Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker

Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker.
Resident, Employer, Landowner, Developer.
Renter, ..., wait, where are the Renters?

The City of Richardson has published a draft of its long-overdue Comprehensive Plan update, the first since 2009. I noticed words like residents, citizens, stakeholders, etc., used in different contexts. Are the distinctions significant? Dunno. The Plan doesn't say. And the closest it comes to a definition for any of the terms is this: "stakeholder—residents, employers and business owners, landowners, brokers and developers, partner agencies and organizations, nonprofits, and public officials." That's pretty comprehensive. It doesn't explicitly include renters, but because renters are residents, I'd argue that it implicitly includes them. But does the City think that? Really?

---

The reason I ask is because I was surprised to learn in 2010 that when Richardson officials use the word "stakeholder" they at least sometimes mean to exclude renters. Way back in 2010, there was a plan written for the West Spring Valley Corridor redevelopment. A flaw in that process is explained by something I wrote back in 2010 ("A Tale of Two Cities").

At Monday's City Council worksession, Amir Omar suggested the city solicit inputs from renters at future community meetings. (Good for him.) Community Projects Manager Monica Heid, who updated the council on the first community meeting, indicated that renters weren't approached directly because they might have ideas that property owners wouldn't like. (In the city's view, stakeholder means property owner. Living, working, shopping, playing in the area does not qualify one as stakeholder.) John Murphy said he would listen more to property owners than renters. (It's more like listen *only* to property owners given how the first community meeting was organized.) Gary Slagel indicated his opposition to getting input from renters by saying the city isn't planning for what's there already but for what we want there. (Why renters aren't qualified to have good ideas about what we want there wasn't explained.) Bottom line: things are even worse than I thought. If I were a renter, regardless of ethnicity, I wouldn't feel welcome in Richardson.

Source: The Wheel.

In 2010, Councilmember Amir Omar was shut down by the rest of the Council. By the way, he's running for Mayor in 2025, so we might benefit again from his more inclusive mindset. In the meantime, Councilmember Dan Barrios might be the councilmember with the most inclusive mindset today. This might be unfair to some others, but I get the feeling that councilmembers too often behave like, if they know they can't get a majority with them, then why even bother making the argument? It's my impression at least that Barrios is the councilmember most willing to speak of inclusivity issues at City Council meetings, even if he, too, often gets shut down when he does.

At the August 12, 2024, City Council meeting, the Belt Line/Bowser area was discussed as a potential redevelopment study area. Speaking of renters and where they would move to if the area was "redeveloped," Barrios said, "My concern is displacement." He favorably quoted a member of the public who said at one of the community summits, "People live here now. Revitalize without displacement. We need housing for ALL income levels. Change zoning and incentivize mixed-income housing."

Because of councilmembers like Barrios, our City Council of 2024 thinks more inclusively than our past Councils did. I'd like to see the Comprehensive Plan reflect that. It falls short now. The draft plan is 191 pages long and the word "renter" appears exactly zero times. The word "displacement"? Also zero. If it stays that way, today's City Council, no matter how much inclusiveness they believe in, are letting themselves get rolled by City staff and outside consultants. We'll end up with a Comprehensive Plan that overlooks an existing and important part of the Richardson community.