Another thing the DP got wrong...
There may be some incentive to buying a single-family building that's been rented to a "group," and renovating it for single-family owner-occupancy.
However, in general, the economics strongly disfavors buying property that was legally converted long ago to multiple separate apartments, and returning it to single-home status. The price commanded for a viable income-producing property would be high to begin with. And the cost of conversion, especially given that many of the original features some prize in older buildings are likely to be gone or substantially altered, would be astronomical. Add to this the fact that, unless the building happened to be a multi-family conversion surrounded by single-family homes, the buyer would have the disadvantage of high density with its attendant trash, noise, and parking issues. (The petunia in the onion patch syndrome.) At least some of the contentiousness in this neighborhood has been caused by people "moving to the nuisance" then complaining about it... even to the point of making up patently ridiculous stories about the irresponsible "absentee landlords" who supposedly cause it.
And one of the factors that encourages this would be the Historic District proposal. Remember, everyone, investment property owners can deduct repair costs from their taxes-- and homeowners can't. So, if you (the collective "you" not Al specifically) have a multiplexed house that's giving you income, are you likely to effect the repairs and renovations required to make it a single-family home? It's not likely under most circumstances-- and the added costs and lopsided tax breaks attendant upon HD make it even less likely.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
