• newsletters • best of austin • find a paper • submit an event • advertise with us • contact • jobs •
HOME: MARCH 14, 2008: NEWS
text size

Point Austin: Villamusing

Have we got a deal for you!

BY MICHAEL KING

Among the elementary principles of buying a used car is this one: When the salesman says, "This deal is only good if you accept it right now!" it's time to get up and walk away.

That was essentially the position the City Coun­cil found itself in last Thursday, as representatives of Villa Muse – the colossal film studio, concert venue, and film set as residential development proposed for eastern Travis County – insisted that unless the city immediately releases the land from its extraterritorial jurisdiction, the project cannot go forward. Faced with those terms – and the reluctance or inability of those same representatives to explain exactly why those are the terms – council quite properly said no.

Nobody opposed the project. Instead council voted, 4-3, to keep the conversation going, but to try to negotiate a solution that would keep the project in the ETJ, on terms satisfactory to the developers as well as the city.

How did the developers respond? The next day they released a broadside denouncing council in language that seemed calculated to burn any remaining bridges, even shamelessly pandering "the kids of Del Valle" as the real beneficiaries of this yet-to-be-financed wanna­be studio mogul's pipe dream. "What a terrible message to send on the eve of South by South­west, that the creative industries in Austin aren't worth creative policy-making by the city," declared Villa Muse CEO Jay Podolnick. "Moreover, this is a huge blow to neighboring communities, like the residents of Webberville and the kids of the Del Valle School District, who stood to gain enormously from building Villa Muse outside of Austin's ETJ."

That was followed by an echoing screed from District 46 state House Rep. Dawnna Dukes (who began shamelessly flogging this project last spring). Dukes informed the four council members who voted to keep the development in the ETJ that they had failed their city and acted imprudently. Yet Dukes, too, abjectly failed to explain why the project can't go forward under Austin's purview. "Your decision ... takes certain financing options off the table, thus making the project financially unfeasible."

One might think Dukes, at least for a few months, would prudently refrain from giving financial advice to anybody.

Give Us Our MUD

Dukes' utterly vague language echoed that of Michael Whelan, who presented the Villa Muse case to council, beginning with photos of fields and cows, and ending with ... not much else. The developers argue the land is "a hay field in the middle of a floodplain," and therefore their grandiose Hollywood-in-a-cow-pasture project is essentially a no-strings-attached gift to Austin – that is, if only they can be quit of Austin for a "temporary" 30 to 40 years.

The Muse presentation was full of rhetoric about "creativity" and "job creation" and "stimulating industry growth" and "Facili­ties + People = Sparks" – yet the project team could not answer direct, fairly simple questions posed from the dais. Mayor Will Wynn asked, if the problem is Austin's potential annexation, "Why not make these exact same proposals in our ETJ with an agreement not to annex?" The response referred vaguely to "timing" and the "marketability of the bonds." Trying to help the Musers, Brewster McCracken (who supported the release) asked more than once, "What would be the [financial] impact" of being inside or outside the ETJ? "We've been asked to look at quantifying that," was the response, "and we're just not prepared to do so at this time." An attempt by Betty Dunkerley to elicit an explanation of the bond timing also got nowhere.

There were all sorts of winks and hints about "charter amendments" and "past litigation" and "minimizing risk" (to investors, not to Austin) but no straight answers to be had. The real gist of the problem seems to be: After a year of very big Villa Muse talk, unnamed and mysterious investors still do not want to risk $300 million upfront on a massive, extremely speculative project, if potential municipal oversight might get in the way of a quick buck – or as the Muses put it, "The investor is looking for the most effective, fastest way to get that reimbursement." That means external, unregulated municipal utility districts – and if there's one thing this city knows from bitter experience, it's the consequences of runaway suburban MUDs. If this deal goes forward as is, with no municipal oversight, there is a real possibility the city would eventually be left to clean up an unholy and perhaps literal mess left for it by a herd of starry-eyed, foolhardy, and bankrupt "creatives" – who are already throwing a shameless public tantrum because they didn't get exactly what they want.

