City of Austin staff have placed an item on the consent agenda for the April 17th City Council meeting seeking approval for new neighborhood plans in the Rosedale, Allandale and North Shoal Creek neighborhoods, and for revised neighborhood plans in Brentwood, Crestview, Wooten and Highland neighborhoods.

Highland neighborhood is in District 4. Most of Rosedale and a portion of Allandale are in District 10. The other neighborhoods are in District 7.

Staff late last year approached the Rosedale, Allandale and North Shoal Creek neighborhood associations proposing a neighborhood plan process. Allandale NA expressed concerns and asked for a delay until more is known about the CodeNext process. The staff resolution acknowledges Allandale’s concerns, but recommends including those properties along Burnet and Anderson in the planning process regardless.

16. Approve a resolution directing the Planning Commission to consider a planning process and resulting plans for the North Central Austin Study Area which will create new neighborhood plans for the Rosedale, Allandale, and North Shoal Creek Neighborhood Planning Areas; revised plans for the Brentwood, Highland, Crestview, and Wooten Neighborhood Planning Areas; and corridor plans for Burnet Road from 45th Street to US 183 and Anderson Lane from Mopac to the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s railroad track. The boundaries of the study area are generally 35th/38th Street on the south; the Mopac Expressway/Loop 1 on the west; US 183/Anderson Lane on the north; and the eastern lot lines of Eastcress Street, Avenue G, and Twin Crest Drive, East Huntland Drive, Middle Fiskville Road, East Koenig Lane, and North Lamar Boulevard on the east.

http://austin.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=31901

District 7 is proving to be one of the busier city council races. Potential candidate Ben Leffler has announced that he won’t be running for office this time round.

Meanwhile, Burnt Orange Report is listing Jimmy Paver, development director for Stepping Stone Schools, as another potential District 7 candidate.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/page/AUSTINCITYCOUNCIL

by Steven Zettner, Editor

North Shoal Creek neighborhood begins its neighborhood plan this year. The City of Austin will be looking to add more housing along the neighborhood’s edges in pursuit of Imagine Austin’s ‘Compact and Connected’ and affordability goals. The process is an opportunity to solve some problems, but it is also fraught with long-term risk. Here are five challenges that stakeholders should be considering.

1. Where are the quality transit service areas?

Good land use planning places new housing in areas that will be adequately supported by transit. In fact, the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan enshrines this principle – put new homes and shops close to good transit and walkable destinations, and have less of it away from transit and walkable areas, where people would have to drive. The better the transit, the less that new residents will contribute to congestion.

The problem for North Shoal Creek is that no one knows for sure where or what kind of transit support there will be.

On Burnet Rd, the new rapid bus stations are spaced out every ½ to ¾ miles. The station serving the critical Burnet-Anderson intersection is nearly a quarter mile to the south of Anderson. That makes transfers to east-west buses more challenging. But more important, the south-side station’s location poorly supports properties across Anderson on the North Shoal Creek side. Some of those properties are already zoned to allow higher density VMU. Future residents on the north side will be more likely to drive, and there will be a lot of those residents.

CapMetro planners say the station could be moved in the future. But “could be” is one of those slippery terms that often translates as “probably won’t be.” The current station site was carefully chosen to avoid buses blocking cars at the intersection, and to space the station far enough from the other stations on the line. In any event, without a firm commitment to the station’s long-term location, you can’t make good land use decisions.

Even more disconcerting is the lack of planning for rapid transit on Anderson Ln. During the ProjectConnect north corridor plan, CapMetro deferred planning for rapid transit on this corridor, and Imagine Austin also assumes no rapid transit. As things stand, Anderson for several decades would only be supported by regular bus service. Yet most of the Anderson corridor is zoned for higher density mixed use, and planners will undoubtedly seek additional places around Anderson to upzone.

At the west end of Anderson, Imagine Austin imagines a neighborhood center scaled similarly to Crestview Station. The assumption is that this site will be supported by a rail station on the Lone Star commuter rail line. But that’s still very much in doubt. Are we going to plan land use in North Shoal Creek for this area, without knowing whether it will get the transit support it needs? Do we have the form based land use types for a rail station – including plazas and strong pedestrian connectivity? The answer is no – we don’t yet know what if any public space provisions will be in the new land development code, because the CodeNext zoning reform hasn’t gotten there yet. The result could be as bad as Crestview Station, or as good as The Triangle or Mueller (both of which required extensive public investment). We just don’t know.

