Downtown land rush

After Katrina New Orleans received a lot of advice from urban planners about how to"shrink the footprint" of the city. We were told to be careful not to repeat the injustices of the past where the city was largely segregated by race and class according to elevation.  Build high, build dense, and build on high ground, we were told.  Of course it didn't work out quite that way, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad reasons.

Because you can't mow down a whole city and start over with a "blank slate," the human beings who live there have real life stakes and interests to consider. In other words, there's politics to do. Unfortunately our politics is dominated by wealthy real estate people so most of the time the results are sub-optimal for most of us.

And this is still true now in the post-post-K era where we are finding out that even though we did go and build high and dense on our high ground downtown, it turned out we were just building more nice things for rich people. 

Domain Companies officials will meet with neighbors Friday, May 31, to explain a zoning map amendment for their South Market District properties including The Standard, The Beacon, The Paramount, and a 36,000-square-foot surface parking lot. They are asking to change the zoning from CBD -5 to CBD-1, which would allow for increased commercial use, including timeshares.

Domain liaison Christian Brierre says the company is seeking the amendment “solely for the purpose of our retail spaces” and that The Paramount and The Beacon will “continue to be market-leading multifamily apartment products.”


Some neighbors wonder if Domain or a future owner could embrace timeshare as the highest and best use for those properties. Already, The Saratoga, the Maritime and 144 Elks Place are being redeveloped as timeshare or extended-stay properties.

While there is general unevenness in real estate sales citywide, business-friendly zoning downtown — which has encouraged the proliferation of timeshares, hotels and short-term rentals — is keeping overall real estate sales strong. Also Trump-era opportunity zones will provide long-term financial relief to many developers, including those acquiring properties in parts of the CBD.

Maybe Sidney can buy it

Probably we shouldn't speak such things into being but Sidney has been running around scooping up iconic New Orleans properties as well as bars/music venues lately.  And, well, now it looks like the Dew Drop Inn is available.

Plans to redevelop the historic, dilapidated Dew Drop Inn building on Lasalle Street in Central City into a modern hotel, restaurant and music venue have officially been scrapped.

A deal had been in place late last year that would have seen the 80-year-old, predominantly Jim Crow-era music venue sold to a developer with plans to renovate the two-story, 10,000-square-foot space to include 15 hotel rooms, along with a restaurant, music venue and a museum dedicated to New Orleans music.


But that deal — to sell the space to Ryan Thomas and his company Peregrine Interests — fell through at the end of the year. In late April, the effort officially ended.

Back in 2015 then councilwoman LaToya Cantrell helped create a cultural overlay district intended to spur development along that stretch of LaSalle Street. 

The LaSalle Street overlay is designed to promote businesses catering to the cultural arts and live entertainment as well as hotels, similar to what was done on Freret Street. Adult-themed businesses and karaoke bars would not be permitted.

The main benefit of the proposal would be to pave the way for the redevelopment of the historic Dew Drop Inn into a boutique hotel and live music venue, Cantrell said.

No idea why karaoke is prohibited.  Maybe that's what killed the Dew Drop plans. In any case, the zoning overlay is still in place. So if somebody wants to invest in a live music club in that spot, the opportunity exists, theoretically.

BUT, speaking of opportunity, last week we mentioned this quirk in the way the Trump Administration is handling so-called "opportunity zones" now that makes them even more open to exploitation as scam tax shelters than they already were.  Is the Dew Drop in one of those? The way this is drawn it looks like it might be just the wrong side of the street. But I don't know how that boundary works, exactly. If so, it might make the land more valuable to "investors" as a vacant lot than anything else. 

 Not that this would deter Sidney from buying it one way or the other.

This will solve everything

City Council finally passed that inclusionary zoning ordinance everyone has been pulling their hair out over for years now. It's not very good for all of the reasons we've been pulling our hair out over trying to explain for years now. It's a trickle-down strategy to give away favors to developers on the condition that they "set aside" a little bit for us.  Of course, it doesn't produce enough affordable housing sufficient to meet the actual need. The fact that housing advocates had to fight as hard as they did just to get it tells us just how badly off they are in their pursuits. The only reason it's even happening now is because legislature is threatening to remove it from the table of options.

Developers said (Inclusionary zoning) would kill new development in the city. They persuaded state lawmakers to strip local governments of the right to implement the concept.

