The Austin City Council has released the final ballot language for the upcoming propositions including the citizen-initiated Prop 1 and 2. For the first time in Texas history, a municipal council was directed by a court to rewrite ballot language as it was found that the language did not "present a fair measure of the proposed measures [and] chief features" and gave the City Council a deadline to change the language. Since I covered the last, and now found illegal, ballot language, I'll do the same for this final version. But first, the standard disclaimer:

Although I currently work for the City of Austin, I am in no way representing or advocating *any* official position of the City in this matter. I am writing this as a concerned citizen of Austin who would like to see our government as transparent and efficient as possible and I am using information that is publicly available elsewhere to make my points.

At this time, I am neither for nor against the proposed Charter amendment. My focus with this post is to try and bring a non-biased look at the proposed amendment and the ramifications it would bring if enacted. This opinion is put forward in the hopes it will facilitate discussion and will bring other concerned citizens into the issue. So please, do not read anything into this post that is not explicitly stated.

The City Council's final language appears thusly:

Proposition 1:
Shall the City Charter be amended:

1. to provide online access to public information, which for the most part is already available, by creating an online electronic data system for most City communications and documents at taxpayer expense;
2. to require that private citizens' emails to public officials be placed on the City website in "real time," including emails or electronic communications between private citizens and public officials in all City departments, and limit the ability of citizens to keep private the details of these communications, unless legal exceptions apply;
3. to require that the heads of all City departments, all city manager's staff and all city council members and their staff post online in "real time" information about meetings and phone calls with private citizens; and
4. to prohibit the city from exercising state law protection for information that could expose the City and taxpayers to greater financial and legal liability and risk?

So let's again breakdown each section.

1. to provide online access to public information, which for the most part is already available, by creating an online electronic data system for most City communications and documents at taxpayer expense;

This is more representative than the last ballot language which included sections on certain departments possibly releasing private information (Library, Health clinics, Police Department, etc) which Proposition 1 did not call for. "For the most part," this statement is accurate and correct but it does miss a crucial goal of the amendment: efficient access to public information. While it's true that most of this information is available, the Open Records request mechanisms employed by the different departments throughout the city are not efficient. The request can take as much as 10 days before the requestor even knows if the information can be retrieved. The amendment seeks to clarify and accelerate the public's access to this public information by putting online as much public information as possible (and, most importantly, where approved by City Council) to let the public find what it needs without using valuable employee time first. As mentioned elsewhere, APD alone will have to fill 2500+ Open Records requests this year and countless hours of employee time will be used in fulfilling those requests. The amendment's core argument is that it is more efficient for the public to search these records first and then be able to put in specific requests for particular information than the current system.

2. to require that private citizens' emails to public officials be placed on the City website in "real time," including emails or electronic communications between private citizens and public officials in all City departments, and limit the ability of citizens to keep private the details of these communications, unless legal exceptions apply;

This statement is still misleading. First, the premise that email will be placed on the City website in "real time" is not required by the amendment. The ballot language premise is a very broad interpretation of the clause "expeditiously as possible and to the greatest extent practical" and does not mention to the voters the circumstances that would have had to happen for that situation to become realistic. The City Council is the determining body on the practicalness of any measure that is not explicitly stated within the amendment so this situation would have to be:

1. Sponsored by some department, citizen's initiative, etc., to be placed on the Council's agenda.
2. At that meeting, Council would have to deem that situation practical.
3. If found practical, Council would have to draw up ordinances and resolutions to meet and enforce the requirements of the situation.
4. Council would have to pass the ordinances and resolutions.

So, if "real time" posting of email on the City's website ever does happen, you can lay the blame squarely on the City Council as they would have been the ones who found the situation to be for the public's benefit. Just for argument's sake, other scenarios that could have been used by the Council on the ballot that would have been just as misleading could be the amendment calls for all private citizen's Social Security numbers to be placed on the City website in "real time," or that all victim's records at APD will be placed online in "real time" (I've actually heard people mention that one). The amendment simply does not call for these scenarios nor would the amendment supercede any current state or federal laws in place to do so.

Council Member Brewster McCracken has stated that the email issue had been "[...] litigated and you all lost. ... [T]his language has been upheld as being accurate." At the time, he was talking to the amendment supporters in the Council chambers who rewarded this false statement with an appropriate response (boos and catcalls). As explained in this post, from the judge's own ruling, speaking specifically about the email issue, he stated "I don’t know that there are any city departments that would be excluded but certainly private citizens emails to any public official because there are exceptions that apply." As mentioned by myself and others, and which is validated by the state judge, private citizen's email has exemptions and, for various reasons, may not be put online. The City Council and their supporters *really* need to drop this red herring...

I'm still having a hard time finding the section that the Council is referring to when talking about "limit[ing] the ability of citizens to keep private the details of these communications,". There is nothing in the amendment that limits the citizen's right to privacy when dealing with their government. There is language that makes it harder for the City Council, City Managers, Division heads and their staff to keep their calendars and non-public meetings about City business with others secret. There is language that makes it harder if you are seeking economic benefits from the City to keep those negotiations secret. There is further language that makes it harder to keep the misconduct of police officers secret. But if you are a private citizen, all of the federal, state and local privacy laws on the books are not superceded by this amendment and will remain so. I can't stress this enough.

Finally, I would like to give some credit where it's due. Council Member Jennifer Kim tried to add more descriptive language to the ballot on this point. Specifically, she tried to have the words "consistent with state and federal privacy protection laws" substituted for the phrase "unless legal exceptions apply." Council Member Kim, I commend your attempt and agree that your phrase is much closer to what the judge ruled in his decision and thank you for your attempt at clarification.

When I first read this clause in the original language, I withheld my personal comments through the litigation that followed in the hopes that the Council would change the language and drop this fallacious clause. I'll go out on a limb here... If Proposition 1 is defeated, it will be challenged in court and it will appear on a later ballot because of this clause. Council Members McCracken, Dunkerly, Leffingwell and Mayor Wynn, your steadfastness to this particular language will cost the city more future litigation, the costs associated with it and another dubious legal distinction for this City Council.

3. to require that the heads of all City departments, all city manager's staff and all city council members and their staff post online in "real time" information about meetings and phone calls with private citizens; and

This is another misleading statement about what the amendment calls for. The relevant section from the amendment follows:

(B)OPEN ACCESS TO CITY CALENDARS

1. For all matters involving City business, the following people must maintain calendars of all meetings and maintain logs of all telephone calls:
   1. City Councilmembers and their staff;
   2. City Manager and his or her staff;
   3. Assistant City Managers and their staff; and
   4. all department heads.
2. These calendars and logs must contain the time, date, subject matter, and persons involved in all meetings and telephone calls involving City business. These calendars must be used to schedule and record all past and future meetings that occur after the implementation date of this section.
3. Calendars and logs must be posted online in real time and be accessible to the public.
4. “Meetings” includes all informal and formal meetings including but not limited to telephone conferences, videoconferences, happy hours, and luncheons.
5. This provision must be implemented within six months of approval of this amendment.

I highlighted the relevant sections in that clause. If you are a private citizen and you are speaking to a public official through one of the listed means about City business, then, according to the amendment, that must be noted in the appropriate log. The federal government, proposed by none other than one of the most conservative members of Congress, Newt Gingrich, follows much the same system. It is a way the public can see who their elected officials are talking to and about what subjects. If you are going to call Mayor Wynn and tell him how great or not great he is, there is no need to record the call as that is not City business. Further, if a Council Member calls their doctor, that call is not subject to the documentation clause. Only City business is required to have the notation. Another branch on that limb... This clause will also be seen by a later court to be misrepresentative and misleading and will help to overturn a defeat of the proposition.

4. to prohibit the city from exercising state law protection for information that could expose the City and taxpayers to greater financial and legal liability and risk?

This section must be referring to the requirement of the amendment that pertains to public information. Here is that section from the amendment.

SECTION 4: Public Information.

The term “public information” means information that is required to be produced under Texas Government Code § 552.021. Public information also includes the following categories that must be produced in response to a public information request:

1. INFORMATION RELATING TO CIVIL LITIGATION. That the City is a party to litigation does not render information relating to that litigation less important; rather it often means the information is a matter of heightened public interest. Therefore, the City must not withhold information relating to civil litigation under Texas Government Code § 552.103, but it may withhold under other Public Information Act exceptions.

First, the amendment states that the City cannot withhold information under the following Texas Government Code section:

§ 552.103. EXCEPTION: LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS INVOLVING THE STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.

1. Information is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 if it is information relating to litigation of a civil or criminal nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or may be a party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision, as a consequence of the person's office or employment, is or may be a party.
2. For purposes of this section, the state or a political subdivision is considered to be a party to litigation of a criminal nature until the applicable statute of limitations has expired or until the defendant has exhausted all appellate and postconviction remedies in state and federal court.
3. Information relating to litigation involving a governmental body or an officer or employee of a governmental body is excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) only if the litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that the requestor applies to the officer for public information for access to or duplication of the information.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1319, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

From this summary, under the “litigation exception,” a governmental body can withhold information about pending or reasonably anticipated civil or criminal litigation. This exception allows the government to hold back otherwise releasable public information because it feels there is or may be some sort of litigation that might include that information. This is an important concept to grasp. The information being sought by the public does not have to be actually involved in litigation; it just has to be deemed by someone in government that it might, at some point in the future, be part of a litigation claim. Further, the entity can keep this information secret until the statute of limitations expires for the whatever the phantom offense this information may be involved in.

As these examples show, this section of the Public Information Act has been abused by government entities in the past. Historically, this exemption in the Texas Public Information Act has been used in 2 ways:

1. a shelter to keep clearly public documents secret that otherwise would not be exempt and
2. as a delay tactic to allow further court motions and "grandfathering" claims to be filed on a dubious ordinance or law.

Proposition 1 still allows the broad and correct exemptions for attorney work product and attorney client privilege that will protect all information related to any litigation the City may be party to. The City does not need this exemption and it's prohibition will not expose the "City and taxpayers to greater financial and legal liability and risk." The City can still use the other numerous, broad and generous Public Information exemptions that protect Public Information through any litigation process. The prohibition in using this one exemption will make it easier for private citizens and watchdog groups to get the public information they already own even if it might cause embarassment or legal problems for some in the government.

So, in summary, I still feel the language on the ballot is misleading. I also feel that even though the City Council has tried their best to stack the deck against this initiative, it will still be a close vote come election day. I guess we'll see how things shake out.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos. Keep in mind I wrote this for non-Austinites but since it has to do with the upcoming Propositions, I posted it to AustinBloggers as well.

