« I'm confused about the complaints | Main | Consistently inconsistent - Ankle-biters »

September 24, 2019


David, you are either as dumb as a brick or Dee Margo's lackey. I'm gonna go with the latter.

The report in Denver that you cite refers to a local historic landmark. In El Paso, we are talking about a National Register District, which is completely different and imposes ZERO regulatory burden and provides ZERO protection against demolition. I have tried to explain to you the difference but you are too dumb to understand. There are different kinds of historical overlays and the National Register is the only one that comes with no regulations. That is why Paul Foster placed the Blue Flame Building on the NR. That is why he and Stuart Meyers and Lane Gaddy and so many other developers love the NR.


"Listing of private property on the National Register does not prohibit under Federal law or regulation any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property."
--Federal law, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5775bedda76fb47a87d9cad9337f95eb&mc=true&node=se36.1.60_12&rgn=div8

As for the Apaches, I'm not sure how encamping for 47 years at a site qualifies as a "stroll." Maybe you should write to them and express your concern.

How are you even a teacher with the kind of mouth and discourse that you use constantly, belittling and insulting people.

You are such a horrible horrible representation of academia for UTEP.

Also why are you posting during school hours... Guess you have a TA teaching your classes?

Explain to me MaxG why the State of Texas felt it necessary to change the laws in 2019 regarding historical designations and the requirement to have permission from the owner to do so and absent that permission a super majority of the city council to override the owner's objection to the designation.

What Foster and Gaddy and Meyers did who cares. What that did cause was for them to spend thousands of dollars more in order to comply with the historic designation requirements when rehabbing/re-modeling a building. I have heard from developers that they would never do that again - the money never works out - the tax credit versus the cost. But then you are not a high finance guy so you would have no idea of the real cost and impact to the bottom line historic tax credits are.

All Americans born in the U.S.A. are native Americans.

Hello Property Rights, your question is perfectly legitimate and I thank you for it. The legislative action by the State of Texas is intended to thwart abuses with regard to LOCAL historical designations. These can be very burdensome for property owners because they come with the type of regulation that David is complaining about.

By contrast, the National Register historical overlay comes with no such regulation. David mindlessly conflates local, state and national overlays and does not bother to try to understand any of them before he posts. Of course, he could just ask his wife, whom I had lunch with some years ago and who as a former member of the TSHA understands perfectly the various overlays. I don't hear David complaining about the National Register district in Austin where he lives, or the one in Dallas, or Galveston, or Fredericksburg. That is because they are favored by just about everyone. They come with tax credits that pay for up to 45% of the hard and soft costs of historic rehabilitation projects.

What you state about the developers complaining is just not true. Gaddy will tell you that he never would have renovated Bassett Tower or the Martin Bldg. were it not for the tax credits. Foster is using them for the Hilton and Meyers for the Hotel Paso del Norte. If they were not valuable, why do they continue to use them? In San Antonio, more than $2 billion in tax credit projects have been completed in the last 5 years. It's a major industry. Actually, I have a good grasp of how these projects work and have examined many a balance sheet. There are only 25 tax-credit eligible properties in downtown El Paso today, and my plan would expand that number to 968. That would be good for El Paso as it has been for other cities, including Dallas, hardly a bastion of liberals.

Believe it or not, I am all about private property rights and have never once proposed regulating a single property owner. David, by contrast, has nothing to say about the City's use of eminent domain that I am fighting, and he is generally in favor of tax abatements and similar crap because his family benefits directly from these policies. He is the poster guy for crony capitalism and government handouts and has proven it time and gain.

Actually the Tiguas do own all of our land in the valley as stated in fine print on our deeds. They have been kind enough to allow us to build our homes and raise our kids on their land. Don’t push it and don’t bulk Native Americans into your agenda.

If I remember the land grant boundaries correctly the Ponce de Leon grant is the only area in El Paso that was not claimed by the Tiguas.

The Tiguas filed a claim, (in the 1980's I believe) against all other land in El Paso County not just the valley, also from Hudspeth to Presido Counties, and parts of Dona Ana and Otero Counties in NM so all those land titles have a "cloud" of sorts although it is not enforceable.
This was the original Ysleta Grant that wat affirmed by SCOTUS in 2008.

Max Grossman,

If the historical designation at any level is as meaningless as you claim it would beg the question of why you care so much to have them applied to these properties. You are clearly stating that the city can't use property it owns because that property has some historical significance. You're doing precisely what you claim can't be done using the historical tag for property. It makes zero sense for you to care so much about tagging all these properties if you wouldn't end up with some kind of control over their future use. Some people may want to submit to the program and the rules associated with such program. Others do not want those limits placed on their property. You are engaging the county to classify private property as historical without the consent of the property owners. Why would you not simply ask the property owners to fill out the paperwork themselves or with your help? It seems very fishy to me that you are not working directly with property owners now nor did you ever ask the private owners of Duranguito for the many years you had a chance to.

The truth never has holes. Lies are full of them. Your story has a lot of holes. David KKK is wrong about almost everything all the time, but he's right about you.

Dear "Be Transparent Max":

I do not blame you for being so cynical and questioning my motives, given the constant misinformation coming from this pro-Margo blogger. To answer your question, I am an architectural historian by training and truly care about our historic architecture and since 2011 have been working on developing a "conservative" approach to the problem of blight and neglect. National Register districts have been very effective in every single instance in Texas where they have been established. In no case was the consent of property owners required for the simple reason that it imposes no burden of any kind but only frees up tax credits. That said, there is a mechanism in the law whereby property owners can oppose the process, but they never have because there is no reason to. Again, there are no "limits placed on property" as you suggest above. ZERO. I invite you to read the federal statute I cite above. Mr. K knows this perfectly well but is dishonest about it because he has a political and financial agenda.

As for Duranguito, the City of El Paso owns 14 of the 15 properties in the "Arena footprint" and the 15th property is owned by Romelia Mendoza who refuses to sell. The City has not yet tried to use eminent domain against her but claims the authority to do so. She is under the protection of my legal team. So there is no question in Duranguito of infringing on private property rights, not that a NR district would.

I can tell you that Mendoza and nearly all the private property owners just outside of the Arena footprint, including Gilbert Guillen, who owns most of the buildings along Durango St., want not only a NR District but a local historic district, which comes with restrictions, because they want to maintain the architectural character of their neighborhood and establish protections. That is their call.

Please understand that I am a constitutionalist and fiercely support private property rights and the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. My primary financial backer, JP Bryan, is an arch-conservative and so are most of my other backers. We are not RINOs like David. You will not find one instance of our attempting to infringe on private property rights. Notably, we did not interfere with the sale of the 14 Duranguito properties to the City although we could have tried.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Mostly I'm glad that Max and his friends monkey-wrench the plans of the DTEP pimps who want us to pay for these vanity projects so they can build them and eventually buy or rent them for pennies on the dollar. Like DK, I could care less about Durangito or whatever it's called but I sure like to see the city's plans to give away our tax base fucked up. Thank you, Max.

You are very welcome, thanks. We may not agree on the value of the neighborhood's architectural or archaeological assets, and that is fine. But we can certainly agree that the City is fleecing the taxpayers alive with their bloated bond projects and out-of-control taxes and spending. If I win my lawsuits, the neighborhood will be spared AND the taxpayers get to keep $250 million. It would be nice if David kept his eye on the ball instead of obsessing about the two guys who are in the way of his crony ambitions.

Well MaxG I think you obsess a lot about certain people in this town including DavidK. You really need to pay attention to your day job and quit responding to blogs. As we all know they aren't legitimate news.

The comments to this entry are closed.