Proposal to control BBQ smoke and odors :( (Austin, Spring: townhouse, buying)

[ImOnFiya]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Good for them, they have every right to do so. I expect that they will win. 15 of his neighbors who's lives are negatively effected by the nuisance he has created have tried to work with him for over a year and the only changes he has made has increased the volume of smoke coming from his smokestacks.

Wrong. Civil suits are about restoring fairness, it not a tool to stop perceived actions. The onus to prove these claims is on the 15 neighbors who effectively ended the City of Austin's arbitration process with Terry Black's Barbeque when they decided to sue.

Extremely difficult to prove harm when the business is operating within TCEQ and COA guidelines. If the 15 neighbors were concerned about the environment, the following entities would be also be co-defendents:

- TCEQ [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality] who sets smoke emission guidelines would be a co-defendant.
- COA [City of Austin] would be a co-defendent for finding nothing wrong with the smoke emissions & handling an apparently unsatisfactory arbitration process; and
- Travis County would be a co-defendant for 'supposedly' lowering propery values on the adjacent residential properties due to the smoke.

But, only Terry Black's Barbeque is being sued. By suing only the business, a judge will most likely determine these neighbors are suing Terry Black's for punitive reasons, hoping the business will either move or shut operations due to the bad press and/or extra expenses of a civil lawsuit. That is not what civil suits are about.

District judges tend to take a dim view of such actions and generally dismiss such lawsuits with prejudice. I would not be surprised due to the remediation that Terry Black's Barbeque has already incurred to trying to appease neighbors that the judge doesn't order the neighbors to pay the business' court costs - and if really outraged, the cost of the remediation which (with the smokestakes) - at least - start at $10 thousand dollars.

As a result: If there any punitive damages issued on the neighbors, wouldn't surprise me if they sued each other with some neighbors claiming they signed the legal forms as plaintiffs unaware of their own potential legal liability.

[vlan1]

If Blacks has in good faith really spent thousands of dollars with reciepts to prove it they have installed air scrubbers this suit has no legs to stand on.

[Don in Austin]

Originally Posted by vlan1

If Blacks has in good faith really spent thousands of dollars with reciepts to prove it they have installed air scrubbers this suit has no legs to stand on.

Sounds like the air scrubbers are not cutting it. I am a barbeque fan but would not be happy breathing smoke whenever I am home.

Don

[Trainwreck20]

Well, hard to know exactly what is happening, and since I don't have a dog in this fight, I am not going to dig into the details. That said, I am guessing that all it takes is the affected parties to have the TCEQ out prior to and during the smoking to ascertain the level of nuisance (as opposed to calling them when there is a problem and having them arrive after it has passed). At that point, the TCEQ will look at the duration and frequency of the issue to determine whether it is an undue nuisance. Given the geometry of the stack and the affected parties, it is pretty much a toss-up depending on how often they smoke.

Note that good-faith effort or money already spent has no effect on whether the condition is determined to be a nuisance. My understanding (quite possibly incorrect) is that they have not installed any scrubbers, or else they are completely ineffective.

[scm53]

The restaurant said it has made progress and, “as a result of our talks and efforts to be good neighbors, we have spent thousands of dollars making changes to our pits and cooking operations in November and early December.”

The statement continues to say, “We have spent thousands of dollars and countless hours working on a solution that is in the best interest of all parties involved. In April and May we installed forced air induction equipment (scrubbers) on all stacks."

If you read the suit, the plaintiffs will be satisfied with nothing less than a complete shutdown of the pits.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by scm53

If you read the suit, the plaintiffs will be satisfied with nothing less than a complete shutdown of the pits.

Do the scrubbers even work? The one person I know that rented in that area from quite possible one of the plaintiffs (not sure if they are or not, but could be) had indicated they really just wanted to be free of oppressive smoke and were more than happy to have the resultant odors and the nearby restaurant.

Now, there is a difference between having nuisance conditions due to smoke OR having a 'non-nuisance' condition due to smoke. There may be a gap here that the two sides may not be able to agree on.

[scm53]

Go read the suit. The plaintiffs want ZERO smoke.

[centralaustinite]

There is a reason that BBQ used to be only available in Luling and Lockhart!

At least the commotion helped persuade La Barbeque not to take over the Wahoo Taco's spot on S. Congress. It really isn't compatible with residential use.

[scm53]

There is a reason that BBQ used to be only available in Luling and Lockhart!

At least the commotion helped persuade La Barbeque not to take over the Wahoo Taco's spot on S. Congress. It really isn't compatible with residential use.

There homes next door to Black's in Lockhart. Obviously made of stiffer stuff than Austinites.

And as far as why La didn't move, maybe location had nothing to do with it:

Popular East Austin barbecue trailer La Barbecue will not move into the Wahoo’s Fish Tacos space on South Congress Avenue as previously planned.

La Barbecue pulled out of the deal with future landlord and Wahoo’s partner Gary Della Croce because they felt they would be sacrificing too much of their business in the new partnership. The dissolution of the agreement was first reported by Eater Austin.

“There were major fundamental issues they could not see eye to eye on and we were not willing to compromise quality for quantity,” La Barbecue general manager Ali Clem said. “Gary is a really nice guy. They were just not the right fit for the business.”

Now - those "fundamental issues" might be the mitigation required in that location. But if they were, why not just say so?

[centralaustinite]

There homes next door to Black's in Lockhart. Obviously made of stiffer stuff than Austinites.

It is interesting, I think that neighbors immediately adjacent might actually fare better, the problem with the Barton Springs location seems to be that the neighbors are above Blacks, their ground level is roughly level with the top of Black's stacks. If the topography was different (flat) I think there would be less of a problem.

I know that preliminary meetings had taken place between the neighbors and LaBarbecue, I wasn't following it too closer but I know people were pretty skeptical.

Who knows the real story, always drama with La Barbecue!