Beacon Hill Zoning (San Antonio, Anton: low income, credit, house)

[WilGar]

Controversial zoning case illuminates fear of gentrification - San Antonio Express-News

[rynetwo]

San Antonio is the only Texas city not embracing the inner city gentrification movement...

[Montirob]

Gotta admit... I'm a little torn on this issue. I don't have a problem with the proposed use, and commercial zoning is appropriate for the property.

What I don't like, however, is how the business just decided they could open without a Certificate of Occupancy or without proper zoning... with the idea that the city would basically "fix it". The bad precedent set is not gentrification, but rather the idea of getting forgiveness later.

[Azure110]

I don't always view gentrification as a positive. Seeing people with lower incomes being pushed out of an area they lived in for many years can be upsetting.

It is almost always a positive for the city so I don't really think the city goverment folks are not embracing it, they want it.

A lot of the people living downtown has been low income people for many years so they don't support being pushed out when they can no longer afford to be there.

I know that some people think that downtown is diverse with all kinds of people with all kinds of income and while that may be true currently, I am not so sure it will stay that way.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Montirob

The bad precedent set is not the gentrification, but rather the idea of getting forgiveness later.

Agreed. While it's the kind of business I'd support and I hope it gets worked out, they're not entirely innocent victims here. Do it the right way the first time around. Our district councilman usually is incredibly supportive and helpful, but you have to go about things the right way.

SA has embraced gentrification, but it's a double edged sword. We want to rebuild our inner cities, but in doing so, make it impossible for the average person. There's little incentive for a lower to middle income person to fix up a place if it just means their taxes will then rise so high they can no longer afford it. A property value 3-4x what you paid means zilch unless you're a developer/flipper. For most of us, who buy what we can afford, fix it up so it's nice, we get screwed. Businesses are vital to revitalization, but they also need to do it responsibly.

[kevcrawford]

I actually sold this property to the current owner. It's SUCH a cool property and I think the current usage is EXACTLY what that corridor needs. The Fred. rd corridor would do great things for the Beacon Hill area. They mention parking, but the parking there isn't affecting any homes because of where it sits. Because it actually used to be a commercial space prior to the architect converting it, I don't see the issue at all.

That being said, there is something to be said for going the proper route. One wonders if he'd done that in the first place whether it would have been easily approved.

But if you ever need an architect for infill or urban revitalization, Jonathan Card is a wizard with it. While not near the most expensive place I've ever sold, it's definitely one of the coolest. We still use a lot of the pics for marketing. He also did Cured at The Pearl, which is awesome.

[Montirob]

Originally Posted by kevcrawford

That being said, there is something to be said for going the proper route. One wonders if he'd done that in the first place whether it would have been easily approved.

Definitely. The article seems to indicate that the neighborhood association is now in favor of it (I thought I had read an earlier article mentioning their opposition, but I could be wrong), so I'm betting that by fully following the rules, the association would have either soothed the tensions or even championed the change.

[Montirob]

Originally Posted by Chaka

SA has embraced gentrification, but it's a double edged sword. We want to rebuild our inner cities, but in doing so, make it impossible for the average person. There's little incentive for a lower to middle income person to fix up a place if it just means their taxes will then rise so high they can no longer afford it. A property value 3-4x what you paid means zilch unless you're a developer/flipper. For most of us, who buy what we can afford, fix it up so it's nice, we get screwed.

Unfortunately, you are correct. The city offers a tax credit in historic districts, but to obtain it requires a SIGNIFICANT investment in both money and time (to document it). I know the argument has been, "well you get more money when you sell it", but many of us don't want to sell. Long-term residents should be rewarded for helping to start the revitalization of a neighborhood... not penalized with higher property taxes.

[WilGar]

Originally Posted by Montirob

Unfortunately, you are correct. The city offers a tax credit in historic districts, but to obtain it requires a SIGNIFICANT investment in both money and time (to document it). I know the argument has been, "well you get more money when you sell it", but many of us don't want to sell. Long-term residents should be rewarded for helping to start the revitalization of a neighborhood... not penalized with higher property taxes.

If the resident has there from the 60s and 70s, their taxes are frozen. The appreciation in taxes only goes to the "New Blood".

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Montirob

Unfortunately, you are correct. The city offers a tax credit in historic districts, but to obtain it requires a SIGNIFICANT investment in both money and time (to document it). I know the argument has been, "well you get more money when you sell it", but many of us don't want to sell. Long-term residents should be rewarded for helping to start the revitalization of a neighborhood... not penalized with higher property taxes.

Ugh. Yes. We went through all that process, but neglected to fight the increase after a few years, and then it skyrocketed. Our incomes didn't increase substantially, so the value of the home doesn't mean much. I didn't buy the house to sell it.