One man's opinion . If I'm wrong PLEASE correct me!

Wals, this seems to be a NIMBY problem with the area of home owners north of the loop . A justifiable NIMBY ,however .

There have always been pricey homes there (since '81 ,I recall )and the folks who live in them seem to be a tad more equal than I ! ( Please withhold your boos and hisses at my last statement until I show I can extricate myself with grace and a certain panache. )

Tax revenues are larger in those areas and thus these folks become sort of "privileged" by having the City Council tippy-toe thru agendas that might upset the status quo . The folks out in these parts are neighbors/compatriots and VOTERS of many elected officials ..and really..Who do you want mad at you..someone you never met across town , or your neighbor/business associate/golfing buddy/member of your bridge club/etc ?

When it comes to apartments.., even "High-End" apartments being built in this area , the folks out there really DO have an honest gripe.

Were they to build single family condos , there might not be as much hollering but it still would eventually screw with their assessments !

Renters , not even high end renters , will not take care of their property anywhere near that of owners , and that WILL bring property values down. So you can see why the council wishes to buy time until they can get their ducks in a row !

NOW ! Does anybody believe for a moment that if Mr. Ken Lokey decided to build a dozen apartment complexes in the downtown Midland area or the South or East side he would NOT have been given the green light in the proverbial NY minute ?

In a nutshell , building apartment complexes by Bluebird Lane will "EVENTUALLY" reduce property values(even if turned later into condos) BUT building apartment complexes downtown will increase values downtown (for the short run) and by turning the apartments into condos later..it could possibly sustain the worth of downtown revenue .

I'd HATE to think a developer had such a case of tunnel vision on North Midland and couldn't see the possibilities elsewhere in town ..and their land deal was so locked up that they would lose their shirts if they couldn't build "right there"....unless someone came along and offered them some financial incentive to build..elsewhere in town .

Just a thought . I could be wrong (sure wouldn't be the first time ) but I think the council did the right thing by putting this one off until they got the new at-large-guy so they can act as a full unit ..rather than , if things went south , the new candidate can say later that he would have voted differently from the council and by gosh he's ALWAYS taken that stance and what fools these people on the council are and if elected to blah blah blah !

Well , that took some time so I'll reward myself with a small glass of spiced rum . Goodnight .

Yas, Yas..seventh paragraph should read ..Renters, EVEN high-end renters...
Here's to you Miss Correctenglishperson !

one thing you are right about, the council is a major unit, full or partial.

The neighborhood in question is not a 'pricey' neighborhood by Midland standards. It's nice, but not any different than a lot of areas of town adjacent to apartments built 25 years ago and I would venture to guess that very few if any of those areas have seen their property values decline while others have risen.

Regarding downtown; while it does point to some legitimate questions, particularly why the council is falling over itself to act with scant information or diligence, throwing money at MDC-junkie businesses and any tired consultant ideas of what they can transform blocks of downtown streets into, yet a standard zoning proposal that has been vetted twice by their own development department and planning and zoning commission is just too big of an issue for them to tackle, the idea that downtown is an alternative location for this particular complex just doesn't make sense. Sorry for the run-on sentence. I don't think you can find 1 acre of contiguous land downtown, and new downtown construction and site work will cost more to develop than an empty piece of scrub off loop 250. Now, with small groups of empowered NIMBY's calling the shots for the council, maybe that won't matter for long.

I think these developers are not short sighted, they see Midland growing a couple of miles north over the next few decades, and it is unreasonable to think that in the mass of housing stretching from 250 to the releaver route there shouldn't be some multi-family housing. The city needs this housing type, and in my informed opinion it is a good thing that these new apartments be dispersed throughout the city, including areas containing upscale and middle class neighborhoods. In 20 years nobody will care, I've never heard the residents of Racquet Club (quite a bit higher-end than most of North Midland) complain about the Chandelle Apartments.

I'm not so sure the NIMBY's are in the drivers seat anymore.

