Cid Galindo Makes Appeal to Robin Cravey Voters

Aggie Leadership in Austin (0.00 / 0)

Aggie Cid Galindo promises to be as effective as other prominent Aggies in Austin.  He will combine the interpersonal skills of Aggie Jennifer Kim with the the Republican political philosophy he shares with Yell Leader Rick Perry.

---

by: Jobu @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 18:02:54 PM CDT

What a load (0.00 / 0)

What political philosophy, exactly, do you think Galindo shares with Perry? If anything, it's Perry and Morrison who are the natural pair - both want to promote sprawl and kill the center-city density that is the only hope for sustainability.

---

by: m1ek @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 18:06:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What they share... (0.00 / 0)

They both voted for George W Bush for President two times.

---

by: Jobu @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 19:22:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He supports Obama now (0.00 / 0)

And to be frank, I have less respect for those who voted for Nader in either of those elections.  

---

by: m1ek @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 20:48:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hey now! (0.00 / 0)

I was young and he was handsome!

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:14:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

correction (0.00 / 0)

According to Cid, he voted in the 2004 Repub primary in order to vot against Bush.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:10:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's that hatred! (1.80 / 5)

I was wondering how long it take you to show up when someone posted something about this race. Good to see you're in rare form!

I'm so lovin' this! Sprawl, smawl... I just want my freeways. Nothing makes me feel better than soaking the poor so I can live in my tract manse up here in BEEEWETIFUL Round Rock.

Mike, you're a douche.

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:10:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

be nice (0.00 / 0)

I know both you and Mike can sling a fair amount, but please don't attack other users on the site. If you need to read the community guidelines, the link is in my sig.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Judge policies, not labels (0.00 / 0)

Morrison wants to stop all new density and reduce current density in central-city areas - meaning that it will get LESS affordable to live here, and traffic will get WORSE. One of her full donaters is the Skaggs couple; the guy whose plan for Austin is to gut Capital Metro and send central-city sales taxes out to the suburbs for more freeways which will devastate the region.

Oh, and we know a lot of the development displaced will be less environmentally sensitive - some will end up over the aquifer; and she has no plan on how to convince developers not to exercise their existing development rights out there either - unlike Galindo.

It's hard to believe how anybody who really calls themselves a progressive can sign on for this agenda - so the only conclusion I can come to is that some people are getting fooled, and others are fooling themselves. Don't be fooled; she's not a progressive and her policies will not help the city "work for all of us" - her policies are designed to keep Austin safe for the Old Money, nothing more.

---

by: m1ek @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 18:04:49 PM CDT

It's easy... (3.00 / 1)

we don't share your crazy thought processes. For instance, none of us hate Laura Morrison just to hate Laura Morrison like you do.

In fact, we find her tenacious and rationale about development, where it needs to go and what needs to happen. She's also cognizant of the fact that not everyone is ready for Mike Dahmus' Grand Vision For Austin.

Unfortunately, even now, we need roads. It's going to take more than a decade to build out a good public t system. In the meantime, can we please fix our roads, Mike? Without tolling the hell out of everyone so you can make the poor people living in RR and Hutto even poorer?

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

irrational rationale (0.00 / 0)

Okay, I read Laura Morrison's "Vision" page, and I can't find anything about "where [development] needs to go". She just says the Council should listen to what the neighborhoods say about development, which isn't a good strategy for achieving any "progressive" urban development goals. Neighborhoods don't want density, but central density is necessary to reduce sprawl, emissions/oil consumption, and traffic. Morrison talks about those things, but her specific policies are antithetical to all of them. Galindo has a practical plan for achieving those goals, regardless of who he has voted for in the past.

Giving people more free roads to the suburbs won't help reduce sprawl or oil consumption either.

---

by: natrius @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 15:11:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trust City Council? (0.00 / 0)

As a minority resident of a central city neighborhood, do I trust the city council or my neighborhood to decide the fate of where I live?

I'll trust my neighborhood, especially since Austin doesn't have single member districts.

---

by: Jobu @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 15:51:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

WOW. You mean... (0.00 / 0)

because Laura's not as presumptive as Cid you're not going to vote for her?

