Response to Derek Dictson 3 of 3

I have been enjoying an exchange with candidate for College Station City Council Place One Derek Dictson. In the comments section of another post on this blog Derek provided an explanation of some of his positions on development in the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ.) I will use three posts to comment on Derek’s comments. I have left his comments in full. They are in red. My comments are interspersed and are in blue. Derek and I have very different views on this subject and I appreciate him taking the time to engage in this exchange. Hopefully readers will find it informative.

Smart, long-term comprehensive planning coupled with consistent, transparent policy implementation and the willingness to work with landowners, investors and developers in a cooperative manner to reach our ultimate goals as a community would have the positive side effect of signaling to the market that we know what we want our city to look like in the future and we have planned for our inevitable growth so that investments can be made in and around our community with the secure knowledge that our government will not change the rules of the game and destroy their property rights every time another error in a short-sighted plan is discovered.

Well said, and therein lies the crux of our difference. Currently our development paradigm is that of quick subdivisions and big and little box retail. This kind of development is quick and easy. What the people of College Station seem to be indicating that they want is urban and planned development. While these kinds of development are more involved and complex, they can also be more profitable. It is not just the development community that is going to have to adapt to a new paradigm it is also our city staff and the citizens. These kinds of development require more of a partnership between the various groups and they require more complicated development and building techniques. The city should work with the development community to help them make this transition but if the development community is unwilling to change then the city should seek outside developers who will be willing to build the future that we envision. This type of development is not possible as long as development keep going on in the ETJ.

Finally, I would like to thank Derek for participating in this exchange. While I disagree with his approach to development issue, I deeply appreciate his decency and his willingness to engage in open dialog. Of course candidates for public office are always looking for a platform from which to speak. But it would be wrong to discount this effort on Derek’s part as just that. First of all he was much more generous with his time in providing detailed information than is typical. Secondly, most candidates do not seek a platform to speak from that is built so largely in opposition to what they tend to support. If I were advising Derek in this election I would have strongly advised against this exchange. But he is smart enough to figure that out on his own, so one has to figure that his commitment to open public dialog is not at all self-serving.

Obviously, I will be working hard to make sure that Derek does not get elected to this seat as it is held by the person who has done the most to put into action the wishes expressed by the citizens of this community. Derek will be well supported by the development community in this race because they are so adamantly opposed to the changes that Crompton is working to bring about. But that is a real shame because having both Crompton and Dictson on the Council would yield great results. They are both smart, articulate, dignified and deeply committed to working for the community. Dictson’s desire to be as green as possible within the context of a profit oriented pro-development platform and Crompton’s desire to be as green as possible within the context of a quality of life oriented pro-citizen platform would probably yield some great results for our community.

What is more, the development community is risking a great deal by running him in this spot. Our community has become very aware and apprehensive of the money that developers are spending on City Council elections. While Derek is a great candidate for them, he is not likely to win in this particular race. But they feel that they can pick up another seat in this way. By doing this they will lose one and possibly two seats that they currently hold. While I will be happy with this outcome, I would not mind the development community being represented on council by someone who may be capable of working toward well reasoned compromises.

Derek will work hard to avoid being identified as the Developer candidate but he has too much of a voting record on P&Z to get very far with those arguments. It is not too late for him to move to run for place three or five.