B and B

Express-News exposes developer tricks to evade tree preservation law

From front page of the Sunday Express-News:

When the City Council approved San Antonio’s first tree-preservation ordinance in 1997, there was no question the rules applied to real estate developers.

But what happens when a property owner claims he’s not a developer, and hundreds of acres of trees are bulldozed on his land as part of a ranching operation?

In the case of Hugo Gutierrez Jr., the answer is: nothing. The tree ordinance didn’t apply to him — and it might not apply to developers who try the same thing.

The case highlights a potential loophole in the preservation standards that can be used by other real estate developers, many of whom criticize the city’s rules as excessive and expensive.

Environmentalists complain San Antonio’s tree canopy is rapidly disappearing. They said Gutierrez’s case illustrates a way around the city tree ordinance, which requires developers to save trees and pay mitigation costs.

As if the state legislature hasn't hobbled local communities enough with the vast loopholes that fit under "vested rights."  Read on for the gory details, and plenty of them.

The response today, from Mayor Phil Hardberger:

"My suggestion of what we'll do, and I intend to talk to our City Council about it, is that we create, by ordinance, a provision that when an agricultural property is cleared of trees, and then sold to a developer, then that becomes a taxable event. So that you have to pay the mitigation damages. Because it's no longer being used for agricultural land."

Hardberger acknowledged his proposal will be challenged in court by the real estate community.

"It's certainly possible it will be challenged," the mayor said. "I would anticipate it would be challenged because it's a pretty sweet deal now."

Hardberger said he will also ask Bexar County legislators to write a bill that would amend Texas law to help the city's cause.

"I doubt when the Legislature was trying to protect agricultural land, I doubt if they envisioned that (ranchers will) clear all the trees and sell it to a developer. That probably was not envisioned. I think there will be legislators who will be willing to close that loophole."

Hardberger said he will also direct lobbyists who represent the city to support such legislation.

"One thing I'm not going to do is just to sit here for the last year of office and watch trees be cleared on a grand scale and feel like there's nothing we can do but wring our hands," Hardberger said. "I'm not going to do that. I'm going to take action."

Will the Legislature block any attempts to rein in the bad practices of real estate developers yet again?

Developers' land-trashing behavior near San Antonio now threatens U.S. Army's Camp Bullis

The rate of land-trashing by real estate developers in northwest Bexar County has reached the stage where it threatens the continued existence of an amy training ground, Camp Bullis.  This threat has compelled both the City of San Antonio and the U.S. Army to act, which, finally, has brought some attention to the issue -- though, alas, not in a general sense.  Plenty of formerly beautiful Hill Country terrain and wildlife habitat has been scraped and blasted into nothingness in recent years without raising much alarm from anyone but those of us in the immediate area.

From the San Antonio Express-News over the weekend:

A federal judge Friday ordered a San Antonio-area developer to cease road-clearing operations for a new subdivision adjacent to Camp Bullis, giving wildlife experts time to evaluate the project's impact on golden-cheeked warbler habitat.

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted a temporary restraining order against INTCO-Dominion Partnership and set a hearing for 10 a.m. Wednesday on an environmental group's request for a permanent injunction that would halt development next to the range.

The lawsuit, filed Friday by Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas, contends that INTCO is destroying dense trees and brush that are home to the endangered migratory bird that nests each spring and summer in the Hill Country. Destroying warbler habitat is a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

“This is an early victory. It's not the end,” Aquifer Guardians President Enrique Valdivia said. “But if we didn't get the restraining order, the bulldozers might work through the weekend and there wouldn't be anything left to litigate over.”

INTCO has been clearing trees and brush on the 340-acre site near Bullis as it prepares to build a road for a high-end subdivision. The company's Austin-based attorney, Allen Glen, said it was “a safe assumption” his client would follow the order and suspend work.

...

Critics of INTCO say the project, and others like it, are driving the warbler onto Camp Bullis, and that if the trend isn't stopped the Army will be unable to train on the 27,994-acre range. As growth has exploded in the area, the warbler population on Bullis has nearly doubled from 672 in 2001 to 1,086 in 2007.

