|
John Meiners
Michael Davis
| |
02/20/06 Is it more
important than other struggling Dallas neighborhoods?
Right off the top, I say the problems in the Vickery
Meadow area are primarily the result of over-crowded apartment complexes,
enormous apartment complexes built for swinging singles but are now
occupied by low-income families.
|
The plans on the table for Vickery Meadows are more of the same, only more
expensive with the intent to make the area too pricey for low-income families or
even middle-income families. If the developers have their way, Vickery
Meadows will eventually look like Oak Lawn and Uptown. Big buildings with high
rents. Very dense population. |
|
|
02/21/06 Stan
Aten:
The real source of problems with apartments in Dallas is HUD
and the federal govt. They changed the law in the 1980's that
prevented apartment buildings from discriminating against people with
children. Once the law was changed, apartment owners had to rent to
families even if their apartments had no facilities for children. You
see the overcrowding in East Dallas, Oak Lawn, Vickery Meadows and Oak
Cliff.
The solution in many cases
is to level existing apartments and rebuild with less density and plan
for recreational facilities and open space. Developers should be
required to fund these amenities as part of the zoning approval
process. Higher density without green space, parks and recreational
facilities can only lead to higher crime. |
|
| |
|
The Vickery Meadow PID was originally intended to be a tool to make the area safer and more
livable for current residents and businesses. The PID is now a tool
for gentrification. I'm no longer sure that's a bad thing. |
|
|
02/21/06 Chip
Northrup:
Vickery Meadows is what happens when
you overload apartments and cheap condos anywhere in the City. To
increase single-family owner-occupied
housing, you must
have middle class families with school age kids. To have those in Dallas
- en masse, you must
give them vouchers, or they won't return,
stay or come. |
|
Here's an exchange between me and a DallasArena.com reader who lived in Vickery
Meadows:
|
|
Chris Gay:
I am an avid reader of your site, and generally agree with the
sentiments posted; however, the following from your 2/17/06 article is
highly disputable:
"More
multi-family is the last thing Dallas needs. Lake Highlands and Vickery
Meadow are the direct end result of allowing a concentration of
multi-family. "
I lived in Vickery Meadows on
Park Lane and Pineland for over 3 years with my wife, and another 2
years in Lake Highlands. I worked with local
churches, helped with new immigrants, ran in the "parks", sued my
landlord, was a crime victim, and heard more than my fair share of
gunshots and SWAT manhunts. The rent was cheap, though!
The area has a wonderful mix of
cultures and personalities from Africa, Asia, Middle
East, Mexico, South America and Eastern Europe. It is easily
the most diverse area of Dallas.
The problem with Vickery Meadows
and Lake Highlands is a far more complex issue than a concentration of
multi-family zoning. Allow me to focus on
Vickery Meadows.
Zoning did not create the
problems of Vickery Meadows. The area generally suffers from absence of
original city planning, ZERO support from its
councilman Mitchell Rasansky (trust me, I tried to get him involved),
inadequate policing, lack of recreation space, and poor/non-existent
code enforcement.
If you want to improve Vickery
Meadows, it is achievable with a little tenacity! The area has 5
excellent assets in its favor: valuable real
estate location, the ethnic diversity is invigorating, it is full of
families and children, Presbyterian Hospital, and it is malleable (still
possible to make relatively inexpensive changes). My specific
suggestions are:
1) First, get a councilperson who cares about the people and the
neighborhood. Rasansky has steadfastly ignored Vickery
Meadows. The area could easily outvote his core N. Dallas
constituency, but most Vickery Meadows residents simply do not
vote. As a result, Rasansky does not seem to care. When we
tried to get him to investigate code
enforcement problems, he cut the conversation short. When we tried to
get him to investigate bringing a Salvation Army recreation center (ala
San Diego) to the intersection of Park Lane
and Abrams at no cost to the city, he wasn't interested in talking.
