I try to keep a general list of agenda items in the bottom of this page for quick reference, but it has not been posted yet. When it is I will update that list. The link to "City Clerk: Council Meetings" in the sidebar leads to the latest agenda updates in the city's own site. The coming meeting schedule is June 5 and June 18. (The June 19th meeting has been moved to observe Juneteenth celebrations.) The next "work session" is June 4th.
A major concern is the manner in which several special interests have been blocking regular citizens from being able to speak at the open mike session that is supposed to provide contact with City Council. Normally, ten people are allowed to speak on any issue for three minutes each. But normally, Jennifer Gale and Carolannerose Kennedy show up EVERY WEEK in order to filibuster with hateful and ignorant remarks. Jennifer Gale, a transvestite, likes to make comments that vaguely resemble attempts to represent the police and the city bus drivers. Sometimes she brags of having "broken" a bus strike, which to this old union steward sounds really strange. Carolannerose Kennedy likes to recite inane poetry with an insulting, vaguely obscene tone while she throws things on the floor. It is an insult to the rest of the citizens of this fine city to see the way these two performers are allowed to embarrass us all, and it is an abuse of a system intended to support a democratic government process.
We'd like to see the City Council introduce a rotation into the system, perhaps by giving extra points to new speakers and shoving frequent flyers off the bottom of the list. We have issues like the 3.5-second crossing light on St. John's where there is a camera for catching jaywalkers and a building that includes more than a half-dozen residents who use wheelchairs, walkers and canes while trying to cross to the bus stop. People in that building have actually found it safer to jaywalk some distance from the corner in order to give turning motorists a chance to slow down instead of clipping them as they turn even when the pedestrian light is on. Motorists do not respect that white figure, they take their right-turn-on-red without looking. Now some retirees and veterans among others may have to face big fines on fixed incomes because of the short light and the watching camera.
We have issues like the growing problem of drunk cyclists on sidewalks who can do serious damage to pedestrians who can't react to their horns or bells. I, for one, have a hearing loss on one side so that I cannot tell how a cyclist is going to pass me when he speeds up behind me ringing his bell. I've been knocked aside twice, so far, this spring, just walking along the sidewalk on Congress. We need to find ways to support both cyclists and pedestrians, especially in the more active neighborhoods.
There are other issues, too. Zenobia Joseph brought up some interesting questions about children's writing programs at the last meeting, and we should hear more from parents about these issues. We should hear more from the Asian community, whose shops all over town must be seeing some effects from the shifting sands of business development.
One man I met while leafletting told me he has lots of questions about the flood-safety of the new riverside developments. He said his big complaint is that the City Council wants "to dance" while these questions, at least for him, go unanswered. "We didn't elect them so they could see a show", he said. City Council needs to hear from people like him. City Councillors need his vote as much as anyone else's.
It is always very dangerous for any government to lose connection with its own constituency. City Hall needs to keep those channels of communication open and not be fooled by the fact that one of the main obstacles to open communication, Jennifer Gale, spouts pablum about "open government" and the supposed need of an "ombudsman". City hall does not have to add another layer of bureaucracy in the form of an "ombudsman". It just needs to introduce a better rotation system into the speaking order at the open Citizen Communication sessions. There is so much valuable work that gets done at those sessions even now that it would be a shame to fail to open them up a little more.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
22nd: Plastic Bottles & Green Water
Plastic Bottles: item #24 "Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to eliminate City purchase of plastic water bottles for use inside governmental facilities in City Hall and to present a plan to the City Council for reducing plastic bottle use in all City operations." (click here for full resolution)
The discussion of this resolution was a little confusing, since at first it sounded like the proposal would discourage carried water bottles. City purchase is the key here, and it means someone in City Hall is admitting that the emperor of bottled-water-land has no clothes: unless you're importing some exotic sparkling spring water, that stuff all came out of someone else's faucet!
So the big plastic water jugs that are not disposable will still be in use, but cases of individual bottles will not be draining taxpayers' money into that great plastic island in the Pacific Ocean... nice.
We just hope they don't get mad at people like us who carry plastic bottles in our packs. Even when we can afford to buy a plastic empty bottle for $5 at a sporting-goods store, we can never remember where we left it and so the old refill-the-pepsi-bottle trick works fine. No one wants to face a couple of blocks as a summer pedestrian without a full bottle of water!