Gov. John Bel Edwards intervened with a veto last year. But he told Orleans and other urban parishes to pass rules implementing the idea before the Legislature reconvenes this year or he would let the ban on inclusionary zoning become law.

Still this policy is essentially tokenism. The net effect is we will have built more nice things for rich people but  the mayor and council have an excuse for that in that they can claim to have done an "affordable housing" thing in the process.  That and they got to hire some consultants to tell them about it in the meantime. They like that too. 

This week in state preemption

City council passed an ordinance yesterday that will keep the city from booting your car until you've racked up three unpaid tickets. That's nice of them to do.  We could all stand to see the city be a little less brutal in its regressive approach to revenue generation by nickel-and-diming everyday citizens.  The new mayor sounds less inclined to that sort of thing than the outgoing one is. It was a popular campaign plank of hers, anyway. We'll see how long that holds up after she takes office. I am highly skeptical. For now, though, it's a step in a better direction. 

But the key thing to note here is that this decision was made at the municipal level only after State Senator JP Morrell was convinced to pull a bill that would have imposed the same policy change from Baton Rouge. State preemption of local issues is another matter of concern for the new mayor. Asking to have this booting ordinance happen in the council and not the legislature is one small way of asserting this principle.

They're also interested in keeping local zoning regulations local but that's going less well.

A Louisiana House committee on Wednesday (April 18) voted to approve a ban that would forbid local governments from requiring developers to include affordable housing in new developments. The bill was staunchly opposed by New Orleans City Council members, affordable housing advocates and Mayor Mitch Landrieu.

The committee's lopsided vote -- it passed by a margin of 11-4 -- could eventually be seen as a major defeat for Landrieu, the City Council and Mayor-elect LaToya Cantrell. Opponents of the bill had hoped to kill the bill before it reached the full House of Representatives, where it is expected to pass easily.

There had been some speculation that the committee where this was assigned would have been more friendly to the city.  Turns out, this wasn't the case.  Now it's almost certain to pass the full House.  Although, maybe LaToya's point man in the legislature can do something. What's he got to say? 

Abramson, a New Orleans Democrat, who has been designated by Cantrell to help steer legislation on behalf of the city, didn't return a message seeking comment about what he could do to assist Cantrell's cause on the House floor. Asked to outline how Cantrell has directed Abramson to handle the bill in the House, a transition spokesman, Mason Harrison, said, "We are presently working with Rep. Abramson, other members of the Orleans Parish delegation, the mayor's intergovernmental relations team and the city's lobbying team to determine next steps."

Oh okay.  Let's hope the next steps don't involve just going along with whatever the Republicans want again. That's how Neil voted on the budget this week.  But, to be fair, that was only a matter of slashing something like 2 billion dollars worth of health care services nobody will miss.  This other fight over a largely symbolic and ineffective zoning tool, though, maybe he can help with that.  He'll let us know, I guess.

The bully state

Honey, wake the kids. You don't want to miss this. Clancy DuBos is actually saying some pretty smart things. And he's saying them about the prospect of a Louisiana Constitutional Convention, which is especially remarkable because Clancy has pushed pretty hard for that in the past even though it isn't really such a great idea.  But here he explains precisely why it's not likely to accomplish anything.

Truth is, Louisiana has a constitutional convention every time our Legislature convenes. Legislators can propose constitutional amendments every year, and many of them do, but none has ever proposed a global fix to Louisiana’s fiscal train wreck. Instead, our lawmakers have proposed — and we, their constituents, have approved — a hodgepodge of fiscal amendments since our constitution was adopted in 1974.

Last month Sue Lincoln wrote about the convention scheme at the Bayou Brief.  I even spent some time on it. But Clancy only needs one paragraph to say the most important point.  If lawmakers really wanted to fix the budget, then they would do that. The problem is mustering the "political will" as Clancy puts it.  What that means, in practice, is actually taking power back from the reactionaries. I suspect Clancy is envisioning a typical reach-across-the-aisle effort to "get things done" or whatever, though. Which is really the sort of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. But nevermind that right now. Our boy is on a roll.

What began as a much-needed rewrite of Louisiana’s unwieldy 1921 constitution (one of the longest and most-amended in the nation) resulted in a streamlined version of the Huey Long model of state government. The 1974 constitution was more concise than its predecessor, but it did not change what is fundamentally wrong with Louisiana government: We concentrate power (and money) at the state level and stifle local governments’ ability to serve people where they actually live and work. 