Anderson Ln corridor. Where will the transit be? Where should new housing go?

2. Will there be new side streets?

Several of the properties on Burnet, Anderson and Shoal Creek Blvd already zoned for higher density, or likely to be upzoned, are on 20 acre blocks. For a comparison, a walkable downtown block is just 2 acres. A 2 to 5 acre block makes it MUCH easier for people to walk to nearby stores and transit. It also provides multiple routes for traffic, so that no one route becomes bottlenecked. Small blocks are key to successful walkable, transit-oriented development. Without them, the whole transit-oriented development model falls apart. Congestion will get even worse.

You can’t plan side streets piecemeal. Each time a development occurs, and some side street is proposed, existing residents rightly express alarm that the new street, connecting through to their street, will put an unfair traffic burden on them. Nobody wants more traffic on their street. But if there is to be more traffic, it should be just a little bit more. And the only way to achieve that is to have multiple new slow-traffic side streets that provide multiple efficient routes for both cars and pedestrians within the district. No one street takes the full brunt of traffic, and some of that traffic goes away if people are able to walk, bike, or use transit.

To do that, the City needs to provide a complete plan of future side streets for an entire mixed use district. The plan needs to have teeth to ensure future site plans respect it. Right now, the City doesn’t have a way to do that. And even if it did, it would need to happen on the Allandale and Crestview sides of Anderson as well. Crestview already has a neighborhood plan, and Allandale’s neighborhood association has asked to defer its planning process until more is known about the CodeNext zoning reform.

Concept vision for the Burnet-Anderson intersection, from Sustainable Neighborhoods

3. Will there be pocket parks and transit plazas? Will they contribute to, or hinder, connectivity?

District 7 has the least amount of park space of any area of the city, and what we have is mostly not in locations to support infill development. Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) has a mandate to provide pocket parks within a quarter mile of every residence in the urban core, which happily includes North Shoal Creek (but not North Burnet Gateway or other dense areas just to the north). The problem is that PARD does not treat its park space as a tool for improving connectivity. It often selects park sites that are not in the transit-oriented growth zones, and that will actually draw people out of those zones into lightly populated residential neighborhoods. Park site selection is critical to achieve successful mixed use development. The parks should be in medium-density transition zones. In the case of Burnet at Anderson the northwest corner should have a pocket park in the vicinity of Ashdale, near where existing and future apartments and condos will be located and where lots of residents will benefit. The location of the park should draw pedestrians into the transit district, not out of it.

Unfortunately, PARD often resists getting new parks because it doesn’t have the operational budget to maintain the parks it already has. It got only $4 million in the 2012 bond package for new urban parks (for the entire city, over the next 5-7 years), compared to $30 million for open space on the edge of town to protect water quality. But operational budget is an excuse. PARD should be land-banking strategic urban properties well in advance of when the development will occur. This will promote better planning of the districts, and ensure that the future parks are available when needed. It will ensure the City doesn’t get priced out of park land by its own ‘compact and connected’ policies that drive up land prices.

Transit plazas are another key public space feature. They have the potential to serve as community gathering spaces, drawing people to transit and adjacent stores. Recently the City added a nominal provision for rapid bus transit plazas to the Commercial Design Standards ordinance that governs zoning along streets like Burnet and Anderson. But this provision only requires open space equivalent to a large bedroom, and there needs to be an existing rapid transit station adjacent to the site. So don’t expect transit plazas on Anderson (or meaningful ones on Burnet) based on current rules.

4. Will there be creek trails and natural areas? What will happen with the big drainage culverts that inhibit walkability?

Last year, the City’s Watershed Protection department implemented some exciting changes to the creeks ordinance, providing setbacks even for smaller creeks. The setbacks could enable hike and bike trails, and floodplain areas will be better protected to provide natural areas. This was a great step, and will benefit undeveloped areas in East Austin. Unfortunately, the ordinance exempts most urban areas like on Anderson.

In the urban core, new development that doesn’t exceed the site’s existing impervious cover is exempt from the creek setback requirement. Most sites on Anderson are maxed out for impervious cover.

Also, many features along urban creeks are defined as “highly modified waterways,” meaning that they have been physically altered, reinforced, put underground or in culverts. Those features are also exempt from the ordinance provisions.

Watershed staff acknowledge that urban areas need more analysis. Staff will be attending a Sustainable Neighborhoods meeting on April 9 to look at the Burnet-Anderson and Burnet-North Loop areas as case examples. But there is no guarantee that the ordinance will dramatically improve to support development in the ‘urban core’.