Fort Sam and top city and county leaders say any reduction of training area raises the risk of the Army moving 37,250 military and civilian workers to be on the post by 2011.

“The issue is bigger, of course, than the fate of the warbler. It's concern about development around Camp Bullis and, of course, the impact on the aquifer recharge zone,” Aquifer Guardians' Valdivia said.

Federal law and Defense Department policy forbid the Army from taking legal action, forcing it to rely on groups such as the Aquifer Guardians and the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, which had considered seeking the restraining order.

...

Post spokesman Phil Reidinger said court action is the only way to stop work on the site while biologists take a closer look, and added that Fort Sam “cannot shoulder the conservation burden alone” — a view shared by its advocates.

“The really big problem with this is Camp Bullis is really the only one in the area that is observing the law,” Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance Executive Director Annalisa Peace said. “If everybody was observing the law, it probably wouldn't be a problem for Camp Bullis.”

Hill Country Planning Association, aka "Hill Country Militia," rises up against developers' land-trashing

For a little story on the animosity that real estate developers are engendering in our neck of the woods due to the way they manage to transform bucolic hill country vistas into moonscapes of destruction, see this recent article in the San Antonio Current by Greg Harmon of harmon on earth (emphasis added):

[In early 2007] Reports that the San Antonio Water System was seeking to expand its authority across the city’s entire 5-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, and that a new high-density development straddling Medina and Bandera counties was seeking SAWS sewer and water service, had rattled a broader geography of turf warriors. Many of them were already members of the non-profit Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, whose mission is specifically focused on protecting the Edwards Aquifer.

In a galleon of a ranch house outside Helotes modeled on Yellowstone National Park’s guest quarters, they debated just what they could do to stop the quickening pace of sprawling development. While SAWS officials argued that extending their pipes would better protect area water supplies by limiting the creation of smaller, less-professional water-company operations or, worse, the explosion of septic-tank communities, the consensus in the meeting was that the lines would only ensure the continued rush of concrete, sheet rock, and tarpaper.

The mix of political persuasions was bridged by a collective, dawning environmental consciousness, perhaps best illustrated by the retired neurosurgeon from Quihi, busy battling plans for a quarry in his hamlet.

“I never considered myself an environmentalist. I really didn’t,” said Robert Fitzgerald. “But once you start looking at what people are doing down there, if you have any feeling at all, you become an environmentalist.”

A member of the Edwards Aquifer Authority publicly confessed the agency hadn’t been willing to act on many issues out of fear. “It’s fear of what the legislature will do. Really, it’s fear of what the developers will get the lege to do to us,” he said. “Some think it’s time we called their bluff.”

Then Bebe [Fenstermaker] shot off from the front of the room. “We’re losing Texas. I don’t know if you know that,” she said. “I can’t stand to drive anywhere anymore … We look like New Jersey.”

A woman at the opposite end of the stone and timber expanse shook her jaw. “New Jersey looks better.”

Some attendees compared the motivation behind the night’s meeting to the survival ethic of the early Texians. “We’re kind of like the pioneers 200 years ago,” said one. “When there was a fight, they all left their homes and came together.”

No surprise that in such a charged environment when prospective names for the group were floated the combativeness of the moment seeped out. “How about militia?” offered one. “Hill Country Militia?”

It took time, but eventually the more mundane Hill County Planning Association was adopted.

Early versions of the group’s Master Plan struck one prominent participant as a rewrite of the Communist Manifesto, though it read more like an early American Revolutionary screed. A trace of those rhetorical flourishes remains, particularly the opening “We the People.”

After lengthy defining of place and purpose, the group’s Master Plan comes to a solitary demand: “An immediate moratorium is called on all development in The Hill Country to assure compliance with all local, State, and Federal laws and until a comprehensive cumulative environmental impact study is completed.”

...

Group members were still working out the final language of the Master Plan when developers at Sonoma Verde were blasting and excavating their way to the perfect limestone tabula rasa, a blank slate devoid of any living thing, atop that cherished Edwards recharge zone.

...

