The real motive behind historical moves

Anyone who has stalked me knows that I used to work at the National Association of Realtors (NAR).  I was in DC working and ran into an old colleague from my NAR days.  As we were chatting I asked him about a guy we used to work with who was a private property rights expert - but not a Libertarian. He got me in touch with the guy and now you have this blog post. 

I sent the expert all the info on what the county voted on and what Max Grossman and friends had been doing with Duranguito.  Without reading my blog his first thought was: "Mr. Grossman has successfully argued for the historical value of buildings that don't have plaques with Duranguito, so it makes complete sense that he could more easily control the other 900 properties when he tricks them into getting plaques."

Note: The "plaque" he refers to is exactly what you think it is - one of those bronze plaques that denotes the historical significance of a structure or area.  The state chapters of the National Registry of Historical Places Program hand them out basically to any place that meets their criteria - being around for at least 50 years.  As of right now - a house built in 1969 can easily be declared "historical" in this program.  My expert uses the word "plaque" when referring to a property that has been accepted - because, you know, they get a plaque.  

My expert questions why the city or county or state or any tax spending entity would be paying for this "survey."  He also questions why they would want such a big place with so many potential sites (900+) done all at one time.  And of course he suggests there's an ulterior motive here and it has nothing to do with history and everything about controlling other people's private property.

The first thing he said to me on the phone (after email became too confusing) was that anybody or any literature from the National Registry of Historical Places that claims you can do whatever you want with your building or house after you get your plaque is lying to you. He points out that there'd be no reason to get them involved if they had no authority over your property - it wouldn't benefit them one bit.  And just because their website or local representative tells you the plaque means nothing in the way of what you can do to your property - there's one case after another proving that they can screw you over big time.  He told me that judges tend to forget the law and side with historians when they file injunctions to keep property owners from altering their "historic" homes or businesses.  His best example - Duranguito.  There's no legal precedent to have stopped that from going forward, but because the hint of history is given - judges worry about being the guy who let them demolish a sacred building.   He had a longer point about confederate monuments and how at one time judges refused to hear cases about removal and now they have switched to refusing to hear cases about keeping them... 

Anywho... 

His main point is that if getting one of these plaques has no meaning for what you can and can't do with the property, then they wouldn't exist.  The fact is that the plaque means a lot.  Max Grossman and friends wouldn't be pushing for such an unprecedented survey if they didn't have a very specific goal or plan in mind.  My expert suggests Grossman is working on behalf of some slumlord who doesn't want to improve his properties and thinks getting them declared historic will keep the government from telling him to fix them up or taking them by eminent domain.   That could be true... or Max and friends are just trying to pick a fight with local politicos they don't like.  

My expert says the biggest problem here is that once the survey is complete (and he can't get over why taxpayers are paying for something that is traditionally paid for by private interests) Grossman and his friends will prey on clueless homeowners to get them to sign over the rights to their property.  The owner of the building or home has to agree to submit for the plaque.  A smooth talker like Grossman simply knocks on the door and tells them they are living in a piece of history and if they'd just sign right here on the dotted line their house will be more valuable and you get this plaque saying your house is legitimately old and valuable.  Who wouldn't want that? I mean all you go to do is sign that sheet and you get a plaque and some bragging rights.  

But... we all know that's not what is going to happen.  Grossman has no interest in helping people get a plaque for their falling down house.  There's another motive there and I don't have to tell you what it is.  A homeowner signing the dotted line is trading his property rights for a $10 bronze plaque.  It's nothing more than a scam. 

My expert points out that any property owner could do this on their own.  He says that Grossman and friends could put on some sneakers on and go walk to each house now and ask if they'd like to apply.  No survey necessary.  It's odd they aren't doing it this way.  Unless, Grossman doesn't think the property owners would do it on their own.  He wants to present the survey to them as some kind of "official designation" fooling property owners into thinking a higher authority has already made the decision.  Instead of Grossman knocking on the door and trying to convince the people they should apply, he simply states that an "official document" he's holding in his hand says their home is historical and he only needs their signature for them to receive their complimentary plaque.  My expert says the survey is at best toilet paper when finished.  They basically just find anything older than 50 and call it "historic".   They don't do any kind of research about whether or not somebody famous or otherwise known had a connection to the property.  It's all bullshit.  All bullshit YOU are paying for. 

My expert did point out that you can't find a whole lot of negative press on this because the organization is very good at tamping down bad news.  After all, the whole thing is led by history academics and everyone trusts them.  A professor of history would never step on someone's property rights in the name of their hobby/profession.  Professors are like priests and the police - completely unable to breach any ethical boundary.  And let's not forget the many scholarly words written in support of historical designations you find littering the first 100 pages of a google search.  It's as if they want to make sure nobody can find a negative word about the program before they sign the dotted line.  It's all so convenient.   It's funny how public opinion always sways toward preservation when it's not their own economic loss.

So that's the real deal - the whole survey is a cover to trick people out of their property rights so a large swath of El Paso can stay poor and Grossman can get his revenge on the mayor.  It's brilliant and I must admit Grossman picked the perfect place to run his scam - El Paso is the only place I know where policy positions take a backseat to personal vendettas.  

Comments

[JerryK]

Or maybe he just wants to stop the arena that will fail financially and be sold to MS for pennies on the dollar for another public-subsidized sports team. The Plan all along.

