COMPONENTS OF BAD DEVELOPMENT

Almost all citizens that I have spoken with have grave concerns about the direction of development in College Station. Nonetheless, many seem resigned to accepting something less than what they want for their city because we have been told by the developers and by our city staff that we must compromise with the developers. This is not the case. It does not follow that because we want growth for our city, we must accept whatever expedient development is rammed down our throats.

I have been told over and over by developers that growth is inevitable and we cannot stand in its way. Growth is not only inevitable it is desirable. Quality growth will bring amenities and opportunities that we do not currently have. It will improve our quality of life. And that is what should be driving our development – a hard focus on quality of life. It is absolutely not the case that any growth will improve our quality of life. Quality development will provide economic and quality of life benefits to the city for a very long period of time. Poor development will be a liability from the day that it goes in.

Just in case you have been in a coma for the last five years and don’t know what is meant by bad development let me be a little more specific.

· Big boxes and bigger parking lots

· No effort to preserve trees or other greenery

· No consideration for walkability

· No effort to provide incentives for infill development

· Subsidized sprawl by extending infrastructure into the ETJ

· What little effort was made to provide for mixed use development was thwarted by the ease of strip development

· Allowing the identity of our city to be swallowed by chain businesses

· Providing tax abatements for these vary businesses

· Extending schools to the furthest reaches of the city limits

· Color by numbers approach with no consideration given to integration of land use functions

· Almost no requirement for traffic impact studies

· No requirement for environmental impact studies

· No requirement for economic impact studies

· No requirement for community impact studies

· Well touted bicycle plan that provides almost no true infrastructure to facilitate increased bicycle transportation

· No effort to consider the size of single retail spaces on the development of the city

· No sense of development that is to a human or community scale

There are three lesser parties involved in the lack of balance that we have in College Stations approach to development and one major party. The lesser parties are the developers, the city council and the city staff.

THE DEVELOPERS
It would be a mistake to assume that the development community speaks of one voice, or even from one side of the fence. Nonetheless, there seems to have arisen a power-elite, who is directing what is perceived as the voice of the development community.

Developers are not known for being overly creative or community minded and those working in College Station are not doing anything to dispel that notion. The mission of most development companies is very different from the mission of most communities.

Citizens typically want growth that improves the quality of life, the economic prosperity and appeal of their community. They expect to look at these goals in a generational time scale.

Developers typically want growth that increases their profits and they look at this goal in the shortest time frame possible.

I am not suggesting that the developer’s goals are in any way wrong, only that they are not the same as the goals of the community. Those who suggest that, in order to be successful, developers must accept the community’s goals, even if those goals are not codified by the city charter, are either deceptive or simple.

CITY COUNCIL
The City Council has a huge amount of power in directing development and the general culture of our city government and ultimately of our city. Not long ago in College Station, before the citizens noticed, certain elements of our development community were able to spend significant sums of money on City Council elections and get elected members who were beholden to them. Not only did these folks vote to approve the clear cutting of significant swaths of our city’s green spaces, they also intimidated the city staff with late night drive-by firings. They were like a street gang intent on gunning down anyone who might stand up to question them. While there are still remnants of that gang left in city council, we have had some council folks in white hats show up to help clean up the mess. Unfortunately, what is left of our city staff was either placed by this band of outlaws, or they are running scared.

CITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF
I like everyone that I know in the Development Department. What’s more I’m impressed with the energy and their intelligence. Unfortunately, due to turnover, both forced and otherwise, they have been left to work in a situation that is far less than optimal. But I have grown weary of allowing this to be the excuse for bad decisions.

Our city staff should not run scared for their jobs. I suspect that this fear is a large part of the bad decisions that they have made. I also suspect that mostly unspoken pressure from above is helping shape these decisions. I do not know what it is going to take to change this culture, but someone needs to step up to the plate. Is this likely to happen when those who have taken a step toward the plate have been gunned down?

THE CITIZENS
Quite obviously those most responsible for the bad development that we all complain about is us, the citizens of College Station. While it is true that we have, of late raised our voices to be heard, it is also true that we are settling for compromises that we should not. We are failing to expect, nay demand, enough of our city staff or our developers.

In the many meetings and focus groups that I have attended on the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, one of the most common questions asked is, what cities do we want to be like. Though the number of cities listed is fairly small, there is no indication that the answer to this question is going to make any difference. A very obvious thing to do would be to hire a company that has consulted with these cities to help us with our rewrite. But that has not happened. In fact, the company that we have consulted with was hired by Bryan on their last rewrite. Lets see a show of hands of all of those who listed Bryan, Texas as one of the cities that we would like to emulate. No? I didn’t think so. But when it comes to development we seem to share an awful lot with Bryan.

Have you noticed how the city and their consultants have spent a lot of money, time and citizen energy on gathering what the citizens want from their city? This seems like a good thing. Everyone wants to be consulted on these things. But wouldn’t it make a little more sense to first give the citizens a little information on what sorts of things are possible? We are not urban planners. If you are going to ask us what we want you are going to have to first give us a list of choices. Most of us don’t even know what mixed use development is, much less the various way it can be designed. A good place to start would be with the cities that we listed as those we would like to be like. What sorts of things are they doing? Are there any common themes that exist between them? To this point, despite being asked on numerous occasions, the development department has not provided any of this information to citizens including those sitting on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. So we proceed in the dark.

One thing that I feel certain is shared by all of the cities listed as most desirable is a well informed and engaged citizenry that is not afraid to express high expectations of their city government.