A Tale of Two Historic Garland Houses: The second, an embarrassment that is "woefully, pitifully unnecessary"

(Second in a series of three)

Louis and Kay Moore on Pace House Moving Day—Public enthusiasm and euphoria on that day easily could have vaulted the Tinsley-Lyles House to success, too, but city politics and bungling kept any such victory from being achieved.

Friends of Tinsley-Lyles House fundraising was set to roll (as demonstrated by this trifold flyer ready for wide distribution), with blue-chip personnel in place, until unkept promises, unfulfilled commitments, unanswered questions, unsquelched misinformation, and old city political alliances intervened.

The current predicament of what to do with Garland's Tinsley-Lyles House—the boondoggle sitting on an abnormally high concrete foundation behind the city's downtown public library—is a result of unkept promises, unfulfilled commitments, unanswered questions, unsquelched misinformation, and old political alliances that appeared to become more important than practicality.

A 2014, much-lauded, sound, do-able, "win-win" plan I presented to City Council to direct the two houses' future—"The Way Forward"—has been only halfway realized and has been allowed to be overrun by egregious and totally unnecessary mishandling of the Tinsley-Lyles House side of the deal.

In "The Way Forward" document I presented to council on February 3, 2014, these solutions were enthusiastically supported: 1. The Pace House would return to the private sector, with the city donating the structure to the bidder making the soundest pitch; 2. The city would retain the Tinsley-Lyles House, with a separate charitable foundation (apart from either existing preservation group—Preservation Garland Inc. and Landmark Society)—formed for the specific, single purpose of raising funds to restore and maintain the dwelling in perpetuity. 

Part of the latter's appeal to the council was the wonder-upon-wonders feat that Garland's two oft-contentious preservation organizations—the decades-old Garland Landmark Society and newly-formed Preservation Garland Inc.—had agreed to not oppose the creation of the new nonprofit to raise funds to restore and operate the Tinsley-Lyles House. From the transcript of the February 3 council work session, I stated that The Way Forward plan "can resolve the issue and unite the community and set the stage for better stewardship of these two historic structures." 

In a private meeting at 2:30 p.m. on Saturday, February 1, 2014, over dessert, at our home near downtown Garland, two key Preservation Garland leaders agreed to support the new, independent fundraising entity and pledged to set aside public rancor with Landmark. Simultaneously, in a separate meeting, a Landmark representative agreed not to publicly oppose the plan as it went forward. 

A groundswell of support, out of gratitude, privately arose. One prosperous and well-connected Garlandite, immensely relieved and thankful that the issue might be settled amicably, without strife that had surfaced in the past, pledged an unspecified amount of funds to the cause and offered her spacious home to host a major fundraising event. 

However, in a meeting on March 3, 2014, just before council was to be polled on a final decision and much to my surprise, representatives of Preservation Garland pressed for permission to address the body. (At a work session, a citizen is only allowed to address the council when specifically called on by a council member.)

As the polling approached, Councilmember Anita Goebel stated to the council, "Before we make any decisions, I’d like to have the Preservation Garland to give us a presentation on what their plans are for the house if they receive it." Three members took their seats in front of the council. I learned only just beforehand that this was going to happen. I was not invited to participate, sit with the three, or to speak; much to my embarrassment the key Preservation Garland spokesperson intimated inaccurately that I was lock-step with their efforts that night.

Setting aside its private pledge to avoid public rancor and to let the new, independent nonprofit carry the ball in fundraising, Preservation Garland suddenly and without explanation began asserting itself to become the fundraising arm. Despite its pledge on February 1, 2014, to avoid personal attacks, a key Preservation Garland leader also publicly began speaking of the other organization's leadership in a demeaning manner. Then-Councimember John Willis afterward told me my face looked utterly crestfallen when those remarks emerged.

