Except they kick off everyone that disagrees with them. It’s also a nice Carch-22. On the one hand, it’s independent of the ZNA, so they can manage it however they like. On the other, it’s used to push the ZNA agenda, while squashing dissenting voices. This gives the appearance of a group that completely falls in line with the ZNA view of the city and neighborhood. Fun!
1 Like
If you were banned, you wouldn’t be able to access their website. Since you can access it, you’re evidently just being CENSORED. They euphemistically refer to it as moderated. Oh, and what Jimmy said too.
Also they supposedly sent it to the city in the name of zilker (as they do with so many positions) before asking anyone about it.
Issac
If your message was posted, I guess you are NOT banned?
Jeff
As I’ve said before there are many different methods used to censor on the zilker yahoo group.
- Moderation - all posts must be approved by Lorraine (or other moderator) to get through.
- Blocked from sending - you will still receive others posts but your posts will never make it through.
- Blocked entirely - you won’t receive messages from and can’t send messages to the group.
Not sure if this was taken down or what, but when I go to that link I get: “Oops!
You need to be a moderator to perform this action.”
Here’s the one response that somehow made it onto the ZNA list. (And the poster is a longtime South Austinite, no less!)
When I enter the link, it says I have to be a moderator.
A poll is a good idea though.
Whoever drafted and submitted zoning changes to the City without a) letting the Zilker neighborhood know, and b) doing a poll like this, I believe was out of line. The proposed changes are good in that they simplify code; but not good in that they take away roughly 22% of all Zilker neighbors’ ability to build upon your lot, (from 45% to 35% allowable impervious cover). That’s a LARGE decrease from what is currently allowable, if you’re planning to build anything on your lot at any time in the future.
For example, on a 7000sf lot, that’s a decrease of 700sf. If you were going to build a 2-story garage with apartment, that could take 1400sf off the table. Assuming a current limit of 1200sf for an adu, the ZNA drafters are striking your ability to create and rent an adu worth $2400/mo without notice that I’m aware of. That would go a long way towards covering property taxes, imho. If there was notice, my apologies, but it wasn’t sufficient for the substantial rights being taken away.
Why not raise the height to 36’ instead of limiting to 30’? Enable 3 stories for less impervious cover and more compact structures. Some neighbors have them already.
Jack on Virginia
1 Like
Here here Jack. @jeffkirk I hope you re-posted with the permission of the original poster. Otherwise you are in violation of the zilker yahoo group 
Might point Jack this way as I’m sure he will soon be banned.
The poll has been removed - wonder why??
I’m sure Jeff Jack wouldn’t know anything about it since he doesn’t have anything to do with the Zilker Neighborhood Yahoo Group.
Jimmy
You are correct that I do not having anything to do with the Zilker Neighborhood Group our than as an occasional poster to that group. As I have pointed our numerous times, the Zilker Neighborhood yahoo group is not an official group of the Zilker Neighborhood Association and is controlled by several residents of the Zilker neighborhood, but it a private group operating under their own rules with their own moderators. I or the Zilker Neighborhood Association ( which I am not longer the president of or on the executive committee at all) do not have ownership of this group, So I can’t but wonder why you brought this up? What was your motivation for making this comment?
Thanks
Jeff
The poll magically disappears. People are suddenly banned. How could it all happen? It’s clearly something that’s entirely out of your purview. I’ve obviously made an error in associating your name with this surprising turn of events.
I realize you’re no longer the President of ZNA, having parlayed your local neighborhood NIMBYism into a city-wide ANC position of NIMBY leadership. Congratulations btw.
I don’t know if @jjack2 had anything to do with it. But it is a good example of the “special relationship” the Zilker Neighborhood Association has with the Zilker Yahoo Group. First, a proposal for zoning was made to the city by the ZNA without much input and in the name of the entire neighborhood. Second, after it was already sent to the city it was posted to the Yahoo Group by the people who control the Yahoo Group and are also involved in the Neighborhood Association. Next someone posts a poll, but then quickly takes it down when it appears on this group. I think people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.
Indeed. Also, the claims of “no collusion” fall rather flat considering Mrs. Atherton has been editing the ZNA … er, Zilker Yahoo Group emails for, what, 20 years now? And during most, if not all, of that time she’s been a member of the ZNA executive committee or otherwise closely affiliated with it. To believe Mr. Jack’s story, one would also have to swallow the whopper that Mrs. Atherton has been a) acting as a lone rogue all this time, monitoring the Yahoo list without any contribution from ZNA committee members; and b) she has not once been rebuked or otherwise removed from ZNA oversight for said lone-rogue activities.
Even by Trumpian standards this is a considerable stretch. OTOH it’s obvious everyone affiliated with Community Not Commodity has been operating under the influence of “magical thinking” for a while now, e.g. thinking they could get away with a ballot proposition on CodeNEXT simply because they conned thousands of Austinites into believing their scare tactics about the code revision “destroying” Austin neighborhoods. But hey, Uber got 60,000 people to sign its petition for a public referendum! If they can do it, why can’t CNC?? (Never mind what a disaster it ended up being at the ballot box.)
