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 31: the film studio in La Cima. It’s already entitled legally to be built. The question tonight is what kind of tax incentives should they get.
By the end of this write up, Max Baker is yelling “I AM ASHAMED THAT SOME OF YOU WOULD NOT VOTE TO ADD-” and Mark Gleason cuts him off to yell “I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THESE ACCUSATIONS ANYMORE!!”
(“Yelling” is probably overstating it, but at least seething with anger. It starts at 3:27:00 if you’re curious.)
Buckle up! It’s a long drive to get there.
First off: Apparently council-members were deluged with emails from the public. But this is not a public hearing, and so there was not a dedicated citizen comment period. And only 2-3 people spoke on this issue at the beginning of the meeting. So while many people cared enough to write in, we have no way of knowing what they said.
Here’s my best guess:
First, I suspect a lot of people wrote in against the whole idea. The city staff presenter went on for a bit about how the studio itself is not up for debate tonight.
Second, I’m guessing that a number of letter writers took their cue from SMRF, and wrote in based on the SMRF recommended points:
That’s taken from the SMRF newsletter. Those seem reasonable to me.
The staff presentation goes like this:
Please stop discussing whether or not there should BE a studio. Focus on the tax incentive agreement.
All of La Cima is limited to 19% impervious cover.
This will bring in 22 jobs at 100K, on average, and “up to 1,400 contract workers with an average of 1,200 on production projects at $80k average salary”
Note: “average” is a really bad way to describe salaries. If you have one person making $400k/year and four people making $25k/year, then the average salary is $100k. Averages don’t tell you when your distribution is wonky.
What you actually want is the range and the median. The range tells you the highest and lowest salary. The median works like this: if you lined up all the employees according to what they earn, who is standing in the middle? How much does the middle person earn? That is the median salary. If I tell you that the range is $25K-$500K, and the person in the middle earns $40K, then you can tell there is a lot of inequality and a lot of low salaries. Whereas if the range is $60K-$100K and the median is $80K, then the salaries are distributed more fairly.
With a film studio, it’s very easy to imagine a wonky distribution of salaries.
The city says that the proper comparison is with commercial development like you’d see with big box stores, etc, since this project will come out of the allotted commercial zoning.
The aesthetics of a studio will be much better than the aesthetics of commercial strip mall, because the studio will be set back much further and have much more landscaping.
“Landscaping”, of course, is a term that gives me the willies – do we mean golf course green lawns? Or do we mean swoles and natural grasses and things which slow down water sheet run-off?
The environmental impact. Compared to a strip mall, this will have 89% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) instead of 85% TSS, and impervious cover will go from 80% to 48%.
The TSS increase is meaningful! It’s very important to get all the pollution out of the water before it runs into the ground.
The impervious cover is a red herring, though. Overall, La Cima will be 19% impervious cover. If they save some ground cover here, they’ll use it elsewhere. (The presenter does acknowledge this.)
City Council digs in
Max Baker talks first. There are two articles that one community member sent to City Council, questioning whether the economic predictions are overly optimistic. (This is why it would be nice if emails could be available somewhere! I’d like to see these articles.) My best guess is that it’s maybe this one or maybe this one?
Max Baker comes out of the gate swinging: Why hasn’t staff prepared a response to these articles? Staff doesn’t have a response. It comes out that Max emailed staff at 2 pm that day. I’m guessing that Max himself only got the email that day.
There’s no reason for Max to be so aggressive at this point. Everyone is behaving reasonably. This is how you burn bridges. I agree with him – most likely, the economic predictions are overly rosy. But are they exaggerated enough to tank the project? Not necessarily. (I have no idea.)
Jude Prather, Mark Gleason, and Shane Scott all weigh in to champion the whole project. The economy! The creative class! The bragging rights! Listen, I’m not necessarily opposed to a film studio, either. I’m mostly neutral on it.
Max Baker brings up some technical budget issues – MNO and INS? – which catches Mayor Hughson’s attention, and they work together to untangle it. I didn’t really follow this part, but I bring it up to note that both Max and Jane Hughson are behaving in good faith at this point.
Shane Scott moves to call the question. This is super big bullshit. The discussion has only been going on for about 30 minutes. Shane is basically trying to shut Max up. He doesn’t get a second, though, so the motion dies.
Next, Max makes the SMRF amendment. As best I can tell, this should be a slam dunk. Everybody has said that they got millions of emails from concerned citizens. Either this is a slam dunk, or it should be explained to the public what the issue is.
But instead…crickets. No one seconds Max’s amendment.
Mayor Hughson even snaps, “I might second it if I could only find the language in the code!” but since she can’t quickly find the language in the code in time, she declares the motion dead without a second. Max tells her that she has the email, and yelps for staff to bring up the language, and Jane gets mad at him for that.
Honestly: this is supremely dysfunctional. Max has alienated his colleagues, and colleagues are refusing to grant him any grace when he has a legitimate point.
Next Max starts throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. He’s concerned about:
Environmental spills and hazards
Extra strain on security and police
Creating a food desert for the residents of La Cima
That we are claiming to be comparing this to community commercial development, but in fact we approved measures in November that allowed for this kind of use.
The first two are vague and seem to apply to nearly any industry. The third is something I’d idly wondered as well. The last is true, but not an argument against the studio.
Throughout all this, Max frequently implies that his coworkers don’t bother to read their emails and come prepared, don’t actually care about the aquifer, are hypocritical, and so on. If he limited himself to just one of these accusations, it could sound grounded and would maybe pack a punch. But the relentless stream comes across as antagonistic drivel.
