A new push by a group of individuals in Mahncke Park to have the Midtown neighborhood designated a historic district by the City of San Antonio has resulted in a deeper divide among residents and property owners there.
Supporters of a historic district maintain the designation could help to preserve Mahncke Park amid a wave of redevelopment in the area. Opponents still say the designation is unnecessary, and that the process is unfair.
The city’s Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is verifying signatures of residents and property owners to confirm support for a formal process to determine if a historic district should be established.
The initial push for a historic designation last summer was met with formidable opposition within the neighborhood. A major point in the debate is a 2012 change in city policy that allows the historic district designation process to continue if at least 30% of property owners support the designation. Previously, the process couldn’t move forward unless a minimum 51% of property owners supported the process.
After an initial public hearing with the city’s Historic Design and Review Commission (HDRC) and a public education meeting facilitated by the OHP, the review process for Mahncke Park was put on hiatus. The number of supporters for the process had dropped below 30%.
On Feb. 26, the district supporters withdrew their original application. Last month, the district backers submitted to the OHP a new application with revised district boundaries for Mahncke Park. An application is valid for two years. In mid-March the OHP received the most up-to-date ownership information from the Bexar County Appraisal District, and mailed a notification letter to all property owners within the new proposed boundary.
Scott Day, a Mahncke Park resident and designation backer, said the new push for a process involves ensuring support from confirmed current residents/property owners within the revised proposed boundary.
“Since it’s been a year or so since the first petition, there are naturally changes: deaths, divorce, relocation,” he said. “We’re going back with the city and validating everything.”
Day believes an increasing number of Mahncke Park residents have come to understand what the OHP signifies, and the pros and cons of living within a historic district. A higher percentage of affected property owners are indicating support for the process.
The city of San Antonio presently has 27 historic districts, the eligibility of which is determined by 16 criteria specified in the UDC. These criteria are based on four National Register of Historic Places criteria for eligibility.
The new district boundary leaves out several properties east of North New Braunfels Avenue that were included in last year’s original proposal. The new boundary also leaves out dozens of properties from south of Queen Anne Court to Funston Place, including the neighborhood park itself, that also were in the original application. The new boundary, like the old one, goes as far north as Groveland, a block south of East Hildebrand Avenue.
An organized group of opponents, Coalition to Protect Property Rights (CPPR), cropped up last summer, criticizing various parts of the first application. Group member Dr. Gary Cox and other opponents bristled at the new designation effort.
In a press release issued in late March, Cox said the new application had been submitted with “gerrymandered boundaries, removing the areas of Mahncke Park strongly opposed to historic designation. Even so, the majority within the new boundaries does not support historic designation of their properties.”
Critics reiterated their belief that the 30% minimum threshold for petitioning for a review process is at best an imbalanced approach – that a supposed minority should not speak for a majority of neighborhood residents. But facing this new designation push, detractors also are hurling criticism at the OHP and its director, Shanon Miller. They say, essentially, the city department is colluding with the Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association to secure the designation despite what they feel is overwhelming opposition.
“This is a coordinated effort by the Office of Historic Preservation and a small group of neighbors to railroad a redrawn historic area through before democracy and fairness can be restored to the process by City Council,” Cox said.
Day acknowledged the aim for the revised proposed boundaries was two-fold: To include more properties closer to Broadway, and to attract property owners more supportive of a designation process. Day denied assertions that the neighborhood association is officially behind the new designation push.
“We believe we are over 50%,” Day said. He added that newer developments, mainly high-end apartment complexes and The Do-Seum, could benefit neighborhoods surrounding Mahncke Park. But as for his neighborhood, there’s a need to help property owners protect what is already there. Many homes in Mahncke Park were built after World War I development, and served to connect Brackenridge Park with the San Antonio Botanical Garden north of downtown.
“We wanted to have more definitive edges, get as close to Broadway as possible. There’s continued encroachment from development from all sides, particularly Broadway,” Day said about the new boundary line. “We’ve already lost Hildebrand and are starting to lose other parts of the northern edge. You have to start somewhere.
“This is important if you value how a neighborhood appears to you. It’s about keeping the basic integrity,” he said.
If enough support is verified, the OHP will schedule an informational meeting. Following that, the public hearing process would begin. OHP would notify all property owners in the proposed district at least 30 days before the public hearing at the HDRC. If the HDRC recommends approval of the proposed district, public hearings are scheduled before the city’s Zoning Commission and then with the City Council.
Ximena Copa-Wiggins, OHP’s public relations manager, said her department did not play a role in determining the proposed boundaries in the current application.