Today the [Fenstermaker] sisters watch as Post Oak Development blasts a hill flat on the backside of Crownridge Canyon Natural Area off Kyle Seal Parkway. It’s like nothing they’ve ever seen before.

“This is like West Virginia coal mining,” Mary Fenstermaker says.

“We’ve seen land raped, but we’ve never seen that,” Bebe says. “I’ve never seen Texas treated like that.”

For much more, read the entire article.

Whooping cranes' habitat threatened by development pressure

I was distressed to read this morning that housing development is threatening to eat into the small area of remaining habitat for the majestic, endangered Whooping Crane on the Texas gulf coast. 

From the San Antonio Express-News:

An Austin developer who insists he is doing everything possible to protect the species wants to be the first to build a subdivision in an area deemed critical habitat for the sole remaining wild flock.

The dispute centers on 100 acres of the roughly 35-mile-long swath of Texas coastline named critical habitat for the species' survival by the federal government in the 1970s. The development, if allowed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is being touted as a potential precedent setter by both sides and has caught the eye of national environmental organizations.

Those who are adamantly against the project worry that it could open the floodgates for development in the environmentally sensitive habitat. They are pressuring the corps to order a full-scale environmental impact statement on the project.

...

[Developer Bill] Ball is a managing partner of Seadrift Ranch Partners. The corporation bought the roughly 6,000-acre ranch near Seadrift last year. Current plans call for developing a 700-acre residential and marina subdivision on the San Antonio Bay. Roughly 100 acres of the property on the southern end of the development are in critical habitat.

...

[Tom] Stehn [of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] said it's too early to cast judgment on Ball's proposal, but he said he is worried about the overall impact of coastal development on the whooping crane.

"I'm afraid that development will rob the species of the opportunity to grow," he said. "This is just one. There will be others. We all knew (development) was coming, but it's just exploded."

As Stehn points out, this is just the beginning.  If we are not careful, before we know it, we could lose a major chunk of habitat.  If that happens, we could well lose the Whooping Crane once and for all.

For more on this impressive bird, see my December 2005 post, Whoopers put on a show.

Cluelessness in the quest for a San Antonio city council seat

In a few days, there will be a runoff election for the open city council seat in northwest San Antonio.  The candidates are Diane Cibrian and Morris Stribling.  Living just a short distance outside of this district, I have been following this election sporadically. 

In general, I have been unimpressed with Cibrian, whose entire campaign until recently has been built around the endless repetition of the phrase "Leadership for Tax Relief."  My general impression of Stribling is vague, but he appears to be the "establishment" candidate, at least in as much as he was endorsed by the local paper, out of the original half dozen or so candidates who were in the race prior to the runoff.  But I don't really know much about either candidate, and so have not formed a clear enough opinion to write much on this race.

Dig Deeper Texas has fortunately been following it.  Today, they post a campaign flyer of Cibrian's that has finally pushed me over the edge.  I'm not sure yet about Stribling, but Cibrian appears to be worthless as a prospective city council member. 

This flyer blames "high-density apartments" for traffic congestion.  In reality, such aparments are relatively scarce in these parts.  Instead, traffic congestion is without a doubt caused by the classic single-family-house-subdivision-and-stripmall development that is growing like a cancer in this part of Bexar County.  Development where everyone is forced to drive, even for short trips, and development that forces all of this traffic onto common collector roads.  (The excellent book, Suburban Nation, is just one place where this consequence of modern sprawl is explained.)  This same story has been told for years in countless places all over the country, yet Cibrian is either clueless or trying to deceive voters.

Either way, it is clear that our city would not miss out if she failed in her effort to join the city council for the next two years.

As for the merits of Stribling, we shall see.

Developer-supported candidates take over Helotes

So much for my hope that Helotes would turn back the forces of uncontrolled development -- the forces that were the primary contributor to the infamous mulch fire that caused so much distress to that small town so recently.

A contentious, often bitter campaign came to an end Saturday night when all three incumbents up for election — the mayor and two council members — lost to their challengers.

