|
Editorials Land Use
|
Speech In Support of the Stormwater Drainage
Ordinance It should not come as a surprise to council that I support the passage of the stormwater drainage ordinance on second reading. This ordinance, as well as the land use strategy, are integral parts of our comprehensive plan. Their purpose and that of the plan's is to look proactively toward Kerrville's future, and that is what we are seeking to do tonight. Much has been said about these agenda items. In the case of the stormwater ordinance, certain developers and those who support them have led an innuendo-filled campaign against it. We are told that passage "will severely damage the Kerrville economy," "will go down as a 'killer,' will be the "plug in the future growth of Kerrville," and be "the straw that broke the camel's back." Such hysteria, as noted in council's agenda packet, is designed to frighten our citizens and work hand in hand with the advertisement in the Kerrville Daily Times, relative to the proposed land use ordinance. The collective effect of this campaign is designed to promote fear among our citizens. Nothing more, and nothing less. Time and again, these same people have argued that this ordinance is not needed. We have been told in the newspaper that the city "should keep the responsibility where it has been in the past--builders and homeowners (KDT, 9/7/95)" and to that end a local chapter of a national builders organization is being structured to keep governmental actions from, to paraphase "slipping by us (the builders)." Implicit in that statement about responsibility are three major assumptions: 1) that the city government is not as knowledgeable as developer/builders; (2) that the builders are responsible, and (3) that government operates outside of public scrutiny. I want to comment on these three assumptions. On the first point, council has given extraordinary consideration to this ordinance and accepted input from developers, but they are not pleased. They question the competency of council and that of specific members. In my case, I am a historian. So what do I know about storm water? Well, mister Mayor, I know about rain. I know about gravity. From math I know about slope. From simple physics I know about the acceleration/movement of volumes, such as water, relative to the degree of slope, due to gravitational pull. From working with a city engineer on a surveying crew I even know a little about surveying, platting, site selection, and typography. And indeed, it may come as a surprise to some that from my graduate, doctoral work at Texas A&M University I learned a bit in nine hours of doctoral level, civil engineering classes--because a historian needs not to just chronicle what his subject does, but needs clearly to understand how his subject goes about his life. So, although I chose a life in the liberal arts as opposed to the sciences and I have not built two hundred million dollars of construction as my very competent friend Mr. McKay, come to think of it, I didn't just fall head first out of a potato patch, either. On major assumption two, let's analyze the responsible qualities of our builders. Now while we all know that Kerrville developers are like Ivory soap (99.9 % pure) and, in fact, while I concede that they all build quality homes, I believe the record must be fairly examined in light of the assertion that the builders know best. City staff is very familiar with a home on Rock Creek where the builder made an error and the setback requirement was embarrassingly violated. If the City is not to be responsible, where was the very competent builder when this error was made? When a builder raised the elevation of a lot next to Mr. Urice by approximately 2.5' I am told, and then built a new home, the end result was that Mr. Urice was flooded by runoff in the next good rain. His case brought this situation to the attention of council. If the City is not to be responsible, where was the responsible developer in Mr. Urice's situation? Mr. Urice was aggressed against by runoff as a direct result of "developer responsibility?" That doesn't fly. Let's set the record straight. Without a runoff ordinance, the city could do nothing to prevent Mr. Urice's problem and will continue to be unable to protect its citizens--a primary function of government--in similar circumstances if this ordinance is not passed into law. Let's add insult to injury to the Urice case. Without a runoff ordinance, this city can not effectly force the "responsible developer" who caused Mr. Urice's problem to rectify the situation. All the collective wisdom of the city government has resulted in a plan to dig up Mr. Urice's flower beds and dig a drainage ditch across his property, when he was not responsible for the problem in the first place. The poor man is aggressed against by his neighbor, and the city then aggresses against him to rectify the problem he did not cause. The developers' newpaper ads don't tell the citizens of Mr. Urice's dilemma, do they? Finally, on the very day that we were informed in the newspaper that there exists no need for greater governmental involvement--in fact on that very night--one of the most responsible and legitimately fine builders that we have in this community went before the Planning and Zoning Commission seeking a rezoning in the Coronado Drive area. It seems that this responsible builder somehow constructed a residence in a R-1 zone, while thinking that he was building in a R-C zone. When city staff informed him verbally of his error to avoid transgressing with his structure into the 25' setback zone, he or his people seem not to have complied, and the resulting new home has a garage which encroaches 5' into the setback, in violation of city code. If you or I were speeding and got a ticket, what would we do or expect to happen? We would expect to be held responsible and "own up" to our mistake. However, if you are a builder in Kerrville, it does somehow seem that you have the option of requesting a zone change to a P.U.D. which--for whatever rationale--will have the net effect of burying his error without having to deal with the specific garage problem. And some say doctors bury their mistakes? Said in another way, if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, then you better get the message. And this by an outstanding developer who has a sterling reputation for high quality homes. Now if these men of high character can make such errors, how can they say that future builders, perhaps of less integrity, would be "responsible?" I welcome a local chapter of the builders' association because, as Kerrville grows, they will need more than self-policing. By their very actions, the minority stands condemned, and the majority suffers. Isn't that true in society in general, as it should be in the building industry of these "responsible" gentlemen? Finally, relative to assumption three there is the inference spread throughout newspaper articles and through a whispering campaign that the City is attempting to "slide something over on our citizens." Nothing could be further from the truth since public input has been as great on this issue as any issue before council in the last few years. Every meeting of council has been advertised according to the law and conducted in an open, public forum. To infer sinister motives and some secret activity by this council is so blatantly untrue that it does not merit consideration by reasonable men and women. In closing, my fellow council persons time and again it has been explained that the intent of this ordinance is not to punish our citizens with great expense and mountains of paperwork and permits. It is however an attempt to prevent stormwater runoff damage when in the opinion of the Building Official possible construction might substantially and negatively impact one's neighbor. That intent is very clear within the body of the ordinance and clearly expresses council's limited, not all pervasive, interest in this area. I too share these gentlemens' interest in keeping the responsibility essentially in the hands of the homeowner and respecting private property as our Constitution demands. But as we concentrate on "infill" development under the comprehensive plan as opposed to linear expansion of our city limits, more and more of the last lots within existing subdivisions will be built upon. Since we live in a river corridor and, logically, much of the topography within our city contains a gradual, or otherwise, slope toward the river, the potential for more Urices and more builder errors will soar. How will the majority be protected against the erring few who would aggress against their neighbors? Reason, not emotion, and thoughtfulness, not contrived hysteria, must prevail. These gentlemen wish to do business as usual as it was done in the past. But the focus of our comprehensive plan should be, must be, and will be toward Kerrville's future. I urge my colleagues on this council to pass this ordinance on second and final reading.
|