Forward Dallas 2.0 — a contentious land use policy that some residents had worried would upend single-family neighborhoods — has been approved by the city council.
The vote came after hours of public comment and tense debate between council members during Wednesday’s meeting.
The compromise plan appears to address the primary concern of many homeowners who do not want multi-family housing to be allowed in their single-family neighborhoods.
Some also say the plan may prevent past environmental crises around Dallas to happen in the future.
“Since 2020 we and several environmental justice neighborhoods have fought to craft this plan, to finally address the industrial residential compatibility issues in our city,” said Evelyn Mayo, co-chair of the environmental advocacy group Downwinders at Risk.
“The greatest threat to residential communities today remains the preparation of environmental injustices like the siting of concrete batch plants, switch yards, asphalt plants and highways next to people’s homes,” Mayo added.
During the public hearing prior to the vote, some residents claimed the plan could be the end of what they call “established” neighborhoods across Dallas.
“Forward Dallas has always been a document with the intent to destroy single-family [neighborhoods],” Ed Zahra, a district 14 resident, said just before the vote. “Call it a vision, call it a land use tool but call it like it is, a developer's dream.”
After some changes to the document — and some failed attempts to amend the plan — the council voted 11-4 in favor of approving Forward Dallas 2.0.
Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson, District 2 Council Member Jesse Moreno, District 12 Council Member Cara Mendelsohn and District 4 Council Member Carolyn King Arnold voted against approving the plan.
“The City of Dallas took a major step forward today in updating the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan which had not been updated since 2006,” District 1 Council Member Chad West said in a statement after the meeting. “The final version of Forward Dallas 2.0 is exactly what it should be — a good compromise where everyone feels a bit dissatisfied but can live with the results, knowing they move the city forward.”
‘Discouraging and frankly shocking’
The plan has been in the works for over a year and has drawn both intense opposition and advocacy. Forward Dallas 2.0 was amended earlier this month to include stricter guidelines about what types of housing should be built where, after fears that protections for single-family neighborhoods across the city could be lost if the plan passed.
That “compromise document” — as some officials called it — is what the council passed during Wednesday’s meeting. But that didn’t deter elected officials to offer up amendments.
Some were simple additions, like Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Tennell Atkins’ change to make sure the land use plan incorporated the city’s policies around historic preservation. Atkins amendment also says the plan will be up for review by city officials in five years — and can be considered for revision after 10 years.
District 3 Council Member Zarin Gracey moved to clarify the land use related to a power station near the Mountain Creek area of his district.
But other potential changes faced more scrutiny.
“[Atkins’] motion today adds seven new amendments to the plan, that were not discussed at…committee,” Ridley said. “Well, there’s one more I need to raise at this time, and I will take full responsibility for it.”
Ridley, who authored the “compromise document” introduced a motion that would have downgraded townhomes, duplexes and some “attached” housing options, in single-family neighborhoods to secondary uses in the Forward Dallas land use matrix. It would also make attached housing options as primary uses in other areas of the city — not necessarily in single-family neighborhoods.
One of the changes, according to Ridley, would “reinforce neighborhood stability while accommodating the need for more diverse housing options.”
“This approach ensures that new denser developments align with the locational strategy and are contextual appropriate, thoroughly vetted and community desires are carefully considered during the rezoning process,” Ridley said.
But it was clear the amendments were not received well.
“It's really discouraging and frankly shocking that one of the authors of the amendments is going to blow that up today, with a brand-new amendment,” West said. “We need a compromise…let’s not recklessly blow up a plan that gets so much right.”
West said that the original plan, sent to the council committee by the City Plan Commission, was a reasonable document.
“It needed some work especially around homeownership opportunities, preservation, form base zoning,” West said. “The Economic Development Committee ironed this out, and more, as apart of a grand compromise that secured a unanimous 7-0 vote.”
West called Ridley’s amendment into question — and after a vote from the body, the proposed changes were put to rest, with no debate from the council, per the body’s rules.
A ‘backroom deal?’
Mendelsohn tried her hand at proposing a change that would mean the only type of housing allowed in a single-family neighborhood would be a single-family house. That move was scrutinized by many on the council as being similar, if not the same, as Ridley's motion.
After several city attorneys and city staff members weighed in, Mendelsohn’s motion seemed to be fair game, and the debate continued.
Mendelsohn said it was concerning that Ridley’s amendment, which she said provided more clarity, didn’t move forward — and that “conversation about it would be cut off.”
“You sat here and heard hours of people telling us, not just at this meeting but meeting after meeting, that they don’t trust us,” Mendelsohn said. “They don’t trust council members, they don’t trust staff, they don’t trust this plan and they don’t trust City Hall.”
Mendelsohn liked the plan to a “backroom deal” and said she was pushed out of a previous conversation about the plan by four other council members.
She also said she didn’t expect the motion to pass.
“…But it did give me a venue to be able to talk, didn’t it?” Mendelsohn said. “There’s a big problem with this plan and you all know it and you want to get rid of it as quickly as possible, as far away from election day as possible,” Mendelsohn said.
Mendelsohn eventually withdrew her own amendment.
The process has undoubtedly created tense relations between some homeowners and Dallas elected officials. Its also affected staff members, according to one council member.
“We had a slew of disrespect to our staff through the process and I don’t think that’s ever called for,” District 7 Council Member Adam Bazaldua said. “When staff is taken with doing a job, I don’t believe their professionalism, or their expertise should be one that is on the line or is questioned.”
Bazaldua also said the process isn’t meant to give one elected official, or community or area of the city exactly what they wanted.
“If there doesn’t feel like there have been concessions made from both sides…then we did not adequately do our job,” Bazaldua said.
This isn’t the end of the Forward Dallas 2.0 debate. The issue will likely come up again, formally, in five years — but the conversation will continue as city staff works to implement the guidance into future projects.
Got a tip? Email Nathan Collins at ncollins@kera.org. You can follow Nathan on Twitter @nathannotforyou.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
