What about these neighborhoods?

Since the beginning, RG4N has slickly marketed itself as the voice of "the" Northcross neighborhoods. Which are "the" neighborhoods?  According to RG4N's website, they are Allandale, N. Shoal Creek, Wooten, Crestview, Brentwood and Rosedale.

Just look at a map.  Why these six?  There are other neighborhoods close by, certainly closer than Brentwood or Rosedale.  Why don't they count?  If they do count, where's their representation?  Where's the evidence that they too want Wal-Mart to go away?

Take a look at the map.

Northcross is the black square.  The RG4N neighborhoods are bordered by red.  (The southern boundary is missing because I couldn't get all of Rosedale on the map at this scale.)  The neighborhoods outlined in blue either are not represented by RG4N or, if they are, RG4N isn't publicizing it.

Why do the neighborhoods bordered by red count, while the ones bordered by blue do not?  It's not a question of proximity:  the center of the "blue" neighborhoods is just as close to Northcross as the heart of Brentwood:

It's certainly not a question of gross population:  the neighborhoods bordered by blue have a population of over 41,000; the RG4N neighborhoods total less than 35,000.

Perhaps RG4N does speak for the neighborhoods bordered by blue.  If so, RG4N should make that clear.  It would be easy enough to do.  The blue neighborhoods include parts of the North Austin Civic Association, Georgian Acres, North Lamar and Highland Mall neighborhoods.  If RG4N has their support, it should add them to its list.

But there are some differences between the red and blue neighborhoods that make me doubt that RG4N speaks for everyone. 

Let's start with density.  The census tracts just northeast of 183 are much denser than the RG4N neighborhoods.  The bright green tracts have 8,000+ people per square mile; the dark green tract has 11,000+.  That's dense multi-family. By contrast, Allandale and Crestview (the pale green tracts to the south of Northcross) have suburban densities of fewer than 4,000+ per square mile.  (Maps are based on 2000 Census data and generated at Census Bureau website.)

Ethnicity.  The City has demographic info on each neighborhood planning area here.  These are 2000 census figures, which are getting a little stale, but they're still probably close enough.  In 2000, 86% of Allandale's residents were non-hispanic whites.  The numbers for the other RG4N neigbhorhoods:  Brentwood, 72%; Crestview, 81%; N. Shoal Creek, 74%; Rosedale, 90%; Wooten, 48%.   

The percentages of non-hispanic whites in the blue-bordered census tracts?  36.3%, 27.4%, 29.5%, 27.9%, 29.3%, 47.4%, 32.6% (respectively, census tracts 18.04, 18.05, 18.06, 18.19, 18.20, 18.22 and 18.23). 

Income.  The median family income in Allandale in 2000 was $67,488.  For Brentwood, $43,417. For Crestview, $50,445; N. Shoal Creek, $51,997; Rosedale, $71, 416; Wooten, $39,607.  (Again, this is City data based on the 2000 Census).  I don't have income data for the blue-bordered census tracts, but they are part of NACA ($38,249), Georgian Acres ($28,169), N. Lamar ($34,767), and Highland Mall ($36,651).  All are significantly below the "red" weighted average of $53,937.

These medians figures don't do justice to the income disparities.  Try this instead (again, courtesy of COA).  Here's Allandale:

And here's Georgian Acres:

Here's N. Shoal Creek:

Here's NACA:

(Although more evenly distributed than Georgian Acres, note that in 2000 40% or so of the families made less than $35,000.)

Families making $35,000 or less usually are trying to stretch every dollar.  A Super Wal-Mart nearby would help them do that.  But I don't mean to patronize anyone.  The Austinites who live in the blue-bordered neighborhoods may oppose the Northcross Wal-Mart, too.  I don't know one way or the other.  I'll remain skeptical that RG4N is representing their interests, though, until I see some evidence.  The "Arms Around Northcross" theater wasn't it.