Green Water: Item #40 in today's agenda brought a host of architectural firms to City Hall to put on some pretty fancy presentations showing off what they can build on the Green Water Treatment plant site. We won't try to discuss the individual companies here, except to say that it was gratifying to see a City government willing to carry this part of the process out in public. Those Austinites who have the expertise to ask the right questions can tune into Cable Channel 6 at 10:30 Saturday morning or 4:30 on Sunday and see all the dog & pony shows for themselves.
In general, though, we always wonder about high-rise residential buildings. Several of the proposals included this type of development. Part of the discussion concerned the problem that high-rise condominiums usually are not in the "affordable" range. But what never got mentioned is why anyone would want to live in such a tall building no matter what the cost. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but we do live in uncertain times. Give us walkable staircases and openable windows for those unforeseen catastrophes that may result in a power outage for a few days in August. We really do believe more wariness should be felt about this type of super-dense residential development because there are ramifications for times of natural disaster, civil unrest, or economic collapse.
Wouldn't Austin be better off to develop wide swaths of medium-density residential complexes (six stories or less) and consolidate all the other activities into the towers? Wouldn't such residential buildings be more hospitable to lower-impact energy use?
The discussion of this resolution was a little confusing, since at first it sounded like the proposal would discourage carried water bottles. City purchase is the key here, and it means someone in City Hall is admitting that the emperor of bottled-water-land has no clothes: unless you're importing some exotic sparkling spring water, that stuff all came out of someone else's faucet!
So the big plastic water jugs that are not disposable will still be in use, but cases of individual bottles will not be draining taxpayers' money into that great plastic island in the Pacific Ocean... nice.
We just hope they don't get mad at people like us who carry plastic bottles in our packs. Even when we can afford to buy a plastic empty bottle for $5 at a sporting-goods store, we can never remember where we left it and so the old refill-the-pepsi-bottle trick works fine. No one wants to face a couple of blocks as a summer pedestrian without a full bottle of water!
Green Water: Item #40 in today's agenda brought a host of architectural firms to City Hall to put on some pretty fancy presentations showing off what they can build on the Green Water Treatment plant site. We won't try to discuss the individual companies here, except to say that it was gratifying to see a City government willing to carry this part of the process out in public. Those Austinites who have the expertise to ask the right questions can tune into Cable Channel 6 at 10:30 Saturday morning or 4:30 on Sunday and see all the dog & pony shows for themselves.
In general, though, we always wonder about high-rise residential buildings. Several of the proposals included this type of development. Part of the discussion concerned the problem that high-rise condominiums usually are not in the "affordable" range. But what never got mentioned is why anyone would want to live in such a tall building no matter what the cost. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but we do live in uncertain times. Give us walkable staircases and openable windows for those unforeseen catastrophes that may result in a power outage for a few days in August. We really do believe more wariness should be felt about this type of super-dense residential development because there are ramifications for times of natural disaster, civil unrest, or economic collapse.
Wouldn't Austin be better off to develop wide swaths of medium-density residential complexes (six stories or less) and consolidate all the other activities into the towers? Wouldn't such residential buildings be more hospitable to lower-impact energy use?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
15th: Safety In Austin Homes & Streets
The Citizen Communications portion of today's City Hall meeting was opened with a statement by Anthony Walker of the Decker Lane neighborhood regarding reasonable access to bus stops. He described a situation in which those residents in Northeast Austin have to walk so far to get to the nearest CapMetro bus stop that elderly pedestrians have to stop and rest several times before arriving at the stop. He said wheelchair-bound citizens have to risk road traffic and uneven pavements, making the same journey. Mr. Walker spoke with eloquent passion and conviction about the need for the City Council to take responsibility for the risks his neighbors face when attempting to travel along the sidewalks and for the lack of more conveniently located bus stops.
He was followed by Patty Spinkle and a group of citizens from the South side of Austin, who presented a moving statement about the problems along the "Hippie Highway" residential area. They said their street has become a commuter's alternative to a more regulated roads because it has only one stop sign and no regular APD patrols or speed-deterrents. Cars have been speeding through their neigborhood during morning and evening rush hours when children are also up and about. Their neighborhood group, RespectGalindo.org, has tried to slow the traffic by putting up its own street signs, but to no avail. They showed a moving set of photographs of accidents including one SUV that plowed into a child's bedroom just minutes after the four-year-old had gotten up and left her bed. The car's tire landed on the child's pillow.
The third presentation was by Cynthia Valladez who spoke about problems in the East Cesar Chavez area. She said that a lack of coordination between two neighborhood groups has resulted in failure of City Hall to address issues of rising crime & derelict properties in that part of Austin.
