In case you missed the news, most of the big land use reforms that City Council has adopted over the last couple of years – VMU2, Affordability Unlocked, and the recent changes allowing housing in commercial zones and relaxing compatibility standards – are likely on hold, and may be voided and reversed, due to a motion to enforce the permanent injunction filed this week in Judge Amy Clark Meachum’s 201st District Court by the same plaintiffs and attorney, Douglas Becker, whose 2019 lawsuit halted the city’s last attempt at land reform, the process known popularly (or unpopularly) as CodeNEXT.
In fact, Becker argues that it’s a continuation of the same case: That after being ordered to notify neighbors whenever the zoning is proposed to be changed on a nearby property, as is normal practice and state law, the city “simply disregarded the court’s binding 2020 injunction order” by changing the zoning regulations on large swaths of property, without notifying the property owners within 200 feet of those properties of the proposed changes. In short: “Plaintiffs seek to enforce the permanent injunction against the City of Austin and its officials from continuing repeatedly to violate state laws that protect property owners. The City has an illegal practice of repeatedly failing to notify property owners that it is changing the zoning on their and nearby property.”
And it’s not like we didn’t know this was coming. The notifications were included in the original VMU2 draft, but the 2022 City Council specifically removed those on a 7-4 vote, over CM Ann Kitchen‘s “grave concerns” that this was illegal and “fundamentally unfair.” Becker even wrote to Council in advance that “changes to the land use regulations on VMU properties without providing written notice and protest rights, as required by state law and the district court as affirmed by Acuna et al. v. City of Austin, subjects the city to further costly litigation.”
So here we are.
Let me be clear: I like the VMU2 ordinance, and the other rule changes in question here. I’d like to see them implemented, not stuck in court. That’s why I agreed with CM Kitchen and the losing side on that 7-4 vote, that the city should abide by the law and provide residents with notification and protest rights. And the irony is, all four of the ordinances now in question had the support of a Council supermajority – the nine votes needed to override any such protests. That was the whole point of the effort: to find land use reforms that could garner near-unanimous support on the dais. So they went and found some, and then blew the landing. Convinced by city Housing and Planning staff that sending notice to 1,700 property owners and the surrounding properties would be too much work (even though they send out such notices regularly), and advised by the Law Department that what they were doing is somehow not a change in zoning regulations, Council voted to call Becker’s bluff, for no particular reason. So now we’re back in court, with each side holding the same cards they held in the last lawsuit, and the city betting that the result will be different this time. I wouldn’t take that bet.
The new AISD superintendent will be selected by May 25, and the selection process is already underway, led by GR Recruiting. They’re conducting stakeholder interviews through next week and have an online profile survey posted for the public to weigh in on the school district’s priorities, and the qualities to look for in a new super. The survey deadline is March 15, with the AISD Board of Trustees set to develop the profile with GR at a March 22 work session and March 23 public hearing, and start accepting applications by March 25. Learn more and find the survey at austinisd.org/board/superintendent-search.
This article appears in March 10 • 2023.