CWS Decision: This Far, No Further 

CWS already said they'll go ahead with plans to build a couple towers farther back and rebuild the existing (20-feet setback) buildings now that Laura Morrison and the ANC got their way.

Another missed opportunity, and an upsetting one since there was virtually no cost to the city in granting the variance. The towers will still go up, the land will not be opened to the public, the trail will not be extended...but hey, we saved Town Lake!!

Read this:

http://austinist.com/2007/10/03/is_cws_faking_t.php#comments

The Chronicle is a big name sponsor of Save Town Lake. No wonder the reporting has been so unbiased regarding the trail extension. I'm sure they'd hate to think they wasted $2,500 to buy the ear of City Hall.

When the Chronicle is listed as a "sponsor" of a non-profit group like SaveTownLake.org, it almost invariably means that they have applied for and received either free or discounted ad space.

The news department has no role in that process, and most of the time we're not even aware of it. That was true in this case as well. You may not like our coverage, but "sponsorship" had nothing to do with it.

Michael King

News Editor

So you slant the "journalism" for free?

Is it the fact that you don't bill yourselves as "fair and balanced" that makes you better than Faux News?

The Chronicle would be all over the Statesman, screaming about conflict of interest if they had done the same thing. Remember the NY Times "General Betray-us" flap over discounted ad space? At least the Times admitted its mistake instead of making some pithy "trust us, we're not biased" statement.

I have been reading the Chronicle since 1992, and y'all have written some great articles...I have even had beers with a few of your writers over the years. You used to really be in touch with the community, but that's just not the case anymore. Please try to get back to doing some serious journalism. Many of these development issues are tough, with good arguments to be made on both sides, but the Chronicle is just picking a side and being an advocate. Thank God for blogs or there would be no decent coverage of what is going on in Austin.

All the coverage coming from the Chronicle about this issue has been from Katherine Gregor. All her articles have been unbalanced, one sided articles about how STL is beyond reproach and CWS is Satan. She won't even talk to the other side much less look at this objectively. Frankly, I think the Chronicle's reporting of STL and CWS has been elementary and she and your paper were used and mislead by STL.

As it last stood, taken at face value, STL wanted to save Lady Bird Lake and CWS wanted a 50 foot setback for which they would improve the trail for the city and make it accessible to all citizens. Sounds like everybody would get what they wanted! But no. STL doesn't really want to save the lake or save the city some money, not if they think building a boardwalk at city expense INTO the lake is a better alternative to an overland trail. You guys bought it and the City bought it and the Planning Commission UNANIMOUSLY bought it.

Can you really blame thinking people that are suspicious of them? It looks like they'd rather have buildings at a 20 FOOT setback and lower heights AND an expensive boardwalk "trail" INTO THE GODDAMN LAKE rather than have their sight of downtown obscured and more residents in their neighborhood.

That's fucked up that their objectives are so transparent to everyone but the Chronicle, or at least the reporter assigned to this issue, Katherine Gregor.

It just doesn't look good when you combine that kind of yellow journalism where facts are ignored and feelings are embellished with a "$2,500 Waterfall Sponsorship" on the Save Town Lake website.

Excuse me, I meant a 150 foot setback instead of the 200 they wouldn't have had to file an appeal for.

In this thread, "slanted" or "yellow" journalism appears to mean any writing that comes to any conclusion but one that agrees with the poster's. The Chronicle has always been an explicitly advocacy paper, although individual writers can and will take opposing positions. If you prefer ping-pong, he-said she-said tape transcripts, I suggest you stick to the AP reports in the daily.

On the specific issue of sponsorship, by these posters' lights, I suppose if the Town Lake Trail Foundation asks for ad space, the Chronicle should turn them down, for fear of appearing biased in favor of the trail. This is just silly.

On the trail issue itself, our writers have written articles effectively supporting the completion of the trail (e.g., Gregor's "Closing the Gap," April 27). Does that reflect "bias"? I guess so; maybe reporters should instead seek out real estate spokesmen -- there are plenty of them -- who would prefer restricted access development all along the shore.