The City Council called a staff member in to discuss the problems faced along the South Austin "Hippie Highway", which has been the subject of mass media coverage because of the dramatic accidents and of the Galindo Neighborhood (GENA) sign campaign. The staff member said that the Galindo Neighborhood is 19th in line for "traffic calming" attention.
What we at The Austin Egalitarian noticed was the spontaneous way the three groups, with no relationship with each other, made presentations that all went to the same point: the City Council seems to leave citizens of all types to fend for their streets themselves while attention is given over to more massive projects of urban planning such as the "McMansions" ordinance. We can see that there is a relationship between the City Council's need to control the tsunami of new building that is coming into Austin and the lack of time for attending to the existing streets and small householders.
Some of the candidates in the recent election have said that there is a need to empower the Neighborhood Associations with more authority as well as a need to restructure the City Council to make it more accessbile to the average person's concerns, perhaps by making some of the Councillors into district instead of at-large representatives.
This would not be an easy or quick solution, in our opinion. Ms. Valladez, when describing the problems along Cesar Chavez, showed that neighborhood associations can in fact become obstacles if they compete with each other. The process of re-structuring the City Council to accomodate district representatives could be slow and treacherous, even if worthwhile.
All of Austin's living, daily citizens have to become more involved in this struggle in City Hall. Too many of the building projects that Councillor McCracken is trying to address with the McMansion ordinance seem to involve absent investors and highly influential architects and developers while the risk of casualties described by the street-level citizens increases.
No solution will work if a larger percentage of the voting population doesn't wake up and pay attention. According to the figures published in The Austin Chronicle, the biggest voting district was the West at 11%. Most of the others came in well under 10%.
We at The Austin Egalitarian may express strong opinions one one side or another of any particular issue, but we really only have one goal for this publication: to see the overall voting percentage start to push 50%. We'd rather see our point of view get overwhelmed by active voters than see the city sink in an abyss of crumbling sidewalks and injured people while the City Councillors debate developers over variances and exemptions.
(This posting is what we have to say today, and we will expand it after reviewing the City Council meeting again on Sunday. Remember the runoff! Vote for Galindo!)
He was followed by Patty Spinkle and a group of citizens from the South side of Austin, who presented a moving statement about the problems along the "Hippie Highway" residential area. They said their street has become a commuter's alternative to a more regulated roads because it has only one stop sign and no regular APD patrols or speed-deterrents. Cars have been speeding through their neigborhood during morning and evening rush hours when children are also up and about. Their neighborhood group, RespectGalindo.org, has tried to slow the traffic by putting up its own street signs, but to no avail. They showed a moving set of photographs of accidents including one SUV that plowed into a child's bedroom just minutes after the four-year-old had gotten up and left her bed. The car's tire landed on the child's pillow.
The third presentation was by Cynthia Valladez who spoke about problems in the East Cesar Chavez area. She said that a lack of coordination between two neighborhood groups has resulted in failure of City Hall to address issues of rising crime & derelict properties in that part of Austin.
The City Council called a staff member in to discuss the problems faced along the South Austin "Hippie Highway", which has been the subject of mass media coverage because of the dramatic accidents and of the Galindo Neighborhood (GENA) sign campaign. The staff member said that the Galindo Neighborhood is 19th in line for "traffic calming" attention.
What we at The Austin Egalitarian noticed was the spontaneous way the three groups, with no relationship with each other, made presentations that all went to the same point: the City Council seems to leave citizens of all types to fend for their streets themselves while attention is given over to more massive projects of urban planning such as the "McMansions" ordinance. We can see that there is a relationship between the City Council's need to control the tsunami of new building that is coming into Austin and the lack of time for attending to the existing streets and small householders.
Some of the candidates in the recent election have said that there is a need to empower the Neighborhood Associations with more authority as well as a need to restructure the City Council to make it more accessbile to the average person's concerns, perhaps by making some of the Councillors into district instead of at-large representatives.
This would not be an easy or quick solution, in our opinion. Ms. Valladez, when describing the problems along Cesar Chavez, showed that neighborhood associations can in fact become obstacles if they compete with each other. The process of re-structuring the City Council to accomodate district representatives could be slow and treacherous, even if worthwhile.
