New push to protect Warehouse District

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by The Lorax

I did watch it. It was troubling. On many levels.

What would perhaps be more helpful is if you could explain, now, why you still hold to your belief that "density elsewhere can make up for protecting the WHD" given this result (ANC types going explicitly against the direction you presumably assumed they'd have no choice but to support). Or perhaps admit that you might have been wrong. Either way.

[The Lorax]

Sure. What I witnessed and what was very troubling to me was at least a couple of commissioners who put a personal agenda ahead of the law itself. The effort to require a developer to contribute $500K in affordable housing for the ability to develop a non-residential hotel project has absolutely no basis in Code, and (as evidenced by the aggitated assistant city attorney staffing the meeting) is clearly illegal.

So help me understand how rouge commissioners who dismiss the basic structure of our municipal government -- that policy decisions are vested in an elected council that speaks by and through a code of ordinances, and that muncipal powers must conform to the parameters of state law -- how that has any impact on the legitimate effort of the community to protect the Warehouse District?

PC members hold a position of public trust, and those who have no respect for the rule of law should resign. All of us who work to make this city a better place, advocate for or against something (from the SOSer to the RECA suit), should see those who substitute their judgment for the values of the community as expressed in our laws as a threat, circumventing the structure that we put our time and faith into.

[M1EK]

I believe I was very clear. In previous discussions, your side has made claims that 7Rio isn't in any danger of being blocked; and that "density elsewhere" can make up for the density lost in the WHD.

Now we see that:

1. The law is no obstacle to the ANC types. They know, correctly, that for many projects, a delay is the same thing as a cancellation - so even if a developer fought and won in court, they might not be prepared to build at the end of that process.

2. There is no appetite for density anywhere outside of downtown if even density INSIDE downtown, on the edge of the WHD, can be derailed this easily.

You can talk about "should" all day long. At this point, maybe you ought to walk back on some of the attacks on yours truly - since I was quite obviously right. And I as much as told you the ANC types wouldn't let city code get in their way.

[The Lorax]

Whoa -- I speak for myself, so a reference to 'your side' is irresponsible.

The readers of this blog deserve better than another thread devolving into a personal tit-for-tat. I've tried to keep this focused on facts and policy, and I believe I offered a very thoughtful response.

So let's assume what you say is correct -- that some will not feel confined by the law, and that there is a full-on charge against density anywhere and everywhere. What's the remedy?

[Myomi]

The Lorax- I believe I addressed your questions in my post back in the Warehouse District discussion. Granted, mine was very long so maybe not everyone read it, so let me restate it... The Warehouse District small part of an entire plan for downtown. I think you know that. However, they are proposing that the WHD owners be able to sell their FAR rights from their properties to developers, supposedly allowing developers to build denser on other lots around town. This will protect both the WHD and the owners property rights. However, as M1EK has pointed out several times before, developers have no problems right now getting higher FAR's than technically zoned for. So, if developers can right now get FAR variances very easily, why would they buy from the WHD owners? In essence, under the current system, FAR rights are absolutely worthless. So how does the smart city bureaucrat get around this to accomplish his agenda of protecting the Warehouse District? By making FAR variances harder to attain, thus making the transferable FAR's in the WHD much more valuable. Attach a bunch of conditions to it, or make it a much lengthier, difficult process to navigate through the committees and planning commisions. This is exactly what is laid out in the ROMA plan, and what is in essence already happening with the ANC cronies gaining power around the city government. In essence, this all amounts to a tax on density. The city is telling developers, "If you want to build denser, we are going to make you jump through hoops to do it." Now some of those demands are somewhat reasonable, but many are not. This makes any proposals for downtown more expensive, and like M1EK just pointed out, even just a delay can still be a major problem for a developer. This new process system would make all developers think twice before developing in Austin.