It Ain't About the Landfill

By the time the environmental issues that have generated most of the public comment were raised (by Jennifer Kim and Lee Leffingwell), the unanswered financial questions hung as thickly in the air as the odor of manure. The Musers plan to move tons of aggregate into the floodplain for construction base (vowing to push future floods ... elsewhere). They insist Austin can trust them to follow the city's environmental standards (although the only regs will be those of the stickless county and the feckless state) and that the whole faux Titanic won't simply slide into the Colorado in the next big gullywasher. Yet they don't return that trust – and the staff, which very circumspectly noted the contradiction, recommended against releasing the land, since the project overwhelmingly fails to meet the city's standard criteria for such a release.

Council narrowly agreed – and bully for council.

In the wake of this quite rational decision, Dukes, County Commissioner Ron Davis, and other officials who should know better are loudly complaining that since council proposes, several years hence, to put a landfill and wastewater facility near Webberville, it should also submit immediately to the unreasonable and utterly unjustified demands of the Villa Muse developers to get their own enormous, private playpen near the same site.

If they think the Webberville facility is a bad idea, then oppose the Webberville facility. But the last thing they should do is use one bad idea to justify another, and on a much more colossal scale. Nobody in western Travis County would accept this Technicolor and CinemaScope pig-in-a-poke on pure speculation and promises. Nobody in eastern Travis County should be expected to do so either.


To read Dawnna Dukes letter to the City Council click here.

Share Digg Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us LinkedLn Email Print article
COMMENTS
33
 
Bravo For Good Reasoning Schlomo Mar 13, 2008 - 09:22 am
Thanks for pointing out the lack of logic and good-faith negotiations in the Villa Ruse affair.

You realize, though, that now you will have to endure long lectures from earnest fools and bitter flaks that you just don't have enough faith and foresight, right?

Dare to dream, Michael!



UNBELIEVABLE DISSAPOINTED Mar 13, 2008 - 09:35 am
It's a sad day for Austin when writers for the Austin Chronicle can only criticize a daring and bold proposal to bring the film industry to Central Texas.

What happened to the independent weekly that once championed the unique and creative character of our city?

At least there is one person in leadership in Austin--council member Mr. Brewster McCracken--who understands that great achievement requires, at the very least, reasonable risk.

Shame, shame, shame.



guest Mar 13, 2008 - 10:35 am
Anyone who has driven Fm973 from FM969 to Highway 71 has seen the massive strip mining of sand and gravel on the flood plain near the proposed Villa Muse site. The city's environmental standards (lauded by Jennifer Kim and Lee Leffingwell) evidently do little to protect the floodplain ecosystem. The city standards do sustain some pretty impressive mosquito pools in the open pits left along the nearby 130 Toll strip. Austin is already committed to dump 3 million gallons of waste water per day in Gilleland Creek in the Villa Muse site. Clearly the environmental objections to Villa Muse are bogus.


Sign Me Up! eager beaver Mar 13, 2008 - 10:52 am
Incredible. So the Villa Muse site not only promises regular flooding and open gravel pits nearby, but it also promises millions of gallons of daily wastewater flowing in area creeks? This place is going to be Heaven on Earth! Is there a list, like they have at Mueller, where I can sign up? Can I pay a deposit in order to reserve my view of the strip mining?


King Misleads guest Mar 13, 2008 - 01:59 pm
There are so many truncations of the truth in this article that I don't know where to start, so I'll just hit on a couple.

First of all, King draws the conclusion that Villa Muse walked away from negotiations. To the contrary, the city offered them a dead-end PID district option, which no finacier in their right mind would accept. McCracken's proposal was to evaluate the impact of releasing from the ETJ, not to actually release them yet. Besides, I am still looking for evidence of the supposed benefits of remaining in the ETJ, that is, I have no voice, and my community is increasingly taken for granted as a place to put all the stuff that Austin doesn't want. Exactly what protection are we afforded?

As far as the environmental concerns, while I agree that one environmental sin does not justify another, I am disappointed that King does not highlight the city's double-standards in their "Desired Development Zone" in the East. His supposition to the effect of "if it's not good enough for the West, then it's not good enough for the East" is outrageous. Eastern Travis County continues to endure one negative development after another, a far cry from the upscale shopping mall subsidies in the affluent West.



All talk, no action. guest Mar 14, 2008 - 01:42 pm
Hey man, I could bore the shit out of you for hours upon hours of pointless talk using fancy imagery but you still wouldn't give me thousands of dollars just for showing up would you? These guys have no answers because they have no vision. They just have marketing materials out the wahzoo. They're like an empty bucket. Even their threats are empty. "We're gonna take our secret club somewhere else then!" Oh yeah? Well have fun explaining that to your investors and unloading all that "floodplain" land in this terrible market, bozos.


