Author: Cynthia Merla Spielman

Posted on

San Antonio’s Transit Land Use Plan: A Toolkit for Neighborhoods

In collaboration with Tier One Neighborhood Coalition (T1NC)

Update: Due to the following input by Tier One Neighborhood Coalition and Chrissy Q McCain (District 1, Councilman Trevino’s office), the Plan has been modified to address these concerns. The Plan was adopted by City Council in February 2018, but has yet to be released. 

Introduction:

The SA Corridors Transit-Support Land Use (TSLU) Framework is a laudable document, but one that has potentially negative consequences for inner city neighborhoods.  VIA has given us the opportunity to “get it right,” to form policies in partnership with neighborhoods and all stakeholders, including the COSA that serves not only the 1.3 million newly born and those relocating here in the next decades, but for the people who live here now. The SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan, a “roadmap” to San Antonio’s future, “recognizes the importance of our existing neighborhoods. These treasured assets are the foundation of our city and will continue to play a critical role in our future planning efforts.” (Sec 4.1)

Public transportation is one of the most important pieces to making San Antonio a great place for us to live, as well as a spur to job growth. Our neighbors who are vulnerable, who have been part of the community for generations, should be able to stay in their homes; our neighborhoods should be safe with a decent quality of life; and our unique and historic housing stock should be preserved.  Thriving neighborhoods, efficient transportation, and revitalized businesses can only happen with us all working together in an inclusive and transparent process to create a transportation plan that will produce a “world class transit system” (Framework p1) to help make our city even better.

Description of TSLU:

 There are five parts (separate online documents) to the SA Corridors TSLU Plan draft.

  1. SA Corridors Transit-Supportive Land Use Framework is a general description of the plan and its goals, and objectives. It presents a snapshot of SA’s present conditions and future potential, especially with the use of “typology” a “powerful tool that helps classify and differentiate transit communities by the size and type of investment that fits them best.” (p.15) Most important to note is the “TSLU Strategies” which are the tools, zoning and incentives, for development that the City offers to promote density in the area (up to a half mile) surrounding the corridors.
  2. SA Corridors Future Land Use Corridors Profiles provide information about the process and issues pertaining to all corridors and then addresses specific profiles. These profiles include Austin Highway, Commerce-Houston, Fredericksburg Road, General McMullen, New Braunfels, San Pedro, Zarzamora. These corridors, which encompass many neighborhoods, are up to fifteen miles long. Do not assume by the name of the Corridor that it does not affect neighborhoods that seems unconnected. For example, the New Braunfels Corridor directly affects Alta Vista and Beacon Hill, the Pearl and Five Points; the Austin Highway Corridor affects Mahncke Park and the Bandera Corridor affects Five Points as well.
  3. Station Concepts are examples of the station area development. A station concept is defined as “a point of entry into the transit system that consists of more than a waiting area. Stations are located outside of the public right of way, meaning that buses have to exit the right of way to board passengers. They also have a greater footprint, due to bus queues and parking/loading areas. Stations often have an enclosed structure on site, providing restrooms and vending areas.” (“Transit-Supportive Land Use Toolkit” from the VIA 4040 Plan, p. 37) Examples of the Station Concept include, but are not limited to, East Point on the San Pedro Corridor, Fresno on the San Pedro Corridor, Maurine on the New Braunfels Ave Corridor, Pearl on the Austin Highway Corridor, Willow Springs on the Randolph Corridor, and Zarzamora on the Commerce-Houston Corridor.
  4.  Station Area Plan Five Points Fredericksburg Corridor explains the Station Area Planning part of the Transit-oriented Development (TOD) that “addresses the need for denser development around transit stations.” Perhaps most troubling is that “developers working on properties located within a ¼ mile of a ‘transit station’ can request that TOD Special District standards apply to their development project, rather than the standards offered in the property’s base zone.” (p. 25) The Station Area Plans includes plans for Five Points on the Fredericksburg Corridor and Huebner & Babcock on the Huebner/Grissom Corridor. These plans offer examples of in depth study of stations that exist today and how they might function in the future. Particularly interesting to note is the “Infrastructure Vision” for Five Points that includes a half-mile radius (p.12) and the Zoning and Policy Strategies (p. 15), Redevelopment Strategies (p.17), and the Catalytic Strategies (p.18).
  5. Executive Summary is a brief summary of goals and the Framework.

Five Specific Issues of Concern:

The TSLU Framework has several areas of weakness that need to be addressed to help make our neighborhoods more viable:

  1. IDZ, zoning, and land use categories recommendations 
  2. Inappropriate use of incentives
  3. One-size-fits-all policies that can be detrimental to neighborhoods.
  4. Affordable housing issues
  5. Meaningful public input process 

1. IDZ, zoning, and land use categories recommendations: Many of the recommendations ignore the specific conditions of neighborhoods and instead rely on general theory that may not be appropriate for every inner city neighborhood.

The Comprehensive Plan states that “the City can develop policies to encourage higher-density housing in some areas while preserving our existing neighborhoods.” (Sec 8.7) It also states, “that the City should “ensure Infill Development is compatible with existing neighborhoods” (Sec 10.12) The following are some of the recommendations from the Framework that should be carefully vetted to ensure this compatibility:

Create special zones a quarter mile within the transit stations for development for density: The Station Area Planning part of the Transit-oriented Development (TOD) “addresses the need for denser development around transit stations.” Of concern is the idea that “developers working on properties located within a ¼ mile of a ‘transit station’ can request that TOD Special District standards apply to their development project, rather than the standards offered in the property’s base zone.” (Framework pp. 25, 26).