So, basically, you're saying we should sit and do nothing until we have a fabulous public transportation system that's the envy of New Yorkers? Nice.

We've got real problems, now. Cid doesn't address them. He wants to just build cores all over the place which is... wait for it... ALREADY BEING DONE.

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 19:50:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrong.. (0.00 / 0)

The Galindo Plan is not already being implemented. We have the Domain and Mueller, that's all.

---

by: tates5a @ Sat May 17, 2008 at 00:33:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

THANK YOU CID! (0.00 / 0)

Hopefully, the campaign can contact these groups, not to convince them to endorse Galindo. But, Cid must introduce himself to voters.

Laura Morrison is running a campaign long on symbolism, but short on substance. With her neighborhood association connections as fmr. Austin Neighborhood Association Pres., Morrison runs, like Hillary Clinton, as "pseudo-progressive" Brand X. When in fact, Morrison runs the old politics, shown in her commercial: fear.

Instead of being a progressive, Laura Morrison is a REACTIONARY.

Austinites deserve a candidate who is PROACTIVE on policies and issues which will shape the city for the next generation.

"Not this year, not this [runoff] election."
- Barack Obama

Not only must Cid Galindo tell Chronicle voters that is running (no adverts so far in the alt weekly), but WHY..

- The GALINDO PLAN
- The challenges
- The policies
- His PROMISE.

Read more at http://www.cidgalindo.com .

---

by: tates5a @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 18:17:31 PM CDT

No Council Member from South Austin after June 2008 (3.00 / 1)

With Cravey out of the picture, Kim defeated, and Dunkerly retiring: South Austin will have no representation on the Austin City Council.

Density and light rail are more of the concerns of the Central city voters. We in the burbs are more concerned about traffic, crime, pollution, and taxes. Hopefully Morrison and Galindo will enlighten us on this issues during their runoff campaign.

---

by: ssuits @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 18:40:06 PM CDT

South Austin lacks rep. (0.00 / 0)

>South Austin will have no representation on the Austin City Council.

Good, and interesting, notation.

Looks like south Austin needs to get itself organized to run a candidate in the next round or 2!

---

by: Deb @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

North Austin lacks rep. too (0.00 / 0)

Since Morrison and Galindo both live in Central Austin, I guess North Austin needs to get organized too.

No current council member lives north of RM 2222, Northland, Koenig Lane, and Hwy 290 East which is basically the same road with different names running from the west city limits to the east city limits. So means all seven council members we be from Central Austin with both North and South Austin having none along with any core East Austin neighborhoods (78702, 78721, 78724, & 78725).

Can anyone on this blog, at the Statesman, or the Austin Chronicle explain the fairness or wisdom of this arrangement? Further, does anyone think that the at-large minority councilmembers are elected to office unless the white majority finds them and their issues acceptable to them. East and Southeast Austin have core social and economic issues that need to be addressed rather than the current debate of density and land use or what party's primary a candidate voted in.

---

by: ssuits @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 17:20:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I voted for (0.00 / 0)

Cravey and am seriously considering voting for Galindo.  I will definitely not vote for Morrison.

---

by: Hangerman44 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 20:17:33 PM CDT

Give me concrete reasons to vote againts Galindo, not just who he might have voted for (2.00 / 2)

What about his ideas are bad?  What stances does he have on issues pertinent to someone serving on city council that are bad?

I'm a proud liberal and Democrat, but I don't like this idea of voting against someone just because they might have been a Republican or supported a Republican in the past, when they are running for a local and/or non-partisan position.  If they hold conservative stances that's bad, but I need to hear what those are, not just get fed this guilt by association nonsense.  I support the Democratic party because they 95% of the time are better for this country, but that support isn't blind or absolute.

I need a better and more pertinent reason to vote for Morrison than Galindo voted for Bush.

"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 May 14, 2008 at 21:02:51 PM CDT

Good point (3.00 / 1)

And there's a strong case to be made that Cid Galindo is the most progressive choice in this race, now that Robin Cravey is out of the running. I hate Bush as much as the next gal, but I want don't just want a Democratic Austin, I want a Democratic, progressive Austin.

Cid, an urban planner, is not ideological in any way other than believing in New Urbanism.

