Although this article was written in 2008, it articulates the continued frustration residents feel with CoSA’s lack of meaningful public engagement on plans that directly affect neighborhoods such as the Corridor Plans and now the SHIP recommendations and Bond process. While there is no doubt there have been many changes for the better, the SHIP public input process has shown us that, if it is in the City’s interest, public participation will be curtailed and/or ignored. What is striking, is that if we vote in council members who voice the concerns of residents, they too, will be marginalized. Like us they are often asked to make decisions on documents with little time to read or they are scolded on the dais for voicing the concerns of their constituents. The City’s desire for engaged and informed citizenry only holds true if that citizenry agrees with the City’s process or interests. City Hall will make the case that the City’s interests are the interests of us all, but we know, from bitter experience, that is often not the case.
The SHIP and the Failure to Follow Public Participation Principles
This letter was sent by the T1NC Steering Committee/ Public Participation Committee/ Affordable Housing & Displacement Committee to each council member on November 1, 2021
Update: Strategic Housing Implementation Plan (SHIP) was posted on SHIP website on November 1st.
Dear Council Member,
On November 3rd at the City Council B Session, you will receive a presentation on the draft version of the SHIP (Strategic Housing Implementation Plan). We’re writing ahead to let you know that we have some serious concerns and think that you will find that you have the same concerns out of consideration for your constituents. We are concerned that the Public Participation Principles, which play such an important part of the SHIP, are not being followed in this public input stage: There is not enough time for meaningful input on a 68-page document has yet to be released on the website at the time of this writing (days before input begins.)
We feel the Public Participation Principles are not being taken seriously as necessary metrics that ensure the inclusivity of the public in decisions that will have decades worth of impacts. Those impacts will either decrease or increase the housing crisis. The language throughout the presentations and documents regarding the SHIP, the Housing Bond Evaluation Framework, and the Housing Bond, etc. all talk about connecting to the most vulnerable populations.
As one Westside resident put it, “We’re suppose to go to bond meetings, ARPA meetings, be concerned about UDC amendments, and keep up with other issues like zoning cases, and read 68 pages and give input within a couple of weeks along with our jobs and our families? We feel like we are always left out in the cold because we can’t keep up, and here we are again. This feels like it is on purpose.”
The draft SHIP was not available until two months after the intended August deadline. It was decided at the Housing Commission that the timeline would not be adjusted to the right so as to keep the adoption of the SHIP on schedule for December. Because of this delay, and the decision not to shift the timeline, there is now the negative consequence that our communities are facing.
The first public input session is scheduled for November 1st on the Westside, one of our most vulnerable populations, without the adequate time to receive the information or the proper accessibility to ensure that they are able to give input. The flyer information in English and Spanish were not made available until Friday, October 29th. The Neighborhood Housing Services Department (NHSD) site is not updated with the draft SHIP nor the intended Summary needed to make the information accessible prior to the input session.
What exacerbates this issue is the lack of accessibility to information has been a primary topic in all of the meetings, as a part of insuring the Public Participation Principles. NHSD, which facilitated the SHIP task force meetings and the production of the document, is responsible for the task of meaningful public input in a short window before adoption by City Council.
At a Housing Commission Public Engagement and Outreach Committee, NHSD have recognized the challenges and have admitted to not being able to meet certain accessibility criteria.
Is this not serious enough that the Housing Commission could anticipate the problems for public participation when they decided not to shift their timeline?
The Administrative Directive AD 10.1 Public Participation and Engagement has guiding principles such as “inclusive”, “accessible”, “informative”, “timely” and “convenient”, that are the minimum criteria to be met when engaging the public. Determined milestones that keep everything (ethically) in check. It is the people that body our governance structure and, the people that are the majority, are left out of critical policy making processes. Public input is scheduled for three input sessions, by person and by webex and phone, as well as a survey that will close on November 15th.
Again, the draft and the summary have not been made available to the public on the NHSD site (as of Sunday October 31st; the first input session is Monday November 1st). And it should be reiterated that the most vulnerable populations who need to know whether or not they are included in the Strategic Housing Implementation Plan and who deserve a voice in this policy, need accessible engagement and outreach.
If it is not corrected now, in this first step, there will be consequences in the near future that include the growing mistrust of CoSA to remove the barriers to affordable housing and to solve the housing crisis. There is a lot of language that protects neighborhoods but there are concerns about certain portions regarding removing barriers to housing production which opens a door that could compromise everything we have worked towards if housing production includes market rate housing and those barriers are the protections we have fought for to prevent displacement.
This is a discussion that needs to be had in full length. In order to build trust in the process, a process that residents feel is skewed towards the benefit of the development community, we are asking that more time be given for public input and more is done to ensure accessibility.
Attachment:
SHIP Recommendation for Public Participation EAP 5 (pg 56) of the SHIP states the goal of meaningful public input as recommended in the Public Participation Principles. If the Public Participation Principles are not used to adopt the SHIP, how can residents trust they will be implemented as part of the plan?
