Randi Shade Donor History Vastly More Democratic Than Kathie Tovo

wow (0.00 / 0)

paints an interesting picture.

I never had any doubt that either of these two were Democrats. I didn't know their apparent levels of commitment might look so different, though.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon May 30, 2011 at 23:26:09 PM UTC

No wonder I had never met Tovo... (2.00 / 2)

Been doing Demo stuff here in Austin over thirty years.   Just me Tovo for the first time during this campaign season at an endorsement meeting.

I'm a big proponent for fresh faces in politics, but there is a level of "dues paying" before being promoted.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Mon May 30, 2011 at 23:44:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

C'mon (3.00 / 2)

The amount of money someone has given to Democratic candidates is a weak standard by which to choose between Democratic candidates.

I'm more interested -- and I know you are -- by the amount of money given TO the candidates. Shade is being financed by the real estate development community -- in fact they are trying to buy the election for her. RECA, the Homebuilders and lobbyists for same are backing Shade. They are doing this for a reason. These are the same people that worked against you and work against the candidates we support. They worked against the Save Our Springs Ordinance. The RECA Good Government PAC alone has contributed more than $54,000 to Shade. And why wouldn't they -- Shade thinks its time to "turn the page" on environmentalists.

I voted for Shade when she first ran. She has a nice story. But I'm not interested in another developer candidate. No way

---

by: Centex @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 02:09:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Dues paying"? Glad you come right out and say it. Refreshing AND chilling. (3.00 / 1)

---

by: Deb @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:43:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I love you guys but you're all wet on this (0.00 / 0)

Since my post incited this thread,

http://www.burntorangereport.c...

ensuing events have amply proved my point about Randi Shade's turn to the dark side. She's using Rick Perry's favorite pollster, Mike Baselice and has hired Michael McCaul's campaign manager.

The list of Shade's Democratic contributions (which in the years she has held office were likely charged to her own political account) doesn't describe the full fledged Republican--same interests, same big money sugardaddies-- campaign she is running right NOW.

Nor does it ever get mentioned that Shade also worked for George W. Bush.

Burnt Orange does some good stuff on the state level, but you seem to get punk'd whenever you opine on Austin city hall.

Let me suggest these links to further enlightenment.

http://mcblogger.com/?p=6483

http://mcblogger.com/

---

by: JuanBongo @ Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 20:01:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Worked for Bush"? This is ridiculous. (0.00 / 0)

Randi Shade kept her job running Americorps Texas (which she also built and launched) after Bush beat Richards, who appointed her to the post.

What was she supposed to do, quit on Americorps because a Republicans won? Quit in a huff and abandon a crucial community service program in its infancy? What a load of horseshit.

The only thing that has turned to the dark side are my fellow Democrats here in Austin who would rather mutter about secret Republicanism than focus on the real and serious issues in this election.

Vote Shade if you join me in my belief that basic city services are more important than pollsters.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 22:33:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Would you? (0.00 / 0)

Answered with all the requisite naivete of a Shade supporter.

"What was she supposed to do, quit on Americorps because a Republicans won?"

Just how many people from the Richards administration do you think had a choice to stay on when Bush became governor? And of those very few who might have had such a choice, how many actual Democrats would want to work for George W. Bush?

---

by: JuanBongo @ Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 02:34:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have no idea and don't care (0.00 / 0)

But I do know that the policies and causes we support as Democrats and the communities we serve are more important than the politics surrounding them, or at least they should be.

When we start walking out on our own initiatives (like Americorps, a Clinton program) out of sour grapes, that's when we start acting like Republicans.

Randi Shade is a good Democrat, as her donor history shows, but in this non-partisan city election she's also the candidate with the record of putting good policy first, ahead of the counterproductive politics of Team A and Team B.

I'm proud to support Randi Shade because I care about basic city services and I think city boards and municipal process shouldn't be a tool for the well connected to bully individuals and small businesses into submission for the crime of working within code and permitted use without getting permission from the People Who Matter. If that makes a person naive, just call me Pollyanna.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 14:06:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is insane! (0.00 / 0)

I can't understand how you can be involved in politics for over ten years in any serious way and not give more than $200 to candidates.

Hell, I've only been involved for about three years, and I've given that much. And I get paid a lot less.

So that begs the question: is Tovo not paying attention? Or does she just not care about the issues?

John Woods

---

by: John Woods @ Mon May 30, 2011 at 23:48:14 PM UTC

Randi also Sponsored Team TCDP (0.00 / 0)

Disclaimer: I am a current Intern on the Randi Shade Campaign

Randi sponsored Team TCDP (Travis County Democratic Party) at Sarah Eckhardt's bowling fundraiser last summer. She also paid for the "Randi Shade <3's Team TCDP" shirts; a shirt I still wear fondly.  

---

by: Voltaire Cortez @ Mon May 30, 2011 at 23:51:34 PM UTC

Kathie's donations (3.00 / 1)

Kathie has been involved in issues important to me - neighborhoods, schools, and other local issues.  I know that she is a Democrat.  This is a non-partisan race.  She has not been an activist in politics, but on issues.  So Randi has contributed lots of money because she worked for Ann and got involved, maybe she had more money to give.  I can name lots of activists here in Austin that don't give.  Kathie has not always been out front, she has been teaching, running a household and a family.  I met Kathie because of issues I am involved in.

I know that the BOR staff are Randi supporters -

---

by: dbmc @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 01:58:46 AM UTC

and?? (3.00 / 1)

i've never been involved in a campaign where one's contribution history made any difference.

as an outside observer, is appears that Shade ran on a certain platform...abandoned much of it...and is within a few days of losing (by a lot).

furthermore, I'm more inclined to condemn an incumbent "Democrat" that gives so little during a critical cycle. $700???? that is a joke.

you can't claim your candidate is the world's best Dem when they effectively sat out the 10 cycle.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 02:02:34 AM UTC

Thank you Randi Shade (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for your consistent support of Democratic candidates and the issues and values that they stand for.

---

by: cindyflint99 @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 03:11:43 AM UTC

The developers thank you too. (0.00 / 0)

They are pouring money into your campaign because they know they can count on you.

---

by: Centex @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 02:12:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shade vs. Tovo; form vs. substantance (3.00 / 1)

KT,

 Please, come off of it. You know better. With all due respect, your consistent role playing the identity politics game is once again in full view for all to see. Ditto for your failure to come to grips with the essential fact - first proclaimed by James Madison in Number 10 of The Federalist Papers in 1787 - that the main activity taking place in government and politics is the conflict between the public interest and the special interests. That's what WTP4 is all about.

In Austin, the neighborhoods are a metaphor for the public interest and the Austin Board of Realtors (listed on Shade's Website as one of the organizations endorsing her), the developers, the banks which loan them money  and the big vendors who do business at City Hall are the special interests, as are the clients of the Armbrust and Brown law firm/lobby shop.  

 You obfuscate with all of your numbers about Shade's contributions to Democratic candidates and by saying that she had more Democratic club endorsements than Tovo. The most salient numbers stare everyone in the face when they  look at the map of how the precincts voted in the Place 3 race. Take that same map and overlay it with one showing the vote by precinct in the '08 general election between Obama and McCain. Everyone who does that will immediately acknowledge that Kathie Tovo ran best in the precincts where Barack Obama piled up his best percentages. Likewise, the farther west one goes on the map the better Shade ran. She ran best in the conservative and Republican precincts that were either carried by McCain or where he ran  much better that elsewhere. KT, those conservative, affluent and Republican voters must know something that you don't. How else do you account for their support of Shade? While you are at it, please explain why your candidate ran so poorly in the Central Austin boxes that traditionally turn in the best percentages for Democrats.  

  The precinct breakdown also tells the world that the Central Austin Democrats, the Central Labor Council and the other groups that all-too-often endorse Establishment Democrats like Shade  are out of sync with the voters in the heavy Democratic precincts. They made their bed once again with the Establishment's candidate, as they have done numerous times in the past. It's a helluva note when the Sierra Club and the Austin Neighborhoods Council endorses one candidate who carries the largest number of traditional Democratic precincts while the candidate endorsed by the  the Austin Board of Realtors, the Central Labor Council and a bunch (but not all) of the Democratic Clubs ran best in the Republican precincts.

  We owe each other duty of candor so let's cut out the nonsense and confront the indisputable fact that Tovo shellacked Shade in the bulk of the heavy Democratic precincts. Shade ran best in the affluent precincts where Establishment candidates always run best in city elections and where Republicans run best in general elections. The few exceptions merely prove the rule.

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 03:54:16 AM UTC

"public interest" versus "landed gentry" (3.00 / 2)

"In Austin, the neighborhoods are a metaphor for the public interest "

Not even remotely true. The 'neighborhoods', as expressed by the ANC (i.e. Laura Morrison and Kathie Tovo) are a fundamentally conservative power bloc whose only interest is preventing all change - the most relevant change of which is the development of additional housing in central Austin.

If you like keeping central Austin exactly how it is, and as a result, making the air and water and traffic far worse than it otherwise would be; making housing in our entire metro area far less affordable; and keeping central Austin nothing but a playground for the wealthy folks like Laura Morrison, go ahead and maintain the fiction that the ANC is the 'little guy'. But they're not; they're, as Wells Dunbar once put it, the 'landed gentry'.

The fact that the ANC has fooled so many people who ostensibly want sustainability and progressivity into thinking they're allies is depressing. Doesn't make it right.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 13:10:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"public interest" versus "landed gentry"? Nope, Sierra Club vs Austin Board of Realtors (3.00 / 1)

Once again, a look at the map of the precinct results will convince anyone  that the people who vote in the strong Democratic precincts of Central Austin thoroughly disagree with your position and with the views of Wells Dunbar. It was your candidate, Kathie Tovo, who overwhelmingly ran better in the precincts where the rich folks and the landed gentry live. If you lay a map of how the precincts voted over the census tract data showing income, that fact hits you in the face and totally destroys your argument. You and Wells Dunbar and Randi Shade can take your lessons on air and water and traffic from the Austin Board of Realtors, which endorsed Shade. The voters in the Central Austin precincts take their environmentalism from the Sierra Club, which endorsed Tovo and which consistently opposes the perverse reasoning of those who side with developers and oppose homeowners in the neighborhoods. It is Orwellian to label the position of the Sierra Club and the Austin Neighborhoods Council as special interests, while claiming that the Real Estate Council of Austin and city hall lobbyists for developers like David Armbrust and Richard Suttle somehow speak for an enlightened public interest. George Orwell is turning over in his grave. The voters showed that they overwhelmingly reject that palpable nonsense.

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 14:02:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (3.00 / 1)

Dave, read my last paragraph. The ANC has fooled a ton of people into thinking they're the little guy - when the little guy is actually best served by the other side in cases like these.

For instance, if the 1970s-1980s version of the ANC had won more of their battles, my condo in Clarksville would never have been built, and I'd never have been able to afford my first toehold in Central Austin. Those developers were more the friend of the little guy than Kathie Tovo or Laura Morrison, who want to keep central Austin a gated community where only the rich can live.

The ANC is dominated by central neighborhoods; whose leadership are themselves dominated by the wealthier homeowners (since they have less competition from actual productive day jobs). To somehow paint these people as the "little guy" is ridiculous. Morrison is stinking rich; Tovo is quite well-off; hell, I'm far above the median just to be able to afford one of the cheapest houses in NUNA - but unlike them, I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes and claim otherwise.

Morrison fought the Spring condos - new units, downtown, as low as the $200Ks - to protect her view from her million dollar mansion. Tovo fought the Park PUD - providing employment opportunities between two pre-existing large buildings on a major transit corridor - to protect the view from one of her central properties. They're not looking out for the little guy when they do this; they're trying to keep the little guy out in Round Rock or Cedar Park.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 14:33:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You alone have the keys to the kingdom (3.00 / 1)

Oh, now I see it. You and the voters in the affluent precincts that vote Republican and which voted for Shade have the keys to the kingdom and truly understand the situation. But the voters in the heavily Democratic precincts of Central Austin which Tovo carried - like Precinct 250, the Mathews School box where most of Clarksville votes - they have the wool pulled over their eyes by the Sierra Club and have been fooled by the Austin Neighborhoods Council. That smacks of arrogance and a know-it-all attitude. Oh, if those poor ignorant Democratic slobs in Central Austin only knew the true facts as you and the Real Estate Council of Austin, David Armbrust and Richards Suttle, and the more affluent and Republican voters in precincts like the Casis School box (Pct. 256) know them, then they would have voted for Shade.    

 Your Clarksville condo was made possible when the real estate development interests that pushed for building MoPac were successful in removing the black families that inhabited that area since the slaves were freed. I remember when they still lived there because I grew up at 1404 West 12th Street, went to Mathews Elementary and walked down the hill to the old Austin High at 12th and Rio Grande. There were no condos in Clarksville at that time, only African-Americans.

Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 15:04:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Circular logic (0.00 / 0)

As pointed out downstream, you're arguing that because she got the most votes voters should vote for her.

She and the rest of the ANC have pulled the biggest con-job on Austin ever seen - getting people who care about sustainability to vote in favor of candidates whose policies lead to less sustainability.

And nice try with the race card. Had absolutely nothing to do with it, but I'm sure you feel real proud. The condos/apartment boom in the 1980s was an economic phenomenon all over the city - not just in Clarksville - and resulted in most of what housing remains affordable in the center city (the bungalows surely aren't).

---

by: m1ek @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 15:59:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Touché, Sir. (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate your mention of this.  Questions of race, growth, and regional equity continue to be short-shrifted by new urbanist evangelists and "rise of the creative class" adherents, not just in Austin but elsewhere.

Disentangling the complicated histories of race, class and gender in Austin requires some historical understanding.  On June 11, 2011 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. I'll be delivering a Juneteenth lecture at the Austin History Center about the life of E.M. Pease and his role in Austin and Texas history.  The founders of Clarksville were Pease's Freedmen and they established the neighborhood where their slave cabins were located.  Pease himself of course lived in the "big house" at his mansion.

Here is the Facebook page for the event where you can RSVP:
https://www.facebook.com/#!/ev...

flm

(Past president of Black Austin Democrats and long time Kathie Tovo supporter)

---

by: badmcghee @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 16:34:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice one... (0.00 / 0)

...Mr. Shapiro.

---

by: ATXBrad @ Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 03:33:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

so how many affordable housing units wld the Spring Condos or the Park PUD generate? (3.00 / 1)

---

by: ann in austin @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:14:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tons (0.00 / 0)

Every additional housing unit is new supply - and as the Austin Contrarian put it recently here:

But -- and this is the key point -- limiting the supply of housing that singles like  will cause them to bid more for the housing that both families with children and singles like.  The family at the margin then will choose the suburb for the reason given above.

