Next ADU meeting: February 7th at 10 a.m. at NHSD at 1400 S. Flores
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or granny flats, mother-in-law-flats, back houses, pool houses, or garage apartments, whether attached or detached, are a big thing right now. ADUs can allow for extra income to homeowners to help with the rising taxes, they can provide for affordable rentals which are much needed, and they provide density that can help area businesses as well as justify better public transportation and other amenities. Most neighborhood residents throughout San Antonio are allowed to build an ADU on their property, but there is an opportunity to refine the Unified Development Code (UDC) that will make building these units easier for homeowners while also providing protection for neighborhoods.
Tobin Hill, however, has been struggling with an ADU that is substantially taller than its principal home, and seems incompatible with the surrounding area (some have likened it to a “tower”). A neighbor challenged the city’s Development Services Department (DSD) over the approval of the permit for this ADU, and took it to the Board of Adjustment in early August. The board voted in favor of the property owner and not the applicant (the neighbor) who was challenging the building. After the meeting it was expressed that many of the board members were confused about what their vote meant (which was not helped by the fact that DSD put up the wrong information on the screen about who was for and against the project). Consequently, the Board of Adjustment has agreed to vote at the September 16 hearing whether to hear the case again.
Tobin Hill’s Towering ADU
I am a Tri-Chair of the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee in which we are tasked, in part, with finding ways to help residents build ADUs more easily, while protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. We are looking for ways to not only make these structures easier to build, but to also ensure they are built in ways that can be embraced by neighborhoods across the city. We are also looking at ways in which it will be easier to rehab existing ADUs. Many of the UDC code amendments that we want to address include design issues, height restrictions, and definitions and interpretations.
For more information on the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee, please click below:
After the demolitions were approved, and the appeal that Tobin Hill Community Association filed was rejected, the Cole properties were rezoned to Infill Development Zone (IDZ), so that townhouses could be built.
My husband, Rick Schell, is the chair person for Tobin Hill’s Zoning and Development Committee. He attended the zoning hearing on July 17, 2019. It was a very long hearing. He knew by that time that the houses were being demolished, and that the rezoning would most likely be approved, but he waited 7.5 hours in order to read the Committee’s statement into the record.
After the hearing, he sent this email to the District 1 Zoning Commissioner:
Sarah,
I want to take a moment to tell you I appreciate your thoughtful approach to the various cases yesterday. I spent a lot of time last night and this morning thinking about the Evergreen case, and my statement, and your questions. I thought a follow-up email was important, so you understand why I came to Zoning yesterday with what I did.
I know your purview is related strictly to the zoning associated with the case, as staff indicated in response to your question.
We never should have been in front of the Zoning Commission in the first place, looking at the requested change.
There was a failure to follow the processes the city created by both OHP and by the Councilman. It is true that OHP flat-out failed to present the case to city council. The rest of the council members could only rely on what our D1 councilman told them. It is true that he read from a prepared statement that was factually inaccurate (at best). OHP could have corrected the inaccuracies, but they chose not to do so. It is true the Mayor asked why the council was not briefed by OHP on the case. There was overwhelming community support for this designation to happen, and it was ignored. There was overwhelming evidence to support this designation, and it was ignored.
Here is the deal: Our Councilman was elected by the community to represent us, the community. Developers have an entire department within the city to represent them (Development Services). They have land-use attorneys to represent them. They have money to back them. They have people who are paid to make the time. We have volunteers who take time from their day to come out and speak. They take off work, they find child-care for their kids, they sacrifice personal and family life to come voice their thoughts to the Commissions and the City Council. The only tool we have as a community is the city processes. When those are not followed, or are ignored, or are arbitrarily applied, what recourse does the community have?
I waited for 7.5 hours yesterday so that I could take 2 minutes of time to directly confront the failure of some city departments in following the processes they created for the community. I don’t want you to think that I am just another too-loud voice, arguing the wrong thing in the wrong setting, clamoring to be heard. I realize that I did not address the zoning directly, but we don’t have another forum to address these issues. I would encourage you and the rest of our commissioners to take a more direct approach to listen to the community before the commission meetings. You are appointed as an extension of the council office, whose role is to represent the community at large, and not as an extension of city staff and development services.
I look forward to continuing to work with you, our D1 staff in all the various forms it takes, and the community at large, whether developer or homeowner, to continue to make D1 a great place to live.
