Happy November! We punted on VisionSMTX and the CM Allen district decision, but we talked extensively about little Spidy Web Lassos for the cops.
Let’s do this:
Hours 0:00 – 1:39: We stuff VisionSMTX++ and the CM Allen District into a little can, and we kick it down the road.
Hours 1:39 – 2:48: BolaWraps! Should police be able to zap-and-wrap you? We also discuss cosmetic improvements to vacant buildings, Sunset Acres flood mitigation, and whether Shannon Mattingly broke any rules.
Bonus! 3 pm Workshops: the river took a beating over the summer. Parks Department tried their best to keep up.
Saul Gonzalez has gotten much more talkative. I’m going to have to update his profile where I called him the silent councilmember. I can’t always tell what he’s getting at, or why he votes the way he votes, but he’s definitely trying harder to make himself known.
Election Results: Congrats to Alyssa and Shane. Nothing surprising happened here.
See you next week for BACK TO BACK MEETINGS, Thanksgiving Special Edition.
VisionSMTX++ is supposed to be approved tonight. The public has opinions:
Go back to the original. The new version constrains the housing market, forces sprawl, and jacks up prices!
Keep the new version! We love sprawl and jacked up housing prices.
Renters need protection!
We live in a cottage court. Stop pretending these don’t exist in existing neighborhoods.
Downtown Area Plan is also supposed to be approved tonight.
Protect the river!
Protect against flooding!
Too much asphalt!
We’re going to become Baltimore!
The water table is very shallow under CM Allen. And there are a bunch of endangered species in the river here.
If you plan for development, you can specify environmental improvements you want. If you plan for parks, you’ll get stuck with the land owner’s choices when they develop it anyway.
…
But before we get to all that, we have a zoning case.
Items 8-9: This is an 18-acre patch at the corner of 123 and Wonderworld:
It’s right behind this little strip:
It sounds like they want to put a little retirement village there.
Saul Gonzales definitely had something on his mind, but I couldn’t figure out what. Here’s how the conversation goes:
First, Saul asks about the cost and tax revenue of the future plot.
Staff answers: 1. the cost to the city is $0! They’re responsible for any extensions of water, sewer, and electricity. 2. We can’t know the tax revenue until it’s built!
This is not a good answer. It evades what Saul is getting at. What Saul wants to know is, “Will this help or hurt the budget, in the future after it’s built?” Right now the costs are extensions of water, sewer, and electricity, but once it’s built, there will be ongoing services, namely police and firefighters.
Here’s my guess at the real answer: 1. Cost: This will not require much from future city budgets. We’re already providing police and fire department coverage to things that are further out than this development – this is infill. 2. Revenue: Since this will be apartments, it should bring in more tax revenue than we spend on it.
So my expectation is that this will be good for the budget.
Next, Saul asks about flooding. He’s told that it’s not in a flood plain, they’ll do an environmental analysis, and everything looks fine.
The Vote: Yes: Everyone but Saul No: Saul
Clearly the answers that Saul got didn’t resolve whatever he’s worried about. So either:
He doesn’t believe the answers, in which case I’m interested to know why.
There’s another reason he’s voting against it, in which case I’m interested to know why.
Price Tag to the City: Will it bring in taxes that pay for itself, over the lifespan of the infrastructure and future repair? How much will it cost to extend roads, utilities, on fire and police coverage, on water and wastewater?
Per Saul’s questions, I’m guessing that it will pay for itself, yes.
Housing stock: How long will it take to build? How much housing will it provide? What is the forecasted housing deficit at that point? Is it targeting a price-point that serves what San Marcos needs?
As always, we need a regularly updated housing report. It sounds like the city has picked back up on the one they dropped in 2019, so maybe this will materialize?
Environment: Is it on the aquifer? Is it in a flood zone? Will it create run off into the river?Are we looking at sprawl? Is it uniformly single-family homes?
Not in a flood zone. Not environmentally sensitive. It’s supposed to be one-story apartments for seniors, which doesn’t sound like sprawl.
Social: Is it meaningfully mixed income? Is it near existing SMCISD schools and amenities?
No idea on the mixed income part. Potentially it’s near some future retail, but currently not much.
The San Marxist Special: Is it a mixed-income blend of single family houses, four-plexes, and eight-plexes, all mixed together? With schools, shops, restaurants, and public community space sprinkled throughout?
It never is.
But on the whole, it’s more good than bad, in my opinion.
….
After items 8 and 9, we doubled back to Items 1, 2, and 5. These were pulled off the consent agenda for discussion.
Item 1: VisionSMTX++
Your two-second summary: Original community plan: weakly opposed to sprawl and jacked up housing costs. P&Z rewrite: we LOVE sprawl and jacked up housing costs!
Alyssa: Too many people are expressing frustration with the process. She’s gotten a flood of feedback in the past two days. There are too many barriers for people to engage.
Saul agrees: he’s getting input, more time won’t hurt.
Jude says he doesn’t want to postpone. He thinks just a few tweaks are needed to get it done. He’s got some amendments proposed for some of the missing middle stuff: cottage courts, multiplexes, etc.
I would be very interested to know what these amendments were going to be! But legally, they can only discuss the postponement. Since there’s a motion to postpone, you can’t discuss amendments to the actual plan.
Eventually they settle on January 16th, with a committee to discuss the matter. The committee will be Shane Scott, Alyssa Garza, and Matthew Mendoza.
The vote to postpone to January: 6-0. (Mark Gleason is absent.)
My $0.02:
Yes, the procedure was total garbage. The P&Z-plus-Jane subcommittee rewrote a document that had reflected the input from the town.
But also, the new content is total garbage. It’s not just a problem of procedure. The subcommittee inserted a ton of NIMBYism that made the comprehensive plan worse.
Yes, I would like us to fix the procedure and solicit a bunch more input from the community. But I’m nervous about it all being performative. If nothing actually changes in the comprehensive plan, then we’re just playing a game called Let’s All Perform Community Input. If the garbage content stays, then this was an empty exercise.
Item 2: The Downtown Plan
Your two-second summary: (Discussed previously here and here.) There are four properties along CM Allen.
Right now they’re owned by private citizens who can do whatever they want. But would we really like those to be parks, instead?
Options 1, 2, and 3:
This choice sort of landed like a bomb out of nowhere, and conversation has been intense and emotional.
The Final Approval:
Everyone wants to postpone this, as well. Clearly the community is all worked up over Options 1, 2, and 3. This whole thing unfolded in just one month, unlike VisionSMTX++, which has taken three years, so everyone feels panicked and rushed to weigh in. Taking a beat is a good idea.
Jude wants to nail down specific environmental benefits to Option 3.
Jane wants us to land somewhere between Options 2 and 3.
Staff comes forward with a proposal to break off the CM Allen district from the rest of the downtown plan, and pass the remaining bit. Everyone is glad about this, and it passes 6-0.
So what’s next?
