organizing a Historic Homes Tour, by Ann Anderson.
If your organization is considering a homes tour for the first time or even if you are involved in a well-established program, this guide will be a valuable planning resource. The author covers committee structure, budgeting, planning considerations, site selection, training volunteers and the tour catalog. A tour supply checklist, time line and management outline are included. Pages: 20. Illus: 4. Price: $6 Order #: 2I52. Date: 1991. Contact: 202/673-4286

PLANNING
1. Saving Place: A Guide and Report Card for Protecting Community Character, by Philip B. Herr.
This booklet helps residents and officials protect their community through sound growth policy, economic development, natural resource protection, and historic preservation. Includes a 30-question report card to help identify where communities might focus their efforts. Pages: 50. Illus: 20 drawings. Price: $15. Order #: 2107. Date: 1991. Contact: 202/673-4286

2. Parking Handbook for Smaller Communities.
Parking is often hailed as the single biggest impediment to downtown revitalization. But is it? The Parking Handbook for Smaller Communities will cover the real issues affecting parking in communities with populations between 5,000 and 50,000. Parking supply, management, maintenance and development will be covered...all in the context of preserving the built environment of the traditional commercial core. This comprehensive parking handbook will also include worksheets and instructions for conducting your own research and planning activities. Date: 1994. Price: $45. Order #: MD-61. Contact: 202/673-4289

3. A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Historic Places: Local Preservation Ordinances, by Constance Epton Beaumont.
This guide discusses the basic elements, local innovations, and the benefits of a preservation ordinance. Pages: 19. Date: 1992. Price: $5. Contact: 202/673-4255

4. "Coordination of Historic Preservation and Land-Use Controls: New Directions in Historic Preservation Regulation," by Julia Hatch Miller, reprint from Preservation Law Reporter.
This article discusses new comprehensive programs that a number of communities across the country have developed that coordinate land use policies and regulations to encourage preservation and improvement of older neighborhoods. Date: 1986-87. Pages: 13. Price: $5. Contact: 202/673-4255

5. Growth Management and Historic Preservation, by Robert H. Freilich, Hulen Professor of Law in Urban Affairs, University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law and Terri A. Muren, Associate, Freilich, Leitner, Carlise and Shortlidge prepared for the City of Atlanta, a Critical Issues Fund report.
This paper describes ways in which planning, growth management and historic preservation interact. It discusses the public purposes advanced by the protection of historic resources, the role and scope of powers of historic preservation commissions in the process, the use of interim development controls for historic preservation and the effect of recent constitutional challenges on land planning and growth management efforts. Date: 1988. Pages: 35. Price: $24. Contact: 202/673-4255

6. Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, by Marya Morris, published jointly by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the American Planning Association, a Critical Issues Fund report.
This report examines a variety of planning and zoning tools and techniques such as conservation districts, downzoning, property tax abatements and low-interest loan programs. Date: 1992. Pages: 41. Price $24. Contact: 202/673-4255.

PUBLIC RELATIONS
1. Building Support through Public Relations: A Guide for Nonprofit Preservation Organizations, by Olivia Meyer.
A strong public relations programs creates goodwill, brings in new members, aids fundraising, and invites community support and awareness of the value of historic preservation. This issue explains how to conduct a successful public relations campaign, including tips on news releases, press conferences, radio and television spots, public service announcements and special events. Pages: 24. Illus: 5. Price: $6. Order #: 2I63. Date: 1992. Contact: 202/673-4286

2. Marketing an Image for Main Street.
"Downtown is dead." At the core of just about any downtown's problems lies the issue of image -- and simply throwing away money at it will not help...unless a clear and compelling image has been formulated and communicated. Marketing an Image will help you define your community's essence; translate that identity into visual symbols or graphics; and develop targeted strategies to bring downtown "alive." Price: $32. Order #: MD-31. Contact: 202/673-4219.

3. Creative Promotion Ideas for Main Street.
Have your downtown promotions gone stale? Has your promotion committee "run dry" of creative ideas? This new collection of downtown promotion ideas from around the country can stimulate your own brainstorming and challenge you to create events that will target new audiences and spark interest in downtown. More than 100 ideas and case studies covering retail sales, special events, image development, and holiday promotion. Pages: 32. Price: $24. Order #: MD-30. Contact: 202/673-4219.

Appendix D
SURVEYS AND STUDIES IN NEW BRITAIN

The following information was obtained from the Internet (http://www.lib.uconn.edu /ArchNet/Topical/CRM/Conn/townn.htm):

Historical and Architectural Survey
Citywide, reconnaissance-level, 254 properties. City of New Britain and Connecticut Historical Commission, 1973.

Central Business District (eastern area), intensive-level, 117 properties. City of New Britain and Connecticut Historical Commission, 1984.

Archaeological Survey
Connecticut Archaeological Survey Inc. 1977 An Archaeological Survey of the New Britain Wastewater South Side Interceptor, New Britain, Connecticut. Ms., CAS, Inc. UCONN CHPC #78 (NPS NADB #CT-177).

Dumas, S. Douglas and Marine E. Mozzi
1995 Phase I Archaeological Assessment and Reconnaissance Survey of Early Childhood Regional Educational Center, Newington/New Britain, Connecticut. Ms., Archaeological Research Specialists. UCONN CHPC #623 (NPS NADB #CT- ).

Documentation Studies
Property: Harding Street Bridge
Location: Harding Street
Documentation: 2 text, 10 photographs, 10 negatives

Property: The Stanley Works, Buildings No. 8 and 10
Location: Myrtle Street
Documentation: 3 text, 16 photographs, 43 negatives