citiCite RSS Feed - Original Austin Neighborhood Association (OANA)

Graphic Illustration of City of Austin Landmark Applications Approvals - Year 2002 through 2009

Author: Richard Hardin
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on August 15th, 2010

Argumentum ad hominem

While the numbers that comprise the graph are not "mine", the colors are of my choice, and it seems that the color red has received a snort and charge from ms sanders. (metaphor)

I must say, so far ms sanders rants have produced no meaningful ideas, only sarcasm, ridicule, hyperbole, and misguided metaphor.

Just to the south of the modernist home ms sanders inhabits over 50 million dollar homes were given historic designation and tax exemptions, taking over 50 million dollars off our tax rolls.

All of these NEW landmarks resulted in a non-sustainable tax give away to milliionaires.

These NEW landmarks also cheapen what it means to be called a "landmark".

If these NEW landmarks are the new standard, then a tsunami of me-too zonings are on their way to the gold rush.

Why has the bar been lowered? Answer: POLITICS. To justify the next planned step actively sponsored and guided by the Heritage Society....Local Historic Districts. LHDs are in many cases, merely property restrictions dreamed up by self appointed activists hiding behind the skirts of so-called "historic preservation".

ms sanders seems to want to shout down dissenters or discredit and belittle them.

Our City leaders, Historic Landmark Commission, City Historic Staff, and especially, the current and past leaders of the Heritage Society have failed to be good guardians and stand up for the tax payers, or to maintain an honest and careful process of scrutiny in designating landmarks.

ms sanders appears to share my view. If so, I would suggest she focus on the current policies and policymakers and offer studied and reasoned suggestions, and not continue to harangue the whistle blower.

Graphic Illustration of City of Austin Landmark Applications Approvals - Year 2002 through 2009

Author: Richard Hardin
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on August 15th, 2010

Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Graphic Illustration of City of Austin Landmark Applications Approvals - Year 2002 through 2009

Author: Judith Sanders
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on August 10th, 2010

Rick Hardin's bar graph depicting the number of local landmark applications and designations since 2002 focuses public attention (again) on the number designated in Fall 2009. That datum is depicted with a bright red bar, the only red bar of sixteen shown.

But there are other ways to look at it. If we compare the number of landmarks designated as a percent of applications received, each year from '02 to â��09, the number of designations in 2009 doesn't stand out as abnormal.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of the applications received in '09 went on to landmark designation, not far off the 72% designated in 2002, 72% designated in 2004, and 70% designated in 2003. In this analysis, the year 2005 is the anomaly, with only 28% of the applications received (10 of 36) ultimately achieving landmark status.

If we throw out the highest and lowest numbers found in years 2005 and 2009, there is relative consistency. Not to mention that we might want another eight years of information into the future to put the data from last year in proper perspective. So, why is that one bar in the graph bright red?

The problem is that a bar graph barely scratches the surface, offering few, if any, useful insights into the complex questions facing the City Council.

The red bar may well signal a problem with landmark designations in 2009, but nothing about the bar reveals what it might have been. It shows only that more applications were received and approved than in the years before.

In short, the raw numbers don't tell us how the program has been administered and snap shots offer few insights into what has worked well or what has not. Mr. Hardin's chart is colorful, but leaves thoughtful folks wanting to know more.

The deeper problem is that focusing on the numbers may encourage the belief that a cap on the number of designations will solve the corrosive problem of designating properties that most folks don't see as worthy of landmark designation, let alone tax abatements.

Is it appropriate to question whether the current abatement program is sustainable? Of course it is. But Council needs insightful analysis.

Bar graphs that wave one red bar in front of impassioned voters are at best a distraction and at worst the impetus for knee-jerk reactions among policy-makers.

Graphic Illustration of City of Austin Landmark Applications Approvals - Year 2002 through 2009

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on August 6th, 2010

See attached (graphic from Rick Hardin)

8/1/10 Info About "904 West" mixed use development at 904 West Ave in OANA

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Land and Development Issues
Posted on August 1st, 2010

The developers of this real estate project are selling 30 units, a mix of residential and commercial that range from 555 sf to 1335 sf (average 735 sf) and average price is $350 per sf. As of this moment, they are reporting 4 units sold. If you have driven past, you may remember a sign proclaiming that their prices started at $160K, but it seems they have risen and now start at $191,200

Here is their website URL: http://www.904west.com/

See attached scans of the three sheets of literature they are handing out.

