Is Rowlett Zoning doubling down?

3/25/2014

Thruout these posts, you have read about two upscale housing developments that had been rejected by Zoning, P&Z. and Council.   These two projects, if approved, would have contributed about $26.5 million per year to the Rowlett tax base until fully developed. In about 6 years, they would then contribute about $1.2 million per year in revenue.

Well, both were defeated. The most recent was defeated for some pretty bizarre reasons, one of which was an inquiry from some phantom credit card service company that nobody could remember anything about. The other reasons seemed to be collectively assembled and identified as anti-Rowlett 2020, or I just don't want to. With such facts, how could anyone go wrong?

Well, it looks like the Rowlett Zoning Department is double dipping. The developer wants to try P&Z again. Of course, the Staff is dutifully recommending denial of the request again to P&Z. They cite pretty much the same reason(s). Once again, the consultants are going into Executive Session to discuss the request for zoning change. Be assured, the consultants will resist the zoning request. Once again, the taxpayers and citizens are frozen out of the picture. You will be told what is wanted that you be told. Below is copied from the tonight's agenda. Citizens, you will have no say in the future of your tax base. The tax rate is a little less arbitrary and must be set to pay the city's bills, but the tax base is something that every citizen should have a say, or at least be informed about. Tonight, they are talking about tax base.

"AGENDA DATE: 03/27/14 AGENDA ITEM: 2ATITLE The City Council shall convene into Executive Session pursuant to Texas Government Code, §551.087 (Economic Development) and §551.071 (Consultation with Attorney) to receive legal advice from the City Attorney and to discuss the North Shore Master Plan in relation to a proposed rezoning request generally located at 7400 and 7600 Liberty Grove Road. (30 minutes) "

This same procedure was utilized in the other, more recent (Nov. 19, 2013) City Council meeting whereby zoning was denied. The consultants showed up for the Executive Session then, also. Citizens didn't. Wasn't invited. Then, the dog and pony show began.

The city council reconvened for the public session. Three of the seven voters had something to say. Four on council never made a peep. Nada.    The vote was taken and the request failed.

It took a few weeks for the light bulb to come on. I believe the dog and pony show held for the public was scripted. It was an orchestration.   The mayor made some neutral comments, Chris Kilgore made some comments "for" the rezoning, and Carl Pankratz made some comments "against" the rezoning.......very "balanced"..........then, the vote was taken. Request failed.

The citizens were fed what was wanted. You were aced out. You will be again tonight. A marketing consultant from Denver will tell you tonight what it is thought you need to know about your city.

You people HAVE to get involved. It doesn't matter that you agree with me. It only matters that you know WHY you do or don't.

6 Comments

Chris

3/26/2014 09:32:48 am

That's a pretty big leap. I would encourage everyone to actually listen to the comments before they take your word that they were "scripted." After listening, if anyone still believes they were scripted, then there's probably no convincing them of anything else anyway, like the world is not flat, the sun comes up in the east, whatever. Besides, you know full well, in context, that my comments are completely in line with my views on the subject, every time it has come up, in private and in public - unless I've been "scripted" the entire time. Actually, I don't really believe that you really believe that anyway.

Ron

3/26/2014 11:37:31 am

Chris.......Thanks for your comment. I appreciate it.

I think you will find several places in the blog in which I set out your views based on your commentary in City Council. I hold you in high esteem. I can understand you being a little "miffed" at the suggestion that someone was telling you what to say. If there is anyone on council that I think is above being told what to say, it would be you.

However, look at what unfolded as it could have appeared to an"outsider." An $80 million project was on the table. Are we to believe that such a project was decided by seven voting members based on only reading the Staff Report? Four voting council members didn't say anything. An $80 million project was rejected with no discussion except for the" neutral," "for," and "against" opinions. Where did any discussion take place?

The project in question would have contributed a great deal to the city's tax burden. I would think some vigorous discussion was in order. I enjoyed your commentary.

However, what was far more irritating to me was that Ann Richter appeared in Executive Session before the McEntee rezoning request and we will never know what she said. I noticed the small smile on her face as she came out of Executive Session. I can't believe that anything resembling a "sensitive legal issue" would be needed for a simple rezoning request. Was marketing of the rezoning issue discussed? I don't know. The citizens will never know.

According to the P&Z agenda for Tuesday evening, the same procedure was being followed. Consultants meet in private with P&Z. That is fine if a sensitive legal issue is present. To me, it was a simple zoning request, not needing private session.. But.......it will remain private. No one will ever know.