“However, it is not uncommon for districts to begin with a smaller boundary area than the whole neighborhood association boundary,” she said.
“There are several examples in San Antonio where this has been the case. Additionally, if the proposed district goes through the public hearing process, it is possible for City Council to approve an even smaller boundary than the one proposed if so desired.”
Nevertheless, opponents are critical of OHP leadership and staff. They object to what they feel is a desire on the city’s part to make Mahncke Park a historic district, and “fines” the OHP schedules for proposed house repair and construction projects in a historic district.
In the CPPR press release, Cox accused the OHP of using “official OHP letterhead mailings to select neighbors to drum up support for this latest rezoning application. Director Miller and the OHP are supposedly neutral, but this proves they are favoring one faction within the neighborhood in their dogged pursuit to take control of Mahncke Park.”
Copa-Wiggins said her department have not engaged in any inappropriate conduct. Cox and his fellow detractors, she said, don’t understand OHP’s obligation to verify signatures of supporters of the previous application. The effort aims to determine of signatories from both applications be combined.
Other critics pointed to Miller being part of a local nonprofit, Power of Preservation Foundation, as a conflict of interest given her position with the city. Copa-Wiggins replied Miller is a volunteer member and receives no compensation from the foundation.
“The mission of (the foundation) is to raise awareness and funds to support the hands-on preservation programs of the Office of Historic Preservation,” she said. “The foundation directly supports and advances the work of the city. The city partners with many supporting nonprofit organizations in much the same way in a variety of disciplines.”
Copa-Wiggins said the OHP has long used public information meetings and workshops to explain that the department is a resource for people invested in historic/older homes and buildings.
She said some individuals confuse a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) – required for an exterior improvement project in a historic district – with something that actually prevents such a repair from happening. She said in most cases the city approves COA application quickly with little or no changes.
A COA is merely a go-ahead signal in the permitting process. Work done without a COA is subject to a $500 application fee, and the city may issue a stop-work order. But some opponents in Mahncke Park see this and other guidelines as penalties and deterrents for a property owner.
“It’s very subjective. What if I want to power-wash my house or driveway and, say, a (HDRC) member sees what I’ve done and doesn’t like the look of it,” Cox said during a Sept. 17 awareness meeting about living in a historic district.
In fact, there is no evidence of that kind of OHP behavior.
“For residential property owners, there is no cost for a normal Certificate of Appropriateness application, whether it is administrative or requires HDRC review,” Copa-Wiggins said. She added the only fee associated with the design review process for residential property owners is the possibility of the post-work application fee.
“If the property owners begin without proper approvals and permits, then he or she will be subject to the $500 post-work application fee,” she said, adding the fee encourages property owners to follow the design review process from the start.
*Featured/top image: Most houses in Mahncke Park are bungalows built in styles of Mission, Four Square, California and Cottage Tudor. Photo by Edmond Ortiz.
Related Stories:
Where I Live: Mahncke Park, the Other Side of ‘09
River Walk Hotel Developers Go Back to the Drawing Board
Contrary to Mr. Day’s assertion in this article that he has majority owner support for this newest attempt at creating a local historic district in Mahncke Park, a recent open records request to the Office of Historic Preservation revealed only 48 property owners in favor.
You can see the evidence for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/816295131734421/photos/a.823706937659907.1073741828.816295131734421/966694453361154/?type=1&theater
This is a mere 26% of the owners who would have their property rights curtailed by this rezoning . The last time I checked a “majority” is over 50%.
If Mr. Day truly wished to preserve the properties close to Broadway why did his group exclude the homes located in the 100 and 200 blocks of Queen Anne and the 200 block of Carnahan?
I live in a historic district, and in large part I support the idea. That said, I had to go through many hoops to get permission to xeriscape my front yard–and this in a time of severe drought, when SAWS is actively compensating property owners for xeriscaping. In speaking to a SAWS representative, they expressed a lot of frustration with the OHP on this aspect of the guidelines. The person I spoke with at the OHP interpreted “the rules” to mean that I was required to plant at least half of my yard with new grass. We eventually came up with a way to work around this, but it was a huge struggle, and without the right kind of inside support, it wouldn’t have been possible. In the end, a lot of it is left to the interpretation of the OHP official who’s looking at any specific case. Also, different officials give contradictory input. It can be a real mess, and it can be very frustrating. For these reasons, I do empathize with those opposed to historic designation for their neighborhoods. In general, the idea is good, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, it can be a nightmare.
Well said, TOBIN HILL!