The CM Allen District will then become its own area plan, possibly combined with the rest of the riverfront properties along CM Allen to make a River District. But there are six area plans queued up ahead of it, so it’s not going to happen for another year or two.
Item 5: The police department wants to buy 70 BolaWraps, at a cost of $112k.
A BolaWrap is this surreal Spiderman thing:
You aim your gadget at the bad guy, and shoot out this Y-shaped thread. The outstretched parts whip around your dude, and lasso him up tight.
BAD GUY CONTAINED! You saved the princess!
So should we buy 70 of these 7.5 foot Kevlar lassos for our cops?
Alyssa Garza is a hard no. She is the one pulled this item off the consent agenda for discussion, saying that purchases like this need some scrutiny and public attention.
She read a bunch of cop message boards, and found cops laughing at how terrible they are
She also notes that other communities hold big studies and have well-thought-out policies on new implements like this.
Chief Standridge is present. He comes up to talk.
The point of the BolaWrap is that it’s a nonlethal remote restraint.
It’s used to de-escalate situations where someone is having a mental health crisis, drug psychosis, or some other criminal behavior
Does not rely on pain compliance
“Non-lethal de-escalation” emerges as a major talking point. I’ll grant you non-lethal. But de-escalation?
Let’s meditate on the word de-escalation for a second. That means that tempers have escalated, and you’re trying to calm everyone down, so that the situation can resolve peacefully.
Lassoing someone’s legs may buy you a couple seconds while you slap some handcuffs on them, but it sure as shit does not calm anyone down.
So no, this does not actually count as de-escalation. It’s absurd for Chief Standridge to toss around that word so much. He’s just grabbed it as a useful buzzword du jour. Restraining someone with a bug-zapper so that you can slap handcuffs on them may be less violent, but that’s a gross misinterpretation of de-escalation.
Are BolaWraps the worst thing ever, then? No, of course not. Let’s do some ranking:
Shooting someone: the actual worst thing
Tazing someone: quite dangerous and possibly lethal
Bolawraps: not likely to hurt anyone, aside from making them trip and fall.
If you are happy with cops enforcing the current criminal justice system, BolaWraps are pretty neutral. If you are trying to dismantle the status quo and change the criminal justice system, then things that are neutral are bad.
To Alyssa’s questions, Chief Standridge says: “These are 80% effective. Not 100%. Just another tool in our toolbelt.”
Alyssa asks, “Where did you get the 80% number from?”
Chief Standridge says, “The BoloWrap website!”
Alyssa says, “So the people who are selling it? Who have a profit motive?”
Chief Standridge: “Yep!!”
Chase Stapp, the assistant city manager, steps up and says, “It costs more if we use excessive force.” In other words, if we taze or shoot someone and get sued, the lawsuit is more expensive than a BolaWrap.
[Side note: The reason you shouldn’t taze someone or shoot someone is because you are injuring their body. Cops are not judges nor juries, and so that bad guy is legally an innocent person, and you just injured or killed them. (But yes, lawsuits are expensive.)]
Chief Standridge says, “When you have a mental health crisis, you have a choice. You can use force, or you can use bolaWrap.”
Alyssa says, “Maaaaaybe mental health shouldn’t be under SMPD.”
Chief Standridge quips back, “Maaaaaaybe your police chief would completely agree with you! But until that system is built out, people still call 911 for mental health crises. We send out PD and an embedded mental health clinician, when she’s on duty. We’re working on your solution, but we’re not there yet.”
AnotherSidebar:
This sounds like an invitation to create a new system, yes? Chief Standridge just explicitly says he’d like to see mental health first responders separated from SMPD.
In order to separate out mental health crises responders from SMPD, you’d need a few things: – Public buy-in. If you think that a person having a mental health crisis should get a mental health expert responder instead of getting BolaWrapped, you should reach out and let city council know.
– City Council buy-in: they will only support something like this if they think it will affect their election chances. (Aside from Alyssa.)
– Staff buy-in: My read is that the city manager and assistant city manager don’t approve of progressive revisions of policing. That would have to be overcome.
– Chief Standridge is on record here voicing support for separating off mental health crises from the current police system. But I don’t know what he’s like behind the scenes, and how actively he’d advocate for this.
To me, this seems like something worth pursuing.
…
Some other facts get tossed around:
Seguin has purchased these. (yay?)
In 2022, SMPD had 65,000 interactions with citizens, and 59 required use of force. In other words, about once a week, they use force.
Saul: I need a demonstration.
Chief Standridge: I mean, it’s still a firearm. We shouldn’t just be discharging it indoors. But here’s a video!
Here’s the video they watched:
Next up, Matthew Mendoza chimes in.
I’m going to quote Matthew fully, because this is starting to be a trend. Clearly he’s done something like research, but whatever he found is total nonsense. He says, at 1:57:
Columbia County, in Oregon – it’s where Portland actually sits, in the center of that county. Let’s be honest, that tends to be an area where they are very observant of… they want a lot of visibility and interactions with our first responders and authority. As of 6 hours ago, their Fox station released a report saying that Columbia County sheriff’s department has been using this for the last two weeks. And it’s been successful! If Columbia County, Oregon finds this to be suitable…
Alyssa: For how long, now?
Matthew: For six days now! But I’m sure they’ve taken months to, I mean, this is Oregon. This isn’t someone I would imagine would just be jumping in, or tossing it up there. I’m seeing everywhere that people are trying this!
His argument seems to be: “We all know Portland is a bunch of liberal mushy-hearted saps, and even they love this technology! We know Portland would vet it thoroughly. If they’re in, I’m in!”
Just to be clear:
First, Portland is not in Columbia County, although I’m sure there are suburbs that spill over out that far.
Second, here’s the map for the 2020 presidential election.
Columbia County is Trump Country, by a margin of 53% to 42%. Whereas Hays County broke for Biden, 54% to 44%. So let’s not hold them up as a standard for anything, okay?
I’m editing things down significantly. There’s lots more repetition of: – the nonlethal de-escalation bit – how they are only 80% effective – how they’re cheaper than lawsuits
Alyssa: We have a Use of Force Policy for the department. Where can we find policy and procedures document for this?
Chief Standridge: That would be backwards! The order goes:
First I get permission from you all to buy them.
Buy them.
Get all the training done.
Then we’ll know enough to write a good policy about them.
This is cousin to “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.” Chief Standridge could have easily showed up today with a few policies that other police departments use, as possible rough drafts. But once you already have the BolaWraps in officers’ hands, you’re going to write the policy framed by eagerness to get out there and get going. You would have gotten a much more cautious and measured policy if they weren’t already holding their new toys.
Alyssa: A bunch of people say it sounds like a gunshot. Doesn’t that make a situation more dangerous?
Chief Standridge: I always wear hearing protection around guns, and I did not use hearing protection with these.
Alyssa: I’m a no. There are much better uses of this money.
