The Chonicle's Who City Is It? Article.
The Chronicle has a very "Chronicle" column regarding Northcross neighborhoods, the trial, RG4N, WM and LP.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/ReaderComments/?ContainerID=561527
And they wonder why Dobson and other Austinites dismiss most of their articles on RG4N/Northcross...
Anyway, more comments. They're listed in the order they were posted. It's all behind the cut.
Comments are listed in order posted
m1ek said...
Michael, this is ridiculous. Zoning means something - in this case, it means that Lincoln bought the property knowing what they should be allowed to develop (and what they should not be allowed to develop). If they were up there asking for variances or even a change in zoning, RG4N and the rest of you guys would have a point, but they're not, and you don't.
When it comes to cases where developers seek upzoning, many of thse same people are very quick to tell you that the prospective developer should have known what they were getting when they bought the tract. Interesting how this doesn't apply here. Also interesting how none of the RG4N homeowners are volunteering to let Lincoln have veto power over their own development projects within current zoning. Democracy for me, not thee.
As for the comparison to the Triangle - the bulk of RG4N's supporters are using the group as 'useful idiots' here - they have shown through their actions on other projects (including very recently) that they have no interest at all in dense urban development - they want to preserve low-density stuff they already have.
A critical eye once in a while, even at your fellow travellers, would seem to me to be a basic responsibility for a journalist.
11-15-2007
-----
guest said...
"city staff rejiggered the numbers sufficiently to persuade the City Council that it could do nothing"
The truth of the matter is that the city staff has acted honestly and professionally. They have continued to do a solid, fair job when testifying in this case. Something that can't be said for some of the other players in this sad tale.
BTW, all those people (the vast majority of the neighborhoods) who aren't bringing this lawsuit? "We live here" too!
11-15-2007
-----
Report Facts by guest
It seems nobody reports facts anymore. They just give us a bunch of quotes to manipulate the truth, like:
"Jason Meeker is a space alien sent here to save us from the demonic Walmartians' plot to put karma poison in Shoal Creek," said Joe X (an unqualified random homeless person who happened to wander by the courthouse as I was looking for a soundbite). Asked about his feelings on the matter he responded,"Vootie. Vootie, Klaktoveedesteen."
The contents of this article are just so much crap. Why don't you just let Jason Meeker write your article for you and save time. it would contain the same amount of untruths, misleading quotes, and incorrect legal speculations? And not an "in my opinion", or "alleged" in sight.
Lee Nichols' blog (on this same site) sticks to reporting facts, and refutes pretty much everything you've said here.
11-15-2007
-----
i hate walmart by guest | hide/show
i really hate the idea of having a walmart there! STOP WALMART!
11-15-2007
-----
first three posts, be weary by guest | hide/show
walmart is known to uses forums to their advantage. they have employees that seek out messageboards and forums to speak in favor of walmart. in that way the try to give the appearence that the local citizens are mostly in favor of the project. be weary of their posts...
11-15-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
Dear last anonymous coward:
Apart from getting ten or fifteen bucks 15 years ago when I played as part of a pep band for an opening of one of their stores at Penn State, Wal-Mart has never paid me one red cent nor have anybody else associated with this project; I don't even like Wal-Mart, but can't stand hysterical idiots who demand we abandon the rule of law because they don't like a particular tenant.
You can find my blog very easily with google; most of what I write about has nothing to do with Wal-Mart. The Chronicle writers know who I am as well - it's not exactly a secret.
Be very wary of conspiracy theories from people who don't even have the guts to use a well-known nickname. RG4N is getting desperate.
11-15-2007
-----
guest said... | hide/show
Inded the lawsuit was not *filed* until June, but it had been *threatened prominently in the media* since November of the previous year.
RG4N spoke prominently about how a *Wal-Mart* was not acceptible under any terms - no matter what other problems were fixed, and that they would sue the city if they did not get their way. They made sure this was smeared all over the media.
Now their story (but not their *real* goal) has changed.
It is a tribute to RG4N's (and Jason Meeker's in particular) ability to generate bald faced lies, and smear them all over the local media, that they even attempt to deny this publicly these days. Any idiot can google and see what a liar Jason Meeker has been on behalf of RG4N.
Similarly it should come as no surprise that during those "eight months" Jason and RG4N were busily filling the media with sound bites telling us all that "there were no negotiations", that "Wal-Mart wasn't talking to anyone", that the city was railroading the plan through "without feedback from the neighborhoods". All complete lies - but eagerly accepted by the credulous who wanted it to be the case, and those who wanted a lawsuit instead of peaceful resolution.
Jason and RG4N have a serious case of cognative dissonance. Apparently any resolution other then them getting 100% exactly their way is complete and total failure to compromise by the city, Wal-mart, Lincoln, and the rest of us million or so people. And stupidly enough, most of the TV stations, print and electronic media in Austin are willing to post Jason's lies and spin as if they were fact.