Creek culvert at the Burnet-Anderson intersection. In past ages this was called a moat.






5. Will the new housing preserve existing demographics, or will it exacerbate culture wars?

A study of neighborhoods in eight US cities shows a medium to strong correlation between multi-bedroom dwellings and the percentage of children in the population. To achieve the national average of 24% children in the population, a neighborhood needs a housing mix of 75% homes with at least two bedrooms.

Four-story apartment blocks, like are getting built along Burnet today, are predominantly 1-bedroom units that exclude families. Even 2-bedroom units are harder for many families. Over time, if this is the only housing getting built, and especially if it’s the only housing in the walkable commercial areas, the culture of the neighborhood changes. Retail that serves families moves out; bars concentrate in these areas, causing late night noise and other problems in conflict with the adjacent age-balanced communities.

The key to avoiding such conflicts is to preserve age and income balance in the mixed use areas that reflects the diversity of the existing neighborhoods. Medium-density housing – duplexes, fourplexes, even eight-plexes, are more likely to achieve those goals. Like single-family homes, they are cheaper to build and therefore more affordable. But they come with their own problems. Duplexes are more likely to be rentals, and are at risk of poor maintenance and faster tenant turnover that undermines a strong sense of community. Also, zoning duplexes away from transit adds more cars to area streets.

Many residents fear the challenges from duplexes more than the potential benefits. The City of Austin needs to develop strong tools to address the challenges from these housing types. An example would be much stronger code enforcement. Another would be clearer policies about where it’s appropriate to add this type of housing – in transit service areas but not throughout the neighborhood. Feedback to date from CodeNext staff has been ambiguous on these issues. Meanwhile, real estate advocates are pressing to allow upzoning throughout single family neighborhoods.

Conclusion

North Austin is suburban. Changing parts of it to ‘urban’ means more than just upzoning to allow apartments. And doing it in a way that doesn’t exclude kids, gentrify the neighborhood beyond recognition in the short-term, or leave it vulnerable to decline in the long term, will be even more challenging. This will be an expensive process, and a lot of rules need to change.

North Shoal Creek residents deserve to know what if any policies will be implemented to address these challenges. They should have some compelling assurance on these challenges before considering proposals to upzone — that new housing and destinations will get the infrastructure they need to be sustainable over many decades.

See also:

Austin Needs A Different Way to Prioritize Park Space Gaps

In Search of Urban Parks and Public Green Space

Little Woodrow’s – Big Precedent. The Consequences of Approving a Late Night Destination Bar on Burnet Rd

Sparks Fly As CodeNext Zoning Rewrite Enters Second Year

What Does ‘Age Segregation’ Mean?

by Jennifer Paris
Allandale resident

The essay “What Happens When a Bunch of Rich People Move into our Neighborhood” really caused me to think a lot about what is important to me as far as our quality of life goes. I don’t think that I’m the person who has to solve Austin’s affordability issues, or our nation’s class struggles, but I absolutely will take on any threat of losing the intrinsic beauty of our awesome Allandale home that I have worked so hard to have and keep.

I have lived in Allandale since 1997, went to St. Louis school when I was young, (and Austin High school after that), and I grew up in a middle class family of two teachers. I am still in the middle class – at least I think I am. and I think I won the jackpot as far as being able to live in Allandale today. To be certain, I couldn’t afford to purchase my own house if I needed to buy it today. And the rising property taxes are absolutely shocking compared to what we expected when we bought our home.

But the author’s suggestions that we need to let the city add densification to our neighborhood sent me into an almost panic state. In fact, I intend to do my best, publicly or privately, to fight against any code changes that allow densification in our space, including the relentless chewing up of green spaces among our lots by certain developers and private owners. So, what’s in my craw?

Here’s a scene we all recognize:
Today is Sunday morning. I look out my window to see houses like my own, owned by people just tike me, those of my dear neighbors. I see my dear neighbors walking their dogs, talking about our yards, helping each other put up trash cans, standing in the street and talking about whatever it is that we all talk about. I get in my car and drive through our neighborhood, being careful to pass happy joggers and bikers without scaring them, smiling and waving at them, them smiling and waving back, all of us going slow near the school and the park because children are usually around there, seeing other folks I’ve met at our parks as we all go about our day. I stop at our HEB and remember why I shop there: people help each other around here, offering to trade places in line for one reason or another, chatting about daily things standing in the aisles, being the lovely, kind and well mannered Allandale Austinites that we are. On the way home, I pull over to take a daily photo of my favorite landscape in the neighborhood, looking at the sprawling trees and rolling lawns, gorgeously landscaped green spaces big and small, tree covered streets where each neighbor’s tree reaches out to hug and shelter me. I’m home!! Oh joy, how lucky we all are to be here!!!!! However we got here.