Laura Morrison, from what I can tell, despite being a Democrat, is the more conservative candidate in this race. The ANC of which she was president, is known for reactionary NIMBYism and not much else. That just doesn't work for Austin in more. We're a growing city with all kinds of needs and we need to address them. Cid Galindo is the best choice for Austin.  

---

by: janevieu @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 23:30:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Endorsements from Primary (0.00 / 0)

Cid Galindo's progressive and Democratic endorsements:

   

Laura Morrison's progressive and Democratic endorsements:
  * Austin Chronicle
  * The Austin Sierra Club
  * Better Austin Today PAC
  * Central Labor Council AFL-CIO
  * Austin Lesbian Gay Political Caucus
  * Stonewall Democrats
  * North by Northwest Democrats
  * The Austin Neighborhoods Council
  * South Austin Democrats
  * Capital Area Progressive Democrats
  * Capital Area Asian American Democrats      
  * University Democrats
  * Central Austin Democrats
  * West Austin Democrats
  * Austin Women's Political Caucus
  * Austin Progressive Coalition
  * AFSCME
  * Tejano Democrats
  * Mexican American Democrats
  * Clean Water Action
  * Texas Vote Environment
  * The Travis County Green Party
  * Black Austin Democrats
  * NOKOA

---

by: Jobu @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:54:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But what policies? (3.00 / 2)

Jobu, you just listed endorsements.  What about Galindo makes him a less progressive candidate?  I understand what you are attempting to say: these groups endorsed Laura Morrison and not Cid Galindo; that means she is the more progressive candidate.  However, Timothy and janevieu were looking for real examples of Cid Galindo's policy proposals and policy ideas that are regressive and making him bad for Austin.  Unless you can provide those answers, then you aren't really providing a legitimate response to their concerns.

---

by: Roy Sherwood @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:12:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's definitely new urbanist (0.00 / 0)

but it's not really all that original. It's the direction in which things are already heading (which isn't terribly surprising since he was on the planning commission). His 'plan' is going to cost a lot to implement. However, there's really no way to cheaply get us out of the mess we're in. What he's talking about is affordable housing to keep people central rather than going for the el cheapo's up in WilCo. I haven't seen anything from Morrison that doesn't advocate the same thing.

I think what gets me most is that 'the Galindo plan' isn't so much a plan as a set of vague ideas and development targets. All in all, everyone acknowledges that density is good and it's where things are heading. However, what he's talking about is big sky thinking, long on ideas and short on execution.

Morrison has the more concrete plans and is clearly more interested in creating stakeholder consensus than top down planning which seems to be where Cid is heading. She also seems to have a far better grasp on our most pressing problem, traffic, and how to fix it in the short term. She at least understands that the peak hours have got to change and we have to work on choke points rather than just building mile after mile of tollway.

Finally, Cid's a great guy and I enjoyed meeting him at the KAB meeting. However, what is being set in motion now is going to require someone who has worked with vastly different communities and brought them together. Laura has that experience.

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:46:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Morrison's plan (0.00 / 0)

Oppose tall buildings, even downtown. Oppose multifamily buildings on the edges of 'neighborhoods'. Support ordinance which disincents secondary dwelling units on the interior of neighborhoods.

On transportation, support more 'free'ways which Central Austinites pay for, through the nose, and which subsidize suburban sprawl - especially over the aquifer.

How, exactly, is that a plan for anything but an even more expensive and more exclusionary central Austin?

---

by: m1ek @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 15:17:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mike...quit with the hate... (3.00 / 1)

You know none of that's true. You're just mad because you can't build a garage apartment. Get over it.  

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 20:03:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bull (0.00 / 0)

She opposed Spring. She opposed 7Rio. Just the two most recent examples - and in each case she further eroded the shrinking political capital of OWANA built up by a fairly responsible neighborhood plan years earlier (which I worked on).

---

by: m1ek @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 21:01:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There really isn't any issue she comes out on top on. (3.00 / 1)

"What he's talking about is affordable housing to keep people central rather than going for the el cheapo's up in WilCo. I haven't seen anything from Morrison that doesn't advocate the same thing."

For housing to be affordable, there needs to be more supply within the city. Fighting against density as Morrison has done and will continue to do will reduce the amount of housing supply, thereby raising prices and pushing people out to the suburbs.