In a transcript of the public hearings of the March 3, 2014, work session, Mayor Douglas Athas repeatedly specified that no decision would be reached that evening on who would occupy the Tinsley-Lyles House, who would operate it, or for what purpose the structure would be used. He specified that the council poll to be taken that evening was for the specific purpose of retaining or demolishing the two houses. 

The transcript of the meeting shows that Athas stated: "Our decision tonight is whether to keep the house in the city's custody or return it to the private sector."

Councilmember Anita Goebel stated: "Mayor, I don't know if it's appropriate, but I think we ought to save the house, keep it as city property, and let the Preservation Garland pick up after we move it."

The mayor reiterated that while the council appreciated Preservation Garland's update that it had just given on its work, the vote that evening merely was to keep or demolish the two houses. He obtained city staff's support to work with a nonprofit, should it emerge, to raise funds for the refurbishing. 

When the vote was taken, the council was favorable toward what I had outlined in "The Way Forward" plan that I had authored. Willis cast the lone dissenting vote, favoring that both houses be awarded to the private sector and that the city retain neither.

However, the damage was done. Preservation Garland's public demeaning of the Landmark leadership, aired on the city's TV broadcast, dampened the enthusiasm that had swelled from the private sector when it appeared that a harmonious decision, with unsavory remarks aside, would be reached. The individual (allied with the Landmark leadership) that had offered to host a major fundraising effort was less eager to go out on a limb. So was a local bank president who had pondered helping lead the fundraising efforts to restore the Tinsley-Lyles House. 

Furthermore, despite the Mayor's repeated clarification, the Preservation Garland leadership emerged from the meeting believing (with some council encouragement) that as a result of that meeting, Preservation Garland had been "given" the Tinsley-Lyles House to take total charge of. 

I personally felt betrayed. Endless volunteer hours on the part of a loyal, private citizen had been spent to hammer out a workable compromise that was disregarded in what felt like the blink of an eye.

Remembering the actual truth of what occurred in the March 3, 2014, council meeting, and with encouragement and the go-ahead from the city manager's office, my wife, Kay, and I pushed on to form the independent organization that became known as Friends of Garland's Historic Tinsley-Lyles House, as the mechanism to raise funds to restore the historic home in a way that preserved early Garland life. It was patterned after the short-term, one-topic-only citizens group that raised money for the Pace House restoration in 1985 when the home was moved from its original location on 1st Street at State to behind city hall. The records of that community-wide, community-building, historic fundraising were found in a box in the attic of the Pace House when it arrived on our lot.

Members of the new Friends nonprofit were some of Garland's most proved, successful, blue-ribbon fundraisers for other philanthropic projects. In the past, their combined fundraising efforts had raised countless hundreds of thousands (and possibly even millions) of dollars for worthwhile, charitable causes in Garland and Dallas. 

These charter members (all Garland residents) eagerly signed on to join Friends of Garland's Historic Tinsley-Lyles House in the rush of enthusiasm that followed the April 11, 2015, historic home tour on 11th Street after the newly refurbished Pace House was dedicated and a Texas Historical Marker awarded to Travis College Hill. More than 500 people poured into the Pace House and into the vintage neighborhood to witness a fresh Garland commitment to historical preservation and into the quality restoration that had been done on the Pace. 

On May 28, 2015, the Friends of the Tinsley-Lyles House organizational meeting was held in the Pace House living room. Organizers sensed that in the afterglow of success of the Pace House relocation and the historic home tour that had just drawn scores of people interested in history, fundraising for the Tinsley-Lyles House could be kicked off successfully, with a new wave of supporters willing to be tapped. With some of the same skilled, zealous people helping steer the ship of the Tinsley-Lyles House fundraising, the just-realized, tangible success on the Pace would signal that it could be done again. 

Before actual fundraising could begin, however, the veteran, much-respected fundraisers in the group cautioned that, based on their past experiences, three critical questions must have concrete answers from the city:

1. What ultimate long-term usage did the city envision for the Tinsley-Lyles House? Organizers believed that it would be difficult to approach donors about a vague restoration effort that lacked specifics.  