Best,
Rick Schell THCA Zoning and Development Committee Chair
Tobin Hill is under fire, y’all. I’ve posted about it before: 14 demolition requests in the last 18 months.
Map courtesy OHP, showing demolition requests within the THCA boundary over the last 18 months.
There are a few ways to stop or slow a demolition.
One way is a large community outcry, such as what happened with 430 and 434 E. Magnolia (OHP stated that they had never received that much community input on a demolition case, that it was unprecedented).
Another way is submitting an application for finding of Historic Significance, and Landmark Designation with the City’s Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). This can often be a more effective way if the property in question has real historic significance.
307 and 311 E. Evergreen had both community support for their preservation, and substantial historic significance.
When Tobin Hill received the notification of a demolition request for these two houses on E. Evergreen, I posted the photos of the house with information provided by OHP to our social media pages, and I forwarded the request to Tobin Hill Community Association’s Historic Preservation Committee. THCA also met with Patrick Christensen, a local land use attorney, representing Imagine Homes who hoped to develop, but did not yet own, the properties.
When I posted the info on 307 and 311 E. Evergreen, now colloquially know as the Cole Houses, there was a huge outcry from the community, even extending beyond the borders of the Tobin Hill.
Let’s take a moment and talk about what I mean when I say, “huge outcry.”
The post was shared 64 times. 13,699 people saw the post. Between the comments on THCA’s Facebook page and other places it was shared, I compiled 75 comments asking for the preservation of these houses. So when OHP says 24 emails is “unprecedented,” and I tell you Evergreen has a “huge outcry,” you understand what I mean.
Many of the comments talk about the houses’ recent history as being used as a live music venue and recording studio. If you know Tobin Hill, you know music is an important part of our neighborhood’s culture. Additionally, one of the houses was the former offices of Mujeres Unidas, an HIV prevention and awareness non-profit.
Among the folks upset about the potential demolition of the Evergreen houses, was an archaeologist and historian that lives in the neighborhood, Stephen Fonzo. He agreed to assist THCA’s Historic Preservation Committee Chair, Ricki Kushner, in researching the houses pro bono. They discovered that in addition to the houses recent musical history, the house at 307 was the only home of Lt. Col. Robert G. Cole, WWII hero and recipient of the Medal of Honor. Robert G. Cole Junior and Senior High School are named for him (thus the nickname of Cole Houses).
Ricki and Stephen compiled a thorough Statement of Significance for each of the houses, and included letters of support from the North Saint Mary’s Business Association, the San Antonio Conservation Society, news clippings, photos, maps, emails, and statements of support from veterans. Together the packets on 307 and 311 E Evergreen are a combined total of 84 pages after review by OHP.
It is with this level of community support AND historically significant evidence that the Cole Houses went before HDRC for recommendation of Landmark designation.
The HDRC recommended approval at the April 17, 2019 hearing. However, because the Landmark designation was filed without the owner’s consent, THCA was told that it would have to go before City Council in June before continuing to the Zoning Commission.
On May 28, 2019 the Community Association received an email from Councilman Treviño’s office about the two pending cases in our neighborhood. Included in the communication was Patrick Christensen.
The email stated that Councilman Treviño was not going to support the designation of the Evergreen properties. His reason was that the Cole Houses are “on the commercial corner of the McCullough corridor.” However, the houses are NOT on the corner of McCullough; they are behind the Little Taco Factory and La Morenita Fruit Cups.
Location of 307 and 311 E Evergreen St.
All 84 pages of historical evidence were ignored. Instead, the Councilman focused solely on the location of the houses.
In addition to the blow of this email, when the case came before City Council on June 6, 2019, OHP failed to present the evidence of the Cole Houses historic significance, or give Council a briefing on the houses before the hearing.
At the City Council hearing, the mayor noted that the Council was not briefed on the houses, not once, but twice. Sadly, Council voted against the designation based on Councilman Treviño’s recommendation anyway. He stated that the houses “do not warrant landmark status.”
In the video below, you can hear Ricki Kushner and other citizens speak to City Council about this case. Councilman Treviño’s makes his statement at 15:50. The Mayor states that there was not a staff presentation on this case at 20:30. He repeats that statement at 21:40, where he also asks for more information on these houses, and states his discomfort with the decision being made without a briefing.
