Historical Landmark or Not?

"Westgate might be historic, but it shouldn't get tax breaks," reads the headline of an opinion article written by the Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman. The article argues that the Westgate Tower, a condominium high rise in Austin, should not get tax breaks as a historical landmark because the people living there don't need the tax breaks, and because the private residence has nothing to offer to the public as a historical landmark. It states that the Westgate Tower would be the youngest of all of the Austin historical landmarks and would get the highest tax breaks.
The intended audience of this article is the general public that shares the belief that the building should not become a landmark. The author attempts to strengthen his intended audience's belief by saying that "private residences, such as the Westgate, that are off limits to the public offer little value to the taxpayers that are subsidizing tax breaks."
Credibility is gained when the author references a recent article by Brenda Bell, stating that the Westgate would be the youngest of the 575 Austin landmak structures, and would also "enjoy" the largest tax abatement. With the average Westgate condo valued at $325,586, the average exemption would be $4,693 on a tax bill of $7,330.
After reading the article, I would say that if the Westgate Tower is eligible to become a historical landmark, it should. Just because some people don't think that the residents don't need the tax break doesn't mean that the building shouldn't become a historical landmark in an attempt to preserve the history of Austin architecture. This article has brought to my attention the fact that a fight must sometimes be put up to maintain the Austin architectural history, and in my opinion, I don't think it should be so difficult.