Austin Political Report

These guys at I Love North Loop are banning comments from people outside the neighborhood and from people opposing the project. Take with a huge grain of salt, and check out this post for the response from Endeavor, which points out that strip retail can be built on the tract without a zoning change (hence, administrative approval):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Skyview/message/2980

So I guess this IS RG4N-2, in that a few ill-informed reactionaries trying to keep their neighborhood purely single-family at the expense of all the rest of us are throwing up everything they can think of to stop a legitimate improvement from taking place.

By M1EK on Oct 1, 2007

so, i guess its more like rg4n’s problem than I thought. A developer saying take our plan and our traffic or go to hell.

Sounds like a leffingwell plan to me.

Seems like if this neighborhood had their own rep to go to bat for them they would be better off.

By uh huh on Oct 1, 2007

Miek -

We are only leaving off rants from people who don’t live here, like you. Opposing viewpoints from neighbors are being left on, as you can see if you look at the site. We are trying to keep the discussion between the real stakeholders on the project.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 1, 2007

Clay,

Characterizing my comments were “rants” is truly beyond the pale.

Luckily, thanks to your site’s commenting mechanism, I still can get to the two I posted (which you eliminated), reproduced here:

#1:

Anything that increases housing supply in an area well-served by bicycle routes and bus routes is a positive thing for our city. The fact that Endeavor also wants to make this VMU makes it even more of a win, because it potentially provides services which might induce more of you in the single-family homes to walk to shop/eat/whatever.

The idea that without Endeavor, you’re somehow going to end up with a paradise of small local shops with no homes there is just ludicrous. The next best use of the property would be as strip retail - which generates more, and more annoying, traffic than an apartment-plus-retail development would, without providing the pedestrian amenities.

#2:

The problem with this retort is that it pretends that we have the authority to take that “better-suited” parcel from its current owners and somehow deliver it to Endeavor for development. We don’t; we have to live in a world where the best choice if we were playing SimCity isn’t always available.

By M1EK on Oct 1, 2007

Nice site. Especially without the “rants” from M1EK.

By Willis on Oct 1, 2007

I got yelled at too for posting how a 2000/trips per day development affected my neighborhood. Apparently that kind of perspective is also a “rant”. I’m still baffled that one would even consider discussing traffic concerns and then say that the primary stakeholders are only people within a 5 mile radius.
I’m also still trying to figure out why Clay hasn’t closed down “rants” from “non-stakeholders”.

By Tim on Oct 2, 2007

Yeah, they’re rants.

By loose change on Oct 2, 2007

What I’m trying to figure out is how they determine who are “neighbors” and who aren’t. Looking at the comments on the site, I don’t see any place to enter address when submitting a comment. So either the admin knows the commenters or he/she is just removing comments that he/she feels are effective rebuttals of the propaganda that the site is promoting.

By Matt on Oct 2, 2007

The one comment on the “Success” posting which I saw before it was removed is reproduced below. Clay claimed in email that the comments he deleted were only from non-residents; I find that hard to believe given the content.

“I don’t understand how you could possibly consider this a success. I attended last night planning to oppose based upon this website and the rumors. After listening last night, it was clear that very little of this website is accurate. You have managed to damage the Parkers & Howard’s. You have chased off a fine developer with a plan that was consistent with our Neighborhood Plan. You have fractured the neighborhood by distorting the facts. Do you really think we can now somehow control what happens on this or any other site with CS-MU zoning in our hood? We have just sent the strongest possible signal to the development community, which is “don’t bother talking to us”. Trust me, they no longer will. Shame on you.”

By M1EK on Oct 2, 2007

So much for neighborly dialogue and debate. Obviously this is one or a few overzealous citizens with a personal agenda that won’t brook contradiction or nuance.

By Matt on Oct 2, 2007

The I Love North Loop site was built because there were hundreds of people in the neighborhood who wouldn’t have even known that there was a vote taking place if some of us hadn’t taken the initiative to create this site and distribute flyers about the project. The developer and the neighborhood association (who speak on behalf of the developer to the list) made no such effort, and instead relied on the list serv, which has maybe 40 active members. Out of a neighborhood of 1400. Whether I include comments from people with an agenda beyond the scope of these neighborhood streets is my prerogative as the editor of the site. I’m trying to keep the discussion relevant to the matter at hand, and not get off track with diatribes from people in Portland or even the next neighborhood over who either have no idea what is really going on or simply want to spread a little bile for its own sake.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 2, 2007

As for the “shame on you” comment from an anonymous poster who won’t return my emails, I say that the message to developers is actually, “Don’t think we aren’t paying attention.”

