Heed Your Local Pencil Pusher

Like it or now, we are ruled by a gaggle of committees, sub-committees, commissioners, & assistant undersecretaries to the interim counselor. If we are to improve our cities, we must learn the system.

I have sat through a few planning committee meetings for the City of Austin. They can be watched live online every other Tuesday from 6-10pm here. What most surprised me—yet did not, at the same time—was the utter lack of forward vision or depth of thought among the commission. The “plan” that the planning commission sets forward is to answer yesterdays problems with a project two to four years off. This is, of course, expected from politics, but if the committee gets too far behind, architecture is the first casualty in the game of catch-up.

Austin does face some unique problems. First, its land ordinances are old; the current code was passed in 1984. What’s worse, they were written with the understanding that they were temporary, and new ordinances would be codified within 10 years. This never materialized. So Austin is currently stuck with a complex and byzantine land development code with some of the strictest and most detailed rules in the country.

Determining what uses a lot can be put to is like drawing a horoscope. The height is limited by surrounding buildings, the impervious ground cover limits vary by watershed, slight changes to use require multiple hearings for a zoning exception, and each neighborhood’s unique, decades-old plan must be consulted. The result is a mess that even professional developers struggle to navigate.

The city council has only revised its compatibility rules in the past month. Previously, the regulation of a building’s maximum height based on neighboring buildings’ heights could extend up to 540 ft. away. This only further complicated new construction and made low-rise apartment buildings very difficult to build.

An even greater consequence is that the planning commission spends most of its time issuing exemptions to the city’s rules because, otherwise, nothing would be achieved. The city staff certainly do not speed along the process. They will stick to their rules and guidelines until the sky falls on their head, and likely after as well. I watched on hearing where they opposed a mixed-use development because it would be a fire risk due to proximity to industrial facilities. The developer got the Austin Fire Department to evaluate the area, and the AFD issued a letter saying the building was not at risk, with the caveat that they do not normally advise residential buildings near industrial. Still the staff asserted their guidelines.

I won’t name names, but some commissioners are not very bright. That certainly does not help when the issues can get into very intricate overlays of double negatives, parliamentary procedure, bureaucratic organization, and conflicting information from petitioners and city staff. Others, however, are very well versed on the rules of committee, the history of the city, and the land ordinances.

Most notably, however, was the use of progressive political buzzwords by residents to impede development and maintain the status quo. In a particularly convoluted hearing, residents were trying to prevent a compatibility exemption being granted to a developer based on their desire to uphold a 20-year-old plan to address systemic inequalities in a historically majority-black neighborhood that was widely adopted by the community and “based on resident input.”

Problem was, almost all of the residents testifying at the hearing were European. The commissioners didn’t buy the schtick, and began grilling the residents on how long they had lived in the neighborhood. The residents refused to answer and tried to deflect. Eventually, the commissioners changed course and asked if any of the residents present had helped to draft the neighborhood plan. One resident admitted that only one member of their group had helped to draft the plan. When asked, he further admitted that the resident had not come to the meeting.

Why would people use “equity” and “racial justice” as a mask to block new development? Well, the residents stated it outright: they don’t want their property taxes to go up. This ReasonTV video on an apartment project in San Francisco really helps to illustrate how local ordinances can completely sabotage new home construction in the name of “equity.”

Not to rag on the residents too much, the builder didn’t have too much of a case. He sought an exemption to building height restrictions for a design he did not plan to execute. Like I said, it was convoluted.

Overall, the commission is dominated by Austin’s need for more homes and apartments. Every exception was justified by the need for homes. No attention was paid to design (though the meetings I attended were past the initial approval phase, so this is not necessarily representative), little heed was paid to any real cohesive vision for the city. Every lot in the city seems to be treated like an island. And that is a primary critique of Austin I head from residents: it feels disjointed.

So how do we address this problem? Well, to be frank, the commissars, excuse me, commissioners are not going anywhere anytime soon. Short of getting seats on the committee or imposing a vision from city hall or the governor’s mansion, they must be motivated by pressure. We must make our voice heard so that our municipalities know that we don’t simply want more homes, we want more beautiful homes.

Additionally, we must not excuse ourselves for our inaction. Attend your local municipal committees. We “enlightened” moderns tend to dismiss local politics because it is so passé, so parochial, so provincial, yet these are the bodies that directly or indirectly determine the cost of your home, the use of your land, the prevalence of criminals, and which buildings rise and which fall. Yet, they rarely have any input from residents. More often, there is some interest group giving their opinion. I’ll be honest, it can get pretty boring, but bureaucrats love to use boredom and procedure to escape responsibility: do not let them!

If a building is hideous, speak against it! Point out that it is completely foreign to its surroundings, that its abstract lines will damage the health of residents. Ask the commissioners to favor local architectural styles, traditions, and materials. Tell them that they should not approve buildings that a vast proportion of citizens do not like.

This is not just advice for those that like architecture. More broadly, I would not suggest trying to attend every committees meetings. Pick a committee relevant to you and go. If you have kids, go for school boards. Since I am a Realtor, I go to the planning commissions. And, most of all, if you are summoned to jury duty, don’t weasel your way out!