First NRH Council Meeting of 2005

by Ron West

At the beginning of a new year there is always new hope for change for the better. It is a time for new ideas, new beginnings and hopefully a better and more responsive city government. This year in NRH, we are starting the year with two newly elected council members and one newly appointed council member – all women. In all three cases, these ladies replaced their male counterparts and for the first time in memory, forming a council with a woman majority. Will this make a real change in 2005 or will the old majority under Mayor Trevino’s powerful direction continue the prior practices of a closed, non-responsive government?

This Monday’s meeting saw a couple of disturbing indicators that were fairly subtle. The first indicator related to how the direction of the city is set when there was extended discussion over the filing of a lien on a citizen who was seeking to combine two lots so that he could expand his house. In this particular neighborhood, there are no sidewalks but – in the prior wisdom of the council, there is apparently an ordinance that requires new sidewalks or a lien – if there is any change required that reaches city offices. The citizen in this situation – elected to comply with the city requirement and did not object to the filing of the lien for an amount set by city staff that is deemed to be adequate to build a sidewalk should the city ever decide it wise to do so. There is no apparent end of the lien. Several council members questioned the need for the lien but the real deciding factor seemed to center around “what other cities do”. City staff reported that current NRH ordinances are somewhat less oppressive than other cities – and thereafter the council voted 6 to 1 to file the lien. The disturbing factor here is that there was no discussion as to making NRH a better place to live with more responsive or thoughtful ordinances. The key factor was that if NRH was not as bad as other cities they were safe in enforcing a poorly written and unfair ordinance.

The second disturbing indicator related to the approval of one more study that will cost the citizens $37,500 in order to develop “branding” for what the city calls the “South Grapevine Highway Corridor”. The total study will cost $75,000 but half of it is being paid by Richland Hills. This is the second or third study commissioned by the city to look at development along Grapevine Highway south of Loop 820. This discussion was followed by the approval of another $75,000 expenditure for another study to look at what Assistant City Manager Richard Torres called normal development along Loop 820. Both of these studies seem to be a serious look at the private property along these thoroughfares with the long range implication of conversion to the “highest and best” use of the properties. There was virtually no discussion of the cost and both items were “in the budget” (somewhere). Assuming these firms find a “higher and better use” or a tricky name to catch attention, the desired result is to “improve by government control” the areas impacted by the studies. Both items were approved by the majority of the council.

Tuesday morning after the meeting, the Newspaper reported that Mervyn’s is closing in North Hills Mall. This follows the exit of Circuit City and Office Depot to Hurst.

If the branding or the use study finds better uses of the private property in these areas, what is the role of the city? Will the city use the power of eminent domain to deliver such property to other private enterprises that offer more tax income? Do you believe that a $75,000 gamble that a name will attract new development is a prudent or worthwhile investment? How can a city write unidentified money into the budget for such studies? Is it prudent to spend such money before TXDOT even announces what the actual future plans for Loop 820 are going to be? Regardless of the answer to these questions, the council seems to like to spend your money and that may be a bad sign for 2005. We will have a chance to look carefully at what our money is buying soon and before that, we will have an opportunity to vote for either the re-election or replacement of four of the folks that voted to spend this money. That will be the citizens opportunity to express what their desires are for the remainder of 2005 and beyond.