July’s meeting! These summer meetings are too far apart. A whole ‘nother month will go by until I see you all again in August.
Early on, Jude Prather went home, presumably sick, and Alyssa Garza was zooming in, mid-suffering from covid (which is pretty dedicated) and seemed to be feeling pretty lousy. So this meeting felt smaller and a little scaled back.
Citizen comment was dominated by the film studio at La Cima. One person called it La Cinema, which I find hilarious, and will now adopt.
There was a legit community uproar after the last meeting. People are furious about developing over the aquifer. There were two protests, I believe? one last week during P&Z, and then another during the City Council meeting.
Item 48: In response, Alyssa Garza and Saul Gonzalez put the film studio discussion back on the agenda. (I think it had to come from them because they’d voted “yes” at the last meeting; “no” votes (ie Max Baker) are procedurally not allowed.)
The job of the council was to placate the angry protesters:
The existence of the film studio was not up for a vote
It was about tax breaks, in exchange for using the updated city code.
the deal has already been signed, right after the last meeting. (Literally, Alyssa Garza clarified this point.)
I will lovingly call this portion of the evening the Great Placating Tour of La Cinema. For example, Jane Hughson and Max Baker are putting an agenda item together about protecting the aquifer, for later in August. Alyssa Garza and Max Baker are putting something together about how Chapter 380 tax break deals should get two readings at council, not one.
Everyone grandstands a little bit about why they stand by their decision last week. Max is convinced that there must be some sort of conspiracy or real estate deal, but he means it in a more nefarious way than the straightforward way in which this is a real estate deal. He’s self-aware enough to acknowledge that he’s grasping at straws, but chides his councilmates for not being suspicious enough.
Max is correct that there’s a good possibility that this studio will fail. Businesses fail all the time. The thing is, we generally don’t stop people from acting on their dumb ideas. Provided you’re playing within the rules and you’re not malicious nor more destructive than the alternative, you are allowed to build a film studio. And since La Cima is going to build something, they’re entitled to pick La Cinema.
(San Marcos has had its share of bad ideas. Remember the old Mr. Gatti’s building on the corner of CM Allen and Hopkins? The next owners painted the exterior of the building black with daisies on it? Look outside at the sweltering 103° heat, and just contemplate walking into a free-standing building painted all black. It didn’t last.)(This is before it was torn down to make room for the food trucks, which then eventually left due to the food inspector drama a few years ago, I think. So now we have a beautiful slab of concrete with some gritty weeds making their way here and there.)
What have we lost, if the studio fails? Our hopes and dreams about future tax revenue and internships for students. We’d be stuck with a big old building, over the aquifer, that would have to be re-purposed. That’s not good. The $4 million in tax breaks isn’t exactly lost – it’s money we wouldn’t have collected either way, and it ensured that the building we’re stuck with complied with 2020 environmental standards instead of 2013 environmental standards. (At least, I hope that’s the case. I hope we’re not actually laying out money on this Hollywood dream.)
Item 21: This is a proposal for 470 houses, way out past the outlet mall and past the Trace development. This is sprawl. In general, I do not like isolated subdivisions plopped down in the middle of nowhere. It requires way more mileage of pipes and wires to get them hooked up to the city, it causes more wear and tear on the roads than closer developments, it works against having a functional public transit, and so on. It takes a toll.
It’s that little red pin dropped way at the bottom.
Saul Gonzalez asks my favorite question: Will this pay for itself?
This is a really important question. Approving a development costs the city a lot of money. Much is shared by the developer, who hopes to turn a profit, but not all. Like I said above, a new development needs water lines, wastewater service, electric lines, emergency services, access to city services and facilities, and contributes to wear and tear on streets and infrastructure.
So developments cost the city money. Developments also bring in tax revenue. So will the tax revenue eventually cover the costs? And this bit is crucial: will it cover the lifecycle of the streets/power lines/pipes, as they age and need repairs in 20 years? Have we accounted for this in our budgeting? (Usually not. But we should.)
