Deconstructing Jennifer Kim

Jennifer Kim wrote a letter which appeared in yesterday's Statesman (available here) expressing her disappointment with the circumstances leading up to RG4N's lawsuit against the city. As I supposed should be expected, virtually the entirety of the letter is absurd on its face. Let's take a look:

I am deeply troubled by the outcome of the site plan approval for Northcross Mall. It's wrong and embarrassing when residents believe they must protect the community by suing the city.

It's more embarrassing when loud vocal groups don't respect the city's existing site plan approval process. Having dealt with it myself, I know it's not a simple process. Several, several people had a look at this. To say that they screwed up is to insult a fair number of city workers.

I have worked with Responsible Growth 4 Northcross to prevent this. Ideas ranged from a public-private partnership to build a community center or other public facility, to limiting the operating hours of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. However, we failed to gain the support of the City Council.

Translation: "We tried to tell a private property owner who met every aspect of the city codes as they were at the time that they couldn't do what they were legally allowed to do. And apparently four people on the City Council still respect the process." (Gasp!)

The area is full of pedestrian-oriented businesses and family-friendly neighborhoods.

I call foul on this statement. By this definition, pretty much any area anywhere could be described thus, since the Anderson/Burnet area is anything but pedestrian-oriented. (Or maybe I just imagined all the acres of parking on the north side of Anderson.) As for the neighborhoods, yes, they are there, but they are buffered from the Northcross site on all sides.

As for what a truly pedestrian-oriented area is, check this mixed-use project out. (Now, if Lincoln Property wanted to go that way, Northcross could be a really nice hangout. But, they own it, so until that changes, RG4N's arguments are useless.)

It's clear that a Wal-Mart would generate an unreasonable amount of traffic,

As opposed to, say, an actual filled-to-occupancy 300,000-sf mall? You gotta be kidding me. (No, you do not get to compare traffic with a run-down half-empty Northcross Mall, which has been the standard since the 90s.)

And anyway, wouldn't that mean that the Wal-Mart at Slaughter & I-35, which replaced an empty field, generated an unreasonable amount of traffic as well? Because it hasn't.

so I sought evidence that the city could use to reject the site plan. I asked city staff to rerun the traffic impact analysis submitted by Lincoln Properties using the higher traffic numbers listed in a 2006 ITE Journal article on "big-box" stores,

Translation: "I asked city staff to cook the numbers to get the results I wanted." Funny--when developers and engineers do that, they end up with problems. The traffic numbers used were the correct ones. Now, if Ms. Kim wants to get that changed for future stores, she's welcome to try.

but I was told the staff lacked the software. The city asked Lincoln Properties to run the numbers, but it did not respond.

Hello: it didn't have to respond! This was a blatant attempt by the city (and who exactly asked Lincoln this, anyway? Was it you, Ms. Kim?) to improve their bargaining position (currently: nonexistent). I can imagine that conversation: "Excuse me, would you mind terribly much using these new numbers to make your currently compliant project not comply?"

I applaud the efforts of Responsible Growth and local neighborhood associations, and I support their vision. I hope this wonderful community involvement we have seen will triumph in the end.

Jennifer Kim

Community involvement: generally a good thing. Attempting to manipulate existing property owners and code-compliant projects: generally not helpful for anyone.

UPDATE: If you've come to this entry since May 2008, you may be looking for information about this issue.

Northcross Non-Story

RG4N staged yet another protest yesterday, this time at City Hall. The American-Statesman has a picture on the front of today's Metro & State section, but I can't seem to find it on their website. I noticed three things about the picture:

1. There was no story to go with the picture. Apparently apart from possibly slowing down traffic on Cesar Chavez, this protest had no point. It's not as if everyone doesn't already know that some people in town just don't like Wal-Mart.

2. I counted less than 50 people in the picture. Obviously, there were more people there than that, but given the number of supporters RG4N has claimed to have in the past, this is a pretty paltry turnout.

3. The conspiracy-minded part of me (which luckily is fairly small and quiet) noticed that RG4N's main color, as seen on their signs and on many protesters' shirts, is red. Red also happens to be the main color of both Target and HEB, which both happen to have stores in the area around Northcross, and which both would be affected by a rivaling store.

Northcross nonsense

First, I'll thank Hope Morrison for being a good sport and responding to my previous Northcross entry. Second, I don't live in the part of town most likely to be affected by a Northcross Wal-Mart...I just think Wal-Mart has, for some reason, been singled out by Responsible Growth for Northcross for persecution. Third, I still have issues with some of Ms. Morrison's comments.

