Austinist: Better Know a Candidate: Jason Meeker

Slickshu

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:00:30 -0600

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.

mdahmus

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:46:53 -0600

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.

mbartnett

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:32:53 -0600

city hall hustle (part 1)

mbartnett

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:23:18 -0600

dollar wells

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:01:18 -0600

I wouldn't go as far as "subtle racism," but this talking point does make him sound extra-crackerish.

seth

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:15:49 -0600

Oh yeah.... Am I the only one who interpreted Meeker's opposition to bass tones as subtle racism? Seth

seth

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:12:52 -0600

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

ratz

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:01:02 -0600

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.

mdahmus

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:54:48 -0600

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

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:31:00 -0600

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 CHALLENGING ZONING CHANGES AND VARIANCE REQUESTS: Property owners are required to comply with the current zoning rules if they wish to expand and/or improve their property. If a property owner wishes to exceed the allowed zoning uses or requirements, he or she must obtain a “variance” or zoning change before making any changes on the property. A property owner wishing to have an exception from the current zoning restrictions can file a variance request with the City. One needs to go before the Board of Adjustment for a zoning variance, at which point neighborhood input is permitted, as described below. No construction is permitted until a variance is granted and/or an appeal is completed. To see the Board of Adjustment rules and regulations, click here. Prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing (described above), notices of the variance request are sent to residents within 300' of the property and to any organization having an interest in the application (such as a neighborhood organization). If an affected resident or neighborhood organization objects to the variance request, that objection should be presented at the Board of Adjustment hearing. Objections may be presented by filing out the objection form provided with the notice and delivering it to the Board. Either party may appeal a variance decision by the Board of Adjustments. An appeal must be filed within 14 days, and can only be filed by the property owner in question, property owners within 500' of the property or an officer of affected environmental or neighborhood organization. In addition, a “petition” procedure requires a super majority of the City Council to approve a zoning change. Instructions on how to file a valid petition to protest a proposed zoning change are available by clicking here. Under this procedure, neighbors within a 200' radius of the property in question who protest a zoning change can file a “petition” with the City Council. If a written protest against a proposed rezoning, signed by 20% or more of either the area of the lots or land included in such proposed change, or of the lots or land immediately adjoining the same and extending 200 feet therefrom, such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of three-fourths of all members of the Council.

Slickshu

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:01:21 -0600

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.

mdahmus

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:08:28 -0600

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.

seth

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:29:19 -0600

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

mdahmus

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:22:32 -0600

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.

Tarvin

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:14:53 -0600

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.

mdahmus

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:51:06 -0600

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.

seth

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:41:07 -0600

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: "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." Substitute 'condos' with the word 'McMansion' in the above quote and you'll see the contradiction. Seth

Scooby

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:14:57 -0600

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.