Normally that would be the end of things. Without the owner’s consent or Council’s blessing the case can not move forward. But THCA was not ready to give up after so much work.
Several members of THCA attended the June 24th HDRC Hearing and signed up to speak during Citizens To Be Heard. We implored the Commission to intercede, reminding them that although the Landmark Designation had failed, they houses could still be preserved as a Historic District, which only needs a minimum of two properties. We reminded them of the evidence to preserve these houses, and told them about OHP’s failure to present the evidence to Council. HDRC asked that the houses be added to the July 17, 2019 agenda.
Meanwhile, the owner had erected a fence around the properties, preparing to demolish them. THCA was ready with an appeal, in order to get a stop-work order on the demolition if needed. However, on June 25, 2019, the Development Services Department (DSD) confirmed that a hold was placed once again on the addresses due to being on the July 17th agenda.
Late in the afternoon on Friday July 12, OHP called THCA to let them know that they were lifting the hold, and that the demolition requests for the Cole Houses had been approved. THCA searched for permits, but none had been pulled yet. We vigilantly watched the houses over the weekend for any sign of illegal demolition. None occurred.
Tuesday morning, July 16, my husband, Rick, drove by the houses at about 7:50am. Demolition (deconstruction) had begun.
I called DSD at about 9:30 a.m. and they confirmed that there had not been any demolition permits issued for the addresses. We requested a stop-work order.
Rick immediately called the Councilman’s office and was told by Chrissy McCain that demolition permits had been approved. She also said that the structures were completely demolished by this point (about 9:35 a.m.), so if THCA was to file an appeal, it would likely fail because the properties were demolished. Further, she said that the Councilman had approved the salvage plan just that morning.
Alarmed, I drove to the Cole Houses, to find them still standing, though deconstruction of the interior was occurring. I checked DSD’s online permit portal, which now showed a permit for 311 E Evergreen, approved at 9:51am and paid for at 10:23am that morning.
We went to DSD and filed the appeal.
The appeal was received by Zenon (Zeke) Solis, who was really not sure what to do. He stated that they had never received an appeal on a demolition permit before. He went back to the offices several times to ask questions before taking my paperwork. He then took 19 minutes to copy the appeal, which was only 9 pages long. Another stop-work order was issued.
The next day, July 17, we received notice from DSD that our appeal was being withdrawn by DSD and that THCA would receive a refund. View the emails from DSD here:
The stop-work order has again been lifted. Deconstruction has resumed. The Cole Houses are being demolished.
We are left with many questions.
Why did Councilman Treviño state that the Cole Houses were on the corner of McCullough when they are not?
Why did his office include the developer’s attorney, Patrick Christensen, in the email prior to the Council hearing, but not the property owner?
Why didn’t OHP brief the Mayor and the Council on the 84 pages of evidence for Landmarking the houses?
Why did the Council proceed to vote, even after the mayor questioned this?
Why were the Cole Houses removed from the July 17th HDRC agenda, despite the commissioner’s request to evaluate them for a potential Historic District?
Why did the Councilman’s office preemptively discourage us from filing an appeal, even though it is within our rights to do so?
Why was the Councilman’s office giving permission for demolition instead of requiring that a permit be obtained though DSD prior to starting work?
Why did the Councilman’s office state that the houses had already been demolished before the demolition permits had been either filed or paid for?
Why did DSD refund THCA’s appeal and decide that it was not valid? – Is it not the role of the Board of Adjustment to decide if an appeal has merit?
On April 14, 2019, Bexar County Chief Appraiser, Michael Amezquita told the San Antonio Express News that the “biggest horror shows” when it comes to property tax increases are, “Anything within 3 miles of the Pearl.” Among many near-downtown neighborhoods, he specifically called out Tobin Hill North.
In 2016 a developer bought two older but structurally sound duplexes at 421 and 425 E. Mistletoe Ave. in Tobin Hill North. They obtained a demolition permit, cleared the land and built six two-story houses, facing a center drive. In some cities, they call these slot homes, and in 2018, Denver passed an ordinance which does not allow themto be built there any longer. The houses on Mistletoe were completed this spring and they sold for between $325,000 and $370,000 each. And they are driving our property taxes up.
Of course, most people will tell you is that these new, two-story houses will not be used as a comparable property with our older, single-story bungalows and cottages. They are right, the improvements portion of your tax valuation won’t use these new houses as comps. However, that only accounts for part of your tax valuation.