So, in regards to the article, I would say: Any rich person, or poor person, who wants to live here, or even invest here, in the “as-is” capacity: Welcome Home!! I can’t wait to meet you. To others who have agenda that conflict in any way with the scene I know to be my home, I say: Please… let me show you the way to anywhere else for your ventures. I whole heartedly wish you good luck, and maybe we’ll see you downtown sometime. Come and see us sometime and share in our peaceful and friendly space.

What’s important to residents of City Council District 7, and what do we think about key issues? To find out, AustinDistrict7.org went to the North Star neighborhood, a surrogate for several neighborhoods between Braker and Parmer. We block-walked single-family homes in the neighborhood, collecting a dozen quick-hit interviews.

Geographically, North Star (2010 census tract 18.50) sits near the demographic center of the district, east of Mopac, south of Parmer. Its diverse population mirrors much of North Austin: 36% Hispanic, 27% white, 17% black, and 4% Asian. Children are 21% of the population. 47% of households are owners, though in the single-family areas the ratio is higher (on Galway, one of the streets block-walked, the ratio is around 68%). Median household income at $43,262 is 76% of the average for the Austin-San Marcos area. The neighborhood is in precinct 205, which in 2012 voted 68% for Barack Obama.

We asked residents one open-ended question about their needs, plus three “trade-off” questions about transportation, housing, development, and law enforcement.

Duplexes Will Kill Community

Perhaps the single biggest result of the survey was the attitude of single-family residents towards duplexes. Nine out of 10 residents oppose duplexes. There is a deep-rooted concern that duplexes become rental homes, which are poorly maintained and result in a downward spiral. Cody Wehmeyer shared a story about his neighbor’s house. “The owner next to us rented his house out. The renters destroyed the inside of the house, so the owner sold it to the bank.” He said that as more homes in the neighborhood get rented out, property values are declining, and homeowners are fleeing. The topic is fresh on Wehmeyer’s mind, because his family is in the process of selling and moving.

Charles Singleton said affordability is a concern. “Everything’s sky-high. You’ve got to be a millionaire to live in Austin.” But he still opposed duplexes because of how they can undermine the community.

Maria Galvan put it succinctly – “I don’t like duplexes. People move, don’t care.”

We Need a Park; Wheelchairs on Parmer

Several residents noted the high percentage of children in the neighborhood, and the lack of child-friendly amenities. “We have plenty of kids in our neighborhood,” said Debi Keyes, a long-time resident. “They have to drive down to Walnut Creek park to swim.” Other residents shared the same concern. Ronald Lee said his niece, who lives nearby, gets driven every day to a park outside the area. Nicole Ramos said she drives her children to a park every few weeks during the summer. “Right now we have to go to Round Rock for a splash pad. Supposedly there’s one at the Domain, but it’s small.”

Keyes said neighbors had been in discussions with Parks department for the last three years on getting a nearby park. A site is available near the police sub-station, but work hasn’t yet started.

Sidewalks and street lights are another concern. Keyes said sidewalks were especially important so people could reach destinations on Parmer. “We have people in wheelchairs trying to reach the HEB.”

Highways or Transit – Whatever It Takes

More people thought the City of Austin should prioritize investment in roads and highways over transit and pedestrian infrastructure. That’s not surprising given the highly suburban arrangement of North Star’s roads and buildings. But at least half of respondents did support transit and pedestrian improvements. Magda Sanchez said she didn’t care what the solution was, as long as it worked. “We need infrastructure – highways, or metro – to deal with the traffic. We’ve got to deal with the growth.”

But Byron Neathery said it was already too late. “Smart Growth killed Austin. We put a real estate investor in as mayor – what do you expect? It’s good for people who owned land. Great to see Austin grow, except transportation was an after-thought.”

“I’d still go Downtown and spend money if a train were available,” Neathery said. “I wouldn’t use the bus. I’m a snob. I’m a reformed hippy who loves buses but I’m not going to get on one.”

How would you invest $10 million to benefit your community?