Speaking of Imagery guest Mar 14, 2008 - 03:30 pm
Have you seen the Villa Muse web site?

Somehow, it manages to combine the qualities of being creepy, delusional, and expensive.



Film = Economy Dick Cofer Mar 17, 2008 - 01:51 pm
Jason Meeker supports the film industry in Austin and knows that projects like Villa Muse are essential to the creative economy. I met him at a well attended forum, and he really impressed me with his incredible knowledge and intelligence and wit.

Lee Leffingwell is too old to appreciate the vibrant nature of Austin's new economy, and he should retire now to save taxpayers the expense of putting up with more of his fossil logic. Austin needs the kind of youthful leadership that Jason Meeker embodies.



Motion to release mking Mar 17, 2008 - 02:21 pm
Just for the record: It's inaccurate to claim, as the Musers and their supporters are now doing, that "McCracken's proposal was to evaluate the impact of releasing from the ETJ, not to actually release them yet." In fact, his motion, as recorded in the meeting transcript, was as follows: "My motion is, I'm going to direct the city [staff] to negotiate with Villa Muse to include the release of the development area from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction. . ." Like all such negotiations, it would have required ultimate council approval, but the motion was to negotiate the release of the land from the ETJ, not to evaluate the effects of such a release.

MK



It Doesn't Matter Anymore YAY LEFFINGWELL Mar 17, 2008 - 02:27 pm
The distortion of the facts in that article are disappointing. I find it difficult to understand how someone could be so angry about the Villa Muse proposal.

Is the argument that it was some kind of scam? For what?

My understanding is that the real reason these guys wanted out of the ETJ was to avoid having to go three rounds with Austin every time they wanted to do something like a different-colored streetlight.

I think Austin staffers killed this project because they didn't want to lose control of exactly what shape each wet pond would be.

I think Leffingwell simply doesn't like the kind of project and the people he thinks it would bring. I think Jennifer Kim probably believes in her concerns, but that they aren't justified.

In any case, it doesn't matter anymore. The project will either happen somewhere else, or it won't happen at all.

Leffingwell and Kim will get re-elected. Austin will continue to develop into Houston. The area beyond SH-130 will continue to be used for mining and dumping.

I haven't met anyone who was opposed to the project. And anyone who knows the people pushing it knows that these weren't people who would allow environmental damage.

It seems like anyone who could be this angry about it is shilling for Leffingwell or Kim.

But it doesn't matter anymore. The project is gone and nothing will change. Yay for the status quo.



Wastewater? Mister Sparkle Mar 17, 2008 - 02:43 pm
What are you guys talking about when you scream about "wastewater going into the creek"?

Wastewater is flushed down pipes and goes into a treatment system that by law has to treat it so that it is of better quality than the stream water or river water into which it is released. It's not pollution.

Are you people the Karl Rove's of Austin wastewater?



It Doesn't Matter Anymore, Part II YAY LEFFINGWELL Mar 17, 2008 - 04:45 pm
Austin needs to be more trusting of people who are cool.

The Villa Muse people are cool, and they love the environment, and they would never do anything to hurt it.

Laws are great for uncool people who just don't get it. But cool people should get some slack so that they can do cool things.



Ha! BOO LEFFINGWELL!!! Mar 17, 2008 - 05:38 pm
That cracked me up.


It Doesn't Matter Anymore, Part III YAY LEFFINGWELL Mar 17, 2008 - 05:39 pm
WTF?

So is that a Leffingwell staffer mocking me?

Well done, Leffingwell. You won. It's over.



Jason Meeker is a rat. guest Mar 17, 2008 - 05:40 pm
I wouldn't vote for him if he was paying me to do it.


God! You people! guest Mar 17, 2008 - 05:44 pm
Just because your average citizen is seeing the way the games are played around here and recognizes that those fat cats want out of the ETJ so they can use Austin services without actually having to contribute EVER to the Austin tax base does not mean I am well connected in the city.

Just like how although it certainly LOOKS like you're sucking up to the Villa Muse people for some unfathomable reason I would never accuse you of actually being them.



Hints & Clues YAY LEFFINGWELL Mar 17, 2008 - 05:48 pm
I think it was the "Jason Meeker is a rat" that helped me crack the code. Well phrased, though. You've certainly helped raise the level of political discourse in this town.