For the sake of completeness, here are the other bar graphs:

 

Comments

[KatC]

While I appreciate your facts and research on the locales and demographics of the neighborhoods who participate in RG4N, I'd like to remind you that anyone in any part of town is encouraged to get involved if the issue is important to them. We seek to coordinate with any Austin Neighborhood Association that wants to see the Northcross property developed in a different way. RG4N works and partners with those NA's who have come forward to join forces and resources. To date, those neighborhoods are Allandale, North Shoal Creek, Brentwood, Crestview, and Wooten. To clarify, we do have volunteers and committee members that live in Rosedale, although the Rosedale NA has officially decided not to take a position. Are there any other NA's who want to come on board? The more the merrier, and it only strengthens our position. Contact us via our website. RG4N is a grassroots initiative, and we have some amazingly talented and passionate neighborhood volunteers. We work very hard, week after week, both behind the scenes and in the public eye, with various strategies and tactical plans, in pursuit of our vision for a vertical mixed use development plan for Northcross Mall that would benefit all who live in the surrounding areas, not just a select few. RG4N believes our quality of neighborhood-friendly life is worth more than discounted consumer goods.

Kathy Correa
Business Liaison Committee Co-Chair
www.RG4N.org

[Nunya]

We need to find Chris some billable work to do. If Chris and his amazing graphical talents care so much, why isn't he a member or supporter of a open group like RG4N? Unless...

[Clarification Please]

Perhaps the reason the neighborhoods on the other side of 183 and Lamar are not as involved in this issue because their arterials are completely unaffected by this plan?

It also seems quite clear that you feel the ethnicity and income levels of the residents upset with this plan are reasons not to take them seriously. Please clarify if I'm wrong about this.

[pel]

Chris,

Nice piece on the neighborhood breakdown. Coupled with the racist & elitist comments lurking in the corners of the neighborhood listserves and the ethnic makeup of the 02/10 protestors, a disappointing picture is painted. That is probably why the public statements by Mr. McCracken and Ms. Kim have been very nuanced and skirt the issue of criticizing Wal-Mart for what it is. The racist/elitist angle is probably a political time-bomb waiting to blow.

Clarification,

If the traffic situation is going to be as bad as the various RG4N supporters are making it out to be (e.g. "unmitigated traffic disaster", "will overwhelm every intersection within a mile", "will cause backups on MoPac"), wouldn't there be significant spillover effect in the neighborhoods pointed out by Chris along with others outside the core RG4N constituency?

Ms. Correa,

While your organization may have extended an invitation to whoever may be interested, it is clear that only anti-WalMart perspectives will be de facto accepted. This is apparent from the "NO WAL-MART" billing on just about every piece of RG4N correspondence and protest material from your organization since its inception.

It's no wonder that Lincoln and Wal-Mart reps won't come to neighborhood association and RG4N meetings, because those places are anti-WalMart echo chambers. Any statement on behalf of Lincoln or Wal-Mart beyond "We give in, we'll do whatever you say" would be drowned out in angry shouts as if it were a 1789 Estates-General assembly.

No compromise position has been offered by RG4N and the current proposed vision and the verbiage around it has the air of an ultimatum: We'll present you a list of demands and you will have to accept it.

As pointed out by others, it might have been possible to work with Lincoln and Wal-Mart on changes to the development. That chance is now gone, because neighborhoods have acted irresponsibly, resorting to demagogic protest instead of civil and rational reflection.

[mel]

walmmart and lincoln DID meet with neighborhood associations. why is RG4N denying this? in fact RG4N came to our meeting with walmart and recruited people.

[joe]

Hi, I have a Statesman blog about this whole mess:

http://jcremona.statesmanblogs.com

I live nearby Northcross and I support the new Wal-Mart.

Thanks!

[DSK]

Several of the posters are correct that WalMart & Lincoln have in fact met multiple times with NA representatives and neighbors in general. They have solicited and responded to constructive requests for traffic mitigation, pedestrian and mass transit friendly features, etc.
There have been meeetings directly with NAs and also ones with the city included.
Do not let RG4N let you think that it's too late to continue to work with Lincoln for a postitive result. RG4N would like to put themselves in the driver's seat (rather than ALL the area residents), they would like to sue the city (rather than negotiate in good faith), and they would like to reject any plan that includes a WalMart (rather than find a compromise). None of those things have to happen.

