Capitol Grounds
Against Props 1 & 2
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Editors,
Concerning the gangreenista “dark water” amendment:
... “Trifle” City Charter already contains strong environmental support statements within it; SOSA needs intensive remedial training gathering four council votes.
… By mandating nothing but confrontation, the amendment throws away COA tools used to remove/lessen/remediate development over the watershed.
… Places Austin in direct opposition to state law “245” which preliminary legal action has shown the city unlikely to win.
… Tighter development regulation doesn't address suburban lifestyle that's poisoning the aquifer, nor account for the fact that if the other two-thirds of the aquifer beyond COA jurisdiction is destroyed, the Barton Springs Watershed will not survive.
Concerning the 1984 open government amendment:
… Internet costs – city balloon price $36 million. SOSA (EFF) sandbag price $24 million. Upkeep costs are disputed.
… Meeting with every shade of power broker is something all council members do. Office calendars don't reveal meeting subject matter because they weren't intended to. Demanding draconian monitoring due to lack of evidence isn't “open government,” but political paranoia.
… Unless advocates would have us believe that COA leaders and administrators don't speculate about their work with virtually everybody, interpretation of “real time” over the Internet will effectively “bug” all city personnel and visitors.
… Leaves amendment legal defense, interpretation, electronic protocols, and enabling ordinances to the “bad guys” (City Council and various staff).
… Bars or short-circuits almost any COA economic development negotiation with any business firm.
… By dissolving a negotiated agreement (“meet and confer” and APD personnel file protection) the amendment places an anti-union action into the City Charter.
Concerning the gangreenista “dark water” amendment:
... “Trifle” City Charter already contains strong environmental support statements within it; SOSA needs intensive remedial training gathering four council votes.
… By mandating nothing but confrontation, the amendment throws away COA tools used to remove/lessen/remediate development over the watershed.
… Places Austin in direct opposition to state law “245” which preliminary legal action has shown the city unlikely to win.
… Tighter development regulation doesn't address suburban lifestyle that's poisoning the aquifer, nor account for the fact that if the other two-thirds of the aquifer beyond COA jurisdiction is destroyed, the Barton Springs Watershed will not survive.
Concerning the 1984 open government amendment:
… Internet costs – city balloon price $36 million. SOSA (EFF) sandbag price $24 million. Upkeep costs are disputed.
… Meeting with every shade of power broker is something all council members do. Office calendars don't reveal meeting subject matter because they weren't intended to. Demanding draconian monitoring due to lack of evidence isn't “open government,” but political paranoia.
… Unless advocates would have us believe that COA leaders and administrators don't speculate about their work with virtually everybody, interpretation of “real time” over the Internet will effectively “bug” all city personnel and visitors.
… Leaves amendment legal defense, interpretation, electronic protocols, and enabling ordinances to the “bad guys” (City Council and various staff).
… Bars or short-circuits almost any COA economic development negotiation with any business firm.
… By dissolving a negotiated agreement (“meet and confer” and APD personnel file protection) the amendment places an anti-union action into the City Charter.
Sincerely,
Ricky Bird
Ricky Bird
