Natinsky Says No To Form-Based Zoning Requirements
Since I am on the run today — been trolling ‘hoods for you — I am going to copy an email I received today that requires every one’s immediate attention on Form-Based Zoning. I will try to call this Ron Natinsky (far North Dallas councilman) to see what gives. Meantime, if this is true about the pizza cutters he bought on my our tax dollars, well, that is just not right!:
“A minor miracle recently occured for the benefit of Dallas: The Real Estate Council (TREC)– made up of 1,500 of the largest developers in Dallas, Preservation Dallas, the Dallas Homeowners League, the North Dallas Neighborhood Alliance and the Old Oak Cliff Conservation League joined together to support Form-Based Zoning requirements, which promote walkable, urban environments.
But guess what? For reasons no one can quite grasp, city councilman Ron Natinsky (yes, Ron “$12,000 of your money on pizza cutters with my name on them!” Natinsky: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/102908dnmetnatinsky.4a7feaf.html), against the wishes unanimously supported by the City Council-appointed Advisory
Committee and the City Plan Commission, has decided not to recommend the proposal.
Why should you care? Because without form-based zoning we’re on the path to more sprawl and even less charm. Walk ability increases real estate values, form-based zoning actually SLOWS DOWN traffic on streets –which is much safer for runners and cyclists, promotes transit-oriented development which is more sustainable–basically it puts people and homes before cars. In fact, the entire code is based around creating a “high quality public realm,” AKA no more strip-malls. (Eight advantages to form-based codes here: http://www.formbasedcodes.org/advantages.html )
What does Natinsky want? Scattered density (more sprawl), no critical mass, no 1/2 block transition neighborhood
before residential areas, and even less parking than we call for now.
If you could, please take a minute and cut and paste the emails of the city council and mayor into a new email and tell them NO to the Natinsky proposal. If you’re in the media and cannot get involved, please forward this on to a friend who can.”
Awards | Archives | Reprints | Custom Publishing | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
Well written and accurate. An additional thought regarding the Natinsky/Staff proposal is that it is contrary to what experts across the country recommend and major cities across the country are successfully doing. The Natinsky proposal is in fact cited by experts as a way form based zoning can harm a city.
November 10 we may do major harm to our city for generations to come. Just say no!
Someone privately pointed out to me that Ron Natinsky does not like this plan called the Natinsky plan. I apologize. The plan was originally brought forward, by a City Council appointed blue ribbon committee giving 18 months of work and 1000’s of hours of investigation backed by over a century of collective wisdom, to the CPC (those people council members appointed to be their zoning experts) that unanimously approved it. However this version did not satisfy city staff and another study group was appointed (city zoning attorneys that make a living with lots of disputes). Finally someone gave the staff its desired recommendations and I know I now sleep better at night. I guess one should further recognize Theresa O’Donnell as “staff”. A few years (maybe) of experience compared to the above century+ of experience, but they were finally able to organize a group (the zoning attorneys above) that agreed with them. I also should not leave out Mary Suhm who must be directing her employee’s (O’Donnell) activities. Make note that citizen input was void/gone/not heard after the CPC unanimous vote. OK, this is turning into a joke—what do we name this? The Natinski, O’Donnelll, Suhm, zoning attorneys, get what we want, third time around without citizen input proposal. Hopefully everyone is now happy with an all inclusive name for the misguided proposal.
Thanks for the excellent posting on a form-based zoning code that can encourage development of new Walkable Urban neighborhoods for Dallas. These are revitalizing cities across the country. They produce a lower carbon footprint, they cost a city about 1/20th as much for infrastructures costs and create a very concentrated tax base. Plus peole love them — think West Village, State-Thomas, Victory.
As a member of the Advisory Committee that worked eighteen months on this effort, I have to take very strong exception to the remarks posted above about what Teresa O’Donnell called the Natinsky Plan. It is true that Naatinsky has recommended several changes to the version supported by developers and neighborhood groups and unanimously passed by the city Plan commission. But about one-half of his suggestions are added improvements.
Unfortunately in addition he has also recommended changes to three crucial things for neighborhoods. One — residential proximity slope — is part of our citywide zoning code and needs to remain in this section. The second — a 1/2-block residential transition area — is a small transition between single-family neighborhoods and what can be a very dense mixed-use district.
The third — referred to as “critical mass”— is a Statement of Intent about the size of area experts say it takes to have enough missed-use to actually function as a Live-Work Play neighborhood.
Natinsky’s version would, I believe, instead encourage density to be scattered throughout Dallas. This is in no one’s best interest. It will simply lower the city’s already low EPA rating, clog roads and not create a vibrant alternative.
But there is no plot here, as the reader above would imply. The city’s zoning attorney staff has done their job fairly and extremely well. Mary Suhm has not been involved.
While I strongly disagree with councilman Natinsky —and feel these three specific changes would do irreparable harm to Dallas neighborhoods both past and future — I would defend his right to make these suggestions. And I would complement him on the improvements that he has suggested to green space, to the regulating plan and to several other details.
I must say, that I can not agree with you in 100%, but that’s just my opinion, which could be very wrong.
p.s. You have a very good template for your blog. Where did you find it?
Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is a lot more than I expected when I stumpled upon a link on Furl telling that the info here is awesome. Thanks.
js1Fh6 comment5 ,