In reality, the Save Our Springs election was almost anticlimatic. What follows is the Chronicle’s original endorsement in favor of the ordinance. It accurately pointed out that the vote itself was not that contentious, with only a vested, yet vocal, minority opposed to what were reasonable growth restrictions in an attempt to preserve the watershed.
It had been a lot more chaotic two years earlier, when the underlying causes exploded into open argument at City Council meetings. The Chronicle was instrumental in this dust-up, contributing our famous “IF YOU DON’T READ THIS ISSUE WE’LL POISON BARTON SPRINGS,” June 1, 1990, cover. The illustration was of the universal symbol for poison bobbing in Barton Springs. Many hundreds of citizens attended the following council meetings.
As we wrote in the endorsement for the ordinance (at right), “We don’t think this is a town torn by dissension. Instead, there is a remarkable shared vision about a decent kind of city, about the kind of place in which you would want to live and raise children.” SOS passed and survived court challenges.
Unfortunately – as was also pointed out – though it was about a shared vision of our city, there was only so much that restrictions could do to limit development. In fact, by limiting growth, the overall area was made more attractive. Austin’s fight to help preserve its natural heritage made and makes it an attractive place to move. Thus, sadly, SOS may have ultimately amounted to a pro-growth measure. In the 20 years since, this whole area has seen astronomical, and unprecedented, growth and development.
The legacy of SOS could thus be considered problematic, except that it really isn’t. It’s about citizens fighting for a vision of their city – a fight that SOS didn’t end, but which continues on to this day.
Endorsements: July 24, 1992
This is really a lot easier decision than the opposition – which is almost entirely composed of people with direct financial interests in the affected area – would have us believe. When it came right down to it, even the editorial board of the Austin American-Statesman, which has been working tirelessly for the anti-SOS forces on its news and business pages, had to admit that there’s no real reason not to pass it, and endorsed it. The Save Our Springs ordinance is not a radical work; it limits growth in the Barton Springs Watershed in order to protect the purity of the Creek and Springs. More building, even the best planned building, means more pollution. The ordinance limits density, which is the only consistently effective way to limit pollution. This ordinance won’t, by itself, save the creeks and Springs. It still allows for a lot of development, which will, as all development does, have a negative effect on the environment. But the bill is the most reasonable legal way to regulate growth for the sake of the environment.
The insidious and dishonest nature of much of the anti-SOS campaign (suddenly developers have become militant supporters of civil rights and economically priced family homes – if only this were to last) makes it tempting but probably foolish to refute in detail all their silly assertions, disingenuous shadings and outright lies. Limiting growth is going to cost little in jobs or taxes; developers will simply build elsewhere. And, unfortunately, they’ll probably get to build a lot, because a city that protects its environment is a very attractive city. What do you think is bringing all these companies and all these people here – the fact that if we try really hard we can end up looking like Houston? No, it is Austin, the city, the idea and the reality, the environment and the vision. The SOS Ordinance, sadly, is probably the most aggressive pro-growth legislation anyone has put forth in years. By cherishing and preserving what is here, we will attract hordes.
The amazing thing is how some people don’t get that. They argue taxes, the future, ownership rights, pollution, but it is about something bigger. We have a moral right to fight for our city. Someone quoted in the Statesman suggested that we chlorinate Barton Springs Pool and get on with growth, because there are a lot of natural springs left in Texas. We live in a city with a (once) crystal-clear, super-cold pool at its center not by accident, but because we want to live here. It’s our city. Preserving water is more important than building a few more houses and shopping centers. When we lose the water, there will be no way to get it back. When we lose the water, think of the attention we’ll devote to preservation. Even H. Ross Perot gave $50,000 to help preserve Treaty Oak. And that’s one tree; we’re talking miles of water.
It’s water and it’s endangered species, but it is something more than that. Surprisingly, we don’t think this is a town torn by dissension. Instead, there is a remarkable shared vision about a decent kind of city, about the kind of place in which you would want to live and raise children. The failure has been on the part of the politicians, especially this pathetic council (and we exclude Max Nofziger and Gus Garcia, while pointing especially at Bruce Todd, whose failure of leadership has been inexcusable). Again and again we have voted for one kind of city; there’s been no back and forth here.
This article appears in August 3 • 2012.