Now what would the solutions be? I feel like the first part is something that M1EK has already been trying to do (even though he can definitely rub people the wrong way when doing it...). Expose all these ANC cronies and call them out when they pull this crap. You can now hopefully see that the system you put so much faith in is already being undermined by them. Second, the entire ROMA proposal needs to be redone so that it is not a tax on density, but instead rewards density. Third, the WHD proposal shouldn't even be attached to that plan. I feel like the entire reason they put that in the plan is to get people with an emotional attachment to the WHD to support the plan, regardless of the fact that the plan is crap. It's a classical political move to attach something people have strong feelings for to something you want passed, and it seems clear that they are doing that now. Now I don't see why there is a need to protect the Warehouse District, but whatever...if you are going to propose a plan to do it, it should be a separate proposal that can be debated independently, without being weighted down by the ROMA plan. Then it can be discussed on it's own merits, without any of this other garbage.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by The Lorax

Whoa -- I speak for myself, so a reference to 'your side' is irresponsible.

The readers of this blog deserve better than another thread devolving into a personal tit-for-tat. I've tried to keep this focused on facts and policy, and I believe I offered a very thoughtful response.

So let's assume what you say is correct -- that some will not feel confined by the law, and that there is a full-on charge against density anywhere and everywhere. What's the remedy?

The remedy is to listen to the people who keep getting proven right, not those who keep getting proven wrong. In other words, we can't afford to downzone downtown, period - because the ANC's anti-density arguments that hide behind affordable housing and neighborhood character have 100% chance of winning outside downtown itself (something like 50/50 even inside downtown). When you are fighting against those odds, you don't give up your home turf.

[The Lorax]

Perhaps -- but I don't know how to call someone out more than affirmatively stating what I previously said.

I think you are giving the folks that you refer to as 'cronies' a level of credit that they don't deserve. I think the sub-text of the discussion was more about the theory that CURE is a 'loophole' to get around the density bonus provisions, as opposed to some grand scheme regarding the value of WH FARs and TDRs.

I do put faith in the system -- no apologies for that. Individuals have and will abuse their positions, but the system endures (bruised and battered a bit). We have a fundamental disagreement about the WH -- I think it's important for Austin to protect the things that make it unique, that give it a sense of place. The measures for protecting the district are limited and reasoned, with minimal impacts on overall density. No one wants to live in (or visit) a city that doesn't recognize or prioritize what is special about it. That would be an urban Plano on steroids, and the goose with golden eggs will find another hip, cool scene to roost.

[The Lorax]

Myomi,

I take it that M1EK's latest salvo is an example of how he "can definitely rub people the wrong way." Again, not going to slip into a personal tit-for-tat.

I submit that the correct way to approach this is to organize, and turn people out. One person (other than the applicant) spoke in favor of the item we are discussing now. One person. If there is a groundswell of folks who want to see density, turn them out. If you had 15-20 people show up at the Planning Commission and at Council on the key votes that speak to urban density, it would be a game changer. Right now, all they hear from are the same 'ol tired echo chamber that affirms their belief that they are doing the right thing. Otherwise, it's just talk . . .

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by The Lorax

Myomi,

I take it that M1EK's latest salvo is an example of how he "can definitely rub people the wrong way." Again, not going to slip into a personal tit-for-tat.

but, of course, you will.

I really like it when people who START a 'tit-for-tat' man-up and admit when they were wrong. It's a little personal failing of mine, I admit. I tend to remind them when they got it wrong in the hopes that they'll either man-up and apologize or, as a last resort, at least that the readers will take it into account.

I submit that the correct way to approach this is to organize, and turn people out. One person (other than the applicant) spoke in favor of the item we are discussing now. One person. If there is a groundswell of folks who want to see density, turn them out. If you had 15-20 people show up at the Planning Commission and at Council on the key votes that speak to urban density, it would be a game changer. Right now, all they hear from are the same 'ol tired echo chamber that affirms their belief that they are doing the right thing. Otherwise, it's just talk . . .

