Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik is concerned about the city’s latest maneuver in the fight against mini-dorms. He sent us this missive today:
The “Determination” by the Zoning Administrator related to Jefferson Park ‘mini-dorms’ stated “The Goodman Development does not meet the intent or purpose of the R-1 zone.” My question of the people who were involved in crafting that determination is simply, ‘what changed?’
At issue in this case were several properties that have been redeveloped and are now occupied. Some residents of Jefferson Park with standing took the position that the Goodman Development does not comply with R-1 zoning regulations because the properties are not used for purposes permitted under that zone. The Zoning Administrator has now agreed with that assertion. Again, the question is ‘what has changed to cause this administrative ruling?’
Ultimately, this is not just about Goodman. Several other builders have constructed “mini-dorms” in not only Jefferson Park Neighborhood, but in Feldman’s (a lawsuit is pending in Feldman’s already) and in other areas around the City. In each case, the City issued permits for demolition of existing structures and the construction of new housing units.This has been going on for over a decade. It is striking that one of the criteria alleged to have been used by the Zoning Administrator in coming to this determination is “historical information.” The history is undeniable;
the City has allowed the destruction of historic homes in several neighborhoods, the building of ‘mini-dorms’ on those sites and has now changed course and taken the position that it’s all a big mistake and that the uses are not permitted.
Every single person on either side of this issue should be scratching their heads wondering, ‘what changed?’ Neighborhoods have undergone substantial changes, builders have made substantial investments, and the rules of the game have now been altered. The language of the Land Use Code has not been changed. The uses of the properties being developed have been well known and have not changed. To take the position that the City investigates only after complaints have been filed is fatuous; the city denies permits all the time when it deems uses to be inconsistent with proposed uses. Nothing in the set of facts has changed but the determination.
The homes are lost. The investment money is lost. Renters are now wondering their fate. Other rentals all over town are now looking at this decision and wondering their fate. The potential for litigation is obvious.
The relevant purpose statement in R-1 zoning states that the zone provides for urban, low density, single-family residential development. The City has permitted Goodman Development to build multi-bedroom, multi-bath dwellings, designed and marketed specifically to UA students, leased to the individual occupants, rooms keyed to provide security for each tenant and no identifiable “head of household.” Each of those was a criterion used by the Zoning Administrator in finding that the properties being challenged fail the R-1 zoning purpose. They are now deemed to be “Group Dwellings” not allowed in R-1.
If that decision had been made upon the first application for a permit to build one of these structures, the logic would be understandable. If it were made after having seen the first use pattern involved in one of these buildings, the same would be true. But now? Years after homes have been destroyed, millions of dollars have been invested and hundreds of people are living in these properties under what is now deemed to be an impermissible use?
The question begs an answer, from all parties involved. From the neighborhood residents who now have this bittersweet determination after years of watching the demolition of properties. From the developers who have been allowed to move forward with their investments based on having previously been granted the right to do so. And perhaps most importantly, from the taxpayers who will ultimately be left holding the bag for this decision when it ends up in court. So again, to each of the City staff who had a hand in this epiphany; what changed that would cause you to have placed this community in this position. Somebody finally filed a complaint? Not good enough – you review and act on permit applications every day. The use just became apparent? Not good enough – these uses have been documented and have been the cause for innumerable meetings and discussions with neighborhoods, builders and city staff for years. Somebody finally asked the right question? Not good enough – residents, builders and council members should not have to engage in a game of 20 questions when asking for determinations such as this.
Some wag once said “it’s a fine mess you’ve gotten us into.” It applies here. Unfortunately, it’s not a situation comedy that we’re dealing with. Here the stakes are immense, and the reasoning is illusive.
This article appears in Mar 17-23, 2011.
My understanding is that Goodman leases to one (1) individual. That person then sub-leases the other rooms in the building as he or she chooses. Is my information incorrect?
What changed? Here’s one answer. People are finally getting a clue that allowing mini-dorms is bad public policy, as well as being a disingenuously loose interpretation of the “single family” zone. Freshman and sophomore college students require and deserve some sort of supervision as they transition to adulthood and the community has been derelict in its duty in that regard. We have changed our minds in many areas of public policy over the history of our country after deciding we were wrong—like slavery, for example, or more recent instances of discrimination against certain groups. It’s never too late to admit that you were wrong.
