by Alex de Marban
If
Austin were a mid-
dle-aged man, the urban core, frequently shunned by developers in favor of the
suburbs, would be the bald spot. The solution to the baldness, if Councilmember
Eric Mitchell is correct, would be CURE.
Not a CURE as in Rogaine, but as in Central Urban REdevelopment, Mitchell’s
relatively inexpensive and widely supported plan to stimulate investment in the
downtown area by offering a package of fee waivers and other incentives to both
residential and commercial builders. According to Mitchell, who will only utter
unmentionable words at this reporter but did speak at a CURE hearing before the
Planning Commission in July, the incentives will help redirect the delirious
growth in the suburbs back to Central Austin.
It’s a no-lose proposition, according to long-time developer Paul Bury, of
Bury Pittman Consulting Engineers. “From what I’ve seen, both sides of the
development community agree that downtown needs to be revitalized. It’s a
common goal we can all agree to.”
Bury is quick to list off barriers to a physical revitalization of the area,
first and foremost being the exorbitant cost of land, which in turn triggers
higher-than-average development fees. Moreover, attempts to renovate many of
the older structures bring on additional expenses associated with replacing
decrepit infrastructure. “Growth is not taking place there because it’s simply
not economically feasible,” says Bury.
During the first three quarters of 1995, 1,638 housing units were created in
the city. Less than 10 were built in the downtown area. In the same span, 3,658
multi-family units received permits throughout the city. None were constructed
downtown. “There’s very little occuring in downtown,” says city demographer
Leigh Ann McDaniels. “There’s some remodeling, but as far as
redevelopment and development, compared to the rest of the city, there’s
basically nothing happening.”
What many say the CURE should bring is an increase in multi-family residences
downtown that will create a 24-hour, “livable” inner-city. As is, the CURE,
which will be reviewed by the planning commission for the fourth and final time
on December 5 before it goes to the council, does not address specific types of
development. It simply allows for the waiver or partial abatement of all
development fees associated with any type of construction that occurs in the
CURE district. The proposed district extends from MLK Blvd. on the north to
Cesar Chavez St. on the south, between I-35 and Lamar. Also, offshoots extend
east down several commercial corridors into Central East Austin. The extensions
are Cesar Chavez, Sixth, and Seventh east to Chicon, and 11th, 12th, and MLK to
Poquito.
When the councilmembers discuss the CURE on December 7, they could decide to
approve the waivers in the future on a case-by-case basis or — as the Real
Estate Council of Austin prefers — they could authorize a blanket
implementation of the waivers, to guarantee developers reduced fees. The
regular process of submitting zoning, subdivision, and site-plan applications
would remain intact unless the council chooses otherwise. The proposed waivers
include:
* The Capital Recovery fee charged for new water and wastewater lines added to
a development. Water and Wastewater Utility officials estimate the waiver would
cost the utility between $25,000 and $30,000 a year.
* The Electric Aid to Construction fee. The Electric Utility Department expects
a reduction in revenue of $40,000.
* Zoning, subdivision, and site-plan application fees. The Department of
Planning and Development estimates that over the past seven years, 131
applications have been submitted in the downtown area. The total revenue has
been $142,556, a little over $1,000 per project; with the discounts, the
department would lose about $20,000 a year under CURE.
* More flexible parking requirements. New and redeveloped businesses and
residences will be allowed to offer less parking than developments outside the
CURE’s boundaries. This will be accomplished by allowing more off-site
parking.
* The water-quality fee, usually paid by downtown developers in lieu of
building an on-site water-quality pond to capture run-off during construction.
The fee, paid to the Drainage Utility, has brought in $133,680 since 1991 and
helps fund major urban water-quality projects. Austan Librach, head of the
Environmental and Conservation Services Department, opposes this waiver, saying
a reduction could hurt water quality in urban watersheds. “The funding [for the
water-quality projects] comes in bits and pieces from urban watersheds across
the city, but it’s another funding increment that is lost to the process,” says
Librach.
Craig Smith, vice-chair of the city’s environmental board, agrees, and says
the waiver would gut the Urban Watersheds Ordinance passed by the council in
1991. “If they do away with the fee, they’re giving away the whole program,”
says Smith. “I’m sympathetic with desires to encourage downtown redevelopment
and I don’t want to put up roadblocks to discourage that, but on the other
hand, we did set a community goal when that ordinance was passed to cut
pollution into Town Lake in half.”
Other than that, the plan has been almost universally accepted by
interested parties. In fact, says Miloslav Cekic, chair of the Urban
Subcommittee of the Citizens’ Planning Committee, CURE should go even further,
both physically and economically. “The city needs to consider not just waiving
the fees, they need to do something to mitigate the negative effect of the high
cost of land.” Cekic suggests a partial property tax abatement. He also feels
that CURE’s eastern offshoots should be replicated on the western and southern
boundaries.
But most important, Cekic says, the city council should create a “flexible”
master plan for the CURE. If a master plan involves adjacent neighborhoods, it
could result in a downtown where residents can walk to neighborhood-friendly
businesses like a nearby grocery store or hair parlor. “I’m not talking about
something rigid, but a flexible document that determines the livability of a
city. If we continue like this, without any vision, we’re just doomed. The CURE
could be one of the first steps in seriously considering the planning of the
urban core.”
Mitchell’s colleagues on the dais were either unavailable for comment on the
CURE proposal, or said they were uniformed. Projections, then, for the
proposal’s chances on the dais this week would be pure speculation.
n
This week in council: Final reading of the mayor’s encampment
(aka “anti-homeless”) ordinance.
This article appears in December 1 • 1995 and December 1 • 1995 (Cover).