It makes no difference with the ANC types - they were not, in fact, making their decision on the dais based on general public input at that meeting. Believe you me; the only input they care about at this point is what the ANC's membership is telling them - and what, to a lesser extent, their council appointers tell them. And they don't care that much about either - their minds were made up long in advance; this is what one could have expected having just looked at the agenda (had I looked at that week's agenda in advance). This is what some of us (ahem!) predicted before the elections. This is what others predicted based on their appointments.

My point here, and yes, this will rub you the wrong way, is that

1. Don't be nice to people who are pursuing goals which are absolutely incompatible with your own
2. Listen to the people who were right, not the people who were wrong.

It doesn't do you any good to be 'liked' and ignored - which is what will happen if you play nice with the ANC. Compare/contrast to all the pro-rail people in central Austin who held their nose and played nice with Capital Metro in 2004, for instance, out of fear of rubbing them the wrong way. What did they get for their trouble?

This is coming from somebody who served on a commission for 5 years, by the way, although in the next tier down from the Planning Commission. Yes, I listened to public input, but only to inform myself - the idea behind serving is not to be a congressman from some sector of the city or some interest group; the idea is to be an 'educated citizen' that can cut through some of the chaff to hopefully limit the time spent on this stuff at Council. (By that standard, this outcome at the PC is highly bogus - it's an obvious failure to approve a clearly worthy, clearly eligible, clearly legal project that the CC will eventually approve, after Morrison and one or two others make some of the right noises).

Your strategy - to basically GIVE them a chunk of density's home turf, is not giving up little density overall. It's giving up a big chunk of the only part in town where density can actually be delivered - and, again, you're arguing from a position of just having been proven wrong once - so maybe you might be a little less credulous next time about these people and what their real goals are, OK?

[The Lorax]

This is childish and simplistic. I was not 'proven wrong' -- we were discussing two separate issues, apples and oranges.

How about this, for all those still with us. If you promise to move forward with a substantive discussion, I'll gladly admit I was wrong, about anything and/or everything, just to assuage you.

Deal?

[M1EK]

There's plenty of substance in that response, right after rebutting your personal attack. As for your arguments on this topic; here's two that were fairly relevant, I thought:

Well, judging from their votes on the South Shore PUD, they support additional density along the Riverside Corridor -- 5 members have consistently voted to support the project, and the Mayor has said he has no problem with the density, just the single variance from the Waterfront Overlay on height. So it looks like 6 members recognize the need for additional density in our urban core.

Let's keep this in perspective -- if they are submitting a site plan that conforms with the existing zoning and any covenants with the City, it gets approved administratively. There's no review by BOA, a land use commission, or Council.

CM Morrison (prior to election to Council) supported a lawsuit brought by the RG4N group which challenged the conformity of the site plan with the zoning granted for a Wal-Mart on Burnet and Anderson. The group lost on summary judgment, if I remember correctly.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding how CM Morrison could have any impact on this project . . . unless the applicant needs to modify their zoning and/or their site plan such to go beyond the allowed 'replacement site plan' amendments.

These are all things I argued with. You feel as confident about these quotes now as you did when you made them? Really? After viewing that video, in which ANC appointments to the Planning Commission caused a project to go through delay on arguably illegal grounds right in the middle of downtown, you still think that the ANC appointments to boards and commissions can't gum up other projects like 7Rio, and that Morrison and her cronies wouldn't engage in arguably illegal tactics to delay such projects? You really think that density elsewhere can make up for the WHD when density right on the edge of the WHD is such a hard sell? Really?

[The Lorax]

Apples: South Shore PUD, at Council, speaking to a vote by Council, and 7th & Rio Grande, a case that (as far as anyone can tell) needs no discretionary action by any City body.

Oranges: The action of the Planning Commission on the Starwood Hotel.

