Austin Loves History, But at a High Cost

     This recent editorial from the Austin American Statesman voices disapproval of the Austin City Council’s financial irresponsibility when it comes to preserving historical landmarks. The author points to the current attempt to declare mayor Lee Leffingwell’s childhood home a historical landmark, arguing that this “makes a mockery of a well-intended, but poorly managed, program”. The home is not currently owned by Leffingwell, and while it features historic style from the 1930s and 1940s, it’s hardly the only house in Austin to do so. For these reasons, the author doesn’t believe the house should be declared a historical landmark and granted a tax break.

    The editorial’s intended audience is not those who are opposed to Leffingwell himself, because the author credits him to be “a fine mayor,” but more so the people who are concerned with the way our city manages money. The city of Austin already had to revise its preservation program in 2009 for giving too many tax breaks to historical landmarks, but is still being criticized for its very loose criteria. People who would prefer the city to be stricter in giving tax breaks are likely to agree with this article.

     While the author has an obvious opinion, they show credibility by presenting both sides of the argument. The author shares factual evidence, tells the reader about the current criteria for historical landmarks, and lists the effects of the tax breaks on the city, its schools, and Travis County.

     I personally agree with the claim that the city needs to be more careful with the amount of tax breaks they give, and that while the Leffingwell house may be nostalgic to the mayor, it does not necessarily need to be preserved as historic. It is indeed a fine example of the bungalow and cottage styles of the World War II era, but countless other Austin homes and even neighborhoods can boast the same. Furthermore, the tax breaks not only affect the city, but Travis County, Austin Independent School District, and Austin Community College as well. Austin’s 580 historical landmarks cause the aforementioned entities to forgo $5 million in revenue each year, which is a figure too substantial to take lightly in my opinion. The author also brings up the important point that most other mayors just get a street or public area named after them, which I feel is a more reasonable way to go in this case. It’s not about denying Leffingwell his recognition, but about recognizing him in a way that doesn’t exploit the city’s programs. 

     Overall, I thought the editorial brought up some good points and showed readers the importance of being aware of the way our city manages money. It was evident that they fully researched the topic to form an educated and logical opinion about it.

(Source: Editorial Board, "Leffingwell is a Fine Mayor, But Boyhood Home is Not Historic", Austin American Statesman, 9-24-14)