|
If the current financial woes of Arlington are, as many
contend, related partly to the propensity to allow builders to
construct vast quantities of relatively inexpensive housing, a
couple of logical questions follow:
• Why
didn't leadership pick up on this trend long ago and fix it?
• Is
it too late to do anything about the situation?
The problem is that much of the city's housing doesn't
generate enough money through property taxes to pay for the
basic services that citizens expect.
Sometimes, of course, such a problem evolves with random
energy and process, a perspective that former Arlington Mayor
Richard Greene favors.
"We just didn't understand the dynamics of what happens" as a
city grows explosively and ages, Greene said in a recent
Star-Telegram
article. "In many cases, we were a work in progress."
Some would argue, however, that it was the result of
let-the-market-rule philosophies -- a historical bias in favor
of allowing property owners substantial leeway to develop as
they wished.
Or, don't rock the boat.
Some history: Arlington's explosive growth was part of the
phenomenon of people leaving big cities for suburbs that began
in the early 1950s. With an economic boom that began after
World War II, many Americans were looking to own a home with a
lawn and garage. Arlington also had lots of apartments for
those not quite ready to buy.
The trouble was that Arlington never seemed to learn when
enough was enough.
But there were messengers forecasting trouble ahead: people
such as former council members Rocky Walton and Paula
Hightower-Pierson, or former Planning and Zoning Commissioner
Cliff Mycoskie. As early as the mid-1980s, all were preaching
and prognosticating about trouble ahead if Arlington didn't
upgrade its housing strategies.
"Back then we were concerned about zero-lot lines, so many
small yards so close together," says Walton, a councilman from
1990 to 1994 and a Planning and Zoning Commission member seven
years before that. "Even when we were working on the
comprehensive plan in the 1980s, we learned that apartment
units actually cost the city more than they make. When you
consider property taxes, sales tax revenues and everything
else, we actually lose money."
Walton's proposal that hundreds of acres zoned for apartments,
but not yet developed, be rezoned to residential was rejected
by the council.
"Some of us also argued for executive housing, to establish
set-aside areas for larger homes, but we failed," Walton said.
"I guess it was a matter of differing philosophies."
One of Hightower-Pierson's consistent themes was the need for
higher-quality housing.
"Instead, they kept letting volume builders go in there and
build on those very small lots, which caused more need for
parks and services," she said."We also talked about fencing
and tried unsuccessfully to get a masonry fencing
requirement."
Arlington's current average single-family home value is just
under $100,000. The city estimates that it takes a home
appraised at about $160,000 to provide enough property tax
revenue to pay for services.
As for apartments, according to the planning department,
Arlington has slightly more than 50,000 units, which, based on
Tarrant Appraisal District values, average about $22,000 per
unit. Condominiums average about $47,000.
"I've never said we shouldn't have affordable housing or
apartments," Hightower-Pierson said. "Having no apartments is
as bad as having too many."
The bottom line? "We could have been more proactive and
insightful," Hightower-Pierson said.
Walton echoes that but calculates that there's still time to
make some corrections. Hundreds of acres are zoned for
apartments but are being held more for speculation than
immediate development.
"When you let the market rule, it doesn't always rule in the
best interests of the city's future," Walton said. "It's not
too late to do something about it. The question is what
Arlington is going to be like if we don't do something."
O.K.
Carter, (817) 548-5428
okc@star-telegram.com
|