Some posters see this issue as a one-shot deal: granting a variance in exchange for the trail, an immediate public good. Others -- Save Town Lake among them -- believe allowing that exception to the long-established Waterfront Overlay opens the door to slicing up the lakefront by a thousand cuts, every single one of them defined by somebody as "reasonable" and "no cost" to the city. Moreover, amid all this questioning of other people's motives, posters here are remarkably eager to grant the CWS Trojan Horse a wide-eyed welcome -- I guess on the assumption that a Newport Beach real estate investment firm specializing in "opportunities that offer investors a competitive after-tax return with minimal risk of principal depreciation" is more likely to have Austin's best interests at heart than our own neighbors.

And that's the last puzzle of this thread -- several posters' presumption that anyone who disagrees with them only does so out of "transparently" self-serving motives (obvious to "everyone" -- except the Chronicle and the Planning Commission and the City Council and indeed "the city") while they themselves have only the greater public good at heart. Since everyone involved here is human, no doubt there are plenty of mixed motives -- but at least the broad coalition that composes Save Town Lake understands that this controversy is about more than simply completing or not completing the trail.

Thank you all for the discussion. I don't often get a moment to join in.

MK

Nothing wrong with being an advocate and nothing wrong with the local weekly getting involved in local political issues. I remember the SOS debate, and the Chronicle was key in passing that. However, being an advocate doesn't mean you have to distort the facts and vilify the other side. Publishing a BS poll done by STL crosses the line, IMO. And CWS is not evil, they are simply out to make a buck, just like the Chronicle. As a reader, I would also appreciate it if you disclose that the Chronicle is providing financial support to one side or the other when it is in the News section.

I don't know what difference it makes that the investors are from California, and I sure don't think that the neighbors (meaning Travis Heights) should have a veto when we are talking about the crown jewel of the city's park system which is regularly used by a multi county area. I also don't see any Trojan Horse here, since this is only an issue with buildings that pre-date the 200 ft setback rule.

If CWS ends up respecting the 200 ft setback and building the trail anyway, I will gladly eat crow. But if they rebuild those condos 20 ft from the lake, the city will have missed out on a unique opportunity, and the Chronicle owes everybody a major mea culpa.

I understand that you're an advocacy paper. I know that you're all liberal and I can't stand to read the daily of it's strong right-wing agenda, especially from the editorial board. I know we don't have a balanced paper in Austin, that presents all sides of an issue objectively and thinks everyone should have an equal voice, and I know that's a pipe dream, but I always thought you were looking out for the greater good. That you'd promote what the people want, even if it means taking the unpopular side with the left-wing sometimes.

It's just so disappointing that you equate talking with the developers and hearing their side and reporting it as falling over to them.

Even in "Closing the Gap" Gregor states, "Ideally, some missing trail segments can be completed on land, if easements can be acquired from the landowners." But she turned her back on that outlook once CWS got involved. Just because she doesn't like that one landowner, that "ideal" situation has become less ideal than a boardwalk? And I think that article was the last time she looked at the on land trail extension in a positive light. That's the last time she said we need this in your very popular and far-reaching forum. When you slant the news, you slant it for everyone. And her seeming refusal to so much as ask for input from CWS and glorify STL is slant.

I'm not seeing the basic facts as you see them though. I'm seeing this as STL looped a bunch of people into their cause because they didn't want that high condo development to begin with. They only formed to stop the condo to protect Kenny Hilbig's profits and to keep the price of homes high in Travis Heights. Look at his listings on his website - Travis Heights, Lake Austin, Travis Heights, Travis Heights, Travis Heights.... how is he any different from CWS really? Because the structures he sells are mostly old? Because he's from Texas (who knows, his grandpa could be Californian)?

I don't trust anyone in this debate, but (shocker!) CWS seems like the lesser of two evils. At least they have something for us and are willing to compromise.

Thank you for your time. I hope you can see past the smoke and mirrors for a couple of minutes to things from a different perspective.

I don't see how it's particularly right or left wing to defend the integrity of the city's own ordinances. It frankly sounds mainstream, which is why the commissions and officials who have reviewed it have said so.