Enerald City Press announces that they'll be selling wine and beer (to go) and extending their hours to 9 PM

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Quality of Life / Social Order
Posted on July 30th, 2010

The Emerald City Press at 915, Lamar Blvd, (across from Cheapo Discs) has withdrawn their application for on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, and therefore on-site consumption opponents have withdrawn their opposition, so Emerald City Press has announced they are moving forward with selling wine and beer to go and extending their hours to 9 PM staring in August.

http://www.emeraldcitypress.com
http://www.facebook.com/ECPAustin

YouTube video about the Heman Marion Sweatt Travis County Courthouse

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on July 23rd, 2010

Dear OANA Citicite members,

Wooldridge Square and the Heman Marion Sweatt Travis County Courthouse are within our boundaries. Here's a link to an interesting and brief video about the history of the courthouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ASX0xZIVjs

You might also be interested in Travis County Archives site http://traviscountyhistory.org/courthouse.html)

Mark

1/7/1955 document describing Austin Parks, excerpt regarding Wooldridge Square Park

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Parks and Greenspace
Posted on July 14th, 2010

The following is an excerpt from an 'Austin's Park System' document, dated January 7, 1955,
found in the 'General Parks' text file at Austin History Center by Mark Holzbach on July 13, 2010

Wooldridge Park is one of the four Public Squares set aside for park purposes in the original City plan of 1840, though it was not developed as a park until 1909. At that time a Park Committee, the Federated Women's Clubs and the Business League decided to landscape it. It was written up in the City Council's minutes as follows: 'The deep depression that begins at the northeast corner of the park gradually falls to a greater depth at the center and at the head of this depression there is to be built a lake. The dam will be of honeycomb rock. A little lower down will be built another small lake and so on down to the level, so that it will be a terrace of lakes. The water is to be arranged to gush from the ground as a spring and run over the series of dams on the larger lake at the southeast corner. All these lakes are to be covered with pretty ferns and lilies and to be filled with fish'. (What kind, not stated).

A bandstand was located in the center of the park and referred to as a Greek Pergola. The cost, thru private subscription, as $550. The first summer concert was held June 11, 1939, and continued until recently; these were very popular, as were those held in a band-stand south of East First Street in the middle of East Avenue.

1/7/1955 document describing Austin Parks, excerpt regarding Wooldridge Square Park

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on July 14th, 2010

The following is an excerpt from an 'Austin's Park System' document, dated January 7, 1955,
found in the 'General Parks' text file at Austin History Center by Mark Holzbach on July 13, 2010

Wooldridge Park is one of the four Public Squares set aside for park purposes in the original City plan of 1840, though it was not developed as a park until 1909. At that time a Park Committee, the Federated Women's Clubs and the Business League decided to landscape it. It was written up in the City Council's minutes as follows: 'The deep depression that begins at the northeast corner of the park gradually falls to a greater depth at the center and at the head of this depression there is to be built a lake. The dam will be of honeycomb rock. A little lower down will be built another small lake and so on down to the level, so that it will be a terrace of lakes. The water is to be arranged to gush from the ground as a spring and run over the series of dams on the larger lake at the southeast corner. All these lakes are to be covered with pretty ferns and lilies and to be filled with fish'. (What kind, not stated).

A bandstand was located in the center of the park and referred to as a Greek Pergola. The cost, thru private subscription, as $550. The first summer concert was held June 11, 1939, and continued until recently; these were very popular, as were those held in a band-stand south of East First Street in the middle of East Avenue.

7/14/10 Austin InFact Daily article on DMU Zoning, OANA, and other neighborhoods

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on July 14th, 2010

see attached article

7/14/10 Austin InFact Daily article on DMU Zoning, OANA, and other neighborhoods

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Land and Development Issues
Posted on July 14th, 2010

see attached article

Historic Tax Exemptions

Author: Judith Sanders
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on July 11th, 2010

I was somewhat amused to read the recent posting by Rick Hardin regarding the historic landmark tax abatement debate currently underway in our community. Mr. Hardin set the field ablaze with his June 10 presentation to City Council (Agenda Item #29, for those who may wish to watch it online) and is now in the unfortunate position of trying to fan the flames in a certain direction.

Good luck with that Mr. Hardin. The sleeping giant of Social Equity has been wakened. To the giant, all millionaires look alike, regardless of whether they own residential mansions or million dollar commercial properties downtown.

On the surface, Mr. Hardin argues some millionaires really are more deserving of tax breaks than others. But buried inside the hyperbole is the legitimate argument that homeowners have an obvious self-interest in improving and maintaining their own homes. For some, it follows then that these homeowners should not need additional incentives for saving or maintaining an historic home. By contrast, he argues that commercial property owners are foregoing "the highest and best use" of their properties to save an historic property and are thus deserving.

