Biggest Question: Why The Surprise?

This set of excerpts shows citizens asking the same question several times: "Why the surprise?" It ends with one citizen asking a very pointed question of the biomass company: "Who are you?" and he elicited a very full answer about this tiny, leverage-funded and nameless group of New England-based entrepreneurs with their Bahamas company (a "Delaware corporation", which is something like a tanker sailing under a Liberian flag....)

In the post below we go into our usual connect-the-dots back to New England, and so we were sadly-yet-pleasantly surprised to see the proof in this City Hall pudding. What was NOT said at the meeting: GE is heavily involved in the windpower in New England that this company in Austin refers to as some kind of associated entity (in an obvious attempt to distance itself from its own wood-burning plans), and what is also NOT said is that one of the oil heat companies up there is a community run foundation owned by "Young Joe" Kennedy, the son of Senator Ted Kennedy's eldest brother, Joe, who predeceased JFK.

Really, the citizens of Austin express it best for themselves, and so we refer you to the 8 minutes of video excerpts. No one can blame the business reps for wanting to pitch their game, of course, but we can certainly blame the City Council, especially Councillor Morrison, for not giving the public an earlier "heads up" on this profit-seeking plan to strip East Texas bare.

Oh, and where are all the environmental groups that like to suck up donations and give them to people like Councillor Morrison, hmm? Few of the citizens who spoke claimed any kind of group affiliation at all.

Summer Break is Over!

City Council is back in action and so is the Egalitarian. I've added video and hope to start bringing some original tape, as well. For now I grabbed a piece off the City's own service and got permission from Dave Matustik over at Channel 6/City Hall to use this video-quote of Mayor Will Wynn making a very important point for all Texans. This clip was originally produced by City Hall Channel 6 and is being used with their permission. Other uses of City Hall tape will be under normal "journalistic use" standards, which allow use of short clips (less than a minute) to illustrate or document original material.

Preferential Treatment For Ex-Offenders?

Recently we happened to have the tv tuned to Channel 6 outside of the regular City Council time and we caught another group in action: the Human Rights Commission. They were listening to presentations on the question of giving ex-offenders preferential treatment similar to the "affirmative action" model, particularly in the job interview/hiring process. Whatever the Human Rights Commission decides will be presented to the City Council as a recommendation, so if this issue concerns you, it might be a good idea to contact the City Clerk and find out when meetings, hearings, and decision-points are likely to be reached.

Here is a link to this commission's page in the City hall site: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/agenda/2008/rights_062308.htm

You know, "Affirmative Action" started out as an idea that made sense. Our history and culture has allowed us to erect unconscious barriers in society to the advancement of people who have certain physical, inborn traits that we know have nothing to do with mental or intellectual competence: race and gender, and "Affrimative Action" seemed like a necessary step to take in breaking down those barriers. It has been somewhat expanded to include lifestyle choices such as homosexuality, culture and religion because there are strong arguments that these are at least partially inborn traits or are important private choices, and in any case are not normally violating another person's rights. But the notion of giving "ex-offenders", people who have been found guilty of crimes and done time, anything like an "Affirmative -Action" eligibility boggles the mind.

The main point seems to be "Ban the Box", a movement to prohibit employers from asking about criminal convictions on job applications. But affirmative action requirements that include bringing job offerings to ex-offender populations were also mentioned. These could be requirements for employers.

There are legitimate issues about job applications that ask such questions as "have you ever been arrested?" which probably should be prohibited because it is too easy for a corrupt society to subject people to arrest for no good reason. Such arrests usually are tossed out of court, if they get that far, and the person should never have to refer to it when filling out applications, but convictions? There are processes by which an unjust conviction can be overturned or expunged. We may need to expand and strengthen those processes, but we don't need to protect the people who were rightfully convicted of crimes. We may even be giving a message to young people that they can get extra points in careers if they get in trouble!

Job applications should certainly be simplified and sensitive questions should be held back to a more secure level, especially concerning the ease with with completely unauthorized an unqualified workers can read them in some companies where they are left sitting on a shift-manager's desk or a public counter, but affirmative action for ex-offenders????

Comments welcome, because this subject sure does need discussion!

Governor's Mansion Fire Cited As Warning

Today at City Hall a young child addressed the City Council on a consolidation proposal by first saying that what happened to the Governor's Mansion needs to be noticed. She then spoke about graffitti as art, referring to the famous "frog" icon on the drag and mentioning that this icon has shown up in other cities. She gave a most unchild-like speech about graffitti as art. She closed with an appeal to the Council to support article 59.

(An aside: here is a very interesting link to an article about the City Council voting last year to spend $50,000 on "graffiti education", dailytexanonline.com )

She was followed by an adult who spoke about meeting with the NEA in Colorado in preparation to bring this new division program to Austin.

Forgive this reporter for not noting all the names down for this article. This reporter was sitting in near-shock. This reporter is a survivor of the graffitti-driven and violent gang that set up a similar commission in Pittsfield, Massachusetts in the late 1980's that drove all independent artists out of that city while the political group that remained shoved death-oriented and extreme left-wing violent art projects into the high schools and into the public arena. Several people died suspiciously while fighting that group. The corruption in Massachusetts has always been notorious and need not be discussed here, except when it casts its shadow as far as Texas.

The proposed creation of this new Arts Division involves the merging of six city committees/commissions and looks like simply a move towards efficiency, but it covers a more sinister agenda. Someone coached that young child to open her remarks with reference to the burning of the Governor's Mansion and reference to the "need" to see graffitti as art, something no child of her apparent 9-12 years (at most) would have done on her own. Someone brought her around to see graffitti matching Austin marks in several cities, according to her own remarks as she described her surprise and she was told that the appearance of these marks in places like New York means Austin is very important.

The child who spoke in Austin is African-American, but the people responsible for exploiting children in New York and Massachusetts in this left-wing "art" tactic are mostly white racists. They are skilled at choosing unsuspecting or vulnerable people to deflect responsibility for their well-orchestrated violence and propaganda.

The Austin Egalitarian believes we have been given a warning, and that a very surreptitious and home-grown terrorist group is taking credit for the arson at the Governor's Mansion as their opening salvo.

Notice the new graffiti around town, the hanging bat? Look for more art-edgy projects involving school children and teachers who will be claiming this is art.

What it really is, is an opportunity for some "teachers" and other adults to bring children into contact with street violence, teaching them to see police authjority as the "enemy" and moving them into the role of violent confrontation with the "evil" authorities, because the children do not have the experience to understand that the innocent appearance of a bat or a frog is not the point: the vandalism of property is the point.

These home-grown terrorists who are snatching the minds of children right in front of us in City Hall are teaching the children the "property is theft" extremism of anarchist socialism, that is the kind that results in violence. And in order to succeed, they need not only the protection of City Hall which will fear embarrassment if they are investigated, but they also need to drive all the independent professional artists out of town, in order to silence the voices most likely to be influential in the early stages of resisting this incredible coup in Texas.

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?

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!)

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 Council Entertainment Public Hearing.

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.