The incumbents, who ran on a pro-preservation slate with the motto "Take Back Helotes," will vacate their seats next week. The challengers, who ran as an unofficial slate that came to be known as the "red party" because of the color of their campaign signs, promised a plan for smart growth and development. They will take their seats after the votes are canvassed May 17.

Tom Schoolcraft beat Jon Allan for mayor, Jeff Ellis defeated Linda Boyer-Owens for City Council Place 3 and Rich Whitehead took the Place 5 council seat from Stuart Birnbaum.

Schoolcraft defeated Allan by 21 votes. Ellis won by 53, and Whitehead took his seat with a 76-vote margin.

Allan said he was surprised and disappointed and the results just "blew him away."

"What do you say? For me, it is really difficult because I worked so hard for this city, and I don't think anybody could have worked so hard and done so much for the city as Linda, Stuart and I did," he said.

"We are pleased with the results, and that's about it," Schoolcraft said Saturday night. "We have a lot of happy constituents out here, and we are having fun celebrating. We are going to get to work as soon as we are given the oath."

Sparks flying in Helotes in advance of council elections

Emotions appear to be running high in the final days of the Helotes city council campaign.  As I wrote about a few days ago, these elections pit three one-term, sensible-growth, incumbents, against developer-funded opponents, who appear to be aiming to take back the small town in the name of sprawl -- sprawl that is engulfing much of the Hill Country on the outskirts of San Antonio.

Another sign dispute has erupted, as reported by the Express-News yesterday:

Two informational neighborhood signs at the Cedar Springs subdivision have been at the center of several past disputes and recently sparked another controversy.

Around April 27, the signs just inside the subdivision's entrance and exit gates displayed messages that city officials said are in violation of a city ordinance and also could jeopardize the nonprofit status of the Cedar Springs Homeowners Association.

One read: "Green party respect CS private property ask B4 placing your election signs." The other said: "Helotes taxes going up 24 percent do U care."

The term "green party" refers to the color of the signs for City Council incumbents — Mayor Jon Allan, Place 3 Councilwoman Linda Boyer-Owens and Place 5 Councilman Stuart Birnbaum, who are seeking re-election May 12.

Allan said the statement about the tax increase is inaccurate and appears to be in reference to information from campaign literature of the challengers: Tom Schoolcraft is running for mayor; Jeff Ellis for Place 3; and Rich Whitehead for Place 5.

A city ordinance that governs signs like those in the 501-home Cedar Springs subdivision says the purpose of "residential subdivision changeable copy signs for gated communities" is to "provide non-commercial and non-political information related to the residential subdivision."

"Regardless of the specifics of what the signs say, they can't have any political information of any kind on them," Allan said.

But the HOA board members, who said they were responsible for posting the copy, disagree.

"We do not see the information as political, but rather as fact and for the information of the community," said Mike Taylor, board treasurer.

Board president Lorraine Shattuck agreed but would not comment further. Allan said he called Shattuck twice and left messages to try to resolve the issue, but his calls were not returned.

The evidence for the heated emotions comes in an anecdote related later in this article:

A Helotes Police Department report about the April 28 event at the corner of Cedar Point and Hausman Road indicates that Helotes residents John Eakin and Linda Montemayor were involved.

According to the report, Eakin was campaigning for the incumbents when Montemayor was driving into the neighborhood and an exchange occurred.

"I was trying to go into the neighborhood and John was walking toward me with fliers. ... I shook my head and he kept coming and I told him that 'I would not vote for y'all if my life depended on it,'" Montemayor said. "He then told me 'We don't want your white trash votes anyway,' and I called the police."

Eakin admits that he was there and was asked to leave by Apodaca [vice president of the homeowners association], but he denies making the comment to Montemayor.

"The police did come and make me sign a document about trespassing, and I did speak with Linda, but I did not saying anything like that to her. She was screaming obscenities," he said.

This particular homeowners association may be advertising political slogans attacking the sensible-growth incumbent councilmembers, but the homeowners who live there are far from unanimous in this feeling. 