"I think what gets me most is that 'the Galindo plan' isn't so much a plan as a set of vague ideas and development targets."

Development targets are useful. Any new development will get resistance from the neighborhoods, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If neighborhoods want to block a development, they should have to acquiesce to zoning changes that keep the neighborhood on track to meet those targets. That is the only way to reduce sprawl and provide enough housing stock to keep costs (relatively) down.

"She also seems to have a far better grasp on our most pressing problem, traffic, and how to fix it in the short term."

I agree that things like four-day weeks, staggered work hours and telecommuting can reduce traffic, but I don't see how she's going to get companies to actually implement those. Those policies actually save money for companies, so if the benefits outweighed the costs, why don't they already do it? I don't see why you're so willing to accept her solutions to problems when they require voluntary actions by others to succeed.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Morrison would succeed in getting companies to implement those policies while Galindo wouldn't. The gains from such policies would be obliterated in five years due to the sprawl that Morrison's other policies would promote.

There really isn't any issue she comes out on top on.

---

by: natrius @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 15:34:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you're OK with that... (0.00 / 0)

kind of central planning from the council and zoning just ramming things down people's throats?

Interesting.

Again, Morrison's never fought density, she has fought developers and the city ramrodding projects.

I don't really see what you've proven. Cid's plans are vague and straight out of the mind of a city planner, not formed with a heavy dose of community input and support.

If Austin were SimCity, Cid would be FANTASTIC. Since it's a city of REAL people Laura's the obvious choice. It's interesting to me that many of the people and groups who endorsed her are ones that have worked with her.

It says a lot about who they trust. And who they don't trust.

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 20:10:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Ramrodding" (0.00 / 0)

Loosening zoning is the opposite of central planning, since it allows more choice (you can always build low density even when zoning allows high density).

This is the kind of rhetoric I expect from Republicans like Jim Skaggs. Which I guess stands to reason in this case.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 21:02:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think that's true... (0.00 / 0)

ANC IS known for fighting for the character of their neighborhoods. Not everyone wants one of Galindo's city cores in their neighborhood. Not everyone wants someone at the top telling them how they should be living.

And, frankly, they don't care how nice that person is. What Galindo is advocating can easily be compared to Soviet-style central planning. And look how well that worked out.

What you, Tates5a, Natrius, Mike and Cid don't seem to understand is that this CAN'T be forced. The only way to make it work is Laura's consensus building.

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 20:00:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Force" (0.00 / 0)

If you upzone a property to high-density, what, exactly, have you forced? You can still build short, with big setbacks (in most cases). Witness the strictly suburban strip mall at 38th/Guadalupe, for instance, in an area where MU would have been allowed.

When you keep a property at low-density zoning, haven't you forced low-density?

Again, this is Republican tactics - the fact is that new urbanism is usually about allowing more choice in development - not fewer.

And, of course, your third sentence is more accurately phrased as that the ANC wants to tell other property owners how they should be living. Nobody, not even me, would force somebody to tear down their low-density sprawl and build high-density; but plenty of folks on your side want to force people to keep building low-density.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 21:05:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know... (0.00 / 0)

here's the problem. We're on the same side of the issue, but your methodology is all wrong. You view the ANC as some kind of evil to be overcome.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you should work with them?

As for changing the zoning to create 'options', you and I both know what's going to get built. Why not give the neighborhoods some input?

---

by: McBlogger @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 00:18:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not on the same side (0.00 / 0)

I disagree completely - I view density as the friend, not the enemy, of affordability, as do most (but not all) people with some grounding in economics and land use. You obviously don't; but it's a position that's hard to defend without just going into rabble-rousing rhetoric about condos.

I spoke at the ANC in 2004, by the way.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:40:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Affodability (0.00 / 0)

She opposed Spring. She opposed 7Rio.

So were these developments going to be full of affordable units so we could achieve Robin Cravey's goal of having a central city where artists and teachers could afford to live?

---

by: Jobu @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:37:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They help (0.00 / 0)

Spring is just about the cheapest of the new high-rises. 7Rio isn't far enough along to tell.