So that is important question #1: Will this pay for itself, not just costs incurred during the immediate build but also estimating life cycle repairs to infrastructure?
Here is important question #2: When is the estimated time of completion, and what is our predicted housing deficit at that time?
We have mountains of housing that has been approved, but not built. The city staff need to continuously be explaining to council (and P&Z) what our current housing deficit is, and what it is predicted to be in the future, as different developments are built and more people move to town. (Ideally broken out by affordability.)
Important question #3 is: Is this environmentally responsible? Is it on the aquifer? Is it suburban sprawl? Does it incorporate duplexes and 4-plexes and 8-plexes throughout the single-family region? How much driving will residents be required to do?
This one isn’t the worst, insofar as it’s not in the aquifer. But I still resent far-flung communities, and I resent that it’s uniformly going to be single-family.
(We can’t mandate duplexes and townhomes and things like that. This came up at P&Z. We used to be able to, when we had PDDs, and then we threw them away for mysterious reasons.)
Important question #4: Is it mixed income? Is it near amenities?
We have very little meaningfully mixed income housing in San Marcos. Even when new builds like La Cima include multi-family, they segregate it from the single family portion. That’s not great. It is much better for everyone when there is a wide diversity of income levels in a neighborhood, kids attending schools together, different social classes forging connections and co-mingling their lives.
Similarly, developments get built without thinking about where people will shop for groceries, or go for dinner, or whatever. The idea is that the free market will save the day, and you won’t have a food desert. Then you get a food desert, because the free market does not save the day. (Fortunately, city code guarantees access to parks and some public spaces. Because the free market will not save the day.)
So Council should always ask those four questions, in order to evaluate a proposal. As is, we do not have the answers to any of these questions.
Listen: I actually think really highly of city staff. I think they work hard, and I’ve particularly thought that the interim city manager, Stephanie Reyes, seems to be doing a great job. However, on developments, they’re trapped by their forms. The form for the information they put together for P&Z and Council probably hasn’t been updated in at least 15 years. The form needs to be massively revised to provide P&Z and Council with the answers to these four questions.
To recap:
Will it pay for itself, over the lifespan of the infrastructure? (Denser development will score better.)
When is it estimated to be built, and what is the forecasted housing deficit at that point?
Are we looking at sprawl? Is this on the aquifer? Is it uniformly single-family homes?
Is it meaningfully mixed income? Is it near existing amenities?
Answers: who knows, who knows, yes, and no.
….
But wait! There’s more! Back to that red pin at the bottom of the map, above.
One final thing that makes this particular tract unpleasant is that it contains the Hays Electrical Power Plant. A rural neighbor shows up and describes what happens when the boilers are cleaned: for 3-4 days, it sounds like you’re living next to an airport, 24/7.
Is it bad for your health to live very close to an industrial power plant? In my quick look at what counts as environmental health risk factors, I’m seeing things like this: “presence of hazardous waste sites and facilities (landfills, incinerators, Superfund sites)” but I’m not seeing power plants in those kinds of lists. So I’m tentatively thinking it’s a nuisance and not a health hazard.
Here’s what does not count as evidence: the fact that the state of Texas allows it, and there are examples of neighborhoods next to power plants in Austin and Seguin.
Overall, I still don’t like the subdivision.
The vote: Yes: Mayor Hughson, Shane Scott, Mark Gleason No: Alyssa Garza, Max Baker
Abstain: Saul Gonzalez, wanting to find out more about the health risks.
But then Saul switches to “yes” in order to bring it back for a second reading. He is clear that he’s just doing this to get more information, and not because he’s made his decision.
…
Items 23-27: Several items about Whisper Tract, the ginormous development going in on the east side of 35, up north across from Blanco Vista.
One has gone back and forth to P&Z and to a committee, about zoning one part Light Industrial, right near the Saddlebrook mobile home community. The problem is that while we notify the owners of property, we don’t notify the renters. And mobile home residents generally don’t own the land under their home, so they weren’t notified. We’re being jerks here.