Thank goodness we have courts where the actual *facts* rather than the lies and misrepresentations of an arrogant few can determine the outcome.
11-15-2007
-----
A New Location of Wal-Mart by Caroline | hide/show
As a Crestview resident who does not fall under Mike Dahmus' inaccurate generalizations of the neighborhood, I am continually offended by his condescending comments and insults. For this reason, I propose that we replace the Hyde Park commercial center on Duval (near Mike's house) with the 200,000 square foot "urban" Wal-Mart proposed for Northcross. Since 45th Street has just been redone, I'm sure that it can handle the additional traffic, and Duval can be expanded. Plus, it would save all the people in Hyde Park $2500 a month and would have so much more to offer than FreshPlus.
If this were the case, I'd like to see how Mike would react. Would he stick to his guns or fight like hell as a good NIMBY-ist should?
By the way m1ek, don't you have a job or something better to do at work than to cast your bitterness across local news sources (and then brag about how intelligent you are on your own "crackplog")?
11-15-2007
-----
guest said... | hide/show
"Jason and RG4N have a serious case of cognative dissonance."
Ha ha, RG4N so totally busted!
Hey Caroline, you know what "zoning" is?
11-15-2007
-----
Caroline said... | hide/show
Hey guest, do you know what "sarcasm" is?
11-15-2007
-----
ccosart@yahoo.com said... | hide/show
Yes, anyone who disagrees with RG4N must be a Walmart plant. Sheesh. M1ek is a local blogger AND right on target with his comments. I personally hate Walmart and their business practices. But I also recognize that for many of its customers they don't have the economic luxury of shopping elsewhere. If you look at RG4N’s member neighborhoods you’ll notice that the poorer and less-white neighborhoods are not members. But Rosedale, much farther away, is. Go figure. I think that provides a very unflattering answer to “Whose city is it?” I’d love to see something other than a Walmart go in there, but I can’t support the ridiculous and/or hypocritical RG4N arguments.
11-15-2007
-----
guest said... | hide/show
Oh Caroline, Caroline... you tried to imply he was a hypocrite with a big fat straw man, and when you were called on it, the best you can do is pretend the sarcastic element made the whole sad argument a joke!
Go to the back of the line.
11-15-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
Caroline,
I'd have no problem with Wal-Mart locating at any site with commercial zoning which allowed for that intensity of retail use. And what, precisely, do you think I said about your neighborhoods that's inaccurate? Especially Allandale, but to a lesser extent Crestview, have been on the non-urban side of density issues lately, which again makes it very difficult to believe that the RG4N vision is anything but a red herring. Not that it would work, anyways; high-density urban development that far from downtown is a near guaranteed economic loser.
11-15-2007
-----
or you could "be wary" by guest | hide/show
Jason Meeker and RG4N are known to uses forums to their advantage. They have minions that seek out messageboards and forums to speak out against walmart. In that way they try to give the appearence that the local citizens are mostly opposed to the project. Be wary of their posts...
11-15-2007
-----
OH! by guest | hide/show
How those tables will turn...
11-15-2007
-----
Exactly, be wary by guest | hide/show
Why bother discussing the facts when you can spend your time attacking anyone who has a different view of the situation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
11-15-2007
-----
Articles Like These...TskTsk by Kate | hide/show
It's articles like these that have Casey Dobson dismissing the Chronicle. I don't think The Chronicle has ever showed support for anything but RG4N. Not Pro-WalMart neighbors, not anti-RG4N/lawsuit neighbors, not compromise, nothing.
Where's the other side? Statesman has been able to portray it. K-eye, KXAN, Fox Austin, KVUE, News 8 Austin and even The Daily Texan. Yet the Chronicle seems to focus on RG4N like it's the only side of this whole story.
11-15-2007
-----
Rosedale/RG4N? by guest | hide/show
Just to set the facts straight: Rosedale is NOT a "member neighborhood" of RG4N. The Rosedale NA has NOT endorsed or supported RG in any way from day one. An RG4N board member happens to reside in Rosedale, but that's the only neighborhood connection, period.
Thanks for letting me clear that up!
Chris Allen
Rosedale
11-16-2007
-----
Another Note by guest | hide/show
I think that Folks like Chris Allen and M1EK have good points concerning whether the city staff were doing their job right (angry hate towards the neighborhoods by M1EK not withstanding), but I think it important to make this point:
Both of you must admit that you would be upset if one of these were to be planted at 40th and Lamar. Heck there was ruckus about the HEB and it's what, 1/3 the size?