New house next to an existing one on E Mistletoe Ave.
Between 2015 and 2017, the Bexar Appraisal District increased only the improvements portion of the appraisal by about $2000 on my house, which is across the street from the new Mistletoe development. In that same time, the land value went from $25,000 to $61,000. This is about a 144% increase in just two years. The 2019 valuation has now increased our land value to $177,290. It has nearly doubled again, a 369% increase over four years.
Sometime between 2015 and now, the Appraisal District realized that the original house on each lot could be torn down and three could be built in its place. Try going to Bexar Appraisal District and arguing that your landis not worth what they say it is.
Since January 2019, the Office of Historic Preservation has received seven demolition applications for Tobin Hill. Of those, three have been approved, two are on hold for evaluation by the Historic Design Review Commission, and two, 430 and 434 E. Magnolia, are still awaiting a decision by OHP.
Like the properties on Mistletoe, 430 and 434 E. Magnolia are on a quaint and quiet street on the northern end of Tobin Hill. While this part of Tobin Hill is not currently designated as Historic, it is surrounded on all four sides by Historic Districts: Monte Vista to the north and west, River Road to the east, and the Tobin Hill Historic District to the south. These two homes would be contributing to structures to a future Historic District in this area which has been identified in the past as being eligible for Historic Designation.
400 block of E Magnolia and E Mistletoe
The applications for the demolition of these houses on E. Magnolia have generated a lot of neighborhood concern. OHP received 24 letters of opposition to the proposed demolition of these homes. This far exceeds what OHP’s Scout SA team typically receives for demolition applications. It was enough that Shanon Shea-Miller, Director of the City of San Antonio’s Office of Historic Preservation, requested a site meeting between Scout SA and the property owner.
During the meeting with the property owner, we discovered that the owner believes he can get a better offer on the land if it is vacant. However, these houses are occupied and in good structural condition. Demolition should be a last resort, not a quick path to making a buck. While the Appraisal District views the land as more valuable than the houses built on them, to the renters living there, this is home.
When taxes go up, it makes it hard to stay in your home. This is how many homeowners go from living in housing that is affordable to becoming cost-burdened by their home. Landlords in my neighborhood, unable to get a homestead exemption on their rental properties, will need to raise rents to cover increased property taxes. Land values that have doubled, or in cases like mine, gone up 369% in just 4 years, mean that rents will rise to compensate for this increase. It is likely that many renters who could afford a place in Tobin Hill North in 2015 will soon be so cost-burdened they will have to find somewhere else to go.
430 and 434 E. Magnolia, photo from Google
430 and 434 E Magnolia are not stunning. They are not what some would consider worthy of a Landmark status. They are humble homes, and some of the last remaining affordable housing we have in Tobin Hill North. They are currently providing affordable housing in an area where finding an apartment or house to live in is becoming increasingly expensive. The demolition of these homes, which are both currently occupied, and in sound structural condition, will cause the direct displacement of these residents.
We need to focus on preserving the affordable housing that we already have. San Antonio’s Housing Policy Framework specifically calls for the preservation of naturally-occurring affordable housing, especially rental units, like the duplex at 430 E Magnolia and the home behind it at 434 E Magnolia. The Policy calls for the prevention and mitigation of displacement, and the need to address the impact of rising property taxes on housing affordability.
It is clear that in neighborhoods like Tobin Hill North, affordability is tied to the land valuation. Demolitions like the ones proposed on E. Magnolia should be vehemently opposed. Our city: Development Services, the Office of Historic Preservation, our City Council and our Mayor should be denying requests for demolitions on houses that are structurally sound, and especially those that are occupied. It is in the best interests of not only those currently in need of affordable housing, but also of those who live nearby, who don’t want to see exponential growth in their tax bill every year.
430 and 434 E. Magnolia will go before the Historic Design Review Commission for consideration of Landmark Designation in order to prevent demolition on May 1 at 5:00pm. The Tobin Hill Community Association would appreciate letters in support of the Landmark Designation of 430 and 434 E. Magnolia. Statements can be emailed to jessica.anderson@sanantonio.gov
We are also asking for community support in attending the hearing and speaking in favor of the Landmark designation. If you intend to speak, please sign up in person at 1901 S. Alamo St. on the day of the hearing. You may sign up anytime between 2:30 and 5:00 PM before the cases are heard.
