Austinist: Better Know a Candidate: Robin Cravey

mdahmus

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:53:59 -0600

Seth, I'm coming to the meeting, but I expect it to be a madhouse. And you're greatly confused if you think this has anything to do with spec. ratz nailed that one better than I could. Again you assume, against all evidence to the contrary, that the variance process is cheap, easy, and likely to succeed. If any one of those is not true, and there's strong evidence that all THREE are not true, then it would be irrational to even attempt it. They wouldn't be seeking a variance from setback tent anyways, BTW, they'd be seeking a variance from FAR (they already have a garage apartment which they obviously would prefer not to tear down given that the 3 kids' aunt lives there right now). You know, the type of variance which I heard nobody's gotten yet anyways. If you think McMansion had anything to do with spec houses, you're much more naive than I think you are. Again, it had everything to do with keeping Central Austin safe for the Old Money (and the Old Hippies).

Condor

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:48:49 -0600

Thanks for the info, Emma. Robin seems like he's got great ideas for Austin. I wish I was in town this month to volunteer (but I'm not). Any of you guys who care about this stuff, please step up and do something! I've had enough of do-nothing and/or developer-shill council members!

ratz

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:34:46 -0600

McMansion has nothing to do with specs. McMansion deals with FAR, setbacks, height restrictions etc. If a developer can't build a cheap X-Large house he can still build a cheap house that will be torn down in 20 years. Sure, I would rather see a smaller eyesore than a big one. However, the McMansion ordinance hinders densification and contributes to urban sprawl. In exchange for a large house footprint we get a larger suburban footprint.

juliet77

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:22:13 -0600

This guy is the sanest person I've heard yet, I'm glad to actually hear that a rational, practical yet ambitious person is running for City Council!

seth

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:04:40 -0600

Mike, Your neighbors can apply for a waiver to the setback tent, etc. etc. They haven't, but you're going to poo-poo on the McMansion ban anyway. I hope I see you at the transit meeting this evening, but I hope in person you'll be more rail-friendly than you are online. On the rail issue, you come across as a friend of Max Nofzinger and on the McMansion issue you are a supporter of the spec developers. Seth

emmacravey

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:55:36 -0600

It's great to see so much support for my dad in the blogosphere! (He's also the hands-down winner of this poll on the Burnt Orange Report.) As you all probably know, he's in a tough race with two other candidates who can't match his commitment to making sure all of Austin, including the central city, is affordable, walkable and green. If you like his positions, you can do something to help elect him to council! In these last few weeks of the campaign we need volunteers to phonebank, walk your neighborhood, or take a yard sign. Email us at volunteer@robincravey.com, or call us at 482-8500 to get involved!

mdahmus

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:27:20 -0600

Seth, Many things wrong with your most recent note. Here's the main four: 1. It's not the "zoning commission". It's the "Residential Design & Compatibility Commission". 2. McMansion INCREASES impervious cover. My next-door neighbors, of the family of 5 in 1050 square feet, are building back instead of up because the small amount of remaining space they're allotted doesn't make sense as a second story (with effective losses for stairwells). Other impacts on impervious cover include the setback tent (making it, again, proportionally harder to add an entitled square foot to the 2nd story than the 1st). Allowing basements is a joke - nobody who isn't already wealthy enough to just buy a big lot can afford the engineering challenge of building a home with a stable basement in pier-and-beam country. 3. The spirit of the ordinance was about scale, bulk, massing, etc. McGraw's home is out of scale; and clearly overshadows the bungalow next-door. Likewise, another prime mover on the original commission had a home with a 2nd story "towering over the backyard of their neighbors" (hers is set back much more in the front). 4. Before, I had the right to develop X. Now, I need to go to a commission and get a waiver from the very same people who carefully wrote the ordinance to just barely allow their violations of the spirit of the ordinance but ban me from building something which matches not only their homes but the historical pattern of our neighborhood. Likely? Hell no.

seth

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:11:36 -0600

Exactly. The McMansion ban doesn't have anything to do with affordable housing. It's about preventing spec developers from scraping lots and building poor-construction, tasteless design big-box houses that won't be worth crap in 20 years. The McMansion ban is also about limiting the impervious cover that McMansions create. Looking at the house owned by the vice chairperson you're citing, it's a big house (not my personal style) on a huge lot that probably had 2 or 3 houses on it originally. There's still a lot of permeable space on that corner lot. A true McMansion developer would have crammed 2 huge boxes on that lot. Your criticism of the vice-chairperson is misleading. That house is not a contradiction to the spirit of the McMansion ban. Your attacks on the McMansion ban are misdirected. You're real beef is with the zoning commission, but you have consistently failed to support your complaints with documentation that they are not granting waivers. You only present hearsay. You have previously whined that you couldn't expand your house because of the McMansion ban. In truth, you now admit that you don't have the budget to do so, anyway. If you do get around to wanting to expand your house, I'll gladly approach the zoning commission with you to request a waiver. If your request is reasonable, I'll join you in your calls for unseating the commission. Seth

Tarvin

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:27:38 -0600

One minor point: Reynolds 531 is steel tubing, not aluminum. And that must have been a sweet bike!

ahaley

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:44:04 -0600

This dude was HILARIOUS in Caddy Shack. I'm totally going to vote for him if he promises to run on the no more gophers in Austin platform. Who's with me?!

tim

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:21:22 -0600

Good grief. Just drive through Travis Heights and you can see how bad McMansion is. Now all the new remodels have weird towers jutting out of the center. Is the character of the neighborhood bell towers on every home?

mdahmus

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:50:18 -0600

I probably should have said Plain and Simple a third time to summon some kind of hideous beige demon to craft an ugly addition to my house.

mdahmus

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:47:15 -0600

seth, that requires me to spend a bunch of money to put a plan on record that expires after a year when I don't currently have the dough to do the project anyways. At the end of which, you'd probably say "well, your plan wasn't reasonable enough because these reasonable folks rejected it". Plain and simple: they haven't been granting waivers from FAR, according to what I hear. And it fits with my knowledge of the people on the commission, especially the vice-chairwoman, in her 3500 sqft estate on a corner in Hyde Park, towering/looming over an 1100 sqft bungalow. http://www.zillow.com/search/RealEstateSearch.htm?dg=dg1&addrstrthood=4315+avenue+c&citystatezip=78751 Plain and simple: when the people who crafted the ordinance live in big homes on large lots, it's pretty darn clear what their motivation was - and it had nothing to do with affordable housing. Now that one of them controls the "variance commission", you really think their stripes have changed?

seth

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:31:56 -0600

Mike, Stop being lazy and complaining that the McMansion prohibition is preventing you from expanding your house. Put together a proposal and go before the zoning commission to get a waiver. If they reject your reasonable proposal, then I'll agree that the process is broken. Cravey looks to be an awesome candidate, btw. Seth

Grape Ape

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:28:50 -0600

Quite possibly the most informed candidate yet.

mdahmus

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:44:41 -0600

Good answers. Robin knows his stuff. Extra props for remembering the initial (completely bogus) rationale for McMansion.