The bottom line is that many people feel cheated and hoodwinked in the area. Whether that be because the City broke it's own rules or because the rules are set up to allow such bad plans to go into place, I hope all sides recognize that this occurred because people feel cheated, and quite frankly I agree that they have.... All that is left to determine is if that cheating was legally allowed or not. I mean come on, how many major cities to you know would allow NO public input on the placement of a 225,000 sf store in the middle of town? (and yes the population center of our metroplex is Anderson and Burnet)
I really hope this case is ruled in favor of RG4N. Casey Dobsons argument that city staff have discretion is perfectly valid, and I'm sorry, but a 225,000 sf super center in the middle of the city is a big deal. It didn't mean it shouldn't have happened, it means a SENSIBLE planning office would recognize that this is the time that tree ordinances, garden centers, lack of adequate notice to the neighborhoods, and traffic issues should mean "Maybe this should go to council".
Let's see which way the Judge goes on this. Maybe even this afternoon we will know?
11-16-2007
-----
Another note? by guest | hide/show
In this hypothetical scenario, is there an existing regional MALL on the site at 40th and Lamar? Is it 100% impervious cover? Was it originally designed to be a traffic generator? Does it flood and pollute the creek with untreated and undetained stormwater? These are the central issues with the redevelopment of the Northcross site. The developer already holds all of the cards, so it was wiser to negotiate with them than to attempt to fight them and lose all.
For the record, when the Triangle fight was happening, I was pushing for an urban Super Target on the site (WM wasn't doing progressive stores at that time), to provide a walkable one-stop general mercantile destination for all of the surrounding neighborhoods. That, along with a mix of entertainment, housing, and other retail, could have made Rosedale and Hyde Park more livable and less car-dependent for the future.
Thanks!
Chris Allen
Rosedale
11-16-2007
-----
All due respect by guest | hide/show
I have all the respect in the world for you Chris, but while I agree that the developers held MOST of the cards in this case, it doesn't make the situation right, fair or decent. What few cards these neighbors had needed to be played carefully, and quite frankly the first 2 things that were at issue were SIZE and HOURS OF OPERATION. Neither were considered a possible negotiating point by Wal-Mart or Lincoln at the time.
Your stick vs carrot approach to this issue requires that you have a carrot, and the evasive way Lincoln went about getting this plan approved did no allow for there to be any carrot, or any stick for that matter OTHER than a whopping lawsuit. Lincoln chose that path, not the nieghbors who feel shorted.
I was there at the meetings. I know.
At the same time, while I am hoping RG4N will win but, I'm not betting on it. Northcross is the center of the city, population wise. The perfect place for dense urban growth and VMU. It might be that the cities precedent of allowing developers to do what they want will be what the Judge decides is the important factor here.
What we will have if the city wins this fight is quite literally the center our fare city being a giant Wal-Mart.
Sorry but that reveals to me how sick and screwed up this city is.
And sorry, but that land was not 100 percent impervious cover, never was. and I'm sorry, but if the city got a site plan that would make it that, and make it 1.2 million feet of commercial use (what the zoning allows), they would have rejected it for the very same reasons RG4N is fighting this plan now. You know it, I know it. The city knows it. Being zoned for something doesn't mean the city has to approve it that way. It's now up to the judge to determine if this should have been approved.
Chris you had an opportunity to affect the triangle, and I hope you respect the idea that what we wanted was an OPPORTUNITY, that is what this case is about. Not stopping Wal-Mart, not forcing some other plan for the site, but having a voice in the goings on in our community.
Thanks for your time.
11-16-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
"Both of you must admit that you would be upset if one of these were to be planted at 40th and Lamar"
No, I would not admit that at all. I'd be thrilled that a large retail and employment destination was located somewhere other than a frontage road - in an area with good transit access. I wouldn't shop there, because I don't like Wal-Mart myself, but if Wal-Marts are to exist in our town, I'd much rather they be on major arterial roadways with good transit service than stuck "out on the highway" like everybody assumes they're supposed to be (they're NOT; in other states they quite often are miles away from freeways).
I was disappointed when the urban Target plan for 6th/Lamar fell apart. And I would have walked there.
11-16-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
"Being zoned for something doesn't mean the city has to approve it that way."
Uh, yes, yes it does. That's sort of the point.
11-16-2007
-----
guest said... | hide/show
Actually if they asked for 1.2 million square feet of commercial development they WOULDN'T approve it IF it created 20,000 more trips per day, caused flooding, etc etc etc.....
Zoning is not the only factor for site approval. You know that.
11-16-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
"Being zoned for something" includes the traffic and flood parts of the zoning code. Don't split hairs.
It was a MALL before. It wasn't a single-family neighborhood; it wasn't a small strip center; it wasn't undeveloped. It was a MALL, people. You don't move next to a mall and then expect to get to tell them to keep it empty instead of refurbishing it.
11-16-2007
-----
Heroes? by el_longhorn | hide/show
RG4N can protest all they want, can write their council members and whatever. It is definitely a NIMBY cause and not how I would spend my volunteer time, but to each his own. However, when you sue someone, that is crossing a certain line. If the legal arguments are there and the cause is worthy, go to it. But this lawsuit really never had a chance (I am a lawyer that practices admin law). I wouldn't call it frivolous, but it was a longshot AT BEST.