That argument might be plausible if this weren't Austin. Austin's hodgepodge zoning makes the entire central area a hodgepodge of owner expectations, even for properties currently zoned SF-3. A buyer may purchase an SF-3 property, with a single-family historic building on it, surrounded by more intensely zoned parcels and multifamily buildings. That purchase may have been made for the express purpose of seeking new zoning, MF-4, e.g., to redevelop in line with the surrounding properties and cash in on the densification of central Austin. So the tax abatement could incentivize a decision to retain both the single family (SF-3) residential zoning and the landmark-worthy building.

Another example: some historic single-family homes are already situated on land that has been up-zoned to MF-4 in the 70s and 80s. Yet those owners forego "the highest and best use of the property" to purchase (in some cases remain in), restore, live in and maintain the truly historic landmark they have (in some cases by their very presence) saved. After the fact, the value of property in the central area has risen around them, so their taxes have risen. Are their efforts to save, maintain, and stay in their homes (as opposed to cashing in) any less deserving of incentives to preserve a truly historic structure than those of a downtown commercial property owner?

Finally, our City leaders are about to consider a package of lucrative compensations for owners of new landmark properties downtown--- transferable development rights (TDRs). Those owners will be able to sell the development rights they have foregone by preserving their landmark property. Thus, when the plan is adopted, they will be well compensated for the very thing that Mr. Hardin argues makes them more worthy--- not developing to the highest and best use. True, the compensation will not come at the expense of the City coffers, but why offer any additional compensation at taxpayer expense? Borrowing a phrase from Mr. Hardin, where's the threat to the landmark once the TDR has been sold?

I agree with Mr. Hardin when he calls for targeted solutions. But his target and mine may be quite different. Millionaires not withstanding, I'd prefer to first target problems with core aspects of the tax abatement program itself:

<>The bar for what is historic or uniquely worthy of landmarking must be raised, and both the City Preservation Staff and Historic Landmark Commission must maintain the integrity of that new, more clearly drawn standard.
<>The current abatements are too generous both in proportion and longevity. (The amount of abatement could be curtailed and sunset. That's not to say there could not be additional incentives for reinvestment by the same owner, or need-based abatements on a case-by-case basis.)

That said, the lifeboat was swamped and the leviathan is awake.

We cannot escape a community conversation about big picture issues, like how to achieve social equity. But please, must that conversation stoop to the the tragi-comedy of parsing which millionaires are more worthy of tax breaks than others?

Judith Morrow Sanders

Historic Tax Exemptions

Author: Richard Hardin
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on July 9th, 2010

I know many of you share my passion and concern for historic landmarks in our city. Those who know me, know that I have feared the runaway landmark zoning abuses in west Austin could sink the lifeboat, and it seems as though my fears are coming true. ACC has just voted to withdraw from participation in historic tax exemptions this year.

Hopefully the City of Austin, AISD, Travis County, and even ACC will all come to understand the need a TARGETED FIX to the historic landmark tax exemption program; and not choose a simplistic "baby-and-bathwater-bludgeoning" of ALL historic properties capping, eliminating or lowering all historic exemptions across the board.

THE PROBLEM IS SF-ZONED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, where it is stylish and easy to hire consultants to get a landmark designation for already well maintained mansions. In many cases these homes were not of landmark quality, and all are owned by the comfortable or wealthy. These very nice homes are not being threatened by neglect or demolition; they suffer no economic need. IT SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE TO WASTE OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION EFFORTS, PUBLIC GOODWILL, OR ECONOMIC RESOURCES ON THESE RESIDENTIAL MANSIONS.

Alternatively, downtown (where the oldest, venerable, and vulnerable historic landmarks are situated), many of these buildings are burdens on their owners, struggling to compete economically as small offices, or retail. Many of these are like the James Brown House at 7th & Guadalupe built in 1846. Built on the actual bedrock (as the foundation), by hand before the civil war, with solid masonry rubble and stucco walls and thin wooden single pane windows. Hard to heat and cool, excessive common areas (tenants do not want to pay for non-efficient, non-usable areas), no ability to relocate or move walls to suit an office tenant's needs, expensive to maintain, and requiring annual patching and painting of the rubble/stucco walls, which crack through traffic vibration of the bedrock.

The James Brown House is fairly typical of WHY the program was instituted and is a glaring example of the NEED, and the PUBLIC PURPOSE.

This ORIGINAL AUSTIN CORE AREA (the original city of Austin...downtown and part of east Austin), and these non-SF (single family zoned) commercially zoned properties need to have the current historic tax exemption program maintained, in order to compete and survive. Downtown land is extremely expensive, with high-rises being the "highest and best" use. This economic pressure makes it difficult to induce owners to offer property for historic landmark designation, but also drives up tax valuation on already historically zoned downtown properties, whose land is UNDEVELOPABLE due to the historic limitation. Giving these a tax break is FAIR, and serves the PUBLIC PURPOSE.