You guys are first class.



guest Mar 17, 2008 - 06:01 pm
Just because you think you're Bono doesn't make you environmentally sound.

Did you hear that the actual giant U2 Joshua Tree died recently? A lot of good its cool friends did it.



Big Payroll guest Mar 18, 2008 - 08:29 am
Leffingwell must have a big payroll for "Paid Bloggers."

Yes, it's all a vast conspiracy of well-funded cyber-terrorists.



oh please guest Mar 18, 2008 - 01:10 pm
Like you did so much to elevate political discourse in this town, YAY. "U gies r liek tote skware u no. liek hip up & junk, YAY!"

That's brilliant. For a 12 year old.



Nine. Eleven. guest Mar 19, 2008 - 01:11 pm
Let’s take a moment to talk about our man Michael King.

1.Used car metaphor. Nice.

2.“the reluctance or inability of those same representatives to explain exactly why those are the terms” Just because you couldn’t understand the discussion about unmarketable bonds, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a clear explanation. And did you bother to check out any of the other several presentations they made to the council?

3.“Nobody opposed the project” Council voted for keeping the project in the ETJ, which was clearly explained as effectively killing it. Of course they didn’t “oppose” it. That would be bad politics.

4.“try to negotiate a solution that would keep the project in the ETJ, on terms satisfactory to the developers as well as the city” Do you understand that their vote was between allowing the project to be released from the ETJ, but only under terms satisfactory to the city vs. not being released from the ETJ, which was clearly explained as killing any financing potential. The vote to release from the ETJ wasn’t a free pass to go do whatever they wanted. It was a continuation of the discussion under a structure that would allow the project to finance itself.

5.“denouncing council in language…to burn any remaining bridges, even shamelessly pandering “the kids of Del Valle as the real beneficiaries of this yet-to-be financed wannabe studio mogul’s pipe dream” So I take it you’re not a believer. Ad hominem attack. Nice. Actually Del Valle ISD submitted a resolution describing their emphatic support of the project and pleading for Austin to do whatever was necessary. Taxes would have increased the property’s contribution to Del Valle ISD from something like $1,000 to something more like $60 million a year. Yeah, those kids could use it. Been in a Del Valle classroom lately? Where do your kids go to school?

6.“Dawnna Dukes (who began shamelessly flogging this project last spring)” So being in favor of an economic development in an area utterly devoid of any positive development of any kind is “shamelessly flogging”?

7.“Dukes, too, abjectly failed to explain why the project can’t go forward under Austin’s purview” You follow that up by quoting her as saying “Your decision… takes certain financing options off the table, thus making the project financially unfeasible”. So what was the abject failure of that straightforward explanation?



Nine. Eleven. guest Mar 19, 2008 - 01:13 pm
8.“One might think that Dukes, at least for a few months, would prudently refrain from giving financial advice to anybody.” Ad hominem attack. Were your editors on Spring Break?

9.“Dukes utterly vague language”. You meant to say “Dukes simple and clear explanation.”

10.“beginning with photos of fields and cows, and ending with… not much else”. Right. Strawman attack. Hi, nice to meet you, I’m a professional writer. How ‘bout you? I take it you didn’t catch the other multiple presentations in front of council. I agree that that particular presentation wasn’t the best of the bunch, but have you bothered to look at the ones that preceded it? This wasn’t the first time those guys had stood up there.

11.“a no-strings-attached gift to Austin-that is if they can be quit of Austin for a “temporary” 30 to 40 years” So did you bother to research this thing at all? Did you listen to the presentation that you say didn’t have any substance? The pitch was this-you guys let them build everything that you won’t have to pay for, they pay off all the debt, then they hand you a debt-free $2.5 billion tax base. Oh, and you get 40,000 to 100,000 new jobs and $6 billion to $20 billion in new ANNUAL spending (all in Austin). Of course, that’s only according to one of the most authoritative economists in the state who was greeted warmly by the mayor as a professional worthy of the utmost respect.

12.“the muse presentation was full of rhetoric about “creativity and job creation” and “stimulating industry growth” and “facilities + people = sparks”” In a presentation about a movie studio that would create jobs? Yeah, buddy, that’s what a movie studio would be meant to do.

13.“yet the project team could not answer direct, fairly simple questions posed from the dais” What questions would those be?

