• newsletters • best of austin • find a paper • submit an event • advertise with us • contact • jobs •

Meeker: '99.9% Going to Run'; Kim: Wal-Mart Will Be 'Freaking Disaster' 

Lee Nichols  Fri Jan 11, 10:14pm , 2008
Tags: Development, Wal-Mart


City Council Member Jennifer Kim addresses RG4N members at a rally last May. Tonight, Kim said, "Whatever they decide to do, I’ll back them."
photo by John Anderson
The e-mail sent out announcing Responsible Growth for Northcross’ town hall meeting Friday evening said, “Most of all, we want to hear from you tonight,” but the only one who actually fielded any questions from the audience was RG4N attorney Doug Young. Really, the meeting mostly just seemed to serve as a pep rally for the organization trying to stop the Wal-Mart proposed for the former Northcross Mall property, and to outline the plan going forward after losing the lawsuit that sought to force city to overturn the Wal-Mart’s approved site plan.

That said, the 300 people in attendance seemed plenty willing to cheer RG4N’s leadership on, and left little doubt how they feel about their prospective new neighbor. (Hell, the fact that 300 people were willing to show on a frickin’ Friday night ought to tell Wal-Mart something!)

More on the substance of the meeting in next week’s issue (short version: they still plan to use every avenue possible to continue fighting), but I thought I’d let you in on interviews I got tonight with City Council Member Jennifer Kim and likely council candidate Jason Meeker.

First off, would Meeker – the communications chairman for RG4N – finally give a 100% "yes" on whether he’s going to run for council? Not quite: “I’m like 99.9% going to run,” Meeker told me. “I’d be running against Lee Leffingwell for Place 1.” Meeker said he isn’t trying to be coy – the hangup is that he was supposed to meet with a potential campaign manager yesterday and today, but the meeting didn’t happen, and he wants that position nailed down before making a formal announcement.

As someone who is already on the council, Kim had to sit and listen to speeches from Meeker and RG4N president Hope Morrison slamming the council for a failure of leadership on the issue – and Kim actually applauded those comments.

“I think the city, that we’ve let the people down,” Kim told me. “And that’s very clear. But I’m not giving up. You know, I didn’t give up when I was trying to stop Water Treatment Plant No. 4 from being built in the [Balcones Canyonlands] Preserve. It’s never over. I think that there’s still a lot of things we can do.

“I personally am not going to vote any more for legal fees for this case,” Kim said, referring to the more than half a million dollars the city paid to outside counsel Scott, Douglass & McConnico to defend it against the RG4N suit. “What my colleagues want to do, it’s up to them, but I’m done. I just think it’s wrong. If RG4N decides to appeal, whatever they decide to do, I’ll back them.”

Sitting at her side was Kim’s newly hired campaign manager: RG4N co-founder and past president Paige Hill. Asked if the hire was meant to send a message to voters in the area about her support for them, Kim said, “I’ve always supported this group.” (That was news to Meeker, who described Kim as “lukewarm on us.”)

Summing up her feelings generally on the Wal-Mart, Kim said, “It’s going to be a freaking disaster.”
 

Share Digg Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us LinkedLn Email Print article
COMMENTS
41
 
guest Jan 12, 2008 - 12:19 am
I wonder what m1ek thinks, he's so unpredictable.

Haha guest Jan 12, 2008 - 12:48 am
Kim just doesn't want to get trashed when RG4N start bullying The City.


guest Jan 12, 2008 - 01:03 am
Yeah, that might become a trend. It's about time the bullying went the other way.

Kim showed? errrm Jan 12, 2008 - 04:33 am
It's fun to watch the run for cover. They'll be building this piece of shit when the election happens.

Did Kim vote against the recent allocation of more money to fight the neighborhoods? The one that brought it to $684,000 tax dollars vs. whatever the taxpaying locals can raise out of pocket?


RG4N... attracting all the divas guest Jan 12, 2008 - 10:55 am
Wow, RG4N has seemed pretty bumbling for a long time, but now they've got Jennifer Kim in on the act too?

Jennifer Kim and Jason Meeker - the biggest divas in town charging off the cliff together!


guest Jan 12, 2008 - 12:01 pm
Well, with Paige Hill being Kim's new campaign manager, it's not a huge surprise that she was there...with PH right by her side.

Great meeting! Shoal Creek Resident Jan 12, 2008 - 05:43 pm
I enjoyed the meeting and was happy to see Jennifer Kim there. All of RG4N's events are always very well run. If I was Lincoln or Wal-Mart, I'd be looking for a negotiator or a mediator as was suggested.

