Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


Why I'm Running for Mayor, What I'll Do if Elected, How it's Going so Far, and How You Can Help


by: Lee Leffingwell

Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 05:38 PM CST


(This is probably the most awesome post by a candidate I've seen on BOR in some time. Lee Leffingwell is running for Mayor, and if you know his humor, it's evident in this post. I encourage those interested and undecided in the Austin Mayor's race to read it to get a sense of him and his campaign.   - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)

Hello BOR community.

I want to start my way-too-lengthy-I-know inaugural Burnt Orange Report post with a heartfelt salute to KT, Matt, Phillip, the BOR staff writers, and the whole BOR community for creating a fascinating and exciting place online.

In my view, BOR has proven itself to be a superb source of news and insightful, colorful (sometimes extremely colorful) commentary about Texas politics, life in Austin, and life in general.  It’s also a great place to keep up with the political career of Tom Musselman.  Bottom line: It’s a heck of a good read.

The most exciting thing about BOR to me is the opportunity it gives us to talk with each other about what’s going on in the world around us every day, and sometimes to actually organize ourselves to work for positive change.

As it was for many BOR readers, 2008 was an exhilarating year for me.  After eight long years of mostly reprehensible behavior in Washington, America finally chose to embrace hope and change.  While I began 2008 as a Hillary Clinton supporter, in the end Barack Obama genuinely inspired me – as he did so many other people in every part of America – to re-think what it means to be an active citizen in a democracy.

In fact, it was the night Barack Obama won the presidency – surrounded by thousands of my fellow joyous Democrats at the Driskell Hotel downtown – that I made the decision to run for Austin mayor.

WHY I’M RUNNING FOR MAYOR

After many months of consideration, the reason that I finally decided to run is pretty simple.  I’m running because I believe I know the direction Austin needs to go at this critical crossroads, and I feel confident that I can help lead us in that direction.  

As of now, most of Austin hasn’t yet experienced the full impact of the national recession.  But times are already very tough for lots of people in our community, and they seem likely to get worse before they get better.

For City Hall – just like for any struggling Austin family – that means having less money to spend, but just as many basic expenses to cover.   And like any family, City Hall now faces some very hard choices – choices that could help determine if Austin moves steadily in the direction of a healthy recovery, or swiftly in the direction of a deepening recession.

I believe that right now we need a new leader in the mayor’s office who can and will stay focused on the fundamentals of our quality of life: jobs, traffic, public safety, social services, environmental protection, and effective, efficient basic services and infrastructure.
 
I also believe our next mayor must be committed to building renewed trust between City Hall and the citizens of Austin.  Austin city government should be more inclusive, more transparent, and more accountable, and there is some real work to do in the years ahead to make it so.
 
I’ve said many times since announcing my candidacy for mayor last month that this race should be a contest of ideas for a city of ideas.  That’s why I’ve laid out what I believe is the broadest and most specific platform of any candidate in the race to help us get through the tough times ahead and get back on track to a better future.

WHAT I’ll DO IF ELECTED


To help save and create jobs, my platform includes creating a “Green Collar Jobs Council” to coordinate the training initiatives of all local workforce development groups, educational institutions, and major local employers, to best prepare Austin workers to take advantage of new job opportunities in our changing economy.

I also believe that we should continue and expand our efforts to recruit targeted, desirable new employers to Austin, including clean energy companies, digital media companies, and medical technology companies.  I’m especially enthusiastic about the ongoing efforts to attract a medical school to Austin, and will make it a major focus of Austin’s economic development strategy if elected.

To help solve our traffic problems, my platform also includes a proposal to hold a transit election by 2010.  If approved by voters, this bond package would help us make investments in roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes.  I believe the package should also include funding for expanding our rail system, and if elected I’ll work with Capital Metro and potential funding partners like UT and Travis County to craft a viable plan to present to voters.  (Capital Metro would actually have to hold the election to win approval to expand our rail system.)

Another idea to fight traffic congestion that I’ll pursue if elected mayor is to convene a working group of our largest local employers and ask them to examine the possibility of adopting “flextime” work schedules.  If even a few of Austin’s big employers adopted flextime policies that allowed for variable work schedules, we might be able to accomplish a meaningful reduction in rush-hour traffic congestion.