Saul: How long do batteries last?
Chief: I don’t know!
Saul: Who gets the 70 units?
Chief: Patrol, School Resource Officers, Mental Health Unit, and Traffic Stops.
Matthew Mendoza asks if officers also carry lethal weapons.
Answer: Yes. Cops have guns.
Finally, Chief Standridge ends with a speech: “We act like officers are the impediment to change. But we’re all stakeholders in this community! The people, the city council, and the department. If we want to change the system, let’s do it!”
We don’t want to make the opossums and raccoons live somewhere so sad.
But we can give them a quick glow up:
by requiring that boarded up doors and windows be painted to look like regular doors and windows.
Hooray!
In fact, we already have a version of this downtown:
and
So there you have it. Coming soon to a derelict property near you!
…
Item 11: I know “Sunset Acres” sounds like a retirement village, but it’s actually this neighborhood:
Mendez Elementary is right in the middle of it.
At Council one year ago, Sunset Acres came up because they’ve got a disastrous flooding situation happening. (And it sounds like it’s been going on for decades, and has just been chronically neglected by the city.)
The city is finally working on it:
Phase 1 costs $1,642,910.00. With that kind of money, you could buy 1,027 BolaWraps! So you can tell this is important. We’re starting Phase 1 now.
Saul asks: What happens if they take too long?
Answer: Contracts have timeline clauses. They get fined $800-$1K per day if their time runs out.
Sounds great! But also sounds like the kind of fine that never quite gets enforced.
(That’s a fine of about half a BolaWrap per day.)
…..
Item 13: Remember this, from last month? Shannon Mattingly was head of the Planning Department from 2015 to 2022. Then she resigned, started working for a developer, and showed up recently to advocate for some new student housing.
Apparently Jane Hughson has been getting an earful from people who are pissed off about this. It certainly looks shady.
It’s not technically a violation of our current code:
(Yes, it’s a screen shot because it’s not in the packet.) She showed up at Council meetings, not P&Z meetings, and so she is fine under the current policy.
So the point is: maybe our conflict-of-interest statement needs to be strengthened? Council is sending it over to the Ethics Review Committee to look it over.
…
Item 14: Let’s summarize all these Comprehensive and Area Plans:
VisionSMTX++: punted till January.
Downtown Area Plan: passed, minus CM Allen district.
All the other Area Plans: still to come, over the next few years.
The current plan is that each Area Plan gets seen by Council at one meeting: there’s a presentation, a discussion, and a final vote. All wrapped up in one night.
Jane Hughson wants each Area Plan to come before Council twice, instead of once. In other words, the first meeting would have a hearing and a discussion. Two weeks later, at the second meeting, you’d get any fall-out from the first meeting, more discussion, and the final vote.
This is an example of Jane’s best skill as mayor: she’s looking ahead to upcoming issues, and figuring out that the community will care a lot, and that it may blow up if they don’t have enough opportunity to weigh in. She’s very thorough and thoughtful in detail-oriented ways like this.
City Staff says that the area plans will:
Go through Neighborhood Commissions
Go through P&Z
Then come to Council
And now, come back to Council a second time.
All this is to make sure that no one feels blindsided by things.
How does it compare to other industries in the city? How does it compare to other cities? I have no idea! So those numbers are kind of meaningless without context, unfortunately.
We have 29 hotels and 50 short term rentals
We have a hotel occupancy tax, and we use it on the various festivals, mural arts, Sights & Sounds, and things around town.
Apparently we advertise outside of San Marcos, like so:
Whatever works, man. I guess Marketing knows best.
As a marxist, I’m mostly not a marketing and business person. But then they started talking about the river, which is more interesting to me.
So, who goes to the river?
They hired some consultants to track our cell phones, and see where we sleep at night.
So after we tube the river, where do we sleep?
This year, about a quarter were local, half were regional, and 20% were more than 50 miles away. Last year, 40% were local, a third were regional, and a quarter were from further away.
It would be nice to have some absolute numbers here, by the way. It was implied that we had more users this year, due to the drought, but you can’t tell that from the percents.
2. The second presentation was on Summer 2023 at the River Parks
We tried a new Park Ambassador program this year. We hired 8 staff members to wander through the river parks all summer long, and try to be helpful.
It sounds like they told a lot of people to put their glass bottles away, put their charcoal grills away, put their dog on a leash, and put their trash bags in the right places.
You can see those spikes right at the 4th of July weekend, and the weekend before school starts.
Apparently park use is up this year. In the first presentation, they speculated that it was because of the drought: local watering holes dried up and were closed, to preserve them, and so people came here instead.
This photo was taken by Christopher Paul Cardoza:
(I got it from the slide show, though.) It’s 5 pm on the 4th of July.
There’s a serious problem here:
How else are you going to escape the heat on the 4th of July, unless you find some water? In our shitty world of capitalism, we’ve eliminated almost all free ways to have recreation and a little joy in people’s lives.
But the river is super overused. This is extremely bad for the health of the river.
(Might I suggest overthrowing our capitalist overlords and breaking free from the chains that bind? No? Ah well.)
One of the biggest problems is the litter:
Pretty much every weekend, the river parks are trashed. It’s one of the biggest problems the parks department faces, and they have a ton of clean up efforts going simultaneously.
They spend $191K each summer on litter abatement alone. (That’s enough to buy 120 BolaWraps, for those of you keeping track.)
Anyway, the Parks Department has some suggestions:
My opinions:
Single-Use Container Ban: yes. You’ve got to get the trash under control.
Tube size limitation: yes. It’s super dangerous when these giant 8 person contraptions go over the falls and over people swimming.
Paid Parking and Picnic Permits: The idea is to charge non-residents. It’ll be a headache for residents, though – you probably have to download some app and verify your address.
Managed Access Points: I think this means that the park gets fenced in? That feels sort of sad. Maybe it’s inevitable.
Alyssa Garza asks about the ban on charcoal grills. What’s the history here? Why is propane okay, but charcoal not?
Answer: Until 2013, you could bring charcoal grills. We just could not get people to properly dispose of their charcoal. People dump it on the ground, other people burn their feet. People dump it at the base of the tree, the tree starts on fire:
The photo on the right is offered up as evidence that people dump hot charcoal on tree stumps and start fires, which is really pretty wild.
In 2013, we adopted the Habitat Conservation Plan, and banning charcoal grilling was part of that. Allowing propane grills was the compromise position.
These are going to go to the Parks Board, and then on to City Council very soon.
It’s election season! Remember that time Shane Scott waved around a baggie of pot during a city council meeting? I am definitely milking that. (But also serious candidate talk.) Also we discuss the CM Allen District and VisionSMTX++ until we want to keel over.
Just last meeting, we wondered when the Biden Bus incident would get resolved. And then on Tuesday, it was announced that the city settled for $175K. Honestly, I think we got off cheap – it’s completely insane that Biden staffers called 911 and got mocked by San Marcos city employees.