April 18, 2019 Update from Anisa Schell (THCA Board):
Some of you may already be aware of the proposed demolitions of 430 and 434 E Magnolia. Because of the outcry of concern from the community, and after visiting the site with the Designation/Demolition Committee, the Office of Historic Preservation has decided to move forward with requests for Historic designation of both structures. The cases will be heard at the Historic and Design Review Commission Wednesday, May 1, no earlier than 5 PM in the first-floor boardroom at 1901 S Alamo.
The hearing is public and anyone may attend. In the past, it has been very helpful to have a large community of supporters attend and speak at the hearing. You may sign up to speak before the hearing, anytime between 2:30 and when the case is heard (no sooner than 5:00pm).
Each person will have three minutes to speak, but a short statement of support is all that is necessary. For example, you can use your time to say something like, “I am Anisa Schell and I live at 430 E. Mistletoe Ave. I support the Landmark Designation of these two houses. 430 and 434 E Magnolia are homes that contribute to the historic nature of the street and our neighborhood. They should not be torn down. Please designate these houses to protect them. Thank you.” In addition to speaking at the hearing, writing letters of support for the designation of these houses ahead of time is helpful. Please send emails to Jessica.Anderson@sanantonio.gov. Your email should state that you support the Landmark Designation of 430 and 434 E Magnolia and make sure to include your name and address.
The emails forwarded below provide a little more insight into what has happened so far with these properties. Also attached is the statement I wrote opposing the demolition of these properties.
Tobin Hill Community Association needs your support for the historic designation of the two houses at 307 & 309-311 E. Evergreen.
Demolition applications were filed for these houses in February. In researching the houses, it was discovered that 307 E. Evergreen was the home of Robert G. Cole who went to West Point, and later received the Medal of Honor for his bayonet charge during the Normandy Invasion. Cole has a video game character and local high school named after him (where Shaquille O’Neal went to school as well).
In its more recent history, 311 E Evergreen became locally known as “That Place Off Evergreen.” It was a local recording studio and live music venue, contributing to Tobin Hill’s culture of local music and the performing arts.
307 E Evergreen – photo by CoSA Office of Historic Preservation
The adjacent house, 307 E Evergreen, is known as The Cole House, as well as the former offices of Mujeres Unidas:
“Cole House is also significant in the area of social history for its associations with women’s civic history in the city of San Antonio. Clara Hoff Cole, the house’s longest continuous resident, moved into the house in 1919 and remained until her death in 1949. During that time she was a working professional and single mother of three children, teaching in the Tobin Hill neighborhood at Nathaniel Hawthorne, Jr. High School until sometime around 1944, when she had begun teaching at Mark Twain High School. Her involvement in the community and her son Robert’s military service attracted fairly constant attention from city newspapers through the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. Several decades later the Cole House became the office location of Mujeres Unidas, a charitable organization established in 1994 by Yolanda Rodriguez-Escobar to serve local women and Latinx community members with HIV/AIDS… Although their tenure at the Cole House happened within the past fifty years, it is still noteworthy and adds to the significance of the property in the area of social history and cultural heritage for the community of the Tobin Hill neighborhood and city of San Antonio.” –Excerpt from 307 E Evergreen Statement of Significance, written and collected by Stephen Fonzo
These cases will go before the Historic Design Review Commission on April 17, 2019 at 5:30PM. Staff is recommending approval of the Landmark designations, however the property owner has not consented. If the homes are not designated, they will be demolished to make room for a multi-unit housing development.
Your support at the hearing on Wed., April 17 would be appreciated. The cases are “time certain” and are scheduled to be heard at 5:30PM. You may sign up at the One-Stop, 1901 S. Alamo, to speak any time from about 2:30 P.M. up until the time when the case is heard. (i.e., 5:00). Emailed comments may be sent ahead of time to the case officer, Jessica Anderson, Jessica.Anderson@sanantonio.gov.
On August 17, 2017 a large group of Tobin Hill neighbors, many wearing Tobin Hill’s orange t-shirts, came to City Council to advocate for a historic district designation for their block of Mistletoe which would be called the Tobin Hill North Historic District, the culmination of a year-long effort. The effort was in response to a developer’s plans to crowd eight two-story single-family homes on one lot in the middle of the block of bungalows and cottages, plans the neighborhood deemed incompatible.
