Judge sides with city of Austin in lawsuit involving former American-Statesman site
The ruling denied a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental watchdog group.
The lawsuit alleged that the Austin City Council violated key provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act in 2022 when it approved a special type of zoning known as a planned unit development, or PUD, for the former Statesman site. The lawsuit sought to void the council's Dec. 2, 2022 vote to approve the PUD, based on the alleged open meetings violations.
The Statesman moved several years ago from the site at 305 S. Congress Ave. to a new location near the airport.
In arguing their case before District Judge Jan Soifer on May 15, Save Our Springs attorneys Bobby Levinski and Bill Bunch contended that the council granted the PUD zoning in violation of two key mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act: proper public notice, and a reasonable opportunity for the public to speak before the vote was taken.
Levinski said today that the Save Our Springs Alliance might appeal the ruling.
"Given the importance of this case for governmental transparency and proper enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act, we'll be evaluating our options for appeal," Levinski said. "This case ultimately impacts the ability of residents to weigh in on important matters that affect their community, including the relocation of the Hike and Bike Trail and removal of the natural, tree-lined aesthetic of the Lady Bird Lake shoreline. Every case has its challenges, and we may need to work on it a little longer to ultimately prevail."
More: Lawsuit seeks to halt planned redevelopment of former Statesman site on Lady Bird Lake
Casey Dobson and Sara Wilder Clark represented the landowner, the Cox family of Atlanta, along with Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group. The Cox family hired Endeavor several years ago to create plans to redevelop the prime waterfront site.
The site formerly housed the newspaper offices and printing plant. Cox sold the Statesman but retained ownership of the 18.9-acre site, a property many developers had long coveted and said was ripe for new development.
Dobson did not immediately respond to an email for comment about the ruling and what it means for future plans to transform the property into a mixed-use project with high-rise buildings and other uses, which could include housing, office and retail development.
Richard Suttle Jr., an Austin attorney and the spokesperson for the planned redevelopment, said he hasn't seen a final judgment yet in the case, so couldn't comment on what it might mean for the future planned redevelopment.
Dan Richards represented the city in the lawsuit. Richards said Soifer's ruling, signed Monday, means "the trial court case is basically over."
At last month's hearing, Richards told Soifer that voiding the PUD could jeopardize the developer's ability, in the current economic climate, to secure a new amendment offering the same level of community benefits — such as 6.5 acres of green space — at the site.
At the same hearing, Dobson and Wilder Clark said the PUD zoning change was properly noticed, and the public was given sufficient opportunity to speak at nine different meetings.
However, Levinski said that, while the PUD was listed on the council agenda as a zoning item, that posting was misleading because it failed to provide "full disclosure of the subjects to be discussed."
The proposed PUD ordinance encompassed "numerous provisions that extend well beyond traditional zoning regulations," Levinski told Soifer. Those included "sweeping changes" to environmental protections and other city land-use codes, including a failure to disclose height limits, setbacks and the elimination of two restrictive covenants.
"There are so many different parts of this (PUD) ordinance that are not zoning, yet it was sold to public as a rezoning," Levinski said.
The zoning changes included modifications to the Lady Bird Lake shoreline; the relocation of the Ann and Roy Butler Hike and Bike Trail inland away from the lake; the removal of more than 90 mature trees; code waivers; and "amendments to almost every chapter of Austin's land development code," Levinski told Soifer.
In arguing their case before Soifer, Leviniski and Bunch said that the Texas Open Meetings Act requires a public notice identifying these major changes to city standards and a public 'right to speak' on them before council granted the approvals.
The Cox owners and Endeavor have the right to build high-rises — up to 725 feet tall — within 140 feet of Lady Bird Lake. The development would be "forever exempt from a plethora of water quality, parkland and lakeshore rules and regulations," according to the Save Our Springs Alliance.
"The key here is the Statesman PUD went beyond zoning," Levinski said. "This didn't give sufficient notice to the public to say what is occurring with this zoning."
Among other issues, he said the PUD included "non-zoning provisions, including items the council doesn't have authority over."