But they are a drop in the bucket compared to what we need - lots of high-rises downtown, and lots of mid-rises everywhere else - you do THAT, and you end up with a more affordable central city.

Doing nothing; or even going backwards (as Morrison wants) is a recipe for a San Francisco - where you can only get affordability by tools like rent control, which inevitably fall down after time due to their inherent disadvantages.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:39:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Spring (0.00 / 0)

So the Spring starts at $240,000 for a 576 square foot 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom condo.  

Is this the affordable housing that the Galindo Plan will achieve for Austin?

---

by: Jobu @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 14:46:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I said "it's a start" (0.00 / 0)

and "it's a drop in the bucket compared to what we need".

Compare/contrast to the Laura Morrison plan: DON'T build high-rises; DON'T let people build or maintain garage apartments or duplexes; DON'T build VMU anywhere anybody has the slightest objection. What do you think that'll do to housing prices?

---

by: m1ek @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 16:38:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know... (3.00 / 2)

The problem is the density your promoting, with NO input from the community and exclusively under the control of city planners, is leading to exactly what we have now: OVERPRICED LUX UNITS.

At 69.1k for a family of four (which is the median income for Travis County), under agency guides the upward loan limit is around 200-220k if the HOA isn't set up to soak the homeowners. How many of the new condos are three bed, 2 baths selling in that price range?

And don't fill me with rhetoric about how expensive it is to build downtown. It's marginally more than building a high rise anywhere else because you only pay for the land once. There's a reason people build lux units and it's because the margins are higher. Period. It's not that you can't afford to build affordable, it's that it's not as profitable.

And in all the zoning changes and variances handed out in the name of density, no one has tied anything binding to these folks to actually put in some affordable units.

Now, of course, there is the ridiculous argument that a glut of lux units will lead to more affordable prices. However, what it leads to is being tagged with a declining market hit to LTV which further implodes prices, erodes the equity of existing homeowners and makes it very difficult to buy a home. That's at best. At worst, the MI companies just stop insuring loans in the area which takes you down to Gov't financing or 20% or more down.

---

by: McBlogger @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 14:25:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

get a room, you two! :) (0.00 / 0)

Mandated affordability standards is actually the way the city is moving for these projects.  The first set of condo projects were as you mentioned -- the city was just so excited to get some dense downtown development that they gave away the farm so to speak.  Recent project height variances have come with significant affordability and other community mandates -- see the density bonus ordinance.

Also take a look at the plans for the Green redevelopment. All of them contain significant affordability components.

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

The city required developers to offer at least 10 percent of all rental units at a level affordable to households making no more than 80 percent of the area's median family income, or $56,900 for a family of four.

All five teams have pledged to exceed the city's requirement, though some provide much more detail about how that would be done.

The Trammell Crow team, for example, plans to make 25 percent of its rental units affordable under the 80 percent guideline and also plans to make a donation to the city's affordable housing fund for every condo it sells, estimating total donations could reach about $2.5 million.

The Stratus group would make 15 percent of its rental units available to households under the 80 percent requirement, reserve 5 percent for families making as much as $82,900 and allow the city to buy up to 5 percent of its condos at cost.

"This will significantly change the accessibility of downtown away from being just a place for rich people," McCracken said.  

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 15:02:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Economics vs. McBlogger (0.00 / 0)

"Now, of course, there is the ridiculous argument that a glut of lux units will lead to more affordable prices."

Uh, yes, yes it will. And the last condo bubble collapse is precisely why I was able to afford to buy into Clarksville in the late 1990s. And, if I'm not mistaken, how Kedron bought in as well.

Had they not built a ton of condos in the 1980s, supply would have never overshot demand (even when demand weakened).

It's basic economics. All else being equal, even adding housing just for rich people will lead to a lower price for housing overall than if you didn't do anything, because these markets you think are strictly non-substitutable really are substitutable. When the high-end stuff finally started getting built in downtown at the end of the 1990s, for instance, there was a bunch of market movement all the way down to the midrange (which eventually, a few years later, depressed the rent I could charge for my unit after I moved out).