Newsroom Stew pointed out that the critical vote came down along (D)/(R) lines...I noted the critical vote came down with the Mayor, At-Large and affected District's Councilwoman voting AYE, and the unaffected District Councilpersons voting NAY.

Either way, a (D)/(R) split or a split where the representatives that were actually elected were over-ridden by the representatives without an affected constituency is disturbing. Especially when it also causes the council to go against the P&Z, the Development Staff and their stated goal of more Housing in Midland.

It is customary in zoning issues that impact just one district to take the lead from the Mayor, the At-Large Councilmen and the District representative...for the other three councilmen to jump in and vote against, is very poor form, and may indicate partisan fights and turf wars may be on the horizion. Put this complex in District 2 and have the 1, 3 & 4 councilmen vote against it and see the firestorm.

Bob, I think you , Walsingham and I are seeing eye to eye on the need for apartments but maybe having a different opinion on where the apartments should be located .

When I got rid of that crap trailer I had to buy to put a metal roof (rather than tarp) over our heads we moved to a townhome at Saddleclub South.
For the first few years it was great but then came the first wave of Idongivapoos followed by wave after wave and we finally left what was once a premier apartment in disgust.
My neighbor at the time was a poobah with the FDIC (remember them)sent down here to find the reason for so many bank failures. They liked Midland so much at first that he sent for the household of furniture they had in storage but shortly sent it back to Ill. because they were soured by the jokers in Saddleclub and they followed shortly thereafter.

What I am saying here , Bob , is given enough time all apartment complexes are going to go to seed . Yes ! They are necessary ! But for most young and middle-age adults they are nothing more than a stop-over to a home of their own and a more permanent neighborhood that doesn't change because of yearly contracts . Even the best will fall .

Why do Apartment Complexes change their names every 5 or 10 years ? Answer : To further themselves from the bad press they received from tenant's run-ins with the law and other unsavory
crapola! No Joke ! They can't move but they sure as hell can, and DO , change their names .

Additionally , take a look at the apartments south of Wadley on Midland Drive . They were fine and dandy 20 years ago but now are providing FREE housing to some folks who don't seem to care .
Can you imagine the expression on the face of the person who just paid off a thirty year note upon discovery that the nice apartment behind him will now be housing the homeless ! OH ! What a kneeslapper !

We are together on the situation of the city council . They must figure out a way to zone multiple family housing in the gentlest and kindest measure possible because ,either way , there's going to be some pretty ticked off people! So good on them ,I say ,to wait for the full council!

As far as downtown apts., I concur .There is no way to find the land to develop a modern apartment complex BUT there is plenty of land to develop an OLD style apartment complex by building UP . There will be scads of areas to choose from.

My thoughts on downtown? Build apartments. Rent'em out.Collect the taxes from the owner. Things get slow cause these apartments might start to get dangerous ? Stop releasing and let the owner start redoing each apartment as a condo and in a year..collect taxes from the new owners.
Not One Penny of our taxes should be allowed for this ! NOT ONE !

Thank you for the mental excercise Bob and the opportunity to vent . I don't think we're too far apart ....and so , to bed.

Absent taxpayer subsidies, I am not for or against housing on the Loop or housing downtown.

I am just pointing out where the folks who really do this stuff for a living choose to place these developments.

They believe that the demand for housing does not lie downtown.

If there is to be downtown housing...downtown housing of the sort that won't drive others from downtown, I mean...then you would think that it needs to be built before housing shortage begins to slacken or it won't happen at all.

There have been 4 or 5 apartment complexes already approved by the Council more than a year ago, some by the same investor.

It should not matter who or what has happened previously, the land should be evaluated for its best use, and I agree with the city and P&Z board, it's best use is apartments or retail. The demand is for apartments.

You've made an astute observation ospurt. If the council is dividing down political lines, or under two leaders (Perry -vs- James) we are in for a real treat. The ECISD school board of recent years is a fine example of what this kind of collusion can produce.

