Page Two

Barton Springs and the watershed have been ill-served by all. Developers, politicians, city planners, environmentalists, and we the people have all proven unkind to the water. The courts, the Legislature, and the Constitution have all failed the Springs. I am pessimistic about the future of the Springs; I am disgusted by the development; I am disappointed in the council and frustrated by the environmentalists. Finally, after a decade, that this issue so dominates the local political agenda is tragic.

Stratus is the ideal example because, unfortunately, it is not unique. The developers want to overdevelop the land to the long-term detriment of the environment and water quality. The council, stuck between the law and a hard place, is trying to please too many constituencies. The environmentalists, passionately but irrationally, don't simply protect the land, they ideologically attack anyone who disagrees with them, from developer to politician to community leader. I doubt the Stratus agreement is as good a deal as could have been gotten; I doubt it is as seminal as argued, either, in any direction.

The land -- the environment, the biology, the ecology -- is where you start. This is scientific fact. The truth is that development impacts negatively on the land and ecology. These effects can be mitigated by less density and environmental sensitivity. Still, with the strictest of restrictions, over any period of time, development impacts negatively on the land and on the water. There are extremes to go to here, but that is the core.

Conversely, people get to develop their land. This is a legal and constitutional right. These contradictions are at the core of the controversy.

The issue over Stratus was not, as is too often posed, over stopping development, but over the density and shape of the development. The City Council can't say "no" to development -- they can place restrictions and authorize guidelines, but their actual power is limited.

The SOS Alliance is talking about leading a coalition to sue to so they can force the whole project under the SOS ordinance. That would still allow for relatively massive development. The most depressing parts of this issue of the Chronicle are the maps. Look at how much development has happened since 1984 (the first aerial photo) and the most recent aerial photo. The difference is staggering. Now look at the area controlled by Stratus compared to the overall area. It is very small. In 2000 we ran an article about controversial development in the area and didn't even include the southern Stratus development.

The largest aerial photo covers, at best, an eighth of the watershed. This whole area can be developed. SOS would restrict growth only within the city's jurisdiction. Even there, it restricts growth but does not forbid it. In the best-case legal scenario, SOS is a bandage on a seriously hemorrhaging wound. Slowly or quickly, development is going to happen. A significant economic recession might slow down the growth, but we are talking about the city growing over the long-term future. Given the law and given science, Barton Springs doesn't stand a chance.

The notion that a more courageous council could turn this around is immature. They don't have the power. The courts and the Legislature can and will preside. Short-term victories can be won, only for far more to be lost.

Whenever I assert this, News Editor Michael King sighs and says I've given in to cynicism and hopelessness. Letter-writers figure they're braver than I am and I've sold out.

In ways, I do feel despair, but I'm also angry and want to demand action. Not reaction nor accommodation, but a proactive stance that accepts realities and strives for attainable goals.

So, have I reached my Sudetenland -- the point where appeasement leads to disaster? I hope not, I believe not, but I'm not certain. It is easier to declare developers the enemy and fight them tooth and nail. But in the long run, that way is surprisingly about ego and precious little about the real-life future of the environment.

Let's save what we can save. Let's look at the overall map and think realistically about the future. Let's buy land, let's swap land, let's try to get land donated. Let's negotiate in good faith with developers, remembering their worst-case scenario for development isn't environmentally sound. There is no way to say "no" to development in the watershed, but this doesn't mean hopeless resignation.

We are here, other people are going to move here, new houses are going to be built. Land and water are going to be negatively impacted.

If we accept the severity of the situation, instead of rallying the troops to City Hall one more time, let's become proactive. Let's offer visions for the future that are protective of the environment while respecting the legal rights of developers. Working with the council (while accepting the realistic limitations in their power), the environmentalists can create a coalition that will accomplish so much.

Some land is more environmentally important/sensitive than other land. The city can try to direct growth. The best tool for this is transportation. Lay out some mass transit line or new roads through areas more conducive to development. The notions that roads are bad, growth should be stopped, all land is sacred, every development suspect, in the long run will provide the most devastating policies for the environment. Let's drive a vision for the future and not just try to drag it back. This is a war that can't be won unless it is reshaped.

A decade after SOS, we know that development just keeps happening. Let's create some realistic visions and useful political tools for the future. Let's accept the realities we are forced to live with and navigate around them. Land can be saved, growth can be restricted, but we have to work together realistically.