Princes Kim Making Up for Past Actions guest Jan 12, 2008 - 10:57 pm
Kim has voted more than a few times against neighborhood interests across the city now she is just covering her well dressed behind. She is about to get into a fight for her COuncil seat that she might just loose. It would appear she is roing her raft to a sinking RGFN ship.

Ug guest Jan 13, 2008 - 09:42 am
I wonder how Jennifer Kim thinks she's ever going to get anything done at City Hall when she dumps her Council colleagues in the grease every chance she gets?

Mario Cuomo and Leona Helmsley? guest Jan 13, 2008 - 11:45 am
Goodness gracious! We've got a guy with absolutely no experience acting like he's Mario Cuomo or something and Jennifer Kim, the Leona Helmsley of the City Council acting like she's a friend of neighborhoods. It's a laugh riot!

RG4N a 501c3? guest Jan 13, 2008 - 11:50 am
Is RG4N a 501c3? If not, what are they? If they are a 501c3, Meeker and Kim may be in for quite a shock when they realize that any use of their data or lists will constitute a serious violation of federal law. If they're not, again what the heck are they?

Kim needs to be voted out, now m1ek Jan 13, 2008 - 03:55 pm
Pandering to the RG4N crowd in the past was one thing, but out-right saying the city should have rejected the site plan, given the unanimous thumping the RG4N/ANA case received in the courts, is negligence of the sort we cannot afford at the city council. The other 6 have been fairly responsible on this matter - saying the right things ("even though we don't like it, the law says we have to allow it").

If you want your city to go bankrupt just like SOS did and like ANC will be soon, go ahead and vote for Kim, and Meeker, and whomever else the BATPAC decides to support.


guest Jan 13, 2008 - 07:58 pm
This is sad.... I have lived in austin 16 years now and have lived near it for nearly 40. This city should belong to the people who live in it, not the developers. Kim has EVERY RIGHT to say she thinks the city should have rejected the site plan. She didn't and couldn't stop the Wal-Mart but she has the right to her opinions. The only way this city is going to change is if people come in and take a stand for our communities. I'm NOT saying Kim is the right person, I really don't know, but I am saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking the city should have rejected what was intuitively was the wrong plan for our city. Having a Super Wal-Mart as the population center of Austin is going to make us the laughing stock of the progressive cities of the country.


RG4N a 501c(3) guest Jan 13, 2008 - 09:32 pm
They have made & spent too much money to fly under the radar as non-filers with the IRS. They openly support political campaigns, which is illegal for non-profits (see the BATPAC ad on their Website). I can find no mention of non-profit on their website.

Therefore, RG4N must be for-profit.


guest Jan 13, 2008 - 11:00 pm
"The city should belong to the people that live in it..."

In that case, we should stop funding the police and reverse the economic holdings of every Austinite. That means that all the homeless people get mansions and all the billionaires get to live in tiny apartments since the New Austin Order recognizes that every human has the right to a home.

Who's with me?!


Good for Meeker Crestview Neighbor Jan 14, 2008 - 02:22 am
Back on topic... You should have seen his speech on Friday. Very good. Jason is a nice guy, a natural leader and an amazing orator. If he runs, he'll do just fine. And he'll probably win too! Toss that hat right on in, Jason. Austin can use a fresh face with a positive perspective. I know the voters will decide the same.

m1ek Jan 14, 2008 - 08:19 am
"Kim has EVERY RIGHT to say she thinks the city should have rejected the site plan."

She's an irresponsible and dangerously negligent city councilmember to say that, because it's very very clear that it would have gotten the city sued by Lincoln, and we would have lost. The site plan had to be approved, by law. Two separate judges have now reinforced what everybody with a brain was telling you for months and months and months. Time to give up on this.


guest Jan 14, 2008 - 08:59 am
M1EK, saying the city should have stopped the site plan and stopping it are 2 entirely different things. If this were such an open and shut case how come the city can't use their own attorneys to fight it? How come the hired guns and crew have to send out croneys to neighborhood association meetings to dig up dirt on their opposing lawyers and then make big public do to's about it?

There is a point where conscience takes precedence. Doing the right thing often times means walking a line where fairness exists. They say money talks. It appears the city is saying "Wal-Mart is a more important player than you are" to the neighbors in the area.

I'm wondering if they are.


guest Jan 14, 2008 - 09:12 am
Sounds like Kim want to change the process. There is nothing wrong with that.

