Anything else of note?
Citizen Comment
Several citizens showed up to talk about Jennifer Miller again. This issue is gaining momentum, but I’m not exactly clear what the end game is. Mano Amiga has taken it up as a political issue, as evidence of police corruption. Recently there was an attempt to connect the resignation of a city clerk, Kristy Stark, with this case, and it seemed far-fetched to me and possibly slanderous.
If the larger activist goal is to have the police officer Ryan Hartman removed from his position, then I’m comfortable with that. But right now the goal seems to be to drum up as much smoke and obfuscation as possible, and I’m a little worried that Miller’s loved ones are being used as pawns.
Consent Agenda
Item 20, the Elsik tract: SMRF needs the endorsement of City Council to apply for funds from the county to purchase the tract in the name of conservation. SMRF, the San Marcos River Foundation, is an amazing organization that is largely responsible for us having a clear, blue river instead of a murky brown river. One of their major functions is to identify sensitive areas and buy them up, then donate them as parkland. The Elsik tract is located adjacent to Purgatory Creek, and would help create a continuous greenbelt from Purgatory Creek up to Spring Lake, which is part of the Parks Master Plan.
This Purgatory-Elsik area is particularly sensitive because it’s all porous limestone. It’s just a straight sieve down to the water recharge zone for the river. This is how your river turns brown – you dump pollution in the recharge zone. Ok, fine.
There was a sentence in the application to City Council: ““City supports the possible transfer of the land to the city, including development, management, and maintenance.”
Mayor Hughson took issue with this sentence in a way that I found contrary and ornery. She doesn’t want the city to be on the hook for the development of the park without further discussion. Fine – she thinks it merits discussion. That’s reasonable. But it says possible transfer – doesn’t that only imply that there will be a discussion?
Hughson moves that that sentence be struck.
In favor: Hughson, Gleason, Scott, and Garza.
Opposed: Derrick, Gonzalez, Baker
So that amendment passes, which consequently weakens the SMRF application to the county for the money. Way to go, Mayor.
Once that passes, Commissioner Scott talks a bit of shit about SMRF and how he just doesn’t trust them. This is why he’s an ass.
(The basic resolution passes 6-1.)
Observation: Garza is hard to pigeon-hole. Mostly presents herself as extremely progressive, but then votes to strike this line, and to delay the ethics vote. But any time she advocates for an issue, she is thoughtful and thinking about vulnerable community members with the fewest resources.
Maybe that’s the common thread: she’s progressive about seeing the world through the lens of vulnerable community members and overly heavy policing. But she’s less progressive about the environment?
Public Hearings:
Item 26: Land Development Code updates: a bit of discussion on storing inoperable vehicles. If they’re vintage, why not have all the fluids drained so that they can be stored without risk of pollution? This is Councilmember Scott’s amendment, and it passes.
Non-Consent Agenda:
Item 30: Spearguns Surprise! State law pre-empts us from requiring a permit for any hand-powered device! What an obnoxious twist. We can’t even make a clause about portions of the river which are heavily used for swimming. You can spearfish any goddamn place you want, at any time you want, as long as your spear is not motor-propelled.
There’s a short discussion about whether to repeal the current ordinance today, or wait to revise it into compliance with State Law.
Repeal fails, 4-3.
Pro-repeal: Scott, Gleason, Garza
Anti-repeal: Hughson, Baker, Derrick, Gonzalez
(See! Another – albeit mild – example of Garza siding unpredictably!)
Item 43: Council will be back in person starting in August. (Surprise twist! Texas recently ended the suspension of TOMA to allow for zoom meetings, and so everyone would have to return in September anyway.)
Some councilmembers are very freaked out by the Delta variant, in ways that are highly sympathetic but probably out of proportion to the science.
Staff will continue to zoom in for presentations. Two reasons: First, to reduce crowdedness in the chambers and allow for more community members to show up instead. Second, so that the poor city staff and presenters don’t have to hang out at City Hall until 11 pm or 1 am in order to deliver a 20 minute presentation. Seems eminently reasonable.
Community members will be allowed to zoom in for Citizen Comment.
Note: During these meetings, they use the word “citizen” interchangeably with “the public”. I’m trying to avoid using the word “citizen”, in favor of “community member”, because I DGAF whether you’re documented or not.
Sometimes I slip up. “Citizens” rolls off the tongue. But I’m always intending to say “community members”.
Item 44: Authorize a study on the actual occupancy rates of student housing – both purpose-built and older complexes that are marketed to students.
YES YES YES! This would be incredibly helpful information to have.
There is a widespread belief that we’re incredibly overbuilt on student housing. The idea is that developers are motivated to build the latest, newest, shiny apartment complex. Students move in because it’s new. Developers sell it off after three years to some chump who then can’t rent it out very well.
Here’s where it gets very murky: The story goes that this drives rents up across the city. Apartment complexes that market to students employ rent-by-the-bedroom, so a four bedroom unit goes for $3k, allegedly. This allows other landlords to peg rents to that, even in regular family apartments and rental housing. We have insufficient stock of family housing and it’s overpriced.
In other words we are simultaneously claiming:
- Student apartment complexes charge $3k/month for a 4 bedroom rent-by-the-room apartment
- Student apartment complexes are wildly underfilled and run huge promotional campaigns for multiple months of free rent, free food, and all sorts of perks because we’re so overbuilt.
- Non-student housing piggybacks on the inflated rents, but lacks the glut of extra supply. Thus families can’t find affordable housing.
I am highly skeptical that (3) is piggybacking on (1) and (2). If we lack family housing stock, then landlords will charge as much as they can get away with. Period.
The murkiness continues: If we get developers to stop building student housing, then everyone will win. Somehow this will affect rents coming down.
The only way rents will come down is if we build a lot more family housing stock. And in fact, massive tracts to the east have recently been zoned for multi-family and workforce housing sorts of plans. But it will take a long time for these things to be built.
Here is the proper way to understand the council’s reasoning:
- This study will reveal that we’re massively overbuilt on student housing.
- Therefore we will be justified in finding new ways to prevent more student housing from being built.
- Then developers will preferentially choose to build family housing instead.
- Then rents for families will come down.
I am hugely in favor of conducting this study, but skeptical that this is an efficient route to build up family housing. My opinion is that this is what’s actually going on:
- We hate student housing because it’s obnoxious.
- Rents on families are too high.
- We also hate it when students live outside of student housing, in regular neighborhoods.
- We really just don’t like students!
The problem of partying students is half-real and half-imaginary bugaboo. The solution is to:
- fully fund code enforcement,
- hold landlords accountable, and
- regulate the scale of apartment complexes so that families don’t have to live next to sprawling acreage of apartments. A 4-plex or 8-plex is very different from a 5000-plex.
Unfortunately, no one listens to me. I should start a blog!
And that’s a wrap for the July 6th meeting!
The San Marxist 