EAP 5: APPLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLES WHEN CREATING & IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICY (pg 56)Goal: Create a truly participatory and inclusive process that is focused on marginalized and overlooked communities.This strategy is to create public engagement process that focuses on active community input and participation in policy development. It would focus on equity related to specificvulnerable populations and creating stable housing for these community members. The strategy would need to build trust and support participation in substantive issues. The focus will be on the processes that are impactful. Intentional paths will be created that make it easy for people to engage so that partners can come together in the city. This is needed to counteract how information has not been as well received. There needs to be dialogue atthe table of participants. Community concerns sometimes do not make it to the agenda, and this can place a checkpoint on that. The data gathered can be reported back to ensure thatpeople are engaging, and decisions are made together. This will need to occur in multiple settings to include the digital space. This will help to ensure that the community feedback isincorporated, transparent, and that members feel empowered.This will require cross-department collaboration and engagement from people with lived experience and various community partners including the department of Human Services,LISC, CHDOs, Housing Commission, and NHSD. The adopted Public Participation Principlesare found in Appendix A. Performance Indicators/Measures:• Increase in public participation rate• Continuously engaged participants• Number of people that participate from vulnerable populations• Funding invested in community driven engagement
T1NC Letter to Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee re: Neighborhood Engagement Team
Neighborhoods are the Answer
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition (T1NC) is a group of San Antonio downtown (inside Loop 410) neighborhoods organized to promote communication, cooperation, education, and support among neighborhoods as well as advocate for thoughtful policies. Contact t1nc.sat@gmail.com or visit T1nc.org
January 4, 2021
Good Afternoon Council Members,
We often hear from city staff, particularly in Planning and DSD and sometimes from elected officials that neighborhoods are the problem, but we believe that neighborhoods are the answer.
The place where we live is the heart of our communities. Passion, love, dedication, loyalty and identity are what root us in our neighborhoods and why we work so hard for their betterment. Our neighborhoods are places that support elders, local school children, those who are vulnerable to displacement, and those who are experiencing food or housing insecurities. We act as a conduit between the city staff, elected officials, and our residents. “We are in this together” has been a neighborhood mantra throughout 2020 and we found ways to make that sentiment felt.
Neighborhoods are the places where people live, work (particularly now), worship, and learn. We believe the City should make supporting and nurturing San Antonio’s neighborhoods a priority. As with early education, it behooves us as a city to invest in neighborhoods. We have learned that investment in early education results in a better future for our students; we believe that investment in neighborhoods would also provide a better future for San Antonio residents.
In Tier One Neighborhood Coalitions’ early days, we lobbied then Mayor Ivy Taylor and City Manager Sherryl Scully for a Neighborhood Commission in order to address the disenfranchisement that neighborhoods were feeling under the pressure of the SA Tomorrow Plan implementation. We also asked for an additional four city staff positions that would look at planning and development with a neighborhood lens and act as ombudsman or liaisons between neighborhoods and city staff and departments. The letter of request, which was submitted during a meeting with Taylor and Scully, was signed by representatives from 18 Neighborhood Associations and two Community Organizations representing Council Districts 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7.
Although we did not succeed in getting the Neighborhood Commission, City Manager Sculley did create four new positions within the Neighborhood Housing and Services Dept. During the 8-10-2017 “A” Session presentation of the proposed FY 2018 Budget, CM Sculley introduced the four new Neighborhood Engagement Team positions with a budget of $255,000. Tier One was pleased by this announcement and proud of the achievement that we felt would help neighborhoods gain a more even footing, improve relations between the city’s planning and development departments and neighborhoods overall and provide a vital resource to neighborhood associations and community organizations.
Neighborhood leaders were gratified that the City was making a monetary commitment to neighborhood engagement, capacity building and access to an advocate within the city structure. Improved working partnership would lead to less controversy, less staff time spent on citizen discontent at commissions and council meetings, and a better outcome for everyone involved.
We need the promise of the Neighborhood Engagement Team to be honored by the city.
Thank you.
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee
Teri Castillo Monica Savino
Cosima Colvin Cynthia Spielman
Mary Johnson Steve Versteeg
Ricki Kushner Taylor Watson
Margaret Leeds
Letter to T1NC Members re Action at the Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee re Neighborhood Engagement Officers
Read: T1NC Letter to Culture & Neighborhood Services re Neighborhood Engagement Team
Read: Original job posting for Neighborhood Engagement Officer
Update: While this temporarily made a difference, the position was abolished by the end of October 2021
January 4, 2021
Dear T1NC Neighborhoods,
Happy New Year to you and yours! Let’s start the year off with a T1NC bang!
The Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee is reviewing the roles of the Neighborhood Engagement Officers (who are part of the Neighborhood & Housing Services Department (NSHD). Despite a yearly budget of at least $255,000, we have rarely (or never) had contact with these officers. We have attached the original job description and it is clear that they are not doing the job that the City hired them to do which is work with residents for the betterment of our neighborhoods.