Rasansky has represented the city well on other issues, but he has
consistently failed to represent his constituents in Vickery
Meadows. In contrast, Mayor Miller took the time to actually visit our
neighborhood and meet some of the residents.
2) Second, increase the policing presence and make some of the
patrolling officers a walking patrol. Police
presence has improved some of late, but it is
still inadequate relative to the
population density. The good news is that patrolling this area does not
require as many patrol vehicles: pedestrian or horse-riding officers can
do the job well.
3) Third, rigorously enforce building codes.
Many of buildings have blatant violations.
Make private property owners do their part. If they fail to follow the
ordinances or pay their taxes, get the City Attorney to prosecute
aggressively.
4 ) Put in wide sidewalks along every street. Make the area
pedestrian-preferred. Vickery Meadows
residents come from cultures that walk to the grocery store, walk to
school and walk to work. Many streets have narrow or no sidewalks.
Dense population areas need wide sidewalks to
accommodate pedestrian traffic.
Make some streets one-way to make room for
wide paths and public areas.
5) The "parks" are laughable. They are only "parks" because they
are flood plains
where developers can't
build. Whenever it rains, our Vickery Meadow area parks turn into ponds
or soggy mud fields.
Many of the parks are too far away from the families. As a
result, many children are kept indoors or are forced to play
pick-up games in asphalt parking lots. A lack of playing space
for the children is a CHRONIC problem. To address this, I suggest
* Have the city buy the "Golf Center" on Abrams and Park Lane. It is
adjacent to existing city park lands. Make it
a real park with soccer fields, outdoor rec equipment and
playgrounds. It will be full of
people as soon as you build it.
* Buy one of the properties on East Ridgecrest (on the hill near the
elementary school) and turn it into a small park with areas for children
to play soccer, etc. It does not need to be a full-size soccer field
and can also provide recreation space for the unduly cramped elementary
school.
6) There are far too many stoplights on Park Lane from Ridgecrest to
I-75. Find a way to improve traffic flow.
7) Find a way to get a real grocery store built inside the
neighborhood. Alternatively, turn the north side of
the Sam's parking lot into an
open-outcry market where women/men can sell/resell produce, beans,
pastries, crafts, etc just as they did in their home
countries. Done well, it could easily perform better than the
Dallas Farmers' Market because of its location.
8) Get rid of the Vickery Meadow Public Improvement District (VMPID).
It is useless and merely seems to absorb property tax monies with
little accountability.
9) For future renovations/developments in the neighborhood, require
trees, mixed-use development (we need more commercial and office
space), and integration with public transportation and public
parks. Work with developers that understand
dense-urban development.
Two schools are being built in
the Vickery Meadows neighborhood, which is a step in the right
direction. Several churches have started working with the local
community, which is also encouraging. If the city implements the above
9 suggestions, I assure you the neighborhood will drastically improve:
crime will drop, public recreation will increase, absentee landlords
will eventually lessen and new development
will begin to occur (they can't resist the
potential of the location). Done well, the area could be one of the
more valuable and livable areas in Dallas within 20 years. |
|
|
Sharon Boyd:
I disagree with
almost all of your points.
Zoning is what allows/disallows
multi-family and how much.
All the items you list as needs
for VM are the same items every Dallas
neighborhood needs. West Dallas and many NW Dallas neighborhoods have
no sidewalks or curbs,much less wide walks.
Many of our streets have ditches next to the
pavement, rather than
shoulders and covered gutters. Our people walk, too.
Sorry if I disappoint you, but
families do not belong in apartment units or in the kind of density that
is VM.
1)When
we were re-districting, no council member wanted Vickery Meadow in their
district. Rasansky didn't need the area
because his district was already well populated. Alan Walne (Lake
Highlands) and Mary Poss (East Dallas/Lakewood) refused to
accept VM as part of their district. If
you want to blame anyone, blame Mad Max Aaronson and the late Joe May
for sticking VM with North Dallas.
If Mitch seems
disinterested, it's because nothing has or will work in VM until
a large number of apartment complexes are
replaced.
