Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
^ Sounds to me like Ardecila is saying that Landmarking is being used in this case as an excuse to get tax credits. Shouldn't landmarking only be done for historically significant buildings?
If everybody who is rehabbing an old building (like myself) could simply say, "ah, lets landmark the thing so that I can do this more cheaply!", then that would be a bad precedent.
|
I don't think any developers out there are really pushing to get anything landmarked. It will only make the design and construction work more expensive, so it's not like it's getting done more cheaply. In addition, going through the Landmarks review process for permitting takes absolutely FOREVER. Depending on the "level" of landmarking, it could add almost a year to the permitting process, not to mention zoning.
There may be tax credits, but whether or not they pay off for the developer has to be counted against how much more the landmarks process costs.