We need neighborhood leaders and residents to read statements at the meeting and/or send statements to Council Committee members (instructions at bottom of page.) It is time for neighborhoods to have a voice in decisions made about our communities after months of silence. It is time to engage again. We have attached the T1NC letter to the committee members
Context: District 1 Councilmember Roberto Trevino recently called a meeting with some D1 neighborhood leaders regarding the Neighborhood Association (NA) Registry. During that meeting, we brought to his staff’s attention (Trevino was not on the Zoom) that there would be a lot less strife between neighborhoods and the City if the job of Neighborhood Engagement Officer were being faithfully and competently fulfilled. As a result, the agenda for the upcoming Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee has been changed from a presentation on the Neighborhood Association Registry, to a presentation on the status of the Neighborhood Engagement Officer positions.
History:T1NC worked hard in 2016 to get the attention of then Mayor Taylor and City Manager Sculley to hear our request for a Neighborhood Commission AND for four staff positions to be added to Planning/Development Services Department (DSD) that would represent the neighborhood’s interests. Our letter was signed by 18 neighborhood associations and two Community Organizations. What we got was a restructuring of the Planning Dept into Planning Department and Neighborhood & Housing Services Department (NHSD)… and no Neighborhood Commission.
In FY2018, Sculley did add four positions to NHSD – the Neighborhood Engagement Team, she called it. This team was to be comprised of one administrator and three officers with a budget of $255,000. Barbara Ankamah was appointed as Administrator and now only two officers (because the third, Erika Ragsdale, who admittedly did make a sincere effort, left.)
While much of NHSD’s resources have gone to COVID-19 and housing help since last March, members of the T1 Steering Committee met with Lori Houston last December (2019) about this issue and there was no follow-up.
NOW:
None of us in the Steering Committee (whose members cover the downtown districts) know who our Neighborhood Engagement Officer is nor have we had any contact from or assistance from the Neighborhood Engagement Team.
Do any of you know who your engagement officer is? Have you received any help?
If this program and these positions had been properly administered and carried out over the last three years, instead of making it all about the NA Registry and a few token efforts, we wouldn’t be where we are today. Not only has the Neighborhood Engagement Team been allowed to squander the $255,000 annual budget (the money from FY2018, not subsequent years), but they have squandered other COSA staff time and the opportunity to help us make our neighborhoods more stable and resilient.
We appreciate that Councilman Trevino is asking NHSD staff to present on the status of this position/program in response to our input. The Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee is comprised of Council members from D1 (Chair), D2, D3, D9 & D10 (their email addresses are below.)
What you can do: This is a chance for us to make the City fulfill its promise to neighborhoods. This is a chance for neighborhood voices to be heard!
Please mark your calendars for January 7th @ 2:00 pm and consider making a statement at that meeting about how much help or interaction your neighborhood has had with your Neighborhood Engagement Officer, your disappointment with the process, and your desire to see change. If you or someone from your neighborhood can’t make a statement at the meeting, please send a copy of your remarks (it does not have to be long, just a short statement) to each of the council members on the committee (we have attached addresses). If you send to the T1 Steering Committee, we can find someone to read your statement. A last resort is to send to Councilman Trevino to read into the record at the meeting. Each speaker is allotted three minutes.
An example of a statement might be as simple as
“My name is _____. I live in (or serve as) the __________neighborhood in District _____. We have had little or no contact with the Neighborhood Engagement Team.
We don’t understand how our tax dollars that are paying the salaries of the engagement team and the administrator (whose only responsibility, until recently, was to oversee this team) have been used or what have these engagement officers been doing (before COVID-19). Our community/neighborhood wants change in the future and for the City to fulfill its commitment to our neighborhoods.
Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee members:
Chair: D1 Roberto Trevino roberto.trevino@sanantonio.gov
D2 Jada Andrews-Sullivan Jada.andrews-sullivan@sanantonio.gov
D3 Rebecca Viagran Rebecca.Viagran@sanantonio.gov
D9 John Courage John.Courage@sanantonio.gov
D10 Clayton Perry Clayton.perry@sanantonio.gov
Instructions to watch or to speak:
Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee members:
Chair: D1 Roberto Trevino roberto.trevino@sanantonio.gov
D2 Jada Andrews-Sullivan Jada.andrews-sullivan@sanantonio.gov
D3 Rebecca Viagran Rebecca.Viagran@sanantonio.gov
D9 John Courage John.Courage@sanantonio.gov
D10 Clayton Perry Clayton.perry@sanantonio.gov
Instructions to watch or to speak:
The meeting will be available to the public at AT&T channel 99, Grande channel 20, Spectrum channel 21, digital antenna 16, and www.sanantonio.gov/TVSA. The meeting will also be available by calling (210) 207-5555 (English and Spanish available).
Members of the public can comment or speak on items on the agenda. To submit comments or sign up to speak, please go to www.sanantonio.gov/agenda and click on the eComment link associated with the agenda for instructions. Questions relating to the rules on addressing the Committee may be directed to the Office of the City Clerk at (210) 207-7253.