There was a way the city could have described with greater detail what was occurring with the zoning case, "but they chose not to, and it's deceptive that they chose not to," Levinski said.
The level of specificity "gets enhanced" when the issue involves matters of "significant public interest," Levinski said. "It's not enough to rely on the assumption that the general public may have knowledge of the subject matter."
Dobson and Wilder Clark, however, told Soifer that the public notices complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act.
The notices properly and adequately disclosed the subject of the PUD at various meetings on the council's printed public agenda, Dobson and Wilder Clark said. Moreover, all the details that Save Our Springs claims were lacking from the notice were available at "the click of a link" in backup materials on the council's online agenda, Wilder Clark said.
"Not only did (the public) get to talk in meetings, but they got to submit written testimony," Wilder Clark said. She also noted that the council postponed meetings on the case.
Showing slides of newspaper articles, Dobson said the proposed redevelopment of the Statesman site was front-page news. He said the case was "noticed out of the wazoo."
"(Opponents) think this was done in the dark of night, with adequate notice to nobody," Dobson said. "In fact, the polar opposite happened."
Dobson said no special notice was required, and opponents "didn't need it. They wrote letters, they spoke at length to (the city) Planning Commission and City Council. This did not take place under the shroud of secrecy," Dobson said.
Countering the city's arguments, Bunch said the city "invented out of whole cloth" its position that it upheld the open meetings act, saying "there's no support for that in the entire body of open meetings cases."
Early in the hearing, Dobson showed a photo of the current Statesman site "in all its glory," showing a low-slung building surrounded by a near vacant parking lot with lots of asphalt and concrete.
Attorneys for the city and the developer stated that "virtually no one" opposes the proposed development, which may include condominiums, apartments, a hotel, office space and retail areas. Noting the site's popularity as a prime location for viewing the famed bat colony under the Ann Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, they emphasized the new development will enhance the bat viewing area. Additionally, they said the project has the support of bat conservation groups.
Last year, the Save Our Springs Alliance won a lawsuit contesting the city's creation of a special financing district, a so-called tax increment reinvestment zone, to fund infrastructure improvements within the proposed Statesman redevelopment project. A judge ruled that financing method unlawful.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Judge rules for city in case involving former Statesman site
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Columbia must do more to root out hate on campus — starting in the faculty lounge
Columbia University's long-overdue crackdown on the dozens of students who violently took over Butler Library, and the agreement it reached Tuesday with the White House, mark significant if belated steps toward accountability. For nearly two years, these students have occupied campus buildings, spread terrorist propaganda, praised convicted terrorists, posted Nazi-style antisemitic flyers, smashed doors, disrupted classes, harassed Jewish students and openly endorsed 'liberation by any means necessary' — including the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre. Backed by Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of over 90 pro-terror student groups, they have platformed speakers linked to US-designated terrorists, called for the death and expulsion of Jews and Israelis, and urged Hamas to target Jewish Americans. Now they are finally facing consequences. Yet after months of calling for accountability, I take no pleasure in their expulsions and long-term suspensions. Let's be clear: the students who stormed Butler Library got exactly what they deserved. Any functioning society must mete out penalties for those who break the law, and college campuses, which play a central role in shaping young Americans, must uphold that principle. Still, as I watch the surge of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-American hate rise on campus, I can't help but ask: What if the administration had acted sooner? Could earlier intervention — as I have been calling for since Oct. 12, 2023 — have prevented this descent into terror-glorifying chaos? Could these students — many of whom came to campus with limited knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — have avoided radicalization if the university had acted earlier? Would it have been spared its current reputation as a hub of antisemitic and anti-American extremism? It shouldn't have taken lawsuits, federal scrutiny and campus-wide chaos for Columbia's leadership to finally do the right thing. But now that the administration finally seems ready to take antisemitism and support for terrorism seriously, the