If you go a little over 1 mile southwest from the direct center of downtown Austin, Texas, you'll find yourself at one of the greatest natural sites left in Texas:  Barton Springs pool.  Fed by the endangered Edwards aquifer, the water is a clear and cool 68 degrees year round, making the swimming in the middle of the Texas summer at least bearable until the cool Fall breezes sweep in.  Barton Springs is in the southern part of a 12 mile long greenbelt of undeveloped land that snakes through the western edge of Austin, much of which has been set aside by the citizens of Austin in bonds to protect the green space as well as the sensitive aquifer that resides beneath it.  Most Austinites visit Barton Springs pool a couple of times a month in the summer to roast in the Texas sun and share the natural experience with other Austinites so close to the hustle, sprawl and large, multi-story buildings of downtown.  To most in Austin, Barton Springs isn't merely a swimming hole; it's a generational gift to them from their parents and a prime example of what defines Austin as a city and a culture.

Environmental protection of Barton Springs has gone on since the beginning of the environmental movement but really unified in the late 80's.  Since then, various local ordinances dealing with development over the aquifer have been passed as well as hundreds of millions of dollars for land purchases to protect the sensitive natural area from development.  But, as some would say, there's a new threat to the green space and possible future existence of Barton Springs.  And disturbingly, the threat seems to reside within the very governmental body chartered to protect the springs:  the Austin City Council.

There now exists a palpable disconnect between the Austin City Council and local environmentalists who feel that their government is no longer working for them.  Fueled by this frustration and using history as a guide, the Save Our Springs Alliance drew up and circulated 2 amendments to Austin's City Charter.  The amendments, primarily a response to what the environmentalists felt was a closed door, back-office deal brokered between a developer (Stratus Properties), a client (Advanced Micro Devices), and the City Council, strive for transparency in the land development process as well as seeking to hold local government accountable by using technology to facilitate the opening of information to the public.

Unfortunately, the current situation echoes one from just 16 years ago.  In 1990, a developer (Freeport McMoRan) sought to develop 4,000 acres within the Edwards aquifer and on top of Barton Springs by building hundreds of homes and apartments.  The citizens of Austin quickly banded together in an effort to block the development by lining up to speak against it in front of the City Council.  Over seven hundred speakers signed up to speak in front of the Council against the proposed development that night.  By the end of the epic Council meeting, the development was stopped by a unanimous vote of the Council, 7-0.  This victory essentially started the formal defense of Barton Springs (at the time named the Save Our Springs Coalition) and some much needed local ordinances were drafted to further inhibit development within the sensitive area.

But, after the Council meeting when the draft legislation was released, the lobbyists and developers tried to stop the most damaging parts of the ordinance; the "nondegradation" clauses which prohibited futher polluting within the aquifer.  After nearly a year of redrafting, the Council finally adopted a loophole-ridden version of the original draft.  Some felt this "Composite Draft" did not protect the springs adequately so the Save Our Springs Coalition wrote up a competing draft and set off to collect the required 20,000 signatures needed to put the ordinance on the ballot.

Once the signatures were collected and verified, the City Council delayed the recognition of the citizen-sponsored ordinance to where it could not get on the May 1992 ballot but it eventually made it onto the August 1992 ballot.  But in that time, the developers filed requests for development within the Barton Springs area in the hopes of "grandfathering" if the new ordinance from SOS passed.  Interestingly, it was also during this time that a Chamber of Commerce led campaign against the SOS amendment was undertaken, directed by none other than George W. Bush's right-hand man, Karl Rove.

When the election was finally held and the citizens of Austin finally had their say, the citizen-drafted and citizen-sponsored ordinance passed by nearly 2-1 (65% approval).  The ordinance finally put in place some much needed environmental protections to protect Austin's premier natural treasure.

It's with that history still fresh in the minds of the citizen environmentalists that a new threat to the springs comes forward.  Since the passage of the SOS ordinance in 1992, citizens have asked major employers to not build in the sensitive areas of the Edwards aquifer and to locate in the "Preferred Development Zone;" an area still close to downtown but not located over the aquifer and thus does not affect the water quality of Barton Springs.  That is until recently, in what these citizen environmentalists believe have been back-room deals with the Austin City Council, Advanced Micro Devices' new offices was "grandfathered" within the zone even though they appeared to have no legitimate grandfathering claim.  Worse still, the development would be a monster; a $220mil, 875,000 sq. ft. office pavillion which would serve as a "hub" for other development spurs into the sensitive area.

So, with history as a guide, the SOS Alliance drafted 2 new amendments to the Austin City Charter and went about collecting the 20,000 signatures that each amendment required to gain entry on the voting ballot.  Each amendment attacked what they saw as a problem in their efforts to be included at the discussion table for development within the Edwards aquifer and specifically with the AMD situation.  

The first amendment, now known as Proposition 1 and commonly referred to as the "Open Government Online" amendment, tries to bring tranparency to the local government and its elected officials.  It provides for new accountability and transparency standards for the highest City officials; the City Council, City managers and their staffs, and Division heads.  It requires phone and meeting logs to be posted "real time" to the City's website for those officials as well as defaults the City's Public Information policies towards openness.  It makes it harder to keep the public out of the now-secret negotiations between developers and the City as well as opening up police misconduct records to public scrutiny, bringing Austin inline with 2,000 other law enforcement agencies across the state of Texas.

The second amendment, Proposition 2 or the "Clean Water" amendment, seeks to add protection to Barton Springs and the Edwards aquifer by asking major employers to not locate on the Barton Springs watershed as well as curtailing city tax money for developing toll roads in the environmentally sensitive area.  The amendment would limit the city's authority in "grandfathering" claims that have weaker environmental standards than the 1992 voter-approved ordinances where, over the last 14 years, scores of development projects have been allowed to build in the sensitive area with only voluntary compliance to the 1992 ordinance.

Once the signatures had been collected and verified, the City Council originally drew up blatantly misleading ballot language in what seemed to be an effort to discourage the passage of the amendments.  Some citizens of Austin sued the City in court to rewrite the ballot language to comply with the state standards of fairness for ballot measures and for the first time in Texas history (and you have to think about how corrupt Texas politics can be and this was the first time...), a court found that the ballot language proposed by a municipal council would have to be rewritten.  The language originally approved by the Council was found to not "present a fair measure of the proposed measures [and] chief features" of the amendments.  But instead of trying to follow the direction of the judge (who, jokingly said that the state standard could be met by saying "This one is about open government; this one is about the springs") a few on the Council, led by Council Member Brewster McCracken opted to take out the "offending" passages but still leave enormously misleading language.  But because the Council delayed formulation of the original language and then went to court to defend itself, the final, still misleading language had to be placed on the ballot to meet the Travis County's deadline for getting ballots out to absentee voters.  

At its core, this is about how the citizens of Austin feel their government has failed them.  Austin, the poster child for an environmental town if there ever was one, with its collective of actors, artists, athletes, musicians, writers, geeks, students, Californians, Democrats and yes, even Republicans, pride themselves on just how much the environment is a part of their daily lifestyle.  Just look at any of the "Best places to live" lists and Austin is almost always on it.  And usually, at the top of those lists of the reasons why Austin is such a great place to live, it's noted how much green space is available through park lands, environmentally sensitive planning of developments and natural places like Barton Springs, Hamilton pool or Hippie Hollow.  The last thing that Austinites want is a city that looks, feels, smells and functions like Houston or Dallas.  We are all in love with the unique blend of arts, technology, people, scenery and general quirkiness that makes this city so damn appealing and most residents long to keep it that way for future generations.  This truly is a city of individuals but on one issue, Barton Springs, almost all are on the same side.  

Over the coming days I'll be cross-posting from my personal blog into this diary in an attempt to pull attention to this issue from outside of Austin.  I hope to show you, the national Daily Kos reader, the reasons why this issue is important to you even if you live in South Dakota.  As history has shown, what happens here in Austin is sometimes a national warning if we just listen.

So now Prop 1 & 2 have gone down in stinging defeats giving developers and their related industries cause for celebration along with the Austin City Council and Austin Police Department a big sigh of relief. So what caused the defeat of these proposals? Was it the deceptive advertising campaigns and interviews by the propositions opponents? (They were using quotes from the ballot language that had already been found deceptive in state court; 36 million anyone?) Was it a pattern in the media that too easily and too quickly gave a bully pulpit to current and former council members and mayors? (I watched what I would consider a "hit piece" on KVUE the night before the election that left my head shaking in awe at the extremely low quality of reporting that passes for journalism nowadays. I could easily present a case-study of all the current problems of the media with just that one news segment...) In fact, just now (5:06pm, Sun), I witnessed a report on News8 stating that Prop 1 would put all the city's documents online in real time... Geez, a day after the elections and it still isn't being represented correctly.

So there are signs that certainly point to these things being part of the reason why the propositions failed, but the most troubling sign to me would be the voting totals in my own precinct. I live in Precinct 342 (precinct totals are available here) which is the precinct directly to the east of Barton Springs. If any precinct had reason to vote for the amendments, it would be my precinct with its assorted hippies, yuppies, yippies and puppies. But, based on the vote totals, my precinct went 61% against the amendments (averaged). So almost 2 of 3 of my neighbors were either comfortable with seeing Barton Springs get paved over with more office and apartment complexes, restaurants and mini-malls or they were misled by the three-pronged approach of developer supported advertising, council member bully pulpits and misleading paper editorials. On my street, everyone I talked to except for one was in favor of the amendments. Clearly, most of the people I talked to did not have an implementation-level understanding of the propositions and it sometimes took a few minutes to explain to them what the amendments were trying to do, but every last one of them mentioned the $36 million figure which was found to be erroneous by state court and was ordered removed from the ballot language. Councilmembers McCracken, Dunkerly and Mayor Wynn owe the City's CIO an enormous thank-you fruit basket for that estimate...

But what troubles me most is not the deceptive advertising or the lax journalism, but what could be the overarching reason why the amendments didn't pass. Again, using my precinct as a lab, Will Wynn and Brewster McCracken won re-election (82% and 74%, respectively) who are possibly the most pro-growth council members/mayors in recent history. Props 4 (64%) and 5 (75%), which had to do with increasing term limits and increasing campaign contributions, also passed easily. Let's also assume that voters were swayed by the deceptive advertising which was funded almost entirely by developers and their sub-industries PACs. That means, in my precinct, one of the few precincts where Barton Springs actually touches and runs through, it appears that a majority of my neighbors are pro-industry, pro-developer and pro-growth over environmental protection of one of Austin's greatest natural treasures or my exhaustive research into the amendments are completely and utterly wrong. I'm not comfortable with either conclusion...