Anyway, I took note of this sentence: “According to the settlement, the city is also required to issue a public statement within three days.”
Here you go:
The contrition isn’t exactly oozing off the page. That last sentence is particularly rich.
CM Allen district – we want Option 2! There’s too much student housing and not enough parking. Last riverfront property.
CM Allen district – we do not want Option 2! There’s not enough housing and not enough parking, and there’s better ways to spend money.
CM Allen district Option 2 was conceived in the dead of night behind closed doors, and we object to being locked out of the process.
Big $36 million grant available for river restoration. Letter of intent deadline is coming quick. Could use this to study Cape’s Dam? (SMRF)
San Marcos does a miserable job of making this city accessible for people in wheelchairs.
San Marcos does a miserable job of taking care of our heritage trees. You all recently cut down a big one on the town square, and another one across from the Veterans Memorial.
We’re going to sue you if you pass those airport rezonings.
We’ll get to the Great Option 2 Debate when we discuss the Downtown Master Plan. The rest of the topics raised don’t really show up again this evening.
(The airport rezoning passed with the Consent Agenda.)
….
Item 13: The bus.
Everyone loves the Austin Powerplant sign for using that Gotham City font, but may I humbly submit that the San Marcos Station font is a serious contender for charming font choices?
(I think it’s actually the same font, but we don’t go making such a fuss about it.)
Anyway, good news: Buses are free in San Marcos! Paratransit services are free, too! These have all been free since the beginning of Covid, actually. Maybe there’s a route that suits your needs?
This is all very good! No changes are coming.
All they did on Tuesday was set up a procedure so that someday, if service or fares do need to change, there’s a procedure in place, which includes a public hearing. Also good!
The vote: 7-0. Good job, Council!
Item 14: VisionSMTX++
We are almost to the sad end to an excruciating process.
Background: VisionSMTX++ is the Comprehensive Plan, the big vague guiding document for how we want the city to grow and change over the next ten years. Or rather: growth is coming regardless of whether or not we want it, so let’s have a plan for where to put it.
A 30-person citizen steering committee met with consultants for two years to produce VisionSMTX. Tons of extra community input was solicited.
Mayor Hughson and P&Z read it and got mad about it. So they formed a subcommittee and made 74 pages worth of changes to a 300 page document. Given that a lot of the 300 page document is fluff and filler – pretty pictures, etc – you can see that they really dug in and tore it apart. (We first discussed this here.)
A lot of the committee – including me! – got mad about it. P&Z held a workshop and approved the new version. (Discussed here.)
City staff adds an extra “+” to pour one out for their homies, each time P&Z wrecks something important. So by now, it’s become VisionSMTX++.
Public Hearing:
It is almost entirely people mad about the subcommittee changes.
P&Z subcommittee destroyed all the community input that was solicited for original plan.
Original is the right version, not the P&Z shadow version
In their effort to protect the Historic district, they’ve now hamstrung all the other neighborhoods from getting basic services
Support for a second city center on the east side, but please be sure to commemorate the El Camino Real trail running through it.
(Guys. GUYS! You know how our whole thing is “A River Runs Through Us”? We could have a companion piece, “This Historic Trail Also Runs Through Us.” Yes, yes?)
More people saying the original Vision SMTX is better
Rosie Ray reiterating her two main points from last time: 1. please remove “vehicle” from the definition that’s meant to deal with reducing car dependency. 2. Please add “multiplexes/duplexes/condos” to the things that are currently found in neighborhoods where they currently exist.
What exactly are the substantial changes?
There are roughly three camps:
1. People passionate about the Historic District. We love Belvin and San Antonio street. 2. Developers who want to maximize profit. 3. Lefties who are worried about sprawl, the environment, and unaffordable housing. Hi!
Group 1 holds all the power in this discussion. They have a majority on P&Z and Council. The P&Z subcommittee, plus Jane Hughson, was overwhelmingly Group 1.
Group 1’s perspective: – They are extremely worried about Group 2 destroying cute old houses and putting up giant apartment complexes in the middle of neighborhoods. To be fair, this is a thing that Group 2 would cheerfully do, if allowed. – They think Group 3 is kind-hearted idiots who will do inadvertently the bidding of Group 2.
In order to prevent this, they locked down the Historic District into carbonite and said, “We hereby declare that nothing shall ever change!”
However, they actually locked down all single family neighborhoods. This was not an accident. They see a black and white world, where the only two options are this:
For The Haves:
The Haves get massive sprawl, high prices, and car-dependency
and 2. For the Have-Nots:
The Have-Nots get massive utilitarian apartment complexes.
Group one believes there is absolutely no other possibility. (Weirdly though, you need a lot of rules to pretend this.)
The problem is that there is a 3rd possibility: gently densify your neighborhoods. – Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) – Allow housing that the have-nots can afford, like duplexes, triplexes, or other smallscale affordable housing. You want the neighborhood to still feel like a quiet neighborhood, but just not be such a jerk about keeping poor people out. – Focus on ways to reduce car-dependency, by providing necessities nearby. In other words, people like having a corner store where you can pick up some groceries or a sandwich.
So: Is Group 3 actually a bunch of well-intentioned idiots? Is that fantasy impossible?
No! It’s very, very possible! It’s the Historic District. There are actually a ton of mini-complexes hidden throughout. Pretty much every single house along Belvin has an ADU. Isn’t that great? And they can quickly reach little HEB and all of downtown without driving.
It is great for them! Just not for anyone else.
Here are the specific major changes from the subcommittee: – Remove ADUs from being allowed in single family neighborhoods. – Remove smallscale multiplex from being in low intensity areas. – Measure “walkability” by what you can drive to. Like, in your car. – Declare that all existing low-intensity neighborhoods only contain houses. They don’t, but we’re declaring it! – Infill must match existing housing types. In other words, if there are only houses as far as the eye can see, then that’s what you’re stuck with. Forever and ever. – Remove language that helps people bike around town for transportation. (Seriously, what are you, a grinch? You can’t enjoy yourself if someone else is able to bike to work?)
The list of changes is 74 pages long. Just the changes!! Many of them are minor, but it’s a nightmare to wade through. ( I got to page 26 and gave up.)
But now I’m going to step back and try to see things from a bird’s eye view:
How much does a comprehensive plan matter? I don’t know. I can see it both ways:
1. Not that much: Developers will continue to build single-family sprawl and massive complexes, because fundamentally they’re not in it for social change and progressive rallying cries. They play it safe, because they want profits to be safe.
2. Matters a whole lot: Incremental change adds up over time. These little nudges towards affordable housing and against car-dependency wouldn’t solve problems, but they’d help keep us from making things worse as quickly as possible.
Ultimately I think it matter quite a lot, or else I wouldn’t spend my Saturdays writing all this out, over and over again.
