Last week, I attended the City Council meeting to address the “McMansion Moratorium.” The Statesman reported that

Of those who signed up to speak, 268 were against the moratorium, 103 in favor, and 8 neutral. Fearing a never-ending hearing, the council limited comment from each side to one hour, then abandoned its usual 3-minute-per-speaker limit and confused the audience further by extending the time each side could speak. By the end of the night, 48 people had spoken.

I was one of those not heard, and, since I don’t feel confident that I will be heard this Thursday, I wrote a letter to the Statesman and the Chronicle behind the cut.

*** *** *** ***
Dear Editor:
I am writing in regards to the City Council’s unanimous vote on 2/9/06 in favor of a building and remodeling moratorium within Austin’s “historic” neighborhoods.
I am not a realtor, developer, architect or builder, nor am I married or related to one. The home I am remodeling falls within the moratorium guidelines and was permitted before the moratorium went into effect. This moratorium does not directly affect me, although it does affect my neighborhood.
I too want to preserve and protect our neighborhoods: their historic value, their pedestrian-friendly nature (or their need for it), their existing foliage (and shade), and their schools. I do not feel that the moratorium addressed those issues. It was a band-aid that targeted the emotional core of the situation and encouraged finger-pointing between neighbors instead of thoughtful urban planning. The City Council should be held accountable for sloppy decision-making.
Among the discrepancies of their decision:

• The City Council (specifically Will Wynn and Brewster McCracken) has in recent years consulted with neighborhood organizations around Austin regarding increasing urban density in order to support mass transit plans. For example, the Central Austin Combined Neighborhood Plan was formulated by multiple focus groups including owners, renters, realtors and neighborhood associations from the North and West Campus and Hyde Park Areas. The Plan was implemented carefully to support historic preservation while increasing density and affordable housing. The moratorium voted on last week was not preceded by focus groups, multiple hearings, calculated studies or scientific data.
• When asked, the City Council was unable to answer questions about how the moratorium might affect the taxes or home values of those people already living within the Austin metro area. The popular assumption was that the moratorium would be financially-friendly to home owners, but the Council provided no evidence to support or refute this assumption.
• Most of the Council members did not even know the details of the guidelines and separated the zoning board into a separate room to answer questions.
• The 6-member Council also was unable to answer questions regarding why the issue was being rushed to a vote instead of discussed and planned in focus groups.
• The Council indicated that the large number of building permits recently requested had something to do with their desire to implement the moratorium. However, the Council was unable to answer how they planned to deal with the resulting waiver requests that might flood the permitting office as a result of the moratorium and stall the permit requests of those who fall under the guidelines.
• The Council admitted that the primary concerns were historic West Austin neighborhoods such as Tarrytown, Pemberton Heights, and Brykerwoods, but they did not indicate why the moratorium was not limited to these areas. Instead, the moratorium directly affects many east Austin neighborhoods where developers were originally invited to purchase and sub-divide lots in order to create urban density, affordable housing, and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.
• Proponents mentioned that one of their concerns was development that violates the original SF3 zoning restrictions. The moratorium guidelines did not increase the penalties for those that violate the guidelines, and no mention was made as to how or whether that issue would be addressed. In other words, the Council could not comment on how the moratorium would discourage developers who had previously violated guidelines and would most likely violate the moratorium.
• The Council also indicated that impervious cover and drainage run-off, old-growth foliage, and historical/architectural preservation were primary concerns, but the guidelines created by the moratorium in no way directly addressed those issues. Instead, the guidelines were specific to the square footage and height of the home.
• Councilmember McCracken used the term “McMansions” to describe the homes affected by the moratorium. I find the term “McMansions” unnecessarily inflammatory. Urban density alleviates the problems associated with sprawl, but it brings with it a host of other issues to address such as impervious cover and historic preservation. These issues were to be expected and are not addressed by the moratorium.

Austin neighborhoods deserve a well-thought out plan that brings together both residents and experienced urban planners, not guidelines that stifle real concerns.
Concerned Austinites should attend this Thursday’s City Council meeting if only to make it clear that the Council should be taking this issue seriously, not making decisions behind our backs. Blaming the problem on developers that were invited to find ways to increase urban density (especially when many of the developers that attended the meeting last week admitted they were ALSO residents of the neighborhoods they were developing) does not solve the problem. Assuming that everyone is against “McMansions” also doesn’t solve the problem.
There are people on both sides of this debate: residents, citizens… our neighbors. Let’s work together.
In the meantime, the City Council owes Austinites real answers and real solutions.
Sincerely,
Christiane Woodley Erwin
Brentwood/Crestview Resident