Las Manitas Loan Incites Healthy Public Debate

Well, now the Perez sisters aren't content to take the money and STFU. From the Houston Chronicle (www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/f...

Cynthia Perez, who runs the place with sister Lidia, calls the loan "urban renewal at its best" and blames the uproar on a "negative corporate-owned press" — and on race. "It's exacerbated because we're people of color," she said.

"It's very dangerous to have an educated Chicana," she said the other day outside the modest restaurant.

Gee, I'm glad this educated Chicana has set me straight. I (and many others) wouldn't think to be upset about this grift if not directed by the evil corporate media. Thanks for educating me, Doña Cynthia.

Now I see why you are making poverty level wages. You assume that the only way someone can improve their station in life is by inheriting money (the "trust fund baby" thing... where did that come from?), or by getting a hand-out from the government.

I don't have to stalk you to know what is in your head (calling it "thinking" may be a little generous), since you seem to have a serious case of logorrhea- you reflexively post inane dribble in just about every thread here. I can't help but notice your knee jerk reactions to hipster douchebags with enough money to blow on $100 t-shirts (don't worry, I think they're idiots, too) and your grammar school level understanding of economics displayed in just about any thread where the gazillion new condo developments are mentioned. I'd have to have the "brain of a cabbage" to not notice you bitching about making poverty-level wages while doing all of the work that a lawyer is taking credit for. Is it stalking to remember things posted over and over by the same person, or is it just a matter of having a functioning hippocampus?

If you are truthful about your professional skills, I'd say you ought to squeeze in some night school and get a 2-year paralegal certification, or maybe just look for a new employer. Before you know it, you could be making twice as much money. It won't be enough for a $300k condo (not until they go for $100k after the bubble pops), but you might be able to afford a nice little fixer-upper.

"scooby" (is that is your real name)you fat old trust fund baby, if you don't like what people have to say outside your glass house, you can stay in there and disconnect the internet. Why are you so in love with me you have to stalk my every move and wait around for me to post to find out what I'm thinking? Why do you assume you know what I'm thinking when you have the brain of a cabbage? Why do you think that I give a shit what you think (you don't have to answer that because I don't)? And why do you think that I care if my bitching is going to turn little turds like yourself away from or towards my point of view?

Kinda like people who bitch and moan about other people spending too much money for shitty clothes, or people who, instead of getting off their asses and improving their own lot by hunting for a better paying job, just whine about not being able to buy a central city house while making just-above-the-poverty-level wages.

I can sympathize with you, in this case.

Judging from some of the diverging views posted on the Spaceman site, I find your claims of censorship based on opinion dubious. Are you posting with completely fake info (a pseudonym + fake e-mail)? They don't like that so much.

your not you're

I hate it when people use the wrong homonym.

Also, I like this site because the Austin American Statesman site won't publish anything I am saying on their site. They delete anything they don't agree with. How's that for partisan?

As opposed as I was to this loan yesterday, hearing all the babys on the bus go "WAH WAH WAH" today has reformed my ass. Way to go, chumps. You're stupid whining and crying has turned me against you.

Not that it matters.

Actually, it matters just as much as your opinions which is to say not at all.

and as far as "healthy debate" goes, I think the main topic of debate now should be what flavor of feathers should be used with the tar. Personally, I'd suggest pigeon & grackle feathers to help clean up downtown (killing two birds with one stone, so to speak).

Unless Marriott is paying with Chuck-E-Cheese dollars, that money can be spent anywhere. No one's argued, to my knowledge, that Marriott should not be made to pay the money.

As a city taxpayer, and a small business owner who has zero chance of getting any benefit of the council's largess (even if I was willing to kiss the ring, which I'm not), I'm more that a little pissed that I've been pickpocketed by these two looters.

AC-

Best argument yet. Thank you for that.

Unless Marriott is paying with Chuck-E-Cheese dollars, that money can be spent anywhere. No one's argued, to my knowledge, that Marriott should not be made to pay the money.

We have a finite budget. What's the best way to spend that $750,000? Yesterday, the city staff suggested some other items the city might want to consider for the upcoming budget -- including $550,000 for downtown graffiti removal and $100,000 for designing the Town Lake boardwalk. We could use the money to fund that. Or to help build the Town Lake boardwalk. Or to improve sidewalks on Lamar or downtown. Or to help the homeless. Or to buy public art.

Or we could give the money to any other displaced local business.

When you argue for giving money to the Perez sisters, you are not taking a stand against Marriott. You are taking a stand against all the other things we could buy with this money. And you are saying the Perez sisters are more deserving than all other local businesses.

The loan is forgivable because a lot of the equipment a restaurant would need to buy depreciates very quickly and would have little value after five years (that's Council Member Kim's reasoning, not mine).

Kim is talking out of her hindquarters. It is forgivable not because of any sound financial reasoning, but because the sisters are good at kissing politician ass.

The loan is forgivable because a lot of the equipment a restaurant would need to buy depreciates very quickly and would have little value after five years (that's Council Member Kim's reasoning, not mine).

As for blowing the fund on one applicant, the fund has actually only received one application, so I'm guessing they didn't have much choice on that. Also, the fund will be replenished by the $260,000 that Las Manitas will repay, and by development fees from other proposed developments.

