Is CWS Faking the Funk?

Thanks for the research, myname. I agree with you on all points. Disgusting.

myname, why would you expect the Chronicle provide balance? They are one of the top sponsors of STL.

One other thing: Scott Hendler's website shows his specialty is suing corporations re: Vioxx, Oxycontin, etc. What expertise does he provide around local waterfront overlay and impervious cover requirements? My guess is that he lent his name (and his political power) to put fear into the elected officials who have to vote on this thing. No wonder it was unanimous.

By the way, why isn't a real journalist researching these things? I have lost all respect for the Chronicle. I never had any for the Statesman but I thought the Chronicle would at least provide some sense of balance.

Guest 43: A quick search shows that Scott Hendler owns a home in Travis Heights just a few blocks from the disputed site. He obviously has a vested interest in preserving the $1M appraised value. A few hours of pro-bono work is nothing compared to that.

According to this article http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/News/?oid=oid:440609

"SaveTownLake.org has retained heavy hitter law firm Brown McCarroll, to ensure that the City of Austin takes its concerns seriously."

The word "retained" makes me think that they hired that law firm.

According to this article

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid:540616

"SaveTownLake.org and its pro bono attorneys, Bradley Clark and Scott Hendler, hold that the law's original 1986 intent was to limit height absolutely."

But on the Brown McCarroll "Attorneys" portion of their website

http://www.brownmccarroll.com/attorneys_main.asp

Neither Scott Hendler or Bradley Clark is listed as working there.

Why do they need all these lawyers working for them and how they hell do they convince all these lawyers to work for them voluntarily? It seems like an awful lot of lawyers giving an awful lot of time to a cause that (judging by the comments here and at the Chronicle forums) not a lot of Austinites support.

I'd love for the city to run an unbiased, scientific study to gauge how people in Austin really feel about this issue when they're told the facts surrounding it. Any chance of that happening?

"If anything thinks that any individuals want to use their own money and time to take on the deep pockets of the city, they're wrong."

Then why do the pro-bono lawyers involved with this want to use their own money and time to take on the deep pockets of the city?

The waterfront overlay requirements do not apply to the contruction or reconstruction of existing development for which a certificate of occupancy was issued before July 18, 1986. (Land Development Code s. 25-2-711(B)(2)(b)).

The impervious cover requirements do not apply to the redevelopment of the property if the redevelopment: (1) does not increase the existing amount of impervious cover; (2) provides the level of water quality treatment prescribed by current regulations for the redeveloped area or an equivalent area on the site; (3) does not generate more than 2,000 vehicle trips a day above the estimated traffic level on April 17, 2000; (4) is consistent with the neighborhood plan adopted by council, if any; and (5) for property in the drinking water protection zone, combined with all other redevelopment of the site since April 17, 2000 does not affect more than 25 percent of the site’s impervious cover. (Land Development Code s. 25-8-26).

#38: Which of these impervious cover requirements do you think applies? I don't think any of them will prevent reconstruction of the apartments. (The property's not in the drinking water protection zone, as best as I can determine.)

Save Town Lake has been telling the public that it will get its green space no matter what. You need to back that claim up.

#38:

How has STL come to the table to offer a solution? Free barbecue and music is good and well, but what have you done for me? What have you proposed to offer the public? Do you have a plan to increase green space in a disgusting concrete jungle built 30 years ago? Do you plan on buying the property yourself and making it a public park?

I am just sick of the complaining, which is all you do - coplain! Solutions are what turn the public on. I am not saying I hate your organization, but I think you could do much better. You will lose this fight if you keep complaining. People will continue to question your integrity when you offer nothing but more problems. The developer is winning me over by offering something I want and care about.

Once you take a similar approach and tell me how you are making things better, show me physical results, true positive action that makes this a better place to live, you will be without my support!

guest #38, it's been my understanding that the developer could maintain existing impervious cover as long as they were essentially maintaining existing footprint and height. Is that not the case?

Guest 33 here. To your question, shilli, I don't think the developer will build on the existing site. That would still require the granting of a number of variances not covered by being grandfathered. Impervious cover issues, for one, would be problematic fo them, as would height limitations.

From what I've seen -- and that's not been everything by any means -- CWS can build a profitable development at the 200 ft. setback, albeit not as profitable for them as if they received the variance, hence their willingness to throw quite a bit of money to get it.

As for the lawsuit, there seems to be the assumption that filing it was a knee-jerk reaction and done to spite the city in some way. In fact, their were numerous attempts made to discuss these issues with the city. The have consistently dodged and stonewalled those attempts. The lawsuit came about only after STL felt there were no other viable options. If anything thinks that any individuals want to use their own money and time to take on the deep pockets of the city, they're wrong.

