PLACE 3 CANDIDATE DEBATE First Question on Robo Calls Controversy
Kim: Repeats stance that she made on BOR. Read about them here on BOR Shade: Fictious character named "Lisa" has yet to appear. In shock this has become an issue, says there was no agreement for financial support for management positions between her and police department. (Kim, later in the debate, admitted she didn't know who Lisa was, that her consultant knew). Kim: (Following-up on resources from police department) Says that Shade's website shows that Shade will increase spending for police department; argues that to do that without looking at the whole budget is irresponsible. Shade: In summary, Shade said, "To equate a call for additional resources -- when we need to keep up with the same pace -- with a financial commitment is out of line. But she argues we do need to increase resources for many areas, including health services. However, absolutely no quid pro quo, and her campaign is "stretching the truth" on this issue." Kim: (asked if she would support more spending for police): We shouldn't increase staffing without knowing the needs of the entire city. Shade: Comes back to say that Kim's not accurately representing her response. Second question on light rail (what to do if light rail doesn't happen) Shade: Increase telecommuting, partner with groups within the city and state. We should increase bicycle and pedestrian use in the downtown areas of the city. Kim: Need to minimize the trips people need to take, and a light rail system would help, but we need to work within the constraints of the budget. Third question on local economic development, retail subsidies Kim: Always been against domain subsidies, and need to be careful about handing out money unless we are willing to raise taxes or cut city services. Shade: Also against domain subsidies. Going forward, large employers with livable wages that change the cliamte of competition in other cities is a different category than the retail subsidies we've talked about. We should make sure anyone who gets tax incentives lives up to their agreement on their budget. Fourth question on abstaining votes for city manager Shade: Big mistake, it's the most important vote a Council member can make. Agrees we should have had more public input, but we shouldn't make that point the night before the vote -- we should have done it before. Kim: Supports the City Manager, but because people weren't allowed to ask a question in a public forum, she decided to abstain. Needed to make the point to the Council. Fifth question on Kim's independence Kim: Allowed her to reach out to the community and listen to everyone; it doesn't prevent her from working well with the Council. She may be the lone vote voting against toll roads, but she's proud of those votes and how she made the decisions. (Great answer, I thought) Shade: "Standing up for the people who elected her" is interesting because so many that worked for Kim last time are now working for Shade. Upset with the bold-faced lie regarding the robo-calls. Kim: Says "these people" Shade's talking about supported her as a second choice, only worked with her for five weeks, and only care about special interests such as toll roads. Wow. Ian, Amy -- care to respond to that? Sixth question to Shade - regarding "negotiating with developers" on the SOS. How do you decide when to cooperate and when to take a stand.
Read Kim's side on this point here on BOR
Read Shade's side (my argument) on this point here on BOR Shade: The Kim campaign took the "negotiating" on SOS completely out of context. However, there are times you need to work together. Shade did that on AmeriCorps when she got that started. Shade's not willing to compromise at the overall well-being of the community, but she wants to get input from anyone. That's why she'll post her calendar online, so the publc can see what she's doing. Kim: It was an open letter signed by Kim's supporters and longtime environmental activists in the community, all of whom were apalled by Shade's ignorance on the history of the SOS ordinance. Shade: I supported SOS then and now. Aruges that Kim was misrepresenting the point of Shade's original comment. Seventh question - something on privatizing the airport; each candidate responded that they had no knowledge on the subject Eight question - Developers; Mark Nathan "hiring" discussed on BOR (Wow, have we covered this race well or what?) Here's the post the question is based on Kim: I'm independent, the Mark Nathan thing isn't a big deal, I'll fight against special interests. Shade: Kim's campaign has made a big deal about development support, but Kim is over-reaching this case. Shade's supporters come from many sectors across the community, Kim is cherry-picking. Kim: It's important for people to know that Kim's broadened her base of support to the environmental community, who didn't back her last time, b/c she's worked for the people and not the neighborhoods. She's won the endorsement of the Austin Neighborhood Council, because they trust her. Shade: But several of the Neighborhood Council officers are funders of Shade's campaign. Kim: Shade's hiding the bundlers... Shade: We've corrected that...(wow, this is getting real petty) Ninth question on affordable / mixed-use housing Shade: Not an either or question, we need to emphasize both. Kim: We need affordable housing for middle-class housing. She has a report coming out tomorrow we should all look for.
Tenth question on where to make cuts in the city budget
Kim: Hope we wouldn't have to, should look at how to save money. We could possibly use open-source software which will be less expensive. Will take creative thinking, but hopefully not raise taxes. Shade: Not coming into office with any idea of what/where to cut. First we need to find where we can save, then look at what else we need to do in order to determine how to close the gap. Final question on Austin's aggressive environmental goals - how to work with UT-Austin and other employers to reach these goals
Shade: We need to partner with UT. We've got to get them to be part of the solution, and we'll have to get them to be involved with promoting the zero-waste program. Overall...nothing specific. Kim: We all have a part to play, we need to partner across all areas of the community. Also no real specifics, but I don't know what specifics would be there. An anti-climactic question to an intense, intense debate. PLACE 4 CANDIDATE DEBATE First question on the economy Morrison: Focus on increasing social services Galindo: Focus on how we manage the work, cooperate as a Council Second Question on the environment/energy Galindo: Reduce dependence on vehicles; figure out ways that major employers and the people who work there live close by where they work... Morrison: Touts endorsement from Sierra Club & Clean Water Action; should move forward in an inclusive way... Third Question on Light Rail - Do you support it? Morrison: We need a process to evaluate it; need regional transportation plan. She's "interested in looking at a rational, informed conversation" but won't come out and support light rail. Weak. Galindo: Also talks in circles about broader transportation needs; talks about changing the way we grow in order to control traffic congestion. Also doesn't come out and support light rail. Equally weak. Cravey: (He just showed up, due to a "calendar issue.") However, he comes out of the gate and says he supports light rail, which neither Galindo nor Morrison would explicity state. Way to make an entrance, Robin. Fourth question on supporting "green rules" to promote energy efficiency Cravey: Yes. We need to do everything we can. Understands the proposal under discussion for "point of sale" ordinance is contentious, but thinks the city can provide some rebates to help promote the concept. Galindo: Doesn't support city government forcing anyone to do anything in their home, but doesn't think that's what is on the table. Proposes that part of the appraisal process assess the energy efficient status of the home, and make that part of the transaction -- the seller can then "voluntarily" do what they want. Morrison: Needs to weigh all the impacts, look at issues of affordability. Supports having the discussion, won't explicitly support anything concerning the green rules. Fifth question on single-member districts Galindo: Need to look at a broader system of how we elect people, how we manage things like Austin Energy and the oversight details. Broad discussion about the form of government, but generally in favor of single-member districts. Morrison: Supports hybrid system, mixing at-large and single-member districts. Based on task force she participated in as part of neighborhood discussions with the community. Argues it would be less expensive, allowing more candidates, and emphasizes it creates community-accountability model. Cravey: In favor, has voted for it each time it's been on the ballot. Would support a hybrid systm as first choice. Advocates a 14-member council, possibly with a 6-member at-large council and a 6-member single-member district council. |
