Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:11:59.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Benefit and Fiscal Impact Analysis of Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit (OHPTC)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2018

Tatyana Guzman
Tatyana Guzman*
Affiliation:
Cleveland State University, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, 1717 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, Ohio, 44115, USA, e-mail: t.guzman@csuohio.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The federal government and over thirty states nationwide offer a tax credit in lieu of certain expenditures incurred as part of historic rehabilitation projects. Several economic impact studies have shown the positive effect of the credit on job creation, property values, and environmental friendly behavior in Louisville, KY (Gilderbloom, Hanka & Ambrosius, 2009) and in the state of Maryland (Frizzell & Mitchell, 2002). Most of the studies of historic preservation credits are, however, nonempirical and evaluate only the economic impact of the credit. The societal benefit-cost analysis conducted in this manuscript is the first study of its kind of the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit (OHPTC) program. In addition, this study provides an OHPTC fiscal impact analysis (benefit-cost analysis from the government perspective).

The data for the analysis come from the county auditors’ offices, and multiple proprietary sources, including administrative estimates provided by the agencies managing the OHPTC program, and online survey of the developers. The sensitivity analysis accounts for the differences in discount rates and other factors. The study finds that the overall societal benefits will outweigh overall societal costs by 2023. From the fiscal perspective, the program begins to pay for itself in 2025, but the overall program costs will remain higher than overall benefits during the considered study period (until 2030).

Keywords

D61H25H30H71cost-benefit analysisfiscal impact analysislocalOhio Historic Preservation Tax Creditregionalstateurban
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Summer 2018 , pp. 342 - 373
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boardman, Anthony E., Greenberg, David H., Vining, Aidan R. & Weimer, David L. (2006). In Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice (Vol. 3). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chambers, Catherine M., Chambers, Paul E. & Whitehead, John C. (1998). Contingent Valuation of Quasi-public Goods: Validity, Reliability, and Application to Valuing a Historic Site. Public Finance Review, 26(2), 137–154.10.1177/109114219802600203Google Scholar
Ding, Chengri, Simons, Robert & Baku, Esmail (2000). The Effect of Residential Investment on Nearby Property Values: Evidence From Cleveland, Ohio. Journal of Real Estate Research, 19(1), 23–48.Google Scholar
Garber, Roberta, Kim, Jung, Sullivan, Kerry & Dowell, Eben(2008). $60 Million and Counting: The Cost of Vacant and Abandoned Properties to Eight Ohio Cities.Google Scholar
Gilderbloom, John I., Hanka, Matthew J. & Ambrosius, Joshua D. (2009). Historic Preservations Impact on Job Creation, Property Values, and Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Urbanism, 2(2), 83–101.Google Scholar
Kling, Robert W., Revier, Charles F. & Sable, Karin (2004). Estimating The Public Good Value of Preserving a Local Historic Landmark: The Role of Non-substitutability and Citizen Information. Urban Studies, 41(10), 2025–2041.10.1080/0042098042000256369Google Scholar
Lendel, Iryna, Candi, Clouse, Ellen, Cyran, Tatyana, Guzman, Merissa, Piazza, Stephanie, Ryberg Webster, Charlie, Post & Kenneth, Kalynchuk(2015). Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit Economic Impact Study. Urban Publications. Paper 1334.Google Scholar
Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell LLC(2002). State of Maryland Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Economic & Fiscal Impacts, 22. Available at: http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/004000/004183/unrestricted/20071021e.pdf.Google Scholar
Mason, Randall(2005). Economics and Historic Preservation. pp. 35–100. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Mikesell, John (2013). Fiscal Administration. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Newman, Peter(Ed.) (1998). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and The Law. New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-349-14286-6Google Scholar
Noonan, Doug (2013). Markets and Historic Preservation Policies. In Rizzo, Ilde & Mignosa, Anna (Eds.), Handbook on the Economics of Cultural Heritage. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Reichl, A. J. (1997). Historic Preservation and Pro-growth Politics in US Cities. Urban Affairs Review, 32(4), 513–535.10.1177/107808749703200404Google Scholar
Swaim, Richard (2003). Politics and Policymaking: Tax Credits and Historic Preservation. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 33(1), 32–39.10.1080/10632920309597339Google Scholar