Pease Park
CodeNEXT Clarification
RECEIVED Thu., July 19, 2018
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your coverage of the petition initiative ruling by Judge Naranjo, which ordered the city to allow Austinites to vote this November on an initiative for a voter approval requirement for CodeNEXT ["About That CodeNEXT Petition ...," News, July 20]. I did wish to clarify, since this stuff is confusing, one important point. The article refers to the city's argument that all initiatives relating to zoning are improper because they interfere with state-required zoning procedures. The city's argument is flawed because it treats rezonings of individual properties the same as CodeNEXT (a comprehensive rewrite of the text of a land development code that applies to no specific parcels). Rezonings of specific properties have state mandatory procedures – written notice, quasi-adjudicative hearings, and valid petition rights – which the initiative process interferes with. A comprehensive revision such as CodeNEXT has no such state-required procedures, so there is no conflict between initiatives and state law. That is what the [Save Our Springs] case, Quick v. Austin, held 20 years ago, and it is still good law.
Thank you for your coverage of the petition initiative ruling by Judge Naranjo, which ordered the city to allow Austinites to vote this November on an initiative for a voter approval requirement for CodeNEXT ["About That CodeNEXT Petition ...," News, July 20]. I did wish to clarify, since this stuff is confusing, one important point. The article refers to the city's argument that all initiatives relating to zoning are improper because they interfere with state-required zoning procedures. The city's argument is flawed because it treats rezonings of individual properties the same as CodeNEXT (a comprehensive rewrite of the text of a land development code that applies to no specific parcels). Rezonings of specific properties have state mandatory procedures – written notice, quasi-adjudicative hearings, and valid petition rights – which the initiative process interferes with. A comprehensive revision such as CodeNEXT has no such state-required procedures, so there is no conflict between initiatives and state law. That is what the [Save Our Springs] case, Quick v. Austin, held 20 years ago, and it is still good law.
Fred Lewis
[Ed. note: Fred Lewis is a plaintiff in this land use petition suit.]
