Replacement Housing by its very definition triggers conflict and angst between those who wish to absolutize the present and those who wish to embrace the future through progressive change. This creates a thorny problem for bureaucrats and politicians who, on one hand, desire the economic benefits and diversity of Replacement Housing efforts while on the other, must try to appease vocal constituents opposed to change.

In reality, Replacement Housing provides a windfall and net benefit for municipalities, replacing or upgrading obsolete housing, fostering economic diversity, while replenishing and growing tax revenues without public expenditures. This enables municipalities to collect fees for demolition, construction and inspection that helps pay the salaries of building officials, inspectors, and others while securing an enhanced revenue stream that provides municipal income for years to come.

Replacement Housing is a voluntary movement, privately funded by individuals willing to absorb the risks inherent and pay the taxes required to live the way they want in neighborhoods of their choice. It is governed by numerous factors both objective and subjective and is frangible with adjoining first-ring suburban municipalities more than willing to capitalize on any mis-steps in attempts to regulate or restrict it.

At its heart it is a private enterprise with its financial risks assumed by its builders and buyers. It is dependent upon a regulatory environment which makes it economically viable and competitively better than other options – and there competing options as many communities seek to secure its benefits.

The replacement home is a municipal cash machine. With its clustering and nucleating potential it spurs other neighborhood improvements. When combined with explosive condo growth and development, it provides a substantial infusion of sorely-needed tax revenue, lessening the pressure to raise taxes on other citizens to fund the chronic shortfalls of revenue for police, schools, libraries, parks and other municipal priorities.

Replacement Housing’s fiscal gift should not be taken for granted. The dollars at risk are far too important to its diverse and numerous stakeholders. One should remember that the owners of replacement homes have voluntarily committed to pay, as some would argue, more than their fair share to support their communities. They should perhaps be accorded more respect for their dedicated civic commitment. For, after all, when it comes to urban revitalization they are actually walking the walk, not just talking the talk.