Or go to legistar at https://sanantonio.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx and click “ecomments” at the end of the Culture & Neighborhood Committee Meeting
Historic Westside Residents Association’s (HWRA) letter to Mayor Nirenberg re Alazan Lofts
Note: This issue centers around early meaningful public input, compliance with community plan, and design (intensity), not density and affordability.
Read: – —Maria Anglin’s column, “Gentrification Fears are Very Real” about the Alazan project. -The SA Heron’s article on development and gentrification on the Westside and “SAHA board gives nod to build St. Mary’s Tower with Dallas developer JMJ” which explains the Alazan project and SAHA’s partnership with market rate developers
Dear Mayor Nirenberg,
Please be advised that on Monday, July 29, 2019, the Historic Westside Resident Association met with representatives from the NRP Group, San Antonio Housing Authority, Brown and Ortiz Associates, and District 5 to discuss the Alazan Loft development.
The following neighborhood associations were in attendance as well: Westside Preservation Alliance, Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition and the Esperanza Peace & Justice Center. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed site plan for Alazan Loft. We want to make clear that the Historic Westside Resident Association supports the development of affordable housing in our historic Westside community. However, the proposed site plan submitted by the NRP Group does not meet with the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan requirements.
- The Alazan Loft site plan must be revised to meet the guidelines of the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan.
- All buildings on all lots should be a maximum of two (2) stories with 20’ setbacks from sidewalks to adhere to the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan and neighborhood character.
- Reduce parking spaces to accommodate the revised site plan for two -story structures.
- Add heat sinks such as landscape islands on parking lots.
- Introduce green space which would include buffer landscape and street scape to adhere to the neighborhood character.
- Elevation drawings (black and white) for the two story structures for the revised site plan.
The following issues were presented, discussed and requested from the development side:
We are also very concerned about our neighborhood residents being uprooted and displaced during and after this major construction process.
Please note that SAHA spokesman, Michael Reyes, expressed in the Rivard Report (July 26, 2019) the importance of gathering “feedback from all neighborhood associations and community leaders to make sure we are building something that reflects the neighborhood”.
Of major concern is the fact that our Historic Westside Resident Association and the organizations listed were informed of only two, not 17, community meetings sponsored by SAHA and the NRP Group. These two meetings in 1st Quarter 2019 offered the associations very limited time for community engagement.
There were no additional notifications or discussions until the Historic Westside Resident Association was informed on July 8, 2019 via U.S. mail of the Zoning Commission hearing scheduled for July 16th, 2019. The hearing was for the NRP Group request in zoning change from MF-33 to IDZ 3.
In summary, we have requested that the NRP Group submit a revised site plan to meet the above listed points under IDZ-3 with conditions. We will meet again on Friday, August 2, 2019, at 4:00pm with the goal of receiving a revised site plan that adheres to the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan and reflective of the character of the neighborhood. We hope for an agreed upon revised site plan before City Council review on August 22, 2019.
Mayor Nirenberg, as you review the needs of the residents of the Westside neighborhoods, please remember your commitment to the Housing Policy Task Force as well as the protection of our historic San Antonio neighborhoods.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amelia Valdez
Chairperson of Historic Westside Resident Association
Public Participation and the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) Conference: What I Learned
Shorter version published in NOWCASTSA.com
We sat in our first session, a form-based code “boot camp” in anticipation and some trepidation. When we were to introduce ourselves to a roomful of developers, land use attorneys, elected officials, planning staff, and consultants, I whispered to my seat partner, “Don’t tell them we are neighborhood and housing advocates.” I suddenly felt like we were strangers in a strange land. As one of the few community advocates attending Congress of New Urbanism, we were.
New Urbanism “is a planning and development approach based on the principles of how cities and towns had been built for the last several centuries: walkable blocks and streets, housing and shopping in close proximity, and accessible public spaces. In other words: New Urbanism focuses on human-scaled urban design…” It promotes ideas such as sustainability, transportation, walkability, density, mixed housing. As its founder, Andres Duany states: “The sum of human happiness increases because of New Urbanism”
Beneath the surface of idealism are complexities and problems that must be addressed. In its implementation, New Urbanist ideals are often played out as development deals. What can result is a commodification of our neighborhoods in which development is valued over community. Its aims may be noble, but the reality, unless there is thoughtful intervention, is that New Urbanist development ideas can cause displacement of community and destruction of neighborhoods. The worst cases are the promotion of market rate development couched in social justice language such as the case with the “density at all costs” proponents. If you have roots or live in the Eastside or Westside of San Antonio, you will recognize the concept: destruction of our history, our communities, and our neighborhoods all for the sake of the “public, greater good” which translates into real estate transactions and seldom fulfills its promise.
We need a way to intervene so that our neighborhoods are nurtured while they change to meet the challenges of the future and that intervention is through the people who live in our neighborhoods.
