AFS Cinema
Props. 1 & 2 Just an Exercise in Political Power and Ego
RECEIVED Fri., April 28, 2006
Dear Bill Bunch (El Pomposo SOSAnista),
When development is ecological and profitable, the aquifer shall be saved. Until then, only a losing advocate attempts to switch the topic to a consensus object like "clean water." No one is arguing about the aquifer or watershed being in trouble; the question is, do the proposed charter amendments help the situation or not? They don’t, and that is revealed by the ACLU analysis of the amendments, that leaves crucial decisions in the very hands of the officials your gangrene-clique rationale holds are conspiring against the SOS ordinance. Since one cannot logically take the position that the Austin City Council is running a secret star chamber imposing Chapter 245 on neighborhoods and then propose a solution whose execution would allow those same officials to be in charge of the "reforms," the amendments are the very essence of deception and hypocrisy. Which means that this is an exercise in nothing but political power and ego.
Your BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) "strategy" to deal with MoPac congestion while buying all the watershed land is an exercise in herbal fantasy. The sprawl and the billion dollar figures are real enough, but tell us, commandante, what’s the real 3-D alternative?
Finally, any appeal to citizens to save Barton Springs is marginalized by SOSA’s environmental smear of anyone disagreeing with the latest encyclical decree. The science indeed shows a problem, but your "solution" is just another special-interest power broker ruse into Austin politics. Words illustrate intent, but action shows true meaning. Why, after 14 years, are there no specifics for "conservation-oriented development"?
When development is ecological and profitable, the aquifer shall be saved. Until then, only a losing advocate attempts to switch the topic to a consensus object like "clean water." No one is arguing about the aquifer or watershed being in trouble; the question is, do the proposed charter amendments help the situation or not? They don’t, and that is revealed by the ACLU analysis of the amendments, that leaves crucial decisions in the very hands of the officials your gangrene-clique rationale holds are conspiring against the SOS ordinance. Since one cannot logically take the position that the Austin City Council is running a secret star chamber imposing Chapter 245 on neighborhoods and then propose a solution whose execution would allow those same officials to be in charge of the "reforms," the amendments are the very essence of deception and hypocrisy. Which means that this is an exercise in nothing but political power and ego.
Your BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) "strategy" to deal with MoPac congestion while buying all the watershed land is an exercise in herbal fantasy. The sprawl and the billion dollar figures are real enough, but tell us, commandante, what’s the real 3-D alternative?
Finally, any appeal to citizens to save Barton Springs is marginalized by SOSA’s environmental smear of anyone disagreeing with the latest encyclical decree. The science indeed shows a problem, but your "solution" is just another special-interest power broker ruse into Austin politics. Words illustrate intent, but action shows true meaning. Why, after 14 years, are there no specifics for "conservation-oriented development"?
Triflingly yours,
Ricky Bird
Bastrop
Ricky Bird
Bastrop