Two anti-McMansion-ordinance bills

HB 1732 and HB 1736, both introduced by Ed Kuempel (Seguin).  HB 1732 would require cities to give two years' notice before adopting a McMansion ordinance.  If it gets a super-majority, it will apply retroactively to January 1, 2006 (i.e., it will nullify Austin's ordinance). 

I swear I didn't have anything to do with this.

Comments

[Tim]

I hate this kind of legislation though. The state should not keep coming in and screwing around with our local government. If you're going to pass some sort of real legislation about McMansion ordinances, fine. But stop passing laws intended solely to piss off the citizens of Austin.

[M1EK]

Agreed. Although this would help me, this is fundamentally wrong - the state's just Austin-bashing again.

Although the sentiments expressed in the article are absolutely correct - the task force WAS stacked; and the process WAS rushed.

[Scott]

The City can't refrain from passing idiot ordinances, the State should step up and slap it down. Every case of "Austin-bashing" has been in response to the City of Austin pushing the envelope on it's authority to retrict private property rights. Since the lege only meets twice a year, it often takes a while for the state to come around and say "WTF do you think you're doing, Austin?"

The "McMansion" ordinance was a fraud from the beginning (declaring a "drainage emergency," then doing NOTHING that would affect drainage- impervious cover limits were unchanged).

[M1EK]

Scott,

No, most of the Austin-bashing was just Austin-bashing for Austin-bashing's sake. There's nothing wrong with the SOS ordinance, for instance; but the state shat all over that one for so long that the battle was lost on the ground by the time the courts got around to ruling that the state was wrong all along.

[AustinContrarian]

It occurs to me that HB 1732 might make things worse, because it may apply to any effort to repeal or soften the McMansion restrictions. (Fat chance, I suppose, but still . . .) That is, assuming HB 1732 does not apply retroactively, any effort to repeal the McMansion ordinance could be delayed by two years until all property owners have received notice. The inflexible two-year notice period will probably cause a lot more trouble than it's worth.

Generally, the lege should leave local matters to the cities; they're closer to and have a bigger stake in such issues. That means cities must be allowed to screw things up from time to time, as Austin did here. I'm not sure, though, that cities should get carte blanche to regulate every little detail. (I admit it's hard to draw clear lines between "good" powers and "bad" powers.)

[Scott]

My reading (and I am not a lawyer) is that it applies back to Jan 2006 whether it gets 50%+1 or the supermajority. It just doesn't go into effect until Sept. 1 unless it gets the 2/3 supermajority (in which case it goes into effect immediately). I guess that if it passes with less than 2/3, CoA would not have to roll back the restrictions until 9/1. During that window, I suppose the City will either serve written notice to all of the affected land owners, or rethink the stupid ordinance.

Regarding the "Austin bashing," I guess some of the anti-SOS stuff did go a little far, but a lot was justified. When the City keeps crapping on the carpet, the lege has to rub its nose in it.

[M1EK]

Scott,

Again, your generalization is unsupportable - essentially every single SOS restriction ended up upheld in court - but, of course, by then, the land was developed (or had grandfathered-by-the-state-intervention site permits filed, and the city chose not to contest those).

"keeps crapping on the carpet" is code for "I'm a radical right-winger", apparently. This McMansion intervention would be exactly the FIRST case which I'd describe that way.

[Scott]

Contrariwise, "most of the Austin-bashing was just Austin-bashing for Austin-bashing's sake" is an equally unsupportable generalization, and must be code for "it's not paranoia if they're actually out to get me."

The restrictions are not unreasonable, but the ex post facto application of development restrictions is (and that is the focus of the king of all "Austin-bashing"- HB 1704, which is still alive and kicking). I don't like the results any more than the next average person, but changing the rules in the middle of the process (i.e., after the site plan is accepted) is, IMO, a taking (not necessarily to the extent of the potential profit, but definitely to the extent of the engineering and land-use planning invalidated at the whim of the governing body).

It would be nice if the people and government of the City of Austin could plan ahead, instead of reacting haphazardly to every perceived threat (a few years ago it was "superduplexes," last year it was "McMansions," this year it is Northcross Mall & Wal-Mart). As it is now, the narrow targeting in the "solution" to one year's problem usually leaves strange loopholes that cause the threat du jour a couple years down the road.

Local control is great, but remember that the city and county only has power delegated to it from the state. The knee-jerk "McMansion" ordinance is going to yield an equally knee-jerk limitation on the authority of all home-rule cities. It's not an ideal solution, but it's probably the only way to reverse the bad ordinance, since I don't see council going against the short-sighted wishes of the central city suburbanite.

[M1EK]

Scott,

Courts upheld every significant component of SOS, despite your argument. I think the point of difference here is that the SOS ordinance had substantial scientific evidence behind the significant harm to the downstream community caused by the full exercise of the existing development rights; which is why the courts upheld it despite the fact that it sure as heck IS "takings".

Had the "drainage emergency" actually existed, and had the McMansion rules addressed drainage rather than 'compatibility', I think they'd have been on equally strong ground.