Item 23: Whether to remove the supermajority override of P&Z.
Currently, P&Z hears zoning cases and other cases and makes a decision. If the applicant is unhappy, they can appeal to city council. It takes a ¾ supermajority for council to reverse a p&z decision. In practice, this means it has to be a 6-1 vote. This issue on the table is whether council should be able to override P&Z with a simple majority. If it only takes a normal majority vote to override P&Z, then P&Z is strictly advisory and has no real power.
Shane Scott brought this issue to the table. His position was that there is a lack of diversity in the P&Z candidates – socioeconomic, as well as their beliefs. Given that Shane Scott doesn’t actually care about diversity, he just means that P&Z is too NIMBY for the developer community.
Alyssa Garza seconded it. She cares a lot about diversity, and feels that since the application process is deeply flawed and only brings in candidates who perpetuate the status quo, something needs to be done, and maybe this is it.
Here is my stance: Reducing the override from a supermajority to a majority is similar to the issue of states’ rights. No one actually ever has a principled stand on states’ rights – it’s just a stand-in for whether you agree with the current federal government. Here, if you agree with P&Z more than council, you want to make it hard to overturn their votes. If you don’t, you don’t.
Now here is the thing: just 10 short years ago, P&Z was super developer-friendly. They approved The Woods, The Retreat, and The Cottages in quick succession. The town got very pissed and threw the bums one, including Shane Scott and Jude Prather. (I really, really loathe The Woods so much.)
Because of the process to get on P&Z, the lean of P&Z lags a few years behind the lean of Council. The city threw out the developer-happy council, and then a few years later, P&Z became super NIMBY. Now P&Z is still very NIMBY, but council has reverted a bit. My point is that it is not a foregone conclusion that P&Z is always heavily NIMBY. However, it is always a privileged group of wealthier-than-average, whiter-than-average, and older-than-average residents. Broadening the applicant pool is a good idea.
Briefly, the idea of single-member P&Z districts came up. This is also a good idea.
So where do I stand on changing the supermajority to a majority? A supermajority requirement builds in a lag and sometimes pits a newer council against an older P&Z. Sometimes elections tilt council a good direction and sometimes in a worse direction. So there is a legitimate argument that the supermajority requirement keeps the whiplash in check and does actually provide a check-and-balance function.
But more importantly: beware of a legislative body that is clawing back power that it once gave away. In general, they’re not going to give it away a second time.
In the end, Council did not want to pursue this issue. Alyssa Garza is going to take the lead on measures to broaden the applicant pool, however. Single-member districts, clear rubrics for evaluation of candidates, and a stipend are good ideas.
The San Marxist 