An open letter to the Austin City Council

In regard to the city council's planned "boycott Arizona" resolution, approved unanimously today, I submit the following:

• Phoenix has been called the "number two kidnapping capital of the world", with a lot of kidnappings (many of which are said in the linked article to go unreported) related to the illegal drug trade.  Per the same article, "[s]ome officials have commented that all the Phoenix kidnappings are connected to illegal immigration".
• A Pinal County sheriff's deputy was shot in the abdomen when he came upon a group of suspected human traffickers, who opened fire on him.  A manhunt for those responsible resulted in the arrest of 17 suspected illegal immigrants. 
• Multiple areas in Arizona are littered with literally thousands of discarded backpacks left by undocumented immigrants entering the state.
• Arizona residents, by a wide margin, support SB 1070, the controversial immigration law opposed by the Austin City Council.

Oh, and one other thing:  the Statesman article states that Austin "planned to send five employees to Arizona for three events this month".  This does not appear to add up to much money being taken away from the state of Arizona.

So, with all that said, one question remains:

Do you think the people of Arizona care one whit about what the City of Austin thinks of them?

Why the Travis County Healthcare District couldn't care less what you think

I think I have the Travis County Healthcare District (now called Central Health by some) figured out, or at least their decision to continue to use property taxes to fund abortions regardless of the number of people opposed to using their money to fund a procedure that they find morally repugnant.

A lot of residents are not happy about this; according to KVUE,

One woman produced a stack of over 10 thousand petitions from Travis County residents who were opposed to using taxpayer money to fund abortions -- she reminded the board managers that's twice the number of people who voted for the healthcare district in the first place.

Of course, the unelected board didn't care what people thought, and so they voted unanimously to continue to fund abortions despite the rumblings that they may be in for a legal fight.

But I think I know why this board doesn't care what individual people, in whatever numbers, think about it.

Let's start by looking at the FY2010 budget for the district, or Central Health, or whatever they want to be called.  (Maybe they figure that a nondescript name such as "Central Health" will make people forget they're being taxed to pay for it.)  The total operating budget for the upcoming year is $98,027,945, based on a plan to reduce property taxes to $0.0674 per $100 of property value (which, I'm guessing, will still result in a tax increase due to continually rising appraisals).  The budget set aside for the three abortion providers' contracts is $450,000, or 0.459% of the total budget.

Now let's consider a typical Travis County home.  Per this site, the median home price in Travis County earlier this year was $218,000, so we'll give our typical home that value.  We'll also assume it has a homestead exemption because, well, mine does.  Therefore the taxes for FY2010 that will go toward the healthcare district will be:

$218,000 x 80% (due to the exemption) x ($0.0674 / $100) = $117.55

And thus the amount of money that our typical Travis County homeowner will be putting toward funding abortions is 0.459% of $117.55, or a whopping $0.54.

So, at 54 cents per opinion, even having 10,000 people opposed to abortion doesn't matter to the board.  10,000 votes might matter, but since this board isn't elected, it's moot in this case.  Such is life in deep blue Travis County.

p.s.  Mrs. Snowed would like to be refunded her 54 cents now, thank you very much.

p.p.s.  Though the board doesn't have to answer for this, three Austin City Council members (Randi Shade, Laura Morrison, and Sheryl Cole) may, based on this tweet from Laura Morrison:

(You can get to the Twitpic here.) 

Update 8/11/11:  Trumped by state law, Central Health has reversed this decision.

Austin Mayoral Election: No More Runoff!

Courtesy the Statesman, here is Brewster McCracken's letter to supporters announcing his withdrawal from the mayoral race.

I suppose it's just as well. Given Lee Leffingwell's large number of supporters (who almost made the runoff unnecessary), it was almost a foregone conclusion as to what would happen next month.

So, then, all you Austinites who forgot last Saturday's election can continue not to care about much else, since there is not an election next month after all. Maybe that could be a good thing.

How NOT to conduct a mayoral campaign

Not content to alienate people in Austin, Brewster McCracken has decided to tick off the entire city of St. Louis as well. His latest ad (referenced in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch column) references the decline of St. Louis's urban core. Not surprisingly, the residents of St. Louis aren't thrilled with Mr. McCracken, as seen in this KMOV report.

Mr. McCracken's ad is no longer embeddable (although it was previously...go figure), but you can see it here.

Note: the above is not intended to endorse any specific candidate for Austin mayor.