All of Austin's living, daily citizens have to become more involved in this struggle in City Hall. Too many of the building projects that Councillor McCracken is trying to address with the McMansion ordinance seem to involve absent investors and highly influential architects and developers while the risk of casualties described by the street-level citizens increases.
No solution will work if a larger percentage of the voting population doesn't wake up and pay attention. According to the figures published in The Austin Chronicle, the biggest voting district was the West at 11%. Most of the others came in well under 10%.
We at The Austin Egalitarian may express strong opinions one one side or another of any particular issue, but we really only have one goal for this publication: to see the overall voting percentage start to push 50%. We'd rather see our point of view get overwhelmed by active voters than see the city sink in an abyss of crumbling sidewalks and injured people while the City Councillors debate developers over variances and exemptions.
(This posting is what we have to say today, and we will expand it after reviewing the City Council meeting again on Sunday. Remember the runoff! Vote for Galindo!)
Thursday, May 8, 2008
8th, Evening: Billboard Madness
This evening's City Council meeting was dominated by impassioned speeches about billboards, listed as Item #89. The speakers were not listed and so we are not going to attempt to identify them here, since we have no way of spelling their names correctly and a couple of them were scary people. Made us kind of reluctant to stir up a lynch-mob since that is what they sounded like.
One lady's speech reminded us of Malcolm X's famous "By any means necessary" comment. The issue, in a nutshell, is that some time ago Austin decided to go along with citizen groups who want this to be a city completely free of billboards of any kind. Tonight representatives of the Northwest and South Austin neighborhoods were at City Hall to express their outrage that the plan to rid Austin of all outdoor signage has not been accomplished.
The South Austin representative raised the issue of light-pollution of the night sky, and described the effects of these lights in the outlying area of Austin where she lives. She believes the billboards are responsible for the lack of stars that can be seen now, compared to five years ago. She said "dark sky lighting" would not be enough of a concession, but only eradication. Nobody mentioned any other possible explanations for fewer visible stars, such as more polluted air, or air traffic. (We recall an interesting surprise in the flight moratorium after 9-11: the sudden clarity of the night skies.)
She was followed by a speaker who compared the evil billboard companies to the evil tobacco companies. We waited for statistics on eye-cancer but none were presented.
But these two speakers were no match in pure visceral passion to the woman from the Northwest neighborhood association who declared those billboards WILL COME DOWN!!!
She gots lots of loud applause.
After all that, the fellas who stood up for the billboard companies surprised us. They did not have fangs or bat-like wings, neither did they have bulging biceps with tattoos of billboard-induced death counts.
They spoke softly, mentioned a few details of the agreements that had been set up to manage and compromise the issue. The gentleman for Reagan Advertising mentioned the Constitution in passing, but did not go very far in that direction. This definitely was not a crowd that wants to hear about freedom of expression. The gentleman from Anderson Advertising mentioned a question of discrimination against one form of expression. He referred to a conflict between the desired eradication of the billboards and the law, particularly a State law that we are not familiar with.
Councillor Leffingwell commented, after their remarks, that he was under the impression that one reason for having this hearing involved a question of exactly that law. The issue was tabled after that comment and after a City Hall employee spoke on the impossibility of carrying out the task of taking down the signs with the present budget and staff level.
Our impression: all of the impassioned crusaders against billboards appeared to be retirees. (We are old enough to point this out without being accused of agism). All of them seem to want Austin to look like a landscaped park. They also do not seem to be aware of the serious hazard of sleepiness on long stretches of monotonous "scenic highway". They probably have not faced what younger people often face, which is the need to fight sleep on a long drive. Billboards actually are an important safety assett on long highways.
Beyond the light-pollution issue, which could be a problem with a giant billboard, we could not see the evil they were fighting. A few rules about number, size and placement should serve to keep billboards under control. Guessing by the usual make-up of neighborhood committees, this may be the same population that supports "Art In Public Places." Which we also support, and we wonder about the comparative logic.
Billboards are an earth-friendly, small-business-friendly, economically sound medium if used judiciously. They don't pollute landfills and they don't make noise.
We like billboards, within reason. We don't think they are addictive or carcinogenic.
And we really wonder about the deeper significance of the passion expressed at tonight's City CouncilEntertainment Public Hearing.
Stay tuned, Dear Readers.
One lady's speech reminded us of Malcolm X's famous "By any means necessary" comment. The issue, in a nutshell, is that some time ago Austin decided to go along with citizen groups who want this to be a city completely free of billboards of any kind. Tonight representatives of the Northwest and South Austin neighborhoods were at City Hall to express their outrage that the plan to rid Austin of all outdoor signage has not been accomplished.