The article quotes resident Bill Hollis, "There is no other way to label these people [the homeowners' association board] except as a rogue board, and with them, anything goes. ...  When you file as a nonprofit organization with the state and become tax-exempt, you can't be political in any way. Those signs are clearly political and we could lose our nonprofit status, but it is not the first time they have violated nonpolitical rules." 

Resident Edie Lopez is quoted also, saying, "Anyone who has knowledge of organizations like this that are nonprofit knows that you don't do certain things, especially political things, and this is not something the entire neighborhood agrees with."

Living a few miles down the road in unincorporated Bexar County, just outside the San Antonio city limits, I have unfortunately no say in this election, or, for that matter, in any of the San Antonio city council elections next week.  So I am envious of the residents of Helotes.  They have an opportunity to stand up (once again) to the immense wealth of the real estate developers pushing for unrestrained development of the land and neighborhoods we love.  My only voice is in the state legislature, which is tightly controlled by these forces, with any glimmer of wresting that control away far off.

I hope that the residents of Helotes make the same decision that they made two years ago, when they voted in Mayor Jon Allan and councilmembers Linda Boyer-Owens and Stuart Hirshbaum, and voted out uncontrolled sprawl.

Here are some words from Allan, Boyer-Owens, and Hirshbaum on their platform, as quoted in the Express-News on April 25:

Allan:  "I see the big issue is how do we deal with development. We have now required developers to build sidewalks and boosted the tree ordinance. It makes sense.

"What I tried to do the last couple of years is protect the open spaces and realistically come up with a plan so that as development comes in, we are setting aside parks and open space, and saving more trees.

"We have implemented a dark sky ordinance to preserve it from light pollution and we are undergoing a big planning process to deal with how we will sustain development."

Boyer-Owens:  "The issues are still much like they were when I ran two years ago. The press of urban sprawl and trying to maintain the Helotes the town we love to live in.

"If reelected, we really want to finish the job we started. We had a lot to clean up in our first two years, and now we need to move forward. We have the new master plan/comprehensive planning process started, and I think it will lay down the consensus of the community about what Helotes wants for the future.

"We want to pursue becoming home rule, that takes a lot of work and lots of citizen input and I want to see an effort to cultivate and recruit the type of businesses and services that Helotians want. The claims of depleting the reserve fund aren´t true."

Hirshbaum:  "Parks and open space is important issue, we can either have rampant development and clear cutting or we can try to protect some portion of this as green space for citizens to use.

"I think we can do this without using tax money and without undue financial burden on the citizens. I don't think the city can really consider itself a proper community without having some park space for its citizens to use.

"Quality of life issues are important, and parks and playgrounds for children are the major concerns that I have and reasons I have decided to run again. I think that the current mayor and council are making great strides in that direction and another two years would help move us along."

Final voting is Saturday, May 12.  Last time, Allan and his two allies won by a literal handful of votes.  The cliche is accurate in this case:  every vote counts. 

Forces promoting uncontrolled development want to take back Helotes

Two years ago, a battle over the development of a Super Wal-Mart divided the small town of Helotes, on the outskirts of San Antonio's sprawling suburbs and a gateway to the Hill Country.  The municipal elections ended up with the anti-Wal-Mart forces, led by mayoral candidate Jon Allan, ekeing out a victory by a handful of votes, ousting three council incumbents who had supported the Wal-Mart development.

Within months, Wal-Mart had given up on their plans in Helotes. 

Now, election season has returned, the Great Helotes Mulch Fire has come and gone, and, while Wal-Mart has left, the forces promoting the continued tearing up and paving over of the countryside have decidedly not. 

The Express-News reported yesterday (via Dig Deeper Texas):

The amount of money contributed this year to municipal election campaigns here is markedly higher than in previous years, due in part to $10,000 in contributions made by an area developer.

On March 19, Alfred "Tom" Rohde gave a total of $10,000 to three candidates who are running against three City Council incumbents. Tom Schoolcraft is challenging Mayor Jon Allan, Jeff Ellis is running against Place 3 Councilwoman Linda Boyer-Owens and Rich Whitehead is seeking to unseat Place 5 Councilman Stuart Birnbaum.