Here's the right link. That one goes to comments.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=538043

Katherine Gregor also wrote about the history of the overlay in Developing Stories a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/ReaderComments/?ContainerID=538043

"The claim is that the City dramatically changed the Waterfront Overlay in the 90s without going through the proper procedures, and in doing so stripped key components, including the right of citizens to appeal decisions, yet maintaining developer's rights to do so."

Can't fixing this be brought before the City without a lawsuit? Why attach those doings to the most beneficial project a developer has brought to Austin in recent memory? I understand that this information may have been exposed over the course of the lawsuit, but why bring the lawsuit in the first place?

Thanks, guest 33. I don't personally know much about the lawsuit other than what was in Katherine's post.

What do you think is going to happen if the variance isn't granted? Do you think having the existing building re-built would be a better result than granting the variance?

Just to be clear on two issues:

SavTownLake.org (of which I am a member and not either a wealthy landowner or a resident of any neighborhood near the lake) isn't trying to save this particular piece of land as it is. We're opposed to development that violates the Waterfront Overlay Ordinanance that the city itself developed to insure responsible development of the lakeshore.

As for the lawsuit, no wealthy landowners have hired lawyers. The attorneys working on the suit are doing so pro bono, as is everyone in the organization. And the suit has nothing to do with any particualr development or specific property. The claim is that the City dramatically changed the Waterfront Overlay in the 90s without going through the proper procedures, and in doing so stripped key components, including the right of citizens to appeal decisions, yet maintaining developer's rights to do so.

shilli wrote:

"These are my theories for their motivation:

1. Opposition to condo towers. If the variance is not granted, then the plan doesn't go forward and the tall condo tower might not get built.

2. Opposition to a trail extention. If the variance is not granted, the trail will not be extended (or the extension will be less appealing). Extending the trail would increase traffic in the area, and particularly increase the number of people coming from the east side into this neighborhood.

3. Belief that the city will get a better deal by not granting the variance. I haven't figured out whether this is confusion or not, but this is basically Guest 22's position. If the city does not grant the variance, it will get 200 feet instead of 150 feet. I'm not sure whether this is true or not."

It can't be #1 because they haven't opposed any other tall condo towers. I haven't found anything on their site in opposition to Spring or The Shore or Milago or the Mexican American Cultural Center, all of which are being built or have been built close to Lady Bird Lake. Not that they're all as tall or all asked for the setback variance of this project, but the fact that they're facing no opposition from STL shows that #1 can't be it.

Exactly, Shilli. There's really no reason to oppose the construction. The only reason I ever oppose large projects like this downtown is when they destroy cultural centers (Electric Lounge and Liberty Lunch) and when they destroy historic buildings. Nothing on those plots of land are worth saving. Plus, the entire city would benefit from the trail extension. The only reasons I can see anyone opposing this project is if they're motivated by greed to keep their neighborhood exclusive.

I agree with this statement, "To say that this issue impacts only people who live in the neighborhood is ridiculous. Whichever side you agree with, the issue of development along the lake is important to everyone who enjoys the lake, whether that is living on it or just appreciating its beauty as you drive (or bike - added in) over it." We have an opportunity here to make the trail more accessible, to rejuvenate the parcels of land, and to truly enjoy the Town Lake / Lady Bird Lake trail - AT NO EXPENSE TO TAXPAYERS!

I just can't trust anybody that can find fault with that.

I weighed the arguments and have come to my own decision on this. I just signed the petition. The Save the lake people are offering law suits and free bbq, the extend people are offering me a trail. Easy decision!

Katherine Gregor over at the Chronicle has good info on the lawsuit:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A540616

I think the feeling that it is bogus stems from the idea that this is a political question that should be determined by city council based on input from all citizens, not a legal question that should be determined by judges based on input from citizens wealthy and motivated enough to hire lawyers to bring a lawsuit. Also, I think some people are bothered by the idea that the city has to spend money to defend itself in these lawsuits. Also, these people probably disagree with what the people bringing the lawsuit want.

I'm curious about the lawsuit mentioned by Guest 18/19. What's the nature of it? And why do you think it's bogus? Thanks.

Shouldn't their name be Save Lady Bird Lake now?

I think a lot of opposition is driven by confusion (e.g. the Save Town Lake says this project will be like the Hyatt, where the building is within 20 feet of the lake, when in fact it will be 150 feet from the lake). That said, I think the people driving the opposition understand the situation. These are my theories for their motivation:

1. Opposition to condo towers. If the variance is not granted, then the plan doesn't go forward and the tall condo tower might not get built.

2. Opposition to a trail extention. If the variance is not granted, the trail will not be extended (or the extension will be less appealing). Extending the trail would increase traffic in the area, and particularly increase the number of people coming from the east side into this neighborhood.