• Park, playground, neighborhood center (3)
• Transportation (3)
• Sidewalks, street lights (3)
• Library (2)
• Public safety (2)
• Affordable housing (1)
• Cultural programs that offer active bilingual learning for entire family (1)
• Better programs for homeless (1)
• Utility rate reduction (1)
• Code enforcement (1)
• Nothing (1)

Should Austin invest more in roads and highways, or transit and pedestrian infrastructure?

• Roads and Highways (6)
• Transit and pedestrian (3)
• Both (3)

Should Austin invest more in law enforcement that reduces crime today, or building transit-oriented, walkable places intended to reduce crime in the future?

• Law enforcement today (5)
• Walkable places with less crime in future (5)

The City of Austin wants more duplexes. Opponents say duplexes are poorly maintained. Supporters say they increase affordable housing. Do you support or oppose duplexes?

• Support duplexes (1)
• Oppose duplexes (9)

CodeNext, Austin’s wholesale reform of zoning laws, enters its second year with competing input on what development rules should change, and even how the rewrite process itself should happen.

As expected, the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA) is proposing a “clean slate” approach that overturns almost all existing rules, with the intent of making development in Austin much easier. Opposing RECA is the Austin Neighborhoods Council (ANC), which has urged that the process slow down, and that important decisions be made by the new 10-1 City Council starting in 2015.

In between are various groups and agendas: advocates for family-friendly housing, affordability, environment, and public space.

Real Estate Industry – Let’s Go!

The Real Estate Council (RECA) has pushed for the most transformative changes. A RECA working group on January 28 proposed the following:

• Scrap the existing zoning regulations, start from a fresh slate
• Scrap the McMansion ordinance
• Scrap the Commercial Design Standards – Vertical Mixed Use ordinance (applies to most properties along Burnet, Lamar, other commercial streets)
• Scrap minimum lot size requirements, including for residential lots
• Scrap the conditional use permit requirement for bars, which allows special requirements to be placed on the bar’s operations
• Reduce the distance from single-family housing that triggers compatibility setbacks (currently 540’)
• Change the Heritage Tree ordinance to allow removal of large trees in return for new plantings at other locations (assumes equivalent value)
• Introduce standard rules for flag-lot development
• New subdivision zoning rules (mainly used in the suburbs) should require different levels of connectivity and environmental protection than zoning rules for urban areas
• Simplify rules for building duplexes
• Define height limits by number of stories, not linear feet

The working group suggested a more aggressive density program is required. “Redevelopment and density are needed not only in Imagine Austin centers and corridors; it has been predicted that the current growth concept map will only account for one-third of Austin’s projected growth.”

The working group identified “NIMBY ways of thinking” as a key obstacle to achieving the City’s goals. It said the Little Woodrow’s bar rezoning on Burnet Rd was an example where testimony from angry residents threatened a project that others in the community supported.

Neighborhoods – Not Impressed

The rhetoric from RECA has served as a rallying cry for Austin Neighborhoods Council (ANC) activists. ANC President Mary Ingle said ANC is seeking a slow-down of the CodeNext process to address procedural flaws, and also wants major CodeNext decisions to be postponed until the new 10-1 City Council convenes in 2015.

Ingle said the ANC Land Development Code subcommittee in late February identified several flaws with the CodeNext community character feedback process, whereby people can send photos describing their neighborhood. A particular concern is how the photographs are interpreted. Someone can submit a photograph to illustrate something they don’t like, and it might be interpreted as something they do like.

Other feedback: Some neighborhood activists say the ‘Community Character’ feedback process focuses on physical attributes, and not on the mix of people by age and income who define a neighborhood. Other activists have said rezoning of single family homes to duplexes or fourplexes will exacerbate affordability in the short-term, because the new properties will be more expensive than the existing, older properties.

In-Betweeners

Meanwhile, a separate (and less combative) proposal from the affordable housing non-profit HousingWorks and RECA would allow granny flats (accessory dwelling units) on residential lots. HousingWorks Austin’s Mandy De Mayo and RECA’s policy chair Melissa Neslund say the proposal is necessary to achieve affordable housing in Austin’s core. They also favor reducing minimum lot sizes and streamlining the site plan review process. Both De Mayo and Neslund serve on the CodeNext Advisory Task Force.

The granny flat and reduced lot proposals, if applied to all single-family properties, would appear to contradict an Imagine Austin principle that infill housing should be located near transit.