I would agree M1EK had she said "legally we could have stopped it". She didn't say that, it sounds more to me like a statement of conscience.


m1ek Jan 14, 2008 - 10:40 am
"If this were such an open and shut case how come the city can't use their own attorneys to fight it?"

I don't know; I'm not a lawyer; but I haven't seen any lawyers complain that this was unusual. The city's staff lawyers may have been too busy to give the case the time it needed, for instance.


guest Jan 14, 2008 - 11:11 am
What time does an open and shut case need? There is the code, you present it to the judge, and that's that.

600k is an amazing amount of money to throw at at a "slam dunk" case. To me it sends a message that this city belongs to the big money boys.

I wonder what the verdict would have been if it were RG4n paying $600k for their lawyer and the city paying.... what was it, 60k? Just doesn't seem fair.

It's just like the traffic issue. ANA paid big dollars for their traffic analysis, and all Wal-Mart did was adjust the size of the store enough to void the analysis. ANA would have had to spend a lot more money (money they didn't have) to get another analysis... and all that would have happened was Wal-Mart might adjust the size again. Sure it's legal but it's total slimeball, and it's the way big companies steamroll their opponents.

To ANA's credit, the only reason Wal-Mart reduced the size at all was because of the traffic analysis. I wonder how much smaller it would have been if ANA had the money for yet another analysis on the current sized store.

It's an example of how the system is tilted to the advantage of developers... or at least to the advantage of those with deep pockets.


m1ek Jan 14, 2008 - 11:43 am
Dear most recent anonymous coward: Wal-Mart showed that the traffic angle was exactly as bogus as I and many others said at the time - they were either just below or just over the threshold to pay for traffic improvements. In either event, not the OMG APOCALYPSE claimed by the residents of Allandale.

Money has nothing to do with the ruling in this case. Paying this outside legal firm was necessary and prudent - the city would have been negligent not to do so (all the other things the city attorneys normally spend their time on would have suffered, among other things).

The city has an obligation to defend its code. If it didn't, then every single time a developer DIDN'T get a site plan approved, they could sue, and stand a good chance of winning.


guest Jan 14, 2008 - 12:20 pm
The fact is there hasn't been a peer review of the analysis Lincoln submitted for the revised store size. All they did was reduce the size enough to void the parameters of the previous peer review.

Name call all you want M1EK, the issue is that the code structure is set up such that in this case there was no time or money to do a critical analysis of the data presented by Lincoln, the store got approved, and without a peer review I have little faith that the "just over or under" conclusion you are drawing is accurate.

I do think the city staff followed the rules in place (on the traffic issue), the problem is those rules don't apply to bix box multiuse superstores. Hence the big box ordinance is a great idea to bring this type of store in to the public eye for scrutiny.

Again, this isn't to say the city broke the law... It's to say the law isn't fair, or at the very least is being exploited by big box stores.

Even the enormous amounts of money being spent point you are making (that it is prudent). It is prudent for the city to defend it's decision. It doesn't make for a fair fight in court for the guys with no money. We all know that.


guest Jan 14, 2008 - 12:39 pm
It's only "unfair" if you make the unsupported leap that the zoning, professional staffers, and planners are all wrong and you, unqualified 50s-mindset minority of neighbors are correct.

Personally, I'll take the judgement planning and legal pros (and of the majority of the neighbors !) over you. And please don't ever get a job in accounting, either (how's that insolvency crisis going, ANA?).


m1ek Jan 14, 2008 - 12:53 pm
"I do think the city staff followed the rules in place (on the traffic issue), the problem is those rules don't apply to bix box multiuse superstores."

You are, anonymous coward, of course referring to the infamous ITE Journal article - which has been attacked by peers as poorly researched and incorrect in its conclusions:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000467.html

Like every other argument RG4N and ANA put together, it was part of a "throw everything we've got against the wall in the desperate hope that at least one will stick" strategy.


Shocking M Jan 14, 2008 - 01:27 pm
I've seen this report referenced before in the Allandale Reporter website, but I just found a link to the full text (http://www.newrules.org/retail/ite_article.pdf)

As M1EK notes, there are grave concerns expressed by reviewers about the methodology of the report. I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly, but the portion that caught my eye immediately was the sample size. Five stores in 2 states were used in the study. This is from a population of ~=360 stores in Texas and Oklahoma. Because this is a sample, we can, just like opinion polls, expect there to be sampling error--or, margin of error. To give you an idea of how shoddy this is, such a sample of this size yields a margin of error of ~= 31%--this is a back of the envelope calculation, so there is a margin of error here, as well. That's not acceptable for for public opinion polls--can you imagine someone saying that Mitt Romney is leading, but the +- is 30%!--so I'm unsure how it is acceptable for traffic projections. I can't believe this escaped peer review: it would never make it out in my discipline.