Extending Infill Development Zones (IDZ): –“IDZ provides flexibility in terms of parking standards, setbacks, and density maximums and tends to produce transit supportive development. The City of San Antonio should consider extending IDZ to station areas in conjunction with the TOD Special District to provide a broader range of tools for developers.”

IDZ has been problematic in inner city neighborhoods prompting a recent CCR in April 2017, by District 1 Councilman Roberto Trevino to review the Unified Development Code (UDC) Infill Development Zone (IDZ) because “it has stressed neighborhoods with density, lack of parking, and minimal setbacks.  These developments are in fact changing the characteristics of inner city neighborhoods, esthetics, and ambience and at times with a negative effect. After hearing the Zoning Commission concerns, the quality of life for our neighborhoods needs to be taken into consideration at this time.” It is inappropriate for the City to adopt measures that have proven so detrimental to neighborhoods that they are under review.

Apply IDZ Standards for Small-Scale Infill – “Smaller infill parcels on block faces that are primarily single-family residential in nature should be subject to compatibility standards to those that currently exist in IDZ. Specifically, Sec. 35-343(c) – Sec. 35-343(m) of the UDC” which has to do with such issues as lot and building specifications, urban design, and buffers and streetscape planting. (Framework p. 28)

Expedite Permitting in Station Areas: “The City should consider waiving the site planning requirements currently included in both the IDZ and TOD zoning standards for development proposals in designated station areas…”which implies there would be no oversight of developers. (Framework p. 28)

Waive Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements in TOD Districts

 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)– TDR is a voluntary, incentive- based program that allows landowners to sell development rights from their land to a developer or other interested party who then can use these rights to increase the density of development at another designated location. (Framework pp. 6, 26)

 2. Inappropriate Use of Incentives– Incentives, or any other development tool should not be considered “as of right’” and automatically applied. The “range of tools” to incentivize, such as the use of IDZ, tax abatements, fee waivers, impact fee waivers, forgivable loans, and tax rebates and other recommendations are flawed in their use as evidenced by the recent CCRs dealing with zoning, IDZ, and incentives indicate. We have seen abuse of incentives when it is used in neighborhoods to promote incompatible infill for density.

 3. One-size-fits-all policies that can be detrimental to neighborhoods

Neighborhoods struggle to include language in the Plan that would preserve the integrity of our inner city neighborhoods and counter a “one size fits all” approach to Corridor development.  As one resident states in a recent letter to Councilman Trevino, “There is a lack of specificity of the terms used and the document implies incentives ‘as a right’, where it would be more appropriate to state ‘as appropriate.’ The Framework in the introduction to Chapter 2 states: ‘San Antonio is a dynamic city….across its 500 Square miles, no two neighborhoods are exactly the same.’  We agree; and, therefore in a complex, diverse, city it is necessary to apply incentives ‘as appropriate’ to preserve the culture and livability of the city along all thirteen corridors.”  Qualifying language* added to the Framework alleviates some of the problems of a one-size-fits-all approach.

4. Affordable Housing Recommendations

This framework does not provide adequate tools to promote in-place and new affordable housing. One of the Comprehensive Plan’s policies is to “Develop and implement a plan to preserve and maintain affordable rental and ownership housing for lower income residents within revitalizing neighborhoods,” (H P34, Sec10.12) and the TSLU Framework should be compatible with this policy as well as address the question: “How can the City be proactive in mitigating impacts of gentrifying neighborhoods, especially near Downtown?” (Sec 10.2)

The TSLU Framework makes recommendations to address housing in the sensitive downtown neighborhoods: ”In areas where development is already occurring, it may not be appropriate to engage in some of the affordable housing preservation activities [land banking, affordable housing reserve fund]. Rather, the focus should be on incentivizing affordable housing production.”  (p.31) In other words, residents in gentrifying downtown neighborhoods should begin packing. While the Framework charges that the City, “should use incentives and policy tools to keep existing residents from being displaced,” the policies for downtown neighborhoods seems to be written for the benefit of for-profit developers instead of the people living in our communities.

The tools suggested in the Framework are inadequate or counter to the Comp Plan’s goals for neighborhoods. The tools described are the use of inclusionary zoning and its attendant density bonus.

 Inclusionary Zoning –– “requires or incentivizes developers to include below –market rate housing in their projects. Though mandatory inclusionary zoning is expressly prohibited by Texas state law, cities can offer voluntary inclusionary zoning policies such as incentives that make it economically beneficial for developers to provide a certain percentage of the units as affordable.”  (Framework pp. 30-32) Although this is a potential tool to try and encourage new affordable housing, the reality in San Antonio in the past is that the City gave incentives to housing that offered only a few affordable housing options in expensive housing complexes.

Density Bonus – One example of inclusionary zoning which offers additional height or density to developers in exchange for some percentage of affordable housing units regardless of zoning in an area

The Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Diverse Neighborhoods voiced some serious concerns at their last meeting (October 10th) when the TSLU plan was presented to them. Specifically, they were concerned that only for-profit developers were consulted in developing its recommendations and questioned not only the idea but the numbers and their effectiveness used in the TOD District Proposed Density Bonus. (p. 32). They explained that if non-profit developers were consulted, the plan could have been made much more successful in ensuring workforce housing.

The newly formed Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force, created in response to address a severe affordable housing shortage and displacement in inner city neighborhoods, is given the charge to develop a compassionate housing policy. Before we go forward with any development-oriented transportation plan, we should wait for their recommendations. Because COSA is working on affordable housing through the Task Force and the Commission, there will be justified criticism of all efforts if the public does not see a unified effort with particular emphasis given to affordable housing and protecting / assisting current home owners and renters to assure that we have stable and livable neighborhoods.