The only "compromise" on the table is to give CWS what it wants -- to defy the Waterfront Ordinance -- and in return, in its generosity, it will "give" the city back an easement that should never have been granted years ago, when real estate interests more directly ruled the council. In normal parlance, this is called blackmail, but the public has become so accustomed to begging from private interests this is now called "a compromise." A trail would enhance, not diminish, the value of CWS' property -- why are they holding it hostage?

I don't think CWS is "evil"; it just has one purpose, which is to maximize profit for its investors. Austin citizens, on the other hand, have to balance competing interests, in this case their democratically established protective ordinance against the competing value of a perfected lake trail. Both are important, but if the precedent is established that the ordinance is expendable, how do we defend it against the next demand for "equitable" relief, from the next developer? Where will we stand then?

I can't speak for Travis Heights (where property values will do just fine, in either outcome), and I don't even reflexively dislike tall buildings. But I don't think the power of wealth should determine how we develop our common community heritage or landscape, and I don't think we should allow ourselves to be forced into a "compromise" with a corporate bully that is intentionally driving a political wedge between well-motivated citizens (witness this thread) in order to get its way. (Incidentally, their "spokesmen" only condescend to speak to reporters when it is to their advantage, and we have reported their position from their public statements -- as I've repeated here.)

As for "what the people want" -- it's curious to me that somehow that coincides precisely with what YOU want. I don't claim to speak for "the people," I just write what I believe to be true. But on this issue, the only independent survey I've seen, like the votes of the relevant commissioners and apparently the Council, seems to reflect a broad public sentiment in favor of preserving the Waterfront Ordinance and thereby defending community authority over the lake front, even at the real and painful cost of a piece of the trail.

MK

"But on this issue, the only independent survey I've seen, like the votes of the relevant commissioners and apparently the Council, seems to reflect a broad public sentiment in favor of preserving the Waterfront Ordinance and thereby defending community authority over the lake front, even at the real and painful cost of a piece of the trail."

You guys forgot the Town Lake Trail Foundation. I guess since they came out in favor of the variance, they don't count?

This rhetoric about holding the line is just mind-blowingly stupid. There's no reason for other developers to ever negotiate now - so, as already pointed out, say goodbye to any further on-land sections of trail and say hello to a MILE-LONG BOARDWALK. Boy, that'll be feasible, hey?

Oh, and as for this idea that granting public access to their shoreline property would enhance their value - this shows how little the Chronicle staff understand about business. Here's a hint: Redeveloped lakefront townhomes will make them a lot of money. Not quite as much as the 3-tower plan would have, but a lot MORE than a 2-tower plan with a trail (no lakefront townhomes, since the trail would cut through). And most of the trail's value is already available to their future residents - the only additional value we were talking about here was for the public at large.

This idea that a corporation is a "bully" when it uses its power is also odius when compared to the tactics of groups like STL, ANC, RG4N, etc. _Those_ are bullies, Michael, because they're trying to establish power via nothing more than mob rule - rather than through a discussion of pros and cons for the city as a whole.

Mike:

I didn't discount or dismiss the Trail Foundation; I agree that the completion of the trail is a real public good, and I don't think those who support it are a mob and those who don't are vicious nincompoops. Those kinds of useless stereotypes are best left to blogs -- but they hardly advance the cause of the trail.

This is a debate over real but competing public interests that are not confined to this single case. I don't think the answer is easy, and unlike yourself, I don't have a direct line to the truth.

I suppose the official public discussions, in which supporters and opponents, including CWS, participated, do not constitute "discussions of the pros and cons for the city as a whole" because they didn't come to the same conclusion you do.

You're a real smart guy, Mike, and neither mind-blowingly stupid nor odious nor utterly ignorant of other people's positions. You just repeatedly declare that anyone who disagrees with you is a self-serving, selfish idiot who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

I bow to your extraordinary expertise on everything, but forgive me if I'm not surprised that you have such difficulty getting anybody to listen, let alone agree with you.

Cheers,

MK

MK,

Way to explode all the irony-meters within a five-mile radius of the Chron offices (which, unfortunately, includes mine).