So, yes, it does act as a factor slowing the growth in prices of even single-family houses that remain close to downtown. Not much of one, since the ANC has successfully stopped MOST apartments from ever getting built, but it's certainly better than doing nothing.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 13:11:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are plenty of tracts of land zoned for Multi-family use (0.00 / 0)

No one is stopping the owner or a developer from building on those. Tovo isn't stopping them. ANC isn't stopping them. The owner/developer are waiting for the market to return so they can maximize their profit building $500 condos. That is their choice. But if you want more expensive uints there are acres upon acres ripe for the taking. If the demand is there, the supply can be there. Apparently, the demand isn't there.

---

by: Centex @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 02:56:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Load of nonsense (0.00 / 0)

There are practically zero available tracts zoned for MF use in the urban core - the ANC has very effectively forced all MF development to either the far suburbs in the "3 story buildings around large parking lots" model or to the downtown area itself.

The ANC fought VMU effectively; they destroyed garage apartments most places; and McMansion took care of most of the rest of the places where small-scale infill was possible. They fought MF projects even on arterials (like the Villas on Guadalupe); they fought MF projects even downtown (like Spring).

---

by: m1ek @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 13:15:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are acres and acres of VMU zoned tracts available for (0.00 / 0)

multi-family housing. This is not in dispute. Apparently you have never read or don't understand the McMansion ordinance.  

---

by: Centex @ Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 05:34:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apparently (0.00 / 0)

you have no idea who I am. I spoke before the Planning Commission and was one of the reasons they recommended raising the FAR to 0.5 when duplexes and/or garage apartments were present. Try again.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 13:08:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Supply and Demand (3.00 / 1)

Every new housing unit, regardless of cost, adds to the housing supply and gives people more housing choices.  New housing also makes it harder for a landlord to slap on a fresh coat of paint and put up a new sign before raising the rent or converting apartments to condos.  Something we've seen way too much of.  Which would you prefer, new housing in a high rise or the potential residents for a high rise bidding up housing prices in the close in neighborhoods or buying ranchettes over the acquifer?

As for the Park PUD, all of the housing was removed from that project in an attempt to address the neighbors concerns about the height of the project.

---

by: Jeb @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 17:11:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's the Matter With Kansas? (0.00 / 0)

Are we really surprised that many of the central city precincts voted against what they claim are their concerns?  The folks backing Tovo have consistently opposed the construction of multifamily housing in the Central City.  They've used a thousand different arguments, but the end result has always been a reduction in affordability and an increase in people commuting.

There is a large community of environmental leaders in this town, and they aren't all backing Tovo.  Austin's environmental concerns don't begin and end with WTP4 (without even getting into the revisionist history on that project).  I haven't followed the Club's lead on environmental issues for twenty years, and after that disgusting hit piece they put out on Shade, it'll probably be another twenty before I consider listening to what they have to say.

---

by: Jeb @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 15:26:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (3.00 / 1)

Because they are exclusively to blame, not the type of units being built, right? funny how the reality of additional units is actually leading to price increases and less affordability.

---

by: McBlogger @ Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 15:21:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stupid (3.00 / 1)

The overall housing affordability of the city has, indeed, improved even with the construction of expensive new units in the core - it's just that the number of units in the core is insufficient to affect affordability in the core to the degree we would like because so many prospective units never get built thanks to the ANC.

One link for starters:

http://www.austincontrarian.co...

(Densifying West Campus by adding units means overall affordability improved - even if West Campus got more expensive)

---

by: m1ek @ Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 17:59:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You have to be kidding (0.00 / 0)

The number of units downtown and in West Campus has exploded.

Explain how the affordability has improved with the construction of units.

If you want density downtown that is reasonable. But don't argue it on the basis of affordability and don't bash the neighborhoods, much less Tovo, because they are unnaffordable.

No one is holding a gun to any developer's head forcing them to build the most expensive unit the market can support.

---

by: Centex @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 06:11:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Basic economics (0.00 / 0)

1. The ANC successfully fought 90% of the MF construction.

2. The other 10% DID have an impact. Just not in the places it was built, necessarily.

http://www.austincontrarian.co...

http://www.austincontrarian.co...

---

by: m1ek @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 13:17:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looking at things backwards (4.33 / 3)

Let me get this straight.  You're saying that because Tovo ran better in the more liberal neighborhoods, then Tovo must be the true liberal, and so liberals should vote for Tovo.  That's circular reasoning if I ever heard it.

This sort of reasoning -- it's bad to get support from affluent or conservative people -- has caused a lot of harm in Austin politics. City politics, done right, isn't us against them. It's one city, with all of us pulling together.

Remember Kirk Watson? You know, the mayor who talked about building consensus, who liked to work with business interests and who at one point headed the Chamber of Commerce? By your reasoning, no Democrat in his right mind would have voted for Kirk, when in fact he was a superb mayor.

WTP4 isn't about business versus little guys.  It's about long-term planning for the whole city vs. short term objections, mostly from the people closest to the site. You might even call it the public interest versus the special interest, with Randi firmly on the side of the public.

I haven't said anything bad about Kathie Tovo in this campaign, and I'm not about to start. She's smart, hard-working, and dedicated to improving the city. But Randi Shade is far superior in terms of working for everybody, in seeing both sides of each argument and seeking win-win solutions, and in thinking about the long term.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 14:50:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It ain't about personalities. It's about the conflict between the public interest and the special intersests. (0.00 / 0)

Lorenzo,

   You ignore James Madison's message that the main activity taking place at every level of government and politics is the conflict between the public interest and the special interest. Only those who focus on personalities and on the social/cultural wedge issues ignore the reality behind the Real Estate Council being on the opposite side of the fence from the Sierra Club and the Austin Neighborhoods Council in election after election, including the Place 3 race.

It ain't about personalities, it's about issues. Your being a nice guy who has not said an unkind word about anybody is totally irrelevant to the ongoing conflict between Establishment Democrats on one side and those who oppose the special interests on the other. Your position assumes that the huge amounts of money raised by city hall lobbyists for special interests like the David Armbrust lobby shop for Randi Shade is a munificent gift by public- spirited citizens who are only looking out for the best interest of the ignorant fools in Central Austin precincts like 214 and 250 who lack the intelligence to follow their betters by voting for the same candidate as the wealthier voters in Pct. 256 at Casis Elementary and in the other more affluent precincts that lean Republican and which Shade carried. Explain that if you can. The voters in the Republican precincts that Shade carried know what's best for the Democratic voters in the Central Austin boxes that Tovo carried and who are so ignorant that they will not vote for the candidate endorsed by the editorial page of the Austin American-Statesman, the Real Estate Council of Austin, Michael Levy, and Armbrust and Brown, but insist on voting for the candidate endorsed by the Sierra Club and the Austin Neighborhoods Council.

Dave Shapiro

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 15:33:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precinct 214 (3.00 / 3)

Funny that you should mention precinct 214 (Brykerwoods), where Tovo edged out Shade 48% to 43%. I have plenty of respect for the Tovo voters in the precinct, as I'm married to one of them, but you also have to understand what happened on the ground.

The Brykerwoods neighborhood association has been having a fight with the city, mostly over whether 35th street west of Jefferson should be rezoned for vertical mixed use. The city staff says "yes" and the NA says "no" -- no surprise there. Tovo has backed the NA on this (also no surprise, especially as Tovo lives just across Lamar from the neighborhood), while Shade refused to intervene. As a result, the leadership of the Brykerwoods NA campaigned very hard for Tovo, and their efforts paid off.

There's nothing wrong with concerned citizens campaigning for a candidate -- that's democracy -- but it's hardly evidence that Tovo is the candidate of the enlightened general interest while Shade is a special interest toady. It just means that Tovo and Shade take different approaches to managing growth.

In this case, I think that Shade and the city are right and that Tovo and my own neighborhood association are wrong.

Lorenzo Sadun, Democratic chair
Precinct 214

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 14:36:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Excellent example of how the neighborhood associations work to make Austin less affordable.  If we can't redevelop transportation corridors like West 35th Street, how can we promote affordability and transit use?  If West 35th Street isn't appropriate for a mixed use corridor, how will the Lone Star Rail station at West 35th be accessible?  If not West 35th Street, then where?

---

by: Jeb @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 15:39:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Different responsibilities (3.00 / 1)

Please remember that different organizations have different responsibilities. The Brykerwoods NA (of which I'm a member) tries to do what's best for Brykerwoods, and VMU on 35th would not be good for neighborhood residents. Especially the ones who live on 34th! The NA wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't raise objections about traffic, parking, etc.

The city, on the other hand, is supposed to think about other things, like avoiding sprawl, like reducing traffic overall by having people live closer in, and so on. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't push for VMU on 35th.

In other words, I don't see any bad guys here, just people with legitimate interests pushing their case. Ultimately, it's the city council's job to set policies that balance all of these interests, and then step back and not get involved in each individual dispute. In my opinion, Randi Shade has done a good job of this.  Her approach to managing growth cost her the votes of some people in Brykerwoods, but it helped earn her mine.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 16:44:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You have it exactly backwards (0.00 / 0)

The tracts they wanted to rezone VMU were already mixed use tracts -- horizontal mixed use. They were a combination of apartments and shops. The apartments are probably the most affordable in West Austin. Tearing them down and building a shiny new project would have replaced truly affordable housing with unaffordable condominiums. The developers would have made money and the folks with modest incomes who live in the apartments would have lost out.

So Tovo supported affordable housing and continued the current mixed use. She also affirmed the decision that the community reached in the neighborhood planning process.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

And, contrary to what Lorenzo (who by the way is a great guy) says below, in this case what was best for the neighborhood was best for the City. Tovo saw that. Tovo balanced the interests. Randi Shade has lost votes because she is not as good at this as Tovo.  

---

by: Centex @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 05:12:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Basic economics (0.00 / 0)

If you tear down 5 affordable apartments and replace them with 20 expensive ones, overall housing affordability in the city will improve even if affordability on that particular tract does not. This is shown conclusively by Austin Contrarian in his comparison of West Campus and 78741 here:

http://www.austincontrarian.co...

---

by: m1ek @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 13:19:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ha (0.00 / 0)

Housing affordability will imporve even more if you don't tear down the five affordable apartments.  

---

by: Centex @ Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 05:41:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Genius (0.00 / 0)

The 20 new apartments depend on tearing down the five old ones, since neighborhoods vigorously fight any additional MF zoning.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 13:08:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LSadun dead wrong on WTP4 (3.00 / 1)

Suggesting that opposition to WTP4 comes from "special interests" is absurd. It is similarly absurd to say that building the plant is about good "planning."  Quite the opposite.  

Building the plant now is opposed by the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, Hill Country Alliance, Clean Water Action, SOS Alliance, PODER, Austin Neighborhoods Council, and Environment Texas.  It is supported by the contractors who get the hundreds of millions of our money and the Chamber of Commerce.  

Good planning does not flow from sticking ratepayers with $1.2 billion in costs (half of that interest payments) when we don't need additional treatment capacity for at least another 15 years.  When our rates are already higher than any other major city in texas.  The plant does not put water in our lakes or make it rain.  

Good planning would keep most of the dollars in ratepayer pockets and invest the rest in conservation, reuse, and replacing our old, failing pipes that leak and break, losing billions of gallons of water into the ground every year and causing damaging to streets, homes, and businesses.  

---

by: billbunch @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 15:44:00 PM UTC

It's all establishment, we're that kind of town (5.00 / 2)

Bill, Dave, Lorenzo, Colin et al, a few points

This thread was created because someone, presumably a Tovo supporter (NOT THE TOVO CAMPAIGN) said that Randi Shade had been "outed" as a "Republican". Leaving aside the somewhat eyebrow-raising use of the word "outed" I agree that her party affiliation is irrelevant to the race, but it underscores the silliness of claiming that she's any more  of an establishment candidate, because the simple fact is that being both a Republican and an establishment figure in Austin municipal politics these days would be a quite a trick.

But in any case, it would be hard to pretend that SOS, Sierra Club and ANC are not establishment interests in Austin, which speaks well for the kind of town this is- we love the environment and our neighborhoods (and so does Randi Shade, as her record demonstrates). Insisting that environmentalists and neighborhood activists are "the public interest" and that we are not the establishment denies the basic structure of politics in this town since the "Green Council" election of the 90s. Yes, real estate development etc is an establishment interest, but neighborhoods and environmentalists are also establishment.

Regardless of who is and is not establishment - there is no time machine back to whatever bountiful bygones in Austin a particular person thinks most swell, and we have current and future demands that must be met, to wit:

-Our public infrastructure needs maintenance and upgrade.

-We must have water capacity.

-We must have sufficient housing and commercial space.

-We must have sufficient public transportation.

-We must have sufficient public safety resources and city services.

All of those are opposed in one form or another by various vocal minorities at various times and for various reasons, and the details of each are crucial to moving forward. But what's true of each is that they do not present "establishment" vs. "public" choices, but rather the point of inflection between reality and fantasy.

Kathie Tovo is very smart and certainly highly politically astute. Her public statements are hard to disagree with, but that's in part because they are glittering generalities about "complete communities" and the ever popular, have-it-both-ways hindsight counterfactual (i.e. I would have voted no but now I'll just have to stay the course). What concerns me about Kathie Tovo is that I have yet to hear or see a definitive position from her that hasn't been massaged to pitch-perfect ambiguity.

Randi Shade has shown a rare willingness to make a tough vote and take a definitive position on a real issue without waiting for the prevailing winds to blow which is a rare quality in this town.

I'm voting for Randi Shade, not because I agree with her on every issue but because she's consistently put good policy ahead of easy politics, which is the same reason she faces this kind of opposition. The better choice in this runoff, for me, is clear.  

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 17:02:53 PM UTC

You obfuscate and confuse (0.00 / 0)

Rahm,

  You obfuscate when you totally ignore the line-up of ey special interests bundling money big time to the Shade campaign. You are either confused yourself or are trying to confuse others when you maintain that the editorial page of the Austin American-Statesman, the Armbrust and Brown lobby shop, the contractors and vendors and operatives listed on Shade's contribution filing do not embody the special interests which comprise the Establishment. Like most people, I use that word in the same way that most political scientists and historians use it, to mean the economic power structure which has a dominant influence in government and politics. See especially "The Establishment in Texas Politics" by Prof. George N. Green, a former president of the Texas State Historical Association.

