Page Two

This one is really hard to write. The Stratus deal is fucked, any way you cut it. Almost every argument on any side is full of crap. When the Statesman says this deal is "excellent," or some such, they're nuts. When SOS urges you to rally at the council to save Barton Springs, they're lying.

I'm not defending the city/Stratus deal or attacking it; I honestly don't know the details. Call me cynical, but I think the Springs are in serious trouble, and there's not much that can be done about it.

As we speculated when the SOS Ordinance was passed, as strict as it was, if development maxed out in the affected area, even if the ordinance were stringently enforced, the effect on the Edwards Aquifer would be devastating. I'm not supporting this build-out. Given the U.S. Constitution, the courts, and the Legislature, realistically there isn't much that can be done to stop development. Restrict it, sure, but not stop it. This may sound cynical, but it's more resigned than that. People have certain rights in regard to their land. There is an enormous amount of land that impacts the Aquifer and the Springs. The development is happening and will continue to happen. Silly rallying cries to the masses to get the council to stop it won't work. The council can't stop it. There isn't a simple way to say no.

Given that it is going to happen, the only way to preserve land is to buy it or hammer out development agreements where the most environmentally sensitive lands are set aside. This situation is lousy, but to sink into good-guys-and-bad-guys is just going to make it worse. The problem isn't evil developers and corrupt politicians. The problem is that people want to buy houses. The problem is that landholders have rights. The problem is that buildings and roads have a negative impact on nature.

It is obvious that those who wax eloquent over the beauty of the deal are full of it. The deal, even refined, will hurt the Springs. Ideally there would be a way to say no, not just to Stratus but to dozens of developments. There isn't.

Say the council rejects the deal. Stratus will go to the courts. Bill Bunch has a legal theory he thinks he can win with, but a theory isn't a victory. If the city wins, development can still happen, just not as much. If Stratus wins, more development than is currently proposed can and will occur.

The Legislature will weigh in on the city's inability to compromise. Sooner or later, they will find a law that really screws the city that will hold up in court. Other developers will turn to aggressive lawyers rather than trying to work with the city because it's been proven that, in Austin, compromise is not a tool.

Wrap yourself in seaweed, read a dozen poems, and sing every chorus of "Barton Springs Forever," it isn't going to save the Springs. Stratus can develop its land; the question is how much and how densely. There are other developers out there whose work also impacts on the Aquifer. The tools are compromise, which SOS hates; land swaps, which SOS doesn't trust; purchasing land, which isn't going to garner a lot of support in these economically strained times; or negotiating to preserve as much land as possible.

This may sound like I've given up, and in some ways I have. In others, the fight has just begun. It is not a fight of good versus evil; rather, it is a tedious, difficult daily struggle that involves discussion, negotiation, and compromise to preserve as much of the environmental integrity of this area as possible. Bunch and the SOS crowd are against compromise. In our hearts, we know they are right. Development has a destructive impact. This is a simple truth. Another simple truth is that development can't simply be stopped, so it is important to look for deals with the best possible long-term consequences.

I've read the impassioned speeches and letters attacking this deal. They are missing the point. It isn't either/or. It is how much and how carefully. Compromise is the only tool that will work, sincere negotiation the methodology of that tool. If we say no to compromise, we won't save the Springs; tragically, we will probably hasten its demise. Without reasonable discussion, the courts will weigh in and the Legislature will attack.

This is not to give a blind pass to the council, nor to encourage mindless acquiescence. Again, I don't know the details. The council is entrusted with a holy mission, to do what they can to save the Springs. This requires a militant conscience, fighting for what can be won, resisting easy capitulation, but knowing when to compromise. This is the time for a sad maturity. Let us save what we can save. Let us build coalitions among developers, environmentalists, and politicians that will work. I'm not defending this deal, but let's not naively attack. It is time to respect the negotiators, stop the polemical speeches, and begin sincere, intelligent negotiation.

On the other hand, if the stock market crashes, this whole discussion is probably moot.