Jp
Once again you miss the point entirely and try to send out “fake news”. Please quite slanting things and get you facts straight!
-
The ZNA ex com has spent a lot of time reviewing the impact of CodeNEXT on our neighborhood and have been engaged in this effort for over 4 years with several presentation on the subject at their quarterly meetings. Through this process many questions have come up that have not been resolved by the city staff and even as the third draft was rolled out many unknowns still existed. We were urged to do CodeNEXT to make the zoning code simpler and easier to use. But CodeNEXT version 3 is far more complicated than even what the current code is and not easier to use.
-
As a result of staff indicating that Version 3 is the “staff” recommendation and this draft will be going to the combined Planning Commission and Zoning and Plating Commission (PC and ZAP) process, the Planning Commission had asked for comments from the community on what it will be reviewing.
-
The ZNA zoning committee in response to this request has drafted a proposal to address many of the shortcomings of the staff recommendation and has sent that draft to the PC/ZAP in order to meet their deadline for the April 28th public hearing as requested by the PC.
-
But it was submitted as a draft and the zoning committee understands that the neighborhood response to CodeNEXT will be most important when the PC/Zap has it second public hearing on May 1st. That is why the zoning committee has requested responses from folks on the list by the April 28th deadline in order to have time to address the received comments for the May 1st. public hearing
-
So while a draft position paper was submitted to make the PC/Zap time line the opportunity for community to provide meaningful and constructive comments to ZNA is still open until April 28th.
So that is where ZNA is at this point but it begs the following questions.
Have you submitted to the ZNA zoning committee any specific suggestions on improving their draft?
Have you submitted a proposal to address CodeNEXT issues you have identified by your through and careful analysis of the 1,500 pages of code presented so far?
Or is this once again an example of a good faith effort by ZNA to engage our neighborhood turned on it’s ear by folks who just want to distort what the zoning committee has done in one more example of attempts to villainize ZNA?
So lets see you draft a response to CodeNEXT put that out to the ZNA list and see what response you get! Or are you afraid to show to everyone that you have only one purpose in your posts and that is your continuing criticism of ZNA?
Thanks
Jeff
We’re all banned from the ZNA list.
I was just laying out the timeline of events - which you don’t seem to disagree with - so I don’t see how that is fake news despite your long winded response. Though you did conveniently leave out any activity on the Yahoo Group or the “missing poll.”
My personal issue is not with the efforts of ZNA - it is the way in which ZNA acts without the input of the residents of the neighborhood taking everything of any import into private committees.
It does take time to comb through and draft these types of responses. And for having the time to do that, I do commend you and your fellow cohorts.
I hope that the Friends of Zilker can come up with a response as well. But given that democracy moves slower than authoritative regimes, it will take a bit more time and will be subject to the vote of the membership before anything is presented to the city as an official position by the Friends of Zilker and a representation of what the neighborhood as a whole envisions.
Of course, none of this addresses the question of why the ZNA responded to entirely legitimate concerns about the CodeNEXT draft – I don’t think anyone’s happy with it, honestly, regardless of one’s views about whether or not the city should embrace denser zoning in core neighborhoods – with a draft proposal that not only rebukes the draft in its entirety, but also results in less density than currently permitted. I suppose this could be an example of setting an extreme position as a basis for negotiating something in the middle, but considering the draft was presented to Yahoo group readers as an improvement in terms of reducing our reliance on automobiles, I think it’s reasonable to question why it wasn’t presented as such to the Zilker list.
There’s also the matter of why the ZNA sought literally zero input from neighborhood residents before submitting the draft revisions – the irony being the ZNA committing an identical type of “zoning-via-fiat” planning that it hypocritically calls out CodeNEXT drafters for doing. (Also, your implication that the ex com “knows best” in terms of studying CodeNEXT for four years again begs the question of why the ZNA is acting in a fashion so demonstrably similar to them, e.g. not seeking any external input before submitting a draft proposal destined to piss people off.)
Missed this gem earlier!
Pot and kettle, sir. Pot and kettle!
The ZNA proposal recommends a 22% reduction of allowed impervious cover - from 45% to 35%. That is a MASSIVE reduction in property rights.
Lorraine Atherton emailed the ZNA proposal to the planning commissioners on April 6, and then asked for input on April 10.
At no point in the last 4 years of meetings, I’ve been to ALL of the quarterly meetings, has anyone on the ZNA ever asked how neighbors would feel about a 22% reduction in impervious cover rights. If it was discussed at EXCOM that should have been surfaced to the general membership BEFORE sending the idea to the planning commission.
Many of the ZNA members strongly oppose the reduction and are rightfully VERY ANGRY at Atherton for sending a document to the planning commission without vetting it.
There was NO DEADLINE for input. The hearings are still weeks away. Sending the document on behalf of the organization without input was WRONG and is a perfect example of why power should be stripped from “contact teams” and traditional neighborhood associations.
Mary