The Council Debate:
Jane starts off with her apology tour, which I found wholly unconvincing. Basically:
The shadow P&Z committee was supposed to be a good thing! The point was transparency! If she’d saved her concerns for Council, fewer people would have had a chance to see all the changes.
She just wanted to protect existing neighborhoods. (She seems to think this is an unassailable good thing, instead of the utter heart of the issue.)
She talked to a wise person who explained the accusation of “watering it down”: the issue was this word swap from “objectives” to “considerations” and so Jane has changed it back.
Jane is truly missing the point. She’s unable to consider that the content of her changes is why people are mad.
…
Side note: I don’t know if city council reads this blog. They are all aware of it, because I’ve emailed them as The San Marxist, and included a link (and also because San Marcos is small and gossipy).
If a councilmember claims they want as much community input as possible, then they should be reading this blog.
If a councilmember chooses not to read this blog, I am going to infer that they don’t actually want to maximize the amount of community input that they hear.
Jane seems wholly unaware of the arguments I’ve made over and over and over. In fairness, she also seems unaware of the public comments that were made 10 feet away from where she’s sitting, 15 minutes earlier. So who knows.
…
Let’s dive in!
Jude: So how big are these changes exactly? Why are we taking out ADUs? Why not incentivize diverse housing types? Why so many 4th quarter changes?
Answer from staff: We were focused on transparency!
Jude: I feel uncomfortable with making all these changes by the seat of our pants. We should respect the process.
Jane: I made these changes back in March. Hardly the seat of our pants.
Alyssa: You’re saying the subcommittee rewrite was justified because it was open to the public and transparent. But look, the subcommittee really does not reflect our community. When considering these issues, I try to use two questions as guideposts:
Who is this leaving behind?
Are we doing something that we’ll have to undo later?
People feel like they’ve been dismissed. We can see who we’re leaving behind based on the composition of P&Z. When we are taking suggestions from a tiny body, we can expect to have to rewrite things. I support the original plan.
[Note: I like these two questions. We are leaving behind most of San Marcos. We will definitely end up having to undo this comp plan eventually. ]
Shane: I’m not ready to vote on this tonight. More research is needed.
Mark Gleason: I don’t have a problem with the changes, philosophically. I’m ready to move forward.
Saul: I’m okay moving forward.
Matthew Mendoza didn’t weigh in at this point, but he’s so obviously pro-neighborhoods-in-carbonite that it’s unnecessary.
…
So at this point, the game is over. The new plan has the four votes it needs. Its fate is sealed. Here is the status of all the existing neighborhoods now:
The thing that’s absolutely wild is how little time Council spends discussing any of this.
The original community group spent 2 years on this.
P&Z took eight months and a workshop, and a re-write to wade through all of this.
The above conversation takes about 20 minutes.
After this, Jane has a bunch of worthwhile amendments on other issues – after all, the entire thing is 300 pages long. But they’re on new and different details.
All those changes described above? ADUs, walkability, definitions, etc? Just absolute radio silence.
Why not take these large issues one at a time, and discuss them? Why not offer up an amendment, or hunt for a compromise, or at least make the majority defend their reasons? Why not do something?
Obviously Jane, Mark, Saul, and Matthew all like the new plan. (I disagree with all of them.)
But Shane, Jude, and Alyssa all don’t like the new plan! My dudes. You could dig in and try to repair it. You’ve been spoonfed two mild, palatable amendments by Dr. Rosie Ray, on two separate occasions! The very least you could do is offer those up.
Jude even explicitly asked about ADUs and diverse housing types, but then lets it go! (Which is his signature dance move, of course.) And Shane – “I need to do more research” – Scott is also being absurd. He was on the actual steering committee for two years! Be a councilmember, make an amendment, hammer out a compromise.
The actual final vote is next meeting. Maybe one of them will surprise me.
Should LBJ and Guadalupe Stay 1-Way Streets?
Next Jane makes a series of amendments. Most of them are minor and fine. The one that’s more notable is about LBJ and Guadalupe downtown. In the Comp Plan Appendix, they bring up converting them to be two-way.
Jane’s take: Over the years, we’ve debated this thing until we were blue in the face. We voted and laid this issue to rest. Plus, the price tag to reverse course now is super steep, and it would mess up the bike lanes.
Saul: It used to be 2 way.
Jane: I remember! It switched in 1971, right before I got my license.
Jude: Longterm, we all know they will have to be 2 way.
Note: We do? Why is it a foregone conclusion that eventually we’ll have to have two way streets?
I do remember the debates on this, but I wasn’t paying close attention. My memory is:
Businesses prefer two-way because it’s easier for people to locate their store
People seem to like one-way out of preference for the status quo
Possibly traffic moves better with one-way?
I personally am used to one-way and it seems to work pretty smoothly, and so I stand with those who prefer the status quo. Plus, I don’t want to undo the bike lanes. But I’m open to hearing the arguments for two-way, especially if it’s supposedly “inevitable” and all.
The vote on one-way streets:
Keep ‘en one-way: Jane, Saul, Matthew, Mark
Two way is the future! Shane, Jude, Alyssa
Alyssa stated earlier that she’s a “no” on all of this, protesting the process. So she is not necessarily weighing in on 1-way vs 2-way streets here.
…
Jude ends by saying he’s still super concerned about the process. Not concerned enough to make any actual amendment. Just concerned, y’know, in general.
The first vote on the whole VisionSMTX++:
Lock down the sprawl! Jane, Mark, Saul, Matthew, and Jude
I’m protesting the process! Shane and Alyssa
Like I said, this will come back one more time, in November. (Feel free to read the whole thing yourself – all the versions, and the summary table of changes. Go nuts.)
The Downtown Area Plan is more than just the CM Allen District, but that’s definitely the part that sucks up all the oxygen in the room. (Discussed here last time.)
Still, let’s take a moment to pay attention to the rest:
And here are the major points:
The thing is: downtown is already owned and zoned. You can’t demand or legislate hardly anything. All you can do is entice and form partnerships and collaborate with the people who run the things located there.
So let’s move onto the CM Allen District, which we discussed last time:
There was a Downtown Area Plan committee, who came up with Option 1:
Option 1:
Five Story Loaves of Bread:
Similarly to VisionSMTX, the shadow subcommittee of P&Z plus Jane Hughson was horrified, and rewrote it.
Hence Option 2:
Given that the city doesn’t actually own all that land, the Planning Department tried to thread the needle and come up with a compromise option:
Option 3:
Colorful, vibrant, smaller loaves of bread:
At P&Z, we heard about the unaffordability of Option 2. P&Z voted for Option 2 anyway.
This time the staff presentation spends even longer on the complete unaffordability of it:
Basically, downtown land is worth much more than anywhere else in town.
Right now, the 6.25 acres are mostly undeveloped, but they bring in this much taxable revenue:
The whole thing is 6.25 acres, so I’m going to ballpark the yearly revenue at $456K for the three lots marked. A community member says that if they were developed, they’d pull in $3 million/year for the city. Maybe?
