ANC's call for action

ANC has revised the draft growth management resolution I wrote about here.  (Even some ANC supporters had trouble stomaching that one.)  It's calling the new resolution, "A Call for Action to Manage Austin's Growth."

The new resolution manages to avoid patent contradictions, such as bashing sprawl in one sentence and bashing density in the next.  But the upshot is the same:  The City Council should capitulate to ANC/neighborhood association demands, including demands to opt out of VMU.  (If only ANC would practice what it preaches by respecting the "positions of the affected . . . Neighborhood Associations."  How many times has ANC ignored the Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association's position on downtown development projects?) 

Let me give you the flavor of the "Call for Action":

A healthy future for the City of Austin that achieves our shared vision requires a viable and living growth management policy.  The ANC identifies the following as essential to success:

• Engage diverse stakeholders and the general public.
• Identify and articulate long-term goals that reflect community values.
• Develop a strategy on which to implement policies.  [AC:  ???]
• Ensure that the policy provides an equitable balance of gains and losses for all stakeholders.
• Secure the citizenry's endorsement of the policy.

"Living" is not the first adjective I would use to describe a growth management policy, although I understand why ANC prefers it to, say, "stifling."  But my main objection to this paragraph is the claim that there are "community values."  There aren't, at least not where land-use regulations are concerned.  There are people who value the status quo, and who believe it is City Council's job to maintain it.  Then there are people who value a dynamic environment, even if it means occasional friction or inconvenience.  There are people who believe that SF-3 zoned property is sacred, and those who believe the city should be making more room for multi-family.  There are those who like density because of the vitality and variety it brings, and those who hate density because of the congestion it brings.  It is no use pretending that there is any such thing as a "shared vision" or "community value"; there are profound differences among us, and we're not all going to get what we want.   

Comments

[Don Johnson]

It is no secret by now that people (all kinds of people) seem to come up with lots of reasons for saying "no" to new projects. But at least you could always go back to the code to sort it out.

However, this would make everything more subjective. Subjectivity means dead in the water unless Laura Morrison likes you.

You should check out the criteria used by the "Design and Compatiblity Commission" for blessing projects that don't conform to the McMansion Ordinance. One could never go before that board confidently unless you were with the in crowd. Mass and scale and character have no strict definition so you are at the whim of the power grabbers.

This new ANC call to action seems to want to shift that subjectivity to the front end of the process rather than the back end like what we see with the Design Compatibility Commission.

[M1EK]

CB,

Would you mind reposting the text to austin_urbanists? Would be a good time to bring that list back to life, I think.

[hope]

The fact that not every individual in a group holds the same views on a given subject is no reason not to pursue development of a shared vision for that subject. I haven't read the ANC document in its entirety, so I can't speak to their proposal. But I don't see what would could possibly be objectionable about a vision-development process that gives everyone an opportunity to participate, so that at the end of the day you have a big picture result that takes all views into account and represents either a consensus, an outline of the areas of agreement, or something that reflects the majority but takes into account the minority.

Your posts here seem to reflect the view that if someone owns the property, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it, more or less. I would suggest that this view of rights is quite narrowly focused on just the rights of those who own a piece of property - not the rights of those affected by the owner's actions. When a property owner develops the property, they affect others. When you begin to affect others, you begin ceding your right to do whatever you wish.

[AC]

"Your posts here seem to reflect the view that if someone owns the property, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it, more or less."

No. That's a straw man. I have never uttered the phrase "property rights" in this blog, so don't mischaracterize my views.

We all know that development can impose costs on existing residents. Conversely, existing residents who successfully oppose development impose costs, too, either on newcomers in the form of higher prices, or on existing residents who welcome new amenities. The question is, How do you resolve the conflict? "We all just need a vision" is an empty phrase, not a real suggestion for resolving the conflict.

One solution is to require most developments to get public approval. But that automatically gives an edge to the surrounding property owners. Even if the proposed development would impose relatively trivial costs, they have an incentive to oppose it as long as the costs of the development exceed the cost of sending a letter or appearing at a city council meeting. The benefits, on the other hand, are likely to be broadly dispersed, or to accrue to future residents who don't have a vote. Thus, even though the development's benefits might greatly outweigh its costs, the vocal minority may be able to obstruct it. (This is the same dynamic that gives us tariffs on steel and cane sugar.)

There's another problem with the "Let's vote on everything" system. It imposes tremendous administrative costs. Lawyer's fees, realtor fees, the inevitable delays. The uncertainty also imposes costs. Those costs will frequently deter perfectly harmless development. That is a deadweight loss. Over the long term, those losses add up; they hurt a city's vitality.

If you think the city's main job is to protect your home value from the competition of new development, as ANC's executive committee apparently does, then you will want the "let's vote on everything" system. That way you can talk about "vision," "equity" and "diversity" as you work to maximize your net worth at others' expense.

A better system is to decide in advance on clear and reasonable design standards that will shield existing neighbors from significant costs while accommodating new growth. Owners and developers can build what and when they want as long as they comply with the standards. This avoids the inefficiency of case-by-case determinations. More importantly, it cuts down on the ability of vocal minorities to obstruct development that is a net benefit.

The VMU ordinance we have now is the second type of system. It imposes really tough design standards to protect neighboring homeowners from externalities and the public as a whole from bad design. As a quid pro quo, it opens up a bunch of land to VMU development. This represented the City's attempt to balance growth: keep it on the transit corridors, shield existing homeowners from the worst effects, and eliminate the constant bickering over each new development. That is a very sensible growth policy. It is a "big picture" view.

ANC doesn't like this particular picture, because it strips it of its leverage. When ANC demands a new "growth management policy" and starts talking about "community vision," what it really wants is to go back to the "let's vote on everything" system. That is why I see its "call for action" as thinly disguised obstructionism.

The VMU ordinance is a good ordinance. It was publicly vetted, debated and adopted, by a Council trying to balance conflicting interests. We don't need a re-vote.

[hope]

Didn't intend to mischaracterize your views, just saying how it seemed to me. But thanks for the explanation.

What I know of the VMU ordinance I like. Seems like a good approach to accommodating growth, increasing central city density but also preserving single-family feel in established neighborhoods.

I'm sure you know ANC much better than I do - I've never gone to a meeting, don't read ANCtalk, etc. But I have had discussions with some of those folks and I don't at all get the sense that maintaining a high property value is their overriding goal - although any single family neighborhood within a central city that effectively manages growth will be attractive, thereby ensuring decent property value. I think they want to maintain single-family feel of their neighborhoods, and also have a well-defined opinion about how the city should accommodate growth.

You mention the costs associated with voting on things. I would just respond that balancing rights - rather than simply favoring one set of rights or the other - inherently results in costs (financial or otherwise). What's fair and what's cheapest don't usually coincide.

[M1EK]

Hope,

ANC has gotten pretty good over the years at pretending to be responsible. This doesn't change the fact that they have opposed every single form of density, whether inside or outside of their neighborhoods; whether expensive condos or inexpensive garage apartments; whether preserving/redeveloping run-down apartments or preventing conversion of single-family to multi-family.

McCracken caught them out on it this time - but this is hardly the first; just the latest. Saying "don't allow any density inside our neighborhoods; please densify on the edge instead" and then when it comes time to pay back, saying "no thanks" is pretty much standard ANC practice.