Sarah Eckhardt - Democrat for Travis County Commissioner’s Court - Precint 2

Critics say RGK Ranch will bring more traffic to already dangerous highway.

By Marty Toohey
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

The Travis County commissioners approved plans Tuesday for a 1,500-home Hill Country subdivision, over the objections of some residents who say it would bring too much traffic and threaten the area’s streams and creeks.

The subdivision, RGK Ranch, will be built on about 1,500 acres along Texas 71, about eight miles west of Austin. It will sit between the Sweetwater Lazy 9 and West Cypress Hills developments, which are in the early phases of construction and will each have a similar number of residents. The county commissioners approved RGK by a 4-1 vote. Their decision came after months of hearings and delays, during which most of the commissioners said they probably could not deny RGK Ranch because it meets the county’s requirements, an assessment echoed by the county’s legal staff. Commissioner Ron Davis was the lone ‘no’ vote Tuesday, saying the county should turn down the subdivision because it presents a general threat to the safety and welfare of people living in southwestern Travis County.In the months leading up to a decision, the debate about RGK Ranch became at times a referendum on Texas 71 West and Hill Country growth in general.Everyone agrees that stretch of Texas 71 is dangerous, citing at least three fatal wrecks last year and three more this year. In the RGK debate, some residents did not even mention the RGK Ranch while urging the commissioners to seek a lower speed limit or massive upgrade of Texas 71 (both of which fall to the Texas Department of Transportation).Some critics argued that the state of Texas 71 was reason enough to reject RGK Ranch.

“I do not believe the county commissioners made a decision today that is in the best interests of their constituency,” said Karen Huber, who lives near the project and is one of its most vocal critics.

Gerald Daugherty, the county commissioner whose precinct includes RGK Ranch, said Huber’s line of thinking is illegal and would not get Texas 71 fixed any faster.

“Our goal should be fixing the road,” Daugherty said.

Critics raised other concerns about RGK Ranch. The Hill Country Alliance, a coalition of neighbors who are upset about the pace of Hill Country development, said the subdivision should be rejected because it was not required to follow some of the county’s current environmental rules.

It did not have to because plans for RGK Ranch were submitted before those rules came into effect two years ago.

But Greg Kozmetsky, whose family owns the RGK property, wrote in a letter Friday to the county commissioners that the project should satisfy everyone’s concerns and would voluntarily meet or exceed most of the county’s rules, such as covering no more than 20 percent of the property with roads, houses or other substances that block water from soaking into the ground.

“I believe critics of the plan haven’t really criticized the plan,” Kozmetsky wrote, “but the fact we have one.”

During the final weeks of discussion, Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt persuaded the Kozmetsky family to sign a contract requiring RGK Ranch to follow most of the county’s requirements.

Eckhardt said the county could not require more of the Kozmetskys, especially when they were willing to compromise.

She added, however, that because the county’s rules are not strict enough, she was left “to make another decision that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.”

mtoohey@statesman.com; 445-3673

Re: My Position on (and Frustration with) County Land Use Authority 

Published in AAS on Tuesday, August 14, 2007

With its coverage of the Sun Coast Resources’ planned tank facility in East Austin, the American-Statesman has highlighted the pitfalls of limited local authority to manage growth. The first shot across the commissioners court’s bow was in an Aug. 7 editorial, which stated, “What we get … is a group of five people who draw down nice salaries and whose authority to make a difference in these cases is severely limited.” The next day, a story quoted local resident Barbara Scott saying, “Basically, what we need to do is get with Dawnna Dukes, our state representative, and discuss why our county commissioners have no teeth and why we’re paying their salary.”

Though the “mini-tank farm” issue sparked these remarks, this issue is by no means the first to elicit such comments. In the short time I have been in office, commissioners have wrestled with landfill expansion on U.S. 290, increased collisions and fatalities on Texas 71, “grandfathered” development, the fouling of Hamilton Pool, the demand for increased mobility, the rapid disappearance of open space and the specter of becoming an air quality “non-attainment zone.”

Many days since I took office, I have felt like a dentist whose patient is having a massive coronary — I am a doctor and I have the will to help. But I am neither licensed nor equipped to treat my patient. The options at my disposal are only nominally better than my fellow citizens. So I call the ambulance (be it the Texas Legislature, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Texas Department of Transportation or some other agency) and pray that it responds in time.

Time is of the essence and passing the buck is a waste of breath. I want to be part of a fully licensed and equipped county authority. We need local land use authority to address tank farms, landfills, roadway safety, water quality, air quality and exploding residential growth.

County government will either wrestle appropriate land use authority from the Legislature to deal with these issues or it will willingly draw lawsuits for reaching beyond commissioners’ authority in efforts to protect the health and safety of county residents.

Here is what I see happening: The county will need to write better ordinances to address these kinds of issues in a more comprehensive manner. Some, whose personal interests are at risk, will charge that these rules go beyond our authority and will sue us. The county will defend these suits with tax dollars.

Win or lose, these suits will make a record of commissioners’ attempts to serve the public interest and protect the health and safety of county residents. We will use this record in our continued argument with the Legislature over the necessity of local land use authority in managing our growth.

There is a strong case to be made for more authority being placed in the hands of Texas counties. We are the boots on the ground. Counties have a strong understanding of regional challenges and are best able to respond to issues in a timely fashion.

Certainly the Legislature must provide oversight, but as it is only in session every other year for five months, many issues that could be resolved quickly are forced to wait for the next legislative session.

Many in the Legislature will argue that market forces should continue as the only regulatory force in the urban as well as rural unincorporated areas of our state and they will be richly rewarded for making that argument.

However, I have faith that our political system will correct this imbalance between personal interests and public interests. That’s what democracy is all about.

Hon. Sarah Eckhardt represents Travis County Commissioners Court, Precinct 2.