It was with this in this in mind, that several neighborhood advocates attended the 27th Congress of New Urbanism conference in Louisville in June. It is an influential conference that hosts city staff and developers from all over the country. New Urbanist principles drive city planning policies. We paid for our travel, food, and lodging, as well as some of the workshops at considerable personal expense although we were fortunate to receive a scholarship for most of the classes (thanks to letters written by Mayor Nirenberg and Erika Ragsdale formally of NHSD) so that we could better understand New Urbanist ideas, most specifically, form-based codes. We felt like this was an opportunity to listen and learn, and I did learn a great deal. We brought back useful tools and good ideas to share with community. We cannot move forward, however, until our biggest impediment is addressed: The lack of respect towards community and citizen concerns.
What I found at the conference is that our voices were not welcomed.
This was clear from that first form-based boot camp, when the presenter asked participants to raise their hands if they were city planners, consultants, land use attorneys, or developers. It did not occur to her that there would be community advocates present. That overlook would not be important in itself except that it embodied an attitude we encountered repeatedly.
During the conference, in the workshops I attended (which were mostly on zoning and codes, as well as on equity, housing, and public participation), there was a common thread of hostility towards the public. We were the ones that “killed” their plans, their attempt to “build places people love.” Repeatedly I heard stories of how a project was doing great only to be blocked at the last minute by the public or an elected official “bowing” to public pressure. There were those who admitted that they hadn’t done enough effective public engagement and seemed sincere in their wanting to do a better job. Others barely contained their disgust for the public process.
I heard the public likened to members of the Flat Earth Society, or as the “usual suspect”: bored, alienated, privileged people who are against everything without reason. We were described as ignorant, misinformed busy-bodies who don’t care about the facts, who fear anything new, who don’t know what they want, and don’t represent anyone. This attitude of disrespect seem pervasive in the sessions I attended.
“Positive” remarks about public participation and engagement by many of the speakers were usually patronizing: they would “educate” us, they would help us understand what is good for us. When I suggested the possibility of being educated by us, there was silence.
Most grievous, were ways we heard how city governments and consultants could manipulate or cut us out of the process altogether. It was suggested at one session that politicians find the “courage” to vote for contentious changes by hiring a consultant and allowing the consultant to take the political heat. We were told that city governments should be built for the future unimpeded by those residents who live in them now whatever the consequences. I thought it odd that he thought of city government as something separate from the people it represents.
The most insidious plans came from a presenter who had worked on codes in South Bend, Indiana who described his process. His slide read: “First Rule of Zoning Reform: Fight Club.”
“What happens in Fight Club,” he stated, “stays in Fight Club.” He explained how planners should avoid talking to the public about projects. He cited an example of a change in which the city government created a dense and difficult-to-decipher ordinance which was brought in to the dais quietly, using a low monotone to announce it (he actually modeled the voice) and took a vote quickly. “Nothing to see here” he announced to the audience with a laugh. He explained his “quick fix” method, advocating that cities tell the public that every change they make is a quick fix, no big deal, and by the time there is profound change, “the public won’t know what hit them,” he said. His slide which actually outlined the process read:
Initial Steps: Framed as
- “Quick Fixes”
- Make Technical Changes in Small Increments
- Nothing to See Here.
We sat shocked at the unethical disregard for transparency and public discourse, so elemental to good government and the democratic process. As I looked around, however, people were nodding and smiling, taking notes.
There were also brighter moments:
The next speaker at this particular session, a city planner from Michigan, stood up at the podium and said quietly, “Fight Club would never fly in Kalamazoo” and went on to describe how engagement takes time and how they are struggling. She showed a willingness to try. What struck me was that many of the speakers who were sincere, did not know how to engage. There were workshops on charrettes and bureaucratic processes (run by consultants mostly), but not how to actually partner with community.
We heard challenges and questions: One elected official questioned the notion of unbridled market-rate development as a means of generating affordable housing and pointed out the rise of land values and the real possibility of displacement. Her question was dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders and the stock comment about now the displaced will be richer because their house will be worth more. She just shook her head. We connected afterwards and spoke about our cities and communities sharing our concerns.
What was rarely acknowledged were the concerns of residents (particularly those from marginalized neighborhoods or those vulnerable communities of color), those who see the effects of policies on a micro level and who want to prevent the “unintended consequences” and “collateral effects” of seemingly good intentions. We see how good policy is exploited for short term profit. It takes three years, we were told recently by a land use attorney, to get around any ordinances that stand in the way of developers. It is in this winner take all climate that we are forced to fight exploitation instead of the more useful process of working together to find solutions help our communities as we face future challenges.
Can you imagine if it were different? What would it look like to live in a city in which decisions about our neighborhoods and community were made by a partnership of community and our government when we are directly affected? A city in which the implementation stage of good policy would not be corrupted by monied interests? Can you imagine the opportunities to confront the economic divide, the inequities caused by displacement and lack of affordable housing? As it stands, the City seems to operate on the notion that if change can’t be implemented by for –profit developers, then it has no merit. This approach is killing our communities and neighborhoods, making the problems of economic segregation more severe and severely eroding public trust in their city departments and elected officials.