Rohde contributed $4,000 to Schoolcraft's campaign and gave $3,000 each to Ellis and Whitehead. Their most recent contribution reports indicate Schoolcraft received a total of $5,460.28, while Ellis and Whitehead each received a total of $3,355.14.

"I felt it was time for a change," Rohde said when asked about his contributions. He added he won't contribute any more money to the races.

Unlike San Antonio, Helotes does not have ordinances governing the amount of money that can be contributed.

"I have looked at records, (and) numbers like this are unheard of," Allan said. "In past elections, (Helotes) candidates have usually not received more than $1,000, total."

The proponents of uncontrolled development also apparently are not letting city law get in the way of their expressions of support, as the Express-News reported a couple days ago:

A couple of unconventional campaign signs may cause hefty fines for the owners of the property where they are displayed.

The electronic signs, resembling those used to announce traffic hazards, display political advertisements for the candidates challenging three City Council incumbents, including Mayor Jon Allan.

"The signs are in violation of the Section 66-117 of the city's sign ordinance that governs political signs," said City Attorney Habib Erkan. "They are too big, too high and they are lit internally — none of which is allowed for political signs, according to the ordinance."

The signs are causing tension in an already heated election season, officials said.

...

The signs flash advertisements for Tom Schoolcraft, Jeff Ellis and Rich Whitehead. Schoolcraft is challenging Allan, Ellis faces Place 3 Councilwoman Linda Boyer-Owens and Whitehead faces Place 5 Councilman Stuart Birnbaum.

Schoolcraft said he was unaware of any potential violation when the signs went up.

"I understand the city is contacting the landowners, but I have not heard anything or received anything in writing. It is up to the landowners to decide what they will do," he said.

One of the signs is at FM 1560 and Bandera Road on the property of Daryl Zumwalt, and the other is off Bandera Road on a tract owned by REOC Partners Ltd. Representatives for both said they had no comment.

Zumwalt.  That name sounded familiar to me.   Oh, yes, that huge mulch pile--a result of the uncontrolled development in the surrounding area--that made such a big stink so recently was on land owned by a fellow named Henry L. Zumwalt, not far from where that illegal political sign is now.

What further surprises do the Zumwalts and developer Rohde have in store for Helotes?

King Ranch v. Big Wind

The famous King Ranch, down near the Gulf coast south of Corpus Christi, has been waging a battle against wind power farms planned for its area 

As a proponent of wind power and other sources of energy that reduce global warming emissions, that should make me an opponent of theirs.  Then again, they are also waging a battle against Texas' tradition of unregulated development--the kind of tradition that has led to dynamite blasting in residential areas and to the Helotes mulch fire.  As a witness to the damaging consequences of this tradition, perhaps I should be a supporter of the King Ranch in this case. 

Indeed, wind power should not have an exemption from sensible regulation, so I am sympathetic to the King Ranch's proposed legislation--at least based on my understanding of it from this article in today's Austin American-Statesman:

King Ranch Inc., the agricultural holding company that owns the South Texas ranch and other properties, is backing legislation that could choke off the boom in Texas wind energy by requiring new state regulations of wind turbines.

The state does not require permits in most cases for wind farms, which consist of hundreds of enormous turbines that generate electricity.

That would change under House Bill 2794, sponsored by Rep. Robert Puente, D-San Antonio. The bill would require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to establish a permit process to take into account the environmental consequences of wind turbines and whether the noise they create — or just the fact they're part of a once-unspoiled view — interferes with the property rights of nearby landowners.

King Ranch has been fighting a proposed coastal wind project in Kenedy County, just east of its ranch, that would place 267 turbines along the Gulf's Laguna Madre.

"People need to take a deep breath and think a little," Jack Hunt, CEO of King Ranch Inc., said about the Texas wind rush. "It's a frenzy."

I suspect that, in the end, such a permit process would still permit most of the wind farms to be built.  But it would allow ill-conceived plans to be prevented.

Like most land use regulation attempts in Texas, however, it looks like this bill stands little chance in our developer-friendly legislature.

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said opponents of wind energy won't succeed in the Legislature, either.