[Clarification Please]

My god.

At what point did RG4N say it was too late to work with Lincoln, DSK? You know as well as anyone else who has been watching the news or reading the blogs that that is a flagrant lie. RG4N has been asking them to come to the table, and they are meeting with them today.

We have RG4N to thank for a HUGE amount of progress on this issue and you continue to character assasinate them.

You can argue sending Wal-Mart PR reps that have no knowledge of even the Wal-Marts in the area and no power to make tangible changes, and a lawyer who can't answer questions because he didn't have anything to do with the questions at hand, to the NA meetings is "meeting with the groups", but those who were AT the meetings know better.

I think one of the main reasons your posts are so offensive is that you throw out these propaganda attacks all over the web and then just go to the next blog when the hard questions are asked.

Were you there at the meeting when one resident asked "how many Austin Wal-Marts are off major highways" and the PR rep didn't know the answer?

Were you there when they said "size and hours of operation are not negotiable"

I worry too, that RG4N might make a wrong move down the line, but what they have done so far is incredible. Have a little faith, and listen to yourself a little. The majority of people are against this plan, and your disinformation makes you look like a propagandist, not a reasonable person.

[DSK]

"Clarification Please",

I stand by everything I've said.

I also dispute your negative characterizations of my behavior.

I furthermore point out that your post has multiple mistaken assertions that have already been debunked a few places. (There's no point in rehashing them all.)

A suggestion: arguments of the form "you say [thing I obviously didn't say]. that's crazy!" aren't very productive.

BTW, I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are a lot of good people in the RG4N organization. I fear their strategy is counterproductive and misguided, but take their opinions seriously. There are a few people who are only interested in speaking in dishonest sound bites, however. It's not disinformation to point out those assertions which are inaccurate. And I ain't the only one.

[M1EK]

"You can argue sending Wal-Mart PR reps that have no knowledge of even the Wal-Marts in the area and no power to make tangible changes, and a lawyer who can't answer questions because he didn't have anything to do with the questions at hand, to the NA meetings is "meeting with the groups", but those who were AT the meetings know better."

And, of course, you're ignoring the meetings brokered by the city between the NA leaders and Lincoln/Wal-Mart. But that's par for the course for RG4N supporters - misrepresent, obfuscate, lie.

[Clarification Please]

I believe those meeting are only starting TODAY m1ek. The city hadn't even paid for the mediating lawyer until this week.

The foundation of the movement concerning this redevelopment is that the site plan was improperly approved and therefore illegal, that it goes against the spirit and intent of city code and zoning rules, and therefore should be started over.

Let Lincoln and Wal-mart have a transparent permit approval process, one that has all interested parties involved, and that will put this whole thing to rest. You act like that is an innappropriate approach to this issue.

But then again M1ek you have admitted that you have a vendetta against the neighborhood on your site.
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/2006_12.html
for those interested, scroll down to "why I'm rooting for wal-mart"

No wonder you don't want an honest up front approval process for this plan. That would mean the neighborhood wont get screwed over, like you want them to be.

Just remember the rest of the city is going to be hurt as well.

[DSK]

"I believe those meeting are only starting TODAY m1ek. "

This is a new claim, so let me debunk:
You're wrong. The city held mediation meetings between Lincoln & area NAs (not to speak of the individual neighborhood meetings [pulib and private] with Lincoln, of course)

[Clarification Please]

I am basing my statement on mediation meetings from the KVUE newscast that said they are retaining a lawyer this week for this.

I had heard that the city has had meetings with the NA's, and that Lincoln has had meetings with the city, but not all of them together.
I also believe there was one meeting with a Lincoln PR guy there very early on, but once again, this was not one in which there was any negotiation, it was a question answer session. Can anyone help get info on this?

I will concede the point if I can see a news report about it, you might in fact be right. I've heard enough strange information about this to be a little hesitant. Is there one?

[M1EK]

"I believe those meeting are only starting TODAY m1ek."