Much of what I describe above would be bad enough on its own, but what hit home, is that advocates have felt the use of these attitudes and tactics in San Antonio. There are bridges being built between neighborhoods and city staff and the inclusion in technical working groups, task forces, and committees has moved us forward. We have the newly adopted Public Participation Principles, but these principles are only a start as we strive to move towards transparency and trust. Already we have felt resistance to meaningful implementation.
The truth is we cannot solve problems and protect vulnerable communities without a partnership with CoSA. Neighborhoods, social justice, and environmental groups simply cannot do it without cooperation with our city, county, and state governments. On the other hand, the City will continue to face mounting resistance if they do not include us in the decision-making process. Elected officials have already felt a backlash from voters as we make neighborhood issues, voting issues. We are seeing more inclusion of neighborhood residents in the process, but we still have a ways to go. How do we better understand the role of the development in making our city a better place to live, not only for tourists, or for those moving or are born here in the future, but for those of us that have invested our lives in this city and are contributing to it, sustaining it, and living here now? Creating and preserving sustainable, affordable, compatible, and attainable housing and an equitable city now insures a better city for future residents.
A Perspective on HB 2730 Anti-SLAPP “Reform”
See interview with State Representative Bernal on NowCastSA.com about anti SLAPP during the controversy here
Several years ago, my neighborhood association and each one of its members personally were threatened by a local powerful developer with a lawsuit. We were told that not only would we be sued as an association but each one personally would be “tied up for life” in an expensive legal battle. He said he had lawyers on retainer, so it did not matter to him how long he could drag it out.
Our offense? We disagreed about how CoSA interpreted our NCD guidelines for a chain gas station he was developing, raised the $600 filing fee, and filed an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. On the very same day, we were threatened with a law suit. The point for the developer was not winning the suit, but dragging us all through years of litigation.
It was a dark moment when our association board sat at my dining room table with our zoning committee and we decided to pull the appeal. We could not compete with all that money and power.
Soon after, our State Representative Diego Bernal and State Senator Menendez let us know about the Anti-SLAPP law that would protect us as we lawfully advocated or took actions to protect our neighborhoods or communities and they would stand by our side. The anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law, also known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), passed in 2011, protects first amendment rights, public participation and the media. The TCPA protects against abusive behavior by allowing for early dismissal of such suits and ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s legal fees. Although it had become too late to file our appeal, we understood that in the future we would be protected.
Until now.
House Bill 2730 by Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, would gut the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a law that protects average citizens from being financially ruined by meritless defamation lawsuits filed by plaintiffs with deep pockets. The past eight years the law has protected common people who dare to speak their minds on matters of public concern.
HB 2730 and SB 2162 threaten the Texas anti-SLAPP law
The bills currently proposed would undermine the Texas Citizen Participation Act (TCPA), which has become the model for similar legislation in other states. The TCPA allows the courts to quickly dismiss meritless defamation and other lawsuits designed to silence everyday people as well as the press. Such meritless claims – so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits — are routinely filed by people with deep pockets not to ultimately succeed in the courts but to run up legal costs in order to intimidate or stop free speech.
For example, House Bill 2730 and SB 2162 would allow the entity accused of filing a meritless lawsuit to drop their case just days before a hearing. This effectively allows an entity to sue a media company for defamation, receive a hearing date, and then drop the lawsuit days before a hearing to avoid a bad ruling and the cost of the defendant’s legal fees.
Where HB 2730 is now:
Currently HB 2730 is being considered by the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence who heard testimony on April 1st.
This is a dangerous bill that would put community leaders in jeopardy as they advocate for their neighborhoods in lawful and exercise their constitutional right to free speech.
CoSA and Neighborhood Protection
Our neighborhood association, and then Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, asked that CoSA make a public statement that they would support any citizens who participated in their lawful rights to advocate for their neighborhoods. Then Mayor Taylor promised to do so, but it never happened though we have asked repeatedly. Now we have submitted this request as part of the implementation of the Public Participation Principles.
What Can You Do?
Contact the following Committee members today to demand that they do not silence our advocacy. Please also write your local state and senate representatives.
Authors:
Ellic.sahualla@house.texas.gov
dustin.burrows@house.texas.gov
Committee Members:
Jeff.Leach@house.texas.gov (Author)
Jessica.farrar@house.texas.gov
Idalid.navarro@house.texas.gov
Melissa.alfaro@house.texas.gov
Andrew.herrell@house.texas.gov
Morgan.meyer@house.texas.gov (Author)
Joshua.garrett@house.texas.gov
Victoria.neave@house.texas.gov
Read more at NowCastSA here
Equal Access to City Notifications
One of the basic tenets of the Public Participation Principles is that of inclusion and transparency, of equal access to information. Neighborhoods have worked diligently to insert themselves in the decision-making process (in decisions that affect their neighborhoods and communities) have benefitted from these ideals.
The act of registering neighborhood associations on the Neighborhood and Housing Services Department bestows the associations the privilege of receiving zoning changes and other notifications that are within their boundaries. But other organizations or coalitions who have fulfill the basic requirements and who have an interest in zoning or development issues do not receive these notifications by CoSA.