If the impact of a Salvation Army
facility in VM is half as bad as the problems
we get from their Harry Hines facilities, it
would be awful.
2) As for policing, VM already is taxing
our limited police personnel. There are not
enough people applying for DPD positions to
keep up w/attrition, much less to get the DPD
up to the manpower all Dallas neighborhoods
need. Many who do apply have problematic
histories that make them unqualified to be DPD.
95% of our crime happens in
or originates from the apartments around
our single-family
neighborhoods.
3) Code Enforcement is limited legally, particularly when
units are condos. For some apartment and condo
landlords, it's cheaper to pay the fines than fix the property.
Since the Appraisal District values commercial property more on the
structure than the land or nearby sales (unlike our homes), keeping
their buildings in disrepair lets them rent low because DCAD's system
keeps their property taxes low.
4) Tell the Bachman community or West Dallas that Vickery Meadows
needs wider sidewalks, when narrow sidewalks are all we have, if they
exist at all. Many of our streets have no pedestrian
accommodations at all.
5) Two of our recreation centers in NW Dallas are primarily for
seniors or the disabled. Our parks are also near creeks or
inaccessible by foot.
Lack of playing area for children is exactly why they should not be
in apartments. Taking more land off the tax roles to make parks we
can't afford to maintain or police or supervise is the last thing needed
for Abrams and Park Lane. FIX UP the existing city park lands and
show they can be KEPT UP before asking for more.
6) Stoplights keep speeding to a minimum in an area of too many
children.
7) Tell the people of Arcadia Park about the need for grocery
stores, when they have to go to Grand Prairie. Taking private
property to set up an open market is un-America. The issue is the
people are not in their home countries -- by choice. We have
health and food distribution laws.
8) I concur with dismantling the PID. It's become a vehicle
for developers to buy off politicians in other districts.
9) Dallas has a tree ordinance, pitiful though it is. There
is state legislation prohibiting cities from requiring amenities and
infrastructure from developers.
Our biggest disagreement is that we need "dense-urban development".
We need single-family neighborhoods. We need density restrictions
in a square mile radius. Before a multi-family project can be
built or re-built in an already over-populated area, a certain
percentage of land must be accumulated for a new single-family
neighborhood of 50 homes or more. |
|
| |
| |
The model Salvation
Army facility I mentioned is a
glamorous, large, family rec facility. The
model is in San Deigo -- and it is a crown
jewel in the middle of downtown, credited with helping to turn around a
blighted neighborhood. It is
completely unlike what you are familiar with on
Harry Hines. Mrs. Ray Croc (McDonald's) funded the San Diego
facility, and left the SA a billion (?) dollar gift to build
identical facilities in other metropolitan
areas (with an SA fundraising matching clause).
Dallas could have one if the
community lobbied a little bit. Think of an enormous YMCA with
racquetball courts, climbing walls, 50 meter pool, etc.
As for the "families do not belong in apartment units or in
the kind of density that is VM" comment, I must disagree fervently.
Your comment flies in the face of established
cultures and precedents in the urban cities of
the US (NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco), Europe (where I
grew up), US military communities (we are often housed in
apartment buildings), and large parts of the
rest of the world.
VM is less dense than many
successful urban areas in the US, it's just that it was
done without any real planning and we're suffering the results.
We can't fight the urbanization
too much. While I agree Lake Highlands and VM
could benefit from better mixed-use zoning, rising property
values will inevitably result in more demand
for multi-family zoning. As land values rise, population pressures will
always increase and dense urban development is the natural economic
result. Interior Dallas neighborhoods will become more "urban" and more
densely populated as the decades
progress. In 100 years, Dallas will look more like Boston than its
current amalgamation of suburbs.
VM is exceptionally poorly
"designed", but it can be addressed. The
level of apathy for city government is no excuse for its current
status.
I agree most of Dallas shares
many of the same problems -- but that is an entirely different
discussion.