The “build near transit” principle is explained in (yet another) proposal, this one by the North Austin community group Sustainable Neighborhoods (SN). The SN white paper “Achieving Child-Friendly Development in Austin’s Early Suburbs” acknowledges the (long-term) affordability benefit of granny flats, duplexes and other middle-density housing products. Such housing is also less likely than big apartments to exclude families. But SN’s president, Steven Zettner, said he has not yet received answers from staff on likely challenges, including construction quality and maintenance, rapid tenant turnover, or enforcement of the “build near transit” principle that could protect the character of existing residential neighborhoods. CodeNext Project Manager George Zapalac said such concerns may be discussed later in the process.

Mary Rudig, editor of the North Austin Community Newsletter, in the March edition pointed readers to a similar zoning reform effort, ‘EcoDensity’, that took place in Vancouver in 2006-2008. Most of the issues emerging in CodeNext arose in Vancouver. Proponents argued that increased density would improve affordability, in particular by making a wider range of housing choices available so that people can buy or rent just what they need. Also in Vancouver, prominent urban planners like Bill Rees applied the term ‘NIMBY’ to delegitimize opposition as “concerns from a very selfish point of view.”

Critics say the EcoDensity effort has not improved affordability in the short-term, and whitewashed the legitimate concerns of residents. Wendy Sarkissian, an Australian planner and consultant who reviewed EcoDensity in 2014, said:

“What people feared was not density but overcrowding. Community concerns focused on problems associated with very dense neighbourhoods and what was coined “green overcrowding” (density without amenity). The policy was seen as greenwashing of developers’ agenda. Critics were concerned that EcoDensity would sacrifice liveability and that led to anxiety and open protests in a number of neighbourhoods.”

Read the full report of the RECA CodeNext working group

Read HousingWorks/RECA proposal

Read the SN white paper on Child-Friendly Development in Austin’s Early Suburbs

See related articles on AustinDistrict7.org:

AD7 affordability page

Little Woodrow’s – Big Precedent. The Consequences of Approving a Late Night Destination Bar on Burnet Rd

What Happens When a Bunch of Rich People Move into our Neighborhood?

Send constructive comments or thoughtful rebuttals to editor@austindistrict7.org

by Ann Teich
AISD Board of Trustees, District 3

Recently, the Joint Subcommittees of the Austin City Council, AISD, and Travis County School and Family Work Group released a report with some recommendations for these three governmental entities. Those recommendations include using the CodeNext Project to promote family-friendly housing; creating a Families with Children Commission; creating a Homes and Schools Temporary Rental Assistance Program; developing a Long-Range Affordable Housing Plan; exploring partnerships for family-friendly developments; enhancing safe routes to schools, parks and public libraries; identifying and promoting signature academic programs; investing in school facilities; enhancing communication between Campus Advisory Councils and the school communities they serve; and creating a strong marketing campaign for public schools.

Of these recommendations perhaps the most critical to the education of students of North Austin are the ones dealing with family-friendly housing, creating a temporary rental assistance program, and developing a long-range affordable housing plan. Many students in North Central and Northeast Austin are economically disadvantaged, and their families have a high mobility rate. If students have to move frequently because of income issues, their education suffers. Also, AISD is losing students to surrounding communities because of lack of affordable housing, and loss of students results in loss of income to the district. This loss of funding, coupled with having to pay the state of Texas approximately 40% of its income from taxes because it is a Chapter41 district (the “Robin Hood” law), results in increased financial pressures for the District. Since AISD provides a substantial number of social services to North Austin students, decreased funding could result in a reduction of these services.

In addition to housing issues, many North Austin students and their families need access to affordable health care. A recent E3 Alliance study demonstrated that most school absences are due to illnesses that could be prevented, or treated quickly, with regular doctor visits. Expanding the number of clinics serving low income people in North Austin would go a long way to reducing absenteeism in schools. Clinics that provide mental health and substance abuse counseling are also needed.

There are approximately 16,000 elementary students in North Austin, the majority of whom are economically disadvantaged. Investing in housing stability and healthcare for these students helps them stay in school, graduate, and continue with postsecondary education that enables them to obtain living wage jobs and become less reliant on social services. That means a stronger work force for Austin.

Educating North Austin students is a shared responsibility. AISD takes seriously its obligation to provide excellent programs, well-trained staff, social/emotional learning, and safe, healthy, attractive facilities. But it cannot do everything by itself. City policies that encourage affordability and access to healthcare are needed to ensure that North Austin students are well-educated and prepared for careers so that they become productive citizens.

