Development Laws In San Antonio

[MannyIsGod]

Enough forgien arguing, this is something more people should be interested close to home...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA113004.03B.Vested_rights.a7180ea1.html

'Vested rights' debated
Web Posted: 11/30/2004 12:04 AM CST

John Tedesco
Express-News Staff Writer

In 1987, the Texas Legislature wrote a law for developers that said cities couldn't change the rules after they start a project.

Today, San Antonians still are grappling with the statute that protects developers — even if they build on the most sensitive land in the county.

About 70 people gathered at the University of the Incarnate Word on Monday to ask environmentalists and two City Hall lobbyists about the "vested rights" law and how the city can balance the interests of the public and those of landowners.

The issue is crucial in San Antonio, where polluted runoff from urban development seeps into caves, sinkholes and fissures on the city's North Side. The tainted water helps to replenish the Edwards Aquifer.

Yet San Antonio used to grant vested permits to developers with few questions asked, said lobbyist Ken Brown, who represents real estate clients.

"The city was handing out vested rights permits like they were candy," Brown said.

The forum, sponsored by Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas and the Bexar Audubon Society had Brown and lobbyist David Earl on one side, and Austin environmental lawyers Bill Bunch and Brad Rockwell, of the Save Our Springs Alliance, on the other.

Like Brown, Earl acknowledged that some developers have taken advantage of the law and filed plans on paper to be grandfathered, without making any real investment in the land.

The tug of war over whether old or new regulations should cover a piece of land over the aquifer's recharge zone misses the point, Bunch said.

There should be no development over the aquifer, he said, yet Texas is spending billions of dollars in highway expansion projects that encourage sprawl.

When developers file plans for a neighborhood, commercial center or other project, they can be "vested" and subject to the local land-use ordinances in place at the time. Developers can then ignore new rules or cherry-pick ones they like.

Proponents say the law encourages long-term planning and investment in large, master-planned communities.

Critics say the vested rights law has evolved into an excuse for developers to get by ordinances that preserve trees, green space and the aquifer.

[scott]

Not even Buddy Holly gives a shit.

[MannyIsGod]

A shame, this issue was central to the recent PGA issue.

[Hook Dem]

"Attention Tree Huggers.........." :lol This reminds me of Buddy Hackett when asked," Did you know that there are only 642 Canadian Snow Geese left in the world?" His reply......."If one of them shits on my car, there will be only 641 " :lol

[Useruser666]

A shame, this issue was central to the recent PGA issue.

All I know that anythin touted as being good for San Antonio is probably bad for it and good for the city council's wallet.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, the PGA project could have benefcial aspects. If you look at it in the light that the land there was going to be developed one way or another, then a golf course is more than prefferable to a housing or multiple housing communities.

However, Council tried to get this one under the noses of the people who opposed it last time, and that's fucked. They didn't let democracy work, and I honestly think it's going to bite them in the ass BIG time when election time comes.

[Hook Dem]

Well, the PGA project could have benefcial aspects. If you look at it in the light that the land there was going to be developed one way or another, then a golf course is more than prefferable to a housing or multiple housing communities.

However, Council tried to get this one under the noses of the people who opposed it last time, and that's fucked. They didn't let democracy work, and I honestly think it's going to bite them in the ass BIG time when election time comes.
Why don't you do us all a favor Manny, and run for city council since you are the wise one? You probably have to replace your front door weekly from so many pounding it down for advice.

[MannyIsGod]

I have higher goals.

So, back to the subject, do you agree with the actions of city council Hook, or better yet, do you know what even happend?

[Hook Dem]

I have higher goals.

So, back to the subject, do you agree with the actions of city council Hook, or better yet, do you know what even happend?
You know, you'll be a lot better off when you quit assuming that others are stupid and climb down off your pedestal. Of course I know what is going on. It's in my backyard. I'm closer to it than you by miles. Why don't you worry about developments in your neck of the woods( way out west)? You may have higher goals but you're gonna have all kinds of obstacles with your attitude.

