Check Your Scopes

Robert Singleton

Photo By John Anderson

• Naked City

  Headlines and Happenings from Austin and Beyond

• Election Notes

  Endorsements and dollars accumulate as campaigns hit stretch

  BY MICHAEL KING

• Ethics, Libertarians, and Scalawags

  Politicians with ethical troubles? Naaah.

  BY MICHAEL KING

• Check Your Scopes

  "Clean Austin" says Liveable City report supports Prop. 1; Liveable City says 'um ... no it doesn't.'

  BY WELLS DUNBAR

• Money to Burn?

  Social service providers worry about the potential effects of Prop. 1

  BY WELLS DUNBAR

• Austin Interfaith Grills Candidates

  Office seekers – most of them – learn to just say 'yes'

  BY FRANK RIVERA

• Election Tidbits

  News and notes from the municipal election beat

• Supremes Tackle Civility of Execution

  Supreme Court takes up question of whether a death row inmate may use federal civil rights law to challenge a state's manner of execution

  BY JORDAN SMITH

• Officer Suspended for Excessive Use of Force

  Officer Christopher Gray gets 70-day suspension for excessive use of force and acts bringing discredit to APD for his role in September arrest

  BY JORDAN SMITH

• Don't Put Their Back Yard in My Back Yard

  Council approves affordable housing facility over neighbors' objections

  BY RACHEL PROCTOR MAY

• Weed Watch

  FDA says idea that marijuana has any medicinal value is hoax

  BY JORDAN SMITH

The controversy over Liveable City's study of the "Open Government Online" Proposition 1 landed at City Council last week. At the lectern to address Council Member Lee Leffingwell's own proposal on online transparency – basically boilerplate, telling the city manager to look into it – environmental activist Robert Singleton chided council for the city's $36 million cost estimate of Prop. 1. He paraphrased Liveable City's most contentious finding: that the city could "spend a tenth of that [$36 million] to achieve nearly all of what current advocates consider most crucial."

Props. 1 and 2 proponents Clean Austin have called the study vindication, saying it "proves" the amendment would cost as little as $2 million to implement. "The City of Austin has now confirmed Liveable City's cost estimate," reads their press release, "and Clean Austin has confirmed Liveable City's interpretation as accurately reflecting the priorities set out in the amendment."

However, Clean Austin's trumpeting carefully elides some Liveable City sour notes. "Whether or not the proposed Open Government amendment passes," reads Liveable City's release, "the council can and should, through a well-crafted ordinance, meet the intent of the amendment while minimizing administrative costs and reducing the degree of litigation." This new, and entirely unofficial, proposal – "prioritizing the areas of most concern" – is the one with the comparatively low $2 to $3 million estimate, not Prop. 1 as drafted. After much (and reportedly contentious) deliberation over the weekend, Liveable City took no position on either Prop. 1 or 2.

Back at council last Thursday, Leffingwell reminded Singleton that the city can't cherry-pick enforcement of particular parts of the proposition. As for the city's reported confirmation of Liveable City's estimate, Council Member Betty Dunkerley said she and the city manager put the report's author in contact with city staff; they helped Liveable City estimate the cost "if the scope were this small," said Dunkerley, signaling a smidgen with her fingers. "Unfortunately, the scope is this big," she continued, flinging her arms apart. "Scope size is what drives cost. … Very frankly, I think the implementation costs are going to be higher than $36 million." Despite her contention that it is a conservative estimate, Dunkerley said $36 million would be the amount allocated in next year's fiscal budget should Prop. 1 pass.

Singleton was undeterred. "Doesn't this constitute using city resources to campaign against a ballot item?" he said of city's insistence on the much-maligned $36-million estimate, increasingly the thunder of Prop. 1's storm. Said city attorney David Smith: "Short answer, no."