J-KIM TELLS VOTERS: "YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN." THE LONE GUNMAN Jan 14, 2008 - 03:35 pm
The freaking disaster mentioned by Miss Kim is not about Walmart but is really about her campaign. Let me get this straight: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TO DEFEND THE CITY AGAINST THIS COALITION OF LOSERS? Have you totally lost your mind? Message to Austin voters from J-Kim, "you poor dumb taxpayers are on your own!" And she has hired one of the leaders of RG4N as her campaign manager-this is the gift that just keeps on giving but it is a sad indictment of the total lack of political sense that Miss Samsung has exhibited since her city council coronation. As for Jason "the Beak" Meeker, being 99.9% sure he is going to run we would encourage him to run by all means, spend your life savings running, borrow a bunch of money to run because the voters are always eager to see a clown set his hair on fire and your political consultants need the money! What is your campaign slogan going to be: "I SUED THE CITY AND COST THE TAXPAYERS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS" or "I WAS THE BAGMAN FOR HEB IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST WALMART" or "I AM RIGHT AND THE CITY CODE IS WRONG", or "I WAS A ZOMBIE FROM THE CULT OF THE LIVABLE CITY', or "THE PASSWORD IS BATPAC". You guys have had your 15 minutes of fame and the sad, pathetic, little puppet show that is J-Kims's reelection campaign and J-Meek's delusional "99.9% possible bid for City Council" is currently on a downward projectory with a hard landing projected for election day in May. We need responsible folks on our City Council and not divas and egoists. We are not discouraging you from running because we find it highly amusing that you each think you will get elected and we derive a sick and twisted pleasure from watching a looming train wreck. We are not so sick though that we will actually vote for you.

Back on Topic guest Jan 14, 2008 - 04:27 pm
Meeker is a tool who doesn't stand a snowball's chance in an Austin August of winning whatever it is he wants outside of the 5 people that actually support RG4N and don't just put signs in their yards so they won't be ostracized by their rich & petty neighbors.

Go Sheeple!


Keep slinging BBQMan Jan 15, 2008 - 01:39 am
Keep slinging the mud. I saw Meeker working the crowd twice this weekend. People like him because he's more likable and more capable than his potential opponent.

LoneMoron MylieCyrus Jan 15, 2008 - 01:43 am
Methinks the Lone Gunman is also a "concerned citizen" or maybe even "ubiquitous" when not shooting himself in the foot.

Vote for Ken Weiss guest Jan 15, 2008 - 03:40 am

Vote for Ken Weiss Place 3!!!

Ken Weiss is running against Jennifer Kim and Randi Shade.

Ken Weiss is a born leader and wants to make Austin a better place for all to live!!!

Ken Weiss wants to hear from you!

With your help we can win Place 3 and take back City Hall and put the power in the voter's hands!!!!!!

Visit the website with comments, concerns and questions!

weissforplace3.com


Last comment from this "coward" guest Jan 15, 2008 - 09:39 am
RE M and M1EK comments about the traffic study. That was not was I was talking about. I was talking about PEER REVIEW of the current traffic analysis.

You guys can't follow an argument to save your life and would rather attack me as an "anonymous coward" than address the issue I am presenting.

Steer the discussion to any straw man you want. This is about fairness of the city code, not the legality of the case. But you weren't listening about that either.

This isn't even about RG4N, (sorry, I guess i'm off topic).

This is about fairness in city planning.

Your fighting phantom enemies and are trying to abuse them into submission.

Grow up and listen to the people you are trying so hard to summarily dismiss. This isn't a playground dissing contest.


Peer Review guest Jan 15, 2008 - 09:54 am
Don't hospitals/doctors use peer review to improve their procedures and operations?

Huh? M Jan 15, 2008 - 10:06 am
Wait, I'm confused. So, although you lament the absence of peer review of the city's TIA, drawing attention to the pitiful peer review process of the journal article buttressing the complaint of RG4N and Allandale is misleading? I defer to M1EK regarding the frequency of peer review of cities' TIA. This can't be too common, though, as it seems as though it would be quite burdensome financially and time-wise. Ideally, there should already a "peer review" process built into the internal generation of these estimates within the relevant city office. I doubt a single individual is generating these estimates, without considerable oversight and review from supervisors and directors, but I could be wrong.