City Council Place 1 Candidates: My Impression

The Place 1 City Council candidates appeared on KVUE's Daybreak yesterday morning; however, most of Austin was asleep at that time, so as a free public service (and worth every penny), I provide my quick-hit thoughts on the two, along with links to the archived videos of the interviews, courtesy KVUE:

Perla Cavazos: Truly came across as a one-issue candidate. Really, just how many times can one say "affordable housing" in a four-minute interview? (Answer: a lot.) Quita Culpepper tried to keep Ms. Cavazos's interview interesting, but to no avail.

Chris Riley: Made an effort to hit multiple issues, including affordable housing. (He, however, only said "affordable housing" once.)

So who came off better in my eyes? Well, being a voter concerned about multiple issues, rather than just one, I'd have to say Mr. Riley looked much, much better.

Reminder: early voting starts tomorrow, y'all!

The Return of Ignite Consulting

Now that the run-off has arrived (early voting is already in progress and, I would imagine, will draw out at least one or two hundred voters!), the election calls have returned. So far, Cid Galindo's campaign has called twice, both times with a live caller. Laura Morrison's campaign has robocalled once, with a recorded message calling Mr. Galindo a liar regarding his comments on her stance on a proposed home energy efficiency ordinance (because, you know, Ms. Morrison's campaign has certainly not engaged in any lying themselves).

But more interesting, in my opinion, is from where the call originated. A quick glance at my caller ID records shows that it came from 800-441-0704. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar...

I guess this means Ignite Consulting's application for robocalling in Texas was approved. Regardless, I find it interesting that a firm owned by Jennifer Kim's campaign manager, Elliot McFadden (not to mention a firm which has knowingly violated PUC regulations), is who Ms. Morrison wants to represent her.

Oh, by the way, I know I'm getting hits from people looking up that 800 number. That application to which I linked above shows the office numbers of Ignite Consulting. Just FYI.

It's Come to This (Part 3)

Wow, the robocall story went a lot further than I thought it would...let's see, the Burnt Orange Report picked up the story, followed a day later by News 8 Austin, at which point Jennifer Kim finally admitted her campaign was behind the calls. Then, the floodgates opened, and everyone was dumping on Ms. Kim, from Randi Shade to the police and fire organizations, and it became the first question in KXAN's debate.

Did all that make any difference? According to KVUE, the early voting and the election-day voting went pretty much the same way (though, to be fair, early voting was still in progress when the robocall story broke). So, maybe a didn't make much difference in the voting. However, according to the Chronicle, it also appears that Ignite Consulting (owned by Kim consultant Elliott McFadden) never had a permit for robocalling and didn't even apply for one until after the "Lisa" call went out. So, if nothing else, that should serve as a warning to someone.

It can also serve as a warning to you: the application (available through the KVUE link above) also absolutely confirms the use of the phone number 800-441-0704 as its method of communication. (Cue all my readers, who currently number well into the single digits, to block that number from calling them.)

But forget all that: Lisa has been found! As it turns out, Lisa is a friend of a friend. Apparently she was concerned that she might face some of the fallout from the call. Thankfully, Ignite is the party possibly facing some serious penalties, not her. But I hear she'll be a little more careful accepting her scripts in the future.

Oh, and congratulations to Ms. Shade on winning the Place 3 seat, and best wishes in the coming three years.

It's Come to This (Part 2)

Wells Dunbar wants confirmation of the "greasy" anti-Shade robocall? I've got confirmation.

(Oh, and nice term. "Greasy" describes this perfectly.)



UPDATE: My final wrap-up may be found here.

It's Come to This: Cowardly Anonymous Phone Calls

Anyone following the Austin Place 3 race might be interested in this gem of a voicemail I received today, which I will transcribe in its entirety:

"Why is Randi Shade trying to break the bank? Hi, this is your neighbor Lisa, calling to let you know City Council candidate Randi Shade has made budget promises that could mean cuts in city services and higher taxes for you. In seeking the endorsement of police and firefighters, Shade agreed to increase funding for management positions without having seen a budget, which is now in the red. With the highest-paid public safety workers in the state, can we afford Randi Shade's promises? It's not different, and it's not Austin."

Notwithstanding that 1) I don't have a neighbor Lisa; and 2) one councilmember can't do anything alone (and thus the crux of the call is rendered sadly inert), I suppose "different" and "Austin" are truly exemplified by anonymous attack ads, right, Jennifer Kim?

UPDATE: As most everyone in Austin knows by now, this story developed further.

