[Editor's Note: Background on this issue can be found here. The city will consider the subdivision revisions today (Tuesday, May 6, 2008), and it is possible that the issue will be postponed.]

It is often easy to take a set of circumstances and draw an inaccurate conclusion. I would suggest that is exactly what happened at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting regarding the Subdivision Ordinance Rewrite. It is a fact that no one from the building community spoke to the proposed subdivision ordinance at the City Council meeting, but to suggest that the lack of comment equals support would be incorrect. The facts are that the item was moved to the end of a long agenda and representatives from the development community were unable to remain the entire day awaiting its introduction. The development community is seriously concerned about this matter, and these concerns have been voiced repeatedly to the Mayor and City Council.

There is great concern among the building community that the proposed ordinance will bring with it multiple “unintended consequences.” There is overwhelming support for change and building better neighborhoods – including from the development community. However, what began as an effort to improve on a system that has had failings in the past appears to have blossomed into an effort at social engineering. We’d like the opportunity to explore what the unintended consequences might be.

The City has a long history of misguided and well intentioned actions that have brought on us severe unintended consequences. One of our first park-ponds was constructed in the 1960’s. Not long after its completion, a drowning occurred when the park filled its second function as a pond. In an effort to prevent further such occurrences, the City eliminated further use of the park-pond option. While other cities throughout the southwest built beautiful mixed use park-pond combinations, El Paso chose to settle for vast unattractive ponding areas as our means for addressing storm water runoff. Initially, these pits were surrounded by chain link fences and later by rock walls. Their appearance and presence add little to the quality of life in any neighborhood. This was a huge social loss with unintended consequences to all resulting from an initially well meaning action. Probably the biggest and most misunderstood action by the City was its decision in the late 1960’s to refuse to accept neighborhood parks. The development community was told repeatedly that the City did not want and would not accept small community parks because they were too expensive to maintain and not a good use of tax dollars. The City wanted regional ball fields for which the developers were required to pay significant fees for the City to use to develop the regional parks. Now the City would have the public believe years later it has been taken advantage of by the development community because they failed to provide parks. Now you are told that it will cost millions of dollars to provide parks for those underserved neighborhoods, and it is the fault of the greedy developers.

Let us ask the City: Where is the money that the developers (and subsequently the homebuyers) paid at the time the plats were approved? Why isn’t that money available? What did the City use those funds for? While regional parks are an important part of the community, the elimination of the neighborhood park was another major “unintended consequence.” Citizens want both regional parks and neighborhood parks, but the City, not the developers took those away.

An opportunity is before us with this Subdivision Ordinance to correct many of the mistakes of the past. Unfortunatly, as currently structured, it appears to have as its basis some unproven new urban ideas and concepts that we believe need major consideration before the ordinance can be fully understood. What will be the unintended consequences of its requirements? We believe every product type should be available to the public and that the market should decide at what mix. We support progress and change, but we are anxious that the citizens have not been made aware of what will ultimately be required and how our neighborhoods will eventually develop. Is this what the citizens of El Paso really want?

With all this in mind, the Development Community has approached the City and asked that the proposed Subdivision Ordinance be delayed for 30 days. The delay is being requested so that we can carefully analyze what the consequences of this new ordinance might be. Prior to its introduction last Tuesday, we were assured there would be ample time to carefully analyze the requirements. In reality, that opportunity was never available. This is a document of over 300 pages and it was changed right up until 4 PM on the day of its initial receipt by the City. It was presented with specific recommendations for change from the ad-hoc committee composed of developers, citizens and City staff. In an emotional plea, the recommendations were one by one disregarded not based on sound engineering or statistical evidence, but on a utopian view of how things might be in every new subdivision without regard to cost or the possibility of serious unintended consequences to the developer, the builders, the home buyers, and ultimately, the City.

This opinion is not intended to be an indictment on the entire proposed code or process. This is offered so the public and the City leaders might be made aware of the true consequences of the proposed code. The development community is imploring the City to delay the final passage for a short 30 days to allow local engineers and local land planners to reflect on the actual consequences on what this code might be. We would like to examine both the short- and long-term consequences to the developer, taxpayers of the City and home buyers.

We would like to know the following:

• Is the City prepared to support and maintain the projected increase in streets, curbs and gutters that will result form the same developed acreage? Does the park budget now have sufficient funds to support the neighborhood parks that will be created when that has not been the case in the past? Where will those funds come from? We aren’t suggesting the elimination of the parks, all we are asking is what will they cost us down the road. How much higher can our taxes go?

• What will happen to the cost of the entry level home lot? It is undeniable that the new ordinance will have greater cost to the developers, the builders, and ultimately, the home buyers. The question we want answered is how much will that increase really be? The Consultant used a surprisingly small simple subdivision that we do not believe accurately reflects what the actual changes might cost. We have offered to do a detailed analysis and provide that information to all making it available for discussion and criticism if appropriate.

• Will the increase in cost jeopardize our commitment to affordable housing for the incoming troops at Fort Bliss under BRAC? With the arrival of 30,000 new citizens with incomes determined by military rank, will we price a majority of them out of the opportunity for home ownership?

• Are the home buyers of El Paso ready to give up living in gated communities? The new ordinance penalizes developers who provide additional amenities not intended for use City-wide without exception. Is that what we want?

• Are the home buyers of El Paso ready to give up the cul-de-sac lots to meet some arbitrary concept of connectivity? I can tell you from experience that the most highly sought after lots today by builders are those situated on a cul-de-sac. While walking to the corner store might be an admirable goal, are we willing to pay the price for that option when it is used infrequently?

• Are we ready to have traffic flow evenly though every street to achieve the goal of walking to the corner store on every street? The grid pattern for streets currently demanded by the new code will enable cutting through areas to skip streets. The only easy solution will be to install traffic calming devices or stop signs on every other corner. Is that what we want in all our new subdivisions?

• What will be the effect on the average home buyer? Will it shorten your drive time? Will it make subdivisions safer? Will you really get out and do the walking they so carefully address? Let’s get the facts.

In short we believe this matter is far too important to race through without giving serious consideration to these and myriad other potential “unintended consequences.” As was stated at the beginning of this opinion, we are looking for honest answers to serious questions. What’s the rush to get this passed immediately? Are we afraid to give the time necessary to study it?

What would be the problem with waiting 30 days allowing the development community to bring their numbers and observations to the table? We have been working on this for at least a year. What is the great urgency that we can’t be given time to examine the document? With the extra time we can all go over the numbers together. We may find our fears are unfounded but without the facts we are all just guessing. We may find that taking a pause to deliberate will save much more time and money in the future. Give us a chance to prove the case, right or wrong. Let’s not rush into another 10, 20, or 30 year mistake that we can’t correct in time.

Doug Borrett is with W.F. Karam, Inc.