I agree our
police force is far too small and under
funded -- again, another discussion. |
|
|
Free or with matching grants,
the city can't afford the gift. Our current rec centers are
under-staffed and under-funded.
If apartment properties were
taxed on the land, the owners would sell at
more reasonable prices. A particular apartment
property I've heard about is taxed
at $70,000, but the owner is marketing it for
$2 million (will likely get it
because it's near a planned DART station).
Housing next to a DART station
should be multi-family, but we can limit density.
We can impose a density limit on
an area. We can prohibit new multi-family in an area that has
reached a certain density. We can prohibit
replacement of one-bedroom units,and require new or rebuilt apartment complexes to limit
their 1-BR's to 20%. They can replace their property,
but the limit on 1-BR's will reduce density and the number of
families in an area.
How can land in Dallas with our
undesirable schools be more valuable than land in the suburbs with their
incredible growth? Plano protects their single-family neighborhoods,
and it's busting at the seams.
Dallas is a Texas city. You
cannot compare it to cities up North or in California
or in Europe. I've
been to Detroit, San Francisco, NYC, Chicago and Boston. They are
not what I want for Dallas.
Those cities were developed
around mass transit, but they still have transportation problems. Dallas
must force mass into already-developed areas.
Just because other cities are overwhelmed with density and high
cost of living, does not mean Dallas should follow suit.
What has worked elsewhere has not been successful here.
It's the same mindset as plopping down those String Thing Bridges across
the Trinity. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I
agree ownership is a key factor to most issues involving
responsibility. Therefore, one would hope future MF communities
are developed around ownership, rather than rental use.
In terms of the zoning history of
VM, I absolutely agree the forced zoning change from "adult-only"
created undue burden on an unprepared infrastructure. In retrospect,
it was an example of good intentions overrun
by very poor zoning. The other problem was that the
mistake was intensified by the monolithic nature of the zoning:
adult MF for several square miles.
While single-family homes can be
pleasant to live in, there is no way
that the area of VM will be converted to
single-family since the property location is so valuable.
Property values will continue to
rise as driven by population density, increasing consumer wealth
and longer suburban commute times. With the
rising values, will come developers
who need to maximize their investment through
dense development, as well as young professionals and families that want
a small and affordable home. Indeed, I know of several young, "hip"
professionals that have purchased condos on Ridgecrest and are
renovating them as their personal residences
(a very good sign!).
Rather than fight developers who
show interest in VM, we should shape their efforts as part of a larger
plan to bring some parks, zoning diversity,
personal ownership, etc, to the neighborhood.
With that said, we should NOT
give out tax credits or government incentives -- there is plenty of
financial upside for any shrewd developer.
Thanks for the stimulating
conversation! |
|
|
Home-ownership is very different from
condo-ownership. I've done both. It's the same difference in
having a renter occupy the house next door vs. having a fellow
homeowner/stake holder living next to you.
Before "no children" complexes were declared discriminatory, most
Dallas schools were a part of a neighborhood with a support base.
Once the apartment owners were forced to accept families with children
in units designed for single or couple occupancy, the DISD became
overwhelmed with students. It wasn't (and still isn't) just the
number of kids we have to educate, it's that they come from homes with
little or no support for education.
My neighborhood has many immigrant families who own their homes and
have their children in DISD schools. Those parents attend
parent-teacher meetings. Their children are not part of gangs.
Children who are forced to live in apartment complexes are prey to
all sorts of societal ills.
Bryan Place in East Dallas defies the notion that new single-family
introduced in an area is not financially feasible.
Dallas cannot survive if we are a city of ultra-rich and ultra-poor
single-family neighborhoods, with everyone else living in apartment or
condo buildings. The city may exist, but it will not be Dallas and
it will not be a place where people will want to raise their children.