This is not just a Louisiana problem either.  Conservatives have been using state governments as power choke points for decades.  There's a very good recent book about this by Nancy McLean called Democracy In Chains.  McLean traces the roots of the modern neoliberal project to James Buchanan and his founding of what is known as the "Public Choice" school of economics. Buchanan first became involved in politics in shaping reactions to post-Brown desegregation efforts. His project ended up becoming the founding strategy for a half-century's worth of right wing movements.

Here is an interview with McLean where she talks about the role of the state governments in Buchanan's scheme.

The Republican Party leadership bases its pitch to voters on a set of anodyne phrases. “We are the party of freedom, and liberty, and small government.” And that sounds good. Who is against freedom? Who wants super-intrusive government? But when you actually look at what they’re doing, they are freeing corporations to do whatever they want to their workers, the environment, retirees, and so forth and so on. When they say they’re for limited government that isn’t really true.

If you look closely, what they’re doing is limiting the branches of government that are the most responsive to voters: local government and federal government. But they are for extreme power for state governments, which they find much easier to control. We are seeing this happen all around the country where these Koch-funded state policy network organizations and the American Legislative Exchange Council are working hand-in-glove to push what is called “preemption.” They use the power over state governments to prevent localities from doing things like raising wages, enacting anti-discrimination ordinances, even passing plastic bag ordinances! It’s just a huge power grab.

At last week's Loyola event featuring four of the six living Mayors Of New Orleans, this preemption issue came under heavy criticism.  Mitch, in fact, seems to think it's going to get worse before it gets better. He's probably right about that.

Here is an example from this year's legislative session.  Danny Martiny (R-Metairie) has just passed a bill through the Senate that will preempt municipalities from enacting their own "inclusionary zoning" ordinances. The City Council is, understandably, upset.

The New Orleans City Council is urging lawmakers in Baton Rouge to oppose legislation that would stop local governments from requiring private developers to include affordable housing in their residential projects -- a practice known as inclusionary zoning.

Council members are united against the bill state Sen. Danny Martiny, R-Metairie, has sponsored. All but Stacy Head, who was absent, were made authors of a resolution making their opposition official last week.

"This should be a decision for New Orleanians, made by New Orleanians, in front of New Orleanians and not up at the state," Councilman Jason Williams said during the council's April 5 meeting

I'm not a big fan of inclusionary zoning  Most often than not, it serves as a sop to developers of luxury housing enabling access to tax subsidies and exemptions from various other rules. The meager amount of "affordable" (often even the definition of this is labored)  housing built in exchange is insufficient to the need.   Nevertheless, it's absurd that the state would act to block the city from administering its own zoning rules. Martiny frames this basic local governmental function as a privilege the city has somehow forfeited.

In the year since a similar bill was defeated in a House of Representatives committee by a single vote, the City Council has been unable to approve a blanket inclusionary zoning policy. In fact, it has not  even voted on such a proposal. Martiny noted that weakness when the Senate approved his bill Monday, with a 26-11 vote.

"Because the bill failed (in 2017), they then had another year to deal with it," Martiny said. Had the council acted, he added, it "probably would've given them at least a little leverage to have been grandfathered" under any bill that came back before the Legislature.

Yeah, see, it's your fault I keep smacking you with your own arm.  Why are you hitting yourself? None of this makes any sense. All that's happened is the Home Builders Association wants to be shielded from a policy the city might impose on it. So they've turned to the State Legislature where they can exert more influence. The end run subverts the locally elected authority and tilts the balance of power away from direct democracy. It's a common play and an historically successful one at that.

In any case, the root of the problem here lies in a sophisticated, national political strategy, not some isolated quirk of the legal system.  As such it's something that is much better addressed through, "finding the political will" to build a contravening strategy than it is by drawing up a whole new constitution.

Aylin Maklansky's father's Airbnb clinic

They're trying to sneak this in before Maklansky's boss, Nadine Ramsey, leaves the City Council in May.

Acikalin, who has contributed $5,810 to Ramsey's campaign since 2015, is currently operating one of the properties, at 920 Frenchmen St., as a short-term rental. He's barred from having guests there more than 90 days a year under its current residential zoning. He's told neighbors he wants to open a medical clinic once the site is rezoned.