Because of this lawsuit, the city has spent close to half a million ($ that could go to all these quality of life issues that RG4N is supposed to care aobut) and the neighbors themselves have probably blown another $50K or so, maybe more. If the judge awards legal fees, the suit could bankrupt a neighborhood assoc.
What a horrible waste of everyones time and money. This lawsuit was never about the trees on the property or the flooding or being a bad corporation. This lawsuit was about property values - a gentrifying upper middle class hood thinks a walmart will hurt their rising home values. These folks are not heroes. They are doing what they perceive to be in their best financial interests, the same as walmart.
And let's stop with this "everyone knows the traffic is horrible there." The traffic is not horrible there when you compare it to any major Austin intersection.
PS I lived around 45th and Red River most of my time in Austin and would have LOVED to see Hancock developed even more intensely than it is. I live off Cameron now and would LOVE to see VMU development on Cameron and 51st.
11-16-2007
-----
ANA duped by foes of walmart? by guest | hide/show
Sadly, this will soon be remembered as "that group of arrogant elitists who misapropriated all of the funds of a neighborhood association and drove it into bankruptcy in order to inflict their whacko vision of Northcross on the rest of us".
Every single one of those jerks that sit on the ANA EC and misapropriated the NA's funds to "raise funds" for the legal "defense" fund ought to be held personally liable for reimbursing not only the taxpayers of this city for the legal expenses of this fiasco but reimburse the NA itself the thousands of dollars they misapropriated from the general fund. They ought to pay it out of their personal pockets.
11-17-2007
-----
Silly by emodog | hide/show
Seems like a silly issue. It's a friggin MALL, and a beat down, decrepit one at that. Isn't it better to have a retailer refurbish it and run a successful business there? Surely Wal-mart did the market research to know they'd be successful in that location. If the demand wasn't there, they wouldn't be building it. Does anyone think if Saks and Nordstroms were going into Northcross there would be any conflict? Of course not. Truth is, it's not a Saks or Nordstroms neighborhood and it drives some people crazy to face the difficult fact that the area isn't so upscale after all.
11-17-2007
-----
Thanks for the article, Michael. by guest | hide/show
The people clearly tried very hard to work with the city, the developer and Wal-Mart. Despite these outgoing efforts, city, the developer and Wal-Mart proved to be impossible to work with. No attention was paid to serious concerns raised, like crime, traffic, pollution, & impact on local businesses beyond articles and blogs. Just look at the sheer size of the development. It is larger now than when it was initially disclosed to the public one year ago.
The major neighborhood associations surrounding the mall property rejected the plan due to the negative impacts it absolutely will have regarding crime and traffic, if built. Believing that this store would not increase crime -- as stores like this do -- or not disrupt the local neighborhoods with overwhelming traffic is wishful, deluded thinking. No one should sit back and hope for the best, when all evidence indicates real trouble ahead.
As for class warfare-based arguments, those evaporate each and every time RG4N protests on Saturday mornings at the corner of Burnet and Anderson. Hundreds of horns and voices sound their support. Requests for information or offers of money come from people from every walk of life. People want their neighborhoods to improve, and many who know their neighborhoods already deal with rising crime are wary of this development. Recent crime sprees in Allandale are prelude.
Thousands of taxpaying folks agree that the developer and Wal-Mart should have taken much more responsible approach to develop this project, rather than resort to outright half-truths and PR-driven distortions in order to make it as massive as possible, regardless of what anyone thinks who lives nearby. Screw you is bad business and bad politics, and there will be a reckoning.
It is constantly amazing to read the mental diarrhea from Dahmus and Allen, two individuals who seem like they give a damn, but clearly only give a damn that they be given credit for being involved somewhere, sometime for, huh? Whatsit? Do either of you have anything to show other than your methane?
Built or not, everyone in Austin now pays for a Wal-Mart to be developed. At least $224,000 was paid by Austin taxpayers to help develop it. That is before the extra $200,000 spent on legal fees. Whatever the outcome of the trial, citizens should demand better from their local government. Developers should improve their tactics when developing. Wal-Mart is hopeless, and now they have assimilated the Eagles.
11-18-2007
-----
Rule of law means something by m1ek | hide/show
Dear anonymous coward:
Chris Allen and I know that this case had to proceed given the zoning code as it was written. Period. All the rest of it is you trying to gloss over that inconvenient truth: that the rule of law in this case was clear: it was a MALL before, and the redevelopment was clearly allowed by code.
If somehow the forces of "rule by mob" win this time, you need to be ready for the obvious consequence the next time you argue against an upzoning by claiming that the developer knew the zoning on the property when they bought it. In this case, they bought the property knowing that zoning allowed high-intensity retail, and now you guys want to pull out the rug simply because you don't like the tenant.