[Trost Toast]

Though El Paso city statutes are different, on the county/state level, the only entity that can apply for Recorded Texas Historical Landmark status in El Paso is the County Historical Commission, of which Grossman has been summarily dismissed from, or direct from the Texas Historical Commission, whom Grossman is in the middle of suing. THC also requires the consent/participation of the property owner. While there are restrictions involved on renovation of a property with RTHL status (but also some tax benefits and access to state preservation grants) an owner who doesn't want to deal with the red tape need simply to not comply and will suffer only the consequence of the RTHL status being revoked. No judge is involved in that.

[Max G.]

Okay, David, you have now officially been downgraded to an ignoramus. Please try your best to answer these two questions, and feel free to pass them along to your "expert" friend:

1. Have any of the five current National Register districts in El Paso denied property owners their rights, imposed a single regulation upon them, or provoked a single complaint from them?

2. Have any of the downtown National Register districts that grace every other major city in Texas, including yours, caused any kind of uproar among private property owners, denied them their rights, imposed regulations upon them, or otherwise harmed them in any way?

I challenge you to answer these questions honestly.

[question]

AGAIN, why do care where the arena goes ? You weren't for it(maybe a fib ?) so what does it matter. Hey, if they never find a property to build it on maybe we can have another vote not to do it. For you to be against the arena you sure have spent alot of blog time on it. Maybe, like Jerry says above once it fails it will sit right next to Foster's stadium, The Bank of the White, and City Council. Maybe someone has found a use for it ?

[Who Cares]

Question: I don’t know what you are reading between the lines in the historical designation discussion. This isn’t about the arena. It’s about the county paying for a study the city refused to do to determine which area(s) of downtown should be designated as historical. I don’t understand how the county would have the authority in the city limits to make what amounts to a zoning decision. But that’s another discussion for another day.

I agree with DavidK. Let the property owner get the designation and leave every other property owner in the downtown alone. They are smart people and if they want to play that money game they will do it and they don’t need Max’s help or advice.

[building owner]

I doubt that any of the comments here come from a downtown building owner. Well...here's one. I DO NOT WANT MY 80 YEAR OLD BUILDING DESIGNATED HISTORICAL. I do not want you to come in it, I do not want other's checking it out for historical clues, I want my building to be MY BUILDING. I bought it, I own it and if I want to alter it and I get the permits, that is my decision. Period.

I am sick and tired of Grossman. I like history and downtown's history but Grossman is slowly but surely turning me against it. Every time I see his name connected with something, I am wary.

Mr. Grossman: please go get another hobby.

[Sib's ghost]

Building Owner, is that you Billy ?

[Max G.]

Still waiting for your reply to my two questions above, David...

[Property rights advocate]

I will answer your question Max. No. Because a lot of the owners of the so called historic buildings probably haven’t done any improvements.

This is America Max. Property owners have rights. Quit forcing your beliefs on the rest of the private property owners.

Answer me this: when are you going to buy historic properties and fix them up? Unless you got skin in the game leave the real property owners alone. The county should butt out too.

[Countytrumpscity]

David, the the City is in the County. Just saying

[Citytrumpscounty]

The County (all of them in Texas) have no zoning rights. Those belong to the cities. In essence this "overlay" will sort of "zone" these properties. Anytime you group properties - particularly private property into a group you are in effect putting them in a zone or a category that resembles zoning. So - yeah - private property owners should be wary of someone wanting to put a historic district overlay on their property.

Counties have tried numerous times in the Texas Legislature to get the right to zone land in their county - it has failed every time.

[F.A. Sommerfeld]

Mr. G., if you know the answer to each of your two questions is: "No, they have not," please just say so to help those of us who are actually trying to follow along. Thanks.

[AntiMax]

In a nutshell it appears that Mad Max is using local government to literally confiscate property for his purposes; just like Bonart is appropriating 1100 acres of public land for his bicycle club!

[MaxIsTheNewBilly]

What is most offensive is that Max has done nothing for downtown but impede investment in it. On top of that, he uses an outsider, who also has also done nothing for downtown, to fund delay tactic court battles to slow down - and increase the cost of - downtown development. He is the new Billy (ironically, Max and Billy teamed up re the Chinese Laundry). Leave town Max.

[F.A. Sommerfeld]

It would be SO typical of El Paso to run Max out of town. That's the kind of reaction that has made El Paso what it is today. Austin has "Keep Austin weird." El Paso's motto is "Keep El Paso Effed Up."

[GoAwayMax!]

I believe that Max was that sniveling baby in school and everyone wanted to kick his a$$. That being said, I have questions for Max.

Max, answer these honestly!

1. Where do you live? Do you live in a rundown, unsafe building?

2. What are you getting from Daddy Warbucks? Money? Promise of a job?

3. Where have you been for the past 20 years? Why are you just now trying to "save Durangito" (which, by the way, is not a real name)?

4. Why are you costing the taxpayers so much money? Are you and Daddy Warbucks going to reimburse us?

5. Do you not know how annoying all of your lying and smoke and mirrors are? You send out mass emails full of BS; are you not ashamed of yourself?

6. Do you have Napolean syndrome?

[Max G.]

I don’t take questions from anonymous trolls. I know who David is and where he lives, so I know who I am talking to.