Council carves out some bad-neighbor exceptions to light industrial, and passes it. The other Whisper items all pass, too. Whisper is huge.
…
Item 28: There’s a little patch of land west of I-35, between I-35 and Blanco Vista that gets re-zoned. It’s at this red pin:
This is right near the apartment complexes tucked in that same little tract of land. It had been General Commercial, and now it will be CD-4.
CD-4 is fairly dense – picture apartments or townhomes. You’re allowed to put some corner stores in. It’s pretty reasonable for that location.
Item 39:
Suppose you’re driving up from Seguin, on 123.
This is the intersection of 123 and Beback Inn Road, which is a really great name for a road. That red house on your left is the Full Moon Saloon. That giant expanse of empty flat space on your right, starting at the light, is the topic for Item 39.
It’s too early to really answer the four questions above, but that’s certainly way out in the middle of farm land. And the presentation claims it will be “predominantly single family with some commercial.”
Council decided to put together a committee to work with the developer. Max Baker, Shane Scott, and Mark Gleason will be on it. Those three make for a highly combustible group, and Max is outnumbered. We shall see how this goes.
Item 35: Spending $5,401,600 of Federal ARP money.
The city is supposed to approve the next $5 million of spending from the American Rescue Plan money. They discussed it at a workshop on June 29 .
Mayor Hughson makes one motion: to reduce the funding for the new Equity program coordinator from $400k over 4 years, to $200K for 2 years. She says, “Look, if we want to make this position permanent, we’re going to need to find permanent funding, so we may as well move that process along.”
When I listened to this meeting, I was livid. Here is what I originally wrote:
that is rat-fucking, my dear. It sounds very reasonable! We just want to make the position permanent, even sooner!
The lie is basically “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. Guaranteed funding now is what matters. Hypothetical funding in two years is not worth a bucket of warm piss, to paraphrase LBJ. It is very sleazy because it sounds so reasonable.
I thought she was trying to pass off her amendment as being what’s best for equity. Since then, I went back and listened to the budget meeting from June 29th. In it, Mayor Hughson raised the same concerns. She stated then, “If this is not a permanent position, then it shouldn’t take four years. If this is a permanent position, we’ll need to find funding from the General Fund.”
Now, Mayor Hughson is being wildly naive if she thinks equity will be “solved” in two years. This should be a permanent position. But I no longer think she was being sleazy – just wrong – by making this motion.
Max Baker is irate, and mostly makes good points – an Equity director will bring in tons of grant money. They were specifically told this during their trip to Washington.
Jane Hughson gets very defensive about equity. They’ve been doing equity in San Marcos! She was on council in the ’90s, and they were doing it then, although perhaps more piecemeal!
(Did Jane Hughson know that racism was a problem in the 90s? Absolutely. Did they think about it, and try to do things to ameliorate it? Sure, I can believe that. Did they do enough to move the needle and actually make a difference? Ha, no. Did they pat themselves on the back and move on? Of course – that’s how the 90s went.)
Alyssa Garza – from her fevered Covid state – gently, gently uses universal language to say that we all have privilege, and a major part of equity is not centering ourselves, but looking to the community and just working to improve things.
Here’s a big part of how you (Jane) should think about equity: you can only measure progress by outcomes. It doesn’t matter how hard you’re trying, if the outcomes are still inequitable. For example: if you survey the San Marcos community, and all your responses come back from west of I-35, then your survey was not equitable. You may put an equal amount of resources into advertising it to all parts of the community, but clearly you didn’t end up with a representative response, and so that’s that – it wasn’t equitable. Sorry.
The vote: Should we only fund two years instead of four years of the Equity Program Coordinator? Yes: Saul Gonzalez, Jane Hughson, Shane Scott, and Mark Gleason No: Alyssa Garza, Max Baker.
So it passes.
…
While I’m on the topic of the June 29th Budget Session: the highlight was when Alyssa Garza gently asked Mark Gleason what his understanding is of what an Equity Coordinator does.