And the Chronicle, with lips firmly puckered to ANC's butt, plays along.
11-18-2007
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/ReaderComments/?ContainerID=561527
And they wonder why Dobson and other Austinites dismiss most of their articles on RG4N/Northcross...
Anyway, more comments. They're listed in the order they were posted. It's all behind the cut.
Comments are listed in order posted
m1ek said...
Michael, this is ridiculous. Zoning means something - in this case, it means that Lincoln bought the property knowing what they should be allowed to develop (and what they should not be allowed to develop). If they were up there asking for variances or even a change in zoning, RG4N and the rest of you guys would have a point, but they're not, and you don't.
When it comes to cases where developers seek upzoning, many of thse same people are very quick to tell you that the prospective developer should have known what they were getting when they bought the tract. Interesting how this doesn't apply here. Also interesting how none of the RG4N homeowners are volunteering to let Lincoln have veto power over their own development projects within current zoning. Democracy for me, not thee.
As for the comparison to the Triangle - the bulk of RG4N's supporters are using the group as 'useful idiots' here - they have shown through their actions on other projects (including very recently) that they have no interest at all in dense urban development - they want to preserve low-density stuff they already have.
A critical eye once in a while, even at your fellow travellers, would seem to me to be a basic responsibility for a journalist.
11-15-2007
-----
guest said...
"city staff rejiggered the numbers sufficiently to persuade the City Council that it could do nothing"
The truth of the matter is that the city staff has acted honestly and professionally. They have continued to do a solid, fair job when testifying in this case. Something that can't be said for some of the other players in this sad tale.
BTW, all those people (the vast majority of the neighborhoods) who aren't bringing this lawsuit? "We live here" too!
11-15-2007
-----
Report Facts by guest
It seems nobody reports facts anymore. They just give us a bunch of quotes to manipulate the truth, like:
"Jason Meeker is a space alien sent here to save us from the demonic Walmartians' plot to put karma poison in Shoal Creek," said Joe X (an unqualified random homeless person who happened to wander by the courthouse as I was looking for a soundbite). Asked about his feelings on the matter he responded,"Vootie. Vootie, Klaktoveedesteen."
The contents of this article are just so much crap. Why don't you just let Jason Meeker write your article for you and save time. it would contain the same amount of untruths, misleading quotes, and incorrect legal speculations? And not an "in my opinion", or "alleged" in sight.
Lee Nichols' blog (on this same site) sticks to reporting facts, and refutes pretty much everything you've said here.
11-15-2007
-----
i hate walmart by guest | hide/show
i really hate the idea of having a walmart there! STOP WALMART!
11-15-2007
-----
first three posts, be weary by guest | hide/show
walmart is known to uses forums to their advantage. they have employees that seek out messageboards and forums to speak in favor of walmart. in that way the try to give the appearence that the local citizens are mostly in favor of the project. be weary of their posts...
11-15-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
Dear last anonymous coward:
Apart from getting ten or fifteen bucks 15 years ago when I played as part of a pep band for an opening of one of their stores at Penn State, Wal-Mart has never paid me one red cent nor have anybody else associated with this project; I don't even like Wal-Mart, but can't stand hysterical idiots who demand we abandon the rule of law because they don't like a particular tenant.
You can find my blog very easily with google; most of what I write about has nothing to do with Wal-Mart. The Chronicle writers know who I am as well - it's not exactly a secret.
Be very wary of conspiracy theories from people who don't even have the guts to use a well-known nickname. RG4N is getting desperate.
11-15-2007
-----
guest said... | hide/show
Inded the lawsuit was not *filed* until June, but it had been *threatened prominently in the media* since November of the previous year.
RG4N spoke prominently about how a *Wal-Mart* was not acceptible under any terms - no matter what other problems were fixed, and that they would sue the city if they did not get their way. They made sure this was smeared all over the media.
Now their story (but not their *real* goal) has changed.
It is a tribute to RG4N's (and Jason Meeker's in particular) ability to generate bald faced lies, and smear them all over the local media, that they even attempt to deny this publicly these days. Any idiot can google and see what a liar Jason Meeker has been on behalf of RG4N.
Similarly it should come as no surprise that during those "eight months" Jason and RG4N were busily filling the media with sound bites telling us all that "there were no negotiations", that "Wal-Mart wasn't talking to anyone", that the city was railroading the plan through "without feedback from the neighborhoods". All complete lies - but eagerly accepted by the credulous who wanted it to be the case, and those who wanted a lawsuit instead of peaceful resolution.
Jason and RG4N have a serious case of cognative dissonance. Apparently any resolution other then them getting 100% exactly their way is complete and total failure to compromise by the city, Wal-mart, Lincoln, and the rest of us million or so people. And stupidly enough, most of the TV stations, print and electronic media in Austin are willing to post Jason's lies and spin as if they were fact.
Thank goodness we have courts where the actual *facts* rather than the lies and misrepresentations of an arrogant few can determine the outcome.
