Actually its those darn old school Liberals that have kept some sense of "place" in Austin and not just let developers mow under the city. Sooooo yell at that! LOL! This project will happen. It is healthy to make sure there are checks on development. It has kept as more unique mix of textures that other cites our size have lost. "World class" is not an about size.

i've never thought the chances of this project happening were over 50%

oh yea they've done a great job! :rolleyes:

I'd be more sympathetic here if the land in question was a cherished landmark, or unsullied parkland or . . . anything of higher value. Instead, it's an empty warehouse, surrounded by underutilized state gov offices. Helluva hill to die on if you're an old school liberal. What are you protecting, specifically? It can't be "the process," because let's be honest, the City of Austin process is already a dirge.

The State statute specifically says something to the effect that the purpose of a TIRZ is to mitigate blight. The TIRZ plan needs to cite the blighting influence of an abandoned newspaper plant on the waterfront, but it does not require proof of blight. That is up to the judgement of the policy makers that approve the TIRZ plan. Blight is subjective. Some might call it 'character' or 'texture'.

No, it doesn't.

The word "blight" doesn't even appear in 311.005


https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...11.htm#311.005

I believe the city has cited reasons (B) and (C) (though they only need 1, it's an OR)

(B) the predominance of defective or inadequate sidewalk or street layout;

(C) faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;



(a-1) is also rather interesting, and it seems like the TIRZ could qualify on that basis as well, but I don't think the city cited it.

" Notwithstanding Subsection (a), if the proposed project plan for a potential zone includes the use of land in the zone in connection with the operation of an existing or proposed regional commuter or mass transit rail system, or for a structure or facility that is necessary, useful, or beneficial to such a regional rail system, the governing body of a municipality may designate an area as a reinvestment zone."

I admire you're willingness to use the word "specifically" and the term "something to the effect" so close to each other in a single sentence.

That's what I sometimes always say.

HUH. I could have sworn the statute used the actual term 'blight' because I always thought it was an antiquated and loaded term. But the conditions described do add up to blight:

(1) substantially arrest or impair the sound growth of the municipality or county designating the zone, retard the provision of housing accommodations, or constitute an economic or social liability and be a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use because of the presence of:

(A) a substantial number of substandard, slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;

ETC.

There's an ongoing homeless encampment on the lake side of the property as well.

Again, (A) is just one of the options (all of A-I is joined with the OR on H).

So yes, you can do a TIRZ for blight.
Or you can do a TIRZ for a street grid.
Or you can do a TIRZ for transit (a-1).

Blight is not a requirement.

Believe me, I'm not supporting or defending their argument, but I have learned not to try to predict the outcome of their lawsuits no matter how preposterous they often seem. They probably lose more than they win, but when they do win, it does significant damage. It all comes down to the judge and how well the city attorney defends the City's position.

Austin Monitor coverage:

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...tatesman-site/

Towers:

https://austin.towers.net/the-states...ake-it-taller/

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the Texas courts have gone out of their way to screw Austin. Just emphasizing that the law as written (and intended) certainly supports Austin's case.

Agreed. I'm an attorney, and while I don't really have expertise in this area to say whether this case favors Austin or the state, I will say that Texas state courts give much less reliable rulings in comparison to federal courts (particularly the federal courts in the Austin area, which generally have pretty good judges).

While I can expect a federal court to usually come to the right legal conclusion, it's much more difficult to say that about Travis Cty courts -- especially when there's the possibility you can be assigned someone like Madeleine Connor who is a true wild card.

Very unfortunate ruling.

Judge tosses Austin's plan to redirect property taxes to development along Lady Bird Lake

I'm not really worried about this. Nothing was going to happen on the site anytime soon due to interest rates and and financing not happening for big projects. At least the zoning for 600' towers is in place for the next boom.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...gn=abj-partner

Yay for letting people back in the Statesman shell. Boo for Beyond Van Gogh. Total waste of money and time.

The Beyond experiences are enjoyable where has moving art imagery unlike the last one at COTA which had just still images. This Statesman location is a great place to take a date to where afterwards watch the bats fly out.