Chipping Away At Builders' Access

[musicman]

Houston's real estate developers, who have long enjoyed a unique role as the city's unfettered engines of growth, suddenly find themselves on the defensive as they scramble to confront a flurry of policy initiatives affecting their industry.

In the past year, the City Council has strengthened rules for protecting historic buildings, required developers to set aside land for parks and tried to give neighborhood leaders more influence over the shape of new development surrounding them.

Various officials and committees, meanwhile, are working on new rules for development in transit corridors, policies to encourage and guide urban mixed-use developments and requirements for traffic impact studies of certain high-density projects.

Collectively these efforts are a bit of a shock to an industry accustomed to limited local regulation in the nation's only major city without zoning.

TOUGHER RULES

Some city policies recently enacted or under discussion that affect the development industry:

[crunchtastic]

Good thing the GHBA has the Chron around to deliver their canned, lobbyists' threats. I thought I was reading a press release. There's just so much onerous new regulation. What if we can't get financing? Government imposition!! We thought Houston was our personal bank! Will we just have to pick our toys and go play somewhere else?

Cry me a river.

[TheNiche]

Good thing the GHBA has the Chron around to deliver their canned, lobbyists' threats. I thought I was reading a press release. There's just so much onerous new regulation. What if we can't get financing? Government imposition!! We thought Houston was our personal bank! Will we just have to pick our toys and go play somewhere else?

Cry me a river.

Read the article more closely. The only concerns pinned to any particular developer were regarding the acceleration of a trend towards greater regulation. And if you can accept that the ideal situation is to have a balance between market forces and regulation, then it should stand to reason that there is a distinct possibility that excessive political momentum can result in that balance being overshot. And frankly, the way that the Bissonnet highrise proposal has been handled by the City really is disconcerting; developers can work within codified regulation well enough, but that the City would crush a project willy-nilly adds an element of risk that really does kill good deals.

[cottonmather0]

Read the article more closely. The only concerns pinned to any particular developer were regarding the acceleration of a trend towards greater regulation. And if you can accept that the ideal situation is to have a balance between market forces and regulation, then it should stand to reason that there is a distinct possibility that excessive political momentum can result in that balance being overshot. And frankly, the way that the Bissonnet highrise proposal has been handled by the City really is disconcerting; developers can work within codified regulation well enough, but that the City would crush a project willy-nilly adds an element of risk that really does kill good deals.

Niche, I agree. I first learned of the Ashby high-rise when I got stuck one day back in October trying to drive through one of their protests along Bissonet. I have no doubt that there probably are some legitimate traffic and infrastructure issues, but listening to their arguments and surfing their website just gives the impression that it's a bunch of whiny wealthy homeowners who just plain don't like the idea in general and who won't be happy even if the infrastructure concerns are addressed.

Anyway, the point here is this quote (can't find the article on the Chron website anymore, but I found the quote on a blog somewhere):

"Sometimes it takes a project affecting folks who can get things done to actually get things done," said James Reeder, a Southampton resident and a partner in the Vinson & Elkins law firm, who said he was surprised and grateful when the mayor returned his recent call to talk about the high-rise. "We are fortunate that we have residents who do have the ear of influential people."

Basically, what this guy is saying is, "We are lucky that there are rich connected people who live in this neighborhood, because we can use our influence with the city government to stop this project. Those poor shmucks in Midtown and the 3rd Ward just aren't as connected as we are."

I'm not opining on this project specifically, just saying that you raise a good point that there is a bit of an autocratic streak to these proposed "improvements" that might give developers pause in the future, which isn't a good thing in the long run.

[crunchtastic]

Read the article more closely. The only concerns pinned to any particular developer were regarding the acceleration of a trend towards greater regulation. And if you can accept that the ideal situation is to have a balance between market forces and regulation, then it should stand to reason that there is a distinct possibility that excessive political momentum can result in that balance being overshot. And frankly, the way that the Bissonnet highrise proposal has been handled by the City really is disconcerting; developers can work within codified regulation well enough, but that the City would crush a project willy-nilly adds an element of risk that really does kill good deals.

I don't disagree with you on balance. But reading between the lines, I still think they (the builders lobbies) are using the Bissonet highrise, as well as this article, to exaggerate the threat of deal-killing regulation. I'm not saying I approve of the way the city has handled the Ashby, but my point is--the individuals quoted knew exactly the right way to deliver their lines. A less savvy citizen reading the article could come away wondering if the city is orchestrating some socialist land grab with nefarious anti-free market techiniques like ...setbacks. That's why I say it reads like a press release. All the right talking points are covered. But then, I suppose I am projecting my own biases.....