But that's raised skepticism among neighbors such as Eugene Cizek, a longtime architecture professor at Tulane University who has been involved in City Planning issues in the Marigny neighborhood since the 1970s. Cizek said he's concerned that granting Acikalin's request would return the city to the "spot zoning" problem that proliferated before a citywide master plan was adopted in 2010.

Just for the sake of context, these spot upzone maneuvers have quickly become the mode of choice for property owners looking to back door their way in to the short term rental business. Typically the owner proposes some sort of commercial use for the property that just happens to also have space for STRs available. But the goal is a commercial short term rental license.

Increasingly, homes near tourist areas are being bought specifically for the purpose of converting them to AirBnBs, and a single person might masquerade as the “occupant” of numerous homes that are rented out all the time – and some companies even hire local people to play that role, Dedecker said. Property owners are also increasingly asking for spot zoning changes on homes from residential to business zoning to fit into the third category of short-term rentals, commercial, which allows more tenants and can be rented year-round.

There are a lot of these in various stages of discussion right now.

Here's one at the former Zara's Supermarket on Prytania Street.

This one, which appears to be a no-go at this point, would have been, ostensibly, an ice cream shop.

Here is a property owned by Pat Swilling.  He asked for a commercial spot-zone without even specifying what sort of business he might like to pretend to want to open there.

Councilwoman Stacy Head asked for clarification.

“I can’t tell you I’m not going to, but I’m going to do something else as well, like a mixed use,” Swilling said.

Head pressed him further.

“So you’re going to do short-term rentals. Just tell us the truth here,” Head said. “What do you want to do? That’s the question here. You said a coffee shop. I’ve got a whole list of things that have been promised to the Council that have never come true. … I’m so tired of being lied to by developers not giving us what they promised to give us.”

Head turned her question to Cantrell, asking whether it would be a coffee shop or not. The zoning requested would allow for that, Cantrell said. Swilling added that coffee shop, ice cream shop and others were all under consideration.

“Now it’s not a coffee shop,” Head retorted, saying that Swilling had failed to give the Council his vision for the property.

“That’s very disrespectful,” Cantrell said quietly as Head concluded her questioning.

Note that in all three of the above cases, LaToya Cantrell intervenes on behalf of the would-be Airbnb owner one way or another.  Here is one LaToya supports even without a bogus front business scheme. It's just a developer who wants to do STR condos.  It does help to have councilmembers on your side.  Here is a property on Bienville Street the council voted to upzone despite the Planning Commission's denial.  There's a list of CPC denials that could still be overridden depending on the Council's disposition.

And that's the real trick with regard to Maklansky's dad's "clinic."  The plan in that case was to jam the thing through before Ramsey and the rest of the Winter Council* leave office.  The attention has probably spoiled that.  The real fun begins in May when we learn, to everyone's shock, no doubt, just how pro-Airbnb the new Council and, of course, Mayor Cantrell end up being anyway. But we've still got a few months to pretend otherwise.

*I've been calling the lame ducks the "Winter Council" but the weather hasn't cooperated much with that term for almost a month now.  They're gonna be around for a while, still. Maybe we need a new thing.

Wall off the carrot patch

This story about the riverfront overlay has been fleshed out a bit since we posted it yesterday. I just wanted to point out a few interesting quotes. First we have LaToya Cantrell seems to think the problem is we aren't giving quite enough away to developers. 

Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell, who supported the Riverfront Overlay plan during her successful mayoral campaign last year, said the city needs to re-examine its entire incentive structure for affordable housing, while calling the units that would have been created by the bonus “minimal.”

She also said a more comprehensive approach could be provided by a study currently underway looking at how to incentivize affordable housing.

“What’s needed is a re-examination of our incentive structure," Cantrell said. "A carrot has to be created.”

The overlay allowance isn't enough. We also need to give them carrots. The carrots would be in addition to the land we've already granted to the lords so that they may purpose it toward their own profit.  For example, Sean Cummings here. 

Developer Sean Cummings said the removal of the affordability bonus was needed to “see these properties actually develop over the next 10 years or so.”

Cummings has been the driving force behind several complexes in recent years that tower over the riverfront and over Crescent Park, an amenity he spearheaded for former Mayor Ray Nagin’s administration after Hurricane Katrina.

