NIMBYist neighborhood plans

There are two problems with Austin's neighborhood plans:  (1) Neighborhoods don't know what ought to go on a piece of property; and (2) they don't have an incentive to care.

What I mean by "ought" is, "What use will produce the most value for the City as a whole?"  NG's just ask, "What use will benefit us the most (or harm us the least?)"   Neighborhood plans naturally end up as obstructionist documents, tailored to satisfy the "stakeholders'" most trivial preferences and concerns.    

Take the recent battle over the Time Insurance property at the corner of East Riverside and IH-35.

The property owner wants to build a mid-rise commercial/residential mixed use property.  Problem:  Part of the tract is zoned LO and part SF-3.  SF-3 is single family. LO allows business offices and little else.

It's hard to believe this would be very controversial.  This is the kind of high-density project that everyone says we need.  It sits at the intersection of an interstate highway and major through arterial.  A high density condominium/apartment project is planned across the street.  The project will attract the quality retail that this stretch of Riverside lacks. 

Yet the neighborhood plan has LO and SF-3 zoning, and the neighborhood group doesn't want to give it up. They have lots of reasons.  They want a "buffer" between the single-family homes and Riverside.  They want the green space that SF-3 zoning guarantees (i.e., parkland at someone else's expense).  They want to encourage office space.  They don't want traffic.  They don't want multi-family.

Thanks to their opposition, it has taken three years, two failed mediations, two trips to the Planning Commission and multiple trips to Council to get the rezoning tentatively approved.

None of the neighborhood's reasons seems very compelling to me.  I don't think they outweigh the benefits of 60-70 new housing units relatively close to downtown and new retail to serve the thousands who drive Riverside every day.

The real point, though, is that the neighborhood had absolutely zero incentive to weigh the benefits to others when it developed its plan, other than pressure from city planning staff.

This is a problem with all neighborhood plans.  They are city-sanctioned NIMBYism.  They encourage neighborhoods to think and act selfishly.  Even if a neighborhood were inclined to take the interests of others into account, why should it?  It has no assurance that another neighborhood would reciprocate its altruism.

This is a pretty cruddy land-use system.  Council opened this Pandora's box many years ago.  I'm not sure it can be shut now.  Perhaps the best Council can do for now is to treat the plans as the irrelevant documents they are. 

Comments

[John]

If you want a template for snarky, elitist, costly-to-the-city, NIMBYism, I offer Hyde Park and their neighborhood ASSociation.

[JMVC]

While I agree generally with your thoughts regarding the Time Insurance case, I have to take issue with your denunciation of the NPs as City-sanctioned NIMBY-ism. Having sat on the Planning Commission for a few years, I had the “pleasure’ of seeing the end results of years of efforts by several neighborhoods engaged in the NP process. I can say that without exception, the plans I reviewed called for a substantial increase in density and commercial development in specific areas within each plan. The years worth of compromise and sacrifice by neighborhoods is evident in each plan. This particular case notwithstanding, I think that neighborhoods throughout the city are embracing developments like the one proposed on this property. In my non-professional, yet long-experienced opinion, the real value of NPs is to have all the neighborhood/developer battles waged pro-actively in the context of integrated planning and not on a case by case basis without any such larger context. Further, discounting all the work by neighborhoods residents, property owners and business owners, not to mention city staff as “irrelevant documents” is a pretty insulting to those involved. The plans do provide something that many developers have told me is quite valuable to them: certainty about the development potential of a piece of property. As one can see from zoning cases in areas of the city without NPs – typically handled by Zoning & Platting Commission, on which I also served for quite a while – a developer often has no idea what kind of neighborhood opposition they will run into until notice of the project is sent to the surrounding areas. In areas w/ NPs, developers may not like what is envisioned in the Future Land Use maps and other facets of the plan, but at least there is somewhat certain knowledge of what the neighborhood will tolerate. I appreciate your thoughts and enjoy your blog. - jmvc

[AustinContrarian]

JMVC:

Thanks for commenting.

I'll concede that FLUMs may be relevant when they signal what a neighborhood will fight. A developer/property owner who has several attractive options can choose one that fits with the neighborhood plan (if there is one).

Otherwise, I stand by my criticisms.

I should elaborate on the first one. Neighborhoods don't know what "ought" to go on a piece of property because they don't know what the future demand will be. Not even the property owner necessarily knows. When the Time Insurance property was zoned in the 1980s, single family and office probably seemed reasonable. Twenty years later, it's badly mis-zoned. Who could foresee in the 1980s that commercial-mixed use would be all the rage in the next century?