[MannyIsGod]

Thanks for the advice pops.

I asked questions, I didn't assume you knew anything.

So whats your opinion on the situation?

[ClintSquint]

I don't live in San Antonio, but if I did, I'd be very interested in this.
What gets me is..where were all the supporters of the first PGA plan?
All I saw on the news was COPS and those against it and they did their work but seems like all the supporters just stood back and bitched but didn't do anything about it.

[Useruser666]

I don't live in San Antonio, but if I did, I'd be very interested in this.
What gets me is..where were all the supporters of the first PGA plan?
All I saw on the news was COPS and those against it and they did their work but seems like all the supporters just stood back and bitched but didn't do anything about it.

Because everyone who supports it is in it for the money. I'm not talking about a better economy, I'm talking about the people who own land around the proposed site, or the contractors who will bribe the council people to get the work.

[xrayzebra]

I have higher goals.

So, back to the subject, do you agree with the actions of city council Hook, or better yet, do you know what even happend?


You have goals?????? News to me! :oops :oops

[Sec24Row7]

What strikes me as funny is that we have like 600 feet of water that we arent allowed to use because of environmental concerns, leaving us with about 50? 70? feet for human use.

600 feet to 70? Seems real fair to me.

The regulations that are in place are fine.

Most can be achieved using permiable concrete and building materials.

The aquifer is in NO danger whatsoever.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not about the use, it's about possible contamination.

Also, the regulations that are in place aren't there to prevent a compelte drainage of the aquifer, they are they to prevent a drainage level which will effect certain species in the area.

[Sec24Row7]

Right, I would rather have blind salamanders on earth than a green lawn.

[MannyIsGod]

So where do you draw the line on what species should be protected?

[Bandit2981]

If you look at it in the light that the land there was going to be developed one way or another, then a golf course is more than prefferable to a housing or multiple housing communities.
i agree with you there, however i think its sad that any untouched and natural land around here sends everyone into a frenzy trying to think of what they can build on it. the current council sucks, i dont know anything about Hardberger but he's getting my vote for mayor because julian and schubert are both idiots

[MannyIsGod]

Hardberger in my opinion is by far the best option on the ballot. Castro is Ed Garza Lite and Schubert, well, is an idiot.

[GoldToe]

Personally, I'm voting for Julian.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

What about that new chick who declared?

[Sec24Row7]

Somewhere above blind salamanders and below me.

[spurster]

Unfortunately in Texas, landowners feel they have the god-given right to do whatever they want with their property with little regard to how it affects our safety. We wouldn't give permission to terrorists to contaminate our drinking water. Why shouldn't the same apply to landowners?

Keeping apparently useless species around seems silly until you decide whether you are in favor of degrading our environment or protecting it. Species becoming endangered or extinct seems to be a sure sign of degradation.

[MannyIsGod]

Personally, I'm not voting because I live just outside city limits.

[MannyIsGod]

Somewhere above blind salamanders and below me.

Care to be more specefic? That isn't exactly a line. And feel free to provide an explanation what makes certain species more important.

Also, you didn't mention anything about aquifer contamination, is that not a valid concern?

[Sec24Row7]

Auqifer contamination really isn't a valid concern when you have Camp Bullis over the majority of it and ANYTHING the military did between the 40's and now is 1 million times worse than what can be done with modern regulations.

What's done is done.

With new regs, nothing done in the future will be worse than what has been done in the past.

[MannyIsGod]

Auqifer contamination really isn't a valid concern when you have Camp Bullis over the majority of it and ANYTHING the military did between the 40's and now is 1 million times worse than what can be done with modern regulations.

What's done is done.

With new regs, nothing done in the future will be worse than what has been done in the past.

Wow, every geologist I've spoken to at meetings disagrees with you, what are you basing that on?

[Sec24Row7]

I'm just saying that the level of contamination was much higher then than it is now.

Also you do know that limestone acts as a filter for contaminants?

