The Philadelphia Inquirer is in the midst of publishing a four-part article series that could be considered a scathing attack upon tax incentives for historic preservation and/or easement protection of private properties--or more accurately, their possible flagrant misuse or abuse. Of course the primary examples portrayed are ritzy apartment buildings and country clubs. But all other examples aside, such tax breaks have been critical to the preservation of many historic structures--such as railroad stations as restaurants. This article warrants review and philosophical debate by
all who not only pay taxes but engage in preservation of historic structures.

The first two articles are at:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2736126.htm

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2740787.htm

Your commentary, hurrahs, critiques, etc. invited--both to me or this forum and to the newspaper.


First article of the series
lner4472@bcpl.net

As much as people like to laud our "free" press, they rarely provide balanced reporting.

To make a collection of facts a "story" (sensational enough to sell) they HAVE to slant those facts that they use a certain way, and downplay or omit others. Perhaps they learned this from partisan politics, or maybe it was the other way 'round. Either way, it is a bit the same as the con man's (read: advertising) game of selling you a bill of goods without actually lying. IMO it is naive to think otherwise...Unfortunately, I suppose many people ARE naive (or is that just shallow thinkers?)

I believe the ENTIRE point of the law was to make preservation a more financially attractive proposition. Wasn't it? Yes, there will always be people who will abuse ANY rule, and there are fellows who can make actually money while apparently losing their shirt.
Rather than just sensationalising the flaws in the existing laws, which is easy, I'd love to see these people offer answers and solutions (which is hard)...of course the paper will say its not their job, they just "report" the news.....