Take the Bouldin neighborhood FLUM. They've kept Oltorf primarily single family. Will that make sense in five or ten years? Maybe the most productive use then will be commercial/retail. In fact, I'd bet that the most productive use today would be either commercial or multi-family.

My second, NIMBY criticism is supported, I think, by the neighborhood plans themselves.

Again, take the Bouldin neighborhood plan. The Bouldin neighborhood is just a stone's throw from downtown. It's one of the most desirable locations in town, even if it is not the fanciest. There is incredible demand for housing there.

That neighborhood is crying out for more multi-family; really, any kind of denser development. But look at their plan. Their FLUM does not add one square foot of multi-family to the neighborhood interior. They are explicit about that in the plan document itself. Sure, they agreed to commercial-mixed use on S. First (their only concession for density's sake), but only with extra conditions such as limits on height and business size.

Perhaps the extra density on South First was the result of pressure from the City or businesses on South First. Perhaps the neighborhood actively embraced it. I freely admit I don't know which it was.

What I do know is that Bouldin ended up with a neighborhood plan that does not account for the intense demand for extra housing in the neighborhood interior, where most of the land is. The City would be better off with more density, IMHO, but apparently no one had an incentive to fight for it.

The other adopted plans I've reviewed follow the same pattern.

That's my NIMBY criticism. Without pressure from the City (or, as you point out, from local property owners or businesses), the neighborhoods are left to advance their own interests. They have no incentive to do otherwise. I believe that is a fundamentally flawed process.

[AustinContrarianContrarian]

This is ridiculous. Why, exactly, should the neighborhoods worry about "What use will produce the most value for the City as a whole?"

The "City as a whole" certainly isn't looking out for the neighborhood's interests, so it falls to the neighborhoods to do so.

If the neighborhoods don't watch their back, they get stabbed.

"That neighborhood is crying out for more multi-family ...". Oh, please. What crap.

[M1EK]

JMVC,

I worked on the OWANA plan and have been following others with great interest.

AC is right about the majority of them - including the CANPAC plan so ridiculously applauded by folks who ought to know better - it traded LESS DENSITY THAN CURRENTLY EXISTS for NUNA, Eastwoods, Hancock for what we SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG in West Campus.

Hyde Park's is similarly odious.

Yes, it was just pressure from city staff in those cases keeping them 'honest', and it obviously didn't work. In OWANA's case, we had the benefit of having the plan led by progressive urbanists who wanted to do the right thing - and it was STILL hard to get beyond "just tell them we don't want any more apartments, please".

The Planning Commission should have stopped approving these things when it became clear they had become an exercise in "no thanks" rather than "please put our additional density here and here and here".

[M1EK]

"a developer often has no idea what kind of neighborhood opposition they will run into until notice of the project is sent to the surrounding areas. In areas w/ NPs, developers may not like what is envisioned in the Future Land Use maps and other facets of the plan, but at least there is somewhat certain knowledge of what the neighborhood will tolerate."

Sorry, one more thing:

The statement above is exactly how the plans are supposed to work. In that sense, JMVC nailed it. The problem is that the neighborhood plans have increasingly become an exercise in setting the FLUM for essentially all properties at or below the intensity that currently exists! (on average).

For instance, NUNA's plan supports future downzoning some MF-zoned (SF-existing) properties to SF (so did OWANA's). But unlike OWANA, which created additional density in other areas which more than made up for that, NUNA _also_ effectively downzoned existing MF buildings on Speedway and Duval by lowering height limits for future development; AND prevented garage apartments from being built on the interior lots.

The net effect of the NUNA plan in particular was substantially LESS density in the FLUM than exists today.

So in that case, the developers' certainty is that they can never build anything more intense than is on the ground today. How on earth is that an improvement over the conditions pre-plan?

[JMVC]

Some rebuttals:

“Neighborhoods don't know what "ought" to go on a piece of property because they don't know what the future demand will be. Not even the property owner necessarily knows.”

