When is a house historic and when is it a teardown?

[temeculaguy]

Sometimes it’s not as bad as it seems, some of these historical buildings come with property tax exemptions and are advertised as such when they are for sale. I’ve seen some advertised with property tax savings of over $500 a month, but the buyer is restricted in what they can do in way of modifications. So when you look at it that way, the government is paying them to provide a visual museum piece for all to see. Sure it’s unfair to tell people what to do with their property that owned them before they were made historical, I am not sure what the answer is because it’s an ex post facto homeowners association in those cases. But if someone were to buy one, knowing the rules adn reaping the benefits, they can’t cry foul.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]Sometimes it’s not as bad as it seems, some of these historical buildings come with property tax exemptions and are advertised as such when they are for sale. I’ve seen some advertised with property tax savings of over $500 a month, but the buyer is restricted in what they can do in way of modifications. So when you look at it that way, the government is paying them to provide a visual museum piece for all to see. Sure it’s unfair to tell people what to do with their property that owned them before they were made historical, I am not sure what the answer is because it’s an ex post facto homeowners association in those cases. But if someone were to buy one, knowing the rules adn reaping the benefits, they can’t cry foul.[/quote]

TG, if you are speaking of properties with Mills Act designations then yes, the restriction on increasing the footprint or “style” of the home is a VERY small price to pay for receiving the property tax abatement from the Mills Act, IMO. A property which SHOULD have a property tax of $8,600 per year could easily have a reduction to +/- $1,800 per year under the Mills Act. The homeowner often must also follow other rules to keep the Mills Act status, including signing a contract with the city/county to restore the exterior within ten years. Many jurisdictions had $25K grants to get the owner started (each time they wanted to take a “draw” off the grant, they had to have receipts for labor/materials). Not sure if this is still happening and am unsure of the level of government oversight on the homeowner’s progress.

A fully restored property under the Mills Act program is a “labor of love.” Often, the homeowner could only afford materials (and not labor) after their grant ran out. They are mostly DIY projects involving labor-intensive stripping, sanding and searching for original artifacts which may be missing. These projects are not for everyone. That’s why the property tax incentive is in place to restore them and maintain them. It’s the government’s way of thanking the owners who do this for the benefit of the neighborhood and city/county.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]Sometimes it’s not as bad as it seems, some of these historical buildings come with property tax exemptions and are advertised as such when they are for sale. I’ve seen some advertised with property tax savings of over $500 a month, but the buyer is restricted in what they can do in way of modifications. So when you look at it that way, the government is paying them to provide a visual museum piece for all to see. Sure it’s unfair to tell people what to do with their property that owned them before they were made historical, I am not sure what the answer is because it’s an ex post facto homeowners association in those cases. But if someone were to buy one, knowing the rules adn reaping the benefits, they can’t cry foul.[/quote]

TG, if you are speaking of properties with Mills Act designations then yes, the restriction on increasing the footprint or “style” of the home is a VERY small price to pay for receiving the property tax abatement from the Mills Act, IMO. A property which SHOULD have a property tax of $8,600 per year could easily have a reduction to +/- $1,800 per year under the Mills Act. The homeowner often must also follow other rules to keep the Mills Act status, including signing a contract with the city/county to restore the exterior within ten years. Many jurisdictions had $25K grants to get the owner started (each time they wanted to take a “draw” off the grant, they had to have receipts for labor/materials). Not sure if this is still happening and am unsure of the level of government oversight on the homeowner’s progress.