Please sign our petition to Mayor and Council to protect historic homes and enforce residential zoning:
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-histo…
It is interesting that it has taken so long. We’ve been fighting this for almost 10 years… How much money have developers pumped into campaigns?
It is time for all of Tucson to really think what does R-1 Zoning (single family homes) mean. What has happened with these mini-dorms could happen anywhere zoned as R-1. This should have been clarified years ago when the neighborhoods asked city council members, zoning, etc… for help. We’ve been told have to go for historic, NPZ, etc… Not once were we giving our rights.
These mini-dorm/group home developers are in it only for the money… I do hope Kozachik looks at the history of our struggle as home owners and asks why were the R-1 zoning codes enforced from day one. I want to know why these developers were given the right to destroy neighborhoods and homes when so many were against them.
Tshupa,
Did you really just compare this issue to slavery? Wow……
I do not like these “mini-dorms” (homes) as they do not have any architectural integrity and they do not fit into the neighborhoods. I would not want one of these structures built next door to me. BUT Goodman is one of the few people actually contributing to the redevelopment of downtown Tucson and the University area. There is a serious lack of housing, and unless population density increases in the area not much is going to change. He has invested large sums of money, has not received hand outs from the city and he is actually building structures that increase the population density, the tax base and will help local businesses in the area and hopefully lead to lower rental prices in the area. We need more infill development, but it needs to be done with direction and guidelines. There should be approved designs and architectural components in new development that must mirror the previous structure on the lot. Goodman has also been there to buy homes from people in foreclosure, offering more money than other buyers. It is a shame that he knocks these historic structures down and builds stick and stucco boxes, but that is progress. Remember when the University knocked down dozens and dozens of historic homes, entire blocks!, to make way for parking lots in Jefferson Park, invoking eminent domain nonetheless to take peoples homes away from them? The grant road redevelopment plan will forcefully take peoples homes away from them in Jefferson Park.
My advice to the people of Jefferson Park is to just sell to Goodman now, or build your own mini dorms, and use the profits to move to an area where growth and progress won’t impede your small mindedness. By the time your fight with Goodman is over (Many more years!) the city will already be planning to widen Euclid and Park, Grant road widening will have already shaved off a street and lowered property values. The University will advance all the way North past Drachman and what was once a family neighborhood 20 to 30 years ago will finally become the student housing zone it is destined to be. I would guess that the neighborhood is already 50-60% students today. You are fighting a loosing battle for your pride.
I will give you a definition of a proud man: he is a man who has neither vanity nor wisdom –one filled with hatreds cannot be vain, neither can he be wise.
John Keats (1795-1821)
Pride is the mask of one’s own faults.
Steve,
You want to know what changed, I will tell you what I believe has finally happened. The City Attorney has finally answered the question that the neighborhoods have been asking for YEARS!!!!!!!. And the question that you just asked why now.
He has finally disclosed the proper way that this should have been handled over 10 years ago. The Jefferson Park citizens worked together and asked the question that we all knew what the answerer should be. And it was answered correctly.
So what now? I will tell you what I think should be done. That is this; a full examination of the City Attorney and his office should be done as to why this has played out the way it has over all of this time. A full forensic accounting should be done on what this level of incompetence has cost the city. Not only in time spent in the working out of this problem but also looking into the TAX REVENEW LOST BY THE CITY from the underhanded way the developers have been able to hide the income and extreme profits that they have been racking in over the years at the neighborhoods expense.
Steve, This is now going to have to follow a course of action. The City Council has absolutely nothing to do with. You had your chance to cover for you supporters with the deep pockets and now it is time to STFU! If you need help with STFU call Sarah Palin she is good at text messages.
Lastly I want you to do a investigation into your our staff! I want to know what are of the work histories are for each of your staff and advisors. This should be disclosed as a public announcement and should be done ASAP. If you have someone who has worked for or with any one of the developers in question than that person or persons should be terminated at once!
Than maybe city government will truly work for the city.
Let’s remember this tirade next election. It is good evidence that Councilman Kozachick has no vision, that he does rise to meet problems, and that for him the status quo needs to be preserved, even if it’s wrong, because the stakes of doing the right thing are too high.
What changed? What changed was that city officials finally decided to interpret the law correctly after years of pressure from citizens.
By his logic, the enormous investment this country had in segregation would have justified keeping Jim Crow.
