[quote=Jazzman]Mills Act sounds great, but renewal is not guaranteed I believe. Quite why a home suddenly no longer qualifies as historically significant is a mystery. One woukd assume with the passing if time, the significance is greater. I guess diminishing tax revenues are more significant.[/quote]
The only way I know of that a CA owner’s Mills Act tax treatment would be non-renewed is if he/she made alterations to the street view (or interior) of the property that was not in keeping with its historical significance and their respective city/county found out about it.
Owners with Mills Act tax treatment would be rock-stupid to attempt this, IMHO. The potential for many thousands of dollars loss (in additional annual taxes) is too great, ESP if they had to draw permit(s) to do (the disallowed) renovations.
I would LOVE to own one of these properties! Even if they don’t have garages, an owner is allowed to build one if the setbacks are present on the lot and its design is in keeping with the historical significance of the house. The problem (at least in Chula Vista) is that when one is listed, the owner asks $100 – $300K more than its recent sold comps would indicate it is worth (for a property under $1M) and at least $500K more for a $1.5 to $2M property. It’s as if the current owner is trying to extract future tax savings from the new owner in the form of a much higher sales price. My studies have shown that the majority of “Mills Act” listings seem to be withdrawn from the market unsold for this reason.