No one can really say how much it would cost to acquire the parks, but if we had to say, staff puts the market value at $27 million dollars.
The city staff are always so professional, and so they presented all options neutrally, but I definitely got whiffs of Springfield Monorail from Option B:
Besides the magical thinking of the price tag, there’s also serious equity issues here.
Here is how the current parks are distributed throughout the city:
You may notice that there’s barely anything east of 35. People who live east of 35 have noticed this too, and are not amused. (They’ve also noticed a bunch of other patterns of systematic disregard. Isn’t that something!)
So what does the public think?
MO-NO-RAIL! MO-NO-RAIL! Ahem.
Giant student housing will make parking way worse downtown.
There’s a shallow water table under CM Allen, and drilling into the rock wil fracture it.
If Texas State buys this land, we’re hosed.
The procedure was not democratic. Option 2 preys on emotions.
There are serious accessibility issues downtown for people in wheelchairs. This plan doesn’t address any of that.
The college students run downtown and grown ups don’t feel welcome.
We can find much better ways to spend $27 million dollars than this.
Car dependency is bad, it’s better to put more housing in walkable areas like downtown.
In actuality: there are three in favor of Option 2, five opposed, and one speaking on accessibility issues.
Council discussion:
Mark Gleason goes first:
He loves the vision of #2. He wishes we could afford it.
There’s absolutely no way he can go face constituents on the East Side and tell them he voted to spend $27 million on more West side parks.
It’s already zoned, it’s not undeveloped like the Woods
This won’t stop flooding.
Not ideal, but #3 is best. We must to something to help the rest of town.
(I can see the marketing now! “A River Runs Through Us, That Historic Trail Also Runs Through Us, and a Loop Runs Around Us.” Practically a spaghetti bowl of significance!)
Jane goes next: She literally says “I need to do some ‘splaining,” which is endearing.
Her ‘splaining: The graphics freaked her out, and she wanted some green space. Never pictured golf course style mock up. Never said “Eminent Domain” or millions of city money.
The idea was that if you don’t explicitly ask for green space, you’ll get zero. If you do ask, maybe you’ll get a little.
Jude: There are better places to turn into parks than this. Could City Hall move here? Hotel, civic space?
Alyssa: I don’t like any of them, but I agree with Jude and Mark.
Shane: What about a splash pad downtown? I’m here for families! Families first! These are the last tracts along the river. Option 2!
Saul: I’m born and raised in San Marcos. There were no skyscrapers back then. Whenever I talk to anyone, they say “Why are there so many skyscrapers downtown? Why is there so much student housing?” That’s not San Marcos. Plus, it’s a slippery slope. What’s next, high rises all the way to 35? What if Texas State buys it? They don’t pay taxes or fees! It’s for the kids. Bring back how it was!
[Side Note: “Why is there so much student housing?” Because the town loses their goddamn minds if students live anywhere else. Students are actually people, and they’re entitled to live in this town.
Sometimes students act like jerks! But so do rich people, and also middle-class people, and also poor people. People are jerks.]
Matthew: I had been a big fan of #2. Rio Vista Relief! But paid parking is coming. Where would this park’s parking be?
We had a community meeting with Blanco Gardens on crime. Wasn’t well attended, and just me and Mark. They kept saying, “Why does the west get EVERYTHING?” Park distribution is not fair. East side is always neglected.
Matthew gave this huge impassioned speech about the plight of the east side, and then finished by saying, “And that’s why I’m on the fence!” which made me laugh. Way to undercut your own passion.
Saul: Cape’s Dam is coming to the east side!
Matthew: But not, like, anytime soon.
The Vote on the CM Allen District:
Love me some Option 3!: Mark Gleason, Jane Hughson, Alyssa Garza, Matthew Mendoza, Jude Prather
Option 3 Gives Me a Sad: Shane Scott, Saul Gonzales
So there you have it.
The entire downtown plan will get revised to incorporate Option 3, and then will come back on November 6th for a final vote.
…
Item 12: Sights & Sounds
Apparently people ask Alyssa every year to keep an eye on S&S. The former city manager gave her the runaround when she asked for documentation. She asks if she could please get some straight answers. She’s told “no problem!”
…
Item 16: Land Development Code:
Last meeting, we were going to kick this back for two months, to give committees a chance to meet. Now the planning department is asking if we could please just pass it, since it’s holding up a bunch of stuff, and they promise the committees will all meet promptly.
Someone go make an animated GIF of that for me! It’s still so funny. And look at everyone else’s expression:
Eight different ways to say, “What the fuck, Shane?!” with just your eyes. I love it.
More seriously: should you vote for Shane?
He was on council around 2010 for a while, and then was voted off, and then was voted back on three years ago. I’m going to focus on the past couple years, since that’s what I’ve paid closest attention to.
The good: We sometimes share a common enemy:
He has an anti-authoritarian streak, so he votes against the curfew and often looks askance at the police
He loves businesses and hates regulations, which often pits him against NIMBY types. I am interested in affordable housing and helping vulnerable populations, which often pits me against NIMBY types, as well. So, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
For example, he voted against curfews, and voted to repeal Meet-and-Confer. (On the other hand, he voted to approve the new contract when it came back.) He voted against VisionSMTX++ this evening.
The bad: Often I disagree with him:
He’ll choose businesses over the environment
He’ll choose businesses over vulnerable people
Whereas I like the environment and vulnerable people.
Looking over my yearly summaries, these are things that jump out at me: Voting against the transportation master plan because of the bike lanes. Being rude to SMRF on multiple occasions. Voting against the lobbying ordinance. Voting against the eviction delay a full year earlier than its repeal, while the rest of council was still in favor of it. Voting for every single development that has come around, even the ones that end up being denied. He’s generally the most guaranteed vote for business interests, at the expense of anything else.
The ugly: Shane never seems to do anything. I can recall just a few things he’s ever initiated:
The first three are all from 2021. That’s over two years old! And scolding Max Baker was in March of 22. He hasn’t initiated anything else I can remember, for most of his term.
He doesn’t make amendments or improve policies or try to incorporate multiple points of view into a compromise. He just shows up, votes, gets annoyed when things drag out, and goes home. That’s a real waste of a position of power.
Atom Von Arndt, the unknown quantity
What is Atom like? He seems more prepared than last year. Last year, he had shallow answers like “How dare we spend so much on street lights down Hopkins!” This year, he seems to be thinking more strategically about the connection between vulnerable populations and policy. He sounded basically progressive!
He also said that he’s just going to keep on running until he’s elected. I actually admire that a lot.
My opinion: I’m leaning towards Atom for Place 4.
Also: Alyssa is unopposed for Place 3. Fortunately, she’s great. Vote for her!
The Debate
The League of Women Voters held their debate over zoom, on October 12th. The whole thing is very short – only 26 minutes. Opening statements, eight questions, closing statements, done!
