« Shenanigans in North Loop | Main | Best summary of Bjorn Lomborg yet »

More North Loop shenanigans

Last night's vote went 79-78 against the variance request. Now, Clay at ILoveNorthLoop has gone off the deep end. Others have noticed his deleting of most pro-variance comments which he still claims were all from non-residents of the area. Here's one of those supposed out-of-state or bicycle-activist "non-resident" comments which he deleted (which I saved yesterday when I saw it):

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.

Sure sounds like an out-of-state bicycle activist rant to me. What, with the having gone to the meeting and casting of the vote. Amazing they were able to do that despite not being a resident, huh?

And in the meantime, he's gone exactly where you would expect; telling me to "Have fun pimping for Endeavor". Yeah, right after I get done pimping for Wal-Mart. And Lincoln Properties. And don't forget CWS. And, of course, CJB Partners. And don't forget all that pimpin' I do for the toll roads. Let me tell you, pimpin' ain't easy. What is it about these Neanderthals anyways that makes them think that any time anybody ever supports any change of any kind, they must be paid off? I certainly don't think everybody in RG4N is taking money from Target, for instance.

If, as it seems likely, the Northfield Neighborhood Association would not be happy with the implicit endorsement of this site's one-sided position despite the 79-78 vote, they should probably say so at this point, since Clay's got the public spotlight and is making it look like the neighborhood was strongly against the variance, thanks to deleting comments he just doesn't feel like posting. Just a little friendly advice.

This entry was posted in the following categories: Austin , Urban Design , When Neighborhoods Go Bad , metablog


For whatever its worth, I never thought you were doing anything other than stating your own personal opinions. :)

As an aside, Hope, I remembered while complaining to DSK about having to go to a Wal-Mart in State College on my family reunion trip up there this summer, that I had actually been paid to play my trumpet at the grand opening of that very store - about fifteen years ago. Ten or fifteen bucks (standard fare for pep band gigs at Penn State, i.e. beer money). So the anonymous nitwits were right - I was on the payroll all along!

I imagine the Board of Adjustment will care a lot more that the neighborhood is evenly divided than it will that one side got an extra vote.

Anyway, as businesses like off-site storage, used car lots, and automobile repair shops get run off Burnet and Lamar by rising property prices, they'll need a place to go. It sounds like 79 of the neighborhood residents know a perfect spot for them.


1. The developer promised not to go forward without a positive vote; that's going to be hard to overcome.

2. The BoA is very very very reactionary. Watch their meetings sometime. It's just a train-wreck of paleosuburbanism. In a case like this one, I suspect they'd need a very strong statement of support to pass it (as PG pointed out, the City Council and Planning Commission would pretty much take this 79-78 vote as evidence that it's a good project, given that you can get a substantial number of people to oppose any change whatsoever).

I don't know why the developer would make a promise like that. It seems like a very bad move to me, playing right into Crenshaw's hands.

"I don't know why the developer would make a promise like that. It seems like a very bad move to me, playing right into Crenshaw's hands."

...maybe because they were dealing in good faith?
I think there have, sadly, been a lot of cases recently of infill developers trying to do the right thing and only end up being hamstrung for their efforts.
I'm not sure what people think they are accomplishing by rigging up fake mandates and blocking reasonable infill. More and more I fear what they are accomplishing is to accelerate the alternative demand for sprawl (bad news for Bastrop, in my case).
These guys need to read the Envision Central Texas results a couple more times before it's too late. Places like Bastrop will never have a chance to stay on the route to walkable centralized satellite cities if Austin won't lead with examples.


There is actually a legal standard for getting a variance that is is pretty tough; I know it requires things like proof of hardship. Maybe they figure they've got no shot without consensus support from the neighborhood? Just speculation. (Do you know if Endeavor is really seeking a variance, or is it asking that the property be rezoned? I thought rezonings went to either the Zoning & Platting Commission or the Planning Commission.)

I think they need the variance for "compatibility standards", i.e., multifamily next to single-family has to only be N feet tall.

Post a comment