 It is likewise incorrect and a gross oversimplification to speak of green city councils. There were a number who were elected as environmentalists and promptly began voting with development interests on the critical issues, Friedman, Shippman, and Shade are but a few who immediately come to mind. Alas, sell-outs will always be with us. They about in the politics of Austin.

 Like Lorenzo Sadun, you also obfuscate when you do not make the distinction between Establishment Democrats and those who are not beholden to the special interests.

My, what humility is on display by those who claim that the people in the Democratic precincts of Central Austin who voted for Kathie Tovo in much larger numbers than they did for Randi Shade have somehow been misled by the Sierrra Club and the Austin Neighborhoods Council. Instead, like you, they should take their lead from the voters in the wealthier Republican precincts, the editorial page of the Austin American-Statesman, and the endorsement of the Austin Board of Realtors. Please, spare us that nonsense.. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, No. 10: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity...But the most common and durable source of factions has been the verious (sic) and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests i9n society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, full under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest..."

Once again, any overlay of maps of election returns and census tract data on income will show that Shade ran best in those precincts with the most Republicans and the greatest wealth. You will just have to ignore all those Tovo voters who are heavily concentrated in the precincts which traditionally have always voted most heavily for Democrats, are less affluent and where the most renters live. They aren't buying all of the Establishment obfuscation being spread around in such generous quantities.  

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 17:41:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dave (0.00 / 0)

Who did you support in the Randi Shade / Jennifer Kim election?

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 18:23:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reply to who did I vote for in the Shade/Kim race? (0.00 / 0)

Three years before, I voted for Margot Clarke over Jennifer Kim. As you will recall, Kim was backed by essentially the same groups and organizations and individuals now backing Shade. Then, after the Establishment ditched Kim because of her voting record on the Council, I voted for her over Shade. Unlike some, I do not engage in identity politics and vote for candidates for any orientation they may have - except their orientation toward the special interests at City Hall. You know, those for whom Armbrust and Brown bundle money and  the Real Estate Council of Austin PAC and the Austin Board of Realtors and the Statesman editorial page endorse. Lo and behold, the historic pattern is that candidates with those supporters always run best in the precincts which turn-out e biggest Republican vote and which have the fewest renters and where the census data shows the wealth is concentrated.

Dave Shapiro

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 19:46:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Same Armbrust (0.00 / 0)

Is that the same Armbrust who donated a bunch of money to Laura Morrison, you know, the supposedly anti-establishment candidate who is basically Kathie Tovo writ large, twice?

---

by: m1ek @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 20:47:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep, it's the same Arbrust! (0.00 / 0)

As David Butts said in his presentation to the Central Austin Democrats at our last meeting, the developers have a history of contributing to candidates elected over their opposition and who have the support of the environmental organizations and the neighborhoods. He went on to point out that is the way they attempt to get their hooks into them and to "gain access." The same pattern exists at the state and national levels,the K Street lobby in Washington for Wall Street and corporate interests and with the Austin business lobby. Some of them even contribute to Lon Burnam, described by the media as the most left-wing House members. Some folks sell-out or cave in, but other are not even tempted. My two mentors and employers, Ralph Yarborough and Carlos Truan, both were elected over the all-out opposition of Establishment interests. The business/banking PACs, smart money fat cats and high rollers in the Establishment law firms would then "buy a ticket on the late train" and contribute to them after they beat their candidates and also when they had no serious opposition, as with Laura Morrison. But neither sold out, nor has Laura Morrison.

  But you made your point, and it is a valid one. Because we live in a system where electoral democracy inhabits the same sphere as free market capitalism and corporate entities, money will always play a very powerful role. That is why it is the awesome responsibility of engaged citizens to follow the money and connect the dots. That means staying current on campaign filings and voting records because a lot of candidates who entered politics to do good eventually go the way of all flesh and wind up doing well -for themselves.

 It also behooves informed and active citizens to educate themselves on the nuances of politics so that they can easily understand the distinction between Establishment Democrats (who vote the same way as Establishment Republicans on economic issues that are of critical importance to the special interests that comprise the Establishment)and those with more populist and insurgent values who do not run well in affluent Republican precincts or get the endorsement in hotly contested elections of Establishment newspapers or Establishment organizations.

   Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 21:21:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Central Austin Democrats? (0.00 / 0)

The same Central Austin Democrats who endorsed Randi Shade?

I'm confused Dave. Are they part of establishment interests too? I thought you stood with the public interest...

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 21:31:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, by four votes (0.00 / 0)

Yes, David Butts is a long-time member of CAD and has been invited to speak at several meetings over the years. Regrettably, he was not present at our endorsement meeting. Had he been, Shade would have won the endorsement by three votes, instead of four. But it makes little difference because she ran second, mostly a poor second, in nearly all the Central Austin precincts, even those where Shade supporters are the elected Democratic precinct chair, as in 214, 277, and 278. It just goes to show that when the Central Austin Democrats, University Democrats, Central Labor Council and the public safety unions line-up with the candidate endorsed by the Statesman,the Real Estate Council and their PAC and lobbyists, they run behind in Central Austin. For the umpteenth time, it's the candidate endorsed by the Austin Neighborhoods Council and the Sierra Club who won in the overwhelming number of Central Austin boxes.  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 21:48:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So let me get this straight (5.00 / 1)

Central Austin Democrats, which you and David Butts are both members of, endorsed Randi Shade, but you are cherry picking from her supporters to suggest that we've all (including your fellow CADs) been coopted by this shadowy establishment cabal that you and James Madison are going to shake us out of?

Here's an alternative theory: maybe this isn't about the establishment vs the people but rather just different views on basic things, a diversity of views that your organization seems able to tolerate but you won't, at least not on this thread.

David Butts has played a role in electing most of this council and crafting ballot language on issues, to boot, for years. It's difficult to maintain, at this point, that David Butts isn't an establishment figure in Austin's political scene with a straight face, and I write that with immense respect for the man and his considerable achievements.
Here's what he said recently to Diane Holloway as reported by Michael King "After the '92 SOS election and then the '97 election of Kirk Watson and the 'green council ... voters have more or less concluded that the direction they wanted the city to go in has been achieved. Conflicts have gone from a raging fire to a simmer. It has become more of a battle between the different factions within the progressive community, so it's a little harder for voters to discern who's who in the races."

So could it be, Dave, that this whole people vs establishment line is a diversion from real, you know, "meat and potato" issues?

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 22:26:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lee Leffingwell? (0.00 / 0)

What about Mayor Leffigwell? I thought Brewster McCracken was the developer candidate, but Leffingwell was supported by the establishment and pushed WTP4? Leffigwell won all the central city precincts  so he must be the true Democrat? But he was endorsed by the establishment Statesman... But also the Sierra Club!

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 22:30:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lee Leffingwell? (0.00 / 0)

Sure, I voted for Leffingwell over McCracken, but with my eyes wide open. He was an Establishment Democrat then and he is an Establishment Democrat now. His voting record and his actions on the Council and as Mayor make that clear to anyone who looks.  Most of the Establishment-types  backed him, too. That was because he was an obvious winner, and they understood that he could do more for them than McCracken could - precisely  because he had much better Democratic bona fides and could more easily co-opt our side. Also, he had more gravitas and, unlike McCracken, didn't have overly ambitious self-serving opportunist written all over him.

It must be a source of comfort to you Shade supporters that both McCracken and Leffingwell have joined in endorsing your candidate. But the truth of the matter is that merely highlights the fact that all three enjoy the same base of Establishment support.  

KT, in a world filled with ambiguities and shade of gray, your side will not overcome the logic of the argument that I have made here by diverting attention with side shows  like raising the issue of Armbrust's  contributing to Larua Morrison, who was not seriously challenged by a major opponent, or by anything involving  the  Kim vs. Shade or the Leffingwell vs. McCracken races. Those who resort to that kind of diversionary tactic cannot deal with the heart of the matter which is the candidate backed by the special interests of the power structure (aka The Establishment) and her failure as a well-funded incumbent with a bunch of endorsements to out-poll Kathie Tovo in Austin's Democratic heartland. Let's see how you come to grips with that.    

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 00:18:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So we can assume... (0.00 / 0)

...you were also for Jason Meeker over Lee Leffingwell? Just trying to get it straight when it's ok to support the "Establishment". Or maybe this election is beginning to split hairs between two halves of the poltical establishment.

None of which explains the wide gap of financial involvement in Democratic campaigns between the two candidates which this post was about. :)

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 00:40:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I voted for Meeker. (0.00 / 0)

Like I said, I never vote for the candidate backed by the special interests (aka The Establishment) unless he or she is opposed by the likes of a McCracken. That doesn't make me a purist, only a populist and an insurgent. But you are nitpicking and diverting attention by asking about this small stuff. Who anyone voted for in the past is hardly relevant to the larger issue of which candidate the special interests are backing in this race. Forgive me, but you obfuscate when you change the subject to ask about trivial stuff like how anyone voted in past races when the real issue is how you confront the facts that:(1)an overlay of the precinct results from the general election in the Shade vs. Tovo race over maps of the same precincts in the last two or three presidential races will prove to any doubter that Shade ran strongest in the precincts where Bush and McCain racked up the most votes,and she did the poorest in the strongest Democratic precincts; (2) makes your attempt to ignore that salient fact by diverting attention to Shade's  record of contributing to Democratic candidates pale into insignificance with where he own electoral strength is, in the upscale Republican precincts; 3) It is especially insignificant when viewed in the context of the endorsement, support and money that Shade has collected from uch Republican - indeed, such Hamiltonian sources as the editorial page of the Austin AmericanStatesman, the Real Estate Council of Austin and the premier Establishment lobby shop; (4) And when viewed in the context of the endorsement of Tovo by the Sierra Club, a pillar of the Democratic Party base at the national level, and the Austin Neighborhoods Council. Of course, I would try and change the subject and divert attention to rabbit trails if I was backing a well-funded incumbent who had the endorsement of the big names and the big power players but ran as poorly as Randi Shade.

   Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 04:59:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

the Statesman endorsed McCracken.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 03:48:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

in his race with Meeker (3.00 / 1)

Sorry, that wasn't real clear in my sting of examples. Different race.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 08:51:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A UDems question (3.00 / 1)

Sorry I'm entering so late. I've been studying for the LSAT for weeks, and I pretty much ignored this. But I'm curious about how the University Democrats line up with whoever is just backed up by a bunch of Austinies we don't know at all? I'm pretty sure UDems endorsed before the Statesman did. And I guarantee you that almost no one (if anyone) in the club knows or cares who the Real Estate Council endorses.

That's not how UDems chooses who to support. The club is a bunch of kids new to politics entirely, and especially Austin politics. Most are new to Austin by itself. So UDems votes for whoever makes the better case - actually. The candidate has to make the case, that is, too. Just look at the club's endorsement history: a no-endorsement in a race where Cole had no opposition...simply because no one in the club had ever seen her before the endorsement meeting. Laura Morrison won UDems' endorsement in 08 over Cravey because she came by the most and made the good argument the most.

UDems endorsed Randi because the club largely agrees with how she handles herself as a councilmember. But no one in the club had never seen Tovo before, and so Tovo never had a chance at that endorsement.


"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 00:36:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Confusing (0.00 / 0)

Really long response. If Shade is the establishment candidate because Armbrust/Butts donated to her, isn't Laura Morrison just as much an establishment candidate because they donated a ton of money to her - twice?

And wouldn't then Kathie Tovo, being a carbon copy of Laura Morrison on every aspect of policy, be an establishment candidate too?

Please respond in less than a million words this time. Thanks in advance.

---

by: m1ek @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 13:50:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unique few (0.00 / 0)

Dave- you must be one of the select few voters in Austin who voted for Jennifer Kim in her second losing race but not her first. Maybe that illustrates that the lens through which you choose candidates is not shared by the average voter.  That doesn't discredit your arguments, it just means that your approach to reason in this sort of debate isn't going to be as persuasive.

Part of the frustration that people are having with you here gets to a point I will explore in a future post. In short, we are evolving politically beyond the narratives built in the 1990s, narratives that we are still using but aren't current to today's reality. It's not a huge shift, more of a subtle one, but an important one that needs to be pointed out before well meaning liberals and forward thinkers accidentally stymie the very Austin they built.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 22:25:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frustration with those who pretend that the conflict between the public interest and special interest no longer exists (0.00 / 0)

KT,

  Please spare us the recurring and all-too-frequent argument that Austin has entered an era of good feeling, that the lion shall lay down with the lamb, that the Real Estate Council of Austin and the Sierra Club are really united on the issues of the day, and that the old battle lines are no longer valid because we have entered a wonderful new period of history.  That kind of historical revisionism has been peddled in every generation by writers, consultants and operatives who think they have struck gold with a new revelation. It is also true that these same folks usually make a living working for politicians and interests groups with a compulsive need to cut into the vote that normally does to Democratic candidates. More than a few of them have made a specialty of co-opting Democrats and peddling the Establishment party line.  

  No doubt about it, as times change and as demographics and technology change new and different issues arise to  challenge every generation. This by no means invalidates Madison's message that, "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society."

 Any study of Austin political history will show that the battle lines where the the sainted Emma Long fought in the 1950s and '60s are little changed from today, though of course some of the issues have changed. But the same daily newspaper editorial page endorsed Emma Long's opponent,  just as it today endorses Kathie Tovo's opponent; and the same kind of Establishment law firms that peddle influence at city hall fought Emma Long. The unleashed their minions against her and spewed out a lot of nonsense designed to confuse and mislead. Not surprisingly, her electoral strength was in Central, East and South Austin, and she ran poorly the farther west one goes into the wealthier and more Republican precincts. Please come to grips with that in whatever it is that you post, KT.

  I await your post to see if you avoid acknowledging the poor showing of Randi Shade in the heaviest Democratic precincts even though she had the endorsement of CAD, UT Dems, Central Labor Council, the public safety unions, Mayor Leffingwell, Council members Riley and Martinez, Rep. Rodrriguez and Strama, and David Armbrust. Oh, and did I mention that she had the editorial endorsement of the Statesman, spent more money than her opponent and sent out lots and lots of mailers. Let it be acknowledged that your side did co-opt and siphon off some percentage of votes that would have gone to Kathie Tovo in Central Austin, but that's what your side had in mind all the time, wasn't it, KT?  The politically savvy pros on your side knew from the beginning that Shade would lose in Central Austin, didn't they?

  Dave Shapiro  

   Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 23:53:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"We have met the enemy and he is us" from Pogo Papers in 1953 (3.00 / 2)

KT, look forward to your future post on "today's realities". I have known Dave for a very long time. While he and I have never agreed 100%, he and I have always been on the same political sides on the "big ones". He has always been more of a purest than a compromiser of his core principles, besides being a walking history book of local politics. His point about the inherent conflict between the public interest and special interests is valid, only the specific issues and players have changed over the years.

