"Letter to the Editor" of The University City Review in January 2002, contesting statements published earlier in this newspaper by representatives of the University City Historical Society about the ramifications of the proposed historic designation on the Spruce Hill community.

To the Editor:

The University City Review is to be commended for taking a timely lead in informing affected stakeholders of the intended proposal by the Spruce Hill Historical Society and Spruce Hill Community Association to have the neighborhood designated as a Historic District under Section 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code. Denizens of Powelton, Garden Court, Squirrel Hill, Walnut Hill, and other sections of University City also owe it to themselves to pay close attention to this debate because their neighborhoods could easily be next.

Historic designation under the Code has ramifications far beyond a commendable effort to preserve an architectural heritage. If effected, it will significantly raise the cost of living for property owners and rental residents, and increase the expenses associated with conducting business in the area. By doing so, it will impact the very quality of life in Spruce Hill and may have a raft of unintended consequences ranging from destroying the rich diversity of the area to overpricing the market and creating rental vacancies and property abandonment.

In this context, several points made in recent issues of the University City Review by advocates of historic designation call for examination, clarification, and correction.

Mike Hardy stated in an interview (December 12) that "historic districts help stabilize a population," and that "a stabilized population will increase property values. 'Factors that drive up rents are the issues relating to demand.'" Several problems jump to mind.

• First, the reference cited almost exclusively on this topic is a landmark article by Paul Asabere and Forrest Huffman of Temple University entitled "Historic Districts and Land Values," which appeared in the Spring 1991 issue of The Journal of Real Estate Research. The authors did, indeed, find a correlation between historic districts and property values. However, they studied only "federally certified historic sites" which they noted "are not severely encumbered by regulations." Further, they wrote that "the impact of historic districting on property values could be either positive or negative depending on the tension between externality effects and the constraints on property rights... [People] would require a discount for historic parcels if they value the opportunity cost of the legal encumbrances on their rights at a higher level than the value of the positive external benefits from historic designation."





• Second, the same reference drew its conclusions about a correlation by performing a multiple regression on sales data collected from several neighborhoods. There is no question as to the validity of the analysis and the methodology. However, anybody with more than a smattering of statistics knows that regression yields static information and is not properly utilized to infer cause-and-effect. That is, there is no more basis in this instance for assuming that historic designation causes increased property values than there would be for assuming that increased property values cause historic designation. Add to this the fact that, right now, Spruce Hill houses and apartments have close to 100% occupancy as it is, so which is the cause and which the effect?





• A third difficulty with Mike's comment is the insinuation that investors who incur higher costs of operation can make it up by charging higher rents. Speaking from over two decades of personal experience as a housing provider, I seriously doubt whether even a small fraction of the renters in Spruce Hill would cotton to the idea of paying more for their apartments because their landlord had to spend $20,000 for a terra cotta roof rather than $2,000 for asphalt shingles. Also speaking personally, but on behalf of many other small University City property managers, the idea is not to spend more money then raise the rents so we can get a fair return on it; rather, it's to keep buildings full of happy, responsible tenants by providing comfortable, secure accommodations and good service at an attractive price -- something which becomes increasingly difficult if we have arbitrarily frivolous and irrelevant expenses and red tape.

Katherine Dowdell, also of the University City Historical Society, had a "letter" in the December 19 issue in which she made representations that, unfortunately, contradict the facts. She wrote "repair work or other minor work, for which a building permit is not required, is not reviewed by the Historical Commission. Homeowners will not have to submit documentation to the Historical Commission for every single change -- only for those changes for which a building permit is required and that alter the external appearance of the property."

Sorry, but Philadelphia law says otherwise. Article 14-2007 (7) (a) of the Philadelphia Code states "Unless a permit is first obtained from the Department [of Licenses and Inspections], no person shall ... alter, demolish, or construct any building, structure, site or object within an historic district." This could be pretty inclusive -- and, in case you think I'm suffering from the Chicken Little Syndrome -- the Historical Commission has issued a Guideline that confirms it is. The Guideline declares, for properties located within a district designated as historic under 14-2007, "Some types of projects do not require a building permit, but you still need to consult with the Historical Commission. These alterations include such projects as replacing windows, cleaning or repointing masonry, and painting facades." Notice that "painting" (those darned purple pillars) is included in the list; the Historical Commission asserts that as a matter of policy, it doesn't care about painting -- but a policy as opposed to a regulation can change at the drop of a hat, perhaps a new commissioner is appointed or a bright-and-bushy-tailed architectural grad joins the staff... and zingo!

Oh, yes. If you think that installing a few storm windows or putting new spindles in your railing is a weekend do-it-yourself or handyman project, consider what the Historical Commission's Guideline insists you do before you even start. You have to submit an application including: "a cover letter outlining your proposed project," "dated and labeled photographs of the existing condition of the location of proposed alterations," "an indication of the proposed materials and design," and "scaled drawings or plans." OK, the last is "optional for small projects," implying that the other steps are mandatory.

Then, again, there's Section 14-2007 (8) (d) of the Code, stating that the exterior of "every building ... within an historic district shall be kept in good repair." I shudder to think what this implies. Scary. Very scary.

The Spruce Hill Community Association has a Board of Directors meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 8, at 7:30 pm, 257 S 45th Street. You don't have to be a member to attend, listen, and express your opinions. Joining wouldn't hurt, either; annual dues are quite reasonable. This organization purports to speak on behalf of the community. By attending and participating in this and future meetings, whether as a member or not, you can help ensure that it truly does -- for example by going on record as insisting that the Association survey owners and renters, residents and businesses, before telling City officials what "the community" wants.

Alan Krigman

Spruce Hill resident, rental property manager, and business operator

shhd104