Privileging one type of organization over another works against the spirit of the Public Participation Principles and are a hindrance to meaningful public engagement. CoSA should recognize and send notices to any community and/or advocacy organization or coalition that meets the standards and makes a request upon registration. Broader communication and inclusion of citizen input is the center of the Public Participation Principles. The inclusion of registered organizations and coalitions in the notification process fulfills the following specific principles:
INCLUSIVE – Engage a broad range of stakeholders, with particular emphasis on those who do not normally take part in City public participation process; make every effort to ensure that stakeholder groups do not feel left out of the process.
CONVENIENT – Make it as easy as possible to engage with the City; provide multiple opportunities for the public to provide input; when possible, meet people where they are instead of only requiring them to show up at a public meeting; utilize the power of digital communications while being mindful of technology gaps.
RESPECTFUL – Consider all input received, including differing viewpoints, while balancing the interests of all stakeholders.
CoSA needs to create a new outreach category to increase access to information to increase engagement.
T1NC Letter to GPA Director Jeff Coyle with Recommendations for Public Participation Principles Implementation
◊ TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION ◊
March 12, 2019
Dear Mr. Jeff Coyle,
At our Tier One Neighborhood Coalition meeting on February 16th, 2019 at the Claude Black Center and then again to the Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition on February 21st, we presented a workshop on the Public Participation Principles. We’d like to commend Laura Mayes, Communications Strategist in the way that she answered questions and discussed concerns at the February 16thmeeting.
The following are specific recommendations we are requesting at this time. These requests are the results of discussions among neighborhoods on February 16thand on February 21st.
Recommended implementation strategies:
- Flow charts of CoSA processes, posted standardized minutes for all boards and commissions, livestream and archived video of not only City Council meetings, but Zoning Commission, Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meetings as well (which is part of the Mayor’s directive) should be made available to citizens in a timely manner.
- City websites should be more informational and easier to search for specific information.
- Plans for development projects that require zoning changes or tax incentives should be madeopen to the public as soon as they are submitted.
- Public meetings should be put on one City calendar so that any overlap is clear.
- To implement the Principles of Public Participation Guidelines Ordinance residents should have the following options available to them when attending City meetings:
- Parking validation
- VIA bus ticket (similar to what you get for jury duty); could be downloaded as part of on-line sign in process
- Quantifiable metric(s) on public attendance at workshops (% of census tract; minimum #) for both CoSA and consultants should be required and available to the public
- A public expression of support by the City Attorney’s office for the rights of citizens, whether individually or as part of their representative Neighborhood Association or Community Organization, to use processes in place in order to challenge decisions made by city staff, i.e. appealing a DSD decision with the Board of Appeals.
- The establishment of a Neighborhood Commission. Again, this was a request that was made several times by T1NC of Mayor Taylor and City Manager Sculley’s response was to create the NHSD, which has not addressed the needs of neighborhoods and not provided that level of ombudsman ship that we are looking for.
- An acknowledgement of stakeholder public priorities. As one resident put it, someone taking a survey at a Siclovia event is not the same as an informed citizen that will be directly affected by a policy.
- There have been several incidences where a public official will imply that public meetings equate to public approval when that has not been the case. Public officials should not imply something that is not true and must be held accountable when they misrepresent the facts.
- We understand that the implementation of the Principles are focused on input, not the decision-making process. Tier One would recommend a more transparent decision-making process in which key stakeholders are a part.
We would appreciate feedback and information about how these recommendations are considered.
Thank-you,
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee
Cosima Colvin
Christine Drennon
Tony Garcia
Homer “Butch” Hayes
Cullen Jones
Ricki Kushner
Velma Pena
Cynthia Spielman
Amelia Valdez
Theresa Ybanez
cc:
Mayor Ron Nirenberg
District 7 Councilwoman Ana Sandoval
City Manager Erik Walsh
Public Participation Principles: A Perspective for Neighborhood Leaders and Advocates
Read: “A Primer on Public Participation Principles”
We have all been there: We work on input for a neighborhood project and feel like the suggestions that have a direct effect on our communities are ignored. We work diligently, going to all public meetings, educating ourselves on the issues, meeting with our communities for ideas, working with the City, only to have it all disappear with no explanation and our requests for information met with annoyance. We are invited to an “input” public meeting and have the feeling that the staff views it as a box to be checked off, not a moment of real communication. When we have insisted on input, there are no feedback opportunities once a draft of an ordinance or policy has been released, our input is dismissed with no explanation.
Sound familiar? Sadly, this has often been our reality when working with the City to advocate for our neighborhoods and communities.
It is these citizen frustrations that led City Council to adopt the Public Participation Resolution.
On February 2018 District 7 Councilwoman Ana Sandoval filed a Council Consideration Request (CCR), “Advancing City Public Participation” to “develop principles and standards for each City campaign to follow to create consistency, clear expectations, and ample opportunity for the public to provide input prior to Council action.”
These they are guidelines only: The City must find ways (strategies and ideas) and the money, when needed, to implement them. Anything that takes funding (for example taping the meetings) will need an identified funding source or budget amendment. The Principles mostly deal with citizen input and the implementation recommendations by the Government and Public Affairs (GPA) Department as well as the Mayor’s directives.
