"Historical" Tax Exemption....why?? (Austin: homes, neighborhood, buyers)

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

There may be some houses that don't really deserve it, but I'd rather see that than the decimation of our history and those things that make Austin what it is to make way for new "you can find it in Anywhere, USA" construction.

Progress is all well and good, but some things need to be protected from progress, because it can run amuck if left to its own devices, to the detriment of the community at large.

I don't think that it is the government's job (and my job to pay for) deciding which homes have historical value and which homes don't. If individuals want to purchase a historic home and refurbish it, they absolutely should, but not on my dime.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Yes, a better approach is the creation of a "historic district" this can protect historic homes within it (to prevent the wholesale scraping and removal of central city housing stock where most of the value is in the land) but which doesn't come with tax breaks. I believe this is how most cities do it.

Because Austin used to be so small and because our historic properties tend to be scattered rather than clustered we didn't take this approach. Some neighborhoods (Fairview in Travis Heights, and parts of Clarksville and Hyde Park) are moving towards creating historic districts.

If you are interested in this issue, you should follow City Council meetings and City Council elections. It is a recurrent topic. Over the last five years, there have been a lot of changes as wealthy West Austinites sought the exemptions (and folks started businesses to help them) strictly as a tax reduction measure. Suddenly the historic commission was getting hit with dozens and dozens of new requests. To their credit, they started clamping down but I don't think there is any process in place to strip the designation from homes that may have gotten it by stretching some definitions and hiring personal lobbyists to see that it got done.

Oh, I follow this issue very closely. I've been surprised that it isn't followed by more people, and that's why I posted it here, in the hopes of spreading the word about how people with an "inside track" can lower their property taxes to almost zero, while the rest of us just keep writing checks.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

I don't think that it is the government's job (and my job to pay for) deciding which homes have historical value and which homes don't. If individuals want to purchase a historic home and refurbish it, they absolutely should, but not on my dime.

The historical designation is not something that should be left to individuals, such as developers who want to tear lovely neighborhoods down to build and sell new builds, or people who are only concerned with their own taxes and not the overall good of the community as a whole. (That's where we get people who don't have children or whose children are grown griping about having to pay school taxes, shortsightedly not seeing the benefit to them in having an educated citizenry.) We pay for that good in many ways, and none of those ways absolutely suits every single person. There are things that you benefit from that are paid for by taxes that I wouldn't pay for if given my own choice (and likely those who have the historical houses wouldn't, either), and vice versa. I don't have a house with an historical designation, but I can see the benefit to the community as a whole of preserving a portion of its history, and I can also see how dangerous it would be to put that benefit into the hands of individuals as you recommend.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

The historical designation is not something that should be left to individuals, such as developers who want to tear lovely neighborhoods down to build and sell new builds, or people who are only concerned with their own taxes and not the overall good of the community as a whole. (That's where we get people who don't have children or whose children are grown griping about having to pay school taxes, shortsightedly not seeing the benefit to them in having an educated citizenry.) We pay for that good in many ways, and none of those ways absolutely suits every single person. There are things that you benefit from that are paid for by taxes that I wouldn't pay for if given my own choice (and likely those who have the historical houses wouldn't, either), and vice versa. I don't have a house with an historical designation, but I can see the benefit to the community as a whole of preserving a portion of its history, and I can also see how dangerous it would be to put that benefit into the hands of individuals as you recommend.

So, saving historical homes has to be done by coercion? Why not set up a charitable foundation to do it, where those find it important could contribute?

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

So, saving historical homes has to be done by coercion? Why not set up a charitable foundation to do it, where those find it important could contribute?

it is just like zoning. By saving historical districts you actually create something better than the whole. Just like zoning laws, or parks or other government programs.

The downside of having a historical home is that when you upgrade it, you must follow many restrictive rules.

There are many problems the free market doesnt solve.

Finally there is no coercion. Instead think about it this way, you dont pay for historical homes, texas horse lady and I do. And I dont pay for whatever thing the city provides for you that I dont like (like libraries maybe). Personally I think all the local branches are a huge waste of money.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Austin97

it is just like zoning. By saving historical districts you actually create something better than the whole. Just like zoning laws, or parks or other government programs.

The downside of having a historical home is that when you upgrade it, you must follow many restrictive rules.

There are many problems the free market doesnt solve.

Finally there is no coercion. Instead think about it this way, you dont pay for historical homes, texas horse lady and I do. And I dont pay for whatever thing the city provides for you that I dont like (like libraries maybe). Personally I think all the local branches are a huge waste of money.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was trying to get across. (Except that I happen to like libraries, but there are other things that money is spent on that I don't particularly care for or think is a good use of funds.)

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Austin97

it is just like zoning. By saving historical districts you actually create something better than the whole. Just like zoning laws, or parks or other government programs.

The downside of having a historical home is that when you upgrade it, you must follow many restrictive rules.

There are many problems the free market doesnt solve.

Finally there is no coercion. Instead think about it this way, you dont pay for historical homes, texas horse lady and I do. And I dont pay for whatever thing the city provides for you that I dont like (like libraries maybe). Personally I think all the local branches are a huge waste of money.

If you don't think that paying property taxes is coercion, try not paying them. If people want to live in a historic home, they absolutely should- but other taxpayers should NOT subsidize them. By the way, I think that libraries should also be private.

[TexasHorseLady]

So, basically, what DO you think taxes should be spent on?

I'm pretty sure there'll be some taxpayers that think that whatever you think they should be spent on is something that is a "waste".

[spelrod]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

If you don't think that paying property taxes is coercion, try not paying them. If people want to live in a historic home, they absolutely should- but other taxpayers should NOT subsidize them. By the way, I think that libraries should also be private.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

So, basically, what DO you think taxes should be spent on?

I'm pretty sure there'll be some taxpayers that think that whatever you think they should be spent on is something that is a "waste".

The function of government isn't to preserve historic homes. As poster Spelrod said so eloquently , Austin city government should take care of police, fire, and streets. That's about it.