Point Austin: Greens vs. Greens
Charter election rhetoric begins rising all around
That's show biz. The speeches were not news to anybody on hand, but rather an initial attempt to advertise public solidarity among current and former council members (Raul Alvarez sent best wishes, as did Daryl Slusher) and many green advocates that the proposals to amend the charter, however well intended, would neither protect the Edwards Aquifer and Barton Springs, nor make city government effectively more "open" to the public than it already is. These propositions were drafted, said Leffingwell, "behind closed doors and with no public input"; they will have "unintended consequences" far beyond their apparent good intentions; and because petition-submitted amendments, once subject to signatures, cannot be altered, there has been no real opportunity to correct "errors or omissions" in the language that, if adopted, moves directly into the city charter.
Leffingwell described the risk to progressive city programs like solar rebates and SMART Housing by a ban on any "incentives" in the Barton Springs Zone, and reiterated the "$36 million up front, and $1 million a month" mantra that the city insists it will cost to implement the instant-online portions of Prop. 2. Dunkerley argued that the cost estimates, rather than inflated, are more likely too low, and will come at the expense of other pressing city needs, from public safety to public health concluding, "I am vehemently opposed to these propositions." Kim described the in-progress, multijurisdiction regional water quality plan as offering better hope for aquifer protection, and said that promises of online document access in "real time" are simply recipes for public dispute and disappointment. A little later, McCracken itemized three reasons to oppose the amendments: 1) the excessive cost (a six-year estimate of $96 million); 2) the apparent ban on water/drainage infrastructure improvements in southwest neighborhoods; 3) the "severe restrictions" on citizen privacy rights in e-mails and discussions with city officials.
Needless to say, the amendment proponents two overlapping groups of activist organizations, with the core leadership from SOS, ACLU, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation-Austin reject every one of these arguments as misleading, overdrawn, or simply "lies," as Jordan Hatcher of EFF (who helped draft the open government proposition) called Leffingwell's description of the online e-mails proposal. Hatcher insisted that the amendment is simply not as onerous as officials say, and that the city would retain much "discretion and judgment" about the standards for what must be posted ("in real time") online. He didn't say what happens if the official judgment should differ from that of the amendment advocates. He also said that by researching open-source and Web-based software, proponents have already reduced the city's $36 million initial cost estimate to $24 million not exactly a dramatic breakthrough, nor especially the sort of insignificant detail to be worked out after the fact.
"It's unfortunate that we want to spend this kind of energy in fighting among friends," said Ted Siff, after he stepped down out of the wind. Siff, former director of the Austin Parks Foundation and longtime parks and open-space advocate, had been joined by George Cofer of the Hill Country Conservancy, Mary Ann Neely of the Save Barton Creek Association, Jim Marston of Environmental Defense, and several others (all officially speaking for themselves, not their organizations) whose record of environmental advocacy is at least as long as those promoting the amendments. Siff said he's particularly concerned about the effects the projected amendment costs might have on the current bond proposal for open space acquisition now at $45 million, from an initial goal of $75 million adding, "part of the reason for the bond election postponement [from May to November] was the introduction of these amendments."
Although nobody at council claimed that at the time, on this day Betty Dunkerley concurred with Siff, saying that the amendment costs had landed on her desk as the council addressed the bond package. "The timing itself is not the main issue," she told me. "But when we set our budget [this summer], we can't use numbers based on someone else's speculation. We have to use the best numbers estimated by city staff. And that money's got to come from somewhere."
Inside and Out
As I write, Austin voters have six weeks to sort out these arguments. They're not likely to be helped much either by the council's "doomsday scenarios" (as the proponents' lawsuit, argued today, describes the official ballot language) nor by the cheerful Springs-and-flowers promises of "clean water" and "clean government" used by advocates to market extremely complex legislation with multiple potential effects, good and bad. As we huddled in the cold wind, I asked onlooking SOS spokesman Colin Clark how it happens that so many prominent environmentalists would find themselves in opposition to proposals supposedly so green and progressive. "Those people are all 'insiders,'" Clark said. "People who feel like they're insiders don't feel a need to open up the process of local democracy."
If those are indeed the terms of the discussion, voters can expect to spend much of the next several weeks trying to get out of the wind.