Opinion: Response to Councilman Weser:
Response to Councilman Weser : “Viewpoint: Alamo Heights proposal should've been handled differently”
In Councilman Weser’s MYSA opinion piece there is an attempt to downplay his involvement with the recently withdrawn high rise apartment project. He wants us to believe he had little to do with this project. Others are to blame. He states “This project was presented to me for the first time at the Jan. 16 non-public meeting of the neighborhood character and revitalization committee meeting, a purely advisory council panel.” He further describes his NCCR committee meeting as “These private meetings were not designed to explore or answer a wider range of issues and questions.”
I obtained e-mails through a public Information Request that tell a different story. On Jan 9, 2013 an invitation to attend the NCCR meeting was sent from Brian Chandler (AH Planning & Dev. Director) to Trey Jacobsen, a representative of the Alamo Manhattan developers.
Trey,
Mark Browne and I would like to invite you to attend the next NCCR city council sub-committee meeting to brief them on the concept proposed for the Ausway project. Typically, land use and neighborhood-related projects are discussed with them at the front end of the process. …The meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday the 16th … and would include Bobby Hasslocher, Dr. Weser, Mike Brenan, Mark Browne and myself. This group could provide some valuable feedback about stakeholder engagement on or around the January 24th proposed meeting date.
Brian
The message to Jacobsen: These are important guys.
The day after the meeting, Chandler sends an email to Wade Johns, VP Alamo Manhattan.
Wade,
Considering that you all covered so much ground yesterday, you may not need to have those meetings on the 24th. … Receiving feedback from different councilmembers was certainly an important step in determining feasibility from our community perspective.” …
Brian
Is it credible to believe that Councilmen Weser and Hasslocher didn’t know much about the project?
Trey Jacobsen was a key person for the developer. He wrote and submitted to the City the Planning Development District Ordinance (PDD) that was scheduled to go to Planning and Zoning on March 4, 2013. Is it a coincidence that plans for the PDD were initiated the day after Weser reviewed the project? Is it credible to believe that Weser and Hasslocher didn’t know about the PDD proposal when the person who would write it was attending the meeting?
On February 15, 2013 I published a blog story on myAlamoHeights.com about the high rise apartment. That evening WOAI broadcasted a story about the project. Four days later Weser posted a comment on the myAlamoHeights.com blog that stated
“I do not believe the Alamo Manhattan project at the intersection of Broadway and Austin Hwy. as currently proposed is appropriate for our city.”
Why did he wait more than a month to express his opinion?
Can we believe that Weser told the developer his project was “inappropriate” for Alamo Heights on Jan 16? If so, why didn’t they change it?
He also implies he and Councilman Hasslocher were blocked from putting the project on the agenda of the Council meeting of Feb. 25. But why didn’t they bring it up for the Feb. 11, or Jan 28 council meetings? Council rules give them the right to do that. If they were really opposed to the project and wanted citizens to know about it they should have brought it up earlier, not waited until a private citizen exposed it and then rushed to get on the right side of public opinion.
Email Documentation.
In Councilman Weser’s MYSA opinion piece there is an attempt to downplay his involvement with the recently withdrawn high rise apartment project. He wants us to believe he had little to do with this project. Others are to blame. He states “This project was presented to me for the first time at the Jan. 16 non-public meeting of the neighborhood character and revitalization committee meeting, a purely advisory council panel.” He further describes his NCCR committee meeting as “These private meetings were not designed to explore or answer a wider range of issues and questions.”
I obtained e-mails through a public Information Request that tell a different story. On Jan 9, 2013 an invitation to attend the NCCR meeting was sent from Brian Chandler (AH Planning & Dev. Director) to Trey Jacobsen, a representative of the Alamo Manhattan developers.
Trey,
Mark Browne and I would like to invite you to attend the next NCCR city council sub-committee meeting to brief them on the concept proposed for the Ausway project. Typically, land use and neighborhood-related projects are discussed with them at the front end of the process. …The meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday the 16th … and would include Bobby Hasslocher, Dr. Weser, Mike Brenan, Mark Browne and myself. This group could provide some valuable feedback about stakeholder engagement on or around the January 24th proposed meeting date.
Brian
The message to Jacobsen: These are important guys.
The day after the meeting, Chandler sends an email to Wade Johns, VP Alamo Manhattan.
Wade,
Considering that you all covered so much ground yesterday, you may not need to have those meetings on the 24th. … Receiving feedback from different councilmembers was certainly an important step in determining feasibility from our community perspective.” …
Brian
Is it credible to believe that Councilmen Weser and Hasslocher didn’t know much about the project?