The South Austin representative raised the issue of light-pollution of the night sky, and described the effects of these lights in the outlying area of Austin where she lives. She believes the billboards are responsible for the lack of stars that can be seen now, compared to five years ago. She said "dark sky lighting" would not be enough of a concession, but only eradication. Nobody mentioned any other possible explanations for fewer visible stars, such as more polluted air, or air traffic. (We recall an interesting surprise in the flight moratorium after 9-11: the sudden clarity of the night skies.)
She was followed by a speaker who compared the evil billboard companies to the evil tobacco companies. We waited for statistics on eye-cancer but none were presented.
But these two speakers were no match in pure visceral passion to the woman from the Northwest neighborhood association who declared those billboards WILL COME DOWN!!!
She gots lots of loud applause.
After all that, the fellas who stood up for the billboard companies surprised us. They did not have fangs or bat-like wings, neither did they have bulging biceps with tattoos of billboard-induced death counts.
They spoke softly, mentioned a few details of the agreements that had been set up to manage and compromise the issue. The gentleman for Reagan Advertising mentioned the Constitution in passing, but did not go very far in that direction. This definitely was not a crowd that wants to hear about freedom of expression. The gentleman from Anderson Advertising mentioned a question of discrimination against one form of expression. He referred to a conflict between the desired eradication of the billboards and the law, particularly a State law that we are not familiar with.
Councillor Leffingwell commented, after their remarks, that he was under the impression that one reason for having this hearing involved a question of exactly that law. The issue was tabled after that comment and after a City Hall employee spoke on the impossibility of carrying out the task of taking down the signs with the present budget and staff level.
Our impression: all of the impassioned crusaders against billboards appeared to be retirees. (We are old enough to point this out without being accused of agism). All of them seem to want Austin to look like a landscaped park. They also do not seem to be aware of the serious hazard of sleepiness on long stretches of monotonous "scenic highway". They probably have not faced what younger people often face, which is the need to fight sleep on a long drive. Billboards actually are an important safety assett on long highways.
Beyond the light-pollution issue, which could be a problem with a giant billboard, we could not see the evil they were fighting. A few rules about number, size and placement should serve to keep billboards under control. Guessing by the usual make-up of neighborhood committees, this may be the same population that supports "Art In Public Places." Which we also support, and we wonder about the comparative logic.
Billboards are an earth-friendly, small-business-friendly, economically sound medium if used judiciously. They don't pollute landfills and they don't make noise.
We like billboards, within reason. We don't think they are addictive or carcinogenic.
And we really wonder about the deeper significance of the passion expressed at tonight's City Council
Stay tuned, Dear Readers.
8th, Morning: Household Adaptations, Youth & Ethnic Issues
Let me preface this article by explaining that I am returning to journalism after a 20-year hiatus, and so I apologize for not having caught everyone's name. I will try to grab what I missed during the Sunday video on Channel 6 and I promise each week will see improvement in my coverage. I will try to choose two or three topics each week that seem interesting, and anyone who wants to push this blog in a specific direction is welcome to help with comments.
Three outstanding issues before the City Council this morning were related to "quality of life".
#48: "...a resolution directing the City Manager to initiate amendments to City Code Chapter 5-1 ... adopting Visitability standards for all new single-family homes and two-family dwellings (duplexes). (Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley Council Member Sheryl Cole )..."
#18-19: "... to increase operating expenditures in the amount of $24,482 for summer youth employment stipends. Funding in the amount of $24,482 is available from the increased expense reimbursement revenue from Travis County...." and "... to fund and administer the Summer Youth Employment Stipend program for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008 for an annual amount not to exceed $473,811 ($294,329 City; $179,482 County)...."
And another was #50: "...Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to identify areas within the upcoming fiscal year 2008-2009 budget to conduct facilitated community discussions of the Hispanic/Latino quality of life issues in Austin ..."
#48: David Witty of ADAPT described considerations of entrance size, slight-switch placements and bathroom grab-bars that are the main focus of proposed building codes. Mr. Alder, an architect, spoke for his organization and another gentleman spoke for the Homebuilders' Associations. Both were supportive of the proposals with one comment worth noting: the Homebuilders' speaker said they not given timely notice of the changes and would appreciate it if the Council would consider the amount of changes in regulation and market conditions they are coping with, and asked for a 60-day extension of study time.
