Residents urge council to reject proposed cemetery rezoning; item postponed to Oct. 2

Dozens of South San Antonio residents told the San Antonio Zoning Board on Sept. 18 they oppose a rezoning request to allow a new cemetery in District 3, arguing cemeteries do not generate property tax revenue and that neighborhood needs such as libraries and recreation centers are a higher priority.

The opposition, voiced during the public-comment period, came as the board voted to postpone agenda items 3, 10, 14 and 15 to Oct. 2. The board made the postponement motion and it passed; no roll-call tally was given on the record.

Why it matters: speakers said the proposed cemetery would reduce the tax base for a district they described as already under-resourced, and they urged councilmembers to reject the rezoning rather than continue to defer action. “This community is starting to have the development they deserve,” said Marian Smith, identifying herself as a resident; “we can’t stand here and take away part of the tax base for the benefit of a corporation.”

Several speakers said they collected signatures opposing the rezoning. “I have 606 people who signed the petition for this zoning change,” said one commenter. Others said many households within 200 feet of the site opposed the request.

Speakers repeatedly asked the board to vote on the matter rather than repeatedly defer it. “They keep postponing and postponing,” said Julián Cruz, who described himself as a real estate agent and said neighbors had asked him to speak. “I know they extended it to Oct. 2. That’s not fair to neighbors who can’t attend next month.”

Several commenters framed the issue in terms of competing needs in the district. “We don’t need more cemeteries; we need a library, a recreation center and tutoring for our children,” said Teresa Cantú. Other speakers noted the presence of multiple cemeteries already in the city and said the new site would not produce property-tax revenue for District 3.

Board action and next steps: the board’s motion to postpone the related agenda items to Oct. 2 passed; the transcript does not record who moved or seconded the motion, nor a vote tally. The items will return to the board on the Oct. 2 agenda.

Context: the comments took place near the start of the Sept. 18 meeting, during a period when the board also handled multiple consent items and separate zoning petitions. The transcript shows sustained public interest on this topic, with multiple speakers and petitions presented.