A fully restored property under the Mills Act program is a “labor of love.” Often, the homeowner could only afford materials (and not labor) after their grant ran out. They are mostly DIY projects involving labor-intensive stripping, sanding and searching for original artifacts which may be missing. These projects are not for everyone. That’s why the property tax incentive is in place to restore them and maintain them. It’s the government’s way of thanking the owners who do this for the benefit of the neighborhood and city/county.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]Sometimes it’s not as bad as it seems, some of these historical buildings come with property tax exemptions and are advertised as such when they are for sale. I’ve seen some advertised with property tax savings of over $500 a month, but the buyer is restricted in what they can do in way of modifications. So when you look at it that way, the government is paying them to provide a visual museum piece for all to see. Sure it’s unfair to tell people what to do with their property that owned them before they were made historical, I am not sure what the answer is because it’s an ex post facto homeowners association in those cases. But if someone were to buy one, knowing the rules adn reaping the benefits, they can’t cry foul.[/quote]

TG, if you are speaking of properties with Mills Act designations then yes, the restriction on increasing the footprint or “style” of the home is a VERY small price to pay for receiving the property tax abatement from the Mills Act, IMO. A property which SHOULD have a property tax of $8,600 per year could easily have a reduction to +/- $1,800 per year under the Mills Act. The homeowner often must also follow other rules to keep the Mills Act status, including signing a contract with the city/county to restore the exterior within ten years. Many jurisdictions had $25K grants to get the owner started (each time they wanted to take a “draw” off the grant, they had to have receipts for labor/materials). Not sure if this is still happening and am unsure of the level of government oversight on the homeowner’s progress.

A fully restored property under the Mills Act program is a “labor of love.” Often, the homeowner could only afford materials (and not labor) after their grant ran out. They are mostly DIY projects involving labor-intensive stripping, sanding and searching for original artifacts which may be missing. These projects are not for everyone. That’s why the property tax incentive is in place to restore them and maintain them. It’s the government’s way of thanking the owners who do this for the benefit of the neighborhood and city/county.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]Sometimes it’s not as bad as it seems, some of these historical buildings come with property tax exemptions and are advertised as such when they are for sale. I’ve seen some advertised with property tax savings of over $500 a month, but the buyer is restricted in what they can do in way of modifications. So when you look at it that way, the government is paying them to provide a visual museum piece for all to see. Sure it’s unfair to tell people what to do with their property that owned them before they were made historical, I am not sure what the answer is because it’s an ex post facto homeowners association in those cases. But if someone were to buy one, knowing the rules adn reaping the benefits, they can’t cry foul.[/quote]

TG, if you are speaking of properties with Mills Act designations then yes, the restriction on increasing the footprint or “style” of the home is a VERY small price to pay for receiving the property tax abatement from the Mills Act, IMO. A property which SHOULD have a property tax of $8,600 per year could easily have a reduction to +/- $1,800 per year under the Mills Act. The homeowner often must also follow other rules to keep the Mills Act status, including signing a contract with the city/county to restore the exterior within ten years. Many jurisdictions had $25K grants to get the owner started (each time they wanted to take a “draw” off the grant, they had to have receipts for labor/materials). Not sure if this is still happening and am unsure of the level of government oversight on the homeowner’s progress.

A fully restored property under the Mills Act program is a “labor of love.” Often, the homeowner could only afford materials (and not labor) after their grant ran out. They are mostly DIY projects involving labor-intensive stripping, sanding and searching for original artifacts which may be missing. These projects are not for everyone. That’s why the property tax incentive is in place to restore them and maintain them. It’s the government’s way of thanking the owners who do this for the benefit of the neighborhood and city/county.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]Sometimes it’s not as bad as it seems, some of these historical buildings come with property tax exemptions and are advertised as such when they are for sale. I’ve seen some advertised with property tax savings of over $500 a month, but the buyer is restricted in what they can do in way of modifications. So when you look at it that way, the government is paying them to provide a visual museum piece for all to see. Sure it’s unfair to tell people what to do with their property that owned them before they were made historical, I am not sure what the answer is because it’s an ex post facto homeowners association in those cases. But if someone were to buy one, knowing the rules adn reaping the benefits, they can’t cry foul.[/quote]

TG, if you are speaking of properties with Mills Act designations then yes, the restriction on increasing the footprint or “style” of the home is a VERY small price to pay for receiving the property tax abatement from the Mills Act, IMO. A property which SHOULD have a property tax of $8,600 per year could easily have a reduction to +/- $1,800 per year under the Mills Act. The homeowner often must also follow other rules to keep the Mills Act status, including signing a contract with the city/county to restore the exterior within ten years. Many jurisdictions had $25K grants to get the owner started (each time they wanted to take a “draw” off the grant, they had to have receipts for labor/materials). Not sure if this is still happening and am unsure of the level of government oversight on the homeowner’s progress.

