More on saving Town Lake

Here's the link to today's Statesman story on the ruckus over the residential towers being proposed for E. Riverside.  I wrote about the proposal here, here and here.

This controversy is following script. We're in Act II:  "The developer discovers the local neighborhood groups will give no quarter." They're now battling for public opinion.

There are really four possible outcomes here:

1. The developer gets its variance, the towers get built 80 feet from Town Lake, and the Hike and Bike trail (finally) gets extended through this property.
2. The developer is denied a variance, redevelops the property, and refuses to extend the Hike and Bike Trail. 
3. The developer is denied a variance, redevelops the property, but agrees to extend the Hike and Bike Trail anyway. 
4. The developer does not get a variance and does not redevelop the property (perhaps rehabbing the existing units), and we get no Hike and Bike Trail.

Predictably, the developer is threatening #2 if it doesn't get its variance.  Just as predictably, the neighborhood groups are assuring us that we'll get #3 no matter what.   Both threat and assurance are worthless: the developer always has an incentive to threaten #2 and the neighborhood groups always have an incentive to assure us of #3.

Note that neither has an incentive to raise scenario #4.  The developer won't mention it because it leaves open the possibility of future redevelopment extending the Hike and Bike Trail.  Also, the developer probably figures that #4 is what the neighborhood groups are after anyway; suggesting that's a possibility would be like throwing blood in the water.

For their part, the neighborhood groups won't admit that #4 is a real possibility either.  Doing so might signal that they are more interested in obstructing the development than in preserving the public's enjoyment of Town Lake.  (The 840 units would result in a net increase of 15% or so in the Travis Heights/South River City housing stock, a very bad thing from the perspective of an area homeowner counting on rapid home value appreciation.)

My own thought is we'll end up with #4, although I admit this is speculation.  I doubt redevelopment on the property will be feasible if the 150-foot setbacks are enforced. 

N.B.  I'd include in category #1 any variance that allows the developer to build significantly less than 150 feet from the banks.

Comments

[ccosart]

I just posted something to this effect on ANCtalk. I had given up on that forum, but someone claimed this was a development on "dedicated parkland" and that was just too much for me to let slide....