The affordability requirements are fine by me as long as they're linked to extra entitlements, but there's even plenty of arguments that those lead to less affordable housing overall (fewer projects get built, or with fewer units, or the market-rate units end up costing more than they otherwise would). But despite your antagonistic rhetoric, I'm not an absolute believer in the magic of the market here - I'm more of a "use the market as a tool to get us things we like rather than spend our energy trying to fight it".

---

by: m1ek @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 16:35:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where do you think the downtown condo buyers will go? (3.67 / 3)

Condo buyers don't just disappear in a mist of smoke when they can't get a loft downtown.  They live somewhere else.  That somewhere else is likely central Austin, since condo buyers can afford pricey single family homes, and obviously value being close to the center of town.  If we stifle new condo construction, these buyers will compete for the limited housing in central Austin.

The crop of condos under construction will take 750+ buyers out of the market, if you assume just half otherwise would have bought in central Austin.  If you want a benchmark, there were 287 home sales in all of central Austin in March 2008 (and that includes 10N and 10S).

The best thing you can do for young families is to give their competition -- the affluent singles and DINKs -- options for other housing.  That's a better strategy for getting families into central Austin then mandating affordable housing in condos that cost $300+/sq. ft. to build.  

As best I can tell, ANC's official, if covert, goal is to run up home prices as high as possible.  If you ever want to predict ANC's position on an issue, just ask, "What will crimp the supply of housing?"  You'll never miss. Don't be fooled by the anti-developer, class-bashing rhetoric.   The ANC crowd is deeply reactionary and anti-affordability; they've got to tell themselves something to maintain their "progressive" self-image.  

---

by: AC @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 20:59:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Options (0.00 / 0)

And again, the zoning simply allows the property owner a set of rights to develop which they can do administratively. Some property owners fully exercise those rights, others don't.

In general, though, when you see everybody developing to the absolute limit of their zoning, you can assume that the zoning is set a lot stricter than the market would warrant. But it's still not 'forcing' on anybody; any individual property owner can decide to keep their development low density or with large setbacks or both - just like the strip mall owner I mentioned who could have built up, but didn't feel like it (even though he was asked to!)

---

by: m1ek @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:41:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cid can rest easy now... (0.00 / 0)

Jennifer Gale just announced her endorsement of him at CitComm/City Council meeting.

As far as for Laura's policies--if they weren't more progressive, ALLLLLLLLLL those entities wouldn't have endorsed her. But check out for yourself on her website and his and compare their questionnaires they did for Better Austin Today--THE most thorough covering ALL the issues on our website www.betteraustintoday.org

---

by: Deb @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:41:34 PM CDT

Simple Answer.. (0.00 / 0)

Cid Galindo didn't seek the endorsements of these entities..he ran a macro-campaign strategy (on TV) to build name recognition. Galindo did not advertise in the Chronicle. Morrison (and her allies) had 3 ads last week. With the Democratic endorsements, (being an independent) Cid's campaign clearly decided correctly: Morrison would have the inside track.

Now in the runoff, Galindo must face Morrison HEAD ON.

Let's compare:

Cid Galindo http://www.cidgalindo.com

with

Laura Morrison http://lauraforaustin.com .

Galindo's plans and policies are coherent, progressive, and succinct. Cid Galindo is by far the BETTER candidate.

---

by: tates5a @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 15:09:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Participation (0.00 / 0)

I see that every post you've made on BOR is on this race bashing Morrison and advocating for Galindo.

Will you be participating on this blog after the election or are you only worried about this single topic?

---

by: Jobu @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 15:56:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll Be Around (0.00 / 0)

I am obsessed with every election. But, the Place 4 City Council (Galindo-Morrison) runoff has my attention right now. Before, it was Obama-Clinton. My attention drifts to those candidates who need help the most.

---

by: tates5a @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 16:27:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not entirely true (0.00 / 0)

He showed up and spoke at the UDems/CAD endorsement meeting.  He was largely dismissed as a "Republican".

Which is why I asked my question.  I haven't looked deeply at either yet (voted for Cravey in the first round) so I could still go either way.

"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 @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 21:12:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Timothy, did you get your question answered? (0.00 / 0)

What would make up your mind one way or the other?  I'm sure there's somebody on this list willing to argue for their candidate on the topic of your choosing.

---

by: mpm167 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:48:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]