14.“Mayor Will Wynn asked…why not make these exact same proposals in our ETJ…the response referred vaguely to “timing” and the “marketability of the bonds”. That WAS the explanation, indeed. Not so much vague as simple to understand.

15.“asked more than once “what would be the [financial] impact” of being inside or outside the ETJ? “We’ve been asked to look at quantifying that…and we’re just not prepared to do so at this time”” Not much point in spending time crunching the numbers when you know the bonds are unmarketable in that scenario.



Nine. Eleven. guest Mar 19, 2008 - 01:14 pm
16.“an attempt by Dunkerley to elicit an explanation of the bond timing also got nowhere” How so? It was about the timing of the project in the face of the industry making choices within the next three years of where to *permanently* move their bases from out of southern California. That was per the Texas Film Commissioner, which I think is a State office.

17.“winks and hints about “charter amendments” and “past litigation and miminizing risk (to investors, not to Austin)” By investors, you mean infrastructure bond holders and by not to Austin you mean the risk-free $2.5 billion in 2008 dollars that would be handed to the city after all debt was paid.

18.“unnamed and mysterious investors” You mean the people who would purchase the publicly-marketed infrastructure bonds? So the editors were on Spring Break, then.

19.“extremely speculative project” Unlike, say The Austonian or The Domain or South Park Meadows or The Arbouretum?

20.“if potential municipal oversight might get in the way of a quick buck” What municipal oversight? This is in the ETJ. Is there much municipal oversight of the Centex and Main Street junk developments out there? A quick buck? You do love those clichés, don’t you Michael King.

21.“there is a real possibility the city would eventually be left to clean up an unholy and perhaps literal mess” Nine. Eleven.

22.“a herd of starry-eyed, foolhardy, and bankrupt “creatives”” You do love the Ad Hominem Michael King.

23.“throwing a shameless public tantrum” Didn’t they make like one press release, and then didn’t say anything else?



Nine. Eleven. guest Mar 19, 2008 - 01:14 pm
24.“Musers plan to move tons of aggregate into the floodplain for construction base (vowing to push future floods… elsewhere)” So there’s not much of a budget down at the Chronicle for fact checking, then. I believe the engineer’s explanation was that they were moving dirt out of the floodplain to create a deeper floodplain channel, vowing to NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES push future floods onto any other property. So did you actually write the article or were the “facts” just fed to you by the Leffingwell and Kim staffs to cover their butts on an unpopular vote?

25.“they insist Austin can trust them to follow the city’s environmental standards (although the only regs will be those of the stickless county and the feckless state)” That would be Travis County which has adopted Austin’s environmental standards? And, yeah, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is a bunch of p***ies.

26.“and the whole faux Titanic [creative] won’t simply slide into the Colorado in the next big gullywasher” Nine. Eleven.

27.“the staff…recommended against releasing the land, since the project overwhelmingly fails to meet the city’s standard criteria for such a release” You’re referring to the criteria that were drafted by city staff in October immediately after the project was first presented to the council?

28.“bully for Council” Are you a British person from the early 1900’s?

29.“officials who should know better are loudly complaining that since council proposes, several years hence, to put a landfill and wastewater facility near Webberville, it should also submit immediately to the unreasonable and utterly unjustified demands of the Villa Muse developers to get their own enormous, private playpen near the same site” So they should know better than to cite the contradiction of voting against economic development but in favor of a dump for their constituency. Private playpen? Did one of those guys run over your dog?

30.“If they think the Webberville facility is a bad idea, then oppose the Webberville facility. But the last thing they should do is use one bad idea to justify another” Agreed, it is a bad idea to build a landfill across the street from the Colorado River by bulldozing Austin’s last great forest and stuffing garbage into a slew of natural springs. When’s the next landfill scheduled for an area west of I-35?



Nine. Eleven. guest Mar 19, 2008 - 01:15 pm
Once again, the city did not vote for further negotiations. They had the option of voting for one of three items. 1) Not release, don’t discuss 2) Not release, discuss 3) Release, discuss. It was made clear that a vote for number two would not work because it would make the project infrastructure bonds unmarketable to the public. Number three would have been a vote to continue negotiations with the city staff on rules and guidelines for the project, but under the assumption of release from the ETJ. It wasn’t a vote to release, it was a vote to see if staff could come to an agreeable set of rules and guidelines that would include a release. Choosing item two was a way for the city to vote to kill the project while saying that they were voting to continue discussions. Discussions were going to continue no matter how the vote went, because the staff still had to be satisfied that the project would be done properly prior to any *actual* release from the ETJ. A vote for release from the ETJ was a vote for a possible project, subject to Austin staff’s satisfaction regarding contractual rules and benchmarks.

