Lobbying Ordinance Workshop, 4/5/22 prequel.

The lobbying ordinance has been in the pipeline since 2017. The current iteration of this proposal came up last June. Then it was postponed until July. Then it was postponed until November. Then finally it came up for discussion again in February. Then it was postponed to have a workshop. Basically it’s been a war of attrition on whether or not this thing will get passed.

Mayor Hughson shows up and proposes that the ordinance be restricted to just developers. This is warmly received by most of the council. Max Baker is furious. Alyssa Garza states that she wants to talk to constituents and see how they feel about it.

I am curious to know who exactly is omitted under this restriction? Certainly SMPOA and the Firefighters Union would be let off the hook, although we have a rough idea who they’d be in with. And probably organizations we like, like SMRF. From a lefty point of view, who should I be concerned about?

Still, this is much better than nothing. Rezonings, tax break agreements with the city (things like 380 agreements, TIRZ, PDDs, PIDs, and probably some other acronyms), running services out to businesses in the ETJ (the land surrounding San Marcos), etc: these would all be documented, and this is where the shadiness could easily occur.

There was an offhand comment about a city employee committing some offense during the Lindsey Hill proposal. I have no idea what that was referencing, and I’m curious to know more.

Quick primer on Lindsey Hill: Lindsey Hill is the old Lamar school building. Coming from downtown, if you turn right from Hopkins onto Old 12, a few blocks down you pass an old rundown, fenced off school. Circa 2015, developers bought it from SMCISD with plans to turn it into student housing. The historic district mobilized and shut that shit down hard. However, the developers – from Philadelphia, I think? – hadn’t gotten a rezoning contingency on the purchase, so they’ve just been stuck with the property ever since, unless they’ve managed to sell it at a major loss. Either they’re bleeding money, or they’re waiting for P&Z and council to turn over and become more sympathetic. Or both!

6 thoughts on “Lobbying Ordinance Workshop, 4/5/22 prequel.

  1. I don’t think that there was a zoning contingency in order to purchase Lamar School from the district. But I do happen to know about a possible cooking of the books on the district’s re-lease clause for Lamar School for $27K per month due to the new school not yet ready. The re-lease happened for about 2 years.. So that comes up to $648,000. Also, not student housing but rentals and boutique hotel.

    Like

    1. Wait, the district has to pay 27K/month, or the district collects 27K/month?

      I do remember now that you’re right – rentals plus boutique hotel. I think the feeling at the time was that the rentals was a trojan horse for student housing, though. And this predates the official “purpose built student housing” distinction, so it was sort of all a wash.

      Like

    2. Yes, there was a lease back clause in which the Pennsylvania developers recieved $27K per month from the district. That actually happened for 2 years.

      Like

  2. Yes, there was a lease back clause in which the Pennsylvania developers recieved $27K per month from the district. That actually happened for 2 years.

    Like

      1. We did a open record request to the school district. We recieved only part of the requested records but were charged quite a sum.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Forrest Fulkerson Cancel reply