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 2, 2007

Clay. I have chosen not to respond to your email because your website is a joke. I will not waste my time on a forum where you, as editor, delete opinions that differ from yours. You state in your website that the developers “turned a deaf ear” to your requests. I can’t imagine why? What I can tell you is that your argument about 2,000 trips/day being added to the neighborhood, that freaked everyone out, turned out to be such an incredible insult to the intelligence of those who attended and cared to hear the facts. I have since learned that you were provided the real data and simply chose to ignore it. How can you possibly believe you know more about traffic than a licensed traffic engineer? Is that your ego, or are you simply a fool? What you clearly don’t understand is that mixed use developments are very complicated and expensive. It required a skill set that very few Austin developers possess. There is zero chance that w/o a variance that site get’s developed as a mixed use project. It will be student housing or strip retail, and the developer will laugh at you when you want to influence their project. Mark my word. You talk about “negotiating with them”. What you also don’t understand is that the whole intent of VMU is to have a pre-negotiated deal. It is not for the develoepr to agree to build under VMU, and then to have to negotiate yet again with the neighbors. If Endeavor goes away, and I pray they don’t, then we will hold you responsible for the outcome.

Tommy.

By Tommy on Oct 2, 2007

Drama! Intrigue! Right here in our very own neighborhood.

Tommy, if we end up trying to fight off a Burger King and a strip center, I’ll buy you a “I Voted For Endeavor… Are You Happy Clay?” T-shirt, just like the one I’ll be wearing to the meetings.

But if we get a nice little neighborhood bar and restaraunt, I’ll buy Clay a beer, or two.

How’s that? (I’d bet I’ll be buying t-shirts).

By Tim Tischler on Oct 2, 2007

I agree the neighbors were not informed and a flyer explaining the FACTS would have been helpful, but your website was completely misleading and took advantage of the people that didn’t know what was going on. Yes, it’s everyone’s responsibility to get involved on their own to learn what is happening around them but it’s wrong to take advantage of those people. I actually heard people at the meeting saying they thought the flyer was from our neighborhood association! You knew what you were doing when you distributed those flyers 2 days before the vote. I feel like it was very manipulative on your part. Why not create a site with unbiased facts and give people enough credit to make their own decision?

By Larisa on Oct 2, 2007

Tommy and Larisa - The traffic figures I cited on the website came FROM THE DEVELOPERS who got them FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEERS. I challenge anyone to point to specific facts on the site that are not true. So far, nobody has been able to do so.

Nowhere on the flyer was any suggestion that it came from our neighborhood association. But come to think of it, a flyer from the NA would have been a mighty appropriate thing for people to get.

Larisa - you are the one not giving people enough credit to make their own decision! The developers were allowed to dominate the dialog at the NA meeting, and they still lost. So don’t just take it up with me, take it up with the 78 other neighbors who voted against this variance.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 3, 2007

By the way, I’m flattered that everyone is giving me full credit for the outcome of the vote. But at least 5 neighbors contributed to the website and flyers. I just happen to be the one who knows how to set up and manage a blog, so I get all the bile directed at me. Yay!

Any outrage directed at a group of citizens who mobilized their neighbors to vote and set up a website to inform them about our position on an important issue is outrage against the concepts of democracy and free speech. Just saying.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 3, 2007

Clay, the outrage is that you tried your best to convince people you were non-partisan (just gathering neighborhood input), but you were in fact engaged in a campaign of arguable misrepresentation, and deleting comments from people who you claim weren’t neighborhood residents but appear to everybody else to be.

In the process, you appear to me to have ensured a standard strip mall (or standard suburban-style apartment complex) will be built on this tract, which will make traffic worse in the long-run while providing no services to the large number of your neighbors who, unlike you, don’t drive everywhere all day long. And those projects can, and probably will, still have egress onto the neighborhood street with nothing more than administrative approval.