11-15-2007
-----
A New Location of Wal-Mart by Caroline | hide/show
As a Crestview resident who does not fall under Mike Dahmus' inaccurate generalizations of the neighborhood, I am continually offended by his condescending comments and insults. For this reason, I propose that we replace the Hyde Park commercial center on Duval (near Mike's house) with the 200,000 square foot "urban" Wal-Mart proposed for Northcross. Since 45th Street has just been redone, I'm sure that it can handle the additional traffic, and Duval can be expanded. Plus, it would save all the people in Hyde Park $2500 a month and would have so much more to offer than FreshPlus.
If this were the case, I'd like to see how Mike would react. Would he stick to his guns or fight like hell as a good NIMBY-ist should?
By the way m1ek, don't you have a job or something better to do at work than to cast your bitterness across local news sources (and then brag about how intelligent you are on your own "crackplog")?
11-15-2007
-----
guest said... | hide/show
"Jason and RG4N have a serious case of cognative dissonance."
Ha ha, RG4N so totally busted!
Hey Caroline, you know what "zoning" is?
11-15-2007
-----
Caroline said... | hide/show
Hey guest, do you know what "sarcasm" is?
11-15-2007
-----
ccosart@yahoo.com said... | hide/show
Yes, anyone who disagrees with RG4N must be a Walmart plant. Sheesh. M1ek is a local blogger AND right on target with his comments. I personally hate Walmart and their business practices. But I also recognize that for many of its customers they don't have the economic luxury of shopping elsewhere. If you look at RG4N’s member neighborhoods you’ll notice that the poorer and less-white neighborhoods are not members. But Rosedale, much farther away, is. Go figure. I think that provides a very unflattering answer to “Whose city is it?” I’d love to see something other than a Walmart go in there, but I can’t support the ridiculous and/or hypocritical RG4N arguments.
11-15-2007
-----
guest said... | hide/show
Oh Caroline, Caroline... you tried to imply he was a hypocrite with a big fat straw man, and when you were called on it, the best you can do is pretend the sarcastic element made the whole sad argument a joke!
Go to the back of the line.
11-15-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
Caroline,
I'd have no problem with Wal-Mart locating at any site with commercial zoning which allowed for that intensity of retail use. And what, precisely, do you think I said about your neighborhoods that's inaccurate? Especially Allandale, but to a lesser extent Crestview, have been on the non-urban side of density issues lately, which again makes it very difficult to believe that the RG4N vision is anything but a red herring. Not that it would work, anyways; high-density urban development that far from downtown is a near guaranteed economic loser.
11-15-2007
-----
or you could "be wary" by guest | hide/show
Jason Meeker and RG4N are known to uses forums to their advantage. They have minions that seek out messageboards and forums to speak out against walmart. In that way they try to give the appearence that the local citizens are mostly opposed to the project. Be wary of their posts...
11-15-2007
-----
OH! by guest | hide/show
How those tables will turn...
11-15-2007
-----
Exactly, be wary by guest | hide/show
Why bother discussing the facts when you can spend your time attacking anyone who has a different view of the situation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
11-15-2007
-----
Articles Like These...TskTsk by Kate | hide/show
It's articles like these that have Casey Dobson dismissing the Chronicle. I don't think The Chronicle has ever showed support for anything but RG4N. Not Pro-WalMart neighbors, not anti-RG4N/lawsuit neighbors, not compromise, nothing.
Where's the other side? Statesman has been able to portray it. K-eye, KXAN, Fox Austin, KVUE, News 8 Austin and even The Daily Texan. Yet the Chronicle seems to focus on RG4N like it's the only side of this whole story.
11-15-2007
-----
Rosedale/RG4N? by guest | hide/show
Just to set the facts straight: Rosedale is NOT a "member neighborhood" of RG4N. The Rosedale NA has NOT endorsed or supported RG in any way from day one. An RG4N board member happens to reside in Rosedale, but that's the only neighborhood connection, period.
Thanks for letting me clear that up!
Chris Allen
Rosedale
11-16-2007
-----
Another Note by guest | hide/show
I think that Folks like Chris Allen and M1EK have good points concerning whether the city staff were doing their job right (angry hate towards the neighborhoods by M1EK not withstanding), but I think it important to make this point:
Both of you must admit that you would be upset if one of these were to be planted at 40th and Lamar. Heck there was ruckus about the HEB and it's what, 1/3 the size?