For example, Ms. Morrison commented in this blog that "'Four times the traffic' is based on actual traffic counts at Wal-Marts in Austin taken by city staff once everyone acknowledged that the traffic impact analysis submitted by Lincoln was quite likely underestimating traffic." Several questions spring to mind, such as the following:

• Were these traffic counts taken at Wal-Mart locations that replaced non-retail uses, such as the Slaughter/I-35 or Ben White/I-35 locations? If so, I'd tend to believe that traffic patterns would be disrupted by the use. That said, it seems as if RG4N is trying to ascribe all the blame for increased traffic to the Wal-Mart. The Slaughter location is surrounded by the Southpark Meadows center, so the blame ought to be shared. The Ben White location is pretty much responsible for a couple of restaurants' having located there, so it could have been responsible for the change in traffic patterns, except that TxDOT completely botched the Ben White/I-35 interchange, causing other traffic issues on the westbound access road in that area. But that's for another post.
• If the answer to the first question is "no", were these traffic counts taken at Wal-Mart locations that replaced heavy traffic retail uses, such as, say, a mall? I doubt it.
• And really, how much additional traffic would there be at Anderson/Burnet if Northcross were a fully functional mall? I can't imagine Wal-Mart generating four times the traffic of, for example, Barton Creek Square.

So I remain unconvinced regarding the "four times" argument.

Next quote from Ms. Morrison: "The statement about the city approval process having flaws alludes to our allegations that the city didn't follow the law in reviewing and approving the site plan." That doesn't mean the site plan submitted by Lincoln is illegal, as has been stated onRG4N's site; that just means the City of Austin did not give this site plan the attention it may have deserved, should Ms. Morrison's assertion of the site plan requiring a conditional use process be accurate. Given the amount of politicking in the City's development review processes, this, to me, is a non-issue.

Those were Ms. Morrison's main points. In the meantime, RG4N has made a few other statements. For example, "Responsible Growth for Northcross calls upon the City of Austin to explain why it is paying $224,000 in taxpayers' dollars to an outside law firm to fight its citizens." I happen to agree with this. In essence, what the city council appears to be saying by doing this is that they don't have the spines to take a stand on this themselves, and they want something to which they can point...probably when Wal-Mart builds.

RG4N's most recent statement (posted 23 Feb) sheds light on what the real issue is, in stating a fundamental flaw about Lincoln Property/Wal-Mart's new proposed plan: "it still includes a Supercenter..." The issue for RG4N has apparently been not whether there will be more traffic, or whether people will be there at odd hours of the night; the issue seems to be Wal-Mart itself.
Would RG4N be so up in arms if the proposed big box were a Super Target? How about an HEB Plus? I wonder.

Irresponsible Propaganda for Northcross

Hope Morrison: the sky is falling at Northcross! It doesn't take long in reading this diatribe to find inaccuracies (and that's a nice way of putting it) in Ms. Morrison's assertions regarding the proposed Wal-Mart at Northcross Mall.

First up: regarding the Anderson/Burnet intersection, "Now imagine four times as much traffic there." Not even close, Ms. Morrison. You might want to read this Traffic Impact Analysis, which points out that Anderson/Burnet currently rates a "D", which, just like in schools, is still considered passing, though it probably shouldn't be. With the new Wal-Mart, it still rates a "D". Big deal, you say? Well, per these Questions and Answers, it can be seen (question #29) that Anderson/Burnet averages a 49.1-second delay during AM rush. What would this Wal-Mart do to that time? I mean, with four times the traffic, it should be horrible, right? Wrong. Try 54 seconds. Would you even notice an extra 4.9 seconds? Be honest, just as Ms. Morrison is not. (Be sure to click those links, as Responsible Growth for Northcross apparently hopes you don't.)

How about this one: "When Wal-Mart enters an area, small and local businesses are forced to close..." I guess when our latest Supercenter went in, I missed the news reports of the Wal-Mart goons going around forcibly closing other businesses. Obviously, Ms. Morrison simply misspelled "compete" as "close". That's the only logical reasoning behind such a ridiculous statement...

...but wait, what's this? "Responsible Growth for Northcross...supported by many residents and businesses [emphasis obviously mine] in the Northcross area, opposes the plan..." Well, duh! Many businesses are apparently opposing Wal-Mart's entry into the area because it would directly compete against them. And apparently these businesses lack the wherewithal or the knowledge to stay afloat, and begrudge a company that has both.

I like this one: "Lincoln Property's site plan has been approved, but we think the review process has significant flaws." I suppose there's some truth in there: anyone who has ever had to get a site plan approved by the City of Austin knows the process is, well, annoying. But just because RG4N thinks something is wrong with the site plan (their website calls the approved site plan illegal; it's not), that doesn't make it reality.

Face it: Wal-Mart and Lincoln Property have their ducks in a row. They have spoken with neighborhood groups in good faith. RG4N's time to mobilize for Northcross was six years ago, when the ice rink closed and the future of the whole mall looked bleak.