Now, it's true that my neighbors may not have had the time to go through all the amendments and really understand what they were voting on but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and at least assume that there was a cursory examination. So, in my precinct, located in the 78704 zipcode, the supposed hub of granola-crunching, tree-hugging environmentalism of Austin; Progressivism has died not by kicking and screaming, but by a flat-out majority suffocation. It seems to have been replaced by what I'll call "Closet Conservatism." You might know what I'm talking about here. It's like State Proposition 2 from 2004 which banned gay marriage here in Texas. That was an issue where people were quick to announce their support in front of their friends and family who may be gay but then secretly voted against it in the voting booth. The Barton Springs protection issue seems to be the 2006 version of the gay marriage amendment in my precinct...

I'll be honest. A non-progressive Austin is an Austin that scares me. I come from Dallas and lived there for 17 years and I loathe to see Austin turn into Dallas. I am not one of those people that find Trammell Crow developments on every other street corner attractive. I don't really care to have a Starbuck's within easy driving distance so it doesn't cost me more than that cup of coffee in gas to drive my SUV through the drive-thru. And I certainly don't care to see one of my most cherished things I love about Austin, Barton Springs and the accompanying greenbelt, something I use on nearly a daily basis, get paved over by the Trammell Crows and AMDs of the world. So the question is: What do we do now?

For starters, if my precinct is any measure, the election results should be challenged on the misleading ballot language. As I mentioned before, all that one needs to do is show that news report on News8 the day after the election as evidence in court to show that the ballot language was confusing and was not understood by a majority of the citizens. Also, I can't help but wonder how citizen-sponsored amendments, each of which required 20,000 signatures on a petition, managed to garner just over half of that number in support in the final election. I would think that the same 20,000 people who were motivated enough to sign the petitions should have been motivated enough to go to the ballot box. I know that you will never get 100% of those people out to the voting booth but just over 50% seems a bit low. And finally, we need to really keep a skeptical eye on this city council and it's future actions. As shown in the double-speak of the ballot language of Prop 5, the misrepresentation of Props 1 & 2, the "surprise" announcement of the new Green Water treatment plant location as well as the grandfathering of the AMD property, this council seems to go to great lengths to cloak their intentions. Hopefully, the incoming new council members will not be bullied by other members of the council and they will hold true to their campaign promises.

When I first started blogging about this issue, it wasn't because I was for or against these particular amendments. It was my belief that certain council members were not being honest to their constituents, purposefully muddying the waters to possibly benefit their campaign contributors instead of the people they are supposed to represent. After this election, I'm left with the disappointment that I find myself no longer in a progressive majority or that Austin is moving away from its environmental roots. Neither of those conclusions gives me the warm fuzzies for the coming years...

I've been meaning to comment on this story for quite some time now. Unfortunately, it's taken about 2 weeks to actually find the time to sit and jot the thoughts down. The story, which is split into 2 parts, reports that there is a Prop 2 "resurrection" movement afoot by SOS and the Council to take the best elements of the defeated Prop 2 and try to incorporate those as ordinances. Now, to me, this is certainly a fine idea and I think even the opponents of Props 1 & 2 agreed that something had to be done to protect the Barton Springs area. But, contained in the article is a quote from Council Member Lee Leffingwell (one of the most fervent anti-Proposition opponents) who disagrees with that idea:

"Not so fast, opponents say. On Saturday, 69 percent of voters cast ballots against the measure. So some neighborhood and business leaders say that those ideas have been roundly rejected and that more community input is needed to create a lasting solution to the vexing issue of development in the environmentally sensitive area.

Council Member Lee Leffingwell, who crafted the ordinance, plans to slow the process and allow for a larger community discussion to take place. Input from interested parties as well as the two city bodies now considering the ordinance will provide the springboard for conversation."

Now, some would argue (myself included) that the 69% figure used above is completely misleading. While the propositions may have been defeated by 69% that does not, by association mean that 69% of the people of Austin are against protecting the Barton Springs watershed. Most of the Prop 2 opponents had said that protection of Barton Springs is sorely needed but they just didn't agree with how the propositions sought that protection. The fact that 31% of the people of Austin still voted for the propositions considering the outright misleading ballot language is a strong indicator that the citizens of Austin really do value environmental protection over development in sensitive environmental areas.

So now we come to Council Member Leffingwell's statements. On the one hand:

"These charter amendments were written behind closed doors with no public input, no vetting and no opportunity for changes to correct errors and unintended consequences," says Lee Leffingwell, an Austin City Council member who is former chairman of the city's Environmental Board."

And now the other:

"Will you answer specifically which reforms you support and which you do not?

I AM STILL IN THE DISCUSSION STAGE WITH REGARD TO WRITING THE ORDINANCE, AND SO CAN'T COMMENT ON ANY ASPECT OF YOUR SCORECARD AT THIS TIME."

Pot, may I introduce Kettle... (More on that from a blog post by JS Hatcher).

Also, looking around in Council Member Leffingwell's campaign finance reports, one notices that the only PACs that gave Mr. Leffingwell money during that election cycle all had something to gain by defeat of the propositions (granted, these filings were in the 2005 election cycle and the Open Government/SOS amendment campaigns were ongoing but probably not a campaign issue at the time):

• Austin Apartment Association
• Austin Board of Realtors
• Austin Police Association
• BOMA
• Homebuilders PAC

Now, call me a cynic but a council member whose only PAC contributions came from developers, who is now quoted to want to slow down the environmental protections for Barton Springs and is currently doing what he accused his Proposition opponents of doing, does not instill the greatest confidence in me that he should be the one to lead the effort for protection of one of Austin's most sensitive environmental areas. Anyone else on the Council with a bit more cred care to step up?

Toby Futrell and the "Livable City"

The second part of the article is about a little spat between the City Manager's office and a report released by the City Auditors. In the report, the City Auditors:

"presented an audit that found that Austin does not have an "overarching vision for growth" or anything that ties together a patchwork of smaller city-planning efforts."

To which the City Manager took offense and disagreed with 3 of the 4 study authors by saying:

"In fact, the City has a vision and it is widely recognized. Our vision is for 'Austin to be the most livable city in the country.' "

May I introduce Exhibit A against City Manager Futrell's claim. In the studies cited in the post, Austin ranks as the third highest cost of living in the country. Higher than traditional high cost leaders San Francisco (10th), Boston (9th), Chicago (8th) and Atlanta (4th). Austin has the 4th highest average house cost in Texas (behind Ft. Worth, Dallas and San Antonio) and ranks number 12 nationally for the highest average cost of the typical home in America. These are not exactly the most livable conditions in the country.

Now, does city planning have anything to do with this rise in prices? As cited in this document, my guess is that the 29 now-under-construction-or-planned residential developments and super-condos being built on the shores of Town Lake, throughout downtown and in the ultra-swanky 2nd street area will only further inflate these cost of living indices (most have starting prices in the $200's for a 1/1). One can certainly make the argument that development should take place in downtown (I do support that) but of all the projects listed, from what I can tell, not one project is an affordable housing project.

So I have to agree with City Manager Futrell here. She does have an "overarching vision" of Austin. Under her's and the City Council's leadership, they seek to make Austin unaffordable for most residents. They seek to transform the prime green spaces and park lands of Austin into multi-story, multi-million dollar condominiums, raising the cost of living while attempting to replace the few East Austin parks with nasty infrastructure plants needed to clean the crap out of the water from these lofty, rich residents and the eventual Dallas-like sprawl of SH 130. They seek to keep their vision of Austin planted in future city council elections by raising campaign contributions, creating slush funds and erasing term limits. Yes, Ms. Futrell, you and your Council Member friends have a vision for Austin. Unfortunately, it seeks to replace what some of us have come to believe what Austin is about and replace it with a miserably cloned vision of Dallas.

I came from Dallas after 17 years of living there to Austin for the last 10, with most of that time in the Barton Hills area so I've seen the pace of change downtown under a close lens. I can't help but think that with the most developer friendly City Council in my memory along with the unification of former Council Members and Mayors against environmental protections for Barton Springs, it won't be long before we'll see the 580-ft towers being grandfathered in overlooking Barton Springs Pool.

The design standards can be found here or I've mirrored them on the bottom of this entry.

Well, this week saw the release of the new design standards and with it our chance to see, at least in the Council Member's eyes, how Austin will try to handle it's explosive growth. I haven't gone through the document with a fine-tooth comb yet but I have read the document thoroughly (by that I mean I didn't follow any of the references to external ordinances and the like but have read the document in its entirety). But before I get into my take on the design standards, I'd like to make a quick follow-up on a few posts I've made previously.

My last few posts have centered on the "trickle down" theory of housing which was started by a fellow blogger, M1EK, when he made a few comments on my blog and then made a similar comment on another blog. I wrote up a rather lengthy couple of posts on why I felt that the "trickle down" effect was not at work in M1EK's anecdotal example he put forth. For that, I got a few guffs from M1EK as well as some generally constructive comments from others. What I attempted to show could be summed up by the following: "The markets are segmented and demand will outpace supply for the forseeable future." I then attempted to explain through metaphor and links to outside sources that, at least for the forseeable future, it wouldn't matter how much supply in any market will be added, demand will still be greater and overall affordability would not move down. Now, I also said in a follow-up comment that I didn't plan on bringing up this topic again but as fate would have it, someone in a position of authority weighed in and so I'm making this brief mention of it.

Now I've had my differences with Council Member McCracken in the past about his seemingly overzealous tilt towards pro-growth and development and to be fair, I was seriously questioning his motives behind the Prop 1 & 2 voting run-up. But one thing that can be said about Council Member McCracken is that he is always at the forefront when it comes to development within Austin and is very clear about his vision. Which is what surprised me when I ran across this quote (my emphasis):

Rather than exasperating chic development and steep prices, McCracken contends the ordinance strives to balance density goals with affordability. By focusing growth along major corridors and away from neighborhoods, the hope is to keep taxes affordable on single-family homes. But, "affordability doesn't happen organically," McCracken says. "It is untrue that the market produces affordability due to supply." Therefore, 10% of VMU rental properties must be set at 80% median family income. Ten percent might not sound like much, but McCracken says the neighbors can set lower MFI if they wish, and the 10% reserve can double with city assistance, if the developer desires. "As density comes," he says, "we don't want to turn into San Francisco – a great urban environment for rich people."