The so-called mini-dorms have been built within the technical bounds of the code that define what a single family home should look like. That is why the city allowed their construction, even if they are gross caricatures of single family homes. Whatever their technical allegiance to the code, they have been used illegally, and kudos to city officials for recognizing this fact. If Mr. Goodman would like to start using them legally, nothing is preventing him from doing so. If he feels he cannot, he could sell them as single family homes to others who might use them legally (after all, he designed them to fit single family home zoning when he built them).
It seems to me Mr. Kozachik’s letter shows his preference for rich developers over working families. He should remember that those developers made a calculated risk to enter the market knowing their properties were pushing the limits of the code and knowing they were violating the definitions, if not the physical limitations, imposed by the code. Mr. Kozachik should not bend over backwards now to rationalize the risks of this special group.
“We have changed our minds in many areas of public policy over the history of our country after deciding we were wrong—like slavery, for example, or more recent instances of discrimination against certain groups.” -TShupa
“By his logic, the enormous investment this country had in segregation would have justified keeping Jim Crow.” -Cassie
Why all the references to racism and slavery? What is the implication? Do you think Kazachik is a racist? Is Jefferson Park a black neighborhood that is being disenfranchised? (No, it is an upper-middle class white neighborhood!) Is this because Kazchick is white? What’s next? Accusations that Goodman is part of a world wide Jewish conspiracy to destroy Jefferson Park? Come on already people.
I empathize with your situation but Goodman is not your problem, living in the shadow of an ever growing University, at the heart of a growing city and in a neighborhood where students outnumber you is your reality. You can’t change any of that.
Again I think this quote is significant in light of some of these hateful, vitriolic comments posted by these prideful people;
I will give you a definition of a proud man: he is a man who has neither vanity nor wisdom –one filled with hatreds cannot be vain, neither can he be wise.
John Keats (1795-1821)
I find it ironic that looselipssinksdicks posts end with a quote from an historical literary figure, since he or she can not figure out what the proper use of historical analogy is.
Let me clarify: when Kozachik makes his statement, his logic is the same logic used by racists of the past to support their racism. We now clearly see that logic is flawed. Posters here are attacking Kozachik’s LOGIC with appropriate analogies, to show how his logic is also flawed in a similarly clear way. The only poster here suggesting race is actually an issue is you. You are moving the conversation away from the thread of this community discussion and making it about your irrelevant points. (By the way, THAT is what we call pridefulness).
Let me now redirect the conversation away from looselipssinkdicks silly attempt to hijack it and suggest from now on that only the truly logical and relevant points of those posts be addressed.
The relevant part of llsd’s post comments boil down to this argument: the citizens of the area should accept that since they live near a giant and powerful institution, they should have fewer and weaker property rights than other citizens and allow the institution to shape the neighborhood any way it likes. If the residents resist the awesome power of this institution and its constituent members by asserting their property rights, they — the home-owners — are committing grievous sins of pride and hatred.
I disagree with llsd’s assessment.
2 comments @ looselips
1) “BUT Goodman is one of the few people actually contributing to the redevelopment of downtown Tucson and the University area.”
That is not downtown, its a neighborhood there is no high density building there except Goodman’s mini dorms. Also, if the “redevelopment” is so great why are the permanent and long-term neighbors fleeing after he sets one up near them?
2) “Remember when the University knocked down dozens and dozens of historic homes, entire blocks!, to make way for parking lots in Jefferson Park, invoking eminent domain nonetheless to take peoples homes away from them?… My advice to the people of Jefferson Park is to just sell to Goodman now, or build your own mini dorms, and use the profits to move to an area where growth and progress won’t impede your small mindedness.”
I don’t believe it is the job or requirement of the neighborhoods to subsidize the UA, only to co-exist with the university. If UA needs more student housing they should build it in high density areas where suitable. Universities do not have eminent domain ability on their own and it doesn’t appear to me the government would be willing to invoke it now. Calling people small minded when its their neighborhoods and homes (not just temporary housing) at stake doesn’t give you the high road as you call them “hateful, vitriolic.”
Cassie,
Your use of historical analogies is inappropriate, period. This is a legal issue and with legal issues we refer to laws, codes, regulation and prior court decisions. Historical analogies only serve to reveal your own biases , which is why you chose to compare this to racism and another poster compared it to slavery. Refer to the law, to the city codes and to court decisions. That is all that is germane.
