Austin City Council Place 4 Race Kicks Off

Morrison is awful (0.00 / 0)

If you care at all about urban development, Morrison is the worst possible candidate - she's opposed every effort to make our city more sustainable (even though she lost many of those battles), and would be a disaster at the city council. ANYBODY else (even Bruce Todd's ilk) would be better.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 13:29:17 PM UTC

How I Read Your Comment (0.00 / 0)

If you care more about development than preserving Austin then don't vote for Morrison.  If you want condos instead of parks, then vote against Morrison.  If you want someone who fights for what they believe then vote against Morrison.

Regardless of the fact you don't give any of us facts to substantiate your claims, your bold, absolute statements show why I already endorsed Laura Morrison.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 14:19:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Facts (0.00 / 0)

Laura Morrison has been against every piece of density I can remember for a very long time. If you love sprawl, you'll love Laura; her actions (not her words, but her actual positions taken in the last few years) have spoken very loudly; from the McMansion Ordinance (disincents duplexes and garage apartments in favor of rich people with big lots, coincidentally, like her) to opposing Spring and CLB to fighting the Mean Eyed Cat to pushing the ANC to oppose VMU essentially everywhere; she's been on the wrong side of the issue every single time.

And that's not "preservation". That's a recipe for sprawl and decay.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 20:18:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Insanity (0.00 / 0)

Reckless building without a plan isn't sustainable, Mike. Your statements are completely ridiculous.

---

by: msanford @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 16:46:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Morrison lacks progressive vision (0.00 / 0)

Although Mike's tone is (as usual) a little over the top for my tastes, he is right in this case.  Our city (and region) does have a plan (or at least a vision).  It's called Envision Central Texas.  It's not as detailed as a city plan should be (hopefully that will be addressed one of these days), but it is clear in its goals.  In a sentence, we want dense, clustered growth in the city and towns and avoidance of sprawl and development over the aquifer.  OWANA, ANC and Morrison have generally been opposed to most inner-city densification projects.  THIS IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE POSITION!  I can support being opposed to development that would destroy the internal character of neighborhoods, but these groups have gone beyond that.  For example, OWANA has been opposed to development along the 5th/6th street and Lamar corridors.  These are prime  areas for dense development due to their transportation advantages and the fact they lie outside of the residential areas of OWA (of which I've been a resident for seven years).  I am sympathetic with Morrison's protests about city processes, but in this case I think supporting Robin Cravey (who looks to be a true progressive) might be the way to go. 

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 18:45:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OWANA neighborhood plan (0.00 / 0)

Kedron,

Not only that, but the neighborhood plan (which I worked on) explicitly called for the addition of density along those corridors (and even a bit on West Lynn in the form of VMU). Responsible progressives like Mark Stine and Dave Sullivan wrote a plan that basically took the city's original guidance to heart (tell us WHERE to put additional density, rather than just saying NO). (I was the chairman of the transportation plan and had little to do with the rest of it other than observing their fine work).

Once Laura Morrison took over, on the implementation team, things started going downhill drastically - and since then, OWANA has taken an anti-density position every single time.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 20:20:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"The plan" (0.00 / 0)

As Kedron said, there IS a plan, and it calls for density downtown and along major transportation corridors. Morrison opposed Spring; she opposed CLB @ 7th/Rio Grande; she has worked to oppose VMU; heck, I can't think of one instance where she didn't oppose density. Can you?

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 20:15:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I call BS on the "Morrison is awful" post (0.00 / 0)

I've worked with Laura on a number of issues. I find her to be intelligent, thoughtful, effective open to compromise and hard working. I am anti-sprawl, pro-urban growth and density and she and I have never had a problem working toward that goal.

She (and I) just want the city to PLAN a little better, and administer the government a lot more openly. Austin's real problem right now is that they've got some potentially great ideas, but the city has been managed in such an autocratic fashion that the council, city manager, and staff have totally failed to generate substantial buy-in from the neighborhoods.  When most of the neigborhoods rise up against the city, it's not the neighborhoods' problem. Something is wrong at the top. Someone is not listening.

My predication? The May council election will be all about inclusion--or the lack thereof.

---

by: DyspepTex @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 15:47:45 PM UTC

Anti-downtown density/local business is pro-sprawl (0.00 / 0)

I can't believe some of the green folks who are supporting Morrison. She has no green credentials and has opposed density even in downtown and against the wishes of the actual downtown neighborhood association. You can't have it both ways. Growth is occurring, and we need places to put people.

Even worse she tried to shut down a locally owned business, the Mean-Eyed Cat, that simply needed a zoning change to stay in business and wasn't bothering anyone. Thankfully she was unanimously over-ruled by the Planning Comm. and Council. I find it particularly enlightening that I and many other folks in that part of town and even in her neighborhood supported the Cat. Far more than Morrison could muster in opposition. So who does she represent exactly?

And let's not even get started about those charter amendments she backed last yearI Eeyow! But she's got the same campaign team as that stellar performance so watch out. 25% here she comes!

Beatrix

---

by: BeatrixKiddo @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 17:55:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Density does not equal Variances/Up-Zoning (0.00 / 0)

I am new to this site, and I don't know all of your backgrounds (or even your names), but I want to correct a common misconception about what volunteers like Laura Morrison and the ANC/Neighborhood Activists are usually fighting.  It's not density, although it is easy to reduce it that way.  They are fighting up-zoning, which is the subsidization of personal profit through government-backed private wealth creation. 

When a neighborhood decides not to support a variance or zoning change, they are saying that the city does not have the right to grant increased profits or revenue to a few at the expense of many adjacent property owners. 

Until every available piece of land in the CBD is developed to its highest, best use, there is no reason for a developer to claim that someone is anti-density because they don't think the rules should be changed just so someone can profit.  This is how people make money on real estate.  They buy a piece of property that has a limited value due to the zoning and then they convince the government to change the rules so that their property is more valuable.  If they don't ask to change the rules, no neighborhood has anything to "fight". 

Density is coming, but it has many acres of available capacity downtown without having to encroach on the lake, the view of the capitol, the character of the established central neighborhoods, the aquifer, or all of the other things that I like.  I will vote for Laura because she is honest, fair, and smart.  And she knows that you need a hardship to grant a variance.

Thanks,

Ambrose

---

by: AmbroseKrumpe @ Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 20:37:47 PM UTC