[TheNiche]

A less savvy citizen reading the article could come away wondering if the city is orchestrating some socialist land grab with nefarious anti-free market techiniques like ...setbacks. That's why I say it reads like a press release. All the right talking points are covered. But then, I suppose I am projecting my own biases.....

Well, its funny you say that because the Chronicle cited the Planning Department's work on the Urban Corridors project among the new regulatory efforts that are putting developers on edge, and part of that is actually getting rid of the 25-foot setbacks on major thoroughfares in an effort to make it easier to develop transit-oriented development.

But if this really were a press release for the benefit of developers, then it wouldn't discuss developers' concerns almost at all. It'd discuss the impact to regular people when developers have to pass along the increased costs and risk-adjusted pricing to new home buyers and renters in order to build anything at any kind of a profit.

Besides: "Chipping Away at Builders' Access" is a rhetorically loaded headline, and I can't imagine how it'd benefit developers on these sets of issues.

Edited December 10, 2007 by TheNiche

[crunchtastic]

But if this really were a press release for the benefit of developers, then it wouldn't discuss developers' concerns almost at all. It'd discuss the impact to regular people when developers have to pass along the increased costs and risk-adjusted pricing to new home buyers and renters in order to build anything at any kind of a profit.

That's exactly what I mean by subtle. The article implies this (IMO very clearly) through the financing and free market references in the quotes from the industry lobby. It occurs to me I've used the wrong word and obscured my point: this is propaganda, not PR. Perhaps the Chron writer and editor thought it was balanced, but I just don't see it.

Edited December 10, 2007 by crunchtastic

[TheNiche]

That's exactly what I mean by subtle. The article implies this (IMO very clearly) through the financing and free market references in the quotes from the industry lobby. It occurs to me I've used the wrong word and obscured my point: this is propaganda, not PR. Perhaps the Chron writer and editor thought it was balanced, but I just don't see it.

I really don't see it as either propaganda or PR. To be completely blunt, I think that this article is indicative of a slow news cycle, and I think that the Chronicle is just looking to rehash some old stories in a new way. The messages are mixed, rhetorically-loaded throughout, and the reporters/editors didn't do a very good job at communicating the true breadth of what is going on or what peoples' concerns are.

And yes, they did seem to pander a bit to their interviewees...but that's normal. Newspapers don't like to burn their sources. It's not good for business.

Edited December 10, 2007 by TheNiche

[crunchtastic]

I'm admittedly more sensitive to politcal rhetoric than usual today. I turned on the radio to hear Oprah in her most gospel-ly croak, stumping for Obama. Surely Bono was next.

[TheNiche]

I'm admittedly more sensitive to politcal rhetoric than usual today. I turned on the radio to hear Oprah in her most gospel-ly croak, stumping for Obama. Surely Bono was next.

Yeah, I heard a bit of that over the weekend too. Did you hear him slide in and out of his stereotyped 'working class black man' accent? It was pretty cheesy.

[Larissa]

When you have professional lobbyists and spokespersons for the developers making the comments, you are, for the most part, only going to get what they want you to hear. They stay "on message", using their finely crafted talking points so the reporter, and they public ONLY get what they want you to hear. Spin is a crafted art, and hard to break.

[westguy76]

From the GHBA weekly e-Newsletter:

City of Houston Parks and Open Space Ordinance

Effective November 1, 2007

The City of Houston Parks and Open Space ordinance passed last week at City Council and

will go into effect on November 1.

As passed, the Parks and Open space ordinance will require a dedication of 10 acres per

1,000 residents or a fee of $700 per dwelling unit fee in lieu of the land dedication. The

calculation is based on 1.8 residents per dwelling unit. If this is redevelopment, builders and

developers are only required to base your calculation on the additional residents. The City will

only accept park space that is

[TheNiche]

When you have professional lobbyists and spokespersons for the developers making the comments, you are, for the most part, only going to get what they want you to hear. They stay "on message", using their finely crafted talking points so the reporter, and they public ONLY get what they want you to hear. Spin is a crafted art, and hard to break.

As a general rule, anybody making a statement to a newspaper is only going to tell a reporter what they want to have heard by the general public. If they didn't...well that'd just be stupid. I mean...ridiculously stupid.

Edited December 11, 2007 by TheNiche