In the process of winning the "big ones" in the City Council elections during the 70's, 80's, and 90's, real estate development interests were pushed out to Round Rock, Cedar Park, Pflugerville, Hutto, Elgin, Manor, and Buda. As a result, we have one big traffic congestion mess and the Environmental Protection Agency in the very near future will declared both Travis and Williamson Counties as Air Quality Nonattainment Areas primary due to automobile and truck exhaust emissions.

There are environmentally sensitive places outside the city limits in Western Travis County I thought would never be developed as densely as they have been or not at all. The build out in Western Travis County, surrounding cities, and surrounding counties has created a tremendous pressure to increase residential/commercial density and to provide viable provide mass transportation in the core central city.

There needs to be a major regional refocus on how we are going to deal with transportation and air quality issues in the Austin Metropolitan Area. The Central/West Austin battles over density and zoning are a part of a much bigger picture. We need much wider lenses and perspectives as well as much better cooperation with adjacent cities and counties.

---

by: ssuits @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 00:54:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Point of order (0.00 / 0)

"Unlike some, I do not engage in identity politics and vote for candidates for any orientation they may have - except their orientation toward the special interests at City Hall."

What is this if not identity politics?  (from your post two above that one)

"Instead, like you, they should take their lead from the voters in the wealthier Republican precincts, the editorial page of the Austin American-Statesman, and the endorsement of the Austin Board of Realtors."

I know plenty of strong Democrats that are supporting Kathy and to suggest that we are "taking the lead" from "wealthier Republicans" is ridiculous.

Thank you for making me more inclined to support and maybe volunteer for Shade than I already was.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 03:36:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why no respond on the issues? (0.00 / 0)

Dave, it's a shame that you can't respond without characterizing me as "obfuscating".

I'm sorry that my post confused you. perhaps its because there are real issues at stake in this election and you are apparently unwilling to engage on them.

Again, here's a summary-
This election is not about establishment against people. Its about acknowledging the need for (and costs of) water infrastructure and city services, or not.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 18:24:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah. (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for clarifying what this election is all about. And we are especially grateful for your sharp and incisive observation that "This election is not about establishment against people..., though Madison said politics and government is always about the conflict between the public interest and the special interests, which he called "a moneyed interest". And as for "the need for and cost of)water infrastructure and city services...", you can take your stand with those who espouse your position on those issues, the Real Estate Council of Austin, the Statesman's editorial page, the blunders of big money at the Armbrust and Brown lobby shop, the contractors and city hall vendors and the voters in the affluent Republican precincts who joined you in voting for Randi Shade. Please forgive me if I take my stand with the Sierra Club, the Austin Neighborhoods Council and the voters in the traditionally Democratic precincts. What a tragedy that they don't follow your lead. By the way, Shade also lives in Clarksville, and she lost both of the the Clarksville boxes to Tovo, Pct. 250
and Pct. 278. But even though she couldn't come out ahead with her neighbors, the farther west you go into the wealthier Republican precincts the better she did. Please tell those rich folks that we appreciate their voting in our best interest and  their knowing what's good for us people who are too damned dumb to follow the lead of the Real Estate Council, Armbrust and Brown and the Statesman's editorial page. Ah, but that's circular reasoning, isn't it.

  Dave Shapiro

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 19:33:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My opinions on the issues are what they are (0.00 / 0)

And whoever joins me in them is welcome, Dave. We have to vote our own conscience and I truly believe Austin needs to periodically make investments in infrastructure and to provide adequate city services. You clearly have a different view and that's fine.

As for the rest of your post, it speaks for itself.  

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 19:57:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"My opinions on the issues are what they are" (0.00 / 0)

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/boa...

Rahm, is it circular reasoning that your views just happen to coincide with those of Randi Shade who appointed you to a city board? If you espoused the position of the Sierra Club, SOS and the Austin Neighborhoods Council would Shade have appointed you?

  Dave Shapiro

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 20:13:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This isn't about me, but since you ask, this is a good example. (0.00 / 0)

Randi Shade nominated me, but just like Kathie Tovo and every other commission member I was appointed by the entire council, on a 7-0 vote.

Prior to my nomination I was not asked about whose views I espoused, or subjected to any litmus tests. I was asked about my skill set, my approach to decision making, and my approach to getting public input.  For what its worth I'm not aware of an issue that has come before our commission where I've been at odds with any of the organizations you mention.

What I really respect, though, is that in a town that gets as polarized around municipal issues as Austin, I wasn't and have never been pushed by Councilmember Shade to favor anyone or anything other than making recommendations and providing advice that is thorough, rigorous, and as complete as possible.

Dave, I believe the city is always looking for volunteers to fill these crucial roles on boards and commissions. I encourage you to apply.  

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 20:58:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Establishment?? (0.00 / 0)

Seriously, Mr. McDaniel, the "Establishment" in Austin is the same as the "Establishment" in almost every other city of any size that is growing rapidly -- the big money in real estate development, their bankers, engineering firms and contractors, and others who engage in local politics first and foremost to make more money for themselves.  In recent years that has included, most notably, the police and fire unions working in close alliance with the Real Estate Council.   The Establishment seeking more $$$ at Willie and Guadalupe is little different than at 11th and Congress or 1600 Pennsylvania.    

---

by: billbunch @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 21:16:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

The real estate developers are trying to buy the election for Shade and, more importantly, for themselves.

Ironically this is the same money that supports every Republican candidate against good Democrats.

---

by: Centex @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 02:20:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

Not sure I agree with on this one.  

I watched her lower the settlement offer made by the City Attorney in regards to the Sanders case, which caused a rebuke from the federal judge.  Was this good public policy, hell no.

I viewed this as her trying to appease the cops and the black community.  In doing so, she alienated the black community. (That' from talking to secretaries and professionals.)

In Northwest Hills she tried to appease our neighborhood after voting against the neighborhood association on multiple zoning cases by supporting a ban on deer feeding that was unenforceable.  

She seems more political than you make her out to be and please don't tell me we're special interest.  This is a neighborhood that is moderate...

---

by: ann in austin @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:28:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about Geographic Representation as an issue? (0.00 / 0)

I voted for Max last time because he was the only qualified candidate in Place 3 that lives in South Austin. After this runoff election, all of South Austin and suburban North Austin will still have no representation on the Austin City Council. I have become a single issue voter over this issue and will not vote for any candidate  that supports keeping the current At-Large election system.

We have elections to vet public issues, so my question of the runoff candidates is as follows:  Are you for a 6-2-1, 8-2-1, 10-2-1 mixed district plan or for the status quo? If you are really against having geographic representation for the city council, just say so and be done with it. The voters will respond accordingly

---

by: ssuits @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 18:34:24 PM UTC

I support SMD (0.00 / 0)

As far as I am aware both candidates support adding single member districts to our electoral mix. I suspect that we might see a 6-4-1 map or else a 6-2-1 or 8-2-1. I've had conversations with various members and staffs about the charter election elements next year.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 22:38:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

DOJ will shoot down 6-anything. 150,000 people ago, we had 8-2-1 on the ballot. (5.00 / 1)

We have to increase it from 8-2-1 or DOJ likely will say no. Leffingwell knows this. He's trying to have it both ways..."I tried!" he'll say after the 7th loss.

---

by: Deb @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:53:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why would DOJ reject 6-2-1? (0.00 / 0)

Personally, I could live with 6-2-1, but I'd have serious doubts about 8-2-1 and I would definitely vote against 10-2-1.  OK, maybe we have outgrown an all-at-large council, but having a third of the council representing the whole city should be a minimum, not a maximum.  

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 21:28:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will make you a deal Lorenzo on Mixed District Plan Maps (0.00 / 0)

Later this summer, I will be working on draft mixed district maps. We will draw draft lines for 6-2-1, 8-2-1, and 10-2-1 plans. Additionally, we will provide minority population statistics.

All we ask for is a chance to give a presentation to the West Austin Democrats of both the draft maps and supporting population statistics. Rather than argue about it in the abstract, you and yours can be shown on paper why 6-2-1 will not fly and is not the best solution for fair minority representation. As VP of WAD you should be able to get us on the agenda.

In the meantime, if you support at-large elections vote for Shade on Saturday. If you support possible mixed district plans larger than 6-2-1 and care about both fair geographic and minority representation then vote for Tovo.  It's just that simple on this issue based on both candidates' responses to the Black Austin Democrats city council candidate questionnaire. BTW, Shade's rambling none answer on this issue for this questionnaire is posted on her website if anyone cares to read it.

Sorry I did not get a chance to talk to you at the House Redistricting Committee's alleged public hearing on congressional redistricting a couple of weeks ago. Busted up my left knee in May. I could not catch up with you in my wheel chair to get your attention.

---

by: ssuits @ Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 00:40:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If six isn't enough (0.00 / 0)

to carve out districts that work for minority representation, then how about 8-3-1 or 10-4-1? Just take your favorite 8-2-1 or 10-2-1 map and add an at-large seat or two to the mix. I can see how continuing our 100% at-large system is objectionable to people who have been historically under-represented (or even unrepresented), but what's the problem with 33%?

BTW, I'd be very open to having a presentation on SMD in the fall, as long as it either involved representatives from both sides of the issue, or was laid out as information rather than advocacy. Generally we try to have speakers who can inform us about issues from a mainstream Democratic perspective (e.g., getting an expert on education to talk about the SBOE, or having a state rep's staffer tell us about what happened in the legislative session), rather than having debates on hot topics. But hey, there's always room for exceptions. I'll run this by the other officers.  

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 16:18:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank You, We have A Deal (0.00 / 0)

I will get back with WAD after the first draft maps have been made. Our purpose is to gain community consensus on this issue.  I was the campaign manager for the 1985 and 1988 efforts to pass an 8-1 plan. In 1985 we had a map and in 1988 we had no map, but the goal was to have an 8-1 plan drawn and implemented using 1990 census data.

I am use to be shot at from many different directions. "We not like the map", "you did not provide a map", and "I like districts, but what about some at-large places". Volma Overton and the NAACP where adamant in the 1980's about having a pure single member district plan comprised of 8-1. Their requests were honored.

I would prefer to see a 14-1 district plan with part time council members. But the sentiment for several at-large members coupled with geographic districts and the feelings about having too many council members overall have caused me to rethink my position. So to answer your question about adding more at-large places to a district plan is "yes, but".  Any at-large places added to the two all ready proposed need to be signed off on by the African American and Hispanic communities. This does not need to be an "us" versus "them" deal.  It needs to be a "we" decided to move forward and make a positive change deal without the court system or Texas Legislature making that decision for us.

---

by: ssuits @ Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 19:09:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

polling question redux (1.00 / 1)

I understand the shade campaign polled on this very issue. it's very interesting that KT's "research" is straight from this poll.

---

by: leslie pool @ Tue May 31, 2011 at 22:29:49 PM UTC

Hyperbole (0.00 / 0)

"The only thing Randi Shade has been 'outed' as in this campaign is as an openly gay committed mother of two who's donated more to Democrats in one day than her opponent has in a decade."

Shade and Tovo have both had to cope with with many diverse constituencies over the years on many tough City of Austin issues. They've both done a good job of it. None of it had anything to do with sexual orientation. I'm very familiar with both their records. With your reference to Randi being "outed," you insinuate that sexual orientation is the defining factor in a City Council race. Do you want Place 3 to become the guaranteed GLBT seat under The Gentlements' Agreement? If so, saddle up and ride. But don't be passive/aggressive and trash Tovo.

---

by: The Nuck @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 04:58:22 AM UTC

Disgusted (0.00 / 0)

I'm disgusted with the implication that one's giving history is a reliable measure of one's support for an issue.  What about advocacy, public service, voting and volunteering as measures, KT?  By your stats above, I am a Tea Party member since I've only ever donated $25 to a political campaign (Obama '08), irrespective of my non-financial contributions to the progressive movement in this country.

I am publicly neutral in this race and this post does not imply support for either candidate.  It's only meant to call into serious question the metrics that you are using.

---

by: barkeng @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 16:52:25 PM UTC

Still disgusted (0.00 / 0)

And as a friend just reminded me, your metric also leaves out financial and volunteer support for non-profit agencies aligned with the progressive causes.  

How does my support for Planned Parenthood Capital Area, SafePlace, Nature Conservancy, Solar Electric Light Fund, Capital Area Food Bank, Keep Austin Beautiful, Austin Parks Foundation, Junior Achievement, Habitat for Humanity, United Way Capital Area, EmanciPet, Goodwill and others score on your "is Barksdale democratic enough" poll?

Boy, I haven't been this mad in a long time.... And you wonder why people hate politics.

---

by: barkeng @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 17:16:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

KT didn't bring this up out of the blue (0.00 / 0)

Follow the history. Shade's been accused of being a Republican plant by Tovo's supporters.

I agree with you - I don't care at all how much money people donate to whom. I also don't care who's rich or poor, but when somebody else tried to make the case that the ANC candidate was the "grass roots" candidate for the "little guy" against the rich folk, it was important to point out that the ANC is dominated by the smallest fraction of wealthiest homeowners in the most expensive neighborhoods in the center city. Like Laura Morrison.

---

by: m1ek @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 18:45:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Wealthiest homeowners in the most expensive neighborhoods," Come on, now." (0.00 / 0)

PODER is the neighborhood association in a very poor section of East Austin. It has been a civic fixutre in Central East Austin for many years and has fought many a battle on behalf of its people. It endorsed Kathie Tovo, and she carried all precincts in its territory. PODER's membership ranks does  not include any of the gentrifying yuppie demographic. It is a continuation of the tactics of distraction and diversion by the Shade forces to attempt to paint the Austin Neighborhoods Council as being led by the rich. They apparently think that by doing that they can make people forget that one look at the map shows that Randi Shade ran best in the wealthiest precincts which always cast the most votes for Republican candidates. The same map will show that Kathie Tovo ran best in the less affluent precincts of Central, East and South Austin that traditionally give Democrats their heaviest vote. Face it, Randi Shade's supporters can't explain that fact in a persuasive manner to the Democratic voters they are trying to enlist, so they have to divert attention away from it.

Anyone want to speculate on the average income of the officers and board members of the Real Estate Council of Austin? How about the Austin Board of Realtors? Both are supporters of Shade.  How much money do you think that the you think that the full partners in the Armbrust and Brown law firm/lobby shop get paid for peddling influence for development interests at city hall. While I'm not a CPA and haven't collected and surveyed the data on income by leaders of those groups and compared them with the leadership of ANC and the Sierra Club, I'm  willing to bet anyone that such an effort would show results very much like the map of the election results.