Neighbors came together and 51% of them agreed to start the designation process. After a meeting in which the Tobin Hill Community Association endorsed the plans, four public meetings conducted by Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and countless meetings in living rooms and dining room tables, Historic Design and Review Commission (HDRC) gave its unanimous approval.
But it is at this point the process exposed a weakness in OHP’s procedures: 51% of the residents agreed to attend meetings for information, but no votes are taken after these meetings. It is as if the vote to listen to information is a vote to become an historic district and the confusion becomes acrimonious.
By the time the case made it to City Council on August 17th, the numbers for and against the designation had slipped back and forth. In the end, no side had the required 51% majority. Out of 88 properties, 11 abstained (13%), 33 (37%) voted for the designation, and 44 (50%) voted against it. Several people who were not in the district but within the 200’ radius that is sent notices also voted.
But it was not that simple.
The opposition consisted of some sincere neighbors who advocated for property rights and did not want the designation, but many of the opposition were investors who owned property temporarily, but did not live in the neighborhood or even District 1, begging the question for future debate: Should the votes of temporary property owners, non-residents, be weighed the same as people who live in the district (or own property on a permanent basis) and will live with the consequences in a way that is more than just pecuniary?
Out of 44 properties counted in opposition, 22 of them were possessed by non- residents, some of whom owned multiple properties: Half of those 22 properties are owned by just four investors. In other words, investors made up half of the opposition; just four investors made up a full quarter of the opposition.
It became a no-win situation for the residents.
The Councilman met in February 2017 with the investors along with the District 1 Zoning Commission representative in a room in a local restaurant. One of the condo developers later stated at City Council that he had met with Councilman even before he purchased the property.
The neighbors, although they tried, were unable to get an audience with the Councilman. He did not return their calls. His staff, coordinating everyone’s schedule, produced a meeting with the neighbors and the Councilman. He did not show. A public meeting was set up to discuss the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD), a year-long process for which the Councilman advocated (even after telling another neighborhood that only historic designation would protect them) but by that time frustration and tension engulfed the meeting.
At the the Zoning Commission hearing on May 16th, OHP asked for a third continuance for reasons that are unclear. One of the neighbors was told that someone had called and wanted more information. No presentation was given for the Zoning Commission by OHP. The Commission (with barely a quorum) voted against the designation, after listening to speakers for and against, critiquing OHP’s process.
Democracy is strongest at a local level. Our neighborhoods, our communities, our City is a place that we can nurture it, even as it is tested on a national and world stage. Democracy is not easy. It requires transparency and inclusion and a sense of fair play.
Our City government let us down.
City Council members make whatever decisions they choose, and citizens can debate them at the ballot box, but the process of inclusion and transparency was blatantly ignored to the advantage of developer interests.
At the City Council meeting on August 17th, neighbors came with a real expectation that they would not only speak, but that they would be listened to, that they would be heard. Before the meeting, a compromise to redraw the Historic District had been accepted by the advocates and it left out the most adamant opposition, a “flipper,” out of the district, a request he had made at the Zoning Commission meeting. At the end of over two hours of neighbors’ testimony, District 1 Councilman read a statement that demonstrated that their words, their work, and their presence had no bearing whatsoever on any decision, that it had been predetermined. The rest of the City Council simply voted along with little or no comment or questions and certainly no explanations. It seemed clear by their silence that they had made up their minds (with the exception of District 9 Councilman John Courage) beforehand to support their fellow council member instead of the people to whom they are responsible. The compromise was summarily dismissed. Neighbors were thanked for their “participation” in a display of condescension. This was the not a democratic process and it exemplifies the worst of City government.
When we question why people do not vote, look to the lesson of Tobin Hill North. If ordinary citizens are not even acknowledged by their elected representatives, why indeed, does it matter for whom they vote? Citizen input and participation become empty words that breeds the worst kind of cynicism in its citizens. It is this kind of cynicism that kills democracy. “Inclusion” becomes an empty show that benefits those with money and power. I am not suggesting that this Councilman was wrong to meet with the opposition which consisted mostly of the development community; I am forcefully suggesting that he was wrong in not also making himself equally available to the neighbors of Tobin Hill North and listening to their perspective as well. This is not about one Councilmember: They are all, with the exception of Councilman Courage, complicit.
