David vs. Goliath – Three Quarter Million Dollars to Fight Frack Ban
Nearly a quarter of a million dollars have been collected to date by opponents of the citizen-initiated ordinance to ban fracking in the city of Denton. Less than $1000 of that has come from citizens of Denton. That means that 99.85% of all the money coming in to fight the ban is coming from outside interests.
Sound familiar?
This is a quick video clip from the July 15 meeting in which the city council first considered the ordinance as presented by the citizens:
City Council Preview – October 28, 2014
Who said local government wasn’t sexy? We are set for a triple header of controversy at today’s council meeting where we will discuss fracking, flags, and a convention center. It all starts at 11:30am – you can find the full agenda here.
GAS WELL DISCUSSION
Because what happens at the polls on November 4 is beyond our control at this point, we continue to work to tighten up our existing ordinance. There are still many problems to address with fracking in our city, particularly as it relates to existing sites, and we are working on a number of amendments to our ordinance as we said we would do the last time we voted to extend the moratorium on all drilling activity in the city. Because this discussion involves consultation with our attorneys on legal matters relating to the ordinance, we will be having this discussion in Executive Session.
CONVENTION CENTER
The council will consider whether or not to agree to expend an additional $75,000 on additional design work for the Convention Center project. You might recall that the council has previously put further work or expenditures on this project on hold, pending certain information from our partners in the Master Development Agreement. There has been significant concern from several members of council on several aspects of this agreement up to this point. The question for us today, it seems, is whether or not the council feels this project has enough chance of life in order to justify continued expenditures.
FLAGS, FLAGS, and MORE FLAGS
If you have been paying attention this last week, you surely have gotten wind of the controversy surrounding enforcement of an ordinance relating to Frenchy’s flying of flags. It is hard to imagine a Denton without Frenchy, his orange trucks, his eccentricity, his love for our city, and his undeniable commitment to our nation, as evidenced by his own record of service and his constant work for our troops and our nation’s veterans. Perhaps the best part of my oldest daughter’s 6th birthday was seeing her name on one of his trucks. Frenchy is also a marketing genius, which is why it was inevitable that after receiving a notice of violation for flying too many flags, we’d soon see Frenchy in every publication and on every television station in the region. The downside to all this is that it has brought out all sorts of polarizing rhetoric. I can’t tell you how many emails I have received that have suggested I move to another country.
Council will be using this controversy as an opportunity to have a policy discussion relating to our sign policy. Let’s be clear on a few things. Every city has policies and ordinances relating to signs. Just about every one of these ordinances that I have researched also has policies and rules relating to flags. In general, there is likely widespread agreement about the need for such things – in a world where certain businesses depend on exposure and name recognition for their success, lack of regulations of any sort would result in an out-of-control sign race, each business fighting for the biggest, tallest, most visible, and highest number of signs possible. Remember, George Bailey’s confrontation with Pottersville in It’s a Wonderful Life? Much of the distinction in scenery between that fast and loose city and quaint Bedford Falls rested on the aesthetics of signage.
The very idea of a city regulating such things is not all that controversial. And the inclusion of flags in such ordinances is a part of all this. Each community must decide what they want their streetscape and landscape to look like and what standards are appropriate to that community. Several years ago, our community adopted standards that restrict the number of flags, governmental or not, that can be flown on a particular site.
This might sound crazy, but it is important to think through the consequences of any particular policy. To begin with, we are not alone in this. I received a very angry email from a gentleman in Argyle who was criticizing our city for daring to regulate the number of flags that can be flown on private property. Upon research of his own city’s ordinance, I discovered that Argyle also regulates flags in a similar way, limiting the number of flags per site to 3. Such regulations are not uncommon in cities.
But we also must understand that there is no way to write a law that allows one particular business to do one thing that doesn’t also allow every other business to do the same thing. My love for Frenchy and his obvious service to our city and country doesn’t justify creating a policy that exempts him from following the same rules as everyone else. That means that any change that allows him to continue to fly an unlimited number of flags will also require us to allow any other business to do the same. And if, at the end of the day, that is the will of our community, then that’s fine – these are essentially aesthetic standards and we need to decide what we want as a city.
But there may come a day, when a person or business far less patriotic wants to use flags, not as a display of patriotism, but as a cheap way to draw attention to themselves or their business. It is important to note that any ordinance we draft can’t attempt to ascertain the patriotism or motivations of the flag flyer. Some sleezy payday lender might decide to outfit their premise with 100 flags in order to standout from all the other corrupt loan shark outfits in town. Some frack site within 200 feet of a neighborhood might surround their site with 50 flags, lit up 24 hours a day, to express their opinion that such activity is the truly American way to combat terrorists in the Middle East. A change of policy that allows Frenchy to do his thing opens up the possibility of unintended consequences like this.
As a community, we need to decide what we want. As policy makers, we have to consider the universalizing effect of any ordinance we put in place. We simply can’t write and enact policy with an eye to one particular person or business in town. That is the discussion we will have. I think it is important that we all see the much more complex aspect to policies like this.
Need Feedback on Federal Funds for Denton – Give us ideas for projects!