No, that's not what I was referring to either. Neighborhood associations' leaderships (including Allandale's, until they were overthrown by RG4N) AND the ANC met with the city, with the city acting as an intermediary to Lincoln and Wal-Mart, in January. Reports are that the process was going quite well, i.e., progress was being made.

RG4N claims this doesn't count because they weren't face-to-face meetings, which is a load of crap since nobody with half a brain would want to put up with the theatrics of RG4N, and because RG4N has made the presence of Wal-Mart non-negotiable.

Hiding behind pseudonyms and misrepresentations is no way to go through life, son.

As for the rest of the city being hurt - who do you think is paying the $250,000 and counting bill for this, sparky? Just Allandale? Are you getting a special assessment I wasn't aware of?

[M1EK]

Rather, RG4N claims it doesn't count because they weren't invited - which again makes sense - you don't negotiate with somebody who says your presence is non-negotiable.

There were reports about this on at least one of the neighborhood email groups - but it got lost in the coup shenanigans.

[Clarification Please]

OK so now you are saying they met but they didn't?

DSK said "WalMart & Lincoln have in fact met multiple times with NA representatives and neighbors in general",
and then when I take issue I get this diatribe about how no one would WANT to meet with RG4N.

The reason I use a pseudonym is because if you are unwilling to just answer HONESTLY I am frankly a little worried about what else you are capable of.

You imply MUCH MORE than anyone without a vendetta would about a good group of people, M1ek.

Rather that retract your assertions you run around my questions. An honest man would just say "Yes you are right, Lincoln hasn't met with the neighborhoods, the city has." and then gone into your explanation as to why. Rather you disrepect me by pretending somehow that by not answering my questions and not affirming my assertions I haven't made a point, and then run to the next blog to satisfy your vendetta somewhere else with the exact same disinformation.

I'm sick ot this tit for tat crap guys. It's like chasing a chicken around in circles. I'll probably pull up some other blog and see the exact nonsense from you tomorrow.

And DSK,
You can talk about pseudonyms and call me son all you want, but with all due respect, your condescending tone doesn't discount my words.

Do you really think you have a right to call me son? That's the only question I have left for you.

Read up on M1EK's perspective on this issue, folks.
http://www.austinist.com/archives/2006/12/13/walmart_will_wait.php

Hate is a strong word M1ek. I think your hate for these neighborhoods speaks stronger than all your game playing here.

[M1EK]

Dear "Clarification Please":

"the neighborhoods" != "RG4N". In your first statement, this is an example of a typical RG4N misrepresentation.

Every time one of you guys tries to misrepresent reality (or simply lie), I'll be there to correct you.

[DSK]

ClearificationPlease,
You wrote: "And DSK, You can talk about pseudonyms and call me son all you want, but with all due respect, your condescending tone doesn't discount my words."

What are you talking about?

[hope]

This Walmart is being touted as upscale and urban. I believe I've read that they will offer organics and other products targeted to more affluent consumers (national news reports indicate Walmart is strategically targeting more affluent consumers to compete with Target and the like).

Walmart is creating the perception - purposely - that this store will be for higher-income folks. This will not be lost on lower-income people, and I believe most lower-income people in the surrounding area will go to the Walmart at 35 and 183 (or another store), which will be perceived as having lower-cost merchandise.

Look at a map of where the current Walmarts are, and you see an obvious segment of Austin that is not currently served by a nearby Walmart. Walmart is looking for consumers in Allandale and the other gentrifying neighborhoods surrounding Northcross, but they are also (IMO) aiming to draw in residents from Tarrytwon, Far West, Northwest Hills, maybe even up to the Balcones Woods area.

Assuming Walmart is in fact hoping to pull primarily from these more affluent neighborhoods, it would be interesting to analyze voting patterns in those neighborhoods. Given Austin's "blue" tendencies, it may be that these neighborhoods are heavily populated by people whose political inclinations result in their being rather badly-disposed to Walmart on account of its corporate ethics.

[Victor]

I believe the first NAs to be included in RG4N were the 4 centered on Burnet and Anderson for obvious reasons. Brentwood and Rosedale were included by request. In the case of Rosedale, I believe it was a single member who requested inclusion, although don't quote me on that.