I somewhat agree, especially with the passage of time, which is why I would agree that NPs should be reviewed on a periodic basis for revision based upon changes in infrastructure, growth patterns, etc. For example, if for some reason Oltorf were to become a major transit corridor over the next ten years (let’s say with a streetcar line?), then sure, the NP should be revisited for potential changes in density, height, etc. However, if, as you contend, “Neighborhoods don't know what "ought" to go on a piece of property because they don't know what the future demand will be. Not even the property owner necessarily knows,” then why even have zoning, or any kind of land use control at all, if no one really knows what use “should” occur? I admire the power of free markets, but do not believe that simply because the market determines a particular use would result in the greatest profit, then that is the use that “should” occur on a particular piece of property. Apparently, several decades ago, the market felt that heavy industrial uses “should” occur adjacent to SF neighborhoods in East Austin, but that did not make those uses appropriate nor just to the residents of those neighborhoods.

“What I do know is that Bouldin ended up with a neighborhood plan that does not account for the intense demand for extra housing in the neighborhood interior, where most of the land is. The City would be better off with more density, IMHO, but apparently no one had an incentive to fight for it.”

I do not have a copy of the Bouldin plan to see if this is the case, but other NPs have addressed demand for increased density in the neighborhood interior by providing for small-lot amnesty or garage apts. Sure, not a huge boost in density, but a concession for more density nonetheless.

“Without pressure from the City (or, as you point out, from local property owners or businesses), the neighborhoods are left to advance their own interests. They have no incentive to do otherwise. I believe that is a fundamentally flawed process.”

I agree. Without advocacy from the City or other interests, neighborhoods might very well do little more than protect their own interests, and the NP processes would indeed be flawed. However, this is intentionally not the case. The City planners and City Council are well aware of the demand for greater density in the urban core. The process is set-up so that the neighborhoods are made aware of the city’s goals for increased density – one of several explicit and implicit goals the city has for the plans including mixed use, greater connectivity, affordability, etc. Further, the process ensures that all stakeholders have opportunity for input, and advocating for more/less density, etc. Even if some developer/property owners choose not to participate in the NP process until the very end, the PC and Council hear hours and hours (trust me, this is arduous) of individual contested cases during the final plan hearings and approvals. Thus allowing property owners in NP areas who disagree with the process to protect their interests – and their interests are almost always served in these contested cases.

I believe that there will continue to be disagreements on the efficacy of the NP process – I have heard just as many neighborhood folks deride the process as developers. Really - name any process in any arena that is not flawed? However, I do believe that NPs and the associated processes serve their purpose and serve it well. - jmvc

[M1EK]

"Apparently, several decades ago, the market felt that heavy industrial uses “should” occur adjacent to SF neighborhoods in East Austin, but that did not make those uses appropriate nor just to the residents of those neighborhoods."

Uh, no, that's not how it happened. The city ZONED those uses into exclusively East Austin, and then the market put those things there because, well, there was a demand, and the city wouldn't let them get built anywhere else.

As for the neighbors being dissatisfied - this has happened precisely because the NPs were so irresponsible - the city then approves good projects which the ridiculous plan didn't allow, and the neighbors get mad because their irresponsible plan didn't get followed.

The answer is for the Planning Commission to stand up and refuse to approve neighborhood plans which don't tell us WHERE a lot more density is going to go, and, NO, "only on the big roads on the edge" is not a good enough answer.

[M1EK]

As for small-lot / garage-apt; OWANA did it, but almost nobody else has; most have done what NUNA did and raise the minimum lot size for secondary uses (in our case, basically disallowing the existing pattern in about half the neighborhood of garage apartments on 6000 square-foot-lots).

[AustinContrarian]

JMVC,

"[W]hy even have zoning, or any kind of land use control at all, if no one really knows what use “should” occur?"

I know I come off as an anti-zoning radical sometimes. Really, I believe zoning and planning have their place, but I think the city needs a much, much lighter touch. Given your experience, you know better than I how complicated our zoning regulations are and how the planning process delves into minutiae.

I think the market should dictate land use, with zoning and planning used to mitigate the harsher spillover effects, segregate truly inconsistent uses, and facilitate the creation of public goods (e.g., sidewalks).

Lots of people might agree with that statement; the devil's in the details.

I think most of the things we try to regulate are just petty inconveniences that should be tolerated as the price of city living. For example, a mini-storage rental is being built at the corner of my street and S. Lamar. I would prefer just about any other use. It will be ugly, generate traffic, take up space that could be used by retail, etc. It's the kind of things neighborhood groups routinely fight.

I can live with it, though. The truth is I think I'm better off in the long run if people can build storage rentals where they want (within reason). If it's easy to build storage units, then it will be easy for others to build stuff that I might think is cool. It's a bargain I'm willing to make.