To keep it very simple: the fact that you didn't mention the Town Lake Trail Foundation is very very very suspicious. It makes it sound like you're trying to paint one side as representative of "the voice of the people" while pretending that only the developer and their shills are on the other side. And, of course, presenting STL as a purely organic grass-roots organization when they're being funded by the Chronicle and by the rich folks in Travis Heights doesn't help.

You see, here's the difference: I assume there's people honestly voicing their opinion on both side - for a variety of reasons, some of which they share, and some of which they don't. For instance, some of those homeowners in Travis Heights are just interested in stopping the high-rise, and not at all about the lake. Some are primarily interested in the precedent issue. Etc.

It's only you and yours who have gone absolutist - again, failing to mention the Trail Foundation's position (which is surely at least if not more representative than STL's!); glibly asserting that the developer won't just rebuild the existing structures (even though they say they will); etc.

So if anybody here is just gol-darn SURE they're right, it's you folks, not I.

Keep throwing mud, though. I'm sure it'll convince a few people.

For the record, and then I'm done:

1. Despite your presumptions, I was trying to speak plainly, not ironically.

2. Since I had mentioned the Trail Foundation in my preceding post, and we have in fact reported their position (which I commend), I hadn't realized my obligation to restate it every single time I mention this subject. Mea Culpa: The Foundation supports granting the variance to CWS in exchange for the trail easement.

3. In fact, I agree with Dahmus that if the variance is finally rejected, CWS will rebuild or reconstruct the current buildings closer to the waterfront, because they can. (I hope we're wrong, but I doubt it.) I've never written anything else on that question, glibly or otherwise. That's why I wrote that this is a real struggle between competing public interests, and not one-sided.

4. If I threw any mud at you, I apologize.

MK

MK,

I was referring to the many articles and posts to this blog on the subject - most of which did not mention TLF's position at all; and many of which presumed that CWS is just bluffing and/or presented misleading information about the actual issue. For instance, on the very post which launched this comment thread:

"it seems likely that CWS will withdraw to lick their wounds and come up with another plan."

by Richard Whitaker. No mention of what CWS actually SAID they would do, of course. And, from same post:

"pushing their proposed developments at 222 and 300 East Riverside much closer to the waterfront."

Guess what? 20 feet is a lot closer than 150 feet.

I thought I had made it clear that I was referring to all stuff written by everybody there on this subject. If I wasn't clear enough, please consider this clarification.

I've wanted to rip his fingers out with my teeth. But sometimes he's right and I think he's right on this.

You have three people here "el longhorn" me and "m1ek" all telling you you blew it on this one. We're not members of the public because we couldn't make a town meeting? Maybe we had to read to the blind or pick our kids up from soccer or catch the last connecting bus to Leander.

The city needs a better way of presenting and gaging public opinion on issues like this and Northcross. I don't care if they assign every Austin resident a email address with which to vote if they want a voice - they need to find some better way to give people a voice if they don't want the whole city pissed off at them about Wal Mart and toll roads and Waller Creek and the boardwalk. They shouldn't be making decisions for the whole city based on the people without families and jobs that can make their meetings.

but I hope you get the point.

Let's face it, it's simply troubling that there was the lack of even a simple "full disclosure, we're giving STL ad discounts" in the CWS articles, combined with no visible attempt to get CWS's side.

Am I wrong or did the developer come up with a proposal that respected the ordinance on this one?

http://www.savetownlake.org/

It includes tearing down the old Apartments and extending the trail.... Looks like it is respecting the ordinance too.

I recall the discussion including a 200sf setback instead of 150sf and this agreement states. Could someone clarify?

I would like to see a couple pro developer propagandists eat crow is all.....

http://austinist.com/2008/04/18/cws_and_stl_rea.php

"CWS can build condos up to 35 feet high between 150 and 200 feet from the lake and 80 to 130 feet from the creek (between the blue and green lines in the image), and CWS can build up to 96 feet high more than 200 feet from the lake and 130 feet from the creek (between the blue and purple lines in the image)."

"I would like to see a couple pro developer propagandists eat crow is all....."

I'd like to see a couple of Travis Heights millionaires eat shit as thanks to the developers for getting their sight lines unobstructed (all they cared about in the first place) but it's not gonna happen.