Historic reckoning Historic reckoning (March 11, 2005)

As deadline approaches, city tries to woo property owners

By Jon Wiener

An April 12 deadline is fast approaching for the 73 property owners left on Mountain View's register of historic resources. Their decision: whether the cash-strapped city is offering to pay them enough to keep them from dramatically altering their houses.

So far, it looks like the answer is no. Owners of 20 properties have already turned their backs on the city's infant voluntary preservation program, while only two have indicated they are interested in participating.

Terry Kline, owner of the oldest commercial building in the city, has plans to restore it (see story at left). Meanwhile, the owner of the house at 902 Villa St. has scaled back his plans for an apartment complex in order to preserve the building. In exchange for building only five smaller units, city staff members have indicated that they will not force developer Tan Lu to meet parking requirements for the downtown area.

Preserving the house, where demolition plans touched off the preservation battle three years ago, could save Lu some headaches and give him some flexibility. But Monique Wood, one of the architects who has been working out an agreement with city staff, said it will wind up costing him in future revenue.

Tuesday night, the city council authorized sizable tax breaks with a host of out clauses for owners who decide to remain on the history register, in hopes that that would entice a few more property owners to follow Lu's example.

Under the law, a home with an assessed value of $500,000 would qualify for approximately $2,500 in property tax rebates from the county. Buildings with a long history of continuous ownership and therefore lower assessed values, are eligible for a similarly sized refund from the city's share of those taxes. But the subsidies carry stiff penalties for those who decide to change their minds down the road.

After the city declared an emergency in April 2002 and barred changes at nearly 100 houses concentrated near downtown, the owners of those houses railed against the law and its backers.

Businessmen, old-time residents and even absentee landlords from out of state turned up at public meetings to warn city leaders against permanently limiting their property rights. Ultimately, the city council rejected its planning commission's recommendation and went with a voluntary law instead.

One council member who voted for the measure called it "sausage." Another, Rosemary Stasek, accused her fellow council members of violating the voters' trust with a useless ordinance. Tuesday night, council members had difficulty remembering what it was they had voted for in the fall.

Criticisms of the program have been two-fold. Owners say the city, facing its fifth straight year of budget cuts, does not have the money to compensate people for the full value of their homes. Furthermore, no one really knows which properties have historic meaning - the original list of 94 was essentially just a combination of buildings featured in amateur guides that were three decades old - raising fears the subsidies could become a boondoggle for some.

"Maybe a council member had an affair in one of these houses," joked Tom Means, himself a married member of the council. "Does that make it historic?"
E-mail Jon Wiener at jwiener@mv-voice.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.