In this one quote, Council Member McCracken has addressed the core issues I've been posting about over the last few months. First off, he upholds my view that affordability will not come through supply alone; there must be other ways to that goal and it appears, from the design standards, they want to mandate a way through ordinance. He also seems to be echoing my fears of losing the economic and hence, the cultural diversity of Austin through gentrification and thus, has tried to promote some sort of control mechanism through the new standards (using mandated median income levels and neighborhood association input). As an example, the design standards, starting on page 72 under Section E. Affordability Requirements for the new VMUs (Vertical Mixed Use), states the following (I'm quoting the full section in its entirety):

5. Affordability Requirements
   To be eligible for the dimensional standards exemptions in subsection D.2. above, the residential units in a VMU building shall meet the following requirements.
   1. Affordability Requirements for Owner-Occupied Units
      1. Five percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved in perpetuity for ownership and occupancy by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      2. In addition, five percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved in perpetuity for ownership and occupancy by residents earning 100 percent of the median family income.
      3. The homeowner association fees for the owner- occupied affordable units shall be subsidized by the entire membership of the homeowner association, pursuant to procedures and criteria established by the Director.
   2. Affordability Requirements for Rental Units
      1. Ten percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved for a minimum of 40 years for rental by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      2. As part of the one-time opt-in/opt-out process described in Section 4.3.5. below, a neighborhood association may request that some or all of the affordable rental units be available for renters earning a lower percentage of the median family income, to as low as 60 percent of the median family income. VMU projects that file zoning or site plan applications prior to August 9, 2006, will not be subject to this neighborhood affordability customization; and instead ten percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved for a minimum of 40 years for rental by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      3. The city may elect to subsidize an additional ten percent of the residential units in the building for rental purposes for residents at any level of affordability pursuant to criteria and procedures established by the Director.
   3. Fee for Upper-Level Nonresidential Space The developers of VMU buildings that contain non- residential uses above the ground-floor shall pay a fee as set by the City Council for all climate- controlled nonresidential space above the ground floor.
   4. Parkland Dedication Fee VMU buildings not located on greenfield sites that meet the affordability standards of this Section 4.3.3.E. are exempt from the parkland dedication requirements in Chapter 25-4, Article 3, Division 5.

My only problem with this part of the standards is I would like to see a greater percentage of units offered at a lower percentage of median income. Currently for homeowners, the standard sets 5% of units at 80% of median income and another 5% of units at 100% median income. I would like to see Austin follow some other cities suggestions and offer 10% at 70% and maybe an additional 5% at 80-100% median income. Anything we can do to offer incentives to middle-class ownership will only benefit Austin's cultural diversity otherwise we really do run the risk of becoming what Council Member McCracken states -- "a great urban environment for rich people." I don't think that's what most Austinites want. Well, I should clarify. That's not what most of us Southies want... :-)

The only other thing that really stuck out at me came from section 2.7 Private Common Space and Pedestrian Amenities. I won't quote the entire section (I've linked to the document below) but here's the section I found interesting:

2.7. PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES²²

[...]

2.7.2. Applicability
The following table summarizes the applicability of this section:

Standard	Applies if the Principal Street is:	Applies to the Following:
2.7: Private Common Open Space and Pedestrian Amenities	All roadway types	All site plans five acres in size or larger

2.7.3. Standards

1. Amenity Required
   All development subject to this section shall devote a minimum of two percent of the net site area to one of the following types of private common open space or pedestrian amenities:
   1. A natural and undisturbed private common open space, for use of the residents, employees, and visitors to the development.
   2. A landscape area other than one required by Subchapter C, Article 9 (Landscaping), provided such landscaped area has a minimum depth and width of 10 feet and a minimum total area of 650 square feet. The area shall include pedestrian amenities to support these places as gathering areas.
   3. A playground, patio, or plaza with outdoor seating areas, provided the playground, patio, or plaza has a minimum depth and width of ten feet and a minimum total area of 300 square feet. The area shall include pedestrian amenities to support these places as gathering areas.
   4. A combination of the above-listed amenities. (See Figure 42.)

[...]

F. Fee In Lieu
Instead of providing private common open space or pedestrian amenities as required in this section, the developer of a property located within the urban roadways boundary (as defined in Article 5 of this Subchapter) may request approval to deposit with the city a nonrefundable cash payment, based on a formula established by the council. The Director shall review the request and accept or deny the request no later than 15 days following its receipt.

Personally, I would like to see that final section dropped as I would rather see public amenities instead of a payment to a slush fund to the City. This exemption only applies to the "urban roadways boundary" (which is pretty much all of the urban core of Austin) so I don't know how many 5 acre sites are still left down here but I would much rather see places where people can gather then have the space devoted to a few extra sq. ft. of building or parking. Maybe the "exemption" should be a smaller percentage of the site (maybe 1% instead of 2% devoted) but I really like the idea of the city promoting open, green spaces rather than a pavement exemption. I'll be honest, there could be reasons for this payment that I'm not aware of but based on this document, I don't see how making a payment to the City helps with livability. It just seems to be a convenient loophole for developers to not add that enhancing green space to their development.

But overall, the document reads sensible and I feel this is a plan that most of the Austin residents can settle on. To be completely honest, I was *really* looking for the developer loopholes in this document and I was quite surprised by the relative lack of them. I need to go back over the document with that fine-tooth comb I mentioned earlier but in the meantime, I say "Well Done!" to those involved on trying to give Austin a coherent development direction.

Recently, in one of the mail lists I subscribe to (the Austin Wireless Group), a thread was started about the new wifi mesh that's being deployed in some parts of Austin. At the time (a few months back), it received a fair amount of press about how it was going to be a public wifi network and some politicians jumped on to "associate" themselves with the new network. To some, it seemed like the politicians were promising free broadband for all Austin residents, but I'm here to tell you the real details of the mesh from someone whose been on the inside.

First, let me start out by saying that I was (am) the Lead Security Analyst/Engineer on the mesh project. A co-worker and I were responsible for the city's first efforts into wifi by designing and installing the first wifi hotspots in the city parks and most of the first wifi hotspots in city buildings a few years ago. Now, as far as the mesh is concerned, I've been to most of the technical meetings, talked to vendors and approved the security measures utilized in the system. I've got a fairly deep understanding of how this thing works, where it is, where it's going and most importantly, how you and other citizens of Austin can benefit from it.

The first thing that needs to be mentioned is the city's policy on wireless is everywhere it's deployed, it will be a public network. This was a security decision as, at the time when we first started getting the projects, wireless had some real security problems so we approached it from the flip side: Instead of trying to protect the network, we'll use our traditional remote access methods that we trust to protect the traffic. Secure the traffic, not the network. This philosophy also turns out to be beneficial to the public as now every place we install wifi, the public has yet another free hotspot. So feel free to associate and use any wifi signal you see that begins with "COA-Location" as those are the public network's SSIDs.

So now, the city has the mesh. It was born out of the need to promote the World Congress of Information Technology back in May but a savvy CIO also saw the opportunity for a longer term benefit. I wasn't in the first meetings between the CIO and Cisco but from what I understand, the city was wanting to experiment with a mesh network and Cisco was looking to promote their newest mesh system. Cisco stepped up and donated the hardware to kickoff the network by donating 55 (or thereabouts) wifi nodes, the wifi controlling system and the technical experts to get it started. Since WCIT was going to be centered around a few places in town (Austin Convention Center, City Hall, etc), the decision was made to get those areas up first and progress to the other areas of Austin soon thereafter.

At about this time, the first "myth" about the mesh was born. Because politicians were involved, some of them got overly generous with the end goals of the mesh and they led on that this mesh was going to be primarily used for providing Internet access to those people underneath the umbrella. On the technical side, we had always been told and had planned that the mesh would be for facilitating city business and be used as a testbed for future city applications but because of the network's nature (wifi), it would be a public network. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle of these two uses.

It's against state law for the city to sell Internet access. You can thank your wonderful telcos and cable companies for writing the law that prohibits the city from offering Internet access like any other utility like electricity or water. So everything the city does wirelessly, the CIO goes out of his way to meet with those proprietary interests to make sure they understand what we're attempting to do and the plan won't be misunderstood. The mesh, after WCIT, will be primarily used for city business. The public will still be able to get on and use the bandwidth but that will not be its primary function. Large scale powering up of the network runs the risk of violating state law so signal output is kept low so as only to work outside (notice the name of the mesh, the "Outdoor Wireless Mesh Project." Telcos and cable companies do not provide outdoor signals so the project can't be deemed "anticompetitive." But in order to stay anticompetitive, signal strengths must stay low as to dissipate very quickly once inside buildings.)

There are numerous applications coming down the pipe at the City that might be able to leverage the wifi coverage as the connection method. As an example, one of those applications, affectionately called AMANDA, is the new building permitting system where each inspector in the field will have a tablet PC and will be able to issue permits in real time on site with no lines or waiting by the customer. Currently in their testing phase, these tablets are connecting through Cingular's HSDPA as the default transport but over time, as the mesh becomes more prevalent, we'll default the tablets to use wifi first if it exists. And since the city own's the wifi network and the backhaul, over time, this will save the city tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands in connection costs. And you can multiply that by every new field application the city develops. The potential savings is huge.

Now, because the mesh's primary function is city business, it is being "tuned" for that business. The nodes on the mesh are running at very low signal outputs. Basically you can get a signal while standing outdoors in a clear area but once you walk into a building, the signal disspates very quickly. This is by design and not the true performance of the mesh system (I think that the mesh is only using about 10% of it's full output strength but I'll have to check on that). The point is it's not supposed to be pervasive throughout everyone's homes in the mesh umbrella zone. If you can get a signal, the city is just fine with you surfing away on it. But the city is not in the ISP business and has no obligation to "power up" the signal because it keeps dropping off in your 2nd street condo bedroom.

Personally, I think what you'll see with the mesh over time is coordination of nodes being amped up based on the applications that will be set to use them. This is pure conjecture so don't hold me to this but I can see this as a valuable way to utilize the mesh. As mentioned before, an AMANDA inspector has a few buildings within the mesh that they'll need to inspect that day. We can powerup the immediate nodes closest to those locations so the signal will propogate easily through the walls of the building and then, when the inspections are done, we can power the signal back down again. Using it in this way will allow for the inspector to easily connect to the network yet still not break any state laws for "selling" Internet access.

