April 16, 2008
Better Know a Candidate: Jason Meeker
1. The Austin Music Commission is considering reducing the decibel limit under the city noise ordinance. Do you think that the noise ordinance should be changed?
No. This is a very complicated issue that must be solved, since we have gained so much as a city in embracing our musical heritage. We’re unique in this regard. Much can be done with acoustical engineering to contain sound and to direct it. And I don’t mean just in the clubs. I also mean in the buildings near clubs, or currently under construction, and also near neighborhoods.
Here are some opinions I have:
- Levels of “bass” tones are the ones that travel the farthest and are most disruptive. Those should be kept within acceptable limits.
- Outdoor concerts should not occur late at night.
On a related note, it’s disappointing to have to quiet down clubs playing live music, which enhance the culture and character of our city, yet we tolerate automobiles rolling around on city streets and through neighborhoods with incredible decibels of bass thumping for blocks.
I would work with groups like Troy Dillinger’s Year of Austin Music to address this issue. I am also a guitarist, so I can appreciate what it takes to master an instrument and earn a living playing one.
2. Has the McMansion ordinance been successful? What do you think of City Council's recent decision to reject OCEAN's request to further restrict home sizes on small lots in East Austin?
No, the McMansion ordinance is flawed. Where do I start? It doesn’t allow tiny homes on small lots to grow to accommodate growing families. It’s anti-density. I’m shocked….just shocked that the city council rejected a request from a neighborhood group!
3. Some neighborhood groups have attempted to opt-out of the vertical-mixed-use program for most or all eligible properties in their neighborhood. Would you vote to approve or reject those decisions?
I’m a strong proponent for neighborhoods having more input over their destinies. In my campaign, I am suggesting that Austin create a Department of Neighborhoods.
Cities like Portland, Seattle, and Louisville have taken a great leap toward preserving neighborhoods. In some ways, they see preserving neighborhoods as essential as economic development. Just look at the mission for Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods, but in this case, I’ve replaced the word ‘Seattle’ with ‘Austin.’
The Department of Neighborhoods works to bring government closer to the residents of Austin by engaging them in civic participation; helping them become empowered to make positive contributions to their communities; and by involving more of Austin's underrepresented residents, including communities of color and immigrants, in civic discourse, processes, and opportunities.
4. What should the city government do to promote or discourage suburban development? What about condo/apartment development downtown? What about condo/apartment development in other parts of the city?
I think Austin should be very wary of build too many condos and apartments at one time. This city suffered dearly last time the real estate market collapsed.
In the inner core of the city, condos and apartments are appropriate.
5. Homes near downtown are generally more expensive than homes in the suburbs. Should the city do anything to change that? What?
Tax Increment Financing should be extended beyond East Austin. There is more that can be done to preserve and help assist in the building of affordable housing.
6. Austinites love cars (80% of us drive to work by ourselves), but hate traffic. What would you do to get Austinites to commute differently and/or reduce traffic? How often do you get to work by some method other than driving? What is your alternative method?
I have spoken many times about rationing our roads like how we do lawn watering. We must encourage employers to use flexible hours or telecommuting, so we’re not all on the roads at the same time. It must become socially unacceptable to go on your regular commute alone. Sharing a ride must become the norm. I drive or walk to work. (I work at home and at an office.)
7. Austin has the potential to be a great biking city and a lot of people bike recreationally, but it is difficult for most people to bike to work. What should the city do to improve the opportunity to bike-commute? Do you own a bike? How often do you ride it to work?
I never bike to work. I’m too wary of bad drivers—and I have an infant son to transport quite often. But I think bicyclists are incredibly brave, and doing a public good in changing the way they travel. They should be treated with equality on the roads. Austin needs to develop public-private partnerships to build showers and bikeports. “Transit for London” is doing amazing things. Let’s follow their lead.
8. Are you happy with the apparent resolution of the Las Manitas/Marriott controversy? If not, how do you think it should have been handled differently?
No. Richard Suttle should be barred from entering City Hall.
9. Do you think Austin is better now than it was 10 years ago? Do you think it will be better 10 years from now than it is now?
No. Austin is a great city, and we have developed in amazing ways. But our traffic is beyond tolerable levels and the air is very dirty. We must act now to change so many terrible trends in our city, so the Austin of 2018 will be great city we can be. All we need is the leadership and vision to pursue our dreams.
Click here to see the responses from other candidates. We haven't heard from Jennifer Gale, Sam Osemene or Ken Vasseau. If you talk to them or see them around, tell them to send us an email!
|
Too many dumbass things to comment on, but I'd like to ask (to start): Are there any other people you'd like to ban from interacting with their elected officials? I know you don't agree with Suttle on just about anything, but he deserves a voice just like you do. It's called the 1st amendment- the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It's a fucking pillar of representative republican government.
I'm not saying that a representative has to bow to every request (quite the contrary), but to ban someone from making said request is just stupid.
I'm glad Meeker has launched his campaign against Leffingwell. His campaign will help burn Leffingwell's warchest and make his run for mayor more difficult.
Sadly, Meeker's ideas are in conflict. He's against the McMansion law but then answers the next question about condos with quite a different perspective:
Substitute 'condos' with the word 'McMansion' in the above quote and you'll see the contradiction.
Seth
Also, "Austin" doesn't build condos and apartments. Developers do, with money they're loaned by lenders, who, even before the recent tightening, were a lot more wary of condos than they were in the early 1980s.
You don't need to pre-sell a single house to get a loan to build a sprawling housing development; but try getting a loan to build a condo building without a bunch of contracts and deposits.