5. Meaningful Public Input

While the City staff works hard a citizen input and does a good job, input and feedback are two different types of endeavors.  Although there have been many meetings with sticky notes and requests for “tell us what you’d like to see,” or internet input opportunities, it is not the same as having an effective voice with feedback and dialogue with the City.  As one resident states, “The meetings were more about buy-in than real input…” Before any drafts of plan are adopted neighborhoods, as well as other stakeholders, should have an opportunity to study the document and submit recommendations with feedback from the City.

Conclusion:

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition (T1NC) came before the Comprehensive Plan Committee on October 18th when the TSLU Framework was presented and asked council members Shirley Gonzales (D5), Roberto Trevino (D1), John Courage(9), Rey Saldana (D4), and Cruz Shaw (D2) to consider delaying the adoption of the TSLU Plans until all of the CCRs that deal with zoning, land use, and incentives have been resolved, the concerns and questions raised by the Housing Commission addressed, the Mayor’s Task Housing Task Force presents its recommendations, and the public, particularly the affected neighborhoods, have had a chance to contribute meaningful input with City feedback.  While the Comprehensive Plan asserts that “…the plan is a blueprint for focusing future growth and development away from existing neighborhoods and into regional centers, urban centers and along major transportation corridors. When coupled with the creation of new neighborhoods in currently underdeveloped areas of the City, the result will be less development pressure on existing neighborhoods,” (Sec 4.4) the opposite seems to be recommended in the TSLU. The Committee voted to delay until January 2018.

It is important that inner city neighborhoods voice their concerns and insist on feedback and changes. As a neighborhood leader wrote, “…the document generally fails to communicate that it is concerned for the people who will be served by the needed expansion and improvement to our transit system and how we move / transit the city. The plan may be based on solid principles of planning but it does not have sufficient discussion on how it is designed from a human dimension and how it will assure the enhancement of a healthy, safe environment for the public.” What would be an effort at transparency by COSA is a  description of the details and  the steps/and or changes that will take place and timeline in the implementation stage, a “roadmap” of future action.  Although staff is maintaining that this document is simply an innocuous reference manual, the fact that they are already using it as a metric on their staff reports when they make zoning or other recommendations belies this narrative. In the recommendations for a recent case in Monte Vista, for example, the metrics include: “PROXIMITY TO REGIONAL CENTER/PREMIUM TRANSIT CORRIDOR: The subject property is within ó a mile of the San Pedro Premium Transit Corridor, but not within a Regional Center.”

We must insist on a process that is transparent and inclusive.

Resources:

SA Corridors TSLU (completed, and seeks adoption by City Council approx. January 2018)

SA Corridors

VIA Vision 2040 (2014)- the geneses of the TSLU Plan

SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan (2017) – describes many of the corridor plans elements

San Antonio Transportation Plan (2012)

 

Overview by Ricki Kushner:

 Incentives Mentioned in TSLU Framework:

Development regulations [p.5]

Zoning regulations

Infill Development Zone (IDZ) [p.6]

Mixed Use District (MXD) [p.6]

Transit-Oriented Development District (TOD) [in vicinity of transit stations] [p.6]

Expedited permitting [p.28]

Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements waiver [p.28]

Extend IDZ outside CRAG [p.28]

Apply IDZ to single-family parcels & blocks in a TOD [p.28]

Design standards

Investment tools

Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) [p.10]

Inner City Reinvestment/Infill Policy (ICRIP) [p.10]

Community Revitalization Action Group (CRAG) [p.10]

Center City Housing Incentive Policy (CCHIP) [p.10]

Tax Abatements [p.10]

Promise Zone [Eastpoint area] [p.10]

Choice Neighborhood [Wheatley Courts] [p.10]

Historic Tax Credits [p.10]

Impact waivers [not sure whether this is an investment tool] [p.13]

Infrastructure investment [p.24]

TOD Special District standards [developers can “opt in”] [p.26]

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) [buy and sell density][p.26]

Density Maximums and Parking Minimums [p.27]

Vacant Dwelling Tax Credit [p.29]

TSLU Grant Programs [p.29]

Land Banking [p.30]

Affordable Housing Reserve Fund [p.30]

Density Bonus [p.31]

 

*Examples of Qualifying Language:

The words, “while preserving the neighborhoods which are the building blocks of every plan” which echoes the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan’s idea that “the first building block is perhaps the most vital as it will continue to be home to the majority of San Antonio’s residents” (Sec 4.2) should be added to many of the goals of the Framework.  For example, one of the goals that is “Coordinate economic development efforts and land use plans to encourage and incentivize employment growth with regional centers and along transit corridors” could be qualified by adding the words, “while preserving the neighborhoods which are the vital building blocks of every plan” at the end of the goal. (Framework p.4)

Another example of the helpfulness of the insertion of qualifying language is in the section of Development Incentives (Framework p. 24) where it states, “Building on a range of tools already available in the City of San Antonio and suggestions for additional tools.” The words “where appropriate” should be added to the end of this and other recommendations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Posted on

Mahncke Park NA’s Call to Action

Written by the Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association Board of Directors: Joanie Brooks, President; Stephen Amberg, Vice President; Homer “Butch” Hayes, Treasurer; Camis Milam, Secretary; Jennifer Norton, Estrada Polly, and Noel Matthew Shaddock

A Call for Action by the Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods San Antonio’s debate about how to secure affordable housing close to the city core is urgent. As a fast growing city with an anticipated additional one million people expected in the next 25 years, we are a prime target for developers. New people who desire urban living need affordable housing close to downtown to live and work at the same time that existing affordable housing in those areas is being demolished in favor of upper middle-class housing, which is displacing current residents. Our city government must address this growing crisis with a broader set of goals and tools than currently in use. The City should develop policies to sustain current affordable workers’ housing and to prevent displacement as it encourages infill development in the Downtown and Midtown areas.