Come to grips with it, Shade's strength - both in funding and at the polls - is not with the Democratic base or with the middle to lower income brackets. So, you can continue to spout the Establishment line that the ANC (and presumably PODER, which is affiliated with ANC,) doesn't represent the folks in the neighborhoods, that the Sierra Club and SOS don't represent the environmentalists,etc.,   but the election results show that to be total nonsense. A map of those election results makes an even stronger impression and shows it to be inane prattle that can't stand the light of day.

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 20:43:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I apologize for my (serious) mistake. Please forgive me. (3.00 / 1)

 Please accept my sincerest apologies for two very serious errors in my posting above. PODER does not not endorse candidates, has not endorsed in the Place 3 race, and is not formally associated with the ANC. The two organizations do have a history of working together on a number of projects like the Holley Street Power Plant, the Roy Guerrero Park, several court battles, etc., but there is no formal relationship and PODER is not even structured like our typical neighborhood organization. The only reason that I can think of for my making these blunders is that I ran across several PODER members/activists who are friends, two of whom date back to the Economy Furniture Company strike, at Kathie's campaign Hq. opening and elsewhere, and I just assumed that their presence and participation meant that PODER had endorsed her. I should have known better, should have double-checked, and I again offer my apologies to all.  

 For whatever it may be worth, anyone who Googles PODER Austin Neighborhoods Council will immediately see a number of articles documenting the close relationship of the two organizations over the years, including Laura Morrison's nominating Susana Almanza for a position just a few years ago. But again, that does not in any way excuse my mistakes.

    Dave Shapiro

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 22:25:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But that's a diversion (0.00 / 0)

Dave, this election is (or at any rate should be) about water, public safety, affordability, development/redevelopment, public safety, public transportation and city services. Those are the crucial issues facing our city, not what neighborhoods Kathie Tovo or Randi Shade polls well in and whether or not they might have Republicans in them.

All of this other stuff you keep posting about (which is the same implicit message as the original post that KT was responding to) is totally irrelevant to the real issues.

That's the real diversion.

I care about the environment, infrastructure, affordability, and city services. That's why I'm voting for Shade.

And speaking of diversions, PODER is not a "neighborhood association in a very poor section of East Austin", but an essential pillar of East Austin and environmental advocacy across a range of neighborhoods and crucial issues that impact our community. We are in their debt. I assume you didn't mean to sound patronizing.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 22:59:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

woops (0.00 / 0)

Dave, I see that you had retracted that last bit as I was typing- well done.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 23:01:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking of diversion (0.00 / 0)

Rahm,

  KT's article is headlined "Randi Shade Donor History  
Vastly More Democratic Than Kathie Tovo." While it has to be acknowledged that KT prefaced his (very long) article as a rebuttal to a (very short) post by someone attacking Shade's Democratic bona fides, that's how this got started. It is important because throughout the country in urban areas like Austin that are strongly Democratic, Establishment candidates know that they must always co-opt a certain percentage of  Democratic voters to elect candidates if they are to win. In Austin and every similar urban area a cottage industry of political consultants and operatives have flourished by selling their specialty services as masters of the art and the mechanics of co-optation. We have a whole new generation of them here in Austin. They work for Establishment candidates who know they can count on winning big in the affluent Republican precincts but that they need to cut into the Democratic precincts that ordinarily are won by anti-Establishment candidates in heavy numbers. There is nothing at all new about this  pattern and is by no means unique to Austin. But only the naive would assert that issues such as the " environment, infrastructure, affordability, and city services" are the domain of value-neutral technocrats and they can somehow be divorced from politics. On the contrary, each of those subjects is value-laden. Folks with different political impulses approach them differently. The Real Estate Council of Austin and the Sierras Club have different views on environmental issues.  The Republican platform and the Democratic platform clash sharply on the environment, infrastructure issues, etc. Richard Suttle's views on development and infrastructure differ from those of Bill Bunch. Those differences are very visibly reflected in the election results from different parts of town and different precincts with entirely  different demographics. Those sharp differences  are in full view for all to see by anyone who takes the time to do even a cursory examination of the results of seriously contested race in any election since the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. If you are skeptical about that, I invite you once again to lay out a map of the election results by precinct in Place 3 side-by side or in overlay with a map of how Austin precincts vote in presidential and gubernatorial election.

 Once you've done that, Rahm, please get back to us if you think it not relevant to this discussion.

              Dave Shapiro

 

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 00:21:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can't assume results from the precinct level (0.00 / 0)

In an election with 7% turnout, and having looked at past election results, one cannot use traditional partisan precinct patterns to assume who the voters are in a low turnout election.
Do you think if you pull the actual turnout by race in May and compare it to the registered electorate it is going to match? or that it will match the general election turnout in a presidential year? or a gubernatorial year? What should we compare it to?

I'll let you all in on a secret- minority turnout (which aligns with partisanship to an extent) is hugely under-represented in city of austin elections, even in years when the "Black and Hispanic" seats are on the ballot. East Austin precincts turnout below the average. Renters anywhere in the city don't turnout in proportion to their share of the population (which is near half of Austin).

So when people talk about the electorate being old, rich, white, homeowners- it's not exclusively so, but it's 100% true that City of Austin elections are one of the most heavily skewed towards those groups.

I've blockwalked thousands of 2/3 and 3/3 municipal election households across west central, central, and east central austin and seen the residences in which regular city voters live. It's hardly representative of the entirety of Austin, or of the full precinct.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 23:50:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please translate that. (0.00 / 0)

KT,

  Please tell us in plain English how anything you said is a rebuttal of what we see with our eyes when looking at a map of the precinct results in the Place 3 race on top of a map of the results in any presidential election over the last 20 years. Are you saying that the map is misleading and that Shade really didn't get poured-out in most of the heavily Democratic boxes of Central, South and East Austin, and that she really didn't run best where Republicans always run best, in the wealthier boxes? Please favor us with that clarification because your message is unclear. All one can take from it that turnout is dismal in city elections. We can all agree on that. Now tell us how that lousy turnout refutes the point that I've being trying to communicate in this thread. Can you point to any significant number of precincts that Shade carried which traditionally turn in large margins for Democrats? Are you contending that I am misleading people by asserting that Shade ran best in the traditional GOP precincts? How does a  miserable turnout of 7% change the color of the map in the Place 3 race? I ask this in good faith because I see
no way in which it changes anything.  

   Thank you,

   Dave Shapiro        

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 00:55:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A reply to your question (0.00 / 0)

Are you contending that I am misleading people by asserting that Shade ran best in the traditional GOP precincts?

This has been the heart of what I have tried to communicate throughout this thread. Yes.

How does a miserable turnout of 7% change the color of the map in the Place 3 race?

The 'color of the map' is only what it is based upon the turnout of voters in primaries or general elections, as we don't have partisan registration. So I assume you are basing your argument off of the people who have turned out in big elections like presidential generals. But electorates aren't the same as 2010 was vastly different. And the less turnout you have the more likely it is that the electorate can be distorted from whatever you are using as a comparative baseline.

You are making an argument based on the premise that the 7% who voted are an accurate sample of the total 100% of a precinct's registered voters. Correct?

They aren't. That's what I'm trying to say.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 04:59:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

shade lost in her own precinct (0.00 / 0)

K-T, my point is her neighbors - presumably folks she sees everyday, who live on her street, shop at the grocery with her - did not vote for her. that's a community of interest, and also a bellwether for how you're viewed as an elected official. she lost confidence in her own backyard.

instead, ppl who traditionally vote republican (the council races as we know aren't partisan in the conventional sense, but y'all have been pushing this line, so I'll go with it) did vote for her, in numbers great enough for her to win those boxes.

also - the argument about 7% being insufficient to "really" decide a race is pretty lame. turn-out is what it is. randi failed to turn ppl out. period.

---

by: leslie pool @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:52:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too clever by half (0.00 / 0)

Are you claiming that the maps of the Place 3 election results published in both the Statesman and the Austin Chronicle do not very clearly show the same pattern seen election after  election in every  partisan general elections between Democrats and Republicans? If so,come right out and say it. There are always a few outliers, but I challenge - nay, I defy - anyone to look at the Place 3 results and say with a straight face that Shade did not run best where the GOP always runs best and that Tovo's strength wasn't in the precincts which traditionally turn in big margins for Democrats. You can't do that because it isn't true, and thus you beat around the bush about low turnout. Yeah, but that low turnout did not color the map any differently than the red and blue colors of a general election. If you have any proof in your pudding you will list a few precincts that traditionally produce a heavy Democratic majority but which went for Shade over Tovo (by a vote larger than the combined vote of the other two candidates).You can't do it because there aren't any. Case closed. For the umpteenth times, Shade's own neighbors in the two heavily Democratic Clarksville boxes, Pct. 250 and Pct. 278, went for Tovo. Now, see if you can you point to any two heavily Democratic boxes that Shade carried (by a vote larger than the difference between the two other candidates- both of whom have endorsed Tovo).

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 14:01:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

K-T please tell us (0.00 / 0)

Who won the Clarksville precinct where Shade lives?

---

by: leslie pool @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:50:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not at a computer (0.00 / 0)

But even if I was it's a red herring of a question. I have never argued nor would I that a candidate's performance in their home precinct is relevant to anything. It's an artifact of curiosity for poltical reporters.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 04:43:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't be disingenuous (0.00 / 0)

Kathie Tovo is the ANC candidate - and the ANC is dominated by neighborhoods like OWANA, NUNA, HPNA, etc.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 14:27:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who dominates the Austin Board of Realtors (0.00 / 0)

The Austin Board of Realtors endorsed Randi Shade. Who dominates it? The common folks.  Check out the election results in the areas covered by OWANA, NUNA, and MPNA and tell us if they don't show that the voters there are in sync with their neighborhood organization.

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 15:43:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Common folks (1.00 / 1)

Common folks can't afford to own single-family homes in OWANA, NUNA, or Hyde Park. (I can, just barely, but I'm well over the median - and I'm not going to try to fool you into thinking otherwise).

And the folks who can afford to own single-family homes in those neighborhoods AND get involved in their NA to the extent they become leaders? Less still - tilted even more heavily towards the wealthy. (Me? I have to drive out to Westlake every day and work a real job; my family gets what time is left).

The folks who can go one more level and be involved in leading the ANC? Almost completely the idle rich or slacker semi-employed 'architects' and the like.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 17:22:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Point to a few precincts that Shade carried in low income areas? (0.00 / 0)

If your point is valid then you will be able to point us to a few low income precincts that Shade carried. You may want to begin by seeing if you can find one in Commissioners Precinct 1. Or is it your position that the turnout was so small in those low income areas that only the wealthy homeowners there voted? Heck, there ain't no wealthy homeowners in most of those boxes. You write of "common folks", but this thread began by addressing the issue of Democrats vs. Republicans. Not all Democrats are low-income by any means. But most low income people tend to vote Democratic. Since I don't know you, I do not know whether you vote Democratic or not, but Democrats do very well in OWAANA. Kathie Tovo carried both of the Clarksville boxes, Pct. 250 and 278, as Democrats always win those precincts. Likewise, North University Neighborhoods and Hyde Park are Democratic bastions dating back to the JFK era. Those folks may not all be low income, but the overwhelming majority of them are Democrats and their votes tell us quite clearly  that they don't prefer your kind of candidate. But but you will find kindred souls who share your values and voted for your candidate in the precincts where Republicans always run best.

Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:28:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Circular logic again (0.00 / 0)

My argument is that people were fooled into voting against their own interests. Yours is that people should vote for Tovo because in the past people voted for Tovo.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 13:12:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But your argument is arrogant and assumes the voters are ignorant (0.00 / 0)

(1) It is the epitome of arrogance for anyone to argue that "the people were fooled into voting against their own interests" and only the person making the argument is in possession of the true wisdom. Has it ever occurred to you that the majority of the people who voted in the Pace 3 race
(including the votes of the other two candidates who have endorsed Tovo) disagree with your worldview and are out-of-sync with your views and those of the Statesman editorial page and those of RECA? Nobody contends that  that you and the others who voted for Shade were fooled. On the contrary, you know very well what you are doing and why you are doing it. What gives you the moral right or great   insight to argue that those who voted against your candidate were fooled?

(2) You stoop to distortion when you say that my argument "is that people should vote for Tovo because in the past people voted for Tovo." That is totally incorrect. I have made no such argument, and nothing I've posted here even comes close to that. Bearing in mind that BOR is a forum for Democrats, not Republicans, my argument has been that  anyone who looks at the maps of the election results published in both the Statesman and the Chronicle will see through the claim made by KT Mussleman that Shade's record of contributing to Democratic candidates somehow translates into her being a real Democrat who deserves the votes of other Democrats. Well, I pointed out that the voters in the traditional Democratic precincts thoroughly rejected that position when they voted for Tovo. The basis of my argument is clear as a bell to anyone who looks at the published map --- Shade was creamed in the traditionally Democratic precincts; the bulk of her votes came from the precincts that traditionally turn in the best percentages for the GOP. That's a very long way from your mis-charaterization of it as an argument that "people should vote for Tovo because in the past people voted for Tovo.

Dave Shapiro

 

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 15:42:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tired of you (0.00 / 0)

1. They are voting for a candidate whose policies are directly against their expressed goals. That means they're being fooled. "What's the problem with Kansas". Not a new idea.

2. No, I'm not the only one who's noticed this phenomenon in your posts.

You're about to win through volume, though. Good show.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 20:29:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the problem with your argument, again (0.00 / 0)

Could you make your argument about whether Randi Shade is a "real Democrat" prior to the May election being completed? No, because you wouldn't be able to use the election results. That's the definition of circular reasoning. At least my argument could be made at any point.

But this is what I'm really interested in...

claim made by KT Mussleman that Shade's record of contributing to Democratic candidates somehow translates into her being a real Democrat who deserves the votes of other Democrats.

So just come out and say it Dave? Do you, or do you not think that Randi Shade is a Democrat, real, or otherwise?

And by the same standard, what proof makes Kathie Tovo any more or less real than Randi Shade? No one seems to be able to address that for Tovo- her lack of involvement in Democratic campaigns, clubs, or contributions. Is she just not involved in partisan activity?