Trey Jacobsen was a key person for the developer. He wrote and submitted to the City the Planning Development District Ordinance (PDD) that was scheduled to go to Planning and Zoning on March 4, 2013. Is it a coincidence that plans for the PDD were initiated the day after Weser reviewed the project? Is it credible to believe that Weser and Hasslocher didn’t know about the PDD proposal when the person who would write it was attending the meeting?
On February 15, 2013 I published a blog story on myAlamoHeights.com about the high rise apartment. That evening WOAI broadcasted a story about the project. Four days later Weser posted a comment on the myAlamoHeights.com blog that stated
“I do not believe the Alamo Manhattan project at the intersection of Broadway and Austin Hwy. as currently proposed is appropriate for our city.”
Why did he wait more than a month to express his opinion?
Can we believe that Weser told the developer his project was “inappropriate” for Alamo Heights on Jan 16? If so, why didn’t they change it?
He also implies he and Councilman Hasslocher were blocked from putting the project on the agenda of the Council meeting of Feb. 25. But why didn’t they bring it up for the Feb. 11, or Jan 28 council meetings? Council rules give them the right to do that. If they were really opposed to the project and wanted citizens to know about it they should have brought it up earlier, not waited until a private citizen exposed it and then rushed to get on the right side of public opinion.
Email Documentation.
Comments
I would like to move on to other issues.
South Texas is facing a major water issue this summer, is AH prepared?
How about the coming year budget, will we need to raise taxes?
SAWS fees are rising, will that impact our water bill?
Where are we on paving streets, we just voted to keep the sales tax to help pay for street paving ?
Where are we on the Dog Park?
With the recent fire, are both the Fire and Police dept.'s fully staffed ?
Did we have adequate water pressure doing that fire?
Where are we with the comprehensive plan and do we did to put monies in the budget for the comprehensive plan?
When will they start on the new Facilities?
Do we need to put money in the budget for the facilities, like for landscaping?
These are a few issues I would like to see discussed.
Having said all that, if some want to keep beating a dead horse, then I will keep asking the following"
I am still asking, when this went to Hasslocher and Weser's committee why didn't they both speak up right then and there?
Why didn't they object then?
Why did they let it out of committee? N o one will own up and take responsibility, instead it they play the blame game.
it was prepared from a public information request.
some people are leaving a lot of things out.
read it ALL yourself and decide.
I agree with you regarding character assassination and negative campaigning. It is old, people are tired of it. I have found when a campaign has to go negative it is because the candidate falls short. No record, no accomplishments , not knowledgeable of issues, or they just do not have their finger on the pulse of the community as a whole.
I am still asking, when this went to Hasslocher and Weser's committee why didn't they both speak up right then and there? Why didn't they object then?
Why did they let it out of committee?
No one will own up and take responsibility, instead it they play the blame game.
Quote
I'm disgusted by people who think we can make the City better if only we resort to character assassination. It's time to return to the old days when we talked about issues and chose a candidate who reflected our views.
I am still asking, when this went to Hasslocher and Weser's committee why didn't they both speak up right then and there? Why didn't they object then? Why did they let it out of committee? No one will own up and take responsibility, instead it they play the blame game.
If my memory is correct, you have been dueling with AHNA for a couple of election cycles or more. You complained when they didn't form their PAC (or whatever the state law actually calls it) and then you complained when they did. You complain about elections but you quit in the middle of your term. You complain about Weser but you ran against his opponent. You do good research and post a lot of ideas but your deeply personal battles with some of these peoples hurts your credibility. Instead of trying to deny everyone else their right to participate in local governance, just put forward your sound ideas and quit knocking heads with those who don't agree with you. Readers, I think, rather enjoy learning the history of issues from you, but readers can always tell when you've left the relevant issues for another political attack.
"Pol. adv. paid by Alamo Heights Neighborhood Committee, Thomas S. Harmon, campaign treasurer."
Problem is they didn't file until 2/28 but had to pay for the ad by 2/23. Looks like AHNA is back to it's old tricks.
Weser and AHNA make a big point about how they are fighting high rises in the Advocate.
Problem is most of the money in their PAC being used to fund Weser's campaign is from commercial developers left over from 2011 when Weser and AHNC opposed the high rise height limitation amendment. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Let's look at this race. Weser keeps his seat if he loses, he doesn't have to pay for the race, his wife is on the AHNA Board controlling the Advocate that supports his candidacy AND we the taxpayers get to pay $5000 for the election because of Weser's ambition and ego. He's told people "Being Mayor is on my bucket list."
