Historic Districts

Aside from the issues of tax break (where owners are then expected to perform prescribed duties to their special status property), here’s a stress point anyone considering involvement in such a district needs to ponder (and I quote from a California article):

"The state law, passed in 1972, reduces taxes to compensate property owners for the greater maintenance expenses required to keep a historical house in its authentic state."

THAT’S a loaded sentence, especially for Americans. We view our ownership of property as a god-given Right, and our manipulation of that property as an expression of our Individuality.

Though we tip our hats to our history, it is usually within the context of “but it depends upon what the current owner wants to do - we have no right to interfere”. It’s the greatness, contradiction, and dilemma of America.

Once you are given “Historic Status”, you MUST conform to the rules determined by those in power, who have set the guidelines defining “historic”. If it means there are only 3 home exterior color choices from which you may choose, they mean it, and if two homes next to one another cannot be the same color - thereby reducing your color choice to even less - they mean it, and, should you wander out of the fold, you will be legally forced back in, or you're gone.

I have no problem with this if someone buys a home in a historic district and knows what is established and expected. Bravo! I love Preservation! However, I’m also a rabid American, and am ready to defend anyone who was in that district PRE-preservation laws with their Right to not be forced into a situation they did not choose or could foresee. I.e., THEY are “grandfathered in”, and we leave them alone. End of discussion.

While I’m on a home ownership and tax RANT, let me also say I’ve become very angry about taxes being raised on home owners who have been in their location for 20-40-60 years and continue getting hit with higher and higher taxes despite fixed incomes. Very often the original owners, who by this time have certainly earned the right to be LEFT ALONE - the people who have for decades kept the neighborhood so nice it is now even more desirable - should only pay taxes at the level they reached upon retirement. After that, they should be on a FIXED tax rate. Instead, I see these folks losing their homes to increasingly higher city taxes - and I am disgusted by this daily reality.

Does this mean taxes would go higher for the younger residents? Yes. Does this mean we cut services somewhere in that city? Yes, if the taxes do not meet the reasonable needs. To me, this is a moral issue, not financial.

End of speech.

Ronn

PS: And yes, I am one of the younger, non-retired residents, and no, I am not wealthy.