Seeing as you live so near to this “giant and powerful institution” I would suggest you attend a few classes on basic property law. Property Law is a complicated system of rules, regulations and stare decisis court decisions. These institutions, like the city of Tucson and the University of Arizona (including UMC) in general have the right to your property as long as they can demonstrate that it is for the greater good and that you are paid a fair market value (not what you think it might be worth, unfortunately, but what the surrounding areas values reflect its worth as.) I will again refer to your prior post;
“The so-called mini-dorms have been built within the technical bounds of the code that define what a single family home should look like.”
Boom. You said it yourself. I won’t attack you or your intellect because I do not have to, you did it yourself. Your property rights are not under assault. Your property rights are not determined by you, they are determined by city codes, regulations and courts. Goodman is a PRIVATE citizen developing property that he owns, according to the codes and regulations. You are trying to deny him his property rights!!! The irony here is a beautiful thing.
Just a few thoughts.;
1. This “giant and powerful institution” which you live near is the only reason why you have high property values. Your home is worth far more money than similar homes in other parts of town, because you live in close proximity to the University and that raises the demand for space. Your property values have also not plummeted to the same degree as other parts of Tucson, you should thank the “giant and powerful institution.”
2. As a result of this added value there are people who want to develop and capitalize off of it. That development, according to you, was done in accordance with city code. Now you are upset because other private citizens want to enjoy the increased property value that you enjoy.
3. The advancement of the University of Arizona, UMC and the continued widening of roads by the city of Tucson will continue to eat away at Jefferson Park, which already has a very high number of rental units and most of the residents are only here as students. This is not a family neighborhood anymore. The elementary school has been shut down, even TUSD recognizes that enrollment rates have dropped and would have continued to drop at this school, thus they shut it down. This neighborhood is destined to become a student housing zone, with some families and older folks sticking around.
4. Goodman recognizes this trend and is capitalizing off of it. It is a shame that you do not see the inevitability of this trend. It is not an institution who is attacking your neighborhood, it is not an individual who is lowering your property values, and it is not the city either. This is economic progress and growth. You have benefited from it with high property values, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I completely understand and empathize with the people who have been living in that neighborhood and have raised families there. You are emotionally attached to your homes and the memories you have had in that neighborhood. I understand this well, a home I once lived in is now a parking lot for the University. I also understand that the University and the surrounding area have to change, they have to grow and the only directions that make sense economically are to the north and to the south. This is for the greater good of Tucson. Private developers like Goodman, who has been an institution in the Jefferson Park area for decades, are key to this. The city and the neighborhood should be working with him to ensure that he develops in accordance with the architectural standard that exists, instead they have chosen to fight him and he has built cheap, ugly homes. You reap what you sow.
“That is not downtown, its a neighborhood there is no high density building there except Goodman’s mini dorms.”
Where did you learn your tactics, from the tea party and conservative right? Lie, lie, lie until you lie enough and people start to believe you?
There are a lot of high density housing excluding the few properties Goodman has developed. There are apartment complexes along Park avenue and Mountain Avenue. There are guest houses in many backyards, many of them 2 or 3 bedroom guest houses. Homes have been converted to duplexes for the purposes of renting them out and many other developers have built newer, bigger homes to rent out to students. There are Fraternity and Sorority homes, studio cottage developments, student housing complexes and I am sure there are a lot I am missing. To portray this neighborhood as purely a family neighborhood without high density housing is disingenuous and does not properly portray the demographics and the reality of the area.
Ah you equate lots along traffic corridors to lots within a neighborhood. How about we run a road through your neighborhood and call it an arterial. Sound good?
You say “many” houses have 2 or 3 bedroom guest houses. I dispute that. How many is many anyway? Have a number for me? How high are the roofs of those “many” 2 and 3 bedroom guest houses?
I said nothing about “families” I said it was a neighborhood – you dispute that? You are referring to Jefferson Park – the name of the Neighborhood Association, not a dorm. I also said these were their homes – you dispute that too? Are you also inferring that if people are not married with kids they don’t have a home or a right to a stable neighborhood? Your descriptions are quite astonishing.
You don’t seem to care about the neighbors desires or expectations. You are not letting them roll over you, I wouldn’t expect them to roll over for you either.
“The city and the neighborhood should be working with him to ensure that he develops in accordance with the architectural standard that exists, instead they have chosen to fight him and he has built cheap, ugly homes. You reap what you sow.”
Oh so its extortion then “you better let me do what when I want and where I want it or I will make your neighborhood pay with ugly houses” what a guy this Goodman is!
“Your use of historical analogies is inappropriate, period. This is a legal issue and with legal issues we refer to laws, codes, regulation and prior court decisions.”