"The bill is dead because no one wants to pass it," said Patterson, who has leased state land for big offshore wind projects to generate more revenue for public education. "This is the King Ranch versus the rest of Texas."

...

Patterson said the idea of siting requirements for wind turbines "is not completely outside the realm of good public policy" and is worth studying.

"But this bill isn't about being reasonable," he said.

Patterson may be correct that this isn't reasonable legislation, though I suspect his reasons for thinking so are not the same as mine.

The problem is not that wind turbines are exempt from sensible land use regulations, but that virtually no one is subject to sensible land use regulation.  While in principle this legislation sounds like an excellent idea, wind farms strike me as far down the priority list on this matter.

Vested rights: "treeless, dynamite-blasted hillsides," and a giant burning mulch pile

Land developers' abuse of "vested rights" has gone on far too long, with the support and encouragement of our state government.  So I am heartened to see that at least one of our state legislators understands the problem. 

From the San Antonio Express-News today (emphasis added):

With a nearly treeless, dynamite-blasted hillside as a backdrop, state Rep. Mike Villarreal said Saturday that he was taking a small step that could have a profound impact on developers who hoist the banner of "vested rights" while paying scant attention to the rights of others.

House Bill 1529, which he introduced in the Legislature in Austin last week, would allow cities to override developers' vested rights if the health and safety of neighbors is threatened or property is damaged.

"San Antonio passed a water ordinance and a tree ordinance and it can't enforce either one because developers changed the law in the Legislature," Villarreal told 40 supporters gathered in front of Toll Brothers Sonoma Verde development on Kyle Seale Parkway just beyond Cedar Creek Golf Course.

"Government is best when it is under local control," Villarreal said, "and this bill will insert specific, targeted language into the law to bring some of that control back to the cities."

Homeowners living next to Sonoma Verde pointed at the development that looks like a rock quarry and then pointed to juniper-covered hills across the street.

"That's the way this used to look," said Mary Schuetze. "They don't care about the trees. They'll be gone as soon as the market drops."

A request for comment was left at Toll Brothers late Friday. It was not returned.

Other nearby homeowners told of dynamite explosions 40 feet from their houses, walls and foundations that were solid for 15 years but suddenly developed cracks, and limestone dust that mixes with rain and dew to cover plants with a concrete cake.

I wish I had known about Rep. Villareal's event beforehand, as I would have added to the number of supporters present.  I have seen this Toll Brothers "development" first-hand, and the visual impact is truly disgusting.  Sadly, the impacts go far beyond the visual for those living nearby.

Carlos Guerra wrote about column late last week about one particular homeowner couple who has been severly affected by the actions of their neighbor.

As they detail the ordeal they have endured since May, Stan and Dorothy Miller's voices are amazingly calm. Perhaps they have accepted that the home of their dreams has been turned into an unending nightmare. Or perhaps they just have tired of the lack of response from government at all levels.

But signs in their yard speak of their frustration: "Toll Bros. bad for neighbors, nature," reads one that lists animals they no longer see. "Noise 12 hours a day, six days a week. Blasting; house damage," reads the other.

...

10 months after Toll Bros.' arrival, the once verdant hills around the Millers' neighborhood have been turned into an eerie moonscape of terraced limestone cliffs that are being covered with tacky brown brick. And on hills flattened — presumably to reduce foundation costs — dozens of densely built MacMansions are being hurriedly built.

"They denuded the whole property; they cleared all the trees, thousands and thousands of them," Stan says. "Then they started mulching the trees, and the air was full of cedar dust.

"And nobody has said a word about the destruction of the habitat of wildlife," he says. "They're gone because their habitat is gone."

It got worse.

It got worse!  Read the rest of Guerra's column to find out how.

Our state government needs to change their way and recognize that "property rights" is not about the alleged rights of land developers to slash and burn and dynamite and bulldoze as they please.

And if your're wondering if there is a connection between the actions of developers to turn vast expanses of Hill Country land into moonscapes and that gigantic burning pile of mulch nearby that is polluting our air and water, you are right on the money.