A fully restored property under the Mills Act program is a “labor of love.” Often, the homeowner could only afford materials (and not labor) after their grant ran out. They are mostly DIY projects involving labor-intensive stripping, sanding and searching for original artifacts which may be missing. These projects are not for everyone. That’s why the property tax incentive is in place to restore them and maintain them. It’s the government’s way of thanking the owners who do this for the benefit of the neighborhood and city/county.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] The people that live in the 1700 sq ft craftsmans in 15k lots in the city moved there when that is what surrounded them. They didn’t want to live in a bee hive and I feel for them when it changes around them. So some of them fight it, I think that’s normal, but individual property rights usually prevail however it slows down the process so they can either finish their lives or find another place.[/quote]

The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] The people that live in the 1700 sq ft craftsmans in 15k lots in the city moved there when that is what surrounded them. They didn’t want to live in a bee hive and I feel for them when it changes around them. So some of them fight it, I think that’s normal, but individual property rights usually prevail however it slows down the process so they can either finish their lives or find another place.[/quote]

The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] The people that live in the 1700 sq ft craftsmans in 15k lots in the city moved there when that is what surrounded them. They didn’t want to live in a bee hive and I feel for them when it changes around them. So some of them fight it, I think that’s normal, but individual property rights usually prevail however it slows down the process so they can either finish their lives or find another place.[/quote]

The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] The people that live in the 1700 sq ft craftsmans in 15k lots in the city moved there when that is what surrounded them. They didn’t want to live in a bee hive and I feel for them when it changes around them. So some of them fight it, I think that’s normal, but individual property rights usually prevail however it slows down the process so they can either finish their lives or find another place.[/quote]

The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] The people that live in the 1700 sq ft craftsmans in 15k lots in the city moved there when that is what surrounded them. They didn’t want to live in a bee hive and I feel for them when it changes around them. So some of them fight it, I think that’s normal, but individual property rights usually prevail however it slows down the process so they can either finish their lives or find another place.[/quote]

The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]
The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.[/quote]

Brian – you’ve been spending time in Philly.
I lived in the northern burbs of Philly – Glenside to be exact. The house I lived in was wood framed – as were most of the homes in the neighborhood (not stone or brick). It was 85 years old when I bought it. It’s still there today. A family lived in it before me. I was single (but had a roommmate). The people that bought it have 3 children.

Somehow all of these folks survived with one bathroom. The same is true for most of the neighborhood – 100 year old homes, 1 bathroom (even some of the larger 6 bedroom homes only had 1 bath). Many have had additions put on – with a bathroom… but not all.

It is one of the most charming neighborhoods. Highly walkable (restaurants, bars, family run hardware store, the Keswick Theater – a venue that brings in well known national acts.)

By your logic the neighborhood should have been razed in the 50’s and re-razed again within the last 10 years… After all – homes only last 50 years and no one could possible live without central air. (My PA house didn’t have central air – just window units…. my current house doesn’t have central air and we don’t need window units.)

Seriously, dude, you can’t impose your ideas of what’s livable on others. The market place decides. Last I checked, older homes in Mission Hills, North Park, Kensington, etc are selling. People like these homes. Even if you don’t.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]
The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.[/quote]

Brian – you’ve been spending time in Philly.
I lived in the northern burbs of Philly – Glenside to be exact. The house I lived in was wood framed – as were most of the homes in the neighborhood (not stone or brick). It was 85 years old when I bought it. It’s still there today. A family lived in it before me. I was single (but had a roommmate). The people that bought it have 3 children.

