$172 Million in Historic Rehabilitation Projects

The National Park Service has ranked Virginia second among the 50 states for a second consecutive year in the use of federal tax incentives to rehabilitate historic buildings. The National Park Service’s annual report on fiscal year 2006 lists Virginia with 114 proposed federal tax-credit projects, second only to Missouri, and 109 completed projects, behind Ohio.

Total private investment in Virginia leveraged through rehabilitation projects completed and certified by the Park Service during fiscal year 2006 was more than $172 million. That is $43 million more than the previous year, and places Virginia fifth in the nation among states for dollars leveraged, according to a statement released by the Governor’s office.

Said Kathleen S. Kilpatrick, Director of the Department of Historic Resources: “Reusing historic buildings is good preservation, good economic opportunity.”

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


4 responses to “$172 Million in Historic Rehabilitation Projects”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Just another wasteful hidden subsidy ripping off ordinary taxpayers.
    If reusing historic buildings is such a “good economic opportunity” it would happen without a government subsidy.
    Often, more wealth would be created for society if we tore more of this outdated junk down and built something more useful.

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    It might be a better question to ask why VCU is proposing using taxpayer money to acquire and demolish property that is listed on the Va Landmarks Register.


  3. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anons All:

    Interesting perspectives but if you want someone to pay attention, do not hide behind “Anon.”

    Anon 9:39. What is your source for this “bold” declaration?

    There is a lot of good research that says you are dead wrong on economic, aesthetic and community cohesion grounds.


  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I think it is fair to say that “Reusing historic buildings is good preservation, good economic opportunity.” Is not ALWAYS true, and that anonymous raises what may be a valid point in some cases.

    I think we have to many people wrapped up in one point of view, promoting policies that may turn out to be wrong.

    I would much rather hear some official say that “Reusing historic buildings is likely to be good preservation, good economic opportunity under the folowing conditions……… We are actively seeking situations where those conditions exist.”

    I’m all in favor of preservation and conservation, but I think there is way too much goody two shoes influence. Like Metro or any other public investment we should understand what we are buying, for whom, and we should understand what we are NOT buying. And we should insist on demonstrable and verifiable measures, not vague prescriptions like “good” or “desireable”.

Leave a Reply