Razing Hell: City, Preservationists Still Arguing Over How to Tear Down Dallas's History

By Robert Wilonsky Thu., Aug. 20 2009 at 9:00 AM

Categories: News

We've written extensively about the yearlong battle between city attorneys and preservationists over a proposed ordinance that would expedite the demolition of historic structures, both residential and commercial. Last time we got to this was a whole two weeks ago, when the Landmark Commission raised a host of new objections to the ordinance -- much to the surprise of city attorneys who thought they'd hashed out this sumbitch way back in March. But, yet again, the subject will get an airing at Dallas City Hall during a 9 a.m. meeting of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee. The ordinance won't go before the City Plan Commission or the city council till it passes ZOAC.

The last committee meeting was surprisingly contentious; hard to say how this one'll go, as further proposals have been pitched and more compromises have been made since last they met. Unfair Park has obtained a sneak peek at the city's position: a memo First Assistant City Attorney Chris Bowers sent to ZOAC members this morning in which he outlines preservationists' concerns and the city's response to each one. Not quite as riveting as, oh, an episode of Schutze & Crenshaw, I know. But jump anyway.
Memo to ZOAC Re Demolitions in Historic Districts

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

More About:

JJ and Chevytexas make excellent points. I would add that the City's motives in this instance are suspicious, at best. The memo above notes, almost in passing, the applicability of the proposed changes to small residential structures and large commercial buildings alike. But the former clearly are not the target, as the City has been able to procure demolition permits for small residential structures whenever it has wanted to, with little opposition from the Landmark Commission or preservationists. If the goal was to make those demolitions easier, the City would not be sending several attorneys, including higher-ups like Mr. Bowers (who I happen to know and like - he's a good guy), to each of the committee and Landmark and Plan Commission meetings. This "show of force" by the City is alarming to preservationists, as it should be. Why does the City believe this proposed ordinance warrants the time and effort of so many City Attorneys if the target is the small residential structures that the City can already get torn down? The problems in procuring those demolitions, to the extent there are any, are relatively minor. The real target is precisely those structures - large commercial buildings - that would be impossible for preservationists to "save" under the accelerated process contemplated by the proposed ordinance. Quite apart from my concern that the City is targeting places like the Statler and 508 Park, I am disappointed (but not surprised) at the lack of transparency in the City's real motives. Unless, of course, one views the involvement of a disproportionate number of City Attorneys to be "transparency," which I guess in a manner of speaking it is.
Apparently, 508 Park's status has made Robert Johnson's wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Johnson_(musician)#Recording_sessions
Right on, JJ! They might like to point out, um, differences between a crumbling crack house off Malcolm X and, say, the Statler, but the policy and Code do very little, if anything, to differentiate. Certainly there is nothing in their actions to substantiate their public verbage that "we'd love you to identify them first and help us help the owners", historic or not. The City simply sees vacant lots as better than crumbling structures; there's quite a bit of constructive argument on both sides of that. However, the secretive nature and inequal application of Code review of structures allows them --today-- to threaten and implement teardowns, historic or not, without notification; oddly, developers seem to know where these potential development sites are. Hm. This creates a "reactive" response from anyone, and the City appears as puzzled, mildly concerned that gee, anyone's bothered now who were not bothered before when it was an eyesore. Gee. It's not just landmarks involved here, it's the City creating bargain-basement opportunities for cronies.
The pro-demolition side of the city in this debate is incredibly puzzling to me. It reminds me of the immigration debate: we have existing laws that make it illegal to hire undocumented workers. Businesses do it anyway. Rather than enforce the law and fine the businesses, the strategy is to vilify the undocumented worker and demand build a giant fence to keep them out. Stupid policy. In the case of historic buildings, we already have a law on the books requiring owners of historic buildings to maintain them. Failure to do so, or "demolition by neglect," should result in them being fined daily until they bring the building up to code, and ultimately the city taking the building and transferring it to someone who will. Rather than enforce the existing laws, the city is choosing to allow owners to illegally neglect their buildings, and then solve the problem by actually tearing them down. Why would this be? Well, it would be because wealthy developers and owners of landmarks need a way to tear them down. This is how they accomplish it with the help of the mayor and city attorney's office. If the demolition of 508 Park is allowed, you will have a perfect example of exactly this scenario. There are so many other things wrong with their thinking it would take all day to get through it.

TotalComments: 4