What's Next for RG4N and Northcross?

Responsible Growth for Northcross spokesman Jason Meeker (l) and President Hope Morrison (r) will discuss future anti-Wal-Mart efforts Friday night. Past President Paige Hill (center) is now City Council Member Jennifer Kim's campaign manager; Meeker is considering a council run himself. (Photo by John Anderson)

In the aftermath of the courtroom defeat by Responsible Growth for Northcross, the only thing anyone seems to be sure about is uncertainty. As of last week, RG4N's leaders had yet to settle on a future strategy in their fight to stop the construction of the Wal-Mart Supercenter at the former North­cross Mall, and they were scratching their heads over what they describe as Judge Orlinda Naranjo's inscrutable Dec. 21 decision, in which the judge addressed RG4N's objections only in part.

"At this point, we're kind of getting everybody regrouped from the holidays, and our board and steering committee have been meeting to try to chart out a course," said RG4N Presi­dent Hope Morrison. "I talked today with one of the attorneys, and we'll be having some more discussions over the next few days while we get ready for our January 11 meeting, and then at that meeting, we'll outline where we see ourselves headed. We don't have everything entirely nailed down. There were a lot of different things for us to look at and think through."

The meeting to which she refers is a town-hall meeting Friday night in Wozniak Hall at St. Louis Catholic Church, 7601 Burnet Rd., at 7pm. RG4N attorney Doug Young will answer questions about the lawsuit, followed by a discussion of whether to appeal and what other actions might be taken to block the Wal-Mart proposed by Lincoln Property Co. for the former Northcross Mall property.

In RG4N's November court case, the group alleged city staff had not followed city code in approving Lincoln's site plan for the property. The charges focused on drainage and traffic engineering, tree preservation, and whether the Wal-Mart's garden center was properly classified as an "accessory use" (which may be administratively approved by staff, which staff did) or a "conditional use" (as RG4N contends, which would require public hearings). In December, Naranjo ruled in the city's favor but addressed only the garden-center arguments in her statement to the attorneys.

"Obviously, the verdict is not what we'd hoped for," Morrison said. "I was real disappointed. She paid a lot of attention to the garden center ... but that was, in a three-day trial, well under half of the time that we spent [in our arguments]. ... So for that to be the only one that got an explanation was surprising and disappointing to me. You never want to lose, but it's nice to see what the reasoning is, and it's nice to know that you've gotten a fair shot and that somebody's listened to what you've said and they really thought about it. With the garden center, we disagree, but at least we saw what she was thinking. But the other three, there's just no telling. Even the city's experts agree that there was noncompliance on some of those other issues, and for it to not even be addressed – as a layperson, I found that very surprising, and I think even our attorneys found that a little bit dismaying."

One attorney who wasn't baffled by the brevity of the decision was Casey Dobson of Scott, Douglass & McConnico, the city's outside counsel on the case. "Judge Naranjo wasn't obligated to do anything other than write us a letter and say, 'I intend to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff or the defendants.' It's up to Judge Naranjo, if she wishes, in a letter like that, to more specifically address anything. Sometimes judges will; sometimes judges won't. ... It was unsurprising to me."

Dobson was complimentary of RG4N lawyers but said, "To me, the overarching flaw in what RG4N was trying to say was they were trying to get the judge to second-guess the judgments of experienced, career development-review professionals at the city of Austin – and the law just makes that very, very clear that that's not the judge's place except in extraordinary circumstances, which to my mind were not present here."

"There's no way to know," said RG4N attorney Doug Young, asked to assess what went wrong. "It's hard to say, to learn from the experience, because we really don't have any insight into how she reached her decision. ... I'm surprised. It leaves us a bit in the dark as to what she was thinking."