Somehow all of these folks survived with one bathroom. The same is true for most of the neighborhood – 100 year old homes, 1 bathroom (even some of the larger 6 bedroom homes only had 1 bath). Many have had additions put on – with a bathroom… but not all.

It is one of the most charming neighborhoods. Highly walkable (restaurants, bars, family run hardware store, the Keswick Theater – a venue that brings in well known national acts.)

By your logic the neighborhood should have been razed in the 50’s and re-razed again within the last 10 years… After all – homes only last 50 years and no one could possible live without central air. (My PA house didn’t have central air – just window units…. my current house doesn’t have central air and we don’t need window units.)

Seriously, dude, you can’t impose your ideas of what’s livable on others. The market place decides. Last I checked, older homes in Mission Hills, North Park, Kensington, etc are selling. People like these homes. Even if you don’t.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]
The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.[/quote]

Brian – you’ve been spending time in Philly.
I lived in the northern burbs of Philly – Glenside to be exact. The house I lived in was wood framed – as were most of the homes in the neighborhood (not stone or brick). It was 85 years old when I bought it. It’s still there today. A family lived in it before me. I was single (but had a roommmate). The people that bought it have 3 children.

Somehow all of these folks survived with one bathroom. The same is true for most of the neighborhood – 100 year old homes, 1 bathroom (even some of the larger 6 bedroom homes only had 1 bath). Many have had additions put on – with a bathroom… but not all.

It is one of the most charming neighborhoods. Highly walkable (restaurants, bars, family run hardware store, the Keswick Theater – a venue that brings in well known national acts.)

By your logic the neighborhood should have been razed in the 50’s and re-razed again within the last 10 years… After all – homes only last 50 years and no one could possible live without central air. (My PA house didn’t have central air – just window units…. my current house doesn’t have central air and we don’t need window units.)

Seriously, dude, you can’t impose your ideas of what’s livable on others. The market place decides. Last I checked, older homes in Mission Hills, North Park, Kensington, etc are selling. People like these homes. Even if you don’t.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]
The cratsmans are more like 1100sf with one bathroom, and no central HVAC.

I understand what you’re saying, but the local government should not empower those selfish fighters. Nobody is forcing them leave. But if someone wants to build a new house down the road, that’s their business.

People normally take the path of least resistance. Building a new residence is not easy — only people with wherewithal and patience do it. If you add fighting City Hall to that, then families will take the path of least resistance and buy new tract houses. The old neighborhoods end up in decay.

Neighborhoods normally stay the same for about 50 years, the useful life of wood houses. Beyond that, they need maintenance and rebuilding.

Without organic growth, we end up with neighborhoods frozen in the decades they were build.

Society changes and we need housing to change with the way people live. Building new housing is a long process which already lags the needs of people by years if not decades.

Just my 2 cents…. I know I will never get it my way.[/quote]

Brian – you’ve been spending time in Philly.
I lived in the northern burbs of Philly – Glenside to be exact. The house I lived in was wood framed – as were most of the homes in the neighborhood (not stone or brick). It was 85 years old when I bought it. It’s still there today. A family lived in it before me. I was single (but had a roommmate). The people that bought it have 3 children.

Somehow all of these folks survived with one bathroom. The same is true for most of the neighborhood – 100 year old homes, 1 bathroom (even some of the larger 6 bedroom homes only had 1 bath). Many have had additions put on – with a bathroom… but not all.

It is one of the most charming neighborhoods. Highly walkable (restaurants, bars, family run hardware store, the Keswick Theater – a venue that brings in well known national acts.)

By your logic the neighborhood should have been razed in the 50’s and re-razed again within the last 10 years… After all – homes only last 50 years and no one could possible live without central air. (My PA house didn’t have central air – just window units…. my current house doesn’t have central air and we don’t need window units.)

Seriously, dude, you can’t impose your ideas of what’s livable on others. The market place decides. Last I checked, older homes in Mission Hills, North Park, Kensington, etc are selling. People like these homes. Even if you don’t.

[Author]

Posts