Okay, I accept there's been a bit of hysteria (especially in the Statesman's online comment) over this and the BRE program to "support re-establishing Congress Avenue and East 6th Street as retail and urban entertainment district destinations" is a good thing but should they really have blown all but $16,000 in the fund on one applicant? Even with the best will in the world it's hard to see this as anything but favoritism.

e,

Yes, an alley vacation is what I meant - most folks wouldn't understand the terminology so it's easier to lump it with the other supposed variances. Like I said, I'd be against it with or without the Las Manitas issue - we need more grid downtown, not less.

Has ANYONE (council member, Bueller, Kreskin or otherwise) been able to get an answer on why this loan is forgivable? It's understandable why the city may be interested in helping the Perez sisters, but no one understands why it is handing them what will amount to a $630,000 gift (this will be the remaining loan balance after their required p&i payments).

It's actually an alley vacation, not a variance. A vacation requires the signatures of all neighboring proporty owners, which happens to include the Perez sisters.

e,

The answer is that they're both dumb and wrong. Doesn't hurt my view that the Convention Center is a disaster for downtown most of the time (maybe helps during SXSW, but that's about it).

shilli,

The variances Marriott's likely to be seeking mainly deal with the alley (variances which I would tend to oppose, by the way). They won't need much height or FAR help, if any.

Kelly,

I sure as heck DO question the need to support local businesses. If all other things are exactly equal, sure. But I've certainly seen enough chains which behave better than local competitors on metrics I care about (environmentalism, pedestrian-supportive vs. pedestrian-hostile design, worker treatment, etc.) that I have a hard time immediately swallowing the idea that we need to support them Just Because.

No one questions the need to support local businesses. It means offering them or working with them to get low interest loans where the business is completely responsible for the debt it incurred. It doesn't mean giving the business what will amount to a $630,000 handout. This is a ludicrous decision, of exponential proportions, by the council.

As I understand it, Mariott will be requesting a height variance and permission to eliminate the alley, both of which will require city approavl. They may also have been requesting an FAR variance and fee waivers or development incentives. I hope the city doesn't grant any of those, but more because I don't like the Mariott project than because of Las Manitas.

I still don't think this loan should be forgiven after five years, but I'd rather see this money go to Manitas than a lot of other people the city gives money to (Hilton, etc.).

It's pretty much impossible to talk about free markets in development, especially in hotel convention center development. Cities offer huge subsidies to developments that they want in town ($30 million to the Hilton Convention Center), whats so wrong with giving subsidies to local businesses too?

I knew this was all RG4N's fault! After all, They Killed The Light Rail, right?

"the alternative to helping out local business is allowing place like Las Manitas to get plowed over by developments that take money OUT of Austin and don't keep it here."

The city council says that the new Marriott will create 600 jobs. Las Manitas can keep 15 employed if they are lucky. Moreover, the Marriott will bring in 1,000s of conventioners who will spend their money in Austin and leave. How many people come to Austin just to visit Las Manitas?

um, where's the money coming from again? would it be the city's if not for this purpose?

i think public discussion on this issue could really be enhanced if we focus on the real issue here: should the City of Austin be giving assistance in the form of loans to some local businesses, but not others? Should the City be engaging in the business of helping local business survive, rather than allowing the natural economic forces to do their work (in which case, the big developer will almost always push the local business out)?

this really comes down to values. what's more important: allowing a multi-million dollar development to successfully swamp a local business, or, alternatively, allowing the city to make biased decisions in favor of local business.

personally, i believe in free markets, but NOT when they hurt local businesses. call it handouts, call it communism, call it whatever you like. but the alternative to helping out local business is allowing place like Las Manitas to get plowed over by developments that take money OUT of Austin and don't keep it here.

Didn't Marriott offer to pay for the relocation in their negotiations a few months ago, but Las Manitas declined, and now the City is paying for this?

Ridiculous, way out of line, it's the lack of respect that hurts the most.

I hate to see this kind of granola-mafia pandering outside the Chronicle, where it has sadly completely taken over. (Thanks to whomever coined that term, by the way).

Like with RG4N's bleating about other Wal-Marts defeated in other cities, the comparison to Maria's misses the point entirely. Walgreen's, if I remember correctly, required a zoning CHANGE. The Marriott does not (although some minor waivers from lesser rules are likely to be necessary). Likewise, Wal-Marts defeated in other cities were requesting changes in zoning to build their crapshacks; while Northcross is already zoned for precisely that sort of thing (actually, could support more than 1 million sqft. of retail under current zoning).

In BOTH cases, people who don't like the landlords' choices of who to rent to have been hammering the city to ignore the Rule of Law because, well, they just don't like the consequences this time around. Remember, before this bullshit handout, there were a lot of granola mafioso who wanted the city to force the Finley Co. to retain both Las Manitas and the day-care, one way or another.

The only reason these fairly well-off sisters are getting this handout is because they're well-connected. The guy running Guero's had it completely right (and Guero's is certainly responsible for as much if not more economic development these days).

It is an interesting argument. Thanks for the post!

My business is being forced to move because a larger, more powerful company is buying the land and kicking up out at the end of the lease. Where's my $700,000 check? Oh wait, I guess that's just part of leasing and something many businesses face. Hope Austin has its checkbook ready.