They let Cummings build an amenity for his condos that we pretended was a public park.  So now they have to let him build all the condos without guilting him over the whole gentrification thing. It's only fair. At least until they can find more carrots.  Anyway, here's another look at our map of the feudal territories. It needs some updating in some areas but Cummingsville is still very much intact.



If its ramparts ever need defending, it looks like Cummings can call on James Gray.  

Councilman James Gray, saying he was generally in favor of taller and denser developments, said the problem was not whether affordable housing was included in the Riverfront Overlay but whether poorer neighborhoods were getting the amenities that richer and more desirable neighborhoods were. But, he argued, low-income residents would likely not want to live in a development along the river anyway.

“I’m not sure I would want to be one of the few poor people in an upscale development," he said. "I’m not sure that’s a favor to me or my children who would be raised as the poorest children in a development.”

Poor people shouldn't be allowed into rich neighborhoods. It's too embarrassing.  Maybe we should look into building some walls or something. It's certainly one way of keeping the carrots in place.

All we care about is more nice things for rich people

I've tried to point out from time to time the problem with so-called inclusionary zoning set asides.  Tl;dr is it's mostly just tokenism. The point is to allow local politicians to pretend they are trying to solve the affordable housing crisis when really they are just allowing developers to make more nice things for rich people.  Naturally, LaToya Cantrell loves it.

So when they just go ahead and vote to allow the luxury development and admit the set asides are bullshit anyway, as the Winter Council just did, it's almost refreshing.

The New Orleans City Council unanimously approved a measure allowing taller and denser projects along the riverfront in the Marigny and Bywater after stripping out a provision that would have required developers to include affordable housing in the largest of those developments.

The new rules, officially known as the Riverfront Overlay, would allow buildings of up to six stories on some of the best-located properties in two of the city’s most desirable neighborhoods.

Torah Torah Torres

Sidney should just go the full nine and have Late Capitalism declared a religion.  It's where the world has been headed for quite a while now anyway. The trep who gets the early jump on the grift is automatically Pope or something.

After last year’s renovations, The Monastery was given a permit to operate as a religious facility. Justin Schmidt, Torres’ attorney, told the board that at the time he and Safety and Permits Director Jared Munster had agreed that they wouldn’t debate what constitutes a religion.

The initial discussions seemed to envision the site being used mainly for religious-related events such as weddings and associated receptions.

But Munster said the actual events — which included a multi-day vampire-themed party and other balls and galas — have gone far beyond what had been represented. And advertising that paints the site as perfect for corporate events and conferences of up to 1,500 people further showed a lack of religious leanings, he said.

Welcome to Kern World

Last week, Cousin Pat wrapped up a series of informative posts diving deep into the murky waters of zoning and land use. (Part 1 Part 2 Part 3)  If you're interested in knowing why this stuff is so important, here's what he has to say about that.

Now, if you ask me about this process, I would tell you there’s a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. My biggest problem isn’t in a “corrupt” system, it is in an obscure system where citizens and voters and taxpayers never really know what is going on in their community until it is too late to say anything about it. I personally find that incredibly undemocratic, and I believe processes like that tear at the fabric of strong communities. While that sort of thing is all technically above board, it breaks the public trust through omission and obfuscation, and citizens throw up their hands and take a fatalistic, disengaged attitude toward their own city government. Sound like any place you know?

I only differ with him here in that I'm fine with calling something "corrupt" if this is what it looks like. Deliberately obscure systems that steer policy choices toward the benefit of an exclusive circle of insiders meets that threshold for me. In any case, the only remedy is finding ways to facilitate greater transparency and participation.  That isn't easy, of course.  Mostly what happens is developers and oligarchs get whatever favors they ask for.

We're just now finding out what Barry Kern and Joe Jaeger are asking for with regard to their recent investments.  Imagine, for example, the Times-Picayune building as the new American Can Company.  It's beginning to look like Kern might.

The group of local investors who bought the former Times-Picayune building last year are requesting mixed-use zoning from the New Orleans City Council — suggesting yet another major redevelopment in the works along the Pontchartrain Expressway.

The 9-acre property at 3800 Howard Avenue housed The Times-Picayune from the late 1960s until printing moved out of state in 2016. It was sold in September to a development group called 3800 Howard Investors LLC, which included developer Joe Jaeger, Barry Kern of Mardi Gras World, and Arnold Kirschman who recently redeveloped the 4500 block of Freret Street, according to a report in the New Orleans Advocate at the time.