I won't be around in 100 years. I want the city to be livable now. |
|
That's really what we have to
decide. Do we want to throw up our hands and say Dallas is doomed to be no
better than the old cities up North? Can't we learn from
their mistakes, rather than just follow their bad examples?
 |
Letters to the Editor;
Letters for Saturday
Saturday, February 18, 2006
This plan isn't on
track |
Re:
"Council delays action on development plan," Thursday Metro.
What surprises me is that some Dallas
City Council members think the plan is on the right track.
After you get past the pretty
marketing statement, the draft plan contains blank spaces for later inserts,
inconsistencies and typographical errors. And the details do not always
support the marketing statement.
The vision appears to provide for
even less southern-sector development than the current trend. Dallas voters
have to live with this plan for 20 to 30 years; it's critical our City
Council gets it right.
Michael Northrup, Dallas |
Can't believe I'm siding with Mike Northrup or Councilwoman Angela Hunt about
the Comprehensive Plan, but they are both right that it's too heavy on
multi-family. Councilman Steve Salazar
is right to standup for the modest single-family neighborhoods of West Dallas
and Arcadia Park and Northwest Dallas in his District 6. Those of us who have lived
in Dallas for more than 30 years remember the vibrant single-family neighborhood of
Little Mexico. Our Downtown Betters thought those families and their homes
were dispensable when they plopped the North Dallas Tollway right through Little
Mexico. Think what a wonderful oasis it would be today -- existing between
the mid-rise apartment buildings of Oak Lawn and Uptown.
One of the most expensive neighborhoods in Oak Lawn is the single-family
neighborhood of Perry Heights (East of the ND Tollroad and between Cedar Springs
and Lemon Ave). Rather than allow block after block to fall to giant
mid-rise buildings, we should limit the total density of an area. If
someone wants to build another 100-unit building, they must buy some old
complex in the same area and have it rezoned and deed restricted to
single-family residential or donate it for open green space.
Chris has a point about Vickery Meadows, the residents don't vote. It's
not just because some of them aren't citizens. It's typical of renters.
They don't vote! Sometimes, you can get them to vote in a presidential
election, but council races, school board races -- forget it! In the first
place, many renters are transient, moving frequently. Because they don't
stay in one place, they don't get political literature that goes to frequent
voters. You may think that's a blessing, but it's about the only way a
candidate can get their message to the voters -- particularly in a multi-family
area. Uninformed voters are why we have so many incompetent incumbents in
public office.
Single-family neighborhoods are where the votes are. Homeowners know they
are being overtaxed and underserved. Tenants may notice an increase in
their rent, but they don't know the direct correlation to a decision made at
City Hall or the School Board. Homeowners live next to schools, and know
the immediate impact of bad decisions made by the School Board. They watch
their property values decline because the school is cramming portables all over
the school ground.
Unless we want a stratified city of poor families and more affluent empty
nesters and singles, we better start limiting density.
A friend of mine who considers
himself a Libertarian says we should limit the amount of ground a building can
cover on a property. I like zero-lot line houses with interior courtyards,
but he's probably right. We are a prairie town, next to a stinky river.
If we pave over and cover all of our arable land, we will flood every time it
rains -- if it ever does again.
Dallas is much bigger geographically than Boston or San Francisco. If we
stuff as many people pro rata into our city limits as are in those very
un-Dallas cities, it would be unbearable for all of us.
Finally, I want to unequivocally state that Vickery Meadows is no more important
than any other struggling community in this city. You don't fix a problem
by compounding the error. The problem in Vickery Meadows is too many
people living in an area that was not designed or developed for that much
density.
To use a very Texas phrase, it's time to head 'em up and move 'em out.
These are human beings -- not rabbits.
Human families should not be living in rabbit warrens like the apartments in
Vickery Meadows. We need to prohibit more than two people from living in a
one-bedroom apartment or condo unit and make it a criminal offense for an
apartment owner or condo to allow more than two people to inhabit a one-bedroom
unit.
Let's just once do the right thing, rather than follow like sheep down the wrong
paths that other cities have taken.
sb
| |
|