See also:

Retaining Families and Strengthening Schools in Central Austin – A Report of The School and Family Work Group, AISD, Travis County, City of Austin

By Ed English
Candidate for City Council District 7

It is with great pride and anticipation of a bright future for Austin under a newly created structure for the Austin City Council that I announce to the citizens of Austin and City Council District 7 my decision to become a candidate for the position of Council Member, District 7.

As a 31 year resident of north Austin, I’ve seen a lot of changes over those years. Some for the better, some not. We have a historic opportunity to elect a City Council this November that should remedy a decades old problem. That problem being a lack of geographically balanced representation. As a long term, politically aware and involved individual I believe I have a very good understanding and feel for the issues that face Austin as a whole and District 7 in particular. That said, I also realize that each neighborhood within District 7 may share concerns that other neighborhoods within the district have but with a different order of priority. In addition, a district composed of 80,924 residents (according to the census data used by the ICRC in drawing the district boundaries) will with certainty have some issues that exist in one part of the district and not in others. I have for some time been seeking out the thoughts, concerns and suggestions of individuals and groups across the district from one end to the other. The rational behind this research is simple, and it is rooted in my view of what constitutes effective leadership.

Effective leadership begins as a “bottom up” approach. It is my belief that those who live in this city, working, raising a family, maintaining a home, going to school, paying bills and property taxes and/or the myriad of other tasks related to daily Austin life are best positioned to identify those things that are in need of change. These same individuals are often the best source of workable suggestions for solutions to those aspects of life in Austin that need change. Austinites must live with the consequences of decisions made by our City Council for better or worse. Those qualities we treasure as part of the Austin lifestyle should be protected and promoted. Those aspects of life in Austin that prevent the city from being the best it can be for ALL of Austin are reaching critical and crisis points in time. Effective leadership from a City Council member must be based upon an honest, open minded, attentive and receptive approach to hearing the concerns and suggestions from residents of the district AND balancing those in a cooperative and coalition building manner with council members from other districts.

I’m currently refining the platform for my campaign. This platform will of course be in part based upon my experiences as a long term resident of Austin but will for the most part be based upon the sincere heartfelt input I’m regularly receiving from across the district. As that platform becomes better defined based upon citizen input, I will be submitting additional letters and articles for review and consideration. Please feel free to email me with your concerns, suggestions, expressions of support or whatever you feel is important to you. I more than welcome the input. If elected, this open door policy will stand without compromise.

A LITTLE SOMETHING ABOUT ME

I was born in Freeport, Texas and raised in the small south Texas town of Falfurrias. After graduating high school there, I enlisted in the Navy. I am a Vietnam Era veteran. My principle duty station was Naval Air Station, Kingsville. Texas where I was a flight instructor/flight simulator operator. After the service I finished my degree at Texas A&I (now known as Texas A&M Kingsville), and earned a BA in Political Science. I graduated Summa Cum Laude and was ranked first in my graduating class. My working career spanned almost 30 years and was predominantly focused on sales and marketing for a variety of companies. I am now retired but occasionally take on a contract position. My wife Robin and I have been married for 34 years, and she is an elementary counselor employed by AISD. We have been Austinites for 31 years and have lived in the same home in Milwood for 30 years. I worked almost daily for the better part of 2 years as a key participate with Austinites for Geographic Representation to get 10-1 on the ballot, passed and implemented. I voluntarily took on the responsibilities of gathering petition signatures, forming a sizeable volunteer group to cover a very large section of north Austin to block walk prior to the November 2012 election and also monitored the progress of the implementation of the 10-1 system by the Applicant Review Panel and Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Respectfully,
Ed English
Candidate for Austin City Council, District 7
winin2014@aol.com

by Steven Zettner, editor

For decades, Austin residents have paid county taxes that mainly fund infrastructure outside the city limits. That model made sense when growth was suburban. If growth is to be directed inward, the County’s investment model should adapt. Travis County candidates should speak to capital improvements priorities in their campaign messaging.
The existing arrangement is straight-forward: municipal areas like Austin “own” roads, bridges and parks within their boundaries, and Travis County “owns” roads, bridges and parks outside city limits. The county’s investment is mainly paid for by taxpayers inside city limits. But because the City is expected to annex outlying areas, it can be argued that urban taxpayers eventually recoup their investment.

That model is breaking down. Planners now see suburban growth as loss-making. They want development to occur back inside the city limits. Much of the new infill development is targeting suburban areas like North Austin that don’t have walkable infrastructure – sidewalks, plazas, parks, or smaller block sizes. To be successful long-term, these places will need enormous upfront investment.