And the PC action did not cause delay -- it simply goes to Council with no recommendation. I hate to use your own quotes of me against you, but don't you see some distinction between your attributing the position to me that "7Rio isn't in any danger of being blocked" with the measured, conditional language that you pull in your last post (3rd bullet)?

I'm very troubled by PC, I've said it before, I'll say it again. But it's a separate issue whether someone views reasonable limitations on the WD as appropriate -- and we just have to respectfully agree to disagree. That's what mature people do.

[M1EK]

1. You asserted that 7Rio isn't in any danger of being blocked, because the code clearly allows for it ("requires no discretionary action" - i.e., blocking it would not be legal). Yet in this case, 4 out of 9 planning commissioners attempted to go against code in a way that city staff warned them was not legal.

2. You claimed that 5, or even 6, council members support density in the core based on the South Shore PUD vote, yet 4 out of 9 planning commissioners opposed this project in the core of the core. Those commissioners were appointed by city council members, at least 2 very recently, and were known quantities - so the city council's stance is obviously not as cut and dry as you tried to make it.

Seems perfectly relevant to me. You're apparently relying on adults to keep downtown development moving, and we now see that there is a dearth of adults on the commissions. Your assumptions are not holding up well in reality.

[The Lorax]

This is pointless -- you've successfully devolved this thread into a personal soliloquy, a diatribe, as opposed to an informative dialogue. I'll pass on participating further. Please continue your screed without me.

[M1EK]

I used your quotes - and explained how they were relevant. That'll teach me to do any more homework assignments.

[The Lorax]

Your homework was shoddy, at best:

"1. You asserted that 7Rio isn't in any danger of being blocked, because the code clearly allows for it ("requires no discretionary action" - i.e., blocking it would not be legal). Yet in this case, 4 out of 9 planning commissioners attempted to go against code in a way that city staff warned them was not legal."

Only 2 members sought to impose the illegal affordable housing exaction, and the motion to do so failed in a 2-6 vote. There were only 8 members sitting, as Comm. Castillo had resigned.

"2. You claimed that 5, or even 6, council members support density in the core based on the South Shore PUD vote, yet 4 out of 9 planning commissioners opposed this project in the core of the core. Those commissioners were appointed by city council members, at least 2 very recently, and were known quantities - so the city council's stance is obviously not as cut and dry as you tried to make it."

The South Shore PUD went through the Planning Commission prior to the last round of appointments made by Council -- the 2 members you speak to were not named or serving.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by The Lorax

Your homework was shoddy, at best:

"1. You asserted that 7Rio isn't in any danger of being blocked, because the code clearly allows for it ("requires no discretionary action" - i.e., blocking it would not be legal). Yet in this case, 4 out of 9 planning commissioners attempted to go against code in a way that city staff warned them was not legal."

Only 2 members sought to impose the illegal affordable housing exaction, and the motion to do so failed in a 2-6 vote. There were only 8 members sitting, as Comm. Castillo had resigned.

And then, right after that, 4 voted against the project (based primarily on not being able to obtain the illegal affordable housing extraction). Depending on how you count this, this means at least 2, and up to 4, of the 8 were hard-core anti-density and anti-code. This on what has traditionally been the most progressive, forward-looking board in the city.

"2. You claimed that 5, or even 6, council members support density in the core based on the South Shore PUD vote, yet 4 out of 9 planning commissioners opposed this project in the core of the core. Those commissioners were appointed by city council members, at least 2 very recently, and were known quantities - so the city council's stance is obviously not as cut and dry as you tried to make it."

The South Shore PUD went through the Planning Commission prior to the last round of appointments made by Council -- the 2 members you speak to were not named or serving.

That wasn't the point. The point was that if current sitting city council members appointed this batch of planning commissioners who were willing to go so far down the anti-density path in the core, it is perhaps naive to think, as you apparently do, that 5 or 6 out of the 7 council members support density in the core. Again, the views of these commissioners were not secret; their actions were predicted well in advance by folks like myself and the Austin Contrarian.