Nonetheless, some councilmembers fretted about the consequences of allowing intense retail development in the watershed. Will the intensity of the development ultimately stimulate other developments, resulting in an “aquifer death spiral,” as Councilmember Bill Spelman put it? The precedent of Austin’s own Arboretum area — where retail developments overrun the Research/Loop 360 triangle of Northwest Austin — does not bode well. Intense development there is “mitigated,” to this point at least, by large chunks of undeveloped land. But while some refer to the Arboretum area as the “Golden Triangle,” others — among them more old-time and downtown Austinites — have christened it the “Gateway to Hell.”
The lobbying at City Hall, both for and against the Forum project, was intense all week, and Councilmember Spelman said he understands the concerns that approval would send the city sliding down some slippery slopes. “S.O.S. basically closed down the debate for a while,” said Spelman. “There’s a legitimate concern here that the lid is off Pandora’s box.” But like most of the council, Spelman is unwilling to take an all-or-nothing approach to the Forum and other cases like it: “I’m worried about this being a line in the sand,” he said. “I’m not at all convinced that the Forum PUD is a good deal for the city. I’m not convinced that it’s not, either. I wish S.O.S. wouldn’t [say], ‘You’re either against this, or you’re against us.’ If they’re going to do it, I wish they’d find an easier case to do it with.”
Spelman said the council would like to approve a city policy on impervious cover transfers in order to allay fears that the deal would set off a fit of deal-making between the council and developers. According to City Hall insiders, the council has a fear of its own: that by taking a hard line on the Forum issue, it will be viewed as a cadre of left-wing, salamander-worshipping crazies by the members of the Texas Legislature who, when they reconvene in January, will have the power to either resume their Austin-bashing ways or to let up on us a little. (The legislative bogeyman is real, and the City Council last week approved a $1 million lobbying budget to hire such luminaries as Buddy Jones and Hugo Berlanga to vigorously defend our city at the Lege. Details on the lobby budget coming next week.)
All parties in the Forum debate should be guided by the merits of the issue, and guard against the temptations of jockeying for political position: City Council trying to appear reasonable before the Legislature; S.O.S. trying to retain power in council chambers even as it holds a hard line on the environment. The terms of the water-quality debate have changed drastically in Austin: When citizens elect a unified “green” mayor and council, when developers become conversant with matters of impervious cover, and even figure out what attractive bones to throw (mitigation, anyone?), the council has to make sure it’s getting a really good deal if it’s going to start “modifying” the hard-won provisions of S.O.S. On the other hand, S.O.S. leaders need to join in the administration of the ordinance that this council, all of whose members they helped to elect, are trying in their own way to preserve.
This Week in Council: No meeting this week. Next week we can expect another great debate — this time at a public hearing (Thursday, Dec. 3, though no time is set yet) on Mayor Kirk Watson’s proposal for the city to lease prime downtown property to CSC Financial Services Group. Watson made the offer to divert CSC from expanding its operations onto environmentally sensitive Terrace PUD property in southwest Austin. (For more on the issue, see last week’s “Council Watch.”)
This article appears in November 27 • 1998 and November 27 • 1998 (Cover).