by Alex de Marban
Today is expected to be Eric Mitchell’s biggest day as an officeholder yet.
The newest and most volatile councilmember, who has publicly called some
environmentalists “assholes” and who regularly accuses his colleagues of
skullduggery, will see his brand of divisive politics put to the test when the
council votes whether to accept an $8.8 million federal loan for the Central
City Entertainment Center (CCEC), aka Rosewood.
Two councilmembers in addition to Mitchell – Jackie Goodman and Gus
Garcia – are expected to approve the Housing and Urban Development loan, which
will help pay for a 16-lane bowling alley, a roller-skating rink, and other
amenities. The rest of the council, save for Max Nofziger, who could not be
reached, and Brigid Shea, who will be out of town today, say they are waiting
for more information on whether the loan is the best funding option.
The council already unanimously approved $275,000 for previous phases of
the plan, like architectural design and consulting work. Never mind that $8.7
million of the 20-year debt service on the loan is expected to be paid for with
Community Development Block Grants, funds normally used to provide low-income
housing. Never mind that the other $8.7 million in debt service is supposed to
come from the general fund, potentially increasing property taxes and sqeezing
out other city projects. Never mind that not a penny is slated for educational
programs at the center.
Political observers say that Mitchell’s success in seeing the project
through can be summed up in seven words: What Eric Mitchell wants, Eric
Mitchell gets. It’s a phrase that also applies to Mitchell’s $75 million plan,
called the Austin Redevelopment Authority (ARA), to take advantage of the
city’s eminent domain powers to, as he described it, “wipe… out” much of the
11th and 12th street corridor east of I-35, and turn it into a commercial and
business district. For the ARA, the council unanimously voted this spring to
apply for a Housing and Urban Development loan, and spend $60,000 on a market
study.
Both projects – Mitchell’s most talked about accomplishments in his first
year in office – have drawn praise from much of the East Austin community. Many
residents there say that Mitchell has worked harder in one year than former
Place 6 Councilmember Charles Urdy did in eight. Gushes Dorothy Turner,
president of the Black Citizens’ Task Force, “He’s done a fantastic job. Best
we [East Austin residents] have ever had.”
Even those who despise his incendiary politics have found respect for the
dedication and energy he’s showed over the past year. “Thank goodness we’ve
finally got someone who cares about East Austin,” says Mark Rogers, a board
member of the Guadalupe Association for Improved Neighborhoods. “The problem
is, who is he going to benefit in the long-term?”
Rogers, a white, East Austin resident, complains that Mitchell
intentionally avoids input from East Austin Hispanics and whites, and even from
some blacks who oppose his policies. Rogers feels that Mitchell’s projects have
left the East Austin community divided along ethnic lines, and that Mitchell
has only aggravated the tensions between the Hispan-ic and black neighborhoods
there.
Portia Watson, a black member of the Chestnut Hill Neighborhood
Association, agrees, saying that Mitchell has left much of the black community
divided. She says that Mitchell’s success can partly be attributed to his
method of excluding opposing voices. “When he has these so-called town
meetings, he makes sure that those in opposition don’t get their notices until
the day of the meeting, or sometime after, but
everybody else gets theirs earlier.”
Mitchell would not respond to repeated requests for an interview; it’s no
secret that he considers the media his enemy. “You tell your editors I said,
`Up yours!'” he once shouted at this reporter in answer to a question
following a council meeting. Nor is the media his only target for invective. In
a January 25 memo to Assistant City Manager Oscar Rod-riguez regarding the ARA,
Mitchell warns city staff “not to waste a lot of time talking to individuals or
groups that have a history of being negative or opposing everything that is
brought forward without ever offering positive, concrete solutions to
issues.
“If this happens, I will view these
actions as a deliberate attempt to undermine these initiatives hoping they
will fail to receive the neces-sary support from Council and the community at
large,” he wrote.
Mitchell has found moderate success with Shea, often considered Mitchell’s
primary opponent on most issues: She has supported both of his projects, though
with some doubts about the costs. She says part of his ability to win over the
rest of the council can be attributed to “race-baiting” – Mitchell’s tendency
to launch into accusatory tirades after not getting his way, charging
councilmembers with lack of sincere concern for East Austin residents.
After being on the losing end of the February 23 vote to extend sewage
lines to Barton Creek Properties, for example, Mitchell accused the
predominantly white environmentalist crowd of working only for the betterment
of West
Austin while entirely excluding blacks
in East Austin. On June 7, after the council selected downtown instead of
East Austin as a location for a new City Hall, he accused the rest of the
council of rhetoric when it comes to helping East Austin, even though they have
unanimously supported ARA and CCEC.
If Mitchell hasn’t directly accused the other councilmembers of wrongdoing,
he encourages his supporters to do so. For example, Dorothy Turner, during a
citizens’ communication on March 23, accused all the councilmembers but
Mitchell of calling an East Austin public meeting at an inaccesible location in
order to keep the East Austin crowd to a minimum. During the rant, Turner
accused the rest of the council of being the most “racist bunch of hypocrites”
to hold office in Austin. Mitchell made no effort to stick up for the rest of
the council, even though the city manager’s office, not the councilmembers, had
selected the meeting place.
Despite Mitchell’s antagonistic behavior, he continues to curry the favor
of the council. Garcia “admires” Mitchell for his passion on issues. Goodman
says that Mitchell, since his first six months on the council when he spoke
with no other member but Goodman and Reynolds, has learned to get along with
the councilmembers.
Both scoff at the idea that “race-baiting” has influenced their decisions
on Mitchell projects. They say he just has good ideas.
Both think the entertainment center, to be located at 2334 Rosewood –
across the street from the Booker T. Washington projects on one side and a
neighborhood of retirees on another – can turn a profit. The M. Crane &
Associates study shows differently: If debt service and capital costs are
included in the estimates, the project, in a best-case scenario, will lose
$950,000 a year.
Watson sees the council’s acceptance of the Mitchell’s plans in a different
light: “The general consensus of all councilmembers is to do something with
East Austin, and since he’s got a plan and nobody else does, I guess that
accounts for that.” n The only council action to occur last week took place at the council’s
housing subcommittee meeting on June 13. During the meeting, two applications
for Eastside development were shown to be in conflict, causing Mitchell to
shout, “I’m pissed!” before exiting the meeting, and leaving the committee
quorumless. The application’s overlap centered on tracts of city-owned land on
11th Street just east of I-35.
Van Johnson, representing the Neighborhood Conservation and Combining
District, said the district wants to use the tracts for commercial and business
purposes, coinciding with Mitchell’s aforementioned ARA plan. Cloteal Haynes,
ex-city official and now a representative of the Anderson Neighborhood
Development Corp., wants the land to be used for rental housing under the SCIP
II (Scattered Co-operative Infill Housing) low-income housing plan.
A resolution to do that was ex-pected to pass, before the conflict was
pointed out. Mitchell, who wanted the land to go to SCIP II, blamed city staff
for the confusion before suddenly departing. “This is a direct attempt to not
do what I want to do,” he shouted. That left only the chair, Goodman, since
Garcia had left earlier and Todd and Shea did not attend the meeting. Goodman
continued the meeting, however, letting the two parties publicly voice their
comments. Five minutes later, Garcia and Mitchell returned. Garcia made a
motion to postpone the item, and the three councilmembers voted yea. n This week in council: In addition to voting on whether to accept the loan
for Rosewood and on where to route the transmission line between the Holly and
Seaholm power plants, the council will decide whether to appeal the FM
Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin case. n
This article appears in June 23 • 1995 and June 23 • 1995 (Cover).