Save historic home at 1101 Garner

If you didn’t like Zilker being part of Mexico, why did a bunch of white people move to Texas?
If people didn’t want to live on a farm, why did they move to Zilker and Platt it?
If they didn’t like Zilker having sections with black people prior to 1928, why did they move here and then choose to disallow them in the 1928 and force them to leave?

If you didn’t like Zilker allowing duplexes on every lot prior to 1986, why did the move here and adopt a land code that changed that to only lots over 7k in 1986?

If they didn’t like what was being built in Zilker in 2000, why did we further constrain it in 2006 with the McMansion ordinance to change what was practically and economically feasable?

Exactly when was zilker absolutely perfect never to be changed again? How exactly do you propose we divvy up what gets to evolve with time and what doesn’t? Should we go back to the typical lifespans in 1950, cause doing so would change quite a bit about the continued existence of the ZNA?

The selective deciding of what is sacred and what is allowed to evolve is amusing at times, but otherwise a generally frustrating element of conservatives.

Your magical 5700 number is an arbitrary number picked in 1986. It is an acre in westlake. It is 2500 in other places. Who cares? It’s a number used to meet a goal of providing housing as the needs of an area dictate? Please explain to me why you believe the needs of 78704 have not evolved since 1986.

1 Like

So regarding Mexico and the black people, you’re on record here as in favor of force, violent if necessary, to change peoples land as YOU see fit? Okay. How about letting the people already HERE who have life savings in vested interests decide? They have in repudiation of CodeNext.

The difference from farmland sold to Zilker to develop it is, the farmer was compensated for the change. He also wasn’t forced, but presumably welcomed the change. The massive zoning changes in CodeNext where everyone who ownes in this neighborhood was going to be forced to absorb a major life change and potential financial cost is quite a different thing.

Just want to make sure we dont start excluding families that live here and walk to Zilker Elementary which has certainly been here longer than almost anyone in this neighborhood… you can tell by how old it appears from the outside! Quite honestly, its a real dump! A/C barely works, the portables are clearly outdated and asbestos runs amok… and its surrounded by $1M lots in all directions!

Lots of families came to this neighborhood right during COVID so I think you saw an expansion of larger 4/5 bedroom homes. I think I (my entire family is 6 people and 2 dogs) probably live in a so-called McMansion at 3600’ on a .25 acre but feel like we have plenty of drainage of water in our yard, have developed it well and saved both heritage trees on our lot… my neighbor though? House is in shambles, does not take care of the oak in his front yard- it collapsed this weekend and he definitely wants to wait until its a good time to get out of his home. Can you blame him? I dont. I love his tree and have spent more of my own money on his tree because it hangs over our lot. This is why I ask…what is most important for FOZ and ZNA…what is the TRUE charter of the neighborhood associations. I see FOZs very clearly with JP putting it out there- if you are going to represent me as a ZNA excomm or if anyone thinks they are- they better get their butt out and walk around and realize apathy is not the reason people dont participate… its exclusion and not knowing.

Im glad ZNA is around and I remember wanting to be a member when I moved here in 2009 and was told “you are too young”. LOL. ZNA should really do homework though to try to represent the full contingent of humans living here and finding comfort amongst the trees, the streets, the neighbors, the restaurants, the walkability, the convenience (as Abby stated).

Its a conundrum. Lots of variety in Zilker from a generational stand point and we all value different things so its important that we get together, discuss with detail exactly what would serve the longevity of the neighborhood… and also knowing- it can stay the same forever… its a city of growth and has been now for 25 years running- it HAS TO CHANGE… and as you know … change hurts, its hard and we try to resist it but in the end, the change makes us better.

Dr. Nicholas Vaughan

@jackolbean I think if you take a step back from @isaac’s examples the core question is simply how can you have a dynamic evolving city and some how pick a point in time when things should be locked. If you don’t allow for change you will break. Like how trees and even buildings have to be able to sway with the wind. There is no magic in the 1980’s LDC other than people bought into it - which you’re arguing is ground enough to not change it. You’re not alone there are court cases along these same lines right now. The counter argument I’d make is we live in a democracy and these are our elected officials that are proposing these changes, so you have representation. The last city council vote was dominated by pro housing / density / transit oriented candidates. Now maybe you think any LDC change should be up to a public vote? Or maybe you think a vote only by land owners? IMHO you gotta give the elected officials the freedom to do what they were elected to do and part of that is managing the cities growth through the LDC and other means.

As to your point if you don’t like single family zoning move. Well, that hasn’t worked out very well elsewhere. A city should have a graduated density from its city center(s).

I am simply on the record stating that I don’t see you advocating for reparation to Mexico or displaced black people and seem eager to protect the outcome of their misfortune.

I am saying, on record, that you don’t care about the owner of the lot, pre 1986, who had his right to build on the lot stolen by city code.

I am on the record saying that you don’t care about pre-1992 lot owners rights to remove trees being taken from them.

I am on record saying that pre-2006 owners rights to build a mcmansion were taken and you are A-OK with that.

I am on record saying that it seems pretty hypocritical that you defend the taking of tangible property rights from property owners, but are ready to die on the hill that the impact to neighbors of giving the owner of a 5640 sq foot lot his rights back is a hair too much.

Code next would have expanded the ability for current owners to have more options on their lots.

The current Poole proposal expands capabilities on peoples lots.

So in short, you are on record defending the outcomes of taking people’s rights ON THEIR OWN PROPERTIES, and believe that giving the current property owners their rights back is not ok.

Exactly how are you the hero in this story?

I stand by what I said, property rights should be protected for the owners, not infringed by the nosey neighbors.


Where did I say I didn’t care about their rights? Point to me where I defended “the taking of tangible property rights from property owners?” Maybe speak for yourself? I think property rights should not be taken w/o compensation. If those owners didn’t advocate for themselves, or go to court to enforce their rights, that’s on them. But that doesn’t make the taking less bad just because it happened. That’s an amazing leap.

CodeNext was, as mentioned above, not egalitarian in the change. If neighbor gets fewer development restrictions, then so should I, so I too can sell out for big bucks and find my next Utopia. If double-wides are suddenly part of the Zilker code, city shouldn’t be able to force that change w/o buying me out, etc.

There. Now am I a hero for somebody? Anybody? :smiley:

If you wanted to advocate for getting rid of all zoning and land use code and going back to 1985, for the sake of egalitarianism, I might get on board.

We could revert to just the deed restrictions people entered to by choice.

I don’t know what the outcome would be, but it’ll sure be exciting to find out.

Sure. Change needs to be fair though. CodeNext was not. And how do you protect all the interests of people who bought a part of Zilker because of the way it is/was when they bought it? I’m not convinced density everywhere will bring the bliss you guys believe.

Hmmmm. At least there’d be stability in what they bought: the ability to do whatever, and the knowledge everyone else could too.