OO, you are way over generalizing the situation with apartments. It is not always as you say or does it have to be. A short drive through River Oaks in Houston, or Highland Park in Dallas will reveal 30 year old apartment complexes nestled into neighborhoods full of million dollar homes. Don't mistake the particular history of the local real estate market for the nature of apartments and their residents.

Even so, the city council can not consider one type of resident above the other. they should not function as a business in thinking "how can we maximize tax evaluations", be it downtown or on Bluebird Lane. That is not their purpose. They exists to guard public welfare and facilitate commerce. In doing so they have zoning authority to see that development within the city occurs in a manner beneficial to the city as a whole, which should never take a back seat to individual property owners, while at the same treating them equitably.

A major complex is going in north of Bluebird, and more will come. A new complex on Caldera would, by my estimation, be an encouragement to the existing complexes to maintain and upgrade, in order to compete.

Excuse me Bob ,
Are you trying to equate Highland Park to North Midland ? I can not speak for River Oaks as I have not been there..but Highland Park ..

Highland Park was well established as a place of "old" money even in the 60's . This is apples and oranges.

Let's stick to Midland . I believe my generalizations to be dead on . OF COURSE there are exceptions ! But my observations are sound .
People who invest in a thirty year mortgage are not interested in having an apartment complex built next to them . Do you ? Really ? Explain.

I have no dog in the fight about apartments in north Midland as I do not live there . I meant only to show what has happened to apartments in the majority of Midland and what could (eventually will) happen elsewhere .

Midland is a different breed of cat . Comparing Midland to other cities in Texas is WORTHLESS !
The ONLY thing to compare Midland to is PAST Midland performance . There is where I base my observations.

The only logical end to your argument then is that no apartments should be built anywhere, unless they are in an isolated apartment only district, and it would even be a reasonable and profitable idea for the city to close and tear down all the existing ones. Have to protect those 30 year mortgage holders. Is that the primary purpose of city government, to protect the banks' investments? City as developer. Scary.

As for that idea though, it wouldn't work in Midland, and it doesn't follow historical Midland precedents.

I wish the city would just get this deal done, then the residents in that area can go back to minding their own business.

Bob , this deal WILL get done under the aegis of the ENTIRE city council .What bee is under your saddle ?!

You seem not to care that if a property owner was there FIRST ,they seem to you to have no bleeding rights as to what goes next door to them ! Apartments ! Bring 'em on ! Landfill ! Bring it on ! Nuclear waste dump! Bring it on ! The good people on the city commission are looking at the BIG picture how DARE you disagree !

The point is moot as I am sure the apartment complex will soon become a done deal . I took Walsinghams lead to once again repeat a fact (yes,fact! ) that people who rent do not take care of their property as much as those who own !And it's damn well time someone stood up for the property owner who may lose his investment to so-called progress !

Now the idea of a special district for apartments may have some merit for Midland..hmmmmmmm .

You're right. I do not care who was there first.
One's chronological disposition should avail nothing. Shoot, the Indians were here first.

I know that the person who was there first usually feels themselves entitled to certain things, and is usually able to get them, like old people and there precious social security and medicare, or sophomores in a college fraternity.

Property owners who are afraid of who the neighbors might be should not have neighbors, so take a stand and buy your neighbors property, or move over the next hill.

Live and let live I say.

So why doesn't someone out there with some money just buy that land and build a few uppity homes on it and we don't have to go through this all over again?

Bob , the old in my name is not a joke. Would you like to rethink and refine your last submission as a favor to yourself ? You have my permission .

I need your permission? I guess my point is made.
Anyway, what you gonna do, come and gum my head off? ;)

So why doesn't someone out there with some money just buy that land and build a few uppity homes on it and we don't have to go through this all over again?

How many folks would want to live in an 'uppity' home there? It isn't exaclty choice real estate, sandwhiched between the loop, an abandoned theater, a furniture store and an average neighborhood with dead end streets.

I had planned to walk away from this deciding the "kid" would learn in time , but after some phone calls to the office and my house I have been asked to dump . God almighty is this what Theo feels? ! Here we go .