The group does not specify its intentions for the property in its application, but says that mixed-use zoning will help pave the way for the future project.

“This site is currently zoned BIP Business Industrial Park District, though it is unlikely that offices or a business will be the new use here,” according to a letter submitted with the application. “The owner has therefore proposed changing the property’s zoning to MU-2 High Intensity Mixed-Use District, which would allow for the site’s full redevelopment.”

According to Uptown Messenger, the CPC staff is recommending against this change saying, among other things, that the requested designation is  “too intense for this physically isolated site, given the limited surrounding infrastructure, and the fact that the site is not easily accessible for vehicles or pedestrians.” That seems reasonable enough.  But when Kern's group bought the building, they clearly understood that those circumstances could change.

Jaeger's group also includes float builder Barry Kern, president of Mardi Gras World, developer Arnold Kirschman, whose family operated furniture stores in the metro area for nearly a century, and Michael White, a businessman.

"They have no specific plans or projected uses," Aamodt said. "They just want to participate in the growing New Orleans economy, and feel like the neighborhoods surrounding that location continue to get better."

They're so high on the location, in fact, that they've also purchased a warehouse not too very far from there. (Although getting from one building to the other is a bit convoluted because... well... CPC is correct about the area, basically.)  Anyway, they want to make that into an "indoor trampoline facility" which is apparently a thing you can have.

Kern is planning “an indoor trampoline facility” inside a 51,000-square-foot warehouse at 3035 Earhart Boulevard, just off South Claiborne Avenue, according to the application he filed with the city.

“This facility would be the first of its kind in the city of New Orleans, and would represent a great addition to the family friendly entertainment options the city has to offer,” Kern wrote. “This request would not greatly alter the fabric of the zoning district, but, if granted, it would expand the options for families looking for a safe, supervised place for their children to play.”

Anyway, Kern's group obviously has plans for the area. And Kern and Jaeger being who they are probably means that whatever plans they have are probably going to be permitted with or without CPC's approval. Because that is how this works in case you haven't been paying attention.

This also means we get to add KernWorld to our ever-expanding NOLigarchs map.  It isn't fully developed yet. And it's also probably a lesser dependency of Jaegerton for now. But, well, we know where it is, rougly.

CZO public meeting

If you're Uptown and you're interested in seeing some planners tell about the horrible ideas they have about what will happen to your neighborhood, they're meeting tonight at the Dryades YMCA

Amusing

I'm the last person to complain about any "cocktail lounge and amusement place" thumbing its nose at city noise and liquor ordinances. But isn't it interesting the way large mega-complexes of out of town chain "breastaurants" get to "ask forgiveness instead of permission," as one person quoted in that Lens story puts it, while independent neighborhood establishments get put through the ringer.

Tower to the skies

Certain development proposals in New Orleans generate an absurd amount of passionate opposition. This week's example was this apartment building at 1031 Canal Street (the site of the old Woolworth's) which the City Council eventually approved after some typically theatrical discussion. The objection from preservationists, as I understand it.. although I'm not sure I do, appears to center around the proposed height of the building.

As proposed, most of the building would be 193 feet high, with a penthouse reaching to 205 feet, or three times the 70-foot limit allowed by the site's current zoning. The ordinance approved by the council will limit the building's tallest portion to 190 feet.

Because, for some reason, 120 feet beyond the so-called limit is better than 135 feet? I'm not sure I understand what is being gained there. Later in the story it gets even more confusing.

Although the site's current zoning sets a 70-foot height limit, a draft of the city's proposed new comprehensive zoning ordinance would raise that to 120 feet. The planning staff recommended approving a 120-foot building, but the commission voted 5-3 last month to approve the 190-foot height Kailas sought.

Even the preservationist and French Quarter leaders said they would accept a 120-foot building, but Kailas said that limit would make the project "100 percent non-financeable." He said he has financing in place for the 205-foot building, though he would accept limiting it to 190 feet.

Preservationists had been arguing that the building's height would contrast with its surroundings despite the obvious presence of taller structures on Canal Street within only a few blocks of the site. To this they added an equally silly appeal to the supposedly good government principle of adhering to the limits of the master plan.

