The wild rice may have some deep ecological meaning, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not ugly as hell.

“The good news is [that Concho and Thorpe] have already been approved but I don’t know whether [staff] will continue to be obstructive in the process. Staff is set up to administrate the process and follow the rules and they have chosen to take an activist role.”

What Casey is calling “obstructive” and “an activist role” is what I call the planning department doing their job and making sure mistakes aren’t made. I’ve never gotten the feeling in the couple of conversations I’ve had with members of the staff that anyone is interested in “making an example” of him.

These are two *interpretations* of what is going on, but if the process were more transparent, then future developers could judge for themselves what the atmosphere is in San Marcos.

This doesn’t stop the property from being an annoying eyesore in the meantime.

My point is that we need to focus on blight just as much as development or anti development. We need to fix what is broke.

SMsince95 if you or i have a yard that is an eyesore we get a ticket. And that ticket has implications if it is not resolved with a fine. Why has Mr. Pollock not been cited? I’ve been calling this in since spring break. Please help me understand why you don’t think it is dangerous that a 4X8 piece of sheet metal that is hanging by a thread way at the top. This property owner is getting special treatment and that building is most def environmental racism.

Oh, and its me, the real LMC because I report those who post under my identity to Brad ASAP.

WAY TO GO COSM!!! You are rocking the house on this issue!

Either way, it doesn’t seem to have any bearing on why the property was not developed when P&Z, Council and Staff all happily supported it. I’ll buy the economy, to a degree, but I am still not seeing the anti-development “activism” at the city. In fact, my recollection of the departure of the last city manager, and the arrival of his replacement, would lead me to believe the opposite.

If Jim Nuse is pushing back, I think it is worthwhile to dig into why that would be.

As to lmc and the warehouse, you’ve got to be kidding. Private property and its been there forever.

First, I never said anything about Camacho. That’s your pet peeve of the month.

Second, I never said that I refuse to consider blight. In fact, I offered up several examples of blighted areas in San Marcos that could use some work. But given that the two-bitter sat empty for who-knows-how-many years before someone could do something with it, I would say that our town’s record on dealing with blight needs improving.

Third (and I’ll take responsibility for this one) I didn’t mean to imply that I was against food trailers in general. Several of them actually have tasty food. But I AM against throwing one or two trailers up in every empty parking lot across town. Set up a place for them (like the old Gatti’s location) and make them all stay there, but otherwise it just looks tacky to have them scattered about.

Finally, I assure you that I’m no developer, Lisa. If that is your real name….after all, on the internet we have no assurances.

And on a new point, Casey didn’t “kill” Suzie’s place – he bought the property she was renting and tore it down. That’s a risk any tenant runs anywhere you go. She’s been free to open up somewhere else since that day – maybe in a food trailer?

So it was Casey that killed the Suzie’s Vegetarian Restaurant. Nice job putting a hard working woman who is from San Marcos out of business. And, then sitting there with the property like a little monopoly game. Maybe y’all should write that into your next ordinance.

http://smmercury.com/2009/12/23/residential-3-floors-added-to-concho-commons-plan/

You asked why Concho Commons hasn’t been developed yet. I don’t even have to ask anyone that question for a big part of the answer. Concho Commons was entitled as a retail/office development in fall 2008 as the world was falling apart. (A residential component was added to plans in 2009). Nothing was getting financed for years, especially unleased retail and office space. So the real question isn’t why it wasn’t it built in 2008-2010 but why it hasn’t been built in 2011/2012 when there is clearly financing available for multi-family housing.

Also, it is not accurate that Concho Commons sailed through without opposition. I clearly remember that key downtown interests were opposed, citing parking and other issues.

There was no resistance. There was no activist (at least not anti-developer activist) anything.

The sign on the property leads one to believe that construction was imminent back then. If you’re taking today’s alleged “activist role” by the city as a valid explanation, without any further digging, I am disappointed.

Even though Concho Commons and Thorpe have already been entitled as far as zoning and land use, he essentially said he wasn’t confident that building permitting etc wouldn’t be withheld and delayed out of spite. He seems to think — and this is just my interpretation based on my conversations with him — that city staff is trying to make an example out of him.

“The good news is [that Concho and Thorpe] have already been approved but I don’t know whether [staff] will continue to be obstructive in the process. Staff is set up to administrate the process and follow the rules and they have chosen to take an activist role.”

He said his experience with Sessom will discourage future development investment in the city.

“It’s not just me. It’s other developers. They’re watching and it certainly doesn’t look good to my counterparts in the development community to see such a subjective process. You can’t make investments in those kind of conditions.”