Where We Are on the Petition Ordinance

Click on the image to enlarge.

Here is where things are today with the certified petition:

This past Tuesday it was “introduced” to City Council. There was some question about 14 acres of the land described in the petition having already been conveyed by the City to TxDOT. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, made it quite clear that the petition was perfectly okay and the slight variance does nothing to impeach it. All the petitioner leaders whom I have spoken with have no difficulty with an ordinance that accommodates for the conveyance of those few acres in the past.

September 20^th has been set for Council to make a final decision on the ordinance proposed by the petitioners.

As the ordinance came closer to being introduced, the usual backdoor politics began. For the first time since the entire debate about preserving land on the Westside began, Ed Archuleta signaled that he was willing to make some compromises. His “compromise” still would exclude 314 acres. (See the map.) 22 of those acres are stuck in the middle of what would be conserved as open space and would be for low cost housing. (I guess people will have to “fly” over the open space to get to their homes. Of course, PSB’s suggestion is really a ploy to open “open space”.)

When I asked Nick Costanzo what was so vital about these few 314 acres, I didn’t get a straight answer. Indeed, there was the tired old attempt to say that our water rates are kept low as if land sales really count and as if EPWU’s incremental block billing system doesn’t simply give an appearance of low rates. In between Nick’s hemming and his hawing was the sense that leaving Paseo del Norte where it is currently planned is sacred to the PSB and their plans. (I believe that it is sacred to them because it is sacred to their developer – dare I say – “masters”.)

Mayor John Cook’s sincere hope is that an alternative can be worked out using the Open Space Advisory Board as the venue. Indeed Costanzo was at OSAB’s meeting yesterday for that very reason.

TxDOT was also there to give an update about the final changes that they have made to their Transmountain plans for which they have a FONSI. When asked whether they would still build the Paseo del Norte interchange even if Council or an election should exclude the building of Paseo through the Scenic Corridor, Mr. Ray Davolina of TxDOT, very nicely said that it made no difference. They have their money, their plan and their green light to build. That is what they are going to do. They still have no real safe means of getting people into and out of the State Park except a frontage road on the north side of Transmountain that could route people to the Paseo del Norte interchange. I guess that, if Paseo itself is not ever built to connect with the interchange, then that interchange becomes a very expensive way to provide safe access and egress from the Park. TxDOT’s plan still allows making a left turn into the Park for cars going east – but soon that turn will be against two lanes of traffic with an estimate of 70,000 vehicles per day. So strap on your rockets – unless a Sierra Club lawsuit stops the folly completely.

OSAB adopted a proposal that recommends that discussion begin that might (and I emphasize “might”) lead to an alternative to the petitioners’ ordinance – a discussion to be worked through Dover Kohl (this still has to be approved) and Planning and Development and most certainly will include the PSB. At least now the PSB can discuss matters in the open. The public just needs to be aware that they will say just about anything to manipulate the outcome. Just yesterday Costanzo said that they would build a safer road to the Park. Huh!? Now they will have to tell the public why 314 acres are so important.

To be sure, as a member of OSAB, I voted for the proposal. (And note that twice before OSAB has voted for all 792 acres even when shown a map similar to the one Mr. Costanzo revealed yesterday.) The proposal to discuss does not change the fact that it is up to petitioners whether they want to discuss further or whether they want a straight vote from Council and will follow-up with their intention to do another petition asking for an election if their ordinance is voted down. The proposal simply gives another means for land to be conserved in perpetuity as open space. In fact, a perpetual conservation (one accomplished by a Conservation Easement) entered into immediately by the City with a land conservation organization such as Frontera Land Alliance is essential to preserving the open space. Anything short of that will not do. The fact that City Council and City Planner, Matthew McElroy, have already made it clear that the rest of the NW Master Plan will be done in compliance with Smart Code is also a good thing. Smart Growth is the way the City is going so expect under-the-table push back from some.

Besides conservation of the open space in perpetuity, two more conditions are essential and not debateable. First, any fees associated with the easement for surveying, administration, a conservator shall be paid for by the City (or PSB). And, second, any infrastructure that must be built should be at a minimum and limited to utility needs, with Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development standards including proper re-vegetation.

One more thing. Any discussion to be had must begin and move forward quickly.

With respect to preserving the Scenic Corridor, keep in mind one historical fact: the very first petition (which was not written as an ordinance) which was signed by 2,000+ people and so far another 1,300 people online calls for the preservation of all of the land in the NW Master Plan. The current petition which petitioners have legally brought before City Council is the compromise with a land description that calls for conserving 792 acres and the condition that no major roadway (Paseo for example) can be built through the land. That’s the compromise.

By the way, you, your friends, your family – even unregistered voters or newcomers – can sign the petition to conserve all of the land in the NW Master Plan. Sign it online. You can even comment. Several hundred have signed it since I have begun to publish the fact that it is still online.

Please comment on this blog post of this e-letter. It will be powerful to hear others speak out. Also, I invite anyone – anyone – to submit anything about any of this subject to me for posting on the blog. I will even post anything written by Mr. Archuleta, a developer, anyone. Elpasonaturally believes in talking about things in the open. If our debates and conversations all were done with transparency, then there would be much more trust.