"Contaminated" water can be filtered to non contaminant levels, all you have to do is spend more money on it. It's pretty easy to make contaminated water too. All you have to do is keep the water the same and pass laws raising the restrictions on what permited levels in ppm of certain things are. That's been done. Same water, new law. Wasn't "contaminated" before, now it is.

The public really doesn't care about spending more money on water considering the utterly useless flouridation law. Restrictions have to be upheld, don't get me wrong, but wide swath reformists and PRESERVATIONISTS need to take a back seat so the developers, land owners, geologists and water conservationists can talk rationally.

There is a big gap between "we don't need to do anything" and " we are in imminent threat of having no water at all for our children".

[MannyIsGod]

How many local meetings where these concerns come up and people speak on have you been to?

(not being sarcastic, asking an honest question)

[Sec24Row7]

0

I have a hard time not hitting stupid people.

Most times I just stay home and beat myself up. (heh)

Nah, I've been to a few speaches and the like on the scientific aspects the aquifer and read a couple papers. I see the snippets on the news and hear things from a few people I know that deal with SAWS and Bexar Met.

I'm a geologist myself, graduated with a degree from Trinity, though water rights and quality are far, far from my expertise.

[Hook Dem]

0

I have a hard time not hitting stupid people.

Most times I just stay home and beat myself up. (heh)

Nah, I've been to a few speaches and the like on the scientific aspects the aquifer and read a couple papers. I see the snippets on the news and hear things from a few people I know that deal with SAWS and Bexar Met.

I'm a geologist myself, graduated with a degree from Trinity, though water rights and quality are far, far from my expertise.
Expertice or not, your credentials are far more impressive tham Manny's. He called you out and has nothing to come back with now. Oops! Wait! I predict he will reach deep into his bag of knowledge and go up one on you. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

I called him out?

I remembered him posting he was a geologist and was wondering what kind of experience he had with the people that are present at these type of functions. I asked him questions, which he answered (unlike you to the ones I posed to you).

Anyhow,

The vast majority of the scientists I've spoken to at these meeting don't thinkthe current regulations are enough. I myself am not an expert in any of these matters by any means, but I try to get informed from the people who's expertise are located in those areas.

What is your area of study btw?

[MannyIsGod]

Hook, you usually have one of 2 takes.

You're either bitching that people should stop THEIR bitching because they're not the ones in control, and therefore they don't know any better.

or you're....

nevermind, you only have one take. my bad.

[Yonivore]

I say that if the Save Our Springs jerks don't have the geedas to buy the land and preserve it they should shut the fuck up.

I say that if the property owners do something that pollutes groundwater outside their property boundaries they should pay for it to be cleaned up or be heavily fined for the infraction.

That's my opinion.

[Useruser666]

Anyone remember Applewhite?

[Yonivore]

Anyone remember Applewhite?
Damn good Quarterback! Hook 'em!

[MannyIsGod]

It's not as simple as who is building what on who's land, because of all the tax incentives council hands out, not to mention what goes along with the origional point of the post and vested rights.

Regardless of what you believe people should be able to do with their own land, when it comes to tax incentives the people should be given a voice in the matter. City Council knew damn well that there was a lot of opposition to this type of development and the reason they tried to keep it under the radar was for that very reason.

Now, ask yourself, who are those councilmen and our mayor supposed to work for? Those businesses or the people they supposubly represent?

[Useruser666]

It's not as simple as who is building what on who's land, because of all the tax incentives council hands out, not to mention what goes along with the origional point of the post and vested rights.

Regardless of what you believe people should be able to do with their own land, when it comes to tax incentives the people should be given a voice in the matter. City Council knew damn well that there was a lot of opposition to this type of development and the reason they tried to keep it under the radar was for that very reason.

Now, ask yourself, who are those councilmen and our mayor supposed to work for? Those businesses or the people they supposubly represent?

It's easy to answer that question Manny. The truth, however, is a different story. I don't trust politicians individually and especially not in groups.