by JEN BIUNDO
Members of the group BudaFirst are taking their fight against the U.S. Foodservice development all the way to the state Supreme Court.
Seeking to halt construction of the proposed distribution facility east of Buda in the Sunfield development, the attorneys for plaintiffs Jim Hollis and Christopher Juusola filed their appeal in their suit against Buda on March 18. The Supreme Court has called for a response from the city by April 22.
“We are aware of the filings and we’ll let them run their course without further comment at this time,” said U.S. Foodservice spokesperson Howard Falkenberg.
The two documents filed with the Supreme Court include a Writ of Mandamus, which would force the city to hold a referendum election allowing citizens to overturn a land use change allowing light industrial use on the U.S. Foodservice site, and a Motion to Stay, which would bring construction to a halt by preventing the city from issuing development permits on the site.
“We believe that the right to referendum and the ability of the citizens to have a referendum on these issues are very important,” said attorney Jennifer Hogan of the Houston-based firm Hogan & Hogan, one of three firms representing Hollis and Juusola.
Last June, in a contentious split vote, councilmembers approved a development agreement amendment with developers of the Sunfield Municipal Utility District (MUD) allowing limited light industrial use on the property east of IH-35 at Turnersville Road that U.S. Foodservice was eyeing for its distribution facility.
Though located outside city limits and not subject to traditional zoning, the development agreement gives the city some control over land use planning in the 2,000-plus acre development. The 95 acres had previously been slated for commercial, retail or office use.
But saying that the site would generate too much heavy truck traffic, a group of opponents of the development, organized under the name BudaFirst, circulated a petition demanding that the land use change be sent to a referendum election, which would give Buda citizens the right to decide the matter at the polls. The city certified 788 submitted signatures, well in excess of the 20 percent of the city’s 3,514 registered voters required by the City Charter to call an election.
But city attorneys argued that the land use change was not subject to referendum, leading opponents to file a lawsuit against the city on Oct. 9. The judge’s ruling came less than six weeks later, concurring with the city that the development agreement amendment was not a legislative act, and therefore not subject to referendum.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs continue to argue in the Supreme Court motion that the land use change was not an executive act.
“If you’re going to look at it from the standpoint of what it accomplishes, it surely does look and feel like a legislative act,” Hogan said.
Budafirst is funded almost exclusively by descendents of Herman Heep, a wealthy rancher and oil wildcatter who owned huge tracts of land on the Hays-Travis County line in the 1900s, including the acreage that would become the Sunfield Development. Heep’s granddaughter Betsy Urban and her husband Carl Urban have said the U.S. Foodservice distribution could hurt their plans to put an upscale development on their own extensive acreage nearby.
Budafirst reported $13,955.79 in contributions and nearly the same amount in expenditures for the time period from July 1 – Dec. 31, 2009. Carl and Betsy Urban donated $7,700 in that period, while Heep Ranch Properties gave $5,850. Another Heep granddaughter, Kathleen Adkins, gave $160. Just $250 in donations come from three other Buda residents.
A previous finance report filed in July showed about $2,200, all coming from members of the Urban family.
Expenditures include nearly $5,000 for printing and mail-out of campaign literature, several thousand for administrative service and petition drive assistance, and more than $1,000 in consulting fees to Linda Curtis, a political activist described as “litigious Linda” by the Austin Chronicle.
However, the political expenditures don’t include the fees for the team of lawyers pushing the case to the Supreme Court and it’s unclear from the filings who is footing the legal bill.
Supporters of the development say that U.S. Foodservice would bring much needed jobs to the area, and would actually generate less traffic than commercial or retail development.