I don't blame you for being a little miffed, but that wasn't my intent. I was really wanting the citizens to be a little miffed. Sorry.

By the way, I still enjoy seeing the sun come up each morning in the East. At my age, it is most enjoyable and a little lucky. And, I am proud to announce I am not a member of the Flat Earth Society.

Enjoyed your comments. Write often.

3/28/2014 09:27:15 am

I forgot one other thing, evidence, if you will, that this is hardly "scripted." If you recall, at the 19 Nov 13 meeting, the rezoning actually received a majority vote. I was surprised, and pleased. The problem was that because of the number of adjacent landowners in opposition, a super-majority was required by statute.

All that said, as you know, there is a block of votes on the Council that have taken an ideological position that if something is zoned for commercial development, it should not be rezoned to accommodate residential, without regard to the relative financial benefits to the City (or any other benefit for that matter) . We went down that road on the Kirby Road property earlier. Right now, the split is pretty even. One "commercial only" proponent is leaving council, one "take each project on a case by case basis" is leaving also. Don't have any idea how it will shake out with the new council.

3/28/2014 10:26:43 am

Chris--

I agree with everything you just wrote.

I have two observations:

In the world of business, adaptability is paramount to success. You must bend with the wind, or break. If you bullheadedly hold the joystick straight when flying toward a mountain, you most assuredly will be introduced to the farm. We have had two excellent residential projects turned down from the necessary zoning request. These two projects clearly identify the market in Northshore. Furthermore, these two projects would have provided the City of Rowlett an excellent source of revenue. However, they were rejected because the land was being saved for Commercial........a product in which no data is available to prove conclusively that there is a need. In my experience, that type of analysis is just plain dumb. If one doesn't know what one's doing, resign, abstain, or just go fishing. But, for heaven sake, don't be an obstructionist. The consultants "blew" the market in Northshore. They are better where there are "indicators" of market need, like downtown, wellness area, or gateway. We need to adapt when the evidence says we should. Bullheadedness is nuts.

I really dislike the consultants getting a secret seat at the table and I don't. Since I was promoted to citizen, I really feel I have a right to know what the detractors are saying. I like having a chance for rebuttal.

Thanks for your comments. I take them seriously.

3/29/2014 04:51:55 am

As is often the case on these particular issues, we're generally in agreement.

I should note that I don't believe that consultants are getting a secret seat at the table. The consultants were openly used in one instance, in open session, to bolster staff's position and to help steamroll a proposal. I was very concerned about that and said so.

Most on Council have become sensitive to consultants appearing solely in an advocacy role. I think the message was firmly and clearly delivered to staff a few months ago. Since, I've not seen any consultants as part of any discussions I've been involved in outside of the scheduled process.

Two caveats though. Although the consultants may not be there, their charts, graphs and PowerPoint slides live on with a half-life approaching toxic waste. After all, that's part of their work product and the staff does (and should) use them. Personally, I prefer the consultant be there for cross-examination, but once they've delivered the work product, their job is done.

Secondly, keep in mind that by law, the city has wide discretion on who may or may not attend executive sessions. It is conceivable that one or more consultants could be helpful to the Council in considering various issues. There's no bright line. I don't object to their presence per se, but I do object to their participation when their role is purely advocacy and repetitious of what we've already heard from them.

3/29/2014 07:35:30 am

Thanks for your comments, Chris.

I had heard that the staff had been chastised (by you) for the consultant's continuing appearances to advocate their positions. Altho I was already gone from council, that pleased me. I agree that the presence of the consultants would be handy for cross-examination, however the line gets a little fuzzy about where this cross-examination is to shared with the taxpayer. I have no problem with privacy where due because of sensitive legal issues, but where is the line? I come down on the side of the citizenry. I expect perhaps a little over-kill in transparency.

I was nearly a medical casualty during my term. I nearly foundered when I heard the same information presented by staff or the consultants on about the 437th presentation. I think your half life calculation is a bit faster than actual.

I'm not sure at what point the law requires sharing information with the public. That's David's job. However, I'm not sure that sharing page 367 on a 845 page packet, posted on Friday for a Tuesday digestion, is exactly what the Attorney General had in mind.

I would absolutely not oppose having the consultants present for grilling that would be shared with the public. However, I'm not interested in viewing a meeting of the mutual admiration society.

As always, thanks for your comments. It makes for good discourse.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Is Rowlett Zoning doubling down?

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories