User:Doncram/NRHP advantages vs disadvantages by state

For main NRHP article, for Historic district (United States) article.

Benefits of NRHP listing vary

 * Mississippi
 * Mississippi DAH 10, 20, 25% tax credits
 * NRHP-listed prevents 10% federal tax credit (unless it's a non-historic? building within a NRHP district) for "substantial rehab" that just preserves enough walls
 * NRHP-listed (and only that?) allows 20% federal, for "certified" rehab
 * NRHP-listed or MS Landmark allows state 25%. So can get 45 percent off rehab costs, which is huge.


 * New Jersey
 * New Jersey: tax benefits, matching grant program, other


 * North Carolina
 * Local historic districts not eligible for Federal tax subsidies if not NRHP-listed...

Costs/limitations of NRHP listing vary

 * Mississippi: excludes a building where a "substantial rehab" is to be done from getting the 10% Federal tax credit

Questions on historic districts article
About the lede of historic district (United States) stating that A) "Federally designated historic districts are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but listing imposes no restrictions on what property owners may do with a designated property." and B "Local historic district designation offers, by far, the most legal protection for historic properties because most land use decisions are made at the local level." I think there are problems with these.
 * 0. Are the lede statements consistent with, or supported by, info in sections below. The lede is supposed to be a summary.  Check all of this.
 * 1. "A" seems like over-emphasis that "nothing is going on", which possibly comes across as a likely-to-be-false promise. Or why is this being said?
 * 2. If true or mostly so, "A" is not the most important impact of national listing. It begs the question, what is the most important impacts of national designation?
 * 3. What are the impacts? An answer should cover if/when national designation makes properties eligible for federal or state or local financial benefits, such as direct grants or tax credits for renovations or property tax abatements. In California, there is the Mills Act which empowers local governments to determine criteria for giving out tax abatements (10 year reductions in property taxes).
 * I have the impression that some CA local governments choose to use national listing as a criteria. SPECIFICALLY?
 * Glendale, California sets NRHP listing as one of the ways for a property to qualify for Mills Act property tax abatement. In practice, can a property be NRHP-listed but not one of Glendale's locally designated historic resources?
 * In New York State, obtaining tax credits is a big incentive for NRHP listing, so I think state law must define eligibility in terms of national listing. DOCUMENT
 * 4. Is it always true, in terms of explicit legal restrictions?
 * Property owners are able to veto NRHP listings and sometimes do that, why? This article states HD designation is subject to majority vote of property owners in a proposed district (I am not sure that is how it is done everywhere, I bet that sometimes everyone has to be in favor, or in other words the shape of the district will depend on which owners opt in.
 * It could be false if/when state or local laws impose zoning or other restrictions based on national listing, which is well-defined and therefore handy to use in zoning laws, I think. Then owners can rationally fear impact of existing or potential future laws. I think Glendale CA is one area where historic preservationists may sometimes seek NRHP designation or determination of NRHP eligibility for legal impacts. SPECIFICALLY?
 * In Glendale, mostly from search on NRHP,
 * from Glendale's HPOZ etc descriptions, local listing but not NRHP listing is referenced in Historic Pres Overlay Zones' restrictions (requiring Commission approval for changes to properties in HPOZ).
 * but NRHP listing establishes facts and makes info public, e.g. Downtown Specific Plan study is based on what's available including from NRHP listing. Page 22, NRHP eligibility determination has contributed to determining 76 buildings as "Known Historic Resources".  page 24:  4 NRHP-listed, 1 determined NRHP-eligible.  And 21 assessed as likely NRHP-eligbile
 * page 18 CEQA (state?) defines as historic resource any property listed or determined eligible for NRHP listing (or eligible for California listing or eligible for local listing)
 * page 19 California listing is lower standard: a property can be eligible for it while not NRHP-eligible
 * page 19 Anything "designated as historically significant"? in the NRHP is automatically onto Glendale Register (differs from Glendale historic resources). Therefore it is subject to all property restrictions which apply to Glendale Register.
 * page 20? if a historic district is NRHP-listed or California-listed, it is eligible for local HPOZ listing. local standard is lower, involving 60% of properties having some characteristics.
 * page 26 demolition or material impairment if property California-eligible (which it would be if NRHP-listed). CEQA for new developments in area must consider impacts on historic resources.  Page 31: City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or lessen negative impacts, unless City decides those are not economically feasible.
 * SO NRHP LISTING SOMETIMES DOES IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS, pretty much legally.
 * Pasadena, city has recognized benefits of historic resources since 1969.
 * per here, NRHP-listing gives some benefits other historic resources don't get
 * Tax credits: "A 20% credit on federal income taxes is available for the cost to rehabilitate a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places. To qualify for the tax credit, the property must be income-producing, and the rehabilitation work must be certified by the National Park Service as complying with historic preservation standards. The State of California Office of Historic Preservation preliminarily reviews applications for the rehabilitation tax credit. The credit is usually not available to owners of buildings eligible for the National Register but not actually listed in the Register (but the credit may be applied to work that occurred prior to listing of a building in the Register)."
 * Charitable tax credit, for donation of facade easement, only for NRHP-listed
 * State Historical Building Code can allow non-conformance with current standards, for historic properties. NRHP not required.
 * Mills Act average 50%? abatements apply for NRHP-listed or contributing properties within NRHP districts, and for some other specific types.
 * Flexible zoning: landmark or NRHP-listing in some areas allows nonconforming business usage of properties. Exemption from 2-space parking, adaptive reuses, may be allowed for historic
 * Pasadena restrictions: review of alterations. Certificates of appropriateness required, per design guidelines of historic districts (which may be themed, say). 2 categories of review. [file:///C:/Users/doncram/Downloads/Historic%20Preservation%20Brochure.pdf Brochure overview]
 * Rossmoyne District study
 * 5. What about public awareness/pressure types of indirect restrictions? NRHP designation or eligibility determination marks a property as historically valuable, and increases public attention and potential pressure about preservation and use of a property. National listing usually has stricter requirements than state or local listing, so national listing should mean more indirect restriction.
 * 6. The lede suggests local historic districting is more important than state than national.  But isn't national listing usually harder to get?  If local < state < national for quality of history preserved, wouldn't there be local or state laws that give more benefits and impose more restrictions for national listings?