Alyssa Garza now has had time to read the articles that Max brought up at the beginning. She weighs in that they aren’t terribly generalizable – these articles don’t fit with our unique culture and situation. They use different key terms and different levels of analysis. They don’t include a policy recommendation. They’re good articles for what they are, but not terribly compelling as evidence one way or the other for San Marcos.
Mark Gleason gently asks the studio if they’d be willing to consider any extra environmental concessions that he could take back to his constituents, in light of the absolute onslaught of emails he got. The guy demurs and cites the 48% impervious cover. Gleason praises the applicant and asks about rain barrels. The guy is a fan of rain barrels. And of limiting pesticides. So Gleason has two wins to take back to his constituents, I guess. It’s the most timid environmental win I’ve ever seen, but sure.
Some quick bits: – Saul Gonzalez asks if San Marcos bargained on these tax rebates. We are told yes, we did. – Max asks if there is still commercial available to be developed at La Cima. We are told yes, there is. – Max asks about if jobs will be required to be local? And can we require internships?
Alyssa Garza points out that there’s a difference between having out-of-town people relocate and be considered locals, and actually hiring people who already lived locally, and that what makes the difference is often jobs trainings and career pathway programs. Will there be those?
The beginning of the end
Max makes a motion that the studio must have 50 internships. Then he says 50 for Texas State and 50 for the high school. He finally gets a second, from Saul Gonzalez.
Alyssa tactfully recommends that he not pick numbers out of thin air, and suggests that he require an internship plan by year 2? Max amends his motion.
The applicant squirms and protests that they’ll be contracting out with yet-undetermined 3rd parties, and can’t possibly commit to an internship program now.
Alyssa mutters “This is a hot mess.” And then elaborates: The educational tie-in is a substantial part of their pitch. It feels like a con if they’re not prepared to actually back it up with any concrete plan. She specifically says that this is a strong application and they didn’t need to bullshit like this, and it chafes.
Vote: Should the studio be obligated to provide an internship plan after two years? Yes: Max Baker, Saul Gonzalez No: Mayor Hughson, Shane Scott, Jude Prather, Mark Gleason, and Alyssa Garza.
So it fails.
By this point, the discussion has been going on for over an hour. No one is taking Max seriously. Max makes a motion to require job training. Does not get a second.
Max asks about the studio’s discrimination policy: why doesn’t it match that of San Marcos? It leaves out protecting gender identity and sexual orientation. (This is a great catch!)
The city lawyer, Michael Cosantino, affirms that this is a problem, and he adds that the studio also left out age discrimination. He recommends that council fix these omissions.
So Max makes a motion to add in protections for gender identity, sexual orientation and age. Jude Prather seconds it, but chides Max about going on for too long and dragging things out.
The vote: Should the anti-discrimination clause cover gender identity, sexual orientation, and age? Yes: Jude Prather, Alyssa Garza, Saul Gonzalez, and Max Baker No: Shane Scott, Jane Hughson, Mark Gleason.
That’s right: the lawyer literally just told them to pass this amendment. Shane Scott, Jane Hughson, and Mark Gleason all vote no, seemingly just to spite Max Baker.
Listen carefully everybody: that is the sound of City Council decompensating. That is a globby, burbling mess of a City Council.
Which brings us to Max Baker declaring, “I AM ASHAMED THAT SOME OF YOU…!” and simultaneously Mark Gleason shouting “I WILL NOT TAKE THIS!” Mark Gleason shouts about abuse, and filibustering, and calling the question. Max Baker shouts about the actual definition of filibustering. Jane Hughson shouts about people talking over each other and who has the floor. It is not pretty.
At this point, Jude Prather moves to call the question. This passes with a 6-1 vote. (I bet you can infer how that played out.) So the discussion (yelling) is finally over.
The actual vote on the tax incentive plan for the studio: Yes: Everyone but Max. No: Max.
Max Baker spits, “Thank you all for not working very hard on this!”
What is my analysis?
That in a pissing match, everyone gets pretty smelly and wet?
Ok, here goes:
I can’t tell what Max Baker’s actual position on the studio is. Does he think it’s fundamentally a bad idea? Does he think that it’s fundamentally a good idea, but the agreement is sloppy? Is he open to being persuaded, if these amendments were taken seriously?
If you think the studio should not exist, you should make a concise and clear argument why not. Since it’s clearly going to pass without your vote, pick one or two mitigating amendments, and try to coax others to go along with these changes. In my opinion, the SMRF amendment and fixing the anti-discrimination language should have been easy wins, or at least thoughtful discussions.
If you think the studio should exist, then say so and provide a balanced list of pros and cons. Work to iron out the cons.
What Max Baker is doing is treating the proposal as though a procrastinating college student wrote it overnight on the last day of spring break. Max is the professor who takes it as a foregone conclusion that the paper is crap. He then nitpicks every last sentence through a lens of finding proof that justifies his beliefs. Any single correction is probably fair, but as a whole, it’s overkill to eviscerate a paper like that.
To be clear: Max Baker’s moral compass is generally pointed in the right direction. It’s just that he’s got no sense of scale. Everything is a calamity of the same proportion.
Nevertheless, the rest of city council has an obligation to wade through Max’s crises and evaluate each one on its merits. It’s extremely poor form to vote against him, out of spite.
The San Marxist 