The questions:
What motivates you to seek this position?
What would you strive to accomplish during your term?
How can council create opportunities for citizen input at the earliest stages of the review process for new commercial and industrial developments?
What steps should San Marcos take to prepare for extreme weather events?
How should San Marcos work with agencies to ensure the environmental health of the river?
What will you do to support a vibrant economy in San Marcos while also controlling rampant growth?
Explain the status of the San Marcos water supply, and what should be done to ensure future supply is adequate.
Fire danger in Texas is increasing due to hotter summers, drought, and development. Please discuss your position on the city’s present fire fighting resources, and any changes you’d suggest.
I don’t love this set of questions? Questions 4,7, and 8 are all technical issues. The only respectable answer is, “Well, I’d listen to the experts since they know way more than me.”
So we wasted three questions on important-but-wonky issues. But there was nothing asked about:
Sprawl
Affordable housing
SMART Terminal
SMPD
Cape’s Dam
In short, I want questions that could potentially distinguish how candidates will vote on issues.
However! The LWV are a bunch of hard-working volunteers, who are running debates and volunteering because they believe in democracy. I’m not really going to crab at anyone who is donating so much time and energy towards democracy.
The rules: Each candidate gets one minute for anything, no rebuttals.
Debate Summary: I think they tied, debate-wise. Neither one sounded much stronger than the other. I basically transcribed their answers below, but it’s kind of jumbled, since they only had a minute to make their case.
Opening statements:
Shane Scott: – Council for 3 years, – 5 year term about 5 years earlier. – Glad to be here!
Atom Von Arndt: – Regular guy: renter, dad, – Got the same problems that everyone is having.
What motivates you to seek this position?
Shane: The community, the issues that are coming. The growth we’re going to see. The jobs we need to create. Transportation issues. Wanting to serve in general.
Atom: Housing issues, affordability issues, lack of transparency with the roads. I face all these same problems and I want to help. I’m concerned with the people on the bottom of the food chain. Getting resources for the homeless and people in need. Service.
What would you strive to accomplish during your term?
AVA: Get better resources for mental health issues. If you’re on disability, there aren’t resources and you get forced out of town. How do you move to a bigger place if this isn’t affordable? Increase resources. Second, housing. Rent-by-the-room is hurting our economy.
SS: Same things! Affordability, housing, homeless. List goes on. Transportation is coming in the future. I see the traffic. We work for homeless and people with mental health issues. We do a lot. We lower rates. I did the debt forgiveness for utilities. We do a lot.
How can council create opportunities for citizen input at the earliest stages of the review process for new commercial and industrial developments?
SS: All plans for any kind of development should be out and open for the community to observe and have input! Too many times it’s done before it even gets to council. Committees can help decipher! But the community needs a birds-eye view of any development that’s going to come to San Marcos.
AVA: Community outreach. I hear that this is difficult. People need to know. How do we get their attention? More town halls. More block parties. Use businesses to bring people in to announce decisions and upcoming things, especially P&Z. Make town halls exciting! Give them some pizzazz to get people to show up and make people feel like council is operating on their behalf.
What steps should San Marcos take to prepare for extreme weather events?
[Kinda unfair as a question!]
AVA: It’s been a drought, and then we’re worried about floods. Need emergency plans in place. Need to worry about all this new development and how it will affect the flood plains. Preparedness and emergency plans – focus on that. “I’m no weatherologist, but eventually we’re going to to have the rain again, we’re going to have the water, and it’s going to need to be an issue we get out in front of.”
SS: Is this the winter storm you’re asking about? We’ve done a lot! Hardening our water and utility lines to protect during freeze. Federal funding for flood mitigation, we went to Washington. Bypasses are getting built, underground drainage is getting built, GPMRS system just got up, will let people get on the channel if you have no cell ability.
How should SM work with agencies to ensure the environmental health of the river?
SS: That’s one of our key issues! We’re talking about a can ban. Removed styrofoam from parks, moved BBQ pits away, we do river clean up 2-3x a year. Educate people about the river and let them know about the endangered species and why we love it.
AVA: Love the can ban. Boils down to enforcement. Gotta make sure people do that. But development is happening by the river. Gotta enforce rules on development as well, though. Enforce the rules and regulations around the river and pass more things like can ban to keep people from flooding the river with garbage.
What will you do to support a vibrant economy in San Marcos while also controlling rampant growth?
[What does “controlling rampant growth” exactly mean? It sounds like “try to prevent” which is nonsense.]
AVA: This is tricky! Businesses open and close downtown a lot. Seasonality of economy, poor college students. Grants to support small local businesses. Work with small local businesses. Make downtown beautiful, open up boarded up shops. Encourage growth with larger businesses, grocery store chains.
[May I humbly suggest that we strongly look at a vacancy tax?]
SS: With covid, small businesses were hit. We did a lot as a city, but many did close. I’m focused on bringing the jobs – Amazons #1 and 2. A place to live, work, and play, with a job that pays enough to live here. Looking for ways to help people.
[HRM. Have we been concerned with minimum wage jobs, SHANE?]
Explain the status of the SM water supply, and what should be done to ensure future supply is adequate.
SS: I know this one pretty well! I voted for the water rights from Gonzales. GMRA and us bought 50% of it and literally purchased our water security for the next 50 years. So we’re not going to run out like Kyle does. In fact, Kyle didn’t want to join originally, and so I was like ‘we’ll purchase your portion and sell it back to you later on, to make money and lower utilities for our citizens.’ So I’m always trying to get someone else to pay for our lifestyle, because we were here first. [off-putting chuckle.]
AVA: The majority of our water we don’t pull from the Edwards aquifer. Most of us are coming from another source. The college is using a lot more aquifer water than the city does. Selling off water to Kyle is great! It’s income. Obviously let’s educate them to keep them from blowing through their limits though. I want to look into more of this college vs city stuff another time.
Fire danger in Texas is increasing due to hotter summers, drought, and development. Please discuss your position on the city’s present fire fighting resources, and any changes you’d suggest.
AVA: Having a well-funded, well-equipped fire department is essential for any city in Texas. We can and should spend more money on it, especially with the record heat. More firefighters over police officers, not to start any fights. Houses catch on fire all the time, we don’t have any crime waves going on in SM right now. [Note: I can’t tell if this is straight or kidding.] We need to be prepared and equipped.
SS: We keep increasing the Fire Department needs as the chief presents them. Also education what the fired department can and can’t do. We have to call air supply to the hill country. We’re always paying attention to that. Community engagement and people paying attention so that fires don’t happen.
[A good answer here would be to connect it to sprawl. The more sprawl, the more expensive your fire department becomes.]
Closing Statements
SS: Thanks you! It’s been a pleasure. I hope I’ve answered questions that help you understand. I’m a small business owner, been here 30 years. My kids go through the school system. We’re part of everything. I love serving, problem-solving, forethought for planning, 50 year water supplies, 3% that we bought into the electric utility that earned us 25 million during the Uri Snowstorm*. Those are things I enjoy putting together as a councilmember, and I enjoy the business side of that. Lower the rates, lower the taxes!