3. Belief that the city will get a better deal by not granting the variance. I haven't figured out whether this is confusion or not, but this is basically Guest 22's position. If the city does not grant the variance, it will get 200 feet instead of 150 feet. I'm not sure whether this is true or not.

If #3 is true, that would strike me as a strong argument. I like tall condo towers and I really want to see the trail extended, so #1 and #2 aren't convincing to me, but I can see why some people would agree with them.

Guest 22 - where are you getting your information? I understand that CWS owes $1.7 million in Parkland Dedication fees, but haven't heard anything about CWS not paying those fees.

Also, what additional variances would they need to rebuild the existing structures? I haven't heard anything about that.

$1.7 million might buy more land somewhere else, but I think it is important that the city get this particular land. If the city refuses to grant the variance, I don't see any reason for CWS not to rebuild the existing structures. My biggest concern is that the current structures will be re-built and the city will not get the land. If that isn't a realistic concern, please provide clear evidence of that fact and I will let it go.

To say that this issue impacts only people who live in the neighborhood is ridiculous. Whichever side you agree with, the issue of development along the lake is important to everyone who enjoys the lake, whether that is living on it or just appreciating its beauty as you drive over it.

Why do I get the feeling that some guests are getting paid for their comments?

Here are a couple of other things to chew on:

The developer is "offering" to give park land to the city, and that has attracted much positive attention for them. But their lobbying firm is failing to mention that the offer has a string attached -- they want to give the land in lieu of $1.7 million in Parkland Dedication fees that they would otherwise owe.

$1.7 million would buy a lot more parkland than the two acres their proposing!

It's not the either/or situation. The city will get parkland out of the deal either way

Also, the developer claims that if they aren't granted a variance, they'll simply build on the existing site. That's a hollow threat. They aren't disclosing that they would need to obtain a number of additional variances in order to do that.

I think this is out of control. Perhaps the PR efforts of extend the lake folks is working because it is speaking to the community. I don't even live in Austin and I find myself engaged in this debate. My husband and I live in Hutto. We like to come down and use the trail like most people from time to time.

Maybe I just don't quite understand, but it sounds like we are arguing about whether or not it makes sense to have an increase in public space. An increase in space with a trail and at no expense to taxpayers. I even read that the developer was going to pay for the maintenance out of pocket. It's a no brainer to me, yet people are throwing fists to suggest that they don't want these things. I ask why????!!!

Guest #1, I'm curious. You obviously live near Riverside downtown - to you own land or rent?

18 here again - I just want you to know that I am not an "activist" for Extend the Trail or Save Town Lake (you need a name change, by the way) or any side in this matter. I'm just a citizen that does not like the fact that wealthy people are tying up our courts and civil processes with a bogus lawsuit that will benefit only the people that live in the area of the proposed development.

Here's where the Save Town Lake lobbying effort is paying off -- they are spreading the tale that this is an either/or situation. If they don't get everything they ask for, developers will be able to gobble up set back variances and height restrictions indefinitely. Problem is, that doesn't make sense. Allowing one setback variance with the condition that the trail is extended and improved and open to all Austin residents does not guarantee that all setback variances will be allowed. Especially since this is one of the few areas where the lake trail does not meet.

And yet another either/or. # 16 claims that the condo development would not be an altruistic gift to Austin, but a "highly marketable amenity to potential residents". What exactly is your beef with that? Will that interfere with the marketability of your future condo projects or home sells? And why can't it be both? Why can't it be an attractive addition to the plot AND a nice gift to the city? After all, it's not like the city has done anything to close the trail.

Also, the reason why 50 feet is such a big deal is that we're talking about a very narrow parcel of land. You already know that I bet. Nice diversion.

And yes, there may be people in Save Town Lake from all over Austin of all means, but how many of those members were swindled by Save Town Lake into joining by free beer and bbq? Who are the core members of this group? When do they meet and where? Why don't they have meetings listed on their website, only fund raisers? It seems like they're hiding their real reasons for organizing, using events to gloss over their message which is weak when compared to that of the developers.

There may be wealthy landowners in SaveTownLake.org, it's also comprised of people from all over Austin of all means. It's a legitimate non-profit with 501(c)3 status from the IRS.

Read Extend Our Trail's response again. It's what they don't say that is telling. For instance, they don't mention that the "activists" they have working for them are actually paid employees, and that their sole source of funding is the developer. And it's no coincidence that the initials "JB" in all of their responses happens to be the initials of the president of CWS' paid lobbying firm -- the same firm that represents Wal=Mart.