The bottom line is that many people feel cheated and hoodwinked in the area. Whether that be because the City broke it's own rules or because the rules are set up to allow such bad plans to go into place, I hope all sides recognize that this occurred because people feel cheated, and quite frankly I agree that they have.... All that is left to determine is if that cheating was legally allowed or not. I mean come on, how many major cities to you know would allow NO public input on the placement of a 225,000 sf store in the middle of town? (and yes the population center of our metroplex is Anderson and Burnet)
I really hope this case is ruled in favor of RG4N. Casey Dobsons argument that city staff have discretion is perfectly valid, and I'm sorry, but a 225,000 sf super center in the middle of the city is a big deal. It didn't mean it shouldn't have happened, it means a SENSIBLE planning office would recognize that this is the time that tree ordinances, garden centers, lack of adequate notice to the neighborhoods, and traffic issues should mean "Maybe this should go to council".
Let's see which way the Judge goes on this. Maybe even this afternoon we will know?
11-16-2007
-----
Another note? by guest | hide/show
In this hypothetical scenario, is there an existing regional MALL on the site at 40th and Lamar? Is it 100% impervious cover? Was it originally designed to be a traffic generator? Does it flood and pollute the creek with untreated and undetained stormwater? These are the central issues with the redevelopment of the Northcross site. The developer already holds all of the cards, so it was wiser to negotiate with them than to attempt to fight them and lose all.
For the record, when the Triangle fight was happening, I was pushing for an urban Super Target on the site (WM wasn't doing progressive stores at that time), to provide a walkable one-stop general mercantile destination for all of the surrounding neighborhoods. That, along with a mix of entertainment, housing, and other retail, could have made Rosedale and Hyde Park more livable and less car-dependent for the future.
Thanks!
Chris Allen
Rosedale
11-16-2007
-----
All due respect by guest | hide/show
I have all the respect in the world for you Chris, but while I agree that the developers held MOST of the cards in this case, it doesn't make the situation right, fair or decent. What few cards these neighbors had needed to be played carefully, and quite frankly the first 2 things that were at issue were SIZE and HOURS OF OPERATION. Neither were considered a possible negotiating point by Wal-Mart or Lincoln at the time.
Your stick vs carrot approach to this issue requires that you have a carrot, and the evasive way Lincoln went about getting this plan approved did no allow for there to be any carrot, or any stick for that matter OTHER than a whopping lawsuit. Lincoln chose that path, not the nieghbors who feel shorted.
I was there at the meetings. I know.
At the same time, while I am hoping RG4N will win but, I'm not betting on it. Northcross is the center of the city, population wise. The perfect place for dense urban growth and VMU. It might be that the cities precedent of allowing developers to do what they want will be what the Judge decides is the important factor here.
What we will have if the city wins this fight is quite literally the center our fare city being a giant Wal-Mart.
Sorry but that reveals to me how sick and screwed up this city is.
And sorry, but that land was not 100 percent impervious cover, never was. and I'm sorry, but if the city got a site plan that would make it that, and make it 1.2 million feet of commercial use (what the zoning allows), they would have rejected it for the very same reasons RG4N is fighting this plan now. You know it, I know it. The city knows it. Being zoned for something doesn't mean the city has to approve it that way. It's now up to the judge to determine if this should have been approved.
Chris you had an opportunity to affect the triangle, and I hope you respect the idea that what we wanted was an OPPORTUNITY, that is what this case is about. Not stopping Wal-Mart, not forcing some other plan for the site, but having a voice in the goings on in our community.
Thanks for your time.
11-16-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
"Both of you must admit that you would be upset if one of these were to be planted at 40th and Lamar"
No, I would not admit that at all. I'd be thrilled that a large retail and employment destination was located somewhere other than a frontage road - in an area with good transit access. I wouldn't shop there, because I don't like Wal-Mart myself, but if Wal-Marts are to exist in our town, I'd much rather they be on major arterial roadways with good transit service than stuck "out on the highway" like everybody assumes they're supposed to be (they're NOT; in other states they quite often are miles away from freeways).
I was disappointed when the urban Target plan for 6th/Lamar fell apart. And I would have walked there.
11-16-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
"Being zoned for something doesn't mean the city has to approve it that way."
Uh, yes, yes it does. That's sort of the point.
11-16-2007
-----
guest said... | hide/show
Actually if they asked for 1.2 million square feet of commercial development they WOULDN'T approve it IF it created 20,000 more trips per day, caused flooding, etc etc etc.....
Zoning is not the only factor for site approval. You know that.
11-16-2007
-----
m1ek said... | hide/show
"Being zoned for something" includes the traffic and flood parts of the zoning code. Don't split hairs.
It was a MALL before. It wasn't a single-family neighborhood; it wasn't a small strip center; it wasn't undeveloped. It was a MALL, people. You don't move next to a mall and then expect to get to tell them to keep it empty instead of refurbishing it.
11-16-2007
-----
Heroes? by el_longhorn | hide/show
RG4N can protest all they want, can write their council members and whatever. It is definitely a NIMBY cause and not how I would spend my volunteer time, but to each his own. However, when you sue someone, that is crossing a certain line. If the legal arguments are there and the cause is worthy, go to it. But this lawsuit really never had a chance (I am a lawyer that practices admin law). I wouldn't call it frivolous, but it was a longshot AT BEST.