If the other NAs are not include, (and I've heard Highland was added), then I think it's only because they haven't requested inclusion.

And if you don't agree with the direction RG4N is going, I don't think there is anything stopping you from forming a separate group....

Victor

[Big Question]

It seems here that what you are saying is that because these neighborhoods are White and middle class they shouldn't be listened to.

That's Racism.

If you tried this in East austin, in a primarily black neighborhood, you would have a lot of explaining to do.

[AC]

No. You've mis-read the post. My point is that the neighborhoods surrounding Northcross may not be as unanimous in their opposition to Wal-Mart as RG4N claims.

[AC]

Let me add, though, that I think Lincoln/Wal-Mart should be allowed to put a store in Northcross regardless of which neighborhoods support or oppose it. My top three reasons:

1. A Northcross with a Super Wal-Mart is better than a Northcross in its current state. My guess is that the surrounding retailers will benefit, on net. Lincoln doesn't want to do a mixed-use project and can't be made to, so I don't consider this an option.

2. I think, on balance, the benefits from a Wal-Mart outweigh the costs. Benefits: mainly convenient, low-cost shopping for many thousand area residents. The costs: Extra traffic for sure. Some people obviously just can't abide a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood. I suppose that's a cost, too, but I don't know how to value it.

What about harm to existing retailers? You can count that as a "cost" only if you count the spillover business to other existing retailers as a benefit. I.e., some will benefit; some, unfortunately, will lose. I suspect surrounding stores and restaurants will benefit more than they lose, on net.

I could be wrong about the cost-benefit assessment, but that leads to:

3. So what? Lincoln/Wal-Mart has an existing legal right to put a Super Wal-Mart at Northcross. (This distinguishes it from the typical case where an owner seeks an upzoning or other additional entitlements, which triggers an explicitly political action by the city.)

Since when does a property owner have to satisfy a cost-benefit analysis to put his property to a legal use? For that matter, why does an owner need neighborhood consent to do what the law says it can do?

Neighbors are always free to use informal sanctions to deter uses they deem bad. If I paint my house a garish but legal color, my neighbors may refuse to speak to me, give me cold looks, etc. That's a cost I will have to factor into my decision. But it's a different story for my neighbors to pressure the city to harass me with bogus charges that I need a permit or am violating code. I shouldn't have to get a court order permitting me to do what the law says I can do. Once things reach that state, the city has stopped enforcing the law and has begun enforcing mob rule.

Unfortunately, I think some of the Wal-Mart opposition has slipped into category two. Thousands of people have already made it clear that they don't Wal-Mart there and won't shop at a Wal-Mart. That's the kind of informal sanction that would make some retailers pause -- "Is this really how we want to start out, hated by many of our potential customers?"

But Lincoln and Wal-Mart are obviously willing to bear the informal cost of (some) neighborhood opposition. Fine. Despise them. Don't shop there. Put up signs in your yard telling others not to shop there. But don't go further and pressure city officials to withhold (or retract) permission that they were obliged by law to give.

And, yes, I know that RG4N and others dispute that the site plan was legal, or that the city was obliged to approve it. I just haven't seen a reasonable basis for these claims.

[Big Question]

First, You might think your argument isn't racist, I've met a lot of people who say they aren't racist and then go on about "those people". They are ignorant of their own racism. Please reread your position. It states that the the neighborhoods the area, not separated by a highway, are primarily white, and that those that do not share similar arterial roadways are more minority based. So what are you getting at? Because they aren't white they WOULDN'T care? What are you getting at?

I can tell you what it is... A racist argument.

Not only are you saying that the protestors, by virtue of being white, shouldn't be listened to (that IS what you are implying, no bones about it), but you are using shakey at best evidence for that assessment.

I know it's not PC to sympathize with what is traditionally perceived as the "people in power", and this might be what you are trying to take advantage of here, but its a blatant racist and classist attack.

[Big Question]

I should correct myself (too early in the morning), not that they don't share similar arterial roadways, it's that they don't share the SAME arterial roadways. Why would they care about a site plan that will have no impact on the traffic in their area?