Mark Gleason goes on an absolute rant about everything besides what an Equity Coordinator does. He says that equity is fixing our flooding, and making 911 calls responsive, and fixing homelessness, and many other worthy causes. He says he doesn’t need an Equity Coordinator to tell him what equity is because he already knows, so why waste the money on the coordinator, instead of funding the things he already knows about? Alyssa and Jane Hughson both point out that he hasn’t actually answered the question. He never does answer the question.
Gentle, nonthreatening challenge to Mark Gleason: look at those programs you listed and tell me if any of them currently achieve equality of outcomes.
…
Post script: The Daily Record has a nice write up of this item, and Nick Castillo took the time to include the full list of ARP projects. That’s a good thing to include! That’s why they make the big bucks, I guess.
Max Baker wants there to be more outreach for election workers and better pay. Both seem reasonable.
The county appoints election workers, and Max would like it to be a joint appointment with the city, in order to diversify the workers. (Really, it’s hard to find people besides retirees).
The pay is very low ($11-$12/hour). Could that be made more reasonable?
A small bit of pettiness: Max brings this up during Item 38, but it’s a better fit for Item 37, so he moves to reopen Item 37. Everybody votes yes except Mark Gleason, who snips “no” , appearing to aim to be a petty little thorn poking Max in the side.
The vote: County and city joint appointment of election workers? Yes: Everybody but Mark Gleason No: Mark Gleason
The joint selection passes.
For raising the pay, Max suggests the Hays County average wage, in order to give a changing benchmark which moves with inflation. Mark Gleason frets that this will be just too hard to implement, due to the shared math between Hays County and San Marcos.
The vote: Yes: Max Baker, Alyssa Garza No: Mayor Hughson, Mark Gleason, Saul Gonzalez, and Shane Scott.
So this one gets voted down. (Mayor Hughson and Saul Gonzalez both say that they’d support it in the future, just not for this fall.)
…
Item 41: City Representatives to the Greater San Marcos Partnership (GSMP) committee. GSMP is the business community. There will be the Mayor, City Clerk, and two city council members.
Max Baker, Alyssa Garza, Mark Gleason, and Shane Scott all volunteer. So there are two progressive and two conservative choices. Alyssa makes a rather cute plea for support. (Right at 4:50:10.)
She gets five votes and Shane comes in second, and so they’ll be the representatives.
A small bit: Mayor Hughson voted for Mark Gleason and Shane Scott. That annoyed me, to go for the two conservative dudes. I’d expected her to vote for one from the left and one from the right. She was the only person not to vote for Alyssa Garza.
…
Item 42: The Library board is proposing going fine-free. Ending fines is very important – besides being an equity issue, it also drives people away due to the shame that lingers when they owe money. They state that fines make up 0.25% of the library budget.
City Council agrees to bring this forward as an issue that they’re interested in discussing.
While we’re on the subject of libraries: we have a terrific library staff and lovely new facility, but very short library hours. It’s got this beautiful lobby which should offer extended hours with free internet, but instead the library doesn’t open until 1 pm on Sunday, 10 am on Saturday, and 9 am during the week.
Also, the number of books in circulation is too low, particularly in the children’s section, and the supply of e-books is low, and they are frequently unavailable. None of this is the library’s fault – it’s all funding – but it would be nice if it had more books and longer lobby hours.
Item 45: We got a letter from the Mayor of Austin! We’re so fancy. The letter is from mayors across Texas, together with Amtrak. We’re going to sign it.
Here’s the letter:
Will it do any good? I am pretty pessimistic about this state’s ability to ask for free money to help improve the lives of Texans. (See also: why don’t we expand medicaid, Greg Abbott?)
Comparing I-35 to the Hamburg-Berlin train line seems so ill-suited for a Republican audience that, to me, it reads like a tacit acknowledgment that the Texas Department of Transportation is going to wad this letter up and throw it in the trash. But maybe not!
Having a functional rail system in Texas would be amazing, and I’d love to take the train all over the place.
The San Marxist 