Old Enfield, Pemberton Heights, and similar neighborhoods with monolithic SF-3 zoned properties, that are high-end, well maintained, owner occupied residences, are NOT FACING ANY REAL CHALLENGE OR THREAT. These west Austin mansion/homes currently ARE the HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THEIR ZONING!

Conclusion, TARGET THE FIX. Don't revise the historic landmark tax exemption program by limiting or capping it for ALL PROPERTIES. Deal with either base district zoning for NON-SF (commercial) or deal with geographic "downtown & east Austin" differently and allow these properties or areas, to continue with the current program. TARGET THE FIX. One size does not fit all.

I am encouraged to see Travis County's Judge Biscoe's quotes in the attached Statesman Article today:
"I think there are too many historical exemptions, they amount to too much money, and there are too many beneficiaries paying too little as a result," said Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe. Particularly when the exemption is coupled with a homestead exemption and a tax break for homeowners older than age 65 , he said, "we have some owners of valuable property who pay next to nothing in taxes. That was not the program's intent." Judge Biscoe clearly appears to understand where the problem resides, NOT WITH ALL PROPERTIES but rather the recent high-end SF home abuses. He goes on to further state: He said he doesn't envision the county "wiping out the exemption completely, but I do see us making it more difficult to obtain, maybe by putting a cap on the exemption or eliminating it for some." I agree! Eliminate or cap it for some, but not all.

Also of note is Allen Kaplan, vice chairman of the Austin Community College's board: "The third motivation is what the city did this past year, which was give piles of historic exemptions in West Austin, some of which are seriously questionable,"

We are at a critical point in the public discussion, and we need to make sure that we TARGET THE ABUSE, THE RISK, AND THE PROBLEM. Outlying SF neighborhoods which are actively planning or applying for Local Historic Districts should not be allowed to abuse the historic landmark program. Done properly with strong private owner support, LHDs truly ARE the best preservation tool for these residential neighborhoods, NOT historic landmarking with historic tax breaks.

Sincerely,
Rick Hardin

7/9/10 Austin Statesman Article about Historic Landmark Tax Breaks

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Historic Preservation
Posted on July 9th, 2010

Please see attachment

citiCite Mail Backlog

Author: Kevin Ludlow
Forum: Current Site Improvements
Posted on July 8th, 2010

Hi Cynthia,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've done a bunch of investigating and it does seem that some of our mail is not getting delivered.

Please be sure that citicite.com is added to your 'accepted' list of domains.

I'll keep you posted as we continue to examine reasons for this failure.

-Kevin

citiCite Mail Backlog

Author: Cynthia
Forum: Current Site Improvements
Posted on July 5th, 2010

Hi,

I haven't been getting digests in several weeks, and I really miss them. Can you fix this for me? I've asked around, and some people are receiving digests, but some aren't.

6/25/10 "Community Impact" news story about Downtown Austin Plan

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Land and Development Issues
Posted on July 2nd, 2010

see attached

Post editing does not seem to allow removing files

Author: Clifford May
Forum: Current Site Improvements
Posted on June 24th, 2010

I have easily edited the text of a post I have previously published to a forum.
However, I see no way to select for deletion a file uploaded when the post was initially published.
Am I missing it or would this be a new functionality?

Duncan Park /9th St. BMX info.

Author: Mark Holzbach
Forum: Parks and Greenspace
Posted on June 19th, 2010

Hey Todd,

Ted Siff and I enjoyed the chance to meet you and talk about our many common interests.

I hope you'll use this citicite forum to post any relevant news, open questions, or issues that require the involvement of helpful neighbors. Also, I encourage your to post any interesting photos, and to invite us to attend any big events like the annual one you've held for many years on Halloween.

Best,

Mark

Duncan Park /9th St. BMX info.

Author: Todd Moon
Forum: Parks and Greenspace
Posted on June 18th, 2010

Howdy Y'all,
After 20 years we've finally met some of our wonderful neighbors.
We're very lucky for the community support over the years and in the future.

We currently have several exciting projects in progress with PARD.
We (The 9th. St. Local's) are currently awaiting PARD approval of our Duncan Park Adopt a Park agreement.
More general information about our history and goals can be viewed at http://www.ninthstreetbmx.com
An decent outdated (2004) article on 9th. St. BMX/Duncan Park can be viewed here for further insight:
http://www.austin360.com/xl/content/recreation/xl/04-nov/bmxlife_11-18-04.html

We look forward to working together to landscape and beautify the park.
We'll try to keep you posted on our progress on a monthly basis.
As well as post any relevant info. or articles.

Thanks again for the support over the years.
Ride On,
Todd Moon