Regarding the next poster, I think it depends. Peer review is quite different from an audit. A peer review process is more frequently used as a gatekeeper for academics looking to communicate their research.


M1EK, guest Jan 15, 2008 - 10:20 am
You argument about not having a peer review of the TIA is that some article has not been peer reviewed either? Sounds to me like a lot of peer reviewing needs to happen.

FWIW I thought the criticism of the TIA had to do with a whole series of issues and that article was a factor but not the only one.

I did read M1EK's site though and there are a lot of good points, like how the whole TIA rating system doesn't really make sense. What would be a fair system? Going to the newest Wal-Marts in Austin and comparing traffic there? Going to the newest superstores in general?

All good reasons to say without valid data the city is to some degree forced to just wing it, but also a good reason to look hard at city approval processes. Why wouldn't, in the absence of tangible data, this type site plan go to council?


MeekerPuppet ignorance once again! guest Jan 15, 2008 - 10:32 am
TIA are not "peer reviewed". TIAs *are* based on peer reviewed standards, applied by certified engineering professionals. Thus was the case for the TIA in this situation. It was in fact fair and (even better) professional.

As for the "big boxes magically increase traffic more than other developments" postulate paper: it's been discredited. That's your review, one that it failed. It was about as grounded to engineering standards as intelligent design is to biology.


m1ek Jan 15, 2008 - 12:27 pm
Dang, I had a much better comment entered/proofed, and then firefox hung. Here's the quickly remembered version.

The "peers" in this case were the professional staff at the city - who in my experience (including 5 years on the UTC) did a diligent and responsible job implementing policy whether they agreed with it or not. They DID their review. You don't like the results; fine; but you don't get to demand continual do-overs until you get one you like.

You've now had your ass handed to you by not one but TWO judges, who left absolutely no doubt that you didn't have a shred of a case. And you ought to be ashamed of the tactics being employed now, using code words and "big money" rants, and in the process slurring the employees at the city and even the city council, who was desperately trying to find a way to legally deny this site plan).


Kim guest Jan 15, 2008 - 01:22 pm
Please tell me who her opponent is so I can send a check. Thanks so much.

Lessons from the Bush administration M Jan 15, 2008 - 02:32 pm
You guys are worse than the Bush administration in cherry-picking scientific findings. Do you realize that the Wal Mart Watch report that provides the sole support for RG4N's dubious assertion that Wal Marts' boost crime rates was not "peer reviewed"?

Vote for Ken Weiss for Place 3 JT Jan 23, 2008 - 01:20 am

Don't like Jennifer Kim and the way she is running Place 3 then listen up...

Ken Weiss has lived in Austin for 38 years.

Ken Weiss has been in the military and has leadership skills from being an Officer in the Army National Guard.

Ken Weiss will listen to what the voters of Austin want! He wants the people to be heard!

You want to control City Council and what the members do then elect KEN WEISS for Place 3!

I have personally met the candiate and he has my vote!!!


JT Jan 23, 2008 - 01:27 am

This message is for Kim who wanted to send a check to the other opponent running against Jennifer Kim.

KEN WEISS is running against Jennifer Kim for Place 3.

Check out the website where you can donate!

weissforplace3.com

Hope this helps!!!




POST A COMMENT

(optional):
Don't have an account? Create an account
Forgot your username/password?
:

Permission to Print. Letter to the editor.
 
 
 

• Short Story Contest
• Online Contests
• Chrontourage
• Chronicle Merch
 
Arts & Entertainment (108)
Services (108)
Civic (20)
Retail (48)
Food & Drink (67)
Coupons (8)
Jobs (9)

Ads of the Day


FEATURED POSTS
John Anderson
Austin Film Festival: Awkwardness, Onscreen and Off
Kimberley Jones, Sat Oct 24
Technical issues and an understandably irate filmmaker mar what should have been a triumphant hometown premiere of 'Harmony and Me'
Photo by Jana Birchum
Judge Dismisses Yogurt Shop Charges
Richard Whittaker, Jordan Smith, Wed Oct 28
Lynch grants state's request UPDATE: Travis Co. DA responds
What the Streets Feel
Chase Hoffberger, Thu Oct 29
SouthBound gets right
Photo by Richard Whittaker
No Trail of Lights
Richard Whittaker, Thu Nov 12
City announces Zilker Tree Holiday Festival instead of traditional illuminated promenade
John Anderson
California Love
Chase Hoffberger, Thu Nov 5
Bavu Blakes takes off