That hurts your neighborhood and it hurts the rest of the city. And the personal gain you think you got out of this (less traffic down Link) is likely illusory, since those other forms of development, as I said, can and probably will still send cars down your street with absolutely zero input from you or your neighbors.

By M1EK on Oct 3, 2007

The site is still very much live and I encourage anyone reading this to check it out and decide whether or not it “tries its best to convince people that we are non-partisan.”

As for the alternate uses of this land, Miek, you are sadly falling prey to the scare tactics that these and most developers use every time they try to manipulate the will of a neighborhood.

There is no reason to believe that a standard strip mall would work here. The developers themselves told the NA that they were unsure about the viability of retail on this spot, even with 259 apartments stacked on top of it! These are 800-sq. ft. apartments that the devs claim will rent for around $1200 each. And with no retail within a 5-minute walk of the complex, you can bet your ass that just about all of those people will be driving to run their errands and go to work. If they wanted to live a car-free existence, they would rent a different overpriced apartment, likely in a part of town that actually has walkable amenities.

And for the record, Miek doesn’t even live in North Loop. He has just adopted this as a pet issue for some reason. The traffic from this thing will not be speeding down HIS streets.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 3, 2007

Clay, my “pet issue” is urban development versus suburban sprawl, and yes, people will indeed walk (or take the bus, or bike) if you give them the opportunity to do so. Not everybody will, but a lot will (a lot of your neighbors do today, despite not having much good stuff to walk/bike/bus to!)

Your assumptions about urban development betray a complete lack of ignorance - making me suspect you are a recent immigrant from the suburbs or something. Residents of The Triangle drive, it’s true, but they also take the bus to class - in large numbers. Likewise, people living in apartments near my home usually own cars, but they don’t use them every time they leave their house (unlike you, apparently) - they walk, bike, bus, in large numbers. My 3-year-old and I sometimes like to count all the different people going by, characterized by mode, when we’re sitting on the front porch.

As for non-partisan - you didn’t indicate your site was open to only neighborhood residents (you STILL haven’t) and you it has clearly been demonstrated here that you remove comments which appear to be from residents (that you don’t like) but you still maintain you’re only removing from non-residents.

As to what would work on this site, yes, standard strip retail would indeed ‘work’ - it ‘works’ everywhere, which is part of the problem. Apparently you don’t want to be part of the solution.

By M1EK on Oct 3, 2007

I need to proof-read.

“assumptions about urban development betray a complete lack of experience”. I was in the process of changing from “betray ignorance”.

“and it has been clearly demonstrated here” - same thing; incomplete change of wording.

By M1EK on Oct 3, 2007

Clay. Please tell me what you think will go here? You clearly know nothing about the cost to build luxury apartments or land values if you really believe someone will pay $6M+ to build 135 apartment units. At 135 units, the land value becomes so low that retail exceeds MF as the viable outcome. if you can’t get the density, you can’t make the math work. Your math on the profit that you believed the developers would generate from the extra floor was missing a few basic concepts such as operating expenses, vacancy, construction costs, etc. but why would we ever expect you to know anything about that. You have failed this neighborhood with deceipt and we will hold you and your cul-de-sac cronies responsible for the outcome. Instead of further discussion with you about this, I would ask that you join Envision Central Texas and read one of the many fascinating books available about Traditional Neighborhoods and the failure of the cul-de-sac on society. You think a cul-de-sac is the answer when in-fact it is at the heart of the problem. Please become enlightened before you do any more damage.

By Tommy on Oct 3, 2007

I have to second the advice about joining Envision Central Texas. I would also like to say that I live on the street that will be the most affected by the development.

By Larisa on Oct 3, 2007

Lately strip centers seem to have been vilified by Endeavor - and everyone in this debate.

The night of the vote the resounding sentiment was “vote for this, or you will get a strip center”

I feel compelled to stick up for strip centers.

Regardless of the generic image they conjure, not ALL strip centers are bad. Some can be cool in fact.

Granted they are old, but aren’t most businesses on North Loop technically in a strip center?

Some strip centers have great restaurants. Like Maudie’s on Lake Austin Blvd. Or Evangeline’s in S. Austin. I liked that New Age Cafe that closed. It was in a strip center. Freebirds has a few restaurants in strip centers. I don’t eat there a lot, but would be glad to have one in walking distance.