For those of you who think Weser and AHNA want to protect our City from high rises, think again. He's the last person I would vote for. He's just an opportunist who is willing to misrepresent his actions and blame others.
Bill Kiel
My comments about City Hall are going to be in the AHNA Advocate and I actually spoke to JJ, I agree with Elliot's statements at the Council meeting of Feb 25th about the high-rise, and Marcia and I sat next to each other at the Fire/Police training classes. Bobby H and I trade tips when our collections show up on eBay. I thought I was just growing mellower and now I may have to go to my doctor and get checked out for an attack of pacreatitis.
Can you answer a couple of questions?
"AHNA and their political PAC have ruined the politics in this city and Weser has always been strongly backed by them. He's a member of AHNA and his wife is on the AHNA Board and works on the AHNA ADVOCATE magazine with John Joseph. "
IS THE PAC STILL ACTIVE?
If this project went to Hasslocher's and Weser's committee then why didn't they speak up and do something about it right then and there?
Thanks
Going to make some popcorn now and sit back and watch the action. Keeping up with this thread is like watching 2 guys beat each other up with broom sticks. It’s a little disturbing but darkly fascinating. I’m just waiting for one of you to say you aren’t a 6th grader.
On December 20th, Brian Chandler suggested the developers meet with key members of ARB, P&Z, and BOA prior to public open house. Mark Browne and Louis Cooper were copied. NCCR was not mentioned.
On December 28, Brian sent the developers the "Recommended Ausway Property Development Process Timeline" which said
From: Brian Chandler
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012, 5:03 PM
To: 'Matt Segrest'; Wade Johns
Cc: Mark Browne; louis Cooper
Subject: RE: Project timeline
Attachments: Alamo Manhattan development process timeline.dccx
Gentlemen,
Attached is a summary of the potential public review process timeline for your proposed project. Have a great weekend!
Brian
Zoning: MF-D (multi-family district)
1. Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z):
a. Re-plat
b. Specific Use Permit (SUP) for height above 3 stories in an MF-D district ... P&Z and City Council will want to see conceptual site plans and elevations in order to feel comfortable about the rezoning
c. Potential SUP or PUD to allow for ground floor commercial uses in an MF-D District (would have to be accompanied by zoning code changes) as discussed at
12/20 meeting
d. Application Deadline: January 281 2013 (35 days before meeting)
e. Meeting Date: March 4,2013 (1st Monday of each month)
2. City Council:
a. Conveyance of City property
b. SUP for 3 or more stories
c. Re-Plat
d. Application Deadline (no additional application necessary)
e. Meeting Date: March 11/2013
3. Architectural Review Board (ARB):
a. Preliminary Conceptual Review (not required but highly recommended to get feedback during schematic design)
b. Application Deadline: February 25, 2013 (22 days before meeting for Preliminary)
c. Meeting Date: March 19, 2013 (3Jd Tuesday of each month)
4. Board of Adjustment (BOA)* If not utilizing a PUD (Planned Unit Development) approach:
a. For variance from required parking ratios, multi-family unit density, etc.
b. Requires formal plan review to determine jf any other variances are required
c. Application Deadline: March 4, 2013 (30 days before meeting date)
d. Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 (1st Wednesday of each month)
5. Architectural Review Board (ARB):
e. Final Review of Demolition (significance and compatibility) and overall multi-
family project design, including landscaping, parking, etc.
f. Application Deadline: April 22, 2013 (36 days prior to meeting for Final Review)
g. Meeting Date: May 21, 2013 (3rd Tuesday of each month)
On January 9, the first mention of NCCR occurred, when Brian invited the developers to attend the meeting for feedback.
On January 16, Alamo Manhattan appeared on the NCCR agenda as a 'briefing'.
On January 17, Brian Chandler suggested canceling the public meeting which was meant only for key members of ARB & P&Z, not the rest of the city. The developers wanted to move forward with ARB & P&Z meetings, and include a draft PUD.
To me, the exclusion of NCCR in the timeline, and showing it later for a briefing only, indicates the importance of the other boards.
I did not mean to upset you on this great St. Paddy's day. First off I am not a politician, far from it. FYI - I put my response it caps only because there is not a way to color code my response, I am not yelling.
YOU SAID - YOUR WORDS NOT MINE.