You yourself stated that "BOR is a forum for Democrats". I agree. Maybe that's why Randi Shade has been a user of this forum for years having posted personal diaries and comments. I looked, but I can't find an account for Kathie Tovo.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 21:10:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She's an Establishment Democrat, and you have a problem telling the differrence between form and substance (0.00 / 0)

KT, you have the political sophistication to understand  that partisan labels alone fail to clearly convey what transpires in government and politics at the operational level, where the rubber meets the road. Try distinguishing form from substance, the contents of a book from its (often deceptive and misleading)cover, the actual contents of a package from its glittery wrapping.  There are Establishment Democrats at every level of government, the U.S. Congress, every legislature in the country, city halls, and courthouses. Every day the media carries reports of Establishment Democrats voting with the special interests that comprise the Establishment and working in tandem with Establishment Republican to advance the objectives of the Establishment. Nothing new about that. We read read about it all the time in the Huffington Post, Texas Observer, Texas AFL-CIO eNews, The New Republic and the  Associated Press' coverage of politics.  This normal  pattern was most obvious recently when Establishment Democrats in the U.S. Senate like Sen. Max Baucus of Montana worked hand in glove with the big insurance companies to torpedo the public option and then bottled-up Obama's health care bill for many months. Populist and insurgent forces have waged war against the DLC and the Establishment Democrats forever. John Connally was an Establishment Democrat before he became an Establishment Republican. Randi Shade votes with the special interests that comprise the Establishment on the Austin City Council. RECA and the Home Builders Association are not Democratic interest groups. The Sierra Club is a Democratic constituency. Come now, you are not a babe in the woods and you understand this. Why pretend that you don't? An elected official who votes with the dominant business interests on major issues against the position of the Sierra Club and the folks in the neighborhoods is an Establishment-type, either an Establishment Democrat or an Establishment Republican. This confuses some people, but as a great
Republican once said, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time." The voters in the Democratic precincts clearly demonstrated that they haven't been fooled. They can tell the difference between form and substance, even if you can't.
  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 23:30:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mentioned this in the post (0.00 / 0)

m1ek already got to this but to highlight the point, I only wrote this because of the initial comment on the prior posts from some Tovo supporter saying that Randi Shade had been outed as a Republican and was using the GOP/Rove playbook.

As I wrote in this post... There are many ways to measure someone "Democraticness" including volunteer hours and policy positions but one of the least subjective is one's personal donor history.

Non-profit giving isn't required to be publicly disclosed in the same way that pure political contributions are. I'm not going to bother the campaigns or expect them to have a complete record of their volunteer hours. It also wouldn't be relevant to answering the attack on Shade's Democratic values. The only thing being put in question or measured here is "Democraticness" which is not the same as one's non-political non-profit work. The two are not interchangeable; there are plenty of non-profit volunteers who feel very strongly about separating that from their politics. And I know plenty of hardcore Republicans that are involved with Habitat for Humanity, Goodwill, Food Banks, United Ways, etc.

As I said...

Money shouldn't be used as the sole consideration for determining an individual's politics, but for those who have the capacity to give, the frequency, amount, and recipient of those dollars serves as an instructive guide to measure one's "Democraticness". Kathie Tovo certainly has the capacity to contribute to candidates and organizations, after all, she's afforded giving herself over $53,000 in loans to her own campaign.

Not everyone is required to give money, though I admit, I'm biased towards encouraging more people to give having worked for ActBlue and made the democratization of fundraising a big part of my political life. Over the last few years, I've given over $2,500 through my ActBlue account alone. It's not the be-all measure, but it's the least subjective measure for the purposes of this post. Maybe that helps explain things.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 23:30:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a throw away KT (0.00 / 0)

Giving to political campaigns is no measure of one's allegiance to a platform.  How many corporations give to both the Dem and Rep candidates in the same cycle in order to hedge their bets?  Or switch from D to R and back again when the political tides have shifted.  No, donations to candidates can't be a reliable measure.

And while I agree with your initial reaction to last week's comment, there's a far better way to objectively represent the information.  Obviously there are scores of developers and nieghborhood activists who are democrats.  And so the argument shouldn't be D v. R, it should be about vision and stewardship for future growth in the city.

Simply using political giving as a proxy for "democraticness" and in a table as you've presented only leads the reader to believe that Shade is tied into the the Capital D establishment and negatively implies that Tovo either doesn't care or is a closest conservative.  Again, I'm neutral here but I expect BOR analysis to be a little more thoughtful than this.

---

by: barkeng @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 16:25:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Money alone does not a Democrat make (0.00 / 0)

I believe that rating someone's "Democraticness" (shouldn't that be "Democratness"?) based upon how much money they give to strictly political candidates and organizations could be a red herring. Many elected officials change policies with the prevailing breeze (Lee Leffingwell comes to mind). Because of this, some people would rather give more to organizations that support causes, rather than to the candidates themselves. After all, an organization like SOS has always looked out for Austin's water, regardless of the political deals that politicians may have made.

I think that a better indication of character is how one spends one's time. I, for one, value my time over my money. By this reckoning, Kathie Tovo rates as highly as anyone I have seen as a Democrat. She has spent tremendous energy volunteering her time in community organizations that display the true spirit of the Democratic Party in an effort to make Austin a better place.

Trying to say that one of these candidates is "for" development and one is "against" it is also a ridiculous oversimplification. This false dichotomy has been used for years as a political argument in Austin. Regardless of who has been elected, Austin has grown faster than almost any other metropolitan area in America.

It is really about how we develop, not whether we will develop - will we sacrifice the things that make Austin special in an effort to maximize profits for private industry, or will we grow in a way that does not destroy that which makes Austin unique?

This difference can be seen in the very different approaches of each candidate to WTP4. One big issue is in affordability. Building WTP4 will make Austin water rates go up dramatically, or either Austin will HAVE to sell a LOT more water. Since WTP4 does not add more water to Lake Travis (it takes more water OUT of Lake Travis), and since scientific projections (and observable reality) show that Lake Travis will have less water in the future, not more, building WTP4 BEFORE we maximize water conservation efforts will make water conservation LESS AFFORDABLE. This fact is clearly demonstrated by the proposed "water conservation fee" that the Austin Water Utility has proposed to be added to everyone's water bill in the very near future. Promoting the use of more water will also REDUCE SUSTAINABILITY. So whom will this really benefit? The only people that I see benefitting are those who are pushing development for short-term profit, and not supporting development for a better future for the City of Austin.

This doesn't even begin to address the wisdom of drilling an 8-foot diameter tunnel 10 miles through porous limestone under the habitat of a candidate for the endangered species list that depends on groundwater for its very existence. But then, I am one of those Austinites who believes that golden-cheeked warblers, black-capped vireos, Barton Springs and Jollyville salamanders, Iva corbinii, and a whole mess of Mexican free-tail bats (to name just a few of our neighbors) are some of the things that make Austin unique, and I will defend them (along with affordable water) with my VOTE and my MONEY. Kathie Tovo gets both in this election, despite the opinion of the author of this article.

---

by: craignazor @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:44:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fooled again (0.00 / 0)

The Tovo/ANC crowd wants no change in central Austin, ever, meaning that far more housing units are built in areas and ways that will far more greatly affect those creatures you and I both want to protect.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 13:14:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who's being fooled? (0.00 / 0)

Your comment about Tovo is unsupported by any facts whatsoever. How many neighborhood group meetings have you sat through recently (or ever)? There is no group I know that wants "no change" in central Austin. The question is the kind of change.

Did you know that last fall, over a half million gallons of raw human sewage poured down Bull Creek and into Lady Bird Lake? It killed thousands of creatures that you claim you "want to protect." This happened because of a poorly designed Austin Water Utility (AWU) sewage lift pump that was known to be a problem and was never improved. Nevertheless, we have lots of money to build a billion dollar plus (with interest) water treatment plant that plans to drill an eight-foot diameter, 10-mile-long pipe right through the same spot where this other pump failed. While this tunnel is being drilled, any rainstorm will wash even more water through this same watershed, with this same unimproved lift pump as the only protection. AWU tells us not to worry.

It will raise everyone's water rates, with the poorest people affected the most. It will make water conservation measures impossible without further raising water rates, or greatly increasing water use. The only way to pay for WTP4 will be to SELL MORE WATER, which will mean building far more housing units (mostly in north Austin) and as quickly as possible. And it will not put one more drop of water in Lake Travis - in fact, it will remove even more water, when the prediction for global climate change is for increasing drought. This will affect wildlife even more than it will affect people. How is this going to help all the creatures you "want to protect?"

At the Austin City Council meeting where the last $300+ million was approved, over 90 Austin citizens showed up to speak - but the hearing was delayed late enough so that some of these people had to leave, and the deadlines for both the Austin-American Statesman and the Austin Chronicle were missed. Not one person spoke in favor of WTP4 - all spoke against. I heard some of the most rational and intelligent arguments against WTP4 that I have ever heard at any City Council meeting. The Parks Board, Environmental Board, and Water and Wastewater Commission, all citizens' advisory boards, refused to support the proposal in the absence of additional information. The Council members voting in favor of WTP4 addressed virtually none of the citizens' (or boards') concerns. It was one of the most amazing displays of arrogance towards the citizens of Austin by their elected government that I have ever witnessed. The mysterious proponents of WTP4 did not even have to show up and defend the project, because it was already a done deal. This was the meeting that precipitated the Freedom of Information Act request for the City Council emails. I hope you are aware of what that produced from the ruling cabal - even more arrogance. It was exactly what I saw at the meeting.

I was there. Your ridiculous statement about what the "Tovo/ANC crowd" wants or doesn't want has no basis in fact, and has little to do with the anger behind this election. What I want is responsive government, because I have seen what unresponsive government looks like, and I have seen the results of its contempt. Even with the typical dismal Austin turnout of late (which should tell you something about people's disillusionment with government for just this kind of arrogance), this kind of behavior by the current Austin City Council is going to help Kathie Tovo win.

---

by: craignazor @ Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 08:11:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"no change" (0.00 / 0)

Talking about projects like Park PUD. Never densify; never grow up; never allow developments to be built more urban; keep central Austin an exclusive playground for single-family homeowners who have either been here forever or are rich enough to buy in to single-family development in the urban core.

WTP4 is a much more complicated issue - and Tovo has claimed to support going through with it. Do you have new information the voters should be aware of?

---

by: m1ek @ Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 16:10:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Time Machine. (0.00 / 0)

Tovo hasn't said she'd stop construction of WTP4 so there's not much difference between Shade and Tovo with regard to the future of the plant. Either Tovo can come out and say she wants to put a moratorium on building or release the plans of the time machine she's going to use to go back and time and oppose it.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 20:54:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What do you mean, "no change?" (0.00 / 0)

Commercial development and the concept of neighborhood are two very different, but interlocking, city structures.

Commercial development is rather easily redeveloped, since the zoning process has already taken place, PROVIDED THERE ARE HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS NEARBY TO SUPPORT THE LOCAL COMMERCE. Commercial development generates money for its own maintainance, and that maintainance is much more utilitarian.

Neighborhoods are something entirely different - they exist because of a related community vision. They exist because a community develops a group/personal hybrid vision for the neighborhood space and then maintains that vision without profit, and hopefully with some support from the city. Neighborhoods have character. If neighbors struggle to maintain that common vision - if costs become unaffordable, or if the vision (through zoning changes, for instance) is altered too drastically, the community disintegrates, neighborhoods are lost, and they do not come back easily. A lost neighborhood will have a large negative affect on surrounding commercial development.

The truly unaffordable neighborhood for all but the wealthy are all those new condos going up in the "urban core." And neither Tovo nor Shade are arguing about those. Can you afford that?

I was just in a downtown neighborhood of Austin today, and it was not as you described. There were young people who have not been here "forever." There were single-family homeowners that I know who are not rich, and they walked to Barton Springs for a swim. There were properties for rent. There were smaller local establishments doing business. It looked like Austin to me.

Tovo has said that she would not have supported WTP4 the way it has been started. There are some poor decisions that have already been made (they were rushed without citizen approval to try and beat this election because of pressure from developers) that cannot be undone without wasting even more money. Tovo has said she supports the intelligent development of investments already made. But WTP4 is far from completed - the process could be slowed without losing much money. We need to put more funding for water conservation BEFORE rushing ahead with more water capacity that we do not yet need, or water conservation becomes unafforable, and ratepayers are forced to pay higher water rates to support the profits for new development.

The end result of that would be a higher per-capita water use rate for a Texas city that already has one of the highest in the state. And there is not one more drop of water in the Colorado river to support ANY of that, with increasing drought predicted for future climate. The common-sense Director of the LCRA has just been forced to resign through overwhelming pro-development Perry appointees. So we can expect more water to be taken from the Colorado River for projects downstream, like the new White Stallion coal-fired power plant.

Please wake up and smell the coffee.

---

by: craignazor @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 06:36:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well . . . (0.00 / 0)

I can't remember my NA, Allandale, ever being in favor of a proposed development.  The best example being of course Northcross.  After opposing a new major tenant that would have added liquor sales, the Allandale NA decided to go to war over the redevelopment of the commercial shopping center as a commercial shopping center.

Since you mentioned Lake Austin, one of the arguments in favor of WTP4 is increased security.  Right now, both of our water plants draw from Lake Austin and basically sit across the lake from each other.  A sewage or chemical spill in Lake Austin could result in a closure of both plants.

---

by: Jeb @ Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 16:02:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Allandale (0.00 / 0)

Do you mean the redevelopment of Northcross Mall into a single huge Wal-Mart - one of the world's largest corporations known for more negative political and economic bagage than any other retail chain that ever existed? Didn't they make a movie about that?

You really supported that? One of the big issues was the projected traffic problems that would have required extensive traffic infrastructure changes to existing roads, paid for by my tax dollars to help out Wal-Mart.

Since no sewage or chemicals are allowed to be dumped into Lake Austin, specifically because it is a water source, I would call that an embarrassingly red herring.

Oh, excuse me - there was a relatively small sewage lift pump failure (a pump that is supposed to prevent any sewage at all from spilling into waterways) on Bull Creek last September (bad for Bull Creek, but still too small to effect Lake Austin water quality). This resulted from the failure of the Austin Water Utility to maintain their infrastructure properly because Shade voted to cut their infrastructure upgrade budget to have money to spend on building WTP4 to make us "safer."

Hmm - I still think it helps to pay attention to what is actually going on.  

---

by: craignazor @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 07:30:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Will there be more posts on this thread (0.00 / 0)

than votes in the runoff?

---

by: George @ Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 22:08:26 PM UTC

No but the discussion of issues has been a good thing (0.00 / 0)

There has been posted a wide range of discussions of past, present, and future civic political battles. Very good and informative attempts have been made by several individuals to define the current "public interest" in municipal politics. These are very good discussions for our community to have.

