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.)
The San Marxist 
When La Cima was first pitched by County Commissiiner Conley, it was to be a MUD wuth large lots as to limit impermeable cover. I drive out there now and see houses are packed in next to one another. This kind of tactic is getting your foot in the door and pass the big project, then after no one (public) is looking a year or two later, pass the rest of what you want. This is what happened wifh La Cima and what happens over and again with many projects. I guess the original agreements wern’t really an agreement since they were majorly amended more than once. The original debate went something like this: Wil Conley Hays County Commissioner approached the City to approve the MUD. They wanted our sewerage, water, police, and fire services, but not to be annexed. The deal was struct, but annex in 50 years. The MUD district will have their, but no City taxes for 50 years. The roads and other infrastructure that the developers have built could be paid back up front. That is the gig. By the way, Jude Prather, who was on City Council at the time of the vote, and an employee of the Veterans Commission under Wil Conley, had to recuse himself. The River Foundation tacitly objected to the buildout. By the way, I would look to the owner of the corner property at the old trailor park for shutting down the operation, probably in hopes of a sale or a lucrative project build out.
LikeLike
I share your general dislike of La Cima, for sure, and I appreciate the backstory. I wasn’t paying attention as closely back then, and my memory is that activism around the potential Sessoms Creek development, and The Woods, and The Cottages and The Retreat sucked up most of the oxygen in the room, and La Cima somehow didn’t muster as much debate as it should have.
LikeLike