Each year, the city of Denton gets a certain amount of federal funds from the Community Development Block Grant and the HOME Investment Partnership Grant. Unfortunately, because of tightening federal funds and politics in DC, these amounts have decreased significantly over the last few years (please contact your congressman). But in order to prioritize what we do get in the best possible way, we need the feedback of our community.
Please take this super quick survey from the city’s Community Development team to give them some feedback. Then make plans to attend one of these public hearings where you can pitch ideas for a federally funded project in Denton…
City Council Preview – October 14, 2014
The City Council meets on Tuesday, October 14 at 1:30pm for 2nd Tuesday Work Session on a variety of topics. Click here to see the full agenda and read on for my thoughts:
INNOVATION DISTRICT and TECH-BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Council will hear a presentation and discuss the possibility of creating an Innovation District to focus on innovative and tech-based entrepreneurs and companies. The council approved $220,000 in this year’s budget to begin looking at some of these things. Here’s a great primer on the Rise of Innovation Districts around the nation from the Brookings Institute.
DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
Did you know that citizens are allowed only 3 minutes to speak on any given topic? Did you know that in order for citizens to comment on a topic on the Consent Agenda, they have to turn in a card and do it at the beginning of the afternoon worksession, and other such things? We’ll be discussing possible changes to the ways in which citizens engage with the city council during our meetings.
UPDATE ON HICKORY STREET PROJECT
We’ve been seeing a bunch of infrastructure work downtown on E. Hickory Street over the last several months. It will all culminate in a great Hickory Street corridor project between the train station and downtown Denton. No doubt, the downtown area continues to be thriving, but some of the businesses near the construction area have been concerned with accessibility and perception of customers. We’ll be discussing the timing of the project, what is being done to accommodate these businesses, and possible changes to the schedule.
DISCUSSION ON THE CONVENTION CENTER
We have two agenda topics devoted to this topic at today’s meeting: one during executive session. As we move closer to the date where we are contemplating the selling of bonds, the council will continue to discuss this issue on a near-weekly basis.
If you have any comments or questions on any of this, please contact me at 940-206-5239 or kevin.roden@cityofdenton.com.
UNT’s Sack n Save Acquisition Raises Serious Questions about Convention Center Viability
The news of UNT’s interest in acquiring the Sack ‘n Save at the corner of Ave C and I35 was met with a variety of concerns, some legitimate and some quite odd. Leave it to Denton to fight for the survival of an unattractive, 1970s-looking suburban-style grocery store in the name of “preserving Denton’s history and culture.”
But perhaps the real concerning aspect of this news was its timing, given the pending discussion of a possible city-owned Convention Center just across the highway. I’ve written extensively about the Convention Center. I’ve defending the project from detractors claiming the deal was made behind closed doors. I went out on a political limb to argue against putting the project before a city-wide vote. And I provided an economic analysis of the project that at once criticized the typical economic arguments and provided suggestions for new ways of thinking about its economic development possibilities.
In that article, two of the questions I threw out were seemingly soft balls right down the center of the plate for officials at the University of North Texas:
- How might the presence of this project spur significant redevelopment of the area directly across the highway? The entire area North to Eagle Drive, East to Carroll and West to Bonnie Brae is arguably ripe for major reinvestment and redevelopment. Are there related plans for this and how can this be added to the equation?
- What’s the economic impact of a major research institution to the city? Beyond its role as a major employer, how can it be leveraged to make Denton a hotbed of entrepreneurial activity and research-based business incubators? What, if any, impact does a Convention Center have on this?
I was hoping these questions would provide an opportunity for UNT to come to the table and help make the case publicly – after all, they are one of the major partners in this entire deal. Not only did UNT not come out to make the case, they go public IN THE MIDDLE OF FRAGILE COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS on this project with their plans to acquire Sack ‘n Save and turn it into university property, using eminent domain if needed.
This is very important and in my mind threatens the very viability of the Convention Center project at that location. Here’s why…
The proposed location certainly benefits from the proximity to a major research university. The Denton community and UNT benefit from the potential redevelopment of the area between UNT and I35 – redevelopment that a high-end hotel and convention center could spark. But consider the following map:
UNT’s move to acquire Sack ‘n Save and, their comfort with using eminent domain to acquire it, signal that the university is not interested in collaborating with the community to develop this area, but rather to acquire it for the purpose of extending the university’s own borders all the way to I35. That does two things: 1) it takes away the redevelopment possibilities that such a project could spark along I35; and 2) it means that the hotel and city-owned convention center would be, for all intents and purposes, right in the middle of the campus of UNT.
And this is exactly what the 2013 UNT Master Plan envisions. In the lower right hand corner of the following proposed UNT map, you’ll see the area to the East and West of Ave C all the way to I35 redeveloped as UNT property:
And this is fine – it makes sense for the university to want to expand in this way. It just raises questions about whether or not the city needs to put a convention center in the middle of all this.
During the last council meeting as we struggled to find a financially feasible path for the project, I concluded my remarks with a challenge to UNT, as one of the three major partners in the deal, to reconsider increasing their own contribution to the project in order to make the deal work.
I haven’t yet heard any changes from them in this regard. Instead we get the news of Sack ‘n Save. We need to hear more from UNT if this project is to remain viable.