#18-19 - Mr. Gus Pena addressed the Youth Employment funding, a long-standing program that serves to keep youngsters working and out of trouble for the summer. We'll be following this issue, because we'd like to see some of the young people visit this blog and tell everyone about their experience.
The center of the Council hall was filled with members of the Latino community who came to support the Hispanic study initiative, including Kathy Vasquez who spoke on behalf of the small business owners facing development and neighborhood change in the East side. Since this is an initiative to study what might be the needs and issues of that community, nothing very specific was addressed, but statistics concerning the population and future trends were noted: 34% now with a possible majority status down the road, family income between $35,000-$75,000, etc.
Mayor Wynn commented, in reply to a question that the cost of the Hispanic initiative would be in the vicinity of $700,000. The question was asked by Jennifer Gale, who opened with this rational question only to then launch into a rambling attack on the concept that somehow concluded that the Hispanic community would be destroyed by "selling out".... Nobody else spoke to balance her remarks, mainly because she was not on the roster to speak on this issue. She jumped in with her assertion that she was signed up, but that was for a different issue.
It was apparent to this reporter that Ms. Gale does not know what a "facilitated discussion" is. A "facilitated discussion" is one which is more or less moderated by people who can ensure that topics get covered and that participants don't confuse the topics with personal or irrelevant issues. A "facilitated discussion" should allow for some real solid communication because people will be able to say what is really on their mind about life in the Hispanic community in Austin and then all parties can come away with a much better understanding of each other, as well as mutual compassion.
The Austin Egalitarian will try to follow this initiative through its development and see how its best intentions turn out.
Three outstanding issues before the City Council this morning were related to "quality of life".
#48: "...a resolution directing the City Manager to initiate amendments to City Code Chapter 5-1 ... adopting Visitability standards for all new single-family homes and two-family dwellings (duplexes). (Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley Council Member Sheryl Cole )..."
#18-19: "... to increase operating expenditures in the amount of $24,482 for summer youth employment stipends. Funding in the amount of $24,482 is available from the increased expense reimbursement revenue from Travis County...." and "... to fund and administer the Summer Youth Employment Stipend program for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008 for an annual amount not to exceed $473,811 ($294,329 City; $179,482 County)...."
And another was #50: "...Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to identify areas within the upcoming fiscal year 2008-2009 budget to conduct facilitated community discussions of the Hispanic/Latino quality of life issues in Austin ..."
#48: David Witty of ADAPT described considerations of entrance size, slight-switch placements and bathroom grab-bars that are the main focus of proposed building codes. Mr. Alder, an architect, spoke for his organization and another gentleman spoke for the Homebuilders' Associations. Both were supportive of the proposals with one comment worth noting: the Homebuilders' speaker said they not given timely notice of the changes and would appreciate it if the Council would consider the amount of changes in regulation and market conditions they are coping with, and asked for a 60-day extension of study time.
#18-19 - Mr. Gus Pena addressed the Youth Employment funding, a long-standing program that serves to keep youngsters working and out of trouble for the summer. We'll be following this issue, because we'd like to see some of the young people visit this blog and tell everyone about their experience.
The center of the Council hall was filled with members of the Latino community who came to support the Hispanic study initiative, including Kathy Vasquez who spoke on behalf of the small business owners facing development and neighborhood change in the East side. Since this is an initiative to study what might be the needs and issues of that community, nothing very specific was addressed, but statistics concerning the population and future trends were noted: 34% now with a possible majority status down the road, family income between $35,000-$75,000, etc.
Mayor Wynn commented, in reply to a question that the cost of the Hispanic initiative would be in the vicinity of $700,000. The question was asked by Jennifer Gale, who opened with this rational question only to then launch into a rambling attack on the concept that somehow concluded that the Hispanic community would be destroyed by "selling out".... Nobody else spoke to balance her remarks, mainly because she was not on the roster to speak on this issue. She jumped in with her assertion that she was signed up, but that was for a different issue.
It was apparent to this reporter that Ms. Gale does not know what a "facilitated discussion" is. A "facilitated discussion" is one which is more or less moderated by people who can ensure that topics get covered and that participants don't confuse the topics with personal or irrelevant issues. A "facilitated discussion" should allow for some real solid communication because people will be able to say what is really on their mind about life in the Hispanic community in Austin and then all parties can come away with a much better understanding of each other, as well as mutual compassion.
The Austin Egalitarian will try to follow this initiative through its development and see how its best intentions turn out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