The City has stated that it is committed to increase affordable housing and preserve existing central city neighborhoods. At the first meeting of the Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods, on September 24, 2015, John Dugan, director of the Department of Planning and Community Development stated, “The Housing Commission will have a key role in developing new policies and programs to increase the supply of affordable and workforce housing.” The Housing Commission plans to develop policies and programs to protect and preserve existing central city neighborhoods. It also shares our concerns about affordability and preservation of existing communities. “We are seeing significant reinvestment in many of the neighborhoods located inside Loop 410,” Dugan said. “As new residents move in, we want to ensure that existing residents are not pushed out and the qualities that make these neighborhoods dynamic and diverse are not lost.” The City should now undertake to specify parameters for increased density in and around established Midtown residential neighborhoods, which are already dynamic and diverse, but whose qualities are threatened by inappropriate new development.

Recent developments in Mahncke Park illustrate where stable working class neighborhoods are in direct conflict with developers’ plans for inner tier development and profit. Mahncke Park (MP) is a residential neighborhood in the Midtown Regional Center, which is currently in Year 1 of the SA2020 Comprehensive Plan process, which is projected to gain 1,000 new families by 2040 as well as new businesses and jobs. Because MP has diverse and affordable housing of good quality that is proximate to the Downtown – located south of Alamo Heights between Brackenridge Park and Fort Sam – it has become a magnet for investors who seek to capitalize on rising interest and values. MP is struggling to maintain its identity as a vibrant community of people, who are diverse by income, age, ethnicity, occupation and talents and who share a common interest in maintaining this vibrancy. However, the City’s current housing development policies do not allow MP to protect the values of stability with change, affordable housing stock, and the historic residential fabric of the built environment and community life.

Mahncke Park (MP) is undergoing rapid change as affordable housing is demolished and replaced by upper middle income and luxury homes. MP has roughly 5,000 thousand residents who now live mostly in modest single-family homes, duplexes and quadraplex apartment buildings, and some larger multiunit low-rise apartment buildings, which were built from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. In the new environment, businesses have been allowed to encroach on residential streets and, on the southern side of the neighborhood, homes and apartment buildings that have fallen into various levels of neglect are 2 being snapped up by developers. They are then demolished and replaced with blocks of cookie-cutter “town” homes and condos.

The Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) wants to protect affordable housing and MP’s historic fabric as it supports the SA Comprehensive Plan for greater density in Midtown where it is appropriate. Some developers have worked well with MPNA to make modifications to their plans to accommodate historic values, but others reject community input.

One egregious case where the historic fabric of the MP community is being lost is the Imagine Homes projects. This case also demonstrates the limits of the City’s current policies for appropriate and sustainable development. Imagine Homes (IH) has already demolished homes and apartment buildings and replaced them with upper middle class town homes; it has applied for approval to demolish six more buildings. Claremont Street is being systematically transformed from its heterogeneous residential character to a monoculture of gentrification. IH’s signature project is a single-family house on a 25-foot lot with a front-loaded garage, which is specifically not allowed by the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) guidelines. The City adopted the MP Neighborhood Plan in 2004 and the NCD was approved in 2008. The NCD design overlay states that lots greater than 45 feet wide will have garages behind the plane of the house façade. There were no extant lots less than 50 feet wide over the past 50 years. Imagine Homes has made the case to the Development Services Department that the original 1928 platting of the Natalen Terrace area with 25-foot lots should have prior legal authority over later zoning and design guidelines. Imagine Homes is purchasing extant lots with buildings that encompass two or more plats and dividing them up into 25-foot single-family home lots. DSD states that the NCD guidelines do not apply and that zoning regulations do not prohibit what IM is doing. (See the satellite photo of Claremont.)

The Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) has requested a Change Request (CCR) to revise its NCD with the hope of blocking this practice. City Council approved the CCR, but DSD has reiterated the stance that the new NCD will not supersede the 1928 platting. This may well be a correct reading of zoning rules, but the resultant situation is unworkable for the neighborhood and the City. This case calls out for a new policy to govern development to be swiftly considered and acted on.

Debate has gelled on the need for a broader appreciation of our residential fabric than only physical assets. The September 5, 2017 edition of the Rivard Report included an article from Next City reporter Johnny Magdaleño that suggests the proper perspective from which to consider change. It notes that “Part of the value of the UNESCO World Heritage designation includes the ‘intangible heritage’ of people. It’s not the restaurant, it’s the chef,” says William Dupont, director of the Center for Cultural Sustainability at University of Texas at San Antonio. “So, as the city is looking at that, they’re concurrently taking a look at all of their policies citywide, [recognizing] displacement of the people can now cause loss of economic potential.” We urge the Housing Commission to not only look, but to adapt the City’s “equity lens” budget analysis for a new policy to sustain residential equity by protecting the existing community diversity of people and housing stock.

The Mayor and Council must act in a timely way to broaden the policy discussion about affordable housing and city development in ways that address preservation of our neighborhoods’ diversity, culture and heritage. The housing we are living in now is affordable housing. However, it is being torn down and replaced by housing that is not affordable for current residents and/or replaced by affordable housing that is subsidized by the taxpayers.

We recommend the following action items to our City officials.

