SAN ANGELO, TX — The action today was the first reading that will lead to placing a rule into Chapter 4 of the Code of Ordinances that will require owners of vacant buildings to pay an annual registration fee as high as $750 if there is no occupant or tenant in a commercial, multi-family, or industrial structure. Single-family residential property is exempt.
Mayor Brenda Gunter, who as a curator of many structures in historic downtown for over 40 years, is familiar with owning vacant buildings, yet she gave no quarter to fellow owners of buildings that are vacant.
At first she stressed that there was a difference between “vacant” and “vacant and dangerous,” as if she was going to offer an amendment of relief to fellow downtown building owners whose buildings are vacant but well kept. But City Planning Director Jon James explained the City already has a “dangerous” building ordinance on the books. Therefore, as the discussion continued, the vacant building ordinance was still needed.
Councilman Harry Thomas, whose Single Member District 2 encompasses most of the downtown San Angelo area, expressed his support. He said many of the historical structures in San Angelo were “at risk” and an ordinance that effectively slaps a fine on property owners who cannot rent or sell their buildings will “get buildings back on the market, and back on the tax roles at the values they should be if properly restored.”
Thomas was alluding to an expressed concern by downtown enthusiasts like Del Velasquez of Downtown San Angelo, Inc. that some of the historic buildings that remain vacant cannot be renovated and restored because absentee landowners are hording the property by demanding outrageous asking prices or refusing to sell altogether. By forcing these landowners to pay an annual vacant building registration fee, those in Velasquez’s camp, which includes the mayor, hope it will motivate these property owners to sell.
One property that will be impacted by this ordinance is the old Texas Theatre on Twohig. The historic movie house hasn’t found a suitor in over 10 years, but Lee Pfluger who owns it, says it’s always for sale.
On the Texas Theatre Pfluger has placed prominent signs. “Got an idea and a business plan? Call,” it reads. Pfluger has developed a model of partnering with enterprising young entrepreneurs, helping them hone their business plan, and realizing his share of the profits through long term lease contracts. His success so far is with the Angry Cactus restaurant where Pfluger fronted the restoration and build-out for the restaurant and leases the property to entrepreneur chef Tim Condon.
Potential suitors who have looked at turning the old theatre into a live music venue, similar to the Granada Theater on Greenville Ave. in Dallas, say the population base in San Angelo cannot support a venue that large, especially with the multiple City venues and the brand new San Angelo Performing Arts Coalition (SAPAC) venues.
Others argue that the Texas Theatre has no viable business plan options because Pfluger wants too much for it. Pfluger could not be reached for comment Tuesday morning.
The annual registration fee for the vacant theater, since it is over 5,000 square feet is size, will be $750 for the first year and $375 each year thereafter.
Councilman Tommy Hiebert, SMD 1, asked the pertinent question. “I know of a couple of situations where the owners are wanting to do something with their property, only to find out that they can’t (because of a City code or zoning issue.) What if the property owner can’t get a certificate of occupancy?”
James said that before anyone purchases a property, his staff is available to meet with the property buyer and go over the code and zoning requirements early on in the buying process.
James’ answer seemed to placate Hiebert.
Lyleann McClellan-Thee came to the podium during citizens’ comments and suggested to the mayor that there are already laws on the books, the dangerous building ordinance, to address her concerns. This new ordinance is just adding more regulations, she argued. McClellan-Thee is a well-known conservative activist and the thought of “taxing” property owners more just because their buildings are empty concerned her.
Then she asked how much extra staffing the City planned to hire to enforce or provision the vacant building registration program. James said the program would not require more headcount.
The first reading of the ordinance passed 7-0. A second reading will likely be on the agenda for the next meeting scheduled for July 17. If the vacant building registration ordinance passes then, it will become law.
City staff’s handout on the new ordinance stated that, “The proposed fee for registration of vacant buildings will result in increased revenue. However, at this point, no comprehensive analysis has been done to project the amount of revenue anticipated.”
The fees for owning a vacant building in San Angelo are proposed to be:
- Up to 2,500 square feet: $150 per year
- 2,501-5,000 sf: $200 per year
- Over 5,000 sf: $200 plus $50 per 500 sf over 5,000, not to exceed $750
- Accessory structures greater than 100 sf are $50 ea. per year.
- After the first year, the registration fees are half the initial year fees.
---
Corrected 6/20/2018 at 9:15 a.m.: The next City Council meeting where this ordinance will likely receive a second reading is July 17, 2018, not July 3 as originally reported. The July 3, 2018 meeting was cancelled. The date was corrected in the story.
Comments
The article mentions that a San Antonio ordinance benchmarked this type of motivational stimulii.
HOWEVER, at least from this report, it seems no one questioned nor provided any performance report on San Antonio's implementation and results. Might it be wise to look into this???
It just seems a reasonable "due diligence" approach to governance AND investigative reporting.
Thanks.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkIf a person owns a building that needs, say $2 million for repairs to put it back on the market, what is $750 a year going to do? I mean, really, that is a drop in the bucket vs the tax loss write off. If the goal is to get them to renovate or lower prices then you will have to do much better than this. My guess is it is just a way to gain a little more money because $750 isn't a good motivator for most vs the benefits of keeping it vacant.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkI agree that it is a small amount if it wants to encourage people to sell their property, but it's an odd law in general. It makes you wonder if someone wants a downtown property that they haven't been able to acquire.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkContinuing proof that you never really own your property but are constantly under threat of blackmail by those who never sleep if someone has any money or property left to take or control.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkMore money filtering scams from San Angelo/TGC. Is anyone really surprised that they would try this?
- Log in or register to post comments
Permalink...and what about VACANT LOTS?
If the goal is to reach the maximum revenue from every property, then will VACANT LOTS come under the "use it or pay-up" policies soon as well?
If the OWNER cannot hold the property for his/her own purposes - such as long-term investment - without outside coercion then where is the FREEDOM guaranteed under the Constitutions of BOTH the United States and the Great State of Texas???
This is shifting sand. I see litigation in our city's future.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkOutside property owners of stripmalls should be added to the mix. Alot of empty spaces in the various stripmalls around town. If the rent is to high to rent, they should be punished as well. When will it end?
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkI happily agree with a fine being imposed on building owners whose property is a danger to the public and surrounding property, but to fine someone for simply owning a building and letting it sit there is a whole other story. As much as I would love for those old greedy building owners to let their property go for reasonable rates so the downtown area can continue to beautify and expand, this is nothing more than a shakedown.
However, I am in favor of passing a new downtown ordinance to help clean up the area. If the city can tell people not to park in their lawns, and when they need to mow their grass, they can also instruct downtown property owners to make their facades look acceptable. I hate seeing places boarded up or with broken windows sitting next to a nice respectable business. Much like none of us would want our neighbors yard to look like the dump, I imagine those business owners would prefer to have their surrounding area looking nice as well. If the owners of these buildings are content to just let the insides rot, at least we can fool the tourists into thinking otherwise.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkMakes one wonder. With a prominent property curator voting, maybe something can be added stating that those voting for it, can not benefit from a resolution for at least 10 years. Smells almost like the trashaway business.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkPost a comment to this article here: