HOME: SEPTEMBER 21, 2007: NEWS

Trees Protecting the Neighbors?

We've heard stories of protesters lying in front of bulldozers to save trees; if Responsible Growth for Northcross is correct, it could be the trees themselves that stop the bulldozers. The city's Tree Preservation Ordinance is one of four key pillars in the lawsuit RG4N has filed to kill Lincoln Property's plan to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter on the Northcross Mall site.

Lincoln's two site plans were filed well before the City Council passed the Big Box Ordinance on Feb. 15 of this year, so the position of city legal staff has been that the city's hands are tied and nothing can stop the Wal-Mart. RG4N's suit seeks to have those site plans ruled illegal, thus forcing the filing of a new site plan under current law, which requires council approval of any big-box retail. The four allegations are that in approving the site plan, the city: 1) failed to enforce a subdivision plat note which protects Shoal Creek from flooding and pollution, 2) failed to review the site plan to ensure compliance with traffic and public safety provisions of the Land Development Code, 3) failed to follow proper procedure requiring a conditional-use permit for the Wal-Mart Garden Center, and 4) failed to enforce the Tree Preservation Ordinance.

The suit notes that in addition to the provision protecting trees 19 inches or greater in diameter, the ordinance also requires that "an application for site plan approval must demonstrate that the design will preserve the existing natural character of the landscape, including the retention of trees eight inches or larger in diameter to the extent feasible." The Lincoln site plan authorized the destruction of 29 trees at 8 inches or greater, including 10 more than 19 inches. Also, the suit points out that the city's Environmental Criteria Manual "allows the City to consider authorizing removal of existing trees 'only after all design alternatives which could save more existing trees have been evaluated.'

"This early consideration of design alternatives never occurred," the suit alleges.

RELATED STORIES

'The Taking of Red Oak'

Excerpts from Tom Penn’s video
Clear-Cutting Austin

BY LEE NICHOLS

Rapid growth laying waste to city's urban forest
Tweaking the Tree Ordinance

Share Digg Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us LinkedLn Email Print article

COMMENTS

m1ek Sep 20, 2007 - 10:05 am

If anybody's keeping track, it's stories like this that feed the perception among many that the Austin Chronicle has become the ANC Chronicle.

Whatever other concerns you might have about the Lincoln plan, the end result is greener than what exists today. By a long-shot. For that not to even be MENTIONED is just beyond the pale.

guest Sep 20, 2007 - 11:42 am

What's so obscene about RG4N's tactic here is that RG4N's minions have done everything they can to promote the continued destruction of pristine Hill Country and Blackland Prarie habitat in lieu of densification of their island of 1950's tract-home suburbia. Look at their handiwork with opposing even modest VMU.
Of course the tree ordinance was never meant to protect stressed 30-year old McLandscape trees surrounded by an impermeable wasteland of concrete. Hence the "preserve the existing natural character" language. In this case, of course, there ISN'T any existing natural character. It's a pedstrian-hostile, runoff-heavy aspahlt horrorscape. The new plan is actually a (modest) improvement, and will work to direct more growth intown. But these people won't hear any of that. They'll hide their ugly keep-out-the-Walmart-"criminal element"-shoppers whispers behind a figleaf of faux environmentalism.
Fortunately their legal shenanigans aren't likely to fly with a judge, for these very reasons.

guest Sep 20, 2007 - 10:16 pm

There is so much hostility for these neighborhoods and for what reason? A big box store is designed by nature to bring thousands of people to from miles around to one store. This will be the first one off a highway or feeder in Austin. Please think of the basics. Whatis the size of this store? Why is it being build so far from a freeway? There are better ways to develop this space without hurting the communities around it. Getting one last shot at a big box before the ordinance went in seems to be the only reason this was pushed.

guest Sep 20, 2007 - 10:58 pm

For what reason? See the dishonesty and irresponsibility detailed in their faux environmentalism.

And speaking of dishonesty, how about this "so far from a freeway" crap? We're talking 800 yards from MoPac!
And last time I checked, Northcross was already a longstanding commercial zone, at the intersection of two major arterials.

At least you're willing to concede that the faux environmentalism is nothing but a fig leaf for "people from elsewhere will come in and hurt our community!"

guest Sep 21, 2007 - 12:41 pm

That's more than half a mile, and it's more than half a mile from an already overfilled road on another overcrowded street. People will cut through the neighborhoods to get to this store. Traffic will be even worse, CAUSING MORE POLLUTION. The absurd notion that this is faux environmentalism.... People coming from other parts of the city to do what a responibly grown city would allow them to do closer to home IS environmentalism. It protects our air and our consumption of natural resources. Cars driving across town to get to a superstore through arterial traffic is a BAD IDEA The tree ordinance is another reason this should have been a public process. To turn this into "faux environmentalism" instead of recognize that our city needs to follow it's own rules is ridiculous. Then again this "Armchair City Judge" game you are playing is JUST as ridiculous. If the city isn't following it's own rules a judge will see this. A judge who understand the law, doesn't make up interpretations as they go.

And M1EK, it appears you are the anonymous coward this time. I know your credibility is ruined here, but your rants are the same. It's just a shame that you think that ANY big box superstore in central Austin is a good idea.

P.S. the VMU question was covered earlier. The community should have input on what growth occurs that will impact public safety, schools, etc. They have approved VMU projects in the area since then, (burnet as saver for example). It's not about stopping VMU, it's about responsible growth. Public input should be allowed in these steps, not just "here's the overlay, you developers have at it".

But then again this isn't about democracy is it..... it's about attacking the neighborhoods because they don't agree with you on Light Rail.

God help you man, This Jihad is gonna make you sick, and you are victimizing a lot of people you would be friends with if you bothered to meet them.

MathIsFun Sep 21, 2007 - 01:42 pm

Wow, kudos to last guest for getting absolutely nothing right. Pretty much every sentence is a debunked talking point or straw man, and they even contradict each other!
Best, though: 800yds isn't "over half a mile". Half a mile = 880yds.
You might want to read up on that, as well as things like RG4N admitting that their "tree ordinance" claim is just a legal tactic.

MathIsFun Sep 21, 2007 - 01:46 pm

P.S. - there are lots of us that aren't M1EK, don't care about "light rail" but are tired of you yuppie whiners. I know it's hard to leave your froo-froo mental shell, but maybe you can try.

guest Sep 21, 2007 - 02:39 pm

At what point does a "legal Tactic" lose merit? It was "Legal Tactics" that were used to keep this project out of the public eye until it was approved. I expect so long as it's Wal-Mart and not "yuppy whiners" using the tactics it's OK by you.....

I hope the judges are here to Judge the Law and see if it was followed, not be in the pocket of a big company.

BTW, have you ever tried to get to Northcross from Mopac? You can't even see it from Mopac.
And while your right about he 1/2 mile thing, dismissing the rest as straw man without actual references is just hoping you sound like you have authority so people won't listen to the rest of the issue. The issue has always been turned into an attack on these residents by you. And it's a real shame that you think intimidation holds more water than the rule of law.

guest Sep 21, 2007 - 02:51 pm

Using a faux environmentalist sheen of a legal tactic to keep the supposed "criminal element" WalMart shoppers out of your frozen in the 50's neighborhood, all the while promoting sprawl....
I don't know if that "has merit" but it's certainly obscene.

The rest of the city is on to you.

guest Sep 21, 2007 - 08:30 pm

Name call and plant ugly ideas until the cows come home. I only hope your hate gives way to the ability to have some perspective on this. Your "Criminal Element" statement is your own. There are many who hope for better for everyone.

guest Sep 22, 2007 - 01:21 pm

"Your "Criminal Element" statement is your own"

Oh, if only that were true. But it's not. Some gems from RG4N supporters (from before the council said "stop sending us racist emails" and RG4N changed to "it's not about WalMart, it's about traffic"):

"This is without mentioning the criminal element Walmart's bring. Go drive by ANY of the Walmarts and look whose hanging around"

and

"Let's not kid ourselves. This type of store does not attract a good element. Wal-Marts are big dirty stores selling cheap junk at cut-rate prices to pack in people with little money or education"

and

"Burnet Rd. along that area is starting to look like Mexico... If Malwart comes in, I'm out of this neighbrhood."

I'm sure you can get some more gems from emails sent from the neighborhood to the city council staff.

Now eagerly awaiting the stock post saying "RG4N is only really a teeny group of four or five officers. All these ugly neighbors don't count... even though we took their money and claim to speak for the neighbors."

guest Sep 22, 2007 - 04:54 pm

God I hate RG4N. Money will get you anything in this town. Including irresponsible and one-sided press with no hard questions from our city's biggest "watchdog" newspaper.

guest Sep 22, 2007 - 04:56 pm

"Burnet Rd. along that area is starting to look like Mexico... If Malwart comes in, I'm out of this neighbrhood."

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE MOVE!!!

Attention everybody:

I will do all I can to trash up NBorthcross Allendale Crestview and Brentwood. I encourage all y'all trashy people to do the same. Let's keep North Austin NASTY.

guest Sep 22, 2007 - 05:03 pm

these last three posts (this one too) were made by a new guest so this ain't just one guy coming up in here to argue with you. I like to write BIIIIIG! And I like CALL PEOPLE OUT! And I am sick of the Chronicle kissing RG4N's and Save Town Lake's ASSES! And I wish they would ask those rich assholes some HARD QUESTIONS!

hah hah hah!

Dear idiots m1ek Sep 24, 2007 - 09:20 am

I post under my own name. Why on earth would I bother to also post anonymously?

I spent all weekend preparing for, watching, and attempting to recover from my team lose their ninth in a row to the forces of Evil. This is my first visit to the Chron site since Friday afternoon.

And, no, I probably wouldn't like a bunch of neighborhood nitwits who want to substitute the rule of mob for the rule of law even if I met you in person.

guest Sep 24, 2007 - 11:59 am

Wow - RG4N minions, yuppie whiners, , dishonest, idiots, nitwits...thats alot of namecalling but very little substantive argument.

It would be interesting and probably pretty enlightening to see people of differing views discuss the Northcross situation itself, rather than the personal attributes and supposed motives of those on the other side.

"substantive" RG4N discussion m1ek Sep 24, 2007 - 12:53 pm

I did plenty of it, back in the day, and got accused of being a Wal-Mart stooge (or "on a jiihad") for my trouble. Screw that.

See our
Elections
page
for more
coverage.

Trees Protecting the Neighbors?

Ads of the Day