The City of Austin alone can’t provide that upfront investment.

To give an idea of the scale of the problem, consider the City of Austin 2012 bond package. City departments identified $1.5 billion in needed capital improvements, much of that infrastructure like sidewalks needed to support the walkable urbanism enshrined in the Imagine Austin plan. But after a lot of soul-searching, the City could only ask for $380 million. (It seems Austin’s hard-pressed taxpayers are in a rebellious mood.)

North Austin desperately needs public space and transportation improvements to support the City’s planned growth. Yet Austin Parks Department in the 2012 bond package only asked for $4 million to buy new urban park space. That’s one or two urban parks over a 5-7 year period, not for North Austin, but for the entire city.

Meanwhile, Travis County has actually reduced its open space portfolio in the urban core. The county in 2007 sold off the Burnet Rd Farmer’s Market with no provision for public space, has gradually shrunk its open space commitment for a future redevelopment of its Airport Blvd facility, and is spending all of the $206 million 2011 bond money it raised for open space and transportation on projects outside of Austin. Click link to see map.

Open space is a special concern – if you don’t secure it BEFORE development happens, you’ll never get it. Just one policy suggestion – Travis County could help to get Austin through the current investment crisis by land banking urban properties suitable for parks, trails or transit plazas, then selling the space to Austin in the future.

All five county judge and District 2 candidates have been invited to discuss this topic on AustinDistrict7.org. No doubt there are some challenges with re-assessing a decades-old arrangement. Let’s have the candidates explain those challenges, and what can be done to address a major long-term risk that Austin and Travis County share together.

by Kat Correa, Crestview Park Committee

The Crestview neighborhood has been working for years to get a neighborhood park established. Crestview has no public parkland and shares park space with neighboring Brentwood and the elementary school. But Crestview is just one central urban neighborhood suffering lack of public green space, and to date the city leaders have ignored the problem.

Austin claims to be a “City Within a Park,” yet our parks system goes underfunded and understaffed. The National Recreation and Parks Association recommends one maintenance person per 15 acres of parkland. Austin has just one person per 175 acres. It is the reason our parks maintenance staff does little more than “mow and blow.” Aside from our substandard park maintenance, Austin ranks 45th out of 75 major cities for park funding. To put this into perspective, 90% of Denver, Colorado residents live within six blocks of a park. In Boston, 97% of children live with a quarter mile of a park.

Simply put, the city is growing but our parkland is not. Central Austin, where much of the development, density and infill is happening, is where parks and green space are needed most.

Three central Austin neighborhoods are so desperate for parkland that neighbors are rolling up their sleeves and working to claim small patches of land as green space.

Like Crestview, the Highland neighborhood east of Lamar does not have a park. Neighbors have claimed a small triangular traffic island and created Meadowview Park. It is 0.18 acres. They applied for and received grants, planted trees, installed benches and landscaping, and maintain it with volunteer workdays. It is the only park until you travel east of IH-35.

Hyde Park neighbors also claimed a traffic island to create Brunning Green. This green space is located on 51street. It is 0.20 acres and serves as the only park for that large and busy neighborhood.

Cherrywood Green on 34th street was transformed from an empty lot next to a creek into a tiny park. It is also just 0.20 acres and is the only open green space in that densely developed neighborhood.

Isn’t it clear that central Austin is desperate for public parks and green space? Neighbors are not asking for another Zilker Park in north Austin, but we are fighting for the few remaining scraps of land.

Thousands of people are moving to Austin in the coming years. They’re coming for a great economy, a steady job market, interesting culture and entertainment, quality education, and a diverse population. Parks and outdoor recreation are an integral part of our quality of life. Neighborhoods in central Austin must support each other, as well as advocate for and support the Parks and Recreation Department, the Austin Parks Foundation, the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation, Tree Folks, the Urban Forestry Board and any other groups working to build and sustain parks and green space.

The Crestview Park Committee is working to establish 5.6 acre neighborhood park located at 6909 Ryan Drive for the benefit of both Crestview and the Justin Lane /Lamar Boulevard Transit Oriented Development residents. www.crestviewna.org

See also:

The Domain in Photos – The Good, the Bad, the Ugly – documents lack of public space in North Austin’s future downtown, but also shows positive examples
Austin Needs A Different Way to Prioritize Park Space Gaps – problems with how Austin currently acquires urban park space