My multiple choice question still to be answered by either of the runoff candidates and/or their representatives is as follows:

To ensure fair geographic representation, do you support a mixed district plan with the following council members elected by districts with two members still elected at-large along with the Mayor with a council size of?

(a)  6-2-1
(b)  8-2-1
(c) 10-2-1
(d) Would consider supporting one of the above plans if elected
(e)  None of the above

---

by: ssuits @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 00:41:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, but only for the benefit of the Shade supporters (0.00 / 0)

https://m360.hbaaustin.com/Vie...

You Shade supporters needn't feel overwhelmed because the big bad Neighborhood Associations and the Sierra Club have endorsed Kathie Tovo. You know how out-of-touch they are with the average voter.  As you can see from the link above, Harry Savio's outfit, the Austin Homebuilders trade association, is behind your candidate. Be sure and click on their flier once you've opened the link. Also, check-out the campaign filings to see that Savio has also given money to your candidate.  

My, there's a group that represents the grass roots of the Democratic Party, isn't it? Yeah, the Harry Savio crowd and the poor folks at the Real Estate Council of Austin and the the Austin Board of Realtors. They look just like the masses you see at any Travis County Democratic convention, don't they? Are you still wondering why your candidate ran so well in the upscale Republican precincts and got smashed in the Democratic bastions of Central, South and East Austin? Have no fear, Harry Savio will come to the rescue of your candidate.

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 18:27:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cut this crap out (0.00 / 0)

Dave, there AREN'T any truly Republican precincts in Austin proper. GMAFB.

And without developers, you don't get new housing units, which is the only way we get cheaper housing down the road. So the vast masses of people outside the priviliged few currently living in those core "Democratic precincts" (according to you) can't GET here unless somebody builds them some new supply into which to move.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 19:48:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Define "truly Republican precincts" (0.00 / 0)

How about the precincts that went for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and either went for McCain in '08 or were carried by Obama with a margin significantly below his average? What do you call them, "Not truly Republican"?  Then, take those same precincts and do the overlay with the census data on income. If you still cannot identify any boxes that fit in your category of "truly Republican precincts" - well, that says more about you than it does about the facts on the ground. After you've done this little exercise, check-out how those precincts which have historically gone more heavily Republican than the rest of Austin voted in the Place 3 race. Then please post your findings and please be specific and precise. If you are saying that all of the precincts within the City of Austin tend to be more heavily Democratic than all of those in West Lake Hills, Lakeway, Lago Vista, etc., nobody will disagree. But if you are contending that it is not possible to identify the Austin precincts that historically produce a much larger vote for Republican candidates, then you are back to playing the same game always relied upon by those who support Establishment candidates in a Democratic town, obfuscation, distraction, diversion of attention, the pretense that technocratic values trump the public interest in its ongoing conflict with the special interests, the elevation of personality over voting records, and the refusal to acknowledge undeniable truths -like where the public interest is in a contest between a candidate endorsed by the Sierra Club/Austin Neighborhoods County  and by the real estate interests and the local business elite. Ah, but the voters in the Democratic precincts understand, even if you don't..

  Dave Shapiro

   

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 20:34:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about this (0.00 / 0)

I refuse to take homework assignments from anyone, but if I did, you'd be one of the last ones I'd take one from.

You sure expect people to tolerate a lot of your generalizations without any proof, but don't like it when others make far more supportable ones in return.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 21:12:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What in the world are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)

 No need for any homework, just take one look at the maps of the election results that were published in both the Austin Chronicle and the American-Statesman. Both are available online.  You can find the election results by precinct  posted at the Travis County Clerk's Website. I'm making no generalizations but pointing to specifics, the published maps and the published precinct results, and if you care to go that far, the census tract data showing income at www.census.gov. The generalizations - and the obfuscations - on this thread are all coming from the Shade supporters.

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:07:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh no! not more supporters! (5.00 / 3)

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 20:19:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shade is using dirty tactics running her run-off campaign (0.00 / 0)

I've been getting streams of push-polls, almost two a night, from a company called TTO Research (or that's at least what the pollster had said). I know they're push-polls because as soon as I ask what kind of poll this is, the pollster was frazzled and only completed 2 questions: who I'm voting for and if I might change my mind, after I called him out. Plus, the number was blocked (000)000-0000, and when I was polled last time from the company, they were pushing me towards voting for Shade with "Would you change your mind if..." questions regarding Tovo. No legitimate polling company I've ever heard from runs their business like this. I'm sorry, but I won't vote for a candidate that uses push-polls. Period. Democrat or Republican, I don't think the tactic is a good one and it's borderline harassment. You can bet your ass I'll be voting against her in the election. I'm slightly concerned about Tovo, mainly on music issues in Austin, but I really want a change now.

---

by: tbobmccoy @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 22:18:58 PM UTC

Those calls are not from Randi's campaign. (3.00 / 1)

Hi, I just wanted to clarify, those calls from TTO Research are absolutely not from Randi Shade's campaign. I'd know -- I am Randi's campaign manager.

Those are not our calls, and we would never use a push poll. A Push Poll by definition is an effort to smear a candidate and disseminate negative attacks. Push polls don't focus on gathering data, analyzing it, or identifying supporters.

We're focused on calling voters and talking about Randi's record. Our callers identify themselves as being with the Randi Shade campaign. We have no interest in hiding who we are, and we're definitely analyzing our data! :-) We want folks to get a call from our campaign because we're working really hard to reach voters.

We're not running those calls from TTO or TTI or whomever it is. (And you're not the first person to complain about them, either.) Honestly, I have no idea who's behind them. I hope you'll focus on the substance of the candidates in making your decisions, and not whatever effort those calls are a part of.

Disclosure: I'm Randi Shade's campaign manager.  

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX

---

by: Katherine Haenschen @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 00:01:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Response to multiple choice question on Geographic Representation posted earlier in this thread (0.00 / 0)

I got an acceptable response from Tovo's campaign yesterday via email from her deputy campaign manager, Jim Wick. Could the Shade campaign send me a copy of Shade's  Black Austin Democrats questionnaire answers. Jim was kind enough to send me Tovo's responses to this questionaire concerning her position on geographic representation.

No need for any phone calls from anyone or endorsement mailers. Just have someone email me Shades's responses to the Black Austin Democrats questionaire. I will base my runoff vote on which candidate has the best position on this issue. Since I voted for Max the first go around, I am swing voter in this runoff. Thanks

---

by: ssuits @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 13:07:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Deputy Campaign Manager Jim Wick (0.00 / 0)

...and nobody saw that one coming. The only thing that actually surprised me is why Tovo didn't figure out a way to hire him earlier from Laura Morrison- it's not like she needed his incredible skills to win. Maybe Tovo would have run without a runoff then.

Morrison staff to Tovo, Riley staff to Shade. The battle lines clearly drawn over which sort of future you want Austin to have. Of course, we all have friends on both sides of this, myself included, and we need to remember that 90% of the public doesn't even know there is a battle going on.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 20:50:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More like 97% of the public doesn't even know there is a battle going on. (0.00 / 0)

Even fewer can hold grudges for as long as Dave Shapiro and I. I got my attitude from Bullock and Mattox. Dave seems to have just naturally developed his.

---

by: ssuits @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 21:45:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BAD Questionnaire (0.00 / 0)

Feel free to contact me directly if you are interested in discussing the Black Austin Democrats questionnaire, or our questions of the candidates at our endorsement meeting.

flm

---

by: badmcghee @ Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 15:35:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank You, I will (0.00 / 0)

Sending an email to you to an address that I found in your profile here at BOR. If for some reason it is no longer correct, my email address is ssuits@netzero.net

I already have Tovo's acceptable response on geographic representation to BAD; just need to see what Shade's written response was on the BAD questionnaire.

---

by: ssuits @ Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 15:57:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you for your response (0.00 / 0)

I'm aware of what a push poll is, having been a campaign manager for several candidates, and I am also aware that some push pollsters attempt to mask their true goal by portraying their poll as a data gathering poll. The poll that I participated in was certainly a push poll, as it included leading questions that were certainly intended to push my vote away from Tovo. If the campaign is not a part of it, someone else certainly is, and I encourage you here to denounce the use of such electioneering. It degrades all of us that have worked on campaigns.

I do like Shade personally and philanthropically, but those two things are much less of an influence on my city council votes. On substance, both campaigns are about 50/50 split on my various local issues, and campaigning will really be what changes my mind.

---

by: tbobmccoy @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 15:11:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not push polls (3.00 / 1)

TTO is aka Tyson Organization.  I have used them extensively in the past and can promise you that they do not do push polls.

Any meaningful scientific poll includes contrast/comparison information on BOTH candidates. (The theory is that you play out the campaign...Candidate A will tell about all of their own benefits while Candidate B tells about A's faults, and vice versa).

Even a half-decent telephone ID program will test undecided voters to identify what issues cause them to move in order to enhance targeting and communications.

Every election I have worked in the past 15 years featured one side or the other cry "push poll"...but I've never seen one.

And nearly every time I commission a poll in any district we get calls from supporters saying that a push poll was being run against us (in reference to our own poll).

In fact, the reality is that campaigns should use polls to go beyond the snapshot of where the race stands and try to ascertain where the race will be headed based on the theory I explained above.

The simplest way to find out who is running the calls is to check C&E's. Whomever retained Tyson is running the calls. But there is no way--not ever--that Tyson Organization is doing push polls. They don't do that. They are a highly reputable, award-winning company of the highest ethical standards.

In regards to the caller ID readout, that is a decision made by the soliciting campaign. Sometimes we have the campaign name and HQ number on the readout...sometimes not. If you want to conduct a true blind ID, you don't identify yourself as the campaign.

But rest assured, under state law the origin of a call MUST be identified truly and accurately (remember the illegal Jennifer Kim robos from the last election vs Shade???).


Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 17:44:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you! (0.00 / 0)

Finally, someone who has the authority to help explain the difference. I appreciate it colin.

Though now you are making me miss my neighbor Lisa...

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 20:49:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republicans backing Shade (0.00 / 0)

So I go to Randi's list.  While she's a big donor to the democratic party she has a lot of registered republican support. (start with Keith Donahoe...I can name many more on Randi's supporter list.)   Does that mean Randi gets bipartisan support or does that mean she's a republican.  You can paint it either way guys...The people writing here have already made up their mind and are not convincing anyone.  The people I talk to think the council is too development oriented. Downtown looks great but is this where we should be heading right now???  We're getting more bike lanes but how are we relieving congestion?  Stacy Suits is right.  Let's focus on the issues, please.

---

by: ann in austin @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:08:29 AM UTC

Do nothing and Austin will only get less affordable (0.00 / 0)

Randi has plenty of Dem supporters.

Let's focus on the issues.  I think it is clear which candidate is serious about working on affordability and our quality of life and which candidate is backed by the we've-got-ours-and-let-everyone-else-commute-in-from-Caldwell-County folks.

---

by: Jeb @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 17:18:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell that to the passengers in the Home Builers' Hummer Limo (0.00 / 0)

 
Those of you who picked up the new Austin Chronicle today or looked at it online will have seen this, which goes to the heart of the affordability issue that Jeb raised. The special interests backing Shade can afford a Hummer Limo to haul voters from its Happy Hour to an early voting location.

            ----

Symbolism: In a PR masterstroke that Kathie Tovo couldn't have bought with any amount of money, the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin is promising: "Catch our Hummer Limo to go early vote a few blocks away" from the group's "Happy Hour for Randi Shade" at Casa Chapala, Monday, June 6, 4-7pm.

              ----

 Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 23:57:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Link to Home Builders Ass'n. Hummer Limo flier (0.00 / 0)

https://m360.hbaaustin.com/Vie...

 You will find the Home Builders' flier mentioned in that Austin Chronicle item at its Website, linked above.

  Here's a bet that I challenge you Shade supporters to accept. If the interest groups endorsing Randi Shade are identified by political scientists as well-known Democratic constituency groups, I'll buy your lunch.  Select at random from the list posted on the Internet of faculty members of any college or university political science department and ask them to identify which bracket of these interest groups is viewed as more closely allied with the Republican Party and which is known as allies of the Democratic Party.  

BRACKET 1: Home Builders Association and Real Estate Development interest.  

Bracket 2: Sierra Club,environmental groups  and neighborhood associations in central cities.

  On second thought, there's no need to survey political science faculties. Just ask any group of informed citizens with common sense.

          Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 03:40:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shade's Dem and Progressive Supporters (0.00 / 0)

Austin Central Labor Council
Austin Progressive Coalition
Capital Area Asian American Democrats
Capital City Young Democrats
Carpenters Local Union 1266
Central Austin Democrats
Circle C Area Democrats
Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association
League of Bicycling Voters
North By Northwest Democrats
St. Edwards Democrats
Stonewall Democrats
University Democrats
The Victory Fund
West Austin Democrats

http://www.randishade.com/146/...

---

by: Jeb @ Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 16:08:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

West Austin Dems (0.00 / 0)

WAD gave a dual endorsement to Shade and Tovo in the first round, and we specifically did not endorse in the runoff. Both sides are claiming our support (I recently got a mailer from Tovo touting WAD's support), and that's flat-out misleading.  

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 21:34:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Democratic" neighborhoods (0.00 / 0)

What is most striking to me in this whole debate is the general acceptance that Central Austin neighborhoods are very Democratic/liberal, but at the same time, display time and again that many of their inhabitants (at least those running these Neighborhood Associations), hold attitudes more typical of the Republican mindset regarding how they want their City to develop. It is very much a Republican/Capitalist frame of mind to elevate the well-being of oneself (or one's property value) to the detriment of the community as a whole. By dismissing the need for affordable housing and more sustainable, high-density, transit-oriented development, they are espousing Conservative values- what was Margaret Thatcher's famous quote? "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families." That could very much be the battle cry of the members of these NAs- in Dave Shapiro's referenced "Democratic" neighborhoods- as I see it.
Infill development in the central city is not a bad thing- it is good for the sustainability of a city.

---

by: Anthony B @ Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 19:00:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those are the people turning out (0.00 / 0)

i've tried to explain this to Dave half a dozen times that just because they are Central Austin precincts doesn't mean that the voters who turned out are reflective of the broader population of those precincts in a normal higher turnout election year.

City Council voters are not the same as the Democratic primary universe. And people involved in NAs aren't necessarily partisan Democrats either. There is overlap of course, but if only because the hardcore activists that really love voting and care to be involved might be involved in either or both groups.