And if Endeavor thinks strip centers are so bad, why do they have one on their home page?

http://www.endeavor-re.com

My comments on the reality of the traffic report are on another thread on this site. This stuff goes pretty deep, but suffice it to say that Clay is NOT distorting anything on traffic.

This examination of the study and its obvious shortcomings speaks to the fact that the developer has gone beyond just spin to outright fabrication.

The full picture really takes still more explanation than is here, but hopefully you will get the gist of it in this thread:

http://www.austinpoliticalreport.com/2007/10/02/chalk-one-up-for-the-good-guys/#comment-130

By Jody Horton on Oct 3, 2007

Cul-de-sac cronies? As a resident of Link Ave., a member of the Congress for New Urbanism and someone who asked ask the developer for a better plan, I take offense to that. This discussion, for all its intricacies about traffic, height, etc. is really a design issue. It is about improper orientation of an apartment building to a single family neighborhood, with no transitional land use. It is also about a parking garage feeding DIRECTLY onto a neighborhood street. I would recommend a great book to *you* entitled residential streets endorsed by ITE, ASCE, CNU, et al. Safe Streets should be part of the design.

By Ditto on Oct 3, 2007

didn’t they offer to do a RI-RO? isn’t that what Link wanted? without the 56th garage entrance the commercial will never make it and the developer knows that. without the commercial, what we get is either a standard 3 story apartment building, or we get a strip center. in either event, those will both have curb-cuts on 56th with no RI-RO and we are back to where we started but with more traffic (strip center) or with no commercial space (apartments). if this happens, what we have accomplished is that we have no seat at the table.

By Tommy on Oct 3, 2007

They have agreed to potentially put in a RI-RO. I also publicly thanked the developer for considering to do this. There are many options for how this property could be redeveloped. Why is it so black and white? I am of the opinion/ hope that the developer will come back to the neighborhood with a plan that works better than the current one. Any thoughts on townhomes and compatability?

By Ditto on Oct 4, 2007

As far as a seat at the table. What seat was it you think we had in the first place? What effect on the plan do you think the neighborhood would have at the charette? Paint color? What we have preserved is compatability. Why is compatability a bad thing?

By Ditto on Oct 4, 2007

Wow Tommy, for someone who “attended last night planning to oppose based upon this website [I Love North Loop] and the rumors” you sure do have quite the insider’s grasp on the details of this deal. I smell something rotten.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 4, 2007

well. i guess I get to be accused yet again. no surprise. the only insider knowledge that i have is that i have studied all of the materials and discussion that have been submitted, i have looked at the code, i have read the neighborhood plan, i have spoken to a traffic engineer, i have spoken to developers who are familiar with the site and land values, i have read many books about urban planning, and i am of the opinion that we as a neighborhood need to pursue these types of projects. it is OK for us to disagree, but i am sad that you feel you have to accuse anyone with an opposing view. This has now reached the point of being counter-productive.
Ditto - to answer your question, compatibility is not a bad thing unless it results in a failure to densify and in doing so stops us from accomplishing our goals as a neighborhhod. at that point, to me, the lines cross and the value decision changes.

By Tommy on Oct 4, 2007

Ditto,

What Endeavor proposed was eminently reasonable. Why on earth do you think they would want to put themselves through anything _more_ when they can easily revert to the more comfortable (for developers) standard strip mall or suburban-style apartment complex?

By M1EK on Oct 4, 2007

All good thoughts. I have enjoyed reading other opinions. It is a value decision/ quality of life issue in the end. At that, it is a hard decision. I am still hopeful the developer will not give up and will take advantage of this new opportunity to engage the whole neighborhood and not just the select few who are plugged in (not pointing fingers). How about a design charette next week? I am up? anybdoy else?

By Ditto on Oct 4, 2007

(I am speaking to the developer here)

By Ditto on Oct 4, 2007

Even though I live in this neighborhood, I don’t think the neighborhood understands. They only listen to people who live here but don’t understand that our neighborhood is in THIS CITY- AUSTIN. Others should have a say too since they could be shopping or renting there.

By Kate B on Oct 19, 2007

seems to me, that if i lived on the street where the traffic was to spill out to, I’d want a louder opinion than some jerk off who happens to be friends with the developer.

it also seems that that a much better deal may be on the horizon. this deal was nothing more than a square peg in a round hole.

By uh huh on Oct 22, 2007