Another use of the mesh will be to provide ad-hoc connectivity to entities during "disaster" scenarios. Last year, when Katrina hit, the city was setting up temporary and short-term networks for the Red Cross and other national entities in city locations where those networks didn't previously exist. Now, with the mesh, we can just power up the nodes closest to the locations the groups need and there will be no need for the city to run in with the wired + wireless infrastructure that was used in Katrina's wake. That will save the city tons of money in just people power when the next disaster strikes.

In my next post, I'll attempt to discuss the city's plans for eventual mesh coverage. There's plans to roll out the mesh in some areas of Austin that have usually been left behind the technology curve so it brings into the discussion the role a municipal government has in providing Internet access to its citizens. If the discussion on the AWN list is any indication, it should be a lively topic for debate.

One needn't look far to see that our culture has developed an annoying "It's all about me!" tilt. The pervasive, interactive and anonymous nature of the Internet lends well to our shameless self promotion and the trading of personal dignity and self-respect for a few minutes on cable tv munching exotic arachnids to gain even the smallest motes of celebrity. As an example, take what I'm doing now, blogging my thoughts to an unseen public as if I know more about these token issues of the day than the average Joe(lle) walking the streets. For some, myself included, it's not about public attainment of some conspicuous public accolades. But I would be lying if there isn't some small part as a writer that yearns for the same respect that an Arthur Silber, David Neiwert or Glenn Greenwald seem to garner from their peers. Our society is oh-so-self-indulgent and because of that collective humoring, the clamor for that elusive public prestige has now produced a culture that has all but silenced the ethics that once were important for maintaining a sense of community. We are now mesmerized by what's currently in mine, or your best, but sometimes short-sighted interest with no look towards the long-term ramifications of our actions. We are part of a community that seems to have put aside "What is right" for "What can I get away with."

And now we have the latest example of this desperate cry for attention as exhibited by our very own local government representatives. A few of our Council members want to put up self-promotional and dare-I-say-it, borderline campaign materials on the city's website, and sickeningly, they want you to pay for it.

Council Members Brewster McCracken and Jennifer Kim want, as CM McCracken states, "... a 21st-century way to communicate instead of a process that's rigidly bureaucratic and slow." In their overarching and all consuming zeal for self-promotion, they've used city money in the past to launch their own websites to contain the content that the city's webmasters and legal staff have deemed too political and could possibly violate state ethics standards.

But to understand why this issue is important, let's examine these council members positions (my emphasis below).

"Council Members Jennifer Kim and Brewster McCracken spent $5,300 of city money to create better Web sites separate from their official city Web pages — a move frowned upon by the law department and city ethics officer, who recently asked them to remove content that had any hint of opinions or campaigning."

[...]

"Kim and McCracken say good government Web sites educate people about elected officials' beliefs and work, and keep pace with a tech-savvy public. But the city's Web-content rules are too strict and the city's technology too old to keep Austinites well-informed, the two council members say. Council members must request changes to their Web pages, and it can take weeks to get fresh information online, they said."

As an employee of the City and the former sysadmin for the public webservers in question, I have a hard time not taking those passages personally when I know the real stories of what goes on inside and how the "system" works. I know because through my career, I've personally experienced the "council member wants this, council member wants that" decrees. I've been on the receiving side of some of these egotistical edicts in the past so I'm sure there are others where I work who will look at this article in the Statesman and also take offense to this slap-in-the-face from these council members. But my discord is not reserved just to these council members, but also to those within the city that cater to their whims that put good people in positions they shouldn't find themselves. Like the belittling of the city's technical staff here in this article or the person who originally approved the release of funds to pay for these personal websites. I can't imagine how that conversation went...

But while it's true that the publishing system interface that the council members use is close to 11 years old (the system behind that interface was just updated "behind the scenes" a few years ago), it's far from being the "rigidly bureaucratic and slow" system that Brewster is quoted as saying. Their view into the system hasn't changed because of the constant complaints from staff, including theirs, whenever something technological changes. This mindset is not contained just with the council members and their staff. It is a shared human condition that anyone, whether they work on web servers or the help desk have in common. They will tell you that people will always complain when something they are used to working with changes. So over the last 11 years, great care has been taken to keep the interface and logic the same to minimize complaints and complexity. These were conscious decisions made by very competent people with the background knowledge that only comes with dealing with so many egos for so many years.

But truthfully and to Brewster's chagrin, the current system is only as slow as their own delegated web liason's speed in typing the content Brewster wants on the site. Their content can go up literally within minutes of a dictum. No beauracracy needed.

And the technology of the hardware is the latest supportable servers running the latest webserver versions. From the layman's view, the pages that are produced look plain and static but they belie their true origins. Countless hours have been spent by many city employees to integrate the numerous application servers and web development languages into a seemless and singular frontend. I, as well as many others, possess detailed knowledge of the architecture, complicated plumbing and numerous separate and disparate applications that all have to work flawlessly behind the scenes transparently, 24x7. So for me, when these council members complain about the lack of a "21st century" solution, it is truly the epitome of naivete. I really wish I could write up and diagram for you the plethora of standalone ancient applications that had to be integrated with the brand new, freshly designed ones and all the different platforms that these applications require. But my ethics as an Information Security Analyst prevent me from disclosing the unique and dare-I-say-it, near magical details of those inner workings. So viewed through the limited technical prism of a council member, for those extremely limited needs of a their "About Me" page, the system in place for that is perfectly adequate to get their information out to the public in an effective and timely manner.

But what Brewster and Jennifer are really complaining about is not the speed of the "system" (the old "goverment-is-too-big-and-slow" red herring; the dodge to misdirect attention from their hands caught in the ethical cookie-jar), it's the content they want to post using your tax money. Ultimately, they want to put up political content on a politically neutral site and use your money to do it. The myopia produced by this relentless self-promotion and pursuit of notoriety might leave these council members vulnerable to much bigger issues with possible legal ramifications. That's why the city has a legal department with ethical advisors. And that's why they wanted the content taken down.

So when these council members state they want "better," it means they are upset with current Texas ethical guidelines over the content of their message and not with the machinery or politics of the city producing that message. Their definition of "better" is truly in the eye of the beholder and, more importantly, that of the state. They want to be able to put personal political content on a government website, something currently prohibited by state ethics code.

ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION NO. 372

August 8, 1997

Questions about state employees’ use of state-owned cellular phones, electronic mail, and Internet services. (AOR-409)

A state agency has asked whether the agency may allow its employees to use state agency electronic mail and Internet connections for personal purposes.

[...]

In adopting policies about use of state equipment, agencies should make sure that any permissible personal use does not result in direct costs paid by the state and does not impede agency functions. Agency policies should also ensure that state resources are not used for private commercial purposes and that only incidental amounts of employee time--time periods comparable to reasonable coffee breaks during the day--are used to attend to personal matters."

As an example, for awhile, Brewster had a reworked campaign video on the city's website (thankfully, it's been removed) that, in my opinion, walked a fine line of legality. The video featured Brewster walking along the various Austin landmarks [Barton Springs, Town Lake, etc], shaking hands and generally smiling at the camera. Instead of a "Brewster McCracken for Council" message at the end like a normal political ad, he substituted an "Austin is cool" type of message to seemingly get around the ethical guidelines set by the state and the city's staff.

What Brewster and Jennifer fail to understand is that all this costs taxpayers money. Everything from the storage space to keep this political advertising to the bandwidth to distribute it to the people to upkeep it cost money. And it gets particularly expensive when you figure in all the side and redundant systems the city has put in place for its technology architecture. The redundant systems, the backups, the disaster recovery, the plans, the power, the data center; the list goes on and on. All these things are afforded from the tax money given to us by the citizens. So to push this line that "my personal political message" needs to not only be hosted but subsidized by the citizens of Austin may be these council members ultimate expression of conceit.

In my opinion, the city staff has done their job and done that job well to not allow this unethical attempt of personal promotion to happen. It makes me proud to say that I'm part of the city's staff that attempt to follow the rules on the books and that just because of the position one may temporarily hold, it does not convey extraordinary or even imperial powers within our municipal government. The message that I'm sure that Brewster and Jennifer were counting on fomenting with this article is that we on the technical and legal staff can't understand the true meaning of the big picture and only they know what's "right." Their hope could only be that the public would rally behind their vision of the "me-centric" government and would join in a virtual call-to-arms for change. I'm glad to say that I believe that strategy will backfire and instead, the people will look at this incident with alarm and bewilderment and will question those involved to ask why they thought themselves better than those who preceeded them. And hopefully, Brewster and Jennifer will learn something from this as well and go back to concentrating on things important to the city instead of what's in their best interest as politicians.

Update: The Statesman editorial board has jumped into this issue and it appears they're supporting the Council Members spin. I'm currently "fisking" the editorial and it will be up later.

Update II: I've removed some of the more inflammatory language from this post and reworked some phrases as I'm afraid this post might have been perceived as an attack on these particular council members. I'll admit that I do speak harshly on this issue but it's because I know quite a bit about it, and not just from the Statesman article. My point of this post was to question what force could be so powerful that these politicians would choose to disregard state ethical rules and use city funds to pay for a personal website. My apologies to those who might have seen it differently.

Well, I always thought the Statesman editorial board seemed to play suck-up to the City Council whenever it had a chance and yesterday's raspings didn't disappoint. It's so rife with mistakes, it makes you wonder if they even read the article the editorial was supposed to be based upon.

It starts right in the first sentence (my emphasis).

"It's the perfect little flap for tech-savvy, keep-it-weird Austin: Two City Council members used their office accounts to update their official city Web sites."

Um, wrong! McCracken and Kim used their office accts to update their own personal websites, not the city's official website. From the original article:

"For that reason, Council Members Jennifer Kim and Brewster McCracken spent $5,300 of city money to create better Web sites separate from their official city Web pages — a move frowned upon by the law department and city ethics officer, who recently asked them to remove content that had any hint of opinions or campaigning."

If it was the official website they spent the money on, who would've written up an article on something that "newsworthy" or why would they have had to give the money back? And in CM Kim's case, why would she pay from her own pocketbook?

They took $5300 of the city's money, went to a few private businesses and paid them to produce non-city related websites to promote themselves. That is a very big difference than spending $5300 on the city's official website. What they did is just like taking their city credit card and going to a gas station and filling up their own cars with $5300 worth of gas. Or going to Central Market and buying $5300 worth of wine and beer. The issue that the Statesman (and others) should be focusing on is not the navigability of the city's website but this unethical and, if unpaid back (which in this case, they did), illegal behavior. The Statesman editorial board should be calling for a full investigation and audit of all discretionary purchases these Council Members have made since being in office. I can imagine if they have spent $5300 on just websites, what else might a full investigation produce?

