in defense of residential development

While our neighborhood has for decades fought the encroachment of commercial activity and loss of housing stock, a recently proposed residential development on the site of the former Mexican Baptist Church has uncovered some amount of controversy and apprehension regarding higher density residential in our neighborhood. Two of the most often cited concerns include traffic congestion and escalating property values.  As a resident of the area since 1983, the developer of the King William Lofts and as a commercial realtor who deals daily with (the horrors of) suburban real estate activity, I would like to offer a few observations to the debate.

Our neighborhood has, without doubt, experienced an increase in traffic along our commercial thoroughfares and our residential streets.  How much of this traffic is related specifically to commercial activity and how much to residential may be difficult to determine.  One way to discern between the two traffic generators might be to look at Saturday and Sunday traffic volumes vs. weekday volumes.  Granted, we have many residents who come and go to work or school during the week; however, and unfortunately for those local retailers trying to make a go of it in our neighborhood, many weekends around here are a notch or two above a ghost town.  It goes without saying that land and vacant buildings in our neighborhood that don’t become residential will either remain semi-abandoned or, in most cases, become some form of non-neighborhood oriented commercial.  A rule of thumb for commercial development, in particular with office space as was previously proposed for the Baptist Church site, is that occupants will require anywhere from 3 to 5 parking spaces for every 1,000 SF of building area.  Therefore, a 2,000 SF residential unit that might have a 2-car family could otherwise be a 2,000 SF office space with 6 to 10 employees/visitors and their cars.  What might be a 4,000 SF residence with 2 cars could be 4,000 SF of office space with 12 to 20 cars.  Considering single car households, people on extended vacations, retirees or other flexible schedule people predisposed to use the trolleys or to walk/bike, residential use is by far the lowest generator of auto traffic.  In addition, residents, vs. commercial thru traffic and area employees, would be more likely to look for neighborhood children playing in the street, to know the blind spots that require extra caution, or to simply leave the car parked and walk or use the trolley.  In short, the primary problem to be addressed lies with commercial thru traffic and not our local residents.

No one, except the person planning to sell or refinance in the near future, is happy with rising property tax valuations.  It’s a shame that our current state tax system is formulated in a way that penalizes older neighborhoods that are improving and experiencing increased economic activity (see my letter to the editor); however, that should not keep us from overlooking the benefits of our rising tide or push us to reverse our progress.  Our neighborhood is not a four block or twenty block area.  Our neighborhood is hundreds of blocks with statistics on teen pregnancy, illiteracy, dropout rates and other symptoms of poverty that should be enough to keep anyone from wishing our neighborhood would just “stay the way it is”.  Whether you believe government should have a big or small role to play in alleviating our social ills, I think everyone recognizes that the permanent solution is revitalizing our inner city and its economy.  The only way sustainable revitalization comes is with the increased population that can support neighborhood grocery stores, services, and restaurants that can make our area an even nicer place to live and that can provide accessible jobs and an increased tax base to support our area schools.  The recent King William Lofts and the proposed condominiums at Guenther and S. Alamo will, when complete, provide roughly $180,000 in tax revenue per year to SAISD and will comprise roughly 30 to 40 new households.  The people that live in these homes are likely new donors and volunteers for neighborhood organizations like SaySi, Blue Star, Bonham Elementary, the Children’s Shelter and others.  They are likely patrons that can help to keep open Handy Andy, Espuma and our other shops.  They are voters that can help us demand the city services and resources routinely diverted to subsidize suburban development.  A revitalized and dense urban center creates the opportunity for lower income young people to grow up believing in the reality that they can walk to school, walk to a decent paying after school job, live at home and, one day, walk or ride the trolley to attend classes at the downtown UTSA.  At a time when our city faces air quality issues, traffic problems, water shortages, the explosion of gated “communities” that numb any sense of real community and the obligations it brings, King William and Lavaca should not close ourselves off from becoming lively and workable urban environments but should lead the way for all of our inner city neighborhoods to the east, north and west.

Letter to the Editor:

While the King William Association has often discussed the idea of some form of a tax cap for historic/conservation areas or other inner city neighborhoods that are faced/blessed with rapidly rising popularity and the accompanying rising property values, recent BAD re-appraisals in our area have now made this issue one of urgency.  BAD is legally required to value property at its fair market value so complaining to them will get us nowhere or, if it does, not for very long.  This is a state law issue, not a BAD issue.  The KWA should take the lead on this and maybe help fund a study by the Trinity U. public policy dept. to show that a tax cap on existing property owners would promote revitalization without gentrification while still generating higher net tax revenue to the city et. al. via normal turnover of homes.  Gentrification has hit cities across the nation including Austin, San Francisco and others to the point that the people who make the area attractive to begin with (artists, long time residents, mixed incomes, etc.) get forced out.  It may already be too late for King William, but Lavaca, Govt. Hill and others could be saved and re-built at the same time.  San Antonio has a chance to be the only remaining city that still has time to dodge the bullet and retain its soul (thanks, in part, to backward city policy and comparatively stagnant growth).  Rising values can do great things for our long term inner city residents (equity for college educations, retirement, healthcare, etc.), and could literally change the economic status of entire families over a generation, but it doesn't mean squat when your doling out 3% of your inflated home value a year for 30 years (that's an IRA right there).  This is one issue where liberals and conservatives could easily come together.  I believe the facts are there to prove my assertions and I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't enlist additional support form diverse entities like the conservative Public Policy Foundation and COPS.  The KWA has an opportunity to save our neighborhood and those coming behind us by addressing what may be the most important issue facing our inner city in the last ten years.  I move we call it the Urban Revitalization and Anti-Gentrification Act.

Steve Yndo

Newsletter Home