Michael King, Ladies and Gentlemen.



words guest Mar 19, 2008 - 01:46 pm
words words words, too many words. attention... span... slipping. can't... give... a shit.


guest Mar 19, 2008 - 02:16 pm
Why can't you just work on and build stuff that can be financed without revoking laws for your unique benefit?

Were you born thinking you were this special? If people want to invest, let them. If our laws are too much to stop them, then this development is probably on a knife's edge anyway.

Why should you not have to pay taxes for 40 years? Because you owe your investors? Who cares? Write off the interest like everybody else.

"Trust us" is not a good argument.



ni uh leven guest Mar 19, 2008 - 02:40 pm
Thanks for the M. King breakdown M1ek, that looks like it took you a while to compose, your hard work is appreciated.


IT'S REAL LONG SO ITS GOTTA BE SUBSTANTIAL!!1! WellsDunbar Mar 19, 2008 - 03:05 pm
Sorry, last commenter, but m1ek is way more succinct than that.

And not as damn goofy.



guest Mar 19, 2008 - 03:21 pm
Also, even more insulting and repetitive.


also smarter guest Mar 19, 2008 - 11:13 pm
And more maddening but also right.


Wistful SCAMMED OUT Mar 20, 2008 - 04:59 pm
I long for the bygone days when scam-artists and grifters weren't so insufferably earnest, pedantic, and VERBOSE.

Is this some sort of generational thing that will pass with time, or are we forevermore faced with the terrible prospect of pitchmen who will talk you to death if you do not immediately give them all your money?



Oh, My... Schlomo Mar 20, 2008 - 05:14 pm
Michael, you have my sincere and heartfelt sympathy.

Though I predicted earnest fools and bitter flaks, I could never have imagined anything so relentlessly terrible as "Nine. Eleven."

Shalom, my friend.





POST A COMMENT

(optional):
:

Permission to Print. Letter to the editor.
 
FURTHER READING
More about
Villa Muse
Villa Muse Rolls the Credits May 9, 2008
The film-studio-to-be is, apparently, not to be

Villa Muse: Take Two April 18, 2008
Villa Muse still weighing its options

An Industry Perspective April 18, 2008
Would Villa Muse revive Texas film industry? Not necessarily.

all Villa Muse stories
Keywords
for this story
Villa Muse
Dawnna Dukes
Michael Whelan
Brewster McCracken
Ron Davis

Empty Bowl Project

BLOGS
The Totally Awesome AusChron Newscast is Playing With Fire
Perry Clears Way for Executioner
Doing 25 to Life

How Could They?
UT Has Bad Attitude Toward Mental Illness
Bill Narum: We Call That Art

ARCHIVES
More from
March 14, 2008
News
Arts
Books
Food
Screens
Music
Features
Columns
Sports

Browse the
Archives by
Issue
Author
Column
Review
Section

Recently In
Point Austin
Once More Into the MUD November 20, 2009
What we get when we annex unplanned development: plenty of entertainment

Not About the Cameras November 13, 2009
The Sanders shooting has not been justified

Abandoning Illusions November 6, 2009
Chris Hedges on the inevitable consequences of empire

Point Austin
archive

More about
Villa Muse
March 21, 2008
Villa Muse down but not out (not just yet, at least), plus new (and old) developments for Veronica Mars' Rob Thomas

More by
Michael King
City, Firefighters Shake Hands on Tentative Contract November 6, 2009
Both sides say they're satisfied with the deal

CodePink Red After Albright's Planned Parenthood Soiree November 6, 2009
Peace activists unwelcome at speech by former secretary of state

Contract Kumbaya: The City and the Firefighters October 16, 2009
Last November, when the Austin Firefighters Association voted overwhelmingly to reject the labor contract negotiated between its union team...

The Latest Proposal: Banning Panhandling Downtown October 9, 2009
Downtown businesses and orgs form an alliance

all stories by
Michael King


Short Story Contest
Online Contests
Chrontourage
Chronicle Merch

 
Arts & Entertainment (108)
Services (108)
Civic (20)
Retail (48)
Food & Drink (67)
Coupons (8)
Jobs (9)

Ads of the Day