« Rail update | Main | TWITC: RG4N are our heroes! »

RG4N drainage argument: ridiculous

As reported at the Chronicle's blog:

The argument made by Responsible Growth For Northcross (RG4N) this morning is that the city's approval of Lincoln Property's site plan violated the note, which mandates that "Rainfall runoff shall be held to the amount existing at undeveloped status by use of ponding or other approved methods." The city – with testimony from city engineers Benny Ho and Jose Guerrero – countered that "undeveloped status" means status at the time the application is filed, not a reversion to the status of when the property was a green pasture. Attorney Casey Dobson, representing the city, said "To use a legal term, that [would be] silly." Guerrero further testified that the law only requires that a project not make flooding worse, and that Lincoln's site plan will actually reduce impervious cover and presumable send less floodwater off-site.

In other words, the Wal-Mart plan is demonstrably better for drainage than current conditions but RG4N claims code should be interpreted as if a project must (not just can, but MUST) be rejected by city staff if it adds more runoff than the completely undeveloped state would have. Also keep in mind that the RG4N 'vision' would also be an improvement over current conditions, but most definitely not over the undeveloped prairie that was there seventy years ago.

If you ever needed proof that RG4N's legal strategy was the old "throw excrement on the wall and see what sticks" method, here it is. And if there were any justice in the world, the judge would call RG4N forward and issue this speech.

As my cow orker DSK pointed out a moment ago, though, it would almost be worth yielding on this point if the judge put similar conditions on the homeowners of Allandale and Crestview.

This entry was posted in the following categories: Austin , I Told You So , When Neighborhoods Go Bad

Comments

Chronic's been surprisingly evenhanded.

I always figured they'd lead with traffic. Dueling experts either way.

The difference here between Lee Nichols (pretty good, looking at both sides) and Wells Dunbar/Katherine Gregor (regurgitating press releases with NO attempt to look at both sides) is noticable, isn't it?

I'm curious whether the city has moved for summary judgment yet. I would guess so, and that it will be granted soon.

Congrats, M1EK. Casey Dobson used your line in closing. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/17/1117walmart.html

Maybe you should start over as a trial lawyer . . .

I eagerly went to that article hoping for an Adam Sandler reference. Oh well.

M1EK, you *could* be a good trial lawyer (knowing several myself). I'm not sure that's a compliment... =)

Post a comment