Because of this lawsuit, the city has spent close to half a million ($ that could go to all these quality of life issues that RG4N is supposed to care aobut) and the neighbors themselves have probably blown another $50K or so, maybe more. If the judge awards legal fees, the suit could bankrupt a neighborhood assoc.
What a horrible waste of everyones time and money. This lawsuit was never about the trees on the property or the flooding or being a bad corporation. This lawsuit was about property values - a gentrifying upper middle class hood thinks a walmart will hurt their rising home values. These folks are not heroes. They are doing what they perceive to be in their best financial interests, the same as walmart.
And let's stop with this "everyone knows the traffic is horrible there." The traffic is not horrible there when you compare it to any major Austin intersection.
PS I lived around 45th and Red River most of my time in Austin and would have LOVED to see Hancock developed even more intensely than it is. I live off Cameron now and would LOVE to see VMU development on Cameron and 51st.
11-16-2007
-----
ANA duped by foes of walmart? by guest | hide/show
Sadly, this will soon be remembered as "that group of arrogant elitists who misapropriated all of the funds of a neighborhood association and drove it into bankruptcy in order to inflict their whacko vision of Northcross on the rest of us".
Every single one of those jerks that sit on the ANA EC and misapropriated the NA's funds to "raise funds" for the legal "defense" fund ought to be held personally liable for reimbursing not only the taxpayers of this city for the legal expenses of this fiasco but reimburse the NA itself the thousands of dollars they misapropriated from the general fund. They ought to pay it out of their personal pockets.
11-17-2007
-----
Silly by emodog | hide/show
Seems like a silly issue. It's a friggin MALL, and a beat down, decrepit one at that. Isn't it better to have a retailer refurbish it and run a successful business there? Surely Wal-mart did the market research to know they'd be successful in that location. If the demand wasn't there, they wouldn't be building it. Does anyone think if Saks and Nordstroms were going into Northcross there would be any conflict? Of course not. Truth is, it's not a Saks or Nordstroms neighborhood and it drives some people crazy to face the difficult fact that the area isn't so upscale after all.
11-17-2007
-----
Thanks for the article, Michael. by guest | hide/show
The people clearly tried very hard to work with the city, the developer and Wal-Mart. Despite these outgoing efforts, city, the developer and Wal-Mart proved to be impossible to work with. No attention was paid to serious concerns raised, like crime, traffic, pollution, & impact on local businesses beyond articles and blogs. Just look at the sheer size of the development. It is larger now than when it was initially disclosed to the public one year ago.
The major neighborhood associations surrounding the mall property rejected the plan due to the negative impacts it absolutely will have regarding crime and traffic, if built. Believing that this store would not increase crime -- as stores like this do -- or not disrupt the local neighborhoods with overwhelming traffic is wishful, deluded thinking. No one should sit back and hope for the best, when all evidence indicates real trouble ahead.
As for class warfare-based arguments, those evaporate each and every time RG4N protests on Saturday mornings at the corner of Burnet and Anderson. Hundreds of horns and voices sound their support. Requests for information or offers of money come from people from every walk of life. People want their neighborhoods to improve, and many who know their neighborhoods already deal with rising crime are wary of this development. Recent crime sprees in Allandale are prelude.
Thousands of taxpaying folks agree that the developer and Wal-Mart should have taken much more responsible approach to develop this project, rather than resort to outright half-truths and PR-driven distortions in order to make it as massive as possible, regardless of what anyone thinks who lives nearby. Screw you is bad business and bad politics, and there will be a reckoning.
It is constantly amazing to read the mental diarrhea from Dahmus and Allen, two individuals who seem like they give a damn, but clearly only give a damn that they be given credit for being involved somewhere, sometime for, huh? Whatsit? Do either of you have anything to show other than your methane?
Built or not, everyone in Austin now pays for a Wal-Mart to be developed. At least $224,000 was paid by Austin taxpayers to help develop it. That is before the extra $200,000 spent on legal fees. Whatever the outcome of the trial, citizens should demand better from their local government. Developers should improve their tactics when developing. Wal-Mart is hopeless, and now they have assimilated the Eagles.
11-18-2007
-----
Rule of law means something by m1ek | hide/show
Dear anonymous coward:
Chris Allen and I know that this case had to proceed given the zoning code as it was written. Period. All the rest of it is you trying to gloss over that inconvenient truth: that the rule of law in this case was clear: it was a MALL before, and the redevelopment was clearly allowed by code.
If somehow the forces of "rule by mob" win this time, you need to be ready for the obvious consequence the next time you argue against an upzoning by claiming that the developer knew the zoning on the property when they bought it. In this case, they bought the property knowing that zoning allowed high-intensity retail, and now you guys want to pull out the rug simply because you don't like the tenant.
And the Chronicle, with lips firmly puckered to ANC's butt, plays along.
11-18-2007