The Informed Drinker: In the Beginning, There Was Rum
Why We Don't Like You: Texas A&M Aggies
![Weekend Music Preview: Woven Bones Tour Kick-Off [Beerland / Friday]](http://austinist.com/assets_c/2009/11/beerland_27nov2009_250-thumb-110x110-460924.jpg)
Weekend Music Preview: Woven Bones Tour Kick-Off [Beerland / Friday]
Thief Nabs $10K Flagship Trek Bike From Mellow Johnny's
Government Recalls Cars and Cribs [News Bits]
On Wednesday, Sen. Kirk Watson (Austin) – former Mayor of Austin – helped the Texas Senate pass Senate Bill 1688, which seeks to increase the powers given to the City of Austin with regard to development along the State Highway 130 toll road, east of Austin. Here’s part of the official Bill Analysis for this piece of legislation:
“This bill addresses a new challenge facing the City of Austin – the creation of a new toll road across largely open and unincorporated land – by creating a transportation infrastructure district.
“[The bill] authorizes the City of Austin to expedite the construction of infrastructure in areas that would normally take years to serve and authorizes the city to maximize the economic development potential in the State Highway 130 corridor.”
In other words, Sen. Watson is trying to increase the City of Austin’s power over how the SH 130 corridor is developed. This is an anti-sprawl bill. It will allow Austin to exercise tighter control over development in the SH 130 corridor, and ensure that developers aren't left to build whatever they please however they please. It also represents a check on the developmental authority of the Texas Department of Transportation, the governmental entity overseeing the SH 130 project (and essentially controlled by Governor Rick Perry).
In its original form, this bill was more heavily weighted against developers in favor of the Austin municipal government. However, bargains were struck and deals were made, and, by Wednesday afternoon, SB 1688 was in a form suitable to not only SH 130 developers, homebuilders and the City of Austin, but also to property owners along the 130 corridor. Thanks to various tweaks and alterations made to the bill, it now requires, among other things, a popular vote in order to fully grant the city the powers it seeks over development in the area (as opposed to just giving Austin the power without voter approval). A similar version of this bill now goes to the House of Representatives for a vote before it becomes law. Few obstacles are expected.
All in all, Sen. Watson’s plan for increasing our city’s “quality control” over development in our ever-expanding metropolitan area seems like a good idea. Developers and homebuilders get to keep doing business, and the City of Austin gets to make sure development moves forward in a way that’s best for the community at large. Without such a balance, either developers would have free reign to run amok across Central Texas or, at the other extreme, the city would have too much power over an infrastructure project whose direction should be left to those who are paying for it: the local voters.
Also of note: the Austin-American Statesman published an article on this topic yesterday. Be sure to check out the guest submission reference at the end of the piece. In his article (which reads like a speech out of Braveheart), "Local Contributor" Ed Wendler, Jr. rants about the virtues of democracy, comparing opposition to Sen. Watson's bill to the Boston Tea Party ("no taxation without representation," etc.). The article appears to be a starry-eyed paean to democracy by a recently graduated journalism/poli-sci double major, until you hit the last line and learn that "Wendler is a developer."
Hmm.
Dear Statesman,
Thanks for bringing us pro-sprawl propaganda in the form of journalistic content.
Sincerely,
Austinist.com
*Photo of Sen. Watson courtesy of his Senate website. All other photos courtesy of Wikipedia.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
There were two companion bills to SB 1688 (namely 1689 and 1690) that conveniently didn't get the same treatment as the city's bill.
SB 1690 would have given the County of Travis limited zoning authority to assist in the oversite of this growth hot spot, and insure that developers didn't continue their sprawl at taxpayers expense, but alas, the City wins the day...
Extend infrastructure means more sprawl.
SH 130 is simply a sprawl generator. It wont' do squat for relieving !H 35.
I don't think the post indicates that SH130 is anything but a sprawl generator or that SH130 might relieve I-35. SH130 will certainly generate a substantial amount of sprawl (it has already started). The point is that the bill will allow the city to exert some level of control over that sprawl instead of leaving developers to build the worst kind of sprawl (segregated swaths of single-family homes, office parks, and big box stores). With this bill, the city might be able (if it is so inclined) to generate enough density to create some plausible MetroRail connections. Even if that happens, traffic, especially on I-35, will get much worse, because no one around here has the guts to develop in a way that is not predominantly car-centric. SH130 was a bad idea and will have a negative impact on Austin. This bill will mitigate the harm, but not reverse it.