"Brewster McCracken and Jennifer Kim spent a total of $5,300 in city funds to upgrade their personal sites within the city's official Web site. "

Again, flat wrong. The websites they produced with this money are unrelated to the city's website. That sentence makes it sound like www.brewstermccracken.org and www.jenniferkiminaustin.com were somehow being hosted from inside the city's website. Brewster's website is being hosted by Mecca Hosting while Jennifer's is hosted by Exemplartech. These businesses have nothing to do with the city. And these council members spent city funds on personal, unrelated websites.

"Since then, the city's ethics officer and the legal department have suggested the sites be edited to strike overt political content."

And since they spent city funds on their personal websites, the city's ethics and legal departments have purview over the content of those sites, even if they are not being hosted by the city. That's why they told these council members to remove the content. Because the city paid for it, those sites are bound by Texas and City of Austin ethics laws and rules and they had campaign-like materials on them. These departments acted correctly and well within their authority.

"McCracken and Kim have reimbursed the city for the redesign expense."

Here we have another example of minimizing by the Editorial Board by using the term "redesign expense." Why not call it what it is, EB? "McCracken and Kim have reimbursed the city for their possibly illegal expense." Again I have to ask... Would these council members have returned the money had they not been outed in a news article?

Also, is just paying back the money a stiff enough penalty? After all, if I charged the costs of this website to my city credit card, how long would it take before I lost my job? How long until I was put on administrative leave while the investigation took place? Here we have acknowledged inappropriate use of city funds and their only penalty is that they had to pay it back? Where is the public outcry for an investigation into the discretionary accounts? No, I guess it's just more important to complain how many clicks someone has to make to get to a web page...

"Kim was advised to remove a campaign logo, a blog and a survey on Austin's priorities. Kim's survey and blog are gone, but McCracken's site still has plenty of grip-and-grin, kid-nuzzling, shovel-toting pictures."

I'm assuming that since Jennifer and Brewster have paid back the expense, they put some links back up on their sites. Here's a link to Jennifer's blog on LiveJournal that doesn't require you to hit her site, increasing that 13 hits a day number.

"Policing the city's Web site for political content seems legitimate, though everyone will argue about the definition. Is Kim's message saying she lends "her time, energy, and skills to make Austin affordable, livable, and economically vibrant" information or political boilerplate?"

Is Jennifer Kim's 5-second poll that lists the Asian American Resource Center as a choice for one of Austin's highest priorities, among the other generic choices of "Affordable Housing," "Small Business," "Diversity," "Environment," "Education" and "Safety" possibly a soft racial pander? This is exactly why the city has an ethical officer and legal department. They ask the questions so you don't have to. If they determined that "her time, energy, and skills to make Austin affordable, livable, and economically vibrant" is political, there's no debate here. They are the legal experts in election and ethical law and the editorial board is not.

"The real problem in this kerfuffle is the city's ponderous, unfriendly and difficult Web site. It is a swamp that requires perseverance to negotiate. Finding the phone number for a member of the city's Historic Landmark Commission, for instance, can eat up a large part of an hour for those with the patience to stick with it."

No, the real problem in this "kerfuffle" is not navigating the city website but that 2 council members spent city funds on personal expenses. Why is this so hard for you ass-kissers to see? Oh, that's right. You have a big ass blocking your view...

Now, I agree that the city's website could use a redesign and one is currently in the works. But as I covered in my last post, here are the relevant points.

• First and foremost, Kim and McCracken used city funds for personal expense. Hmm, did I mention this yet?
• The content that CMs Kim and McCracken wanted to post on the city's website was deemed by ethical and legal experts in the city that it violated state and local ethics rules. They then proceeded to bypass the rules and create new websites with city funds to publish the same content the lawyers said could not be posted.

Irrelevant points:

• The navigation of the city's website. Yes, it is fairly old but has no relevance to what CMs McCracken and Kim did.
• The content of the city's website. Again, there's a ton of info up there but is also irrelevant to this issue.

And for the example the Editorial Board cites (finding the Historic Landmark Commission phone number), it's exactly 3 clicks. Here, you can try it yourself...

• Go to the City's Website.
• On the top, select the "Select a Service" dropdown box and find "Boards and Commissions." That's one click.
• Select "Historic Landmark Commission" from the text box on the next page. Click number 2.
• Click the "Get Details" button. Click number 3.

Well, I do believe. There's the phone number! Wow, you're right, EB, that took me the large part of an hour to find...

"For a city that touts itself as a high-tech Mecca, Austin's official Web site and its ancient computer system are embarrassments. Austin always ranks high on any list of America's educated, technologically advanced cities, but you wouldn't know that from the creaky, dense Web site."

Ancient computer system? Do you have information to back that assertion up? As I've posted before, I have intimate knowledge of the equipment and "systems" of the city's public website. I can certainly say they are not ancient. From my post:

"But while it's true that the publishing system interface that the council members use is close to 11 years old (the system behind that interface was just updated "behind the scenes" a few years ago), it's far from being the "rigidly bureaucratic and slow" system that Brewster is quoted as saying. Their view into the system hasn't changed because of the constant complaints from staff, including theirs, whenever something technological changes. This mindset is not contained just with the council members and their staff. It is a shared human condition that anyone, whether they work on web servers or the help desk have in common. They will tell you that people will always complain when something they are used to working with changes. So over the last 11 years, great care has been taken to keep the interface and logic the same to minimize complaints and complexity. These were conscious decisions made by very competent people with the background knowledge that only comes with dealing with so many egos for so many years.

But truthfully and to Brewster's chagrin, the current system is only as slow as their own delegated web liason's speed in typing the content Brewster wants on the site. Their content can go up literally within minutes of a dictum. No beauracracy needed.

And the technology of the hardware is the latest supportable servers running the latest webserver versions. From the layman's view, the pages that are produced look plain and static but they belie their true origins. Countless hours have been spent by many city employees to integrate the numerous application servers and web development languages into a seemless and singular frontend. I, as well as many others, possess detailed knowledge of the architecture, complicated plumbing and numerous separate and disparate applications that all have to work flawlessly behind the scenes transparently, 24x7. So for me, when these council members complain about the lack of a "21st century" solution, it is truly the epitome of naivete. I really wish I could write up and diagram for you the plethora of standalone ancient applications that had to be integrated with the brand new, freshly designed ones and all the different platforms that these applications require. But my ethics as an Information Security Analyst prevent me from disclosing the unique and dare-I-say-it, near magical details of those inner workings. So viewed through the limited technical prism of a council member, for those extremely limited needs of a their "About Me" page, the system in place for that is perfectly adequate to get their information out to the public in an effective and timely manner."

I'll go so far as to say that the city's public Internet system, with all the applications, application servers and platforms that need to be supported are easily more complex and "21st century" than what the Statesman itself uses. For the Editorial Board to deduce this conclusion, they must be looking at only 2 things: either going to the city's website and making a huge generalization based on what they see or talking with both CMs McCracken or Kim about what they think even though they have a vested interest in what's printed.

EB, before you make sweeping generalizations and print more rubbish, call the CIO of the city and ask him to let me speak to you about the technical setup of the city's website. Then ask him to let me speak to you about how these same Council Members are further making our jobs on the technology side harder. I know an editorial is an opinion but, jeebus, you got to have some facts in there...

"Most city Web sites in Texas are rather pedestrian. San Antonio's City Council members' sites are largely biographical, as are Houston's — though politically ambitious Houston Mayor Bill White links you to his speeches. Some Dallas City Council members have nothing but a name and picture."

Hmm, what's that old adage, "If your friends jumped off a bridge..."

How other cities do their business has absolutely no relevance to how Austin does ours. Take for example Information Security (something I know intimately). Our policies are much stricter than almost all the other cities in Texas by design. We model our policies on those of the Fortune 500 and not a typical government entity. I can say without question that our security policies are much stricter than the 3 cities mentioned in your editorial (Dallas, Houston and San Antonio) as I've talked to the security guys in all three of those cities at some point. And as much as they can share with me, they say we run a much tighter shop.

But are you now saying just because, say Dallas, has more lax security policies, we should adopt those policies too? After all, if your qualifier is just "Well, they're doing it," do you actually think that will be a good defense in court when the city gets slapped with ethical or possibly legal violations?

"However, all those sites are more user-friendly and attractive than Austin's. In a city with so much natural beauty and interesting features, Austin's Web site is downright ugly."

And here we have the real reason for the editorial. They don't like the design (which, I might add is separate issue from the content). But while the design is a might pedestrian and dated, does that actually forgive the fact that 2 Austin City Council members used city money for personal websites because the content they wanted to post could possibly violate state ethics laws? I just don't see the connection...

"When it comes to political content on the official sites, most politicians stray dangerously close to the line. Elected officials find it difficult not to campaign a little when reciting their accomplishments for the voters."

It's ok to stray "dangerously close to the line." That's why the city employs a legal staff and ethical officer. It's when you cross the line it becomes a problem. And the content CMs McCracken and Kim wanted to put up crossed the line in the opinions of the city's legal staff and ethical officer. There really shouldn't be any debate about this.

"McCracken's standard-issue ribbon-cutting photos seem tame by comparison. And Kim's site, as it is now, is rather boring. Her video clips can cure insomnia. Given the stodginess of the official city Web site, it is hard to condemn McCracken and Kim for trying to spruce theirs up."

Does it really matter that Kim's videos can induce a coma? But it sure is easy to condemn McCracken and Kim for spending that money. You know, if they would've put up their personal sites with their own money, they could've posted any content they wanted. But the fact they used city funds to do that means that they committed at the very least, an ethical violation and possibly even a crime. So you are going to give them a free pass on that because they wanted to "spruce up" their website?

"It would take weeks to change one sentence in my bio," said a frustrated McCracken. He and Kim have posted private Web sites that are not on the official city site."

That, my friends, is an outright lie. CM McCracken's page is under the publishing system which means that his own delegate, someone he picks, can get to that page from any web browser in the world and update that page in "real time." If it took weeks to change a sentence in his bio, he best be looking at who was responsible for it on his staff as it wasn't the fault of the publishing system.

Hmm, this reminds me of a few statements made by CM McCracken in the runup to Prop. 1. Maybe I'll pull those up for the next post...

"The line between informing and politicking is not a bright one, so keeping an eye on content is necessary. But it is equally, if not more, important that the city update and improve its online presence. The Web site should be faster, easier to access and more helpful."

