Live rent free?

Ok, this seems VERY smart, for the state and for the folks living there.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tlc-needed-no-rent-historic-120613453.html

Basically, the state owns historic properties it can't afford to renovate. You are the "curator" and get a lease that is at least 20 years (some as much as 50) and renovate the house. There's a bit more to it, but man, it's a great idea.

I like it.

While you may not be paying rent, the up keep on these historic houses can be horrible. My Aunt lives in one in downtown Indy. Plus, it's not just renovating them. You have to renovate them to certain standards. It can be a huge pain.

Neat idea though, especially if you like doing a lot of work yourself.

Very neat idea, but I'm wondering why someone would sink all their own money into rehabing a property on which they won't recoup much of it(other than the lack of rent).

We're presently rehabing an 1898 building in our hometown, so I certainly understand where the desire and passion comes from, but in our case the buy-in was cheap($2500), and we're doing everything with cash as we can afford it. Even in our crappy market, if we wanted/needed to sell it, we would probably come close to doubling our investment. But we'll be moving in this summer, and it will be our(somewhat dream)home.

Unless I was hemorrhaging cash, I couldn't imagine doing this, then letting the government reap the rewards. Especially when there are plenty of other properties/situations similar to ours available.

I dunno, seems like a good idea to me. Let's say you put !00,000 into it over 4 or 5 years. Now you have 20 YEARS rent free. You aren't getting paid per se, but you are saving hundreds, probably over a grand a month. Yeah, there are drawbacks, but I'm experiencing a drawback to conventional home ownership right now. If I wanted out right now I'd only get 1/2 what I owe.

I've seen cities sell houses for $1 with the requirement the owners rehab them, but not a lease arrangement. Either way it's a ton of work to rehab - houses put in these programs usually require a LOT of work but if the homeowners are up for that it can be a good deal.

rent

This is the problem. I will be "rent free" in 15 years when I own my home, which I will be at liberty to keep, sell, pass down to my kids, whatever. Also, I'd rather make a deal with the devil (bank) than the government. As a business owner, the level of ineptitude, apathy, and "just gimme da monies" mafia mentality on all levels never ceases to amaze me.

From the link:

The cost of renovation following years of neglect can range from $150,000 to several million dollars. They also must meet strictly watched local, state and, sometimes, national building codes. Financing isn't available, so potential curators must demonstrate they have either substantial nest eggs or ample do-it-yourself know-how to invest. And, in the end, most will never see a dime in return for their hard work.

Sounds fun! At the end of the lease, do you think the nice folks from the state are going to say "Boy, you guys did such a nice job. Just keep the place" ???

With all the killer deals on property, I can't see a scenario where this makes sense.

I suppose it's better than seeing historic buildings being demolished?
It's not the end-all-be-all deal out there, but you know what you are getting yourself into. Something the site mentioned is that this can be a for-profit buisiness. Buy that Schooner on the site, renovate it and charge rich folks for high end cruises.

My dad likes to build stuff. He always has some sort of project going, but the issue is that he's running into a lack of projects. He's always wanted to work on an old house, but in this area, they're cost prohibitive. My parents could afford another house, but not while also renovating said house. Something like this gives someone in their 50s-60s a great opportunity to "live the dream" with no outlay for the house itself, but they're fulfilled in doing the work.

I mean, we're car guys. We put all sorts of money into cars so we can enjoy them, and most of the time, we're doing nothing but making them depreciate.

This wouldn't be something I'm interested in, but I can see the kind of people that would be interested having no problem spending that kind of money to fix a place up.

Historic homes are all well and good, but not very practical unless there is a way for the restorer to recoup at least some of their investment. Down in Chucktown, if you own a historic home it can be sold etc but the Board of Architectural Review tells you what colors you can paint your house, you MUST retain a certain percentage of the original wood even if the termites holding hands are the only thing keeping it from crumbling, stuff like that.

I'm with poop, it doesn't make sense unless someone just wants to piss money away. Since most people do not, you see old houses down there that are leaning every which way and not worth burning (because the BAR will sue your ass off if it does) or fixing (because the cost to fix it is way past what it would sell for).

Another thing: in 20 years, let's suppose the city fathers or mothers or whatever have decided it's time to raze these historic structures and build some new stuff in their place. Where are our intrepid leaseholders now?

Nope, not feeling the love. And I also do not want my tax $ spent so some government goober can have his/her sense of aesthetics massaged by keeping up an old house just because it's an old house. A national monument such as the Woodrow Wilson house etc, I can sorta see that. But an old tumbledown 'shotgun' house? Nu uh.