Annual Elections and Vendor Appreciation Luncheon
The El Paso Apartment Association held their annual Elections and Vendor Appreciation Luncheon on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at the Sunland Park Racetrack and Casino. Rick Soto, CAPS, 2010-2011 President presented certificates to the outgoing board as well as flowers to Carmen Dosher, Dosher Refrigeration and Cindy Salinas, Cort Furniture for their work with the Products and Services Council during the year. He thanked Angelica Zuniga, Caprock Apartments, Dinorah McCoy, Del Prado and their committee for chairing the luncheon which had over 180 members in attendance.
Rick congratulated the members who were recognized by the Texas Apartment Association for outstanding contributions in their fields: Melanie Bailey, NALP, CAM, CAPS, Integrity Asset Management, for Outstanding Property Supervisor and Jessica Machristie, NALP, CAM, Bohannon Development, for Outstanding Leasing Professional.
Rick Soto took over duties, as the new Administrative Executive, for the El Paso Apartment Association on May 9, 2011.
Elected to serve on the board for the 2011-2012 year are:
President: Kristin Sizemore, CAM, CAS, CAPS, CPO, Bohannon Development
President-elect: Eric Heller, Associated Properties
Vice-President: Angelica Zuniga, CAM, CAPS, Caprock Apartments
Secretary: Nena Franco, CAM, CAPS, Case & Associates
Treasurer: Charlee Enriquez, NALP, The Legends of El Paso
Products and Services Directors: Barbara Askins, El Paso Disposal and Cindy Salinas, Cort Furniture
Directors: Matt Bohannon, Bohannon Development; James Erickson, Clarita Apartments; K.C. Griffin, NALP, CAM, CAPS, Integrity Asset Management; Jennifer Martinez, Castilleja Apartments; Salvador Hernandez, Greater El Paso Apartment Guide; Mary Cardenas, NALP, CAM, CAPS, EP Hacienda Group; Demetrio Jimenez, Tropicana Properties; and Nora Aguilar, Shadow Ridge Apartments.
Melanie Bailey, NALP, CAM, CAPS is serving as past-president.
Smart Growth/Smart Codes
What is the problem(s) the city is trying to solve with Smart Growth? Urban Sprawl, which results in: Increased combined cost of housing and transportation for residents? Increased cost of municipal infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.)?
Public Health Issues:
Obesity
Diabetes
Cardiovascular disease
Current Hypothesis:
El Paso needs to implement Smart Growth principles:
More walkable streets/thoroughfares/neighborhoods
Mixed use (Residential/Commercial).
Multiple Price Point Products
Higher density development (12-16 units per acre to promote rapid transit)
More parks and open space.
Smart Growth is an interesting concept Reminiscent of the early 19OOs (look at Mesa, Oregon, Sunset Heights, etc.)
Row Housing or small side setbacks
Small front yards and porches
Alleys and detached garages
Tree-lined boulevards
Neighborhood stores
City planners know more about their solution to the problem than we do.
Builders/Developers are just becoming familiar with the general concept, few of the details, and none of the results.
We need more time to study, experiment and test their hypothesis. More importantly, the buying public needs more time to become comfortable with some experimental products.
Observations/Discussion:
The city is not following any accepted scientific method in its problem solving. Dover Kohl and city planners have a hypothesis that focuses on land use, street design, and development standards, but no conclusive proof. Their hypothesis has not been tested against our demographics, economics, geography, and weather. Even if their hypothesis is proven elsewhere, it is not proof that it will work here. Until their hypothesis is tested and proven here, it is not an El Paso solution, only a hypothesis.
The building/development community would have been more productive if it had been involved early in the problem-definition phase, rather than at the decision phase, trying to decide how to implement an unfamiliar, unproven concept. The public has been introduced to the Smart Growth concept by Dover Kohl through wonderfully illustrated Power Point slides and overly simplistic charettes, where participants voted with green or red decals which development features they liked and didn’t like, but they have not yet seen any Smart Growth communities, nor model homes. And no deals have been transacted.
But, designing and building city streets and structures is only partly a science- engineering problem that can be solved exactly using scientific principles and methods. It is also a very complex, socio-economic issue that is very dependent upon people, especially resident buyers/renters. These problems are best addressed by those experienced in their solution. New Urbanism concepts may be attractive to young singles and “empty nesters,” but will they be attractive to families with young children? Americans, specifically young families, abandoned our crowded cities for the suburbs after WWII in search of privacy, space, large yards, picket fences, new schools, and manufacturing jobs (Farah, Tony Lama, Peyton’s meat packing, etc.). Retailers followed them with shopping centers and malls. Then government offices left downtown and followed them. We have seen little evidence that local families are ready to return to their great-grandparents’ urban lifestyle.
In large part, the automobile made urban sprawl possible, but with the promise of cleaner, more abundant, renewable energy sources, like wind, solar, and perhaps hydrogen, the future of the automobile looks bright and long, not short and bleak.
The only way that the development community is going to feel comfortable about implementing Smart Growth is at the end of a fairly long and comprehensive technical analysis process, followed by a significant market trial period. There are too many local factors auguring against immediate, full-scale implementation of Smart Growth principles. Among them are: El Pasoans love affair with their automobiles and trucks; their reluctance to walk, bicycle or use mass transit; the cost of mass transit (largely subsidized by automobile registrations and sales taxes and federal income taxes); their desire for privacy and space; and, finally, and most importantly, their likely inability to pay for the increased cost of our products.
Finally, we remain concerned about its effect on affordable housing and Urban Sprawl (land is being purchased outside the city limits, but not within). It’s anticipated that Smart Growth will increase the value of every affected lot not lower it. Those higher values must be paid for by the buyers. Will they buy our product? At what price? TBD
Proposals:
a. Remove the existing city code obstacles to Smart Growth.
b. Select a test area or Smart Growth Zone on PSB land in the Northeast or Northwest.
Design and Build a community in accordance with Smart Growth principles; Sell/rent the products and study the results.
c. Or, make Smart Growth optional until it is proven.
d. Implement Smart Growth over the legitimate concerns of the people you are relying upon to confirm its hypothesis and to prove its value.