This is just an amazing equation. Updating the city's online presence is equal to unethical and possibly illegal conduct from 2 city council members. Wow...

"In May, City Council members strongly objected to an ill-conceived proposition that would have forced them to post everything they did on the city Web page. But if voters defeated the referendum, the city promised to move forcefully and quickly to add more information and make the page more accessible."

I'm not going to get into the whole Prop. 1 debate again (look back in my archives for the numerous posts I put up about it), but suffice to say, I'm confused by this statement. Prop. 1 did not call for "everything they did be on the city Web page." Prop. 1 called for schedules of certain staff members to be made available online as well as access to information about land development deals. Anything over and above that was pure spin and lies coming from some of these very same council members.

And let's just use that false premise you put out there for a second. If Prop. 1 had passed and everything had to be put up on "the" web page, we would have been able to see the $5300 spent by these 2 council members on these personal websites for ourselves. How is that premise wrong or "ill-conceived?"

Anyway, if you are asking about who would be responsible for making information more accessible, it would be CM Leffingwell. He was "working" on a secret "open government" plan that he wouldn't share with anybody at the time as well as not shown anyone since. He was also quoted as saying he was going to slow that whole "open government" process down. It'd be nice to see you guys make an editorial on that.

"Time to get moving on that promise. Redesign and upgrade the Web site, then the argument about content will have more interest and vitality."

And again the misleading of what the real topic is. This "argument" should not be about the content but about the actions of a couple of our council members. What this closing thought should say:

"We of the Statesman editorial board call on the city auditor's office for a quick and open investigation of the discretionary funds at the disposal of our Council Members. With light now being shed that 2 of our more junior council members have used official city funds for personal purposes, we wholeheartedly encourage and demand a full accountablity audit of at least these 2 council members and in time, the rest of those on the council. After all, if they can spend $5300 on self-promotion, what else are we missing?"

Update: Oops. Sorry, forgot to include the link to the original Statesman editorial. Added if off the top.

Well, I know I'm stepping into this debate a bit late (as the council has already approved a pilot of this red-light camera system almost 2 months ago), but I guess that's what you get when you decide to take some time off from writing. The topics just pass you by...

Anyway, I fully agree with GritsforBreakfast's assessment that this program is not being put forward in the name of safety but as a way for the council to bring in some duckets without uttering the politically damaging words "raise taxes." So let's challenge the council on this bluff and try another pilot program that's all about safety and long-term money saving while piloting this other Big Brotherish system.

I caught this story on the Science Channel's "Beyond Tomorrow" (regretfully, not available online) where they covered one town's approach to traffic management and safety by doing something that seems quite counter to the overall goal. In order to make the intersections safer, they removed all the signs and signal lights, widened sidewalks and created common areas for cars, pedestrians and cyclists to share. The concept, called "Shared Space," de-emphasizes the role of the automobile in the overall design of the intersection, which now must "negotiate" with pedestrians and cyclists for the use of the same area. The story focused on one intersection in Drachten, NL where the Shared Space principles were put in place. Not only were transit times for drivers lowered (they replaced the lights with a roundabout in an intersection that services 20,000 cars daily) but safety increased:

"There have been no accidents here since February 2004. In the period between 1998 and 2002, when it was still an intersection with traffic lights, signs and lanes, 8 accidents were registered, 5 of which involved injuries (4 minor and 1 serious)."

The reason why it's safer is that traveling in your car becomes a shared social experience instead of the "I'm-alone-in-my-own-world, get the f-out of my way" experience that we currently encourage through road design. Drivers must now make eye contact with pedestrians and cyclists as they have as much right to use the space as the drivers of the cars. This results in an unspoken "social contract" which has the effect of reducing the speed of the cars which enhances safety. Also, as a side benefit, since there are no signs to confuse drivers or stop lights (there is really only one rule: pedestrians and cyclists get right-of-way), the driving experience is less stressful while traffic still flows.

Plus, livability can be enhanced designing around this concept. One example is pictured above: a water fountain that responds to the amount of traffic flowing through the intersection. The more cars that travel through it, the higher the fountain shoots water to "drown out" the sound from the passing traffic (the story actually showed some kids playing in the fountain. When was the last time you would allow your kids to "play in traffic?" :) The fountain serves both a functional as well as aesthetic function in the intersection.

This plan can also contribute financially over the long-term as there is no need for traffic light installation (I couldn't find a Texas-referencing study but I found one estimate from Missouri that says it averages $250,000 for a standard installation) plus ongoing maintenance, electricity, signs, street marking etc. And as GritforBreakfast's post brings up the possibility of "countdown timers" for lights to further add confusion to these intersections, maybe a sea change approach to this problem is needed.

Now, am I advocating that we need to rip out all the traffic lights in Austin and replace them with roundabouts? Certainly not. But if the council is "exploring" the idea of privacy-encroaching red-light cameras and if they are truly doing it in the name of safety, then they should also pilot other ways to achieve that goal that may work better and cost less.

I can think of a few places in town that would be good for a pilot. One of those, Barton Springs Road between Lamar and Zilker Park, would be a good area for a pilot. I've mentioned in a previous post my concerns about a planned 250 unit luxury condominium complex going up in that area. If council decides to move forward on that, I wouldn't mind seeing a redesigning of the entire area following the Shared Space philosophy as that would "replace" what I feel those towers would be taking away from that area (a sense of community). I also think there are a few intersections downtown (around the 2nd and Guadalupe area where all the new condo construction is going on and where council is encouraging pedestrian amenities) that could also benefit from this approach. After all, I think the Shared Space concept aligns well with what most Austinites think about their city and would be another way for Austin to distinguish itself from other cities, maintaining that unique Austin brand that the new Design Standards are attempting to create.

Now, I would've thought that somebody, somewhere would have proposed this idea to the council (and somebody must have) but a thorough search using Google and Technorati at the Statesman, Council archives and blogs produced no documented mentions (I guess it could be called something else...). I know we are a more progressive lot here in Austin so somebody must have brought this up already. I seem to remember when the area I mentioned before, Barton Springs, was up for it's "redesign" (actually, I know it was an attempt to alleviate the severe flooding problems of that stretch of the road and not a cosmetic thing), there was some mention of the concept but I can't seem to find an article about it. But you know what they say about memory and getting older...

So, if you're like me and think this idea is worth exploring, let's let the council hear about it. I really think these proposed red-light cameras are a travesty and huge mistake-in-the-waiting, so let's try and re-think the problem instead of "bolting on" another one.

Some resources:

• Intersection in the Netherlands
• Shared Space Website
• Shared Space Philosophy (PDF)
• Transit Cooperative Research Program's report on transit friendly streets (PDF)

Corrections: Cleaned up some language in one of the sentences to make a little more sense (added "plus ongoing" and "street" to the sentence containing the cost estimates for traffic lights.

Update: Wells Dunbar puts up a chilling statistic over at the Chronic. 64 people died on Austin's roads in 2006. I can guarantee, if 64 people died of bird flu, this city would be in full panic mode. Although I haven't been hit by a car this year (I was hit once each in 2003 and 2005) and being one of the unreported accidents, I can only imagine the total number of accidents and not just deaths. This is atrocious and something needs to be done.

Photo courtesy of Melissa McGee and used with permission. Check out more wonderful pictures by this artist at http://www.flickr.com/people/redhotjezebel/

“Wealth and rank are what people desire, but unless they are obtained in the right way they may not be possessed.”
--Confucius (China's most famous teacher, philosopher, and political theorist, 551-479 BC)

The Domain opened with great fanfare this week appearing on the front page and two section lead articles in the Statesman for it's grand opening. And what's not grand about it? It has those stores that local Austinites have been craving for since moving here from Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and California. Such Austin-y establishments like Neiman Marcus, Tiffany & Co. and Louis Vuitton (because I just don't know how we *ever* got along without being able to buy that customized $140,000 BMW M6 for Christmas!). So how will Austin benefit by having the upscale shopping mall within its borders? I'll let the lead-in to this Statesman article set the table (my emphasis):

"Austin lobbyist Andrea McWilliams travels regularly to Dallas and Houston for business, squeezing in trips several times a year to Neiman Marcus to buy suits for work and gowns for formal events. Starting this week, McWilliams won't have to leave home to shop at Neiman Marcus, which opens Friday at the Domain, a 700,000-square-foot upscale retail center near MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) and Braker Lane that has been five years in the making."

A quick Google on Ms. McWilliams produces the following page:

"Andrea & Dean McWilliams
Occupation: Lobbyists
Employer: McWilliams & Associates
Home: Austin, TX

Almost all of the 45 state lobby contracts that Andrea McWilliams reported when she answered the Pioneer call in 1999 were for $10,000 or less. But the sheer number of them added up to an annual lobby income of up to $465,000. Many of her clients were big business interests, including businesses of two Pioneers: Lee Bass and Ken Lay. After becoming a Pioneer, McWilliams reported that 35 clients paid her between $1.2 million and $2.5 million in 2003, with her top 23 clients—including Ohio developer Brisben Development (see William Brisben)—paying her from $50,000 and $100,000 apiece. McWilliams’ top industries in 2003 were trucking and pharmaceuticals. This lobbyist’s husband was the spokesman for one-term state Senator Michael Galloway, who lost a 1998 reelection bid. Dean McWilliams then hit the revolving-door lobby, reporting 10 lobby contracts in 1999. Dean McWilliams shared most of the 28 clients that he reported in 2003 with his wife. In one exception, just Dean McWilliams reported that the state’s largest lobby client, SBC Corp. (see Edward Whitacre), paid him from $50,000 to $100,000."

Now, I don't mean to imply that Mrs. McWilliams and her husband aren't noble and just people and that lobbying and fundraising for GWBush as one member of a select nationwide group of 940 Pioneers is some sort of crime, but do these people accurately represent and speak for Austin's community values today?

This, for me, again, comes down to the same ol' conversation I've been having with my blog buddies M1EK and AustinContrarian over the last year: What's the market rate for the remainder of Austin's artistic culture and soul? A quick reading of any of M1EK's or AC's numerous blog posts or the multitudes of comments they leave attached to any blogger's posting that dare question development here in Austin will show that for at least these two Austinites, the promise of economic return greatly outweigh any perceived loss of culture. Some people believe that Austin's culture will seamlessly morph and homogenize into Home Depot strip malls and IKEA wünderlands in the name of "progress," which, by the way, can't and shouldn't be stopped by granola-crunching hippie types like myself and our pesky neighborhood associations. We're just gumming up the works and we just don't know what we're talking about so we must trust in them that they know what's best for us.

