On the other hand, there is real (hotly contested) possibility that the value of property would increase.
Sorry, Chris.
The decrease in property values relative to comparable districts is only hotly contested by people who didn't read the authoritative studies done at Temple and Rutgers, published in peer-reviewed journals -- and posted on the Internet by David Toccafondi -- and prefer instead to rely on either anecdotal evidence or on that old standby cop-out "studies show." Five weeks ago, I asked SHCA to produce or at least cite references for the "studies" they mention in their so-called "factsheet;" Kate Stover answered they didn't know because the information had been provided by the Historical Commission. So I wrote to Laura Spina of the Historical Commission asking the same question (and several others); two weeks later, after a follow-up request, she said she turned the questions over to her boss, Richard Tyler (a Spruce Hill resident, coincidentally, and not exactly a neutral observer). Having received no answer, I resubmitted the questions to Richard two weeks ago. Still no answer ! coming from the other side of that stonewall. Could it be... could it possibly be... that they have no answer and that they just made this "fact" up because someone figured it "must be so" and assumed that nobody would actually do their homework and discover the statement was a fib?
Hotly contested? The only thing hotly contested is the existence of the "studies" that SHCA claim to show that property values increase.
Alan Krigman,