The fact that the Principles focus on the input process are, at the least, a recognition of public participation is important and its strength is important to the CoSA.
What the Principles are not, is a tool to partner in decisions made about our neighborhoods and communities.
Public Participation is Citizen Power
Public input and participation have very different outcomes depending on the amount of decision-making power stakeholders have. There is a real difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power to affect the outcome of the process. We need two things to have real decision-making power about the futures of our neighborhoods: knowledge and a meaningful partnership with the City.
Illusory Forms of Participation
There have been several degrees of participation between neighborhoods and the City decision-makers. Participation that allows the City to claim that all sides are considered, but its purpose is to maintain the status quo, is often the norm. Many times this takes the form of presentations or charrettes that are educational. But when the City extends an invitation for “public input” it has often been a presentation and citizen input is superficially noted. The meeting feels like a box is being checked as part of a City process.
City meetings often become participation in participation. In one type of participation, a few representatives are given a place as part of the process (on a committee, board, etc.) to placate citizens and to give them the sense that they have power. The effectiveness of these representatives is based on how much technical assistance they are given to help make decisions and set priorities and on the extent that the community has been organized to press for their priorities. Sometimes, such as was the case in the recent sub-area planning meetings, neighborhood representatives stopped attending meetings because they did not understand the process or the jargon and acronyms or the presentations. There was no attempt to educate these representatives or to allow neighborhoods to choose alternates. Online surveys, charrettes, superficial input sessions are a way that the City “consults” with neighborhoods without actually taking account any real input. There have even been instances where City representatives convey meetings with residents on a project as tacit approval.
Partnership Depends on Transparent Information
What we seek is a true partnership with CoSA in decisions that affect the future of our neighborhoods and communities. We need a structured sharing of planning and decision-making with a transparent mechanism for working through differences and the decisions stand. To do this more effectively, we need access to City information. As one neighborhood leader states, “Essentially the City process is a big black hole… What is the point of PPR, if you don’t even have the basic process information available to the citizen to understand what is going on?”
One tool that would help citizens understand this crucial information and affect change would be flowcharts detailing City processes for any department or project requiring citizen engagement. An example of a city process flow chart is below:
In a recent NOWCastsa article, “San Antonio flunks public records test, compared to other Texas cities” it was noted, “San Antonio is, without question, the most backward city of any of the major urban Texas municipalities when it comes to making public records available. Opacity seems to be the rule.”
Specific Recommendations:
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, who recently held a workshop on the Principles, suggested ways to make public information more accessible: Flow charts of CoSA processes, posted standardized minutes for all boards and commissions, livestream and archived video of not only City Council meetings, but Zoning Commission and Board of Adjustment meetings as well (which is part of the Mayor’s directive), City websites should be more informational and easy to find specific information, plans for development projects that require zoning changes or tax incentives should be more transparent, and all public meetings should be put on one City calendar so that the overlap is clear.
Partnerships also Depend on Community Building
Partnerships can work most effectively when there is an organized power-base in the community to which the the citizen-leaders are accountable.
Two things we can do as neighborhoods to more effective partner with the City is to maintain strong neighborhood associations and coalitions that are transparent, inclusive, and agree about overarching ideas; and educate ourselves about City process. We need to cultivate neighborhood “experts” on different issues.
Neighborhood Plan Process
In most cases, where power has come to be shared, it was demanded by the citizens, not given by the City. But San Antonio has a successful model for a true partnership between the City and neighborhoods: the Neighborhood Plan process. Neighborhood residents met in multiple meetings to share their vision for their neighborhood’s future. The City staff facilitated the meetings, offering their expertise to help residents create a plan that would be workable and sustainable. Unfortunately, the climate changed with the change of city manager who began to implement a top-down approach. Now citizens often feel in conflict with City staff instead of working towards common goals.
What can we do?
- Advocate for information transparency.
- Advocate for partnership between neighborhoods and the City infor all decisions having to do with the future of our communities.
- Advocate for the specific recommendations to make public information more transparent.
- Please access the website at http://www.saspeakup.com/and sign up for updates.
- We must commit to continue to monitor the progress of the implementation strategies. Identify and/or support the approval of funding For any strategy that needs to be funded (i.e. filming and archiving commission and committee meetings).
- Continue to ask how the ordinance is being implemented when dealing with different City departments. It is up to us, the public, to now hold City departments responsible for upholding the new public input process. Are we seeing a difference? Let our elected officials know what is working and what is not.
- Continue to ask about how the City makes decisions. Who are the stakeholders and who had input that created the end result?
- Identify ways the City can be more transparent and inclusive in its decision-making process.
- Pressure our elected representatives to adhere to the spirit of the Public Participation Principles.
- Continue to create and maintain strong neighborhood communities and coalitions and to educate ourselves to advocate effectively.
Sources
Arnstein, Sherry, R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” AIP Journal. July 1969. 216-224.
Chrissy Q. McCain, District 1 Council Aide