But there is a skew towards homeowners, particularly higher income ones, in city elections, and that means the issues get skewed as well.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 20:53:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can make that argument till the cows come home but it doesn't hold water. (0.00 / 0)

Come again, please. Obama, Kerry,  Gore and the Democratic statewide candidates going back more than 25-years, rack up their biggest numbers in the very same Central, East and South Austin precincts where Kathi Tovo and most of the major anti-Establishment candidate for the Austin City Council dating back to the Emma Long era run best,and you say that this "doesn't mean that the voters who turned out are reflective of the broader population of those precincts in normal higher turnout elections." You would have us believe that Kathie Tovo's voters in those precincts were "reflective" of what, if not the long and very consistent record of big margins for Democratic candidates in "normal higher turnout election years." The bigger the vote for Bill White in '10, for Chris Bell in '06, for Tony Sanchez in '02, and for the Democratic nominees in down-ballot positions,as Lt. Gov. and AG - good ways to measure straight Democratic ticket votes cast-the greater the odds you saw them in the maps published by the Statesman and the Chronicle as precincts that Tovo carried. So, by what process of logic do you stake your claim that the Place 3 voters were not reflective of the views of their neighbors. They look pretty damned reflective to everyone else who sees the maps. For the umpteenth time, anyone who looks at the published maps and at the election results by precincts posted online by the County Clerk and who checks the electoral history will immediately see that the the precincts with the longest records of voting solidly Democratic from the top of the ballot to the bottom are one and the same with those where Tovo ran best. I challenge you to list precincts that prove your specious argument. You haven't done so yet because it can't be done.  But the contrary is true, in those precincts within the City of Austin where Republicans - up and down the ballot - consistently run best, Randi Shade got her biggest percentages.

 Dave Shapiro  
 

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 05:12:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Listing Precincts Won't Prove His Argument (0.00 / 0)

Comparing votes with less than 10% turnout with votes of 40-60% turnout is like comparing apples and zucchini. That's his argument. Listing precincts won't do anything for it.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 17:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Puit these "Put Up or Shut Up" numbers in your pipe and smoke it (0.00 / 0)

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/cou...

 Michael and KT,

    Nearly all of the Republican precincts within the City of Austin are clustered in Commissioners Pct. 3. Your attention is called to Pct. 332, the Zilker School box, one of the most heavily Democratic precincts in Travis County. The turnout there in last month's Place 3 race was 20.01%, far above the 7.27% for the entire City. In fact, it was almost three-times the size of the total city turnout. In 2008, Pct. 332 went for Obama with 83% of the vote to McCain's 14%. Kathie Tovo received 68.83%. Max got 8.72%, and Bailey 1.86%. Randi Shade received 20.5%. That's better than McCain but it doesn't say very much about the credibility of all those "progressive" organizations that you posted from the Shade Website as endorsing her, does it? Please let us know if you continue with your claim that the 20.01% turnout in the Zilker School box is somehow not reflective of voter sentiment there?  

  Next, turn to several Republican boxes in Comm. Pct. 3.
Pct. 314 (ACC Pinnacle Campus) was carried by McCain with 58% over Obama's 39%. Lo and behold, Randi Shade won that
precinct with 40.74%, to Kathie Tovo's 29.6%. I'll bet that the savvy consultants running the Shade GOTV
operation are stepping-up their phone banks to get more of the Republicans in Pct. 314 to vote in the runoff. Nobody on our side of the fence would be so presumptuous as to claim that the election returns there are not reflective of overall voter sentiment in that Republican precinct.

  Pct. 317 (Hill Country Middle School on Walsh-Tarlton Lane) voted 53% for McCain and 44% for Obama. Randi Shade received 51.26% in that traditionally Republican precinct, and Kathie Tovo only 19.1%. You'll get no argument from our side claiming that Shade's vote didn't fairly reflect the sentiment in that area.

 The election results in the precincts repudiate and reject your entire "non-reflective" spin about turnout. Its measure of validity hardly rises to the level of the vast influence with the voters of the organizations that endorsed Randi Shade.

   Dave Shapiro        

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 20:44:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

New Information (0.00 / 0)

It appears that Randi Shade has just hired one of the Honorable Michael McCaul's best political operatives to help her out for this last week.

I have had Representative McCaul (not) representing me here in north Austin since the Texas Republicans decided I had more in common with the town of Tomball than I had with the Austin City Hall. McCaul is THE WORST (and most Republican) representative I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with in my entire life.

Is there anything that Katherine Haenschen might want to share with us here that I am not getting? I may have my opinions, but I do value truth.

Now I'm angry.

So, Mr Karl-Thomas Musselman, I call you. Kathie Tovo would never hire a McCaul operative to win. No one in her ENTIRE OFFICE would. So why is Shade doing it? Are there unseen political connections? Is it desperation, or is there actually something not correct about your initial premise?

Like maybe it's just ABSOLUTELY DEAD WRONG!

---

by: craignazor @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 07:56:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

KT's ad in the Chronicle (1.00 / 1)

Funny how this post became an ad for the Shade campaign in this week's Chronicle.  Between this and the push poll piece, I'm starting to see biased reporting on BOR.  Maybe KT you need to start disclosing that you're not neutral in this race....

---

by: barkeng @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 16:41:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chronicle (5.00 / 2)

At least it's not a mail piece quoting another mail piece.
I've donated to Randi Shade and am a public supporter. The publisher of the Austin Chronicle donated to Kathie Tovo. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide who has been more open about their support.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 01:50:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Chron endorsed Kathie--that's pretty open. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Deb @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:41:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it's not (0.00 / 0)

They practically hid the fact that their publisher donated - buried the lede as it were.

---

by: m1ek @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 13:28:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Any reason you didn't name the 'operative'? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: George @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 18:15:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Guilt by association by association? (3.33 / 6)

Let me get this straight.  It's not only bad to be a Republican like McCaul (who, I agree, is an awful rep). It's not only bad to be associated with McCaul. But now it's a cardinal sin to even be associated with somebody who is associated with McCaul?!

This is getting ridiculous.  How about thinking about what Tovo or Shade would do on the council for the next three years instead of playing partisan purity gotcha? There are plenty of real issues where they differ, notably how much priority to give to public safety, how to balance infill and neighborhood preservation, and whether to pursue big public works (like WTP4, or whatever next comes down the pike).

If we think about the actual issues, we won't all agree on who is best, but at least we'll be able to cast our votes intelligently.  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 21:13:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Context (0.00 / 0)

This thread is all about Democratic purity tests, so I think it is valid info in that context. Good for the goose etc. The lack of a name just makes me wonder if the operative is someone significant or not.

---

by: George @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 21:41:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What does it matter? (0.00 / 0)

This is a non-partisan race.  The views of Luke Sheffield (the staffer in question) on non-city issues have nothing to do with this race or Shade.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:18:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

At 102 comments this Discussion Post is now too long (4.00 / 2)

Would someone from either the Shade or Tovo campaign please post some more red meat issues out on new subjects for us to examine?

---

by: ssuits @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 16:53:08 PM UTC

100 is the threshold for an epic thread (4.00 / 2)

I can't remember the last time we had one. This was so refreshing.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:56:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul Revere (0.00 / 0)

I think this election should be decided by which candidate has the better undersstanding of Paul Revere's role in American history.;-)

---

by: The Nuck @ Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 05:38:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

so sad (0.00 / 0)

Why did I have to be studying for a test during an epic comment thread?

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 00:37:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing to do with party - everything to do with constituency (0.00 / 0)

Let's get this straight.  City Council Elections are nonpartisan, right? So even though I may be a staunch Democrat, I am not going to decide my vote by who donates more to the Democratic party. I am going to decide by the candidate's stand on the issues I care about and the likelihood of the candidate to support my neighborhood and other grassroots groups as we fight for an even better and more sustainable Austin.

Do real estate and development interests really rule Austin? I think Shade believes they do, based on the heavy backing from RECA and individual developers. She has and will vote with the money groups. And seeing that the owners of the West Park PUD, the site of the recent fire in Oak Hill, have all donated the maximum to Shade's campaign confirms my belief that a vote for Shade is a vote for irresponsible development in Southwest Austin.

---

by: ccespedes @ Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 17:22:56 PM UTC

Interesting and Thought Provoking and Pedantic (3.00 / 1)

By far the most interesting discussion on BOR in a good long time.

As our family will soon be moving to a central Austin neighborhood, I found Lorenzo Sadun's post about development along 35th St. to be very interesting. The issues affecting my current NxNW neighborhood are thoroughly pedestrian in comparison.

Much to think about as we get ready to move. Much to observe once we get settled in.  

---

by: jelyon @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:22:50 AM UTC

It matters NOT who YOU give to but who gives to you and who you EMPLOY! (0.00 / 0)

http://www.statesman.com/news/...

1/2 Shade's take is developer dollars. $25,000 to secure F1...$10,000 to thank her for WTP4.

And if you call yourself 'the better Democrat' then why hire REPUBLICAN operatives?
http://mcblogger.com/

---

by: Deb @ Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:38:35 AM UTC

paper over it all you like (0.00 / 0)

but in the end, character counts, and you can't fake it. randi lied repeatedly about kathie's positions, and this was clear to austin voters.

randi finally showed her true colors when she hired michael baselice and lucas sheffield to replace local talent in her campaign. and it hasn't gone unnoticed that her staff is currently at netroots in the cool climes of minnesota - how do you run a campaign from minnesota??

not much of a vote of confidence for your own people: a campaign that trusts its fundamentals doesn't jettison its staff when the going gets tough.

a campaign is about the candidate and shade lost. she lost in may, then she ran up a HUGE bill for austin taxpayers by staying and forcing the run-off. and then she lost a second time, today. I want my money back.

---

by: leslie pool @ Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 01:17:21 AM UTC

This Runoff Election may have saved taxpayers 36 Million Dollars (0.00 / 0)

In the final days before this runoff election, the proposal that F1 pay the first four million and that Austin pay four million every year for the following nine years to a state trust fund got dropped. If this "new deal" for Formula One Racing happens, then the 1/2 million dollars in city expenditures to have this election was well worth it.

The next council vote on this is on June 23rd. Too bad it cannot be delayed for a week back to June 30th. Tovo is sworn into office on June 28th. It's time to move forward, after both the general and runoff elections, our city council has a better understanding of what's on the voters minds.

---

by: ssuits @ Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 12:40:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shade once again runs best in Republican precincts (0.00 / 0)

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/cou...

 Since the County Clerk has posted the election results by precincts, I invite - nay, I defy - you Shade
supporters to list the precincts that refute the earlier contention on this thread that this election followed the usual pattern: the candidate backed by RICA and the other cluster of special interests comprising the local Establishment, ran best in those precincts which traditionally give Republican candidates, especially down-ballot Republicans, more votes than the Austin neighborhoods which always vote more heavily Democratic. Even casual observers of local politics will want to compare the November 2010 general election results for statewide Democratic candidates, especially Lt. Gov., with the Tovo-Shade results from the June 18 runoff. Please, none of that specious stuff about how low turnout distorts the results. That was refuted in a posting earlier in this thread, and one look at the numbers from the precincts which always give all statewide Democratic candidates the most votes and which also went heavily for Tovo flatly contradicts that argument. The Zilker School box is but one of many examples. In both the May 14 general election and the June 18 runoff, their turnout percentage was larger than for the entire city.  

 Oh, and did I mention that the pattern in Austin is for the usual alliance behind the Establishment's candidates to be led by RICA and the Armbrust & Brown lobby shop and to be endorsed by editorial page of the Statesman and accompanied by he inevitable letters and emails from Michael Levy warning that a crime wave and massive fires will result unless the candidate backed by real estate development interests and the contractors and vendors at city hall defeats the candidate endorsed by the Sierra Club and the Austin Neighborhoods Council. It also needs to be pointed out that joining this crowd about 95% of the time is the Central Labor Council. You can also nearly always expect to find in the same corner the well-recognized political consultants, operatives, hangers-on, careerists and weak sisters who go along with the local power structure. They are the he Establishment Democrats, the conflict-averse, who make excuses for WTP4, the F1 track, and every other Establishment project that comes down the pike. That very familiar pattern includes the police, fire and EMS unions and those Democratic organizations endorsing Shade that KT reminded us of. My, what great influence they have demonstrated in the Democratic strongholds of Austin. The same goes for the vast power demonstrated by the Central Austin Democrats, of which I am an insurgent and dissenting member, and its current president, a Leffingwell appointee to the solid waste board, and his two immediate predecessors as president of CAD, one of whom works for Leffingwell and the other for Shade, Guys, your co-optation program didn't go over very well with Democrats this time, did it? Please continue to peddle the line that the neighborhoods of Central Austin are dominated by fat cats who oppose progressive goals while RICA is dominated by
enlightened supporters of the proletarian masses lined-up in large numbers behind demonstrably beneficial projects like WTP4 and the F1 track. I hope that you continue to make these same points in the future. The above-linked election results show how well they resonate.
  Have a great weekend. I will.

               Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 18:48:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nobody likes a sore loser, (4.00 / 2)

but a sore winner is worse.  Give it a rest.

Kathie Tovo won the election fair and square, and by a solid margin.  She deserves all of our congratulations and best wishes, regardless of who we supported. Now that the election is over, I'm happy to join her cheering section. As I said all along, Tovo is a good woman who will do her best to improve our city.

Was she the best choice? Only time (and not an analysis of voting patterns, or a rehash of campaign arguments) will tell. While I hope that Tovo's actions on the council will lead all of us to say "damn, she's a LOT better than Shade", I also fear that her choices will be very different from what I want.

Will my hopes or fears be right? Again, only time will tell. Until then, let's give Kathie Tovo the benefit of the doubt, treat her as a potentially great council member, and encourage her to live up to that billing.

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:47:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree completely (0.00 / 0)

Thank you.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:17:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: "I also fear that her choices will be very different from what I want" (0.00 / 0)

Her choices should indeed be very different from what you want because her values and her frame of reference are polar opposite from those of Randi Shade. Everyone who supported a candidate backed by RICA and Michael Levy and opposed by the Sierra Club and ANC, ,who ran ads in support of WTP4, emailed the city manager about the influence of environmentalists, and hired Michael Baselice to get out Republican votes has every reason to fear that Kathie Tovo's choices will be "different from what they want."  Unlike you, my hope is that her choices are in sync with those of the 56% of the people who voted for her. And I might add, they came overwhelmingly from the strongest Democratic precincts.

  Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 14:53:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Respectfully, Dave (0.00 / 0)

The election was 3 days ago.

I echo Lorenzo Sadun's thoughts: Kathie Tovo deserves our congratulations and support. I wish her the best, and I look forward to serving her on the council.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 19:00:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]