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 t