1. We need a moratorium on the demolition of existing affordable housing until a new housing policy is enacted.

2. The City needs to address historical platting that is antagonistic to the context of current usage and design guidelines in order to maintain the historic diversity of neighborhoods.

3. The Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force should develop strategies and policies to preserve and rehabilitate existing residential structures.

4. The Task Force should conduct a survey of rents in the sub-area neighborhoods of Midtown.

5. The new policies to preserve existing affordable housing should include support for individuals who own properties, but cannot afford to maintain them, in the form of grants and low cost loans.

6. The new policies should also support long-term residents with appropriate assistance to be able to age in place.

7. The Midtown Regional Planning Task Force should not abandon neighborhood plans, but use them as directives for new zoning maps.

8. There must be neighborhood membership in all decision-making bodies that formulate policies for residential neighborhoods that is at least equal to the representation of development interests.

9. Transportation Corridor planning boundaries for development must be re-scaled from a half-mile to the actual abutting properties while the traffic study boundaries remain in place.

 

Posted on

The Case of Tobin Hill North

On August 17, 2017 a large group of Tobin Hill neighbors, many wearing Tobin Hill’s orange t-shirts, came to City Council to advocate for a historic district designation for their block of Mistletoe which would be called the Tobin Hill North Historic District, the culmination of a year-long effort. The effort was in response to a developer’s plans to crowd eight two-story single-family homes on one lot in the middle of the block of  bungalows and cottages, plans the neighborhood deemed incompatible.

Neighbors came together and 51% of them agreed to start the designation process. After a meeting in which the Tobin Hill Community Association endorsed the plans,  four public meetings conducted by Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and countless meetings in living rooms and dining room tables, Historic Design and Review Commission (HDRC) gave its unanimous approval.

But it is at this point the process exposed a weakness in OHP’s procedures: 51% of the residents agreed to attend meetings for information, but no votes are taken after these meetings. It is as if the vote to listen to information is a vote to become an historic district and the confusion becomes acrimonious.

By the time the case made it to City Council on August 17th, the numbers for and against the designation had slipped back and forth.  In the end, no side had the required 51% majority. Out of 88 properties, 11 abstained (13%), 33 (37%) voted for the designation, and 44 (50%) voted against it.  Several people who were not in the district but within the 200’ radius that is sent notices also voted.

But it was not that simple.

The opposition consisted of some sincere neighbors who advocated for property rights and did not want the designation, but many of the opposition were investors who owned property temporarily, but did not live in the neighborhood or even District 1, begging the question for future debate: Should the votes of temporary property owners, non-residents, be weighed the same as people who live in the district (or own property on a permanent basis) and will live with the consequences in a way that is more than just pecuniary?

Out of 44 properties counted in opposition, 22 of them were possessed by non- residents, some of whom owned multiple properties: Half of those 22 properties are owned by just four investors. In other words, investors made up half of the opposition; just four investors made up a full quarter of the opposition.

It became a no-win situation for the residents.

The Councilman met in February 2017 with the investors along with the District 1 Zoning Commission representative in a room in a local restaurant. One of the condo developers later stated at City Council that he had met with Councilman even before he purchased the property.

The neighbors, although they tried, were unable to get an audience with the Councilman. He did not return their calls. His staff, coordinating everyone’s schedule, produced a meeting with the neighbors and the Councilman. He did not show. A public meeting was set up to discuss the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD), a year-long process for which the Councilman advocated (even after telling another neighborhood that only historic designation would protect them) but by that time frustration and tension engulfed the meeting.

At the the Zoning Commission hearing on May 16th, OHP asked for a third continuance for reasons that are unclear. One of the neighbors was told that someone had called and wanted more information. No presentation was given for the Zoning Commission by OHP. The Commission (with barely a quorum)  voted against the designation, after listening to speakers for and against, critiquing OHP’s process.

Democracy is strongest at a local level.  Our neighborhoods, our communities, our City is a place that we can nurture it, even as it is tested on a national and world stage. Democracy is not easy. It requires transparency and inclusion and a sense of fair play.

Our City government let us down.

City Council members make whatever decisions they choose, and citizens can debate them at the ballot box, but the process of inclusion and transparency was blatantly ignored to the  advantage of developer interests.

At the City Council meeting on August 17th, neighbors came with a real expectation that they would not only speak, but that they would be listened to, that they would be heard. Before the meeting, a compromise to redraw the Historic District had been accepted by the advocates  and it left out the most adamant opposition, a “flipper,” out of the district, a request he had made at the Zoning Commission meeting.  At the end of over two hours of neighbors’ testimony, District 1 Councilman read a statement that demonstrated that their words, their work, and their presence had no bearing whatsoever on any decision, that it had been predetermined. The rest of the City Council simply voted along with little or no comment or questions and certainly no explanations. It seemed clear by their silence that they had made up their minds (with the exception of District 9 Councilman John Courage) beforehand to support their fellow council member instead of the people to whom they are responsible. The compromise was summarily dismissed. Neighbors were thanked for their  “participation” in a display of condescension. This was the not a democratic process and it exemplifies the worst of City government.

When we question why people do not vote, look to the lesson of Tobin Hill North.  If ordinary citizens are not even acknowledged by their elected representatives, why indeed, does it matter for whom they vote? Citizen input and participation become empty words that breeds the worst kind of cynicism in its citizens. It is this kind of cynicism that kills democracy. “Inclusion” becomes an empty show that benefits those with money and power.  I am not suggesting that this Councilman was wrong to meet with the opposition which consisted mostly of the development community; I am forcefully suggesting that he was wrong in not also making himself equally available to the neighbors of Tobin Hill North and listening to their perspective as well. This is not about one Councilmember: They are all, with the exception of Councilman Courage, complicit.