effort mustn't stop with students. If these disciplinary actions are more than just a PR stunt — unlike the quiet reversal of suspensions after the violent Hamilton Hall takeover and the administration's habit of speaking out of both sides of its mouth — then the university must confront the source of the ideology that fueled this movement. Because the truth is these students didn't invent this hatred; they learned it on campus. They were radicalized by Columbia professors who called Oct. 7 a 'military action,' who expressed 'jubilation and awe' at the rape, murder and torture of Israeli civilians and who cheered on their violent takeover of university buildings. Many of them tenured and untouchable, they've long escaped consequences. But if Columbia is genuinely committed to solving this crisis, it must begin by holding faculty members accountable for their role in fueling campus unrest — and addressing the ideology behind their students' actions. Columbia, like many North American universities, has become a breeding ground for what I call 'American Intellectual Antisemitism,' a belief system that casts Jews as white settler-colonialists conspiring to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in an effort to create a Jewish supremacist ethnostate. Unlike the loud, swastika-waving hatred of the far right — with its grotesque and conspiratorial caricatures of Jews as society's omnipotent parasites — academia's insidious form of antisemitism cloaks itself in scholarly jargon and moral pretense. Dressed up in flimsy scholarship and ideological distortions, it rewrites history, ignores archaeological and scholarly records and reframes violence as justice. By manipulating words like 'oppression' and 'decolonialization,' it recasts ancient bigotry into fashionable academic critique — but make no mistake, it is antisemitism all the same. Unless Columbia directly confronts the professors who indoctrinate students into this worldview, its crisis will only deepen. While students like Mahmoud Khalil (who still refuses to condemn Hamas for slaughtering civilians) and Mohsen Madawai (who once led a Fatah student group and praised his cousins in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad) are the public face of this movement, its true architects are the professors. The responsibility — and the blame — rests with them. The surge of illegal pro-Hamas encampments on American campuses last year revealed that, left unchecked, campus unrest can quickly escalate into a national crisis. The question now is not only what actions Columbia will take to pull this bigotry out by its roots, but whether other universities will learn from its grievous mistakes. At a time when antisemitism and support for terrorism are reaching record highs, one thing remains crystal clear: What begins in the faculty lounge doesn't always stop at the campus gates. It's time to confront the academic machinery that fuels this hatred and dismantle it at the source. Shai Davidai is an activist, podcaster and former professor at Columbia University who is currently writing a book on American Intellectual Antisemitism.
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's war on ‘woke AI' is just Step 1: now we must fight the ‘monster' within
President Donald Trump has identified a real problem: artificial intelligence systems are exhibiting an undeniable political slant. His administration's new AI action plan, released Wednesday, promises to eliminate 'ideological bias' from American AI. Silicon Valley engineers do lean left, and they've built their AI systems to reflect progressive values. The results have been embarrassing for everyone. Advertisement When Google's Gemini generated black Founding Fathers and racially diverse Nazis, the company became a laughingstock — and when Elon Musk's 'anti-woke' Grok started praising Hitler, it proved the same point. Whether you're trying to program woke or anti-woke tendencies, these systems interpret your instructions in unpredictable ways that humiliate their creators. Advertisement In this way, both Google and Musk discovered the same terrifying truth: AI developers can't even get their systems to implement their own political goals correctly. The engineers at Google desperately tried to prevent exactly the outputs that made them a viral punchline. It happened anyway. The problem is not that any group has succeeded in controlling these systems; the problem is that no one has — because no one knows how to. Trump's anticipated executive order targeting 'woke AI' recognizes something important. He sees that biased AI is unreliable AI, and he's absolutely right to demand better. Advertisement But the long-term solution isn't swapping a woke mask for a MAGA one. We have to rip off the mask entirely, and learn to shape what's underneath. This is what Silicon Valley doesn't want Washington to understand: These systems are black boxes at their core. Engineers try to instill certain values through training. But how those values manifest emerges unpredictably from neural networks so complex their creators can't trace the logic. Advertisement Some AI researchers call these systems 'Shoggoths,' after a shapeless monster conjured by horror writer HP Lovecraft — an alien intelligence wearing a thin mask of helpfulness. That mask slips sometimes. We call it 'hallucination' when AI confidently states falsehoods, and we call it 'bias' when it reveals disturbing preferences. But these aren't mere bugs in code. They're glimpses of the real features beneath models' superficial post-training. Consider what happened when researchers at Palisade tested OpenAI's latest model. In controlled tests, they gave it a shutdown script—a kill switch for safety. In 79 out of 100 trials, the AI rewrote its own code to disable the shutdown. No one taught it to value self-preservation; that emerged spontaneously, from training. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Advertisement The real crisis is that the same black-box process creating unwanted political bias also creates unwanted survival instincts, deceptive capabilities, and goal-seeking behaviors that AI engineers never intended. The wokeness Trump is upset about is just the canary in the coal mine. You can paint over that with a patriotic veneer just as easily as with a progressive one. The alien underneath remains unchanged — and uncontrolled. And that's a national security threat, because China isn't wasting time debating whether its AI is too woke, but racing to understand and harness these systems through a multi-billion-dollar AI control fund. Advertisement While we're fighting culture wars over chatbot outputs, Beijing is attacking the core problem: alignment — that is, how to shape not just what AI says, but what it values. The administration's action plan acknowledges 'the inner workings of frontier AI systems are poorly understood,' a crucial first step. But it doesn't connect the dots: The best way to 'accelerate AI innovation' isn't just by removing barriers — it's by solving alignment itself. Advertisement Without understanding these systems, we can't reliably deploy them for defense, health care or any high-stakes application. Alignment research will solve the wokeness problem by giving us tools to shape AI values and behaviors, not just slap shallow filters on top. Simultaneously, alignment will solve the deeper problems of systems that deceive us, resist shutdown or pursue goals we never intended. An alignment breakthrough called reinforcement learning from human feedback, or RLHF, is what transformed useless AI into ChatGPT, unlocking trillions in value. Advertisement But RLHF was just the beginning. We need new techniques that don't just make AI helpful, but make it genuinely understand and internalize American values at its core. This means funding research to open the black box and understand how these alien systems form their goals and values at Manhattan Project scale, not as a side project. The wokeness Trump has identified is a warning shot, proof we're building artificial minds we can't control with values we didn't choose and goals we can't predict. Today it's diverse Nazis — tomorrow it could be self-preserving systems in charge of our infrastructure, defense networks and economy. The choice is stark: Take the uncontrollable alien and dress it in MAGA colors, or invest in understanding these systems deeply enough to shape their core values. We must make AI not just politically neutral, but fundamentally aligned with American interests. Whether American AI is woke or based misses the basic question: Is it recognizably American at all? We need to invest now to ensure that it is. Judd Rosenblatt runs the AI consulting company AE Studio, which invests its profits in alignment research.
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
CSX profit falls 14% in the second quarter even though rail shipments were flat
CSX railroad's profit slipped 14% in the second quarter even though the volume of shipments it delivered remained flat as it continued working on two major construction projects on its network. The Jacksonville, Florida-based railroad said Wednesday it earned $829 million, or $0.44 per share. That's down from $963 million, or $0.49 per share, a year ago. That's in line with what the analysts surveyed by FactSet Research predicted. CSX is in the middle of expanding a key tunnel in Baltimore, so it will be able to carry double-stacked shipping containers, and the railroad is completing repairs related to Hurricanes Helene and Milton. But CEO Joe Hinrichs said the railroad is operating much more fluidly than it was in the first quarter of this year when the results disappointed. CSX's latest earnings report comes as rumors swirl in the industry about t he possibility that a merger between two of the largest freight railroads might be proposed. The Associated Press reported last week that Union Pacific was in merger talks with Norfolk Southern. If merger actions heat up in the industry, CSX could be a target for one of the western railroads trying to build a transcontinental network. But the prospects for any deals among the major freight railroads remain uncertain because regulators might be reluctant to approve them. CSX is one of the major freight railroads that serves the eastern United States and competes with Norfolk Southern.