Bob , I have given you ample opportunity to explain your sense that when you buy a home , one should reasonably expect that the city would not dump an apartment complex next to you.

Your attitude is that one should "man-up" and take the hit without a blink or flinch. This is an attitude that is taken by one who has not put much into the system . I however have paid forty seven years to the governments FICA and I DO feel entitled to my social security and medicare because I bought and PAID for the DAMNED things ! And YES it IS precious to me !

After giving you a chance at rethinking your previous statements it reminded me of this morning when I poured a fresh cup of coffee and went to sit on my patio, relaxed in my chair , gazed at my nice lawn and knew sure as hell a feral cat turd would end up in my yard . You ,young sir ,are that turd .

Some of us old farts , Bob , went to work while the wife stayed home and kept our house nice and neat . She also kept our clothes clean and our bodies fed . More so she put up with the kids and a sometimes grumpy husband . Were I to DIE ,Bob , is it you're intention to take that Social Security Income from my bride of many years ? Should she too accept what you feel is the "Right" of governance ?

You piss and moan that something should be done NOW while giving NO reasonable reasons why. You make STUPID comparisons of Highland Park to North Midland .I take the time to say I agree that there is a need for apartment complexes but you cry Now Now Now!

Your attitude is ungracious at best . Your mother and father would be proud of their little commie boy! Because that apparently is what you come off as !

I have NO idea where you came up with second year students feeling entitled...Not that I'm interested. Nor your assumption I have no teeth.

You sir ,are a renter . If you had just said so we could understand. If you OWNED property your thinking would have been much different..but NO! You embrace picking on my generation as feeling entitled ? Damn right kiddo . We're through with you...BAH !

Grow up old otto, you're begining to sound like you did last November, the mask slips off.

Mush of what I assumed aobut you you prove to be true by your very words, save the dentures, but most everything you assume about me is wrong. You call me a renter, as if it is a swear word. I guess I've been mean mouthed. I don't consider renters a differnet class of people. Now old coots who call me a "kid" and "turd", perhaps they are. You call each other about the regarding the comments on JW? What a life.
I agree that you and the wife are entitled to every cent you put into the system, but not a dime more. Once the money you put in is used up, if it isn't already, you're living on my dime, and my childrens. Who's the ungracious commie? you ought to send me a thank you note.

I would rather their be no zoning, period. I think Houston has it right. Things work themselves out.

Nat, we are going to need a lot more pudding.

As someone that was actually at the meeting this is what went down. The vote was tied due to concerns about traffic, this complex will have one entrance that leads to a one way service road, very near a off ramp for Loop 250. By the way, the P&Z would NOT approve the plan if it has only one entrance, so they made an emergency exit onto Faulkner a second entrance, which all council members would NOT approve of. Most apartment complexes are "self-contained" with feeder 2 way streets, the problem here is there are no streets, its on the backlot of a retail zoned property next to a drainage basin. There was also a concern that this development violates the unit density ordinance of 14 units per acre, this one had 2 figures, 19.6 for actual acres and 16 using the Whitman easement land (which they don't own) and the road leading to the development. The council did the developer a favor by deferring it so that it can be brought back in August instead of waiting the usual 6 - 12 month waiting period.
The area in question already has 3 apartment complexes with inadequate parking and a hotel, so it's really not a NIMBY, its we already have enough in the area.

It is amazing how that with all the city planning and tinkering by the commission and council, we still have some terribly designed entrances to developments, retail and residential. And they only get worse.

Exhibits
1. Midland Dr. and Loop 250.
2. Wadley and Loop 250.
3. Rankin Hwy & I-20.

These are all recent area of development, and none of them work well.

And much of it comes down to the fact that the city has a comprehensive plan, but when it come time to implement, by way way of private development in line with the plan, they bend and sway, losing the big picture to satisfy individuals or issue groups. And the side effects of this are things like neighborhood streets that become thoroughfares and higher capacity streets that dead end or zig when they ought to zag.