We have a right to expect more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Posted on

Rising Property Taxes: Paying a Fair Share

Property taxes in downtown neighborhoods are on a steep incline. We have conversations about them on Next Door and FaceBook and in neighborhood meetings and wonder what is causing the rise and how we can fight it. We talk with our next door neighbors across the fence to see if they are fighting the increase this year.  If you are upset about your property taxes and want to fight them, it may feel as though you are fighting a losing battle. You are right.  You may be able to lower them this year, but the fix is temporary and will not address the systemic issues of rocketing property values.

This issues around our rising property taxes seems complicated, but it comes down to one simple idea: Everyone must pay their fair share. The first part of this series explains the heavy burden that commercial property tax laws put on the average homeowner. The solutions are not complicated, but they will take political will which can come only from a concerted effort on the part of citizens for meaningful change. Corporate and large commercial property owners are able to shift their share of the tax burden on to others by the use of unequal comparables, lowered median values, and deep pocket lawsuits.

Unequal Comparables

One of the biggest reasons that large commercial property owners are able to avoid paying for their fair share of taxes is that they are able to compare, for assessment purposes, their properties with those of lesser value creating a tax loss for which residential property owners are responsible.

In 1997 a third paragraph was added to Section 42.26 P a1 and a 2 of the Texas Tax Code which deals with appraisal ratios. The uniform and equal (sometimes called “equity”) provision passed without notice but it provides a lucrative opportunity or loophole for commercial property owners to exploit to pay less in property taxes. It states:

“The district court shall grant relief on the ground that a property is appraised unequally if the appraised value of the property exceeds the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted.”

Bexar County Chief Appraiser Michael Amezquita states in one of my favorite quotes, “Paragraph 3 is where the money is. Any blind monkey can win that deal.” (County)

This “equity” provision as well as a series of court decisions have rendered the constitutional requirement that property be taxed in proportion to its market value moot.

Corporate and commercial property owners continue to sue and win large reductions in their appraisals regardless of the market value of their property because of the ambiguity and lack of definition of terms like “reasonable number” and “comparable.”

Since enacted, this provision has undergone some revisions but none more significant and more beneficial to commercial property owners than when the words, “appropriately adjusted” was tacked on to the end of paragraph three in 2003 causing a flurry of  litigation. Through interpretation, an overwhelming majority of judges have sided with the property owners, again, because there isn’t a definition of “comparability” in the tax codes.

These reductions in commercial appraisals has meant hundreds of millions of lost dollars for Texas’s school districts, roadways, emergency medical services and fire protection, a loss homeowners shoulder. “Homeowners pay taxes based on something reflecting market value, but corporate taxpayers just don’t,” said Amezquita. “That’s not equal, and what they’re doing puts upward pressure on tax rates.” (County)

Lowered Median Value on Commercial Properties

The effects of the unequal comparisons allowed by the tax codes to commercial properties is that it lowers the tax base down longer term.  When high value commercial properties are compared to those of lower value the median is lowered. This new lower median level creates a level by which all properties can be reduced. Jim Robinson, who retired from HCAD in May 2013 after serving 28 years at the agency states in the Houston Press, “What we see happening time and time again is tax consultants get everything that’s out there and they’ll pick a set of alleged comparables at the very bottom of the list and argue that they should be adjusted to that.”

The result of the drop in median value is a constant and growing erosion of the tax base” on which Texas’s public-school finance channels are dependent.

Deep Pocket Lawsuits

In 2013,  State Rep Mike Villarreal (D) and Austin property tax agent Jim Popp authored HB585 to make administrative changes to the tax code. It was an attempt to address issues of bias, lack of responsiveness and transparency in Appraisal Review Boards and local appraisal districts. Rep. John Otto (R)  added an amendment that states if a property owner wins an appeal of the property’s value (whether through litigation, arbitration, or through a board hearing) the appraisal district would have a higher burden of proof if it wanted to raise the value the next year.

It did not take long for attorneys to act on behalf of their clients: In San Antonio in 2014, JW Marriott Hill Country Resort & Spa, with a construction price tag that nearly eclipsed $600 million, had been able to lower its value by $125 million by winning multiple lawsuits against the Bexar County Appraisal District.

 Bexar County Chief Appraiser Michael Amezquita told the Houston Press: “I’ve been sued every year by [JW Marriott],” Bexar County at the time was facing $10.3 billion in appraisal-reduction litigation compared to the annual $4 billion to $5 billion average. In the 2011 tax year, BCAD’s ten most expensive courtroom losses to class A commercial and industrial property owners resulted in an absence of $1.8 million in tax revenue for San Antonio-area school districts.

“Valero sues every year,” Amezquita added. “H-E-B is suing every year now. They never used to sue me before.” (http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-is-losing-out-on-millions-of- dollars-thanks-to-its-defective-property-tax-system-6601492)

In 2016 local news aired a piece on deep pocket lawsuits by commercial and corporate property owners to lower their appraisal values: “These are the cases set for trial, hundreds of them,” declared Deputy Chief Appraiser for Bexar County Mary Kiekie. But she noted, none of these will ever make it to trial, lawyers will settle it in litigation.” Litigation is the ugly thing that nobody knows about,” she explained.

Of their $15 million budget, in 2016, at least $1 million had been spent on lawyers litigating.” It’s shifting the burden from the corporate and commercial properties onto the backs of the homeowners,” Kiekie said. “The tax rates would go down and still generate the same amount if indeed commercial properties were paying at the same rate that residential properties were paying at.”