The McMansion ordinance is not anti-density.
One Mcmansion is as dense as a bungalow.
One house, one family.
People keep repeating this fallacy.
Especially the density huggers.
Tarvin, the McMansion ordinance severely penalizes people who have garage apartments or duplexes - by treating their square footage exactly the same as main house area. It will inevitably lead to fewer new secondary dwelling units and the eventual destruction of some existing secondary dwelling units.
Less housing units = less density.
Also, even if that weren't true, if families need more space than rich no-child couples, let's say, then an ordinance which restricts home size could, in fact, lead to less density even with the same number of housing units.
Any family needing to expand their house can get an exemption. The spirit of the law is to prevent spec builders from scraping lots and building monster box houses. The appeals panel will recognize that a family with kids isn't looking to flip a house and will grant the exemption.
I am not aware of how the McMansion law leads to the 'eventual destruction of some existing secondary dwelling units.'
Seth
Seth,
My next door neighbors have a 6000 square foot lot like me; they already have a garage apartment (unlike me, although I wanted to build one some day); and have a family of 5 (3 kids; 1 more than me) living in about 1050 square feet. If they want to do more than a small expansion to their house, they face tearing down the garage apartment.
"getting an exemption" reportedly isn't happening, by the way.
So for them, they face a pretty strong incentive to tear the mofo down - for me, I face a pretty strong incentive never to build one (although I wanted one).
This matches the historical development pattern of the area, by the way - a 2000 sqft house and 6-800 sqft garage apartment is not out of place in any way, shape, or form. Karen McGraw, one of the primary movers behind McMansion, has 3600+ square feet AND a garage apartment up in Hyde Park right next to a couple of tiny bungalows, so let's not pretend this had anything to do with anything but propping up the property values of those rich enough to have bought larger lots.
Can someone help me understand what Meeker means with "we have gained so much as a city in embracing our musical heritage"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but our musical heritage seems to be in the Chitlin' Circuit and Tejano, roots C&W, and that was hijacked or co-opted by a bunch of white folk slackers. In fact, every time you see a picture of someone who is supposed to depict the Austin scene, it's a white guy with a guitar. We've never, as a community, embraced our musical heritage.
What does 'reportedly' mean? Do you have documented cases of homeowners being denied exemptions or variances from the McMansion ordinance? Have they actually engaged the process described below?
I embrace the McMansion ordinance because I live in Hyde Park where homes were getting swapped out with big boxes of zero architectural value. Spec builders threw them up to be rented by groups of students. Their shitty construction capitalizes on a formula of the cheapest materials and maximizes square footage. This type of development depreciates very rapidly and drags the surrounding neighborhood value with it.
I have no gripe about my neighbors expanding their own homes. It's the spec builders that needed to be halted.
Seth
Seth, you got played by Karen McGraw. No other way to put it.
According to somebody I know who follows this stuff even more closely than I, and I follow it more closely than anybody you're likely to meet here on austinist, the Residential Design & Compatibility Commission hasn't really been granting exceptions to McMansion. Now, it may be that all of the applications had no merit, but I find that hard to believe.
But again, forcing me to go through a variance process (stacked against me, at considerable expense) to do what McGraw has already done, and which matches the current and historical architectural pattern of the neighborhood, just isn't right.
BTW, I live just south of Hyde Park in North University. I'm one of only two properties out of 15 or so on my block that doesn't have a secondary dwelling unit - and I live right next door to a big duplex. McGraw's McMansion Ordinance which was supposed to protect families' ability to afford to live here has, I repeat, instead caused my next-door neighbors to be unable to expand more than a trivial amount (family of 5) without knocking down their garage apartment, and caused us to have to give up our eventual plan to have a garage apartment.
The one McMansion guy who isn't just a complete tool told me I should explore a basement or habitable attic space. Yeah, like a guy who couldn't afford a McGraw-esque lot is going to be swimming in enough extra cash to do something that out of the ordinary.
Seth, shitty construction and zero architectural value occurs regardless of the McMansion ordinace. The spec builders will continue to crap in your neighborhood with or without it.
Mike,
I think your beef isn't with the McMansion ordinance. It's with the commission's flexibility.
I do construction for a living. You fuel me with tequila and breakfast tacos and I'll dig that basement for you. 512-789-0009.
Seth
Oh yeah.... Am I the only one who interpreted Meeker's opposition to bass tones as subtle racism?
Seth
I wouldn't go as far as "subtle racism," but this talking point does make him sound extra-crackerish.
city hall hustle (part 1)
Seth,
I lack the confidence so blithely displayed by some that basements are suddenly feasible and easy in the same parts of town that are notorious for cracking slabs and requiring that pier-and-beams be re-levelled every decade or three. Just a little moral failing of mine, I guess.
Seth -- I'm very hesitant to tag someone with the R word, even conditioned as "subtle" but it's fairly obvious that Mr. Meeker needs a better understanding of the the history and complexities of Austin.
The man is not ready for prime time. If it is true, as you imply, that he is a willing stooge for weakening Leffingwell, then he has poor judgment by letting himself be used. From what I can tell, he has no positive agenda -- he just has glib hot rhetoric that has consistently missed the mark. Throwing a few bricks is understandable at the start, but he's now established himself as not credible, a loud goose honking at the breeze.
The City is vulnerable on many fronts, and there's certainly legitimate reason for citizens to be upset with this council -- but Leffingwell is not the appropriate target, and Mr. Meeker is not the appropriate candidate. This is his 15 minutes -- I hope he realizes his withering, underwhelming performance under the public spotlight now will follow him for many years.