But there are also a few bloggers like myself that are trying to act like the proverbial canaries in the mine shaft, attempting to alert those who care to notice to the noxious vapors rising out of city council sponsored developer incentives over the last few years. Incentives which have spurred gentrification in some areas, accelerated it in others while slowly putting the pillow over the face of our once great and vibrant artistic identity (to which, I might add, these very same develop-- *cough, cough*, I mean council members hypocritically "sell" to national and regional developers as why they should relocate here with all that cash. An Endeavor that both champions and strangles that Austin uniqueness and flavor in the process.).

So let's take a closer look at this latest "success story," the Domain. Back in 2003, the city council gave the original developer of The Domain, the Endeavor Real Estate Group, to what amounted back then as $37 million in tax breaks and incentives to develop a "mixed-use infill project that combines office and residential with retail," as one of my favorite city council members has been recently quoted. (In a nutshell, the deal allows the developers to keep $.06 of the $.08 sales tax over the next 20 years while the city pockets $.02 among other things.) Back before 2003, The Domain was slated to be just another office development but someone figured out that incentives would be hard pressed so more was needed than just office space. A new mixed-use plan as well as a new economic development model was put in place. Retail only development rarely and as some argue, should never, receive developer incentives but with the sales tax crunch that the city council was dealing with at the time, and the former Mayor Kirk Watson's "Smart Growth" plan in place, the council eventually found a way to slip the developers the cash they sought (only one council member opposed the tax breaks at the time, CM Daryl Slusher).

So here's where some artistic license on my part begins. I can imagine that in walks "Smart Growth" blessed, Kirk Watson approved former and current developer, Mayor Will Wynn and the former developer lawyer, CM Brewster McCracken to the negotiation table. Who, because we the public don't have access to know what's in these deliberations (another curious Bush era similarity to which Proposition 1 and 2 tried to address), I'm guessing the idea came out that if they develop a "mixed-use" retail property instead of straight office space, they might be able to project the "grand scheme" through the prism of the former Mayor's downtown revitalization and density initiative as well as on the promise of future tax revenues (see this article from the Chronicle at the time). Never mind the fact that The Domain is nearly in Round Rock, nowhere near downtown and that affordable apartments and single family homes abound in the area (more on that below). What Austin really needed, in the minds of these council members was that Neiman's and the conspicuous consumption that will bolster the sagging sales tax base not to mention saving all the gasoline that people like Mrs. McWilliams use to go to Dallas and Houston for their fancy ballroom gowns to swish along the dance floor at the next GWB fundraiser. It was a twofer! Sales tax and environmental savings. Who can argue with that? (end snark)

This incentive program actually produced a lawsuit from a local real estate developer, Brian Rodgers. As seen in this article and freshly posted at the Chronicle, Mr. Rodgers settled his case against the city and the developers (now, the Simon Group) to where the city can now walk away from the subsidy deal with no penalties, returning that projected $40-60 million in tax revenue back to the city coffers. His point, and it's a good one, is that the Domain developer subsidies unfairly discriminate against local businesses and developers because the local businesses will lose business to the Domain while still paying 100% of their city taxes. With tenants like Nieman's, Louis Vuitton and Tiffany's, his argument of there being no need for additional incentives to entice certain businesses here seems to be valid.

Government shouldn't be able to "prefer" one retail outlet over another, no matter the name, reputation or perceived social status of the store. The "siphoning" effect of the Domain will produce a relocation of tax revenues and jobs, not the net gain the council desired and certainly won't be enough to offset the tax breaks the developer stands to receive (this premise is mentioned in the article as a "zero-sum" game and one of the reasons why strictly retail developments rarely receive incentives). But I will agree that with the current tenant list, there will be some added revenue generated from the Andrea McWilliams' of Round Rock, Pflugerville, San Marcos and those in West Austin that were going to Dallas and Houston for their Neiman's fix before but can now drive to North Austin. But just as the attraction of a Neiman's or Tiffany's might pull people through the doors, will there really be enough "common folk" to purchase these luxury items to make up the tax incentives? Will people really stop going to Target or CostCo, shifting the bulk of their shopping at Neiman's, et. al?

And that could be why Mrs. McWiliiams is such an apt spokesperson for this development. No matter how you slice it, common folk or rich lobbyist, the Domain and all of it's glitzy high-end stores are optional markets. The Domain will be where people will pick up a trinket or two but most will not be doing the majority of their shopping there. I would argue that most people will not be spending large sums of cash there on a regular basis either. But while I doubt most people do the bulk of their shopping at say, Barton Creek, the incentive for the majority of the Austin population would still more heavily favor that mall with it's more affordable stores (Sears, Dillards, etc) than with the very high-end fare at the Domain. So in reality, because of the high-end nature of the Domain, the primary customers will be those like Mrs. McWilliams that used to drive (or maybe fly, who knows?) to Houston or Dallas for those fundraising and lobbying clothing essentials and not the other 90% of Austin's population that aren't millionaires.

So with both parties essentially agreeing that the incentive package may be discriminatory (otherwise, why settle out of court?), the framework is in place to return that misbegotten money to the city that, in my opinion as well as CM Daryl Slusher's at the time, probably shouldn't have been offered in the first place (when first proposed, the project met most of CM Slusher's "boondoggle tests" while going through the council). So couldn't we use the money elsewhere in the city's budget like maybe some *real* affordable housing initiatives? I mean, $40-60 million could make a nice dent in the overall affordability picture...

But, as some might argue, the Domain is already participating in "affordable housing" as it's not just a retail development as referenced by this article. Because of the new design standards, the Domain had to give up approximately 10% of it's rental stock to people making 60% of the median income (which currently stands around $68,000/yr). Based on the article, these units, at approximately 700 sq. ft. will run about $1,000/mo. Hmm, not bad you might say but let's take a look at the bigger picture.

I just picked a random apartment locator service and wound up at AllAustin.com and took an average of the current places available for rent, how much they are, the square footage as well as the year the complex was built for the area surrounding the Domain. The search returned 72 complexes in the immediate area of which two (Westdale Park and Venterra at Waters Edge) did not have the years they were built so I removed them from the list. The list produced the following (the screen-scraped data is available below):

• Total complexes with rentals available: 70
• Average rental price (low side only as no range was stated): $623.04
• Average square footage (low side): 610 sq. ft.
• Average square footage (high side): 1194 sq. ft.
• Average square footage (all units): 902 sq. ft.
• Average cost per sq. ft. (low side): $1.02 sq. ft.
• Average age of all properties: 16 years (1989.5)

The above data does not reflect any current incentives (move-in specials, etc) at any of the listed locations or the current occupancy rate so the cost per square foot may actually be a bit lower if those are figured in. But according to the article, the Domain's "affordable" price is roughly $1,000 for 700 square ft. (approx. $1.43 sq. ft.) which, if my math is correct, is about $.41 higher than the current "market" rate of existing properties in the same market segment. So the city is giving incentives for the Domain to charge people almost 35% more than the current market rate in the area. Schweet! Your tax dollars at work!

But wait! The demand is greater for those 39 properties and that explains the extra $.40 per square foot! Well, I agree with that premise. Because of the greater demand for the properties, it does contribute to the higher prices which is justified and makes my point even more relevant. If the market is going to provide the incentive, why do we, the taxpayers have to bolster it? We're not even talking about the "high-end" properties that will surely be renting at astronomical rates and higher costs per sq. ft. So again, what are my tax dollars buying here? Oh, that's right. Mrs. McWilliams' convenience and a municipally guaranteed profit margin for the developer!

And with that, so goes the soul of Austin, lost in the glitz, tulle and sequins of a twirling lobbyist's gown. That image would almost be laughable if the Domain was a single property; a singular Dallas-like blight lost amongst the live oaks of the Texas Hill Country. But, alas, it's not. It is just one of numerous developments, a repeatable pattern of overall development decisions and incentive programs (Samsung, Marriott, Walmart, Endeavor's original southern location, et al.) and a pattern that was referenced a while back by the city auditors when they declared the city didn't have an "overarching" vision of development. As just about any Austinite that's been here longer than 5 years can attest, there's a general feeling of unease that there's just too much "luxury" oriented development going on which will fundamentally change who we are as a community. With the destruction of local businesses like Steamboat, Liberty Lunch and the coming relocation of Las Manitas as examples, is the Austin population really more like the Andrea McWilliams' or the traditional iconic images of struggling musicians and artists, Willie, Stevie Ray and the countless other historical Austin icons still sold to the public by our city council members as feel-good political point getters? By listening to and encouraging development that primarily benefits the likes of the McWilliams' of Austin, we are marginalizing and relocating the future Willies and Stevie Rays to more artist friendly locations while losing that essential element that makes us, well, so Austin-y. Austin is already losing it's cred as the "Live Music Capitol of the World," which seems to be challenged by this city and that now on a regular basis and unfortunately, we can't take consolation to the fact that all this just snuck up on us. Quoting former Electric Lounge owner, Mike Henry:

"Here's the part of Smart Growth that's not so smart," asserts Henry. "The mayor wants to do all of this stuff to Austin, specifically downtown, to make it more attractive to live in, but in doing that, he's destroying the character and charm of the city that made all of those people want to move here in the first place. Sure you can make a bigger, more efficient, newer downtown. And it can be just like Dallas. You wanna live in Dallas? I don't."

That's from 1999, the year that Austin started it's drastic change and some, like myself, would say it's loss of soul. Are we now living in a miserably cloned version of Dallas directed by Dallas citizen wannabees? I think with the addition of the Domain to the mix and representative quotes from Bush Pioneers and Republican lobbyists instead of local musicians for story lead-ins at the Statesman, I think the journey may be just about complete.

Updates and Corrections

3/12/07 - 6:15pm: Changed "For them, Austin's culture will morph..." to "Some people believe that Austin's culture will morph..." As mentioned in a comment, I didn't mean to mis characterize or misrepresent M1EK or AC but to just speak generally about those that have a different view from mine on development (as their posts and comments speak for themselves). I also removed the line "I can hear M1EK's and AC's machinations from here." and changed "Umm... Actually, I agree with you guys here." to "Well, I agree with that premise." from the section referencing the costs per sq. ft.

3/17/07 - 9:21am: Removed "(of their smallest unit)" in reference to the square footage of rental units as I originally worked up just the smallest units square footage but went back and reworked it later with the larger units. I just didn't see that embedded clause on the rewrite.