Those of us who are against historic designation prefer to avoid such aggravations. We consider it to be a loss of our property rights. There are few things more ridiculous than having to ask some low level city employee if we may have permission to repaint our homes ( even if it’s the same color) or make changes to our landscaping, or buy new windows or exterior doors. In my opinion it smacks of Soviet era communism.
Of course they would leave out Claremont,Natalen, and Eleanor….
“Of course they would leave out Claremont,Natalen, and Eleanor….”
Of course they would and any other section that is heavily against historic designation. That’s why they gerrymandered the boundries.
The article quotes Scott Day as saying “we’ve already lost Hildebrand. . .”
This is a puzzling comment since Hildebrand was commercial long before Scott Day moved into the neighborhood.
I drive through Mahncke park a few times a week and sympathize with those opposed to historic designation. I live in the Monticello Park area and a few years ago our property was not historic. When the opportunity came to sign in support of historic designation I was excited and signed. However, after my experience last year I regret my decision. Our garage is dilapidated with a cracked, sinking concrete slab, rotting wood, missing siding, and broken windows most of which were all that way when we bought the property. We wanted to demolish the garage and put up a tasteful small shed in place for the sake of cleanliness and safety which we calculated would cost about $7,000. However, the historic committee told us we needed to hire a contractor to provide an estimate for what it would cost to fix the garage then prove financial hardship as to why we could not fix it. As we got further along we realized the process was set up to make it next to impossible for us to manage the project on our own. In fact good contractors we contacted wanted to charge us several hundred to thousands of dollars just to do the design work for the estimate the OHP was requesting as they would have to hire structural engineers. We gave up on the project as unofficial estimates indicated it was going to end up costing over $10,000 (conservative estimate) to fix the garage as it currently stands. So now we are stuck with an eyesore of a garage. Safe to say my opinion of historic designation has changed. I wish good luck to the Mahncke park residents in opposition.
FRAN, thank you for sharing your experience. This is exactly the kind of experience home owners against historic designation wish to avoid. It goes without saying that to live in a historic district requires some mighty deep pockets, especially if you want to make any significant changes to your property. The other choice is to simply let your property rot. The later choice is what’s left for older,long time residents on fixed incomes. Perhaps that’s the plan, go historic, drive the lower income people out, swoop down on their properties paying them a pittance, then remodeling and reselling making a very tidy profit. GREED has a horse in every race.
There are two dirty secrets in the San Antonio Historic Preservation community.
The first is that local historic districts result in racist gentrification. LHDs develop into pockets of white affluence in the urban core and prevent the increased density San Antonio needs to make efficient mass transit a reality.
The second is the massive ethics violation that is the Power of Preservation Foundation. Just dig a little deeper. If you do, you will find the list of companies and individuals who contribute corresponds with companies and individuals who must appear before OHP/HDRC to have their projects approved. You will also discover the head of the HDRC’s wife chairs the foundation. With tables at foundation galas going for 10k, it isn’t hard to connect the dots.
Good luck to Mahncke Park. Historic Designation is best avoided at all costs.
Robert/Iris,
Why won’t you post my comments? Are either of you so close to Scott Day that you are unable to allow a heated, honest debate? Scott has the support and backing from the city government. You know this to be true. The rest of us untermenchen merely have small forums like yours to bitch and gripe. We are fighting against a corrupt, dishonest force and you making our battle that much harder.
Pete
Pete, your previous comment contained allegations unsupported by any facts. You can’t just slander people you disagree with, so if you would like to comment on the merits of the debate, we welcome it. If you want to engage in personal name calling, we won’t post it.–RR
I personally love a good name calling. You Rivard people take all of the joy out of internet commentary.
The bit about support and backing from city government in Pete’s comment isn’t completely off base. INTERIM Mayor Taylor’s chief policy adviser is Leilah Powell. (Fact, not slander.) Leilah Powell is married to Scott Day. (Fact, not slander.) Scott Day is quoted in this article. (Fact not slander.) Scott Day is the leader of the movement to make Mahncke Park historic despite the majority of the owners being opposed. (Fact, not slander.)
Perhaps the untermenchen is correct in proclaiming something is rotten in Denmark.
People appreciate the fact they can comment on our site without getting flamed by trolls. Equally important, people need to stop and think before they accuse someone of corruption, crimes or unethical behavior without any evidence simply because they are driven by frustration or anger. We don’t want to be the platform for that kind of ranting. It would be far more effective for Pedro or anther resident to write an op-ed that makes the case for opposing historic designation. –RR