Yes, in contrast to "lives" or "has lived". It says nothing about the present, so why would it apply to the present? If I say "I ate an apple" does that mean I'm currently eating an apple? It doesn't state that I'm not, so we don't know, but you wouldn't assume I am. And therefore, with something over more general relevance to life, like living in a certain place, it would be unusual to say "lived" if it's still true today-- why not use the present? It's not like eating an apple where you might eat a different apple every day. We generally think of living as one general experience of life. You could say for example: "I lived here many years ago, then I went elsewhere, and now I'm back." But that's not the default assumption. Similar other usage would be things like "I was a vegetarian."

No. It's simply stating a fact about 2017. It doesn't say anything else. In that context, the assumption would be that you care about 2017 for some specific reason (like a historical event). The present is irrelevant. Note that this is different from "He was president" without a specific contextually-relevant time. If you asked me "Say some facts about 2017" and I said "He was president", then it wouldn't have any implicature about the present either.