Days before the West U City Council was expected to vote on the proposed town center zoning ordinance, West University Elementary Principal John Threet sent a public letter to Mayor Bob Fry saying that there was nothing about the proposal that caused him concern.
In the letter, dated Jan. 5, Threet said that he had reviewed the proposed changes to Edloe Street and saw nothing that caused him to believe that the changes will make the area “unsafe for children.”
“The current situation where there is slant-in or head-in parking creates, in my opinion, a greater concern for safety than the potential for a parking area behind the buildings that might be added at some point in the future,” he said.
Council was expected to vote on the second reading of the town center zoning ordinance on Jan. 9, but Mayor Bob Fry asked that it be removed from the agenda.
The decision to postpone a vote on the proposal came after the city council received more than 200 petition letters through a website called “StopWestUGalleria.org.”
One of the arguments listed in the petition letter stated that “The Town Center is in a school zone. Increasing the volume of traffic in an area that is already over-run with vehicles is dangerous for West U Elementary children.”
The town center zoning ordinance is now expected to be considered with a commercial zoning study of the entire city later this year. Council will set the timeline for the project in February.
The entire text of Threet’s letter is as follows:
“Dear Mayor Fry,
“The recent spate of new surrounding the proposed revisions to the city’s zoning ordinance for the Edloe properties across the street from our school contains some information claiming that these revisions will present a hazard to our school and our children. After reviewing the proposed changes, I see nothing that causes me to believe that these changes will lead to the construction of buildings that make the area unsafe for children.
“The current situation where there is slant-in or head-in parking creates, in my opinion, a greater concern for safety than the potential for a parking area behind the buildings that might be added at some point in the future.
“While I am not a resident of the city, I have been your school’s principal for fifteen years. I am quite familiar with any safety issues in the immediate area surrounding our school. Again, I see nothing in the proposed revisions that causes me concern.
“Please feel free to contact me for further clarification if necessary. Thank you for your continued support of quality public education and your concern for the safety of the children in our community whom we both serve.
“Cordially,
“John T. Threet”
Those comments don’t constitute support, but are actually simply neutral.
Fantastic! Someone who actually read the report and understands the significance of approving the proposed changes on the table versus the consequences of status quo. Folks, you heard it directly from the Principal himself. No concerns!
Wake up people! Read the report and consider the consequences of not approving the changes on the table. Mr. Tyger and his website comprised of false information and inaccuracies are nothing less than a SHAM!
The website is mostly copies of the Ad Hoc Report and the Proposed Ordinance. What part is inaccurate? If there is a mistake I will fix it.
I agree with informed resident!! Mr Tyger is also NOT a resident and has never been. Take a look at his “project” he is working on on the corner of Wroxton- surely another house flip he is putting low grade improvements into to make another quick buck of poor residents trying to move into west u. This guys is a SHAM! Quit drinking his kool aid people!
I would say that Mr. Threet opinion should count a LOT more since he has been in our neighborhood and specifically in the area in question every day for 15 years. That is that there is NO threat to the children and possibly an improvement in safety!
Adggi — Mr. Threet ONLY opined on the parking proposal. He stated that the current layout is not optimal and that he did not see a problem with the proposal (but he did not say that he wanted the new parking).
If I ask you if you’d like Vanilla or Chocolate, and you say that you don’t want vanilla, that does not mean that you want chocolate.
I don’t know Mr. Tyger or his work, but I don’t think that you do either. Your personal attack on him is childish and worthy of, oh I don’t know, perhaps a Presidential candidate.
FYI, here is where I’ve lived since 1995:
* 1995 – 2002 at 2738 Talbot 77005;
* 2002 – 2004 at 3780 Darcus 77005;
* 2004 – 2007 at 6603 Buffalo Speedway 77005;
* 2007 – 2008 at 3738 Vanderbilt 77005 (rented while remodeling 3132 Jarrard);
* 2008 – 2010 at 3132 Jarrard 77005;
* 2010 – 2012 at 9633 Longmont 77063; (renting while remodeling 2932 Wroxton)
The website is mostly copies of the Ad Hoc Report and the Proposed Ordinance. What part is inaccurate? If there is a mistake I will fix it.
Mr Tyger, not to cause you a problem with the obvious “external link” in your reply, but a recent link by me in a post, a link to Instant News’ own server that took you to a copy of Frankel’s email that stated, in part:
“This should help our argument for going to Council with proposed plan for 3 stories as well as an incentive for the City to participate in the cost of the garage”
… was immediately removed by InstantNews under the guise that “external links” were not allowed, and I received the following email:
“Your comment that included an external link was deleted. We encourage your comments, but no external links”
Which is it, InstantNews? Or was this just a case of selective enforcement?
Regarding the 2932 Wroxton project, most like the French Casement Windows and other energy saving improvements that make it a candidate for LEED certification.
Where did Mr. Belding say that there was “NO threat?” I can’t find it in the letter.
Good one Vern. “Addgi” just got busted making things up.
I too have read the document in its entirety and dislike the vitriolic language being used by people on both sides of this debate. Quit it.
Mr. Threet has opined on just one aspect of the whole plan. He does not validate or invalidate the entire plan, simply one element. I think that his opinion in this matter is newsworthy because he has a special interest in the area.
I do wish that he had publically commented on his views of the potential for increased foot traffic, increased retail crime/theft, and increased afternoon traffic congestion to degrade the school environment. Also, importantly, what is his view of the impact of large-scale construction on the school environment (dirt and debris, noise). These are other legitimate concerns about redevelopment in the area that need to be weighed.
Is Mr. Threet speaking for the Houston Independent School District?
Mr. Threet appears to be speaking as a long time informed observer that takes his responsibility for all of our children at the school very seriously and certainly has a better objective perspective than we emotional soccer moms.
I don’t think Mr. Threet realized that the proposed ordinance changes would have allowed 3 story commercial buildings and a parking garage.
Ask Mr Threet if he remembers a petition being circulated at the time, a petition questioning the proposed, and inclusive, Edloe street construction plan, tree removal and playground revamp on the SW corner (started, in part, because of our concern that the proposed parking in the plan would indeed be a danger to the children). Mr Threet, when approached by us at that time, was unequivocally in favor of that construction plan … the very plan who’s implementation caused the “slant-in or head-in parking” that he now decries.
Note to you behind the scenes who are clearly pulling strings, like the above letter, to spin this issue … some of us have much longer memories than you obviously have. If you would simply be upfront and clearly, and sugically, explain to the folks the restrictive parking issues and limitated solutions available under the current code, you would go a long way toward having some support to resolve this issue.
Again, what’s the harm in not doing anything? What is the rush? Unless there is a cloak and dagger plan to knock it all down once the zoning gets changed, why bother changing it? For this to happen, there’d have to be consolidation of ownership and said catastrophes. Just change the zoning when someone actually is planning on buying/building the new facility for hair salons, candle stores, and over priced food. That’s how PotBelly seems to have rammed through what they want. Why should this be any different?
In fact, that is indeed the way many municipalities handle similar situations. That said, arguably both the tax base, and any NCP property itself, benefit greatly from “conforming” to current code without having to pursue variances … which is probably the answer to your question. :)
I really can’t say that I blame either entity in the least for pursuing the issue, but only as long as it is done in a transparent manner with no suspicion whatsoever of quid pro quo.