2. What repairs and restorations were necessary for the structure and what would all this cost? We did not want to start a fundraising campaign that was inadequate to actually meet the needs for the work necessary. Returning and asking people for more donations when your first estimates are wrong is considered a no-no in fundraising.

3. Were there any secret or non-public commitments that city leaders had made to any group or person regarding the usage or future of the house? Some of our organizers were concerned because Preservation Garland leaders had continued wrongfully to espouse, since the March 3, 2014 council meeting, that the city had "given" that organization the house and believed the city could be paying to fix it up as an office for the organization. Mayor Athas, despite his insistence at the March 3, 2014, council meeting, appeared to have done nothing to correct the misinformation. Athas and the head of Preservation Garland were longtime political allies. I and others wondered why the mayor himself did not strongly intervene and set the record straight with his ally, the council, and the public.

The Friends group had initiated the group's nonprofit application in Austin, which had to be completed before the IRS would issue the group's 501(c)(3) designation. With my vast background in nonprofits, I knew that after we secured the answers to the three crucial questions, completing the process for tax-exempt nonprofit would be merely a speedy formality. 

On July 31, 2015, Friends organization members Don and Barbara Baynham and Louis and Kay Moore and Preservation Garland representative Jerry Flook met at city hall with Mayor Athas, Councilmember Goebel, and city employee Becky King, and laid out the three crucial questions for response.

At the meeting, the city promised to get back to us soon with answers. 

More than two years later no answers have ever been forthcoming. 

At a later point after our July 31 meeting, the city tried to hire Dallas preservation architect Norman Alston, who grew up in Garland, to develop a plan and cost estimate for the restoration/repairs. He requested $15,000 for his services. Councilmember Goebel nixed that plan—stating that enough city money had been spent on the old house already.

Then, in May 2016 at a Dallas gathering of preservationists, which Kay and I attended, those familiar with the situation in Garland rolled their eyes about the huge concrete, non-historic-looking foundation on which the Tinsley-Lyles had been relocated. At that gathering I also learned—in Dallas, not in Garland, and from a Dallas citizen, not a Garlandite—that when the house had been moved from its trailer behind the Patty Granville Center, a super-important wood pin in the original 14 X 14 log cabin encased in the Tinsley-Lyles House had been broken irrepairably. I wondered why no one in the city had shared that crucial fact with me and others involved with Friends of Garland's Tinsley-Lyles House—or with other interested Garland citizens as well.

Our organizing members had earlier decided not to move forward on further organization or fundraising without first receiving concrete answers to all three questions. 

Individual organizing members had quantifiable success records with fundraising in the past and could have immediately put their hands to the plowshares for this Garland project, but naturally, while the city delayed month after month in providing answers that were necessary to move forward, these organizers' ardor cooled. 

During this time, these hard-working, Garland-loving, organizing members were out elsewhere, raising untold thousands of dollars for other preservation and non-preservation organizations in the Dallas area that they were involved in. The time and energy these talented people expended on other projects easily could have been devoted to the Tinsley-Lyles restoration project. 

These citizens ultimately deemed that their considerable skills were of no consequence to the city and moved on. Eventually the Friends of the Tinsley-Lyles House organization died on the vine for lack of support from the city and its leaders.

Meanwhile, the house has been allowed to sit on its high-up perch un-restored, becoming a haven for homeless who lived underneath it—eventually prompting the expenditure of more city funds to build interim solutions to protect the home from the possibility of vandalism and perhaps even an accidental fire. 

Preservation Garland Inc. finally attempted a fundraiser that did not draw the hoped-for participation and dollar amounts. No exact amount was released of what was raised nor of how much of city funds were expended to support the failed fundraiser. The group has tried a few other small fundraising efforts with uncertain success.

So, there the house sits to this day—an endangered remnant of the city's dwindling historic home inventory. It is an embarrassment that is woefully, pitifully unnecessary.

Next: What options does the city have now for what to do with the Tinsley-Lyles House?