(French Quarter Citizens President Brian) Furness and leaders of the Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents and Associates organizations said the proposal also would violate the city's master plan, which calls for buildings of low to medium density in the neighborhood, but Kailas noted that the City Planning Commission staff urged approval of a 190-foot building at the site.

At Thursday's meeting there was more complaining about the violated sanctity of the master plan although it wasn't clear that the plan actually prohibits this sort of development or even imposes a height limit. The city zoning ordinance calls for a height limit of 70 feet but nobody was arguing that be strictly observed.

At one point, Jackie Clarkson even claimed to have written the Master Plan herself although this probably is not true. We're pretty sure she would have been too busy flying helicopters and firing canons at runaway barges to take that on. Unless she had one of her father's black friends draft one back during the 1950s, there's just no way she would have had the time. Anyway I'm told Jackie eventually voted for the proposal because it "pushes the envelope" which we'll just assume is something that needs doing.

The whole argument is yet another example of preservationist incoherence. Nine times out of ten these arguments are really about different groups of well to do property owners arguing over who gets what set of rights and privileges with the appeal to "preservation" being merely a tool of convenience for whichever side isn't proposing the specific development in question. Rarely, though, is any of this ever about mere aesthetics.

Sometimes it's not even that. In some cases, preservationists have little more on the agenda beyond just calling attention to themselves. Take the demolition of this blighted building just a few blocks up Canal from the proposed apartment complex for example.

At 18 stories, the Grand Palace hotel is the largest building in the fooprint. Its demolition will cost nearly $2.5 million.

"I think it's time to knock down that building and some of the other stuff on Canal," said Patrick White, general manager of nearby Handsome Willy's. "I think it's time that Canal Street make a return to what Canal Street was back when our parents were growing up."

White believes demolishing the blighted hotel will help improve the neighborhood.

"Currently we have a bunch of issues with a lot of the homeless and the vagrants that come around and they break into our stuff," said White. "I know a lot of them like to use the abandoned buildings as temporary housing."

Others would rather see the long-abandoned structure brought back to life.

"I find it interesting that people think an empty space is better than having buildings around," said Sandra Stokes, board member of the Foundation for Historical Louisiana.

Preservationists argue that because developers don't plan to replace the hotel with another structure, tearing it down is premature..

"There's parking, a garage attached to this building, give us a litle while, let's study it, see if it can structurally support a parking garage," said Stokes.

Yes, isn't it interesting that people would prefer vacant lot to this festering empty tower. If this thing is such a nice building, why not just move it down to 1031 Canal? Soves everyone's problem, right?

Also, since our local news media are operating now in the post-Garlandgate era, we should point out it's been noted elsewhere that WIST's Eric Asher has spent an inordinate amount of time agitating for Kailas' apartment project on his radio show over the past month or so. Just yesterday afternoon, that same station's Joe Cardosi interjected a brief but glowing editorial of sorts during the Sports Hangover show praising the City Council for approving "progress". Is it too much to ask whether Kailas has been paying WIST to push his project?

Pilates and Pinkberrys

It's the new coffee-gelatto-sushi on Magazine Street these days. I suppose for the sake of symmetry we can throw Walgreens into that mix. It's increasingly difficult to cover a single block and not encounter at least one of those six entities.

Anyway in the future we'll also have signage announcing when more of them are on the way. So we'll look forward to that.

But is it far enough away from a church?

Deutsches Haus negotiating purchase of state-owned property on at Bayou St. John

The land is currently zoned residential, Bourg said, so Deutsches Haus may have to seek a conditional-use permit or zoning change. For that, they will likely need the support of the Faubourg St. John group and nearby Desaix Area Neighborhood Association.

Update: Meanwhile, Uptown might get another Walgreens which I'm beginning to think is the only land use that actually complies with New Orleans zoning rules.

Delusional

Thou Shalt Not Violate The Master Plan. Also you're too close to these other beloved and accepted violations of the plan.

But Sapir and other neighbors said the restaurant would create nightly problems in a neighborhood where most residents have to park on the streets and that already is home to two other popular restaurants. They said it would violate the city's master plan and would lead to more inappropriate rezoning requests. They said there are numerous properly zoned sites, including on nearby streets such as Magazine, where Gabrielle could open with no problems.

Or to put it another way, just shut up and leave Eddie Sapir's parking spot alone.

Speaking of hypocrisy and the law

What Rene said.