Corporate lawsuits had more than doubled in 2016 . From 2009 to 2014, they accounted for an average of 474 lawsuits per year. In 2015, that number jumped to 965.

“It’s a game that the tax lawyers and tax agents are playing, and it’s so easily played,” said Kieke. Last year alone, corporations were able to litigate off almost a billion dollars in taxable value.

Kieke says a loss at trial, even if it’s just by a dollar, could mean a death sentence for her office. So they have to litigate.”If the appraisal district loses at trial, we can be responsible for the other side’s attorney fees up to $100,000 per property, per year,” said Kiekie. “So if Valero sues us on all their convenience stores and puts 130 stores into a lawsuit, they can bankrupt us.” (New4SA)

The problem has been exacerbated by Texas’s absence of sales-price disclosure, which gives property owners a running start in property-tax disputes because appraisal districts must rely on private databases to procure sales numbers. Even then, it’s impossible to seize reliable data for every property.

“Whoever heard of doing an appraisal without sales information?” says Amezquita. Idaho, Utah and Alaska are the only other states that lock away all sales figures on taxable properties.

“It’s like boxing with one hand tied behind your back,” says former Houston County Appraisal District (HCAD) Chief Appraiser Jim Robinson, who retired from HCAD in May 2013 after serving 28 years at the agency. “What we see happening time and time again is tax consultants get everything that’s out there and they’ll pick a set of alleged comparables at the very bottom of the list and argue that they should be adjusted to that.” (Houston Press).

And Now: Dark Store Legal Battle

This from the Texas Comptroller:

Dark store theory primarily concerns the property taxation of big-box stores, behemoth department stores, hardware sellers and other outlets often running to 50,000 square feet or more.

The dark store theory of property valuation, championed aggressively by many big-box retailers, suggests that commercial properties should be appraised and valued the same whether they’re operating or shuttered. They favor appraising all big-box properties as if they were vacant or “dark” to calculate property value, arguing these locations will be difficult to sell because they have little appeal to subsequent buyers. In essence, they’re asking that these properties be appraised according to how the next occupant may use it.

Appraisal districts, by contrast, appraise such buildings according to their “highest and best use,” which in practice means appraising them as operating locations.

The difference between these perspectives, as you might imagine, can be significant. Dark store proponents often ask that the value of their property be reduced by more than half, in one instance from $82 to $20 per square foot. Big-box retailers have pushed dark store theory most vigorously, but the practice has spread to other commercial property types as a way to seek tax reductions.

In Texas, the main proponent of the theory has been Lowe’s Home Improvement, which has 141 stores in the state.

Property tax appraisal methods for commercial properties usually rely on “comparables” — the sale value of similarly situated properties — to determine a property’s market value to a hypothetical buyer. Texas Property Tax Code Section 23.01(a) requires taxable property in Texas to be appraised at its market value as of Jan. 1 of each year.

The Property Tax Code requires determinations of appropriate comparable sales to include the property’s condition, occupancy and any legal burdens. Considering vacant properties as comparables for a property that isn’t vacant is akin to using a ghost town as a “comp” for a vibrant city block.

Bexar County Chief Appraiser Michael Amezquita also believes dark store theory is inappropriate precisely due to the use of comparables, because it begins with the assumption that stores should all be appraised as if they were closed.

“It turns all appraisal theory on its head,” he says. “The first step in any appraisal assignment is to determine the highest and best use of a property. The highest and best use of these properties is usually continued use as a big-box retailer. It’s never appropriate to pretend one could only look to sales of failed, vacant stores for comparables.”

The state comptroller’s office estimates Texas cities, counties and school districts will lose $2.9 billion if Lowe’s wins its Bexar County lawsuit and other commercial properties take up the “dark store” legal argument, potentially leaving homeowners to pick up the property tax burden. (Houston Chronicle)

Solutions

The solutions are simple, finding the political will is much more challenging. While we can fault corporate and commercial property owners for shifting the burden of their fair share to the rest of us, they could make the case that anyone would take advantage of what the law allows. However, if loopholes were closed, If commercial property owners paid their fair share, billions of dollars of revenue would be pumped into our tax base possibly lowering the tax rate of residential property owners. There are other factors such as tax abatements and school financing, but the failure of commercial property owners to pay their fair share contributes greatly to the problem.

This is a legislative issue.

In this last legislative session, HB 27, authored by Rep. Drew Springer -Muenster (R) and backed by Comptroller Glenn Hegar, aimed to limit businesses’ ability to use the unusual legal strategy when contesting their property values. The bill passed out of two committees but never made it to the House floor for a final vote.

In 2013, State Senator Wendy Davis (D) and Rep Sylvester Turn (D) co-authored a bill that would have addressed the ambiguous language of the equal and uniform provision.

In 2009, Rep. Michael Villarreal (D), Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D), and Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R) authored a series of bills that would require sale-price disclosure in the state.

All of these attempts at property tax reform have failed.

It is up to homeowners to demand that all property owners pay their fair share, no more, no less.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Affordable Housing is the Housing We Live in Now

Published in The Rivard Report, July 18, 2017 

https://therivardreport.com/affordable-housing-is-the-housing-we-live-in-now/

Photo by SCOTT BALL / RIVARD REPORT

At a recent Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association meeting, neighbors came together to talk about the proposed updates to our Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD5) design standards.  These design standards were originally developed by BH residents in 2005, in partnership with city staff, to address the demolition of Craftsman bungalow homes in favor of more subdivision style homes. This was a grassroots effort to preserve our neighborhood housing stock and to inform future development. The recent and overdue work to update the design standards was a result of changing development trends and the city’s focus on high density infill which allowed for multi storied single family condos to be built on a lot zoned for multi-family development. The updates also addressed issues that included porch requirements, fencing, height, and setback limitations. Many of the NCD standards were actually loosened.