Laura Morrison's Fear-Mongering Ad

In case you're an Austin resident who hasn't had to sit through Laura Morrison's one and only commercial at least twice on every newscast, you can now find it here.

Now that you've seen it, did you notice that this ad is flat-out lying? Oh, yeah, they're gonna build three 700-foot towers where the Green Water Treatment Plant is right now. (Specifically, per the aforementioned commercial, apparently they're gonna build three 360 Condominiums buildings on the site, but they're going to lop the top off of them. And apparently at least one of them is going to lean slightly. Seriously, learn Photoshop...) Unless plans for that site have changed quite a bit from my understanding, nothing on that scale is planned.

So, why would Ms. Morrison want you, the informed Austin voter, to think that this will happen if she isn't elected to Place 4? Because she wants you scared, that's why. Ooh, the scary developers are going to ruin our city unless I am elected! Whatever.

Oh, by the way, don't expect to see any negative comments about the ad on YouTube. Mine has been awaiting approval for at least ten hours now, and I'm not expecting to see it show up until probably, oh, say, May 11.

Deconstructing Jennifer Kim

Jennifer Kim wrote a letter which appeared in yesterday's Statesman (available here) expressing her disappointment with the circumstances leading up to RG4N's lawsuit against the city. As I supposed should be expected, virtually the entirety of the letter is absurd on its face. Let's take a look:

I am deeply troubled by the outcome of the site plan approval for Northcross Mall. It's wrong and embarrassing when residents believe they must protect the community by suing the city.

It's more embarrassing when loud vocal groups don't respect the city's existing site plan approval process. Having dealt with it myself, I know it's not a simple process. Several, several people had a look at this. To say that they screwed up is to insult a fair number of city workers.

I have worked with Responsible Growth 4 Northcross to prevent this. Ideas ranged from a public-private partnership to build a community center or other public facility, to limiting the operating hours of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. However, we failed to gain the support of the City Council.

Translation: "We tried to tell a private property owner who met every aspect of the city codes as they were at the time that they couldn't do what they were legally allowed to do. And apparently four people on the City Council still respect the process." (Gasp!)

The area is full of pedestrian-oriented businesses and family-friendly neighborhoods.

I call foul on this statement. By this definition, pretty much any area anywhere could be described thus, since the Anderson/Burnet area is anything but pedestrian-oriented. (Or maybe I just imagined all the acres of parking on the north side of Anderson.) As for the neighborhoods, yes, they are there, but they are buffered from the Northcross site on all sides.

As for what a truly pedestrian-oriented area is, check this mixed-use project out. (Now, if Lincoln Property wanted to go that way, Northcross could be a really nice hangout. But, they own it, so until that changes, RG4N's arguments are useless.)

It's clear that a Wal-Mart would generate an unreasonable amount of traffic,

As opposed to, say, an actual filled-to-occupancy 300,000-sf mall? You gotta be kidding me. (No, you do not get to compare traffic with a run-down half-empty Northcross Mall, which has been the standard since the 90s.)

And anyway, wouldn't that mean that the Wal-Mart at Slaughter & I-35, which replaced an empty field, generated an unreasonable amount of traffic as well? Because it hasn't.

so I sought evidence that the city could use to reject the site plan. I asked city staff to rerun the traffic impact analysis submitted by Lincoln Properties using the higher traffic numbers listed in a 2006 ITE Journal article on "big-box" stores,

Translation: "I asked city staff to cook the numbers to get the results I wanted." Funny--when developers and engineers do that, they end up with problems. The traffic numbers used were the correct ones. Now, if Ms. Kim wants to get that changed for future stores, she's welcome to try.

but I was told the staff lacked the software. The city asked Lincoln Properties to run the numbers, but it did not respond.

Hello: it didn't have to respond! This was a blatant attempt by the city (and who exactly asked Lincoln this, anyway? Was it you, Ms. Kim?) to improve their bargaining position (currently: nonexistent). I can imagine that conversation: "Excuse me, would you mind terribly much using these new numbers to make your currently compliant project not comply?"

I applaud the efforts of Responsible Growth and local neighborhood associations, and I support their vision. I hope this wonderful community involvement we have seen will triumph in the end.

Jennifer Kim

Community involvement: generally a good thing. Attempting to manipulate existing property owners and code-compliant projects: generally not helpful for anyone.

UPDATE: If you've come to this entry since May 2008, you may be looking for information about this issue.