Here's where the Extend the Lake lobbying effort is paying off -- they are spreading the tale that this is an either/or situation. If they don't get everything they ask for, they'll just leave the site as is. Problem is, that doesn't make sense. Adding an extension to the trail isn't an altruistic gift to the city -- it's an important, highly marketable amenity to potential residents.

And does it make sense that CWS can build a highly profitable development at 150 feet from the lake, but claims it can't build anything at all a mere 50 feet -- 15 paces! -- back from that?

Quit telling me what to think and do. You're just wasting your breath.

Quit calling it "Lady Bird Lake" it is Town Lake and it will always be. RESIST NEW AUSTIN AT ALL COSTS!

Move to Travis Heights or SoCo, WD.

I … I want some cronies!

WD

I don't think anyone in this discussion is uninformed. Shilli and mdahmus are both pretty knowledgeable when it comes to issues like these. Just because people are siding with the developers on this issue it's not because they're sheep or uninformed or stupid. People are siding with the developers because having a trail extension and useful development at those locations even with the shorter setbacks and "canyon effect" is a better option than leaving things as they are.

I wholeheartedly agree with the assertion that the Save Town Lake people are "a group of affluent land owners who want to protect their neighborhood from the masses." It makes sense. If they loved Lake Lady Bird they would agree to the trail extension and drop their goofy suit. But since they want to stop the trail extension and any development on the sites (since the setback they're gung-ho for mean that NOTHING will go up) they are obviously a group of greedy people that want seclusion and exclusivity more than a nice, full hike and bike trail. If that's not their M.O. then what is, oh wise #9?

When the cats are away, the pompus assholes will come out to play...

Why don't you enlighten us since everyone's opinions are so "uninformed"?

Looks like the PR campaign is working judging by some of the uninformed reader posts above, concerning the development of Lady Bird Lake.

I am all for getting the trail. I read something earlier that made sense... It seems like every party involved has a money figure in mind. Extend Our Trail is a PR firm, Save Town Lake is a group of affluent land owners who want to protect their neighborhood from the masses. They are all disguising themselves, but I do ask - which group is offering us citizens the greatest benefit? The one that is offering a trail and park land or the one that is offering nothing??!!

I have yet to formally sign a petition or support either side fully, but I am quickly becoming aware that they all have a bottom-line agenda!

Shilli, I actually had an explanation of CWS typed up as "Cronies of Wells and Shilli". "Great" minds think alike.

savetownlake successfully adopted the green stance early on when in reality there's nothing green on the current site. Wonder why they don't hold green rallies on the land in dispute but rather at Auditorium Shores? Because the land in question they are so vociferously fighting to "protect" has "no trespassing" signs on it and is off-limits to the public. Buildings are practically at the edge of the shore. This is what they want to "save"?

I'm all for saving the public land along town lake but this parcel of land was ruined back in the 70's. Granting a variance for 150 feet will at least return some of the land back to the public.

CWS? I'm not sure it is an acronym - I was referring to CWS Capital Partners LLC. I revised the post to make it clearer. Check my earlier post on it for the backstory:

http://austinist.com/2007/08/29/_as_you_may_rec.php

M1EK is an acroynm - it stands for Mirthful One Execrates Katherine. I thought everyone knew that.

Please. More acronyms that aren't explained.

I guess so. I took out the "mischaracterization" langauage, but more because I think it was mean than wrong. I don't think anyone (even CWS) supports the "building" if that means the rebuilding of the existing structures (except that this may be what Save Town Lake actually wants). The issue is whether the city should grant CWS the variance and what will happen if they don't.

It does seem like a very amateurish effort, taking it at face value. What still makes me mad is that KG's piece apparently betrays the feeling at the Chronicle that nobody who wasn't a developer shill could ever be in favor of this variance which is bringing them to a new low in this regard.

I'm not a developer shill, and I favor the variance. There's one.

As for the last "mischaracterization" - I believe it IS going to be "building or trail". There's only so far back you can push the building before they run out of room to build it at all, and CWS isn't going to knock down the old buildings just to build something even less profitable - they'll either walk away, leaving the old crappy buildings there, or they'll rebuild new buildings on the same footprint (which they are allowed to do).

trouble is, the save our lake folks don't exactly represent the "neighborhood" per se. they represent the interests of people not immediately impacted by the variance. like many fights about development in austin, this one is complicated and the vocal minority is getting most of the attention. this area desperately needs redevelopment. the crime is out of control and the general condition of such an awesome area is really sad. who hangs out on that stretch of the trail these days?! no one. if a setback variance is all that's needed, i say go for it. worse things could happen. i don't want town lake disney-fied, but these guys have serious money to make a serious investment in the area and it's not the neighborhood residents who are opposed to it. ask around.