There were many opportunities over the past year for residents and businesses to participate and provide input. Feedback ranged from “The city shouldn’t be able to dictate what I do with my property” to “How can we protect our neighborhood against indiscriminate flippers and developers?” But the most commonly heard and loudly voiced concern was over the ability for residents to be able to stay in their homes in the face of wildly increasing property taxes, partially caused by the new high density infill developments and flipped houses in their neighborhood. “I don’t know how much longer many of us can hang on,” one anguished neighbor said to a crowded room. His neighbors vigorously agreed. The frustration and fear were palpable.

At a recent breakfast organized by the Mayor’s Housing Summit, the Executive Vice President of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) stood before a packed room and denounced neighborhoods as the NIMBYs who would deny affordable housing development in our communities because our design standards make it more difficult for developers to build. Recently Beacon Hill has been criticized for this very thing. The fallacy in a working and middle class neighborhood like Beacon Hill (according to 2015 Census the family median income in BH is just under $37,000 in a predominately 77% Latino neighborhood) is that density and development creates affordable housing. The easy equations belie reality. Density does not equate to affordability. In fact, the quick turnover of flipped houses and the development of luxury condos which has become the model for downtown housing development (like the recent construction of six single family condos on one lot in the middle of a block of mostly single story early 20th century bungalows selling for $300,000+) has contributed to a steep rise in housing prices and property taxes, and many long term residents simply cannot keep up. Local landlords struggle to maintain affordable rental rates when their taxes are skyrocketing.

The “unprotected” neighborhoods of Monte Vista Terrace and Tobin Hill North (part of Tobin Hill) are facing condo developments that are anything but affordable and are incompatible with the character of their neighborhood. Who wins here?  Residents in Tobin Hill North who have been there for generations will face rising property values and taxes, a fear echoed at a recent Zoning Commission meeting where several elders and other neighbors voiced concern over incompatible and expensive developments. Tell the unfortunate residents of Mission Trails that were displaced by city- incentivized development how that tragedy promoted affordable housing. Their affordable housing will be replaced by luxury condos. In working class neighborhoods, affordable housing is the housing people live in now.

Design standards can help maintain stability in neighborhoods, and they help to prevent displacement. In fact, one of the Beacon Hill NCD5 standard updates requires that units built on multi-family lots be built within one structure to help ensure rental housing for the future. In the twelve years that our NCD standards have been in place, there is no instance of where they’ve discouraged the development of affordable housing. Design standards do not prohibit affordable housing: Expensive developments drive up land prices and prohibit affordable housing. Protecting working class neighborhoods could help protect affordability in a hot housing market.

At the same time we’ve updated our standards, Beacon Hill has encouraged thoughtful and neighborhood friendly developers working on affordable housing and density into our community. There are opportunities within the neighborhood for the development of “missing middle” housing and along the corridors for four-story structures creating density. As we work with the city in the future on the Near North Central Plan as part of the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan (which promotes “strengthening [NCDs] to address the appropriateness of new and infill construction through enforceable design standards that allow neighborhoods to define unique character and features and promote compatible infill development” HPCH P9), we look forward to working on issues of density and equity.  But we cannot solve San Antonio’s workforce housing shortage by destroying these early 20th century downtown neighborhoods that are an important part of our city’s history. Once gone, these unique neighborhoods cannot ever be brought back. Once gone, our neighbors cannot ever be replaced.

One of the greatest reasons we struggle with the issue of affordable housing is that San Antonio does not have a comprehensive housing policy. Working together to create one would be a first step to guiding our future. A developer-driven approach to affordable housing, one that primarily favors the builders, is not an answer. If we are serious about providing affordable housing, then we need the political will to do the hard work of building a plan that is equitable and that works. Any workable housing plan must include neighborhoods in the decision-making process instead of a top-down elitist approach that bypasses the democratic process of allowing neighbors to speak for themselves. We must avoid easy answers that promotes a blanket policy of control that may displace neighbors and leaves them vulnerable to predatory practices. Simplistic slogans like YIMBY and NIMBY are just diversions to the complex and difficult work that needs to be done.

In his much acclaimed new book, How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood journalist Peter Moskowitz examines the very process that is occurring in our downtown San Antonio neighborhoods in neighborhoods in cities across the U.S. He makes the case that that it is imperative that neighborhoods should decide their future: “So the problem of solving gentrification is not only about economics or urban planning, but about democracy. What would cities look like if the people who lived in them, who made them function, controlled their fate?”

We must not destroy our unique downtown neighborhoods to solve the problem of San Antonio’s affordable housing shortage: We must, instead, develop an equitable and effective housing policy whose process is fair, inclusive, and transparent. We must give the people who live in our neighborhoods a voice in their fate.

 

 

 

Posted on

Welcome to the Neighborhood

Change. Challenge. Choice.

Changes can create tension and alienation and ultimately, displacement.

Change can create safer neighborhoods, pedestrian oriented streetscapes which improves the health of its community, and can revitalize local businesses. Change can be a catalyst to solve problems.

The next decade will be about what kind of change we want in our neighborhoods and communities. It will be about educating ourselves and coming together and making our voices heard. These are exciting, as well as frustrating, times. Neighborhoods San Antonio is about exploring issues and concerns, coming up with solutions and ideas, and hearing from the people in our neighborhoods who are making a difference.

Welcome to the neighborhood.