You are so, so, so right! Law, policy, city codes and everything else pertaining to how people regulate their lives is created in a vacuum. I firmly believe in the science of law that creates codes in test tubes. Right now I am hurrying on my way to the law laboratory to invent new laws disengaged from human reality.
You are so right, I almost worship you! Historical analogies have no place, ever. History means nothing. We are only in the ever present now. What is happening right now is the only thing that’s relevant. Until you say it’s not, of course.
I envy your erotic devotion to property law against human rights law. Like you, I need to believe institutions make the community, not people. I too know for a fact that the university is the ONLY, single, possible reason why property in the neighborhood has value.
Most of all, like you, I can simultaneously argue for the unimpeded property rights of developers against regulation while celebrating the glorious eminent domain power of the state.
I’m not sure I understand Kosachik’s position. Is he saying that if illegal things were done in the past, and people got away with them, that means that illegal things should be allowed to continue? Why, because they have momentum? I certainly don’t think the evolution of human society depends on keeping things as they have been, but, instead, on finding flaws in the way we do things and fixing them. On the other hand, Kosachik may just be criticizing the people who work for the city. If this is the case, I’m not sure I see the point, the city has made an important decision, and, I think, the correct decision, now lets move on and tear down some of these mini-dorms.
It looks like I can depend on the minidorm supporters for my effort to open a brothel and beer joint in my home in Jefferson Park. University men like ladies and beer and I strongly support the University. The zoning ordinance is apparently so weak that I can do what I want.
I look forward to the support of all the minidorm supporters when I open a brothel and beer joint on my property in Jefferson Park. Judging from the raucus parties on the weekends in our neighborhood students like women and beer, and I strongly support the University. Do what ever you want. Inventive property rights surely override the actual words of the zoning ordinance.
Shoot, if they’re not going to enforce the usage codes, my location off of Mountain would be a great place for a convenience store!
Being from the great city of Chgo I have no doubts how one got around the building codes and I have no doubt as to why there’s a lot of back-peddling going on.
If you’re questioning what I mean, watch the 1991 movie Backdraft with Kurt Russel, Donald Sutherland and Robert DeNiro again.
People are not so different, we all have a price…it just varies from person to person.
Now that the neighborhood has become more organized and effective, a second look must be taken so the matter can be dropped before the real story comes to the front.
I’ve lived in many Chgo college neighborhoods and NEVER were individual homes demolished to build cheap housing for the students. Now our fine Mayor may have torn down a whole ethnic neighborhood (which was getting too strong) to build the U of Ill/Cgo, but the premise was to better the whole city, not the pockets of a few individuals.
Do you think some of the controlling ethnic individuals had their pockets lined to help control the remaining people who had to relocate? You bet your bootie, but that’s how things get done in the Windy City. Do you really believe things are soooo different here?
.
“Investors” did there homework on homes that were going to go through foreclosure and befriended the elderly people in the neighborhood who were soon to go on to their next journey. They thought with their pockets and “to hell with beauty, history and architectural significance.” They researched the rental market and BINGO , the Un is expanding and the students will need housing.
I believe the reason many Jefferson Park peope are becoming active is because the landlords are absentee owners and don’t have to live with the beer bottles, red cups, food packaging, and underwear in the streets. They don’t get their sleep disrupted with loud music or their privacy impinged upon by sunworshippers on their roofs next door.
There’s no reason an old established neighborhood need be destroyed and replaced with student housing. Public and private transportation can accomodate (and does for many) students from other locations where mass student apartments would be welcomed.
Today’s culture has such a “throw away” mentality, but it is from the old standing solid structures and values that provide the path to enduring achievements.
PS: I love having the STUDENTS in the neighborhood. It’s the party-throwing, rowdy, unserious tenants that are destroying the sanctity of Jefferson Park. AND the codes WERE BROKEN!!!
Something I think some of you are missing a point. The City’s waffling from allowing these developments to now deciding they are not allowed under the zoning for the N …… it means the City of Tucson will have to spend $$$ millions on legal defense and compensating developers. Prop 207. And who brought us Prop 207? An out of state developer sponsored and paid for the campaign that sold the public which was staffed by local developers …. the same people who will now be suing “us.” My frustration, and part of Steve’s, is the waffling on this. Making this decision a long time ago would have created far less liability for the City. I have experienced the same kind of waffling on issues for the neighborhood for which I am the Chair.