"I wonder if you would agree with this statement: The mayor once voted to spend tax dollars to campaign for a new city hall." I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I wonder if you would agree with this statement: The mayor sets bail on arrested persons and orders friends released or their bail amounts reduced. BOY THIS IS A SEIOUS CHARGE I HOPE YOU HAVE PROOF . YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK THE CITY CHARTER BECAUSE YOUR STATEMENT WOULD INVOLVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN JUST THE MAYOR.
"I wonder if you would agree with this statement: The mayor has to ask what to wear to the Argyle to meet with developers who wish to use his office as a means to launch their projects." I AM NOT REALLY INTO WHO WEARS WHAT WERE. I DO KNOW PEOPLE MEET ALL THE TIME AT THE COUNTRY CLUB, CLUB GIRAUD AND THE ARGYLE OVER BUSINESS, I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
Again I am not a politician or do I care to be. I do most of my work in SA and Austin and get my fill there.
YOU said
"Your point is taken. It does seem that Weser has engaged in a bit of self-serving, campaign-style issue manufacturing. "
ALL I SAID IS I AGREE - WESER HAS ENGAGED IN A BIT OF SEF SERVING!
If I write "09 Developer has written a self-serving comment," would you declare, then, that you are a self-serving person, or would you simply agree that I limited my statement to only your comment and not your person or character? The difference is plain, again, to readers whose first language is English. Your effort to twist a statement into something more (and self-serving) is a common malady among politicians such as yourself.
I wonder if you would agree with this statement: The mayor once voted to spend tax dollars to campaign for a new city hall.
I wonder if you would agree with this statement: The mayor sets bail on arrested persons and orders friends released or their bail amounts reduced.
I wonder if you would agree with this statement: The mayor has to ask what to wear to the Argyle to meet with developers who wish to use his office as a means to launch their projects.
I don't necessarily favor either candidate strongly, but your efforts to twist one commenter's post for your own purposes suggests to me that you have more than a voting interest in this election.
You wrote it and not me. I was just agreeing with you. Weser is self serving. Public officials do well when they SERVE the people and not themselves.
If you survey my block of neighbors you will find they agree on this point.
Don't take my words out of context for your purposes. Astute readers will understand my comments very clearly and plainly addressed the value of Weser's letter concerning the proposal to build apartments at Austin Hwy & Broadway. Do not attempt to graft your political purpose to my observations. Make your own points.
AHNA and their political PAC have ruined the politics in this city and Weser has always been strongly backed by them. He's a member of AHNA and his wife is on the AHNA Board and works on the AHNA ADVOCATE magazine with John Joseph.
I could never support Weser.
It's well known that I have opposed high rise development in Alamo Heights for 7 years. But if you ask me who I trust the least, it's Weser.
Your point is taken. It does seem that Weser has engaged in a bit of self-serving, campaign-style issue manufacturing. Perhaps he felt he needed to get out in front of it. I don't know him and I don't know why he felt the need to kick a dead horse. However, let's not pretend Cooper doesn't need a challenger for the office. You and Weser seem to agree Cooper needs to go.
Lets keep our eye on ALL of council.
The focus on Weser was caused by Weser. His Viewpoint article in the North Central News opened up an issue that has been dead for nearly a month. And for purely political reasons.
How come the NCN violated it's policy of not running opinion pieces from candidates? I called the editor and asked. He said Weser pressured him to run it. Said he spent two hours on the phone trying to convince the editor to run it. Obviously he was successful. Sounds like the AHNA political machine to me.
Two years ago, I ran against the Mayor. Weser ran an opinion piece against me and I asked the editor (same one) if I could submit one to defend myself. He said, "We have a policy that restricts candidates from submitting opinion pieces".
Now Weser pulls a stunt attacking his opponent and gets away with it. That tells you what kind of person he is.
Do we really want a mayor that misrepresents his actions and blames others? Who bullies the press to break their rules for political gain?
I hope not.
Message to NCN editor: Y
You better let the Mayor defend himself next week or your newspaper will be completely discredited.
Bill Kiel
Read, Mr. Kiel's FACTS! Mayor directed the developer to go through our city process, that does not mean it supported it. So what when he knew, he did the right thing. I am sure council members including Weser receive phones daily on issues and those phone conversations don't come up until they are in committees and or council meetings.
The big thing to me is, this went through the process and this went to Weser's committee. So why doesn't Weser embrace that instead of trying to shift responsibiliity ?
Thanks Mr. Kiel for setting the record straight. Thank you for sharing the facts.
RSS feed for comments to this post