[Wait. The city earned $25 million from electricity during Snowvid?! That’s super gross!]
AVA: Thank you! It would be an honor. I’m in sales. I’ve always worked for other people, rented from other people, so I feel the effects of when this all happens for the working class. My superpower is communicating and talking to people, it’s what I’ve always been good at. Finding common ground. So many different people with different people, and I think I can be the voice for them. It’s a great city, there’s a lot we can do. I’m not going anywhere! I’ll run again next year! I think I have a good head on my shoulders, and I’ll talk to anyone who wants to talk to me.
And…SCENE! My guess is that Shane is so well-connected that he breezes to re-election. But it wouldn’t hurt to at least make him sweat a little.
Another big meeting: Airport zonings, occupancy restrictions, and two downtown student complexes are brewing.
Hours 0:00 – 1:55: Mostly we talk about the airport, and what should and shouldn’t be built around it. Hours 1:55 -2:55: The Land Development Code, and the zombie occupancy restriction discussion that just won’t die. Hours 2:55 – 3:36: Special Events Permitting, and not one, but two potential downtown student complexes. Bonus Council workshop: Boarded up, derelict buildings are maybe getting a glow up? Lots of good pictures to marvel at.
This is a great meeting for showing how “Democrat” and “Republican” stop making sense at the local level. There are at least two issues where I think Shane, Jude, and Mark are seeing things more clearly, and Jane and Matthew are delusional, but at the national party level, all five of them probably vote pretty similarly.
Election talk:
October 12th is the League of Women Voters debate: Shane Scott vs Atom Von Arnt. Stay tuned!
Please don’t let city staff approve restaurant alcohol permits. (Item 9.)
There are some apartments being proposed on Lindsey, between Academy and Comanche. (Item 17.) This gets a lot of traction:
Against it: Three students/former students represent a recently formed group called “Tenants Advocacy group”, to fight on behalf of tenants. (Be still my heart.) They’re strongly opposed to this complex.
Love it: The developer is all in favor of the Lindsey street apartments, and Shannon Mattingly – former director of San Marcos Planning Dept – is now working for this developer.
We’ll get into the details of all this, in due time!
Finally: one of the speakers (Kama Davis) brings up an item from Executive Session (Item 20):
A developer wants the title of this alley, in purple:
The speaker wants it to stay with the city.
This taps into a much larger conversation about What To Do Along CM Allen. Should it be parks? Should it be apartment complexes? You just sit tight, we’ll get to all of this.
…
Item 1: We get CDBG funding from the federal government, specifically from HUD. We qualify on a few different points:
Tonight’s presentation is an internal audit, by Deloitte and Touche, on the $34 million we got after the 2015 floods. They’ve looked us over, and say everything was fine. Hooray!
Items 2-3: We get Q2 reports on the budget and our investments. Both seemed unremarkable. We’re a normal-amount of the way through spending and bringing in revenue. Our investments are doing middling-well.
…
Item 8: New airport zonings
So, the FAA and TxDot Aviation both want you to regulate two things:
Stay out of the airways where planes might be flying
Don’t build things right by airports that are going to cause problems later on.
However, neither the FAA nor the state actually control zoning, so they incentivize it. It’s a precondition for various grants and funding opportunities. The state of Texas also gives cities some extra leeway to regulate airports, beyond their city boundaries.
Over the summer, in Georgetown, a plane really did crash into someone’s house. So airport safety is a real thing. We’re all clear on the concept of plane crashes and why they’re bad, yes/yes?
So now it’s time to nail these things down.
Height Hazards: The city staff rep described all these abstract shapes in the air. There were pancakes floating 150’ in the air, cones beyond that, etc. You get the feeling that it looks like a giant invisible stadium around the airport. No one can build into the giant invisible stadium, but you can build below the bleachers, so to speak.
Here’s the bird’s eye view of the invisible stadium:
I don’t think anyone is too fussed by this part. Everyone understands that you need to stay out of the flight path of planes.
2. Compatible Land Use: this is the controversial part.
The main problem is houses and runways: you don’t want houses near your runways. But people already own this land, and no one likes to be bossed around. (Existing houses are grandfathered in.)
Here’s what’s being proposed:
Obviously all those rainbow-spokes are designed around either end of the runways.
So basically:
Bright green means absolutely nothing can be built.
The city owns almost all the bright green, but are some teeny green bits sticking out past the purple line.
The rest of the blues: feel free to build commercial, industrial, or anything else besides homes. Homes are restricted.
Like I said, anything that’s already built gets grandfathered in. The problem is: what if you own the land in those stripes, and you want to someday sell it to a developer? Or you wanted to build apartments yourself? Once those stripes are zoned, you’re out of luck.
Generally, the city is not allowed to downzone your property. If you own some land where you can build 7 stories, and the city wants to change the zoning to 2 stories, they may have to compensate you for the loss of potential revenue.
Here, they don’t, because airport zones are specifically carved out by the state of Texas for protection. Texas wants cities to make airport zones so that there will not be people living in a runway flight path. Makes sense.
So this decreases your land value, and land owners are mad about it. (On the plus side, your property taxes will go down.)
I’m trying not to sound like a total ass, because my initial reaction is, “You’re mad because you wanted to build homes that would be dangerous to the tenants and now you can’t? Fuck off.” (I guess I am a total ass.) But I mean, you can still build things. Just not homes.
Jane Hughson is more sympathetic to them than I am. She’s worried that we’re doing something to land owners, above what’s required by the state or federal government. She asks that the staff speak directly to the speaker who showed up.
Shane Scott says that he is a pilot, which I did not know, and he is pro-airport safety.
If one of these landowners wants to build something not allowed, they can ask for an exception! There’s a procedure for this:
Apply for a variance with the Zoning Board of Adjustments
If you don’t like what they say, you can appeal the decision to district court
The question is, is this sufficient? Or should we feel so bad for them that we do something additional, to show we care about the landowners who want to build homes in front of runways?
Jude Prather’s take: “I’m okay with the ZBOA and appeals procedure. Let the boards and commissions function like they’re supposed to.”
Alyssa Garza’s take: “I feel like there are more details I should understand.”
Saul: Property rights 4-ever!!
Matthew Mendoza: Can we say no to the feds?
I mean, sure. But it’s only going to get harder to make these airport zones, the longer you wait.
Look, this is common sense. The best time to prevent homes from being built is before the homes get built. Shane and Jude are the only ones willing to say this outright, and everyone else comes off as mealy-mouthed.
The vote:
I truly don’t know why Saul and Alyssa voted against it. I mean, I vaguely understand PROPERTY RIGHTS!! But allowing people to build houses in a runway path is a pretty big abdication of the whole point of government.
The San Marxist 