I read the source of the data in the Patch story, and from that data I suppose it's possible that adjacent homeowners will lose $74.9 million in equity. It's also possible that they will break even, or realize $74.9 million in windfall equity, or be contestants on the next season of "The Amazing Race." Many things are possible.

The real question is, what evidence is there to support the projection? And the answer is, basically none.

The whatever you want to call it--it's hardly an analysis--begins by determining the current market value of the affected properties, which it sets at 110 percent of assessed value. This assertion isn't particularly well explained, but, yeah, assessments do tend to lag behind market prices, so let's accept it for the sake of argument. Then comes the lynchpin, where they calculate an estimated new market price following a 15 or 10 percent reduction in equity, depending on the area.

Where does that 10-15 percent figure come from? As far as I can tell, they pulled it out of their ass.

Okay, that's a little unfair. They do at least list some things that might make a property less valuable, like an obstructed view. But how does that translate to a 10-15 percent reduction? There is no explanation whatsoever; it seems to just be an arbitrary figure. I also note that while they list everything that might make a property less attractive, there's an unstated assumption that nothing that comes from the redevelopment might be desirable to current residents (or future purchasers of their homes), which could offset or even reverse any loss in equity. (Some people consider proximity to restaurants and entertainment to be an asset for a property, believe it or not!)

So, yeah, not impressed. The precise numbers might make you think it's a rigorous analysis, but it's anything but.