Of course, at a time like this, some people might be happy to be stuck in the traffic if it meant they were on their way to work.  When the economic challenges are as big as they are right now, I believe City Hall must reaffirm our commitment to maintaining a strong safety net.  That’s why my platform includes a pledge to not only oppose budget cuts that impact public safety services or social services, but also a pledge to expand funding for mental health care services as soon as possible.

I can’t overstate the importance of this, in my view.  Already, there are people in Austin who are losing their jobs, their insurance, their cars, and in some cases their homes.  What we can’t afford to let them lose is their dignity, their health, or their sense of safety.  More than anything, Austin is a caring, compassionate community.  Now is exactly the time to reaffirm our commitment to those core values.
ADVERTISEMENT
Another core Austin value is to protect of our natural resources, and most folks who know me know that this has been a lifelong priority of mine.  While protecting the quality of our water has always been central to Austin’s brand of environmentalism and must remain so, I believe that climate change has become the most pressing environmental concern of all.  To ignore climate change while professing environmentalism is something akin to fighting over deck chairs on the Titanic.

So if elected mayor, I’ll be especially concerned with finding new ways to conserve energy and reduce our carbon emissions.  My platform includes at least one proposal intended to accomplish just that – creating a new, voluntary "Green Choice"-style program at Austin Energy to sell carbon credits to utility customers.  The resulting funds could be used to help support all kinds of local energy conservation projects, such as weatherizing thousands of low-income homes.

Indeed, the citizens’ ownership of Austin Energy is key asset in our local fight against climate change, and as mayor I’ll continue to push as hard as I have on the Council to expand our utility’s commitment to buy and sell energy from renewable sources.  As mayor, I’ll oppose increasing our dependence on coal or nuclear power, and support increasing our use of wind and solar power whenever possible.

I believe that the economic downturn presents several opportunities in disguise for Austin, and one is the opportunity to rebuild trust between the citizens and their city government.  I know some people feel that City Hall doesn’t share information particularly well, doesn’t listen particularly well, and doesn’t engage the community in decision-making particularly well.  I want to try to change that.

To give folks better information, and to give it to them sooner, I’m proposing several initiatives.  First, I want to extend the time between finalizing City Council meeting agendas and holding the meetings, so everyone – even Council Members – can have more lead time to see big issues coming.  As a starting place, I’ve suggested that we double the time between finalizing Council agendas and holding Council meetings.

Another idea to promote more participation in city government – one that I’ve already gotten lots of positive feedback about – is to begin holding regular Council meetings outside of City Hall.  While it’s a logistical challenge, I believe it will pay big dividends to occasionally bring City Hall to the people instead of always requiring the people to come to City Hall.  We should have meetings every year in north, south, east and west Austin, and I’d like to see the Council meet on campus at UT, as well.

I also believe that it’s time for us to put all of the city’s finances online in a searchable format, and to post all revenue and expenses on the city website in real time, or as close as we can get.  After all, it’s your money; you should be able to see how it’s being spent.  I’m convinced that this initiative will ultimately save Austin taxpayers money by shining a brighter light on city spending.

Last, but certainly not least, if elected mayor I want to create two new groups that I believe will help foster more community involvement in City Hall.  First, I want to create the Mayor’s Community Cabinet – a new standing advisory body of leaders representing diverse community interests.  The group should be large enough to represent a broad cross-section of Austin, but small enough to fit in a conference room and have a conversation about what’s happening across our community.

Perhaps the one idea I’m most excited to pursue as mayor is creating a new citywide civic internship program, primarily for high school and college students, called AustinCorps. AustinCorps will be a place where citizens can learn how local government really works, and experience first-hand the rewards of community involvement and volunteerism. If we can use AustinCorps to harness and channel our civic energy - and especially the energy of our youngest citizens - I know we can make a big difference for Austin’s future.

This is, no doubt, an ambitious vision and agenda, and I’m certainly not going to pretend that we can accomplish all of it, or do everything better, in the short term.  It’s clear that we are all facing tough times.  Most folks know that city government is highly dependant on sales tax revenue, and it comes as no surprise that we’ve seen a steep drop in revenue over the last year.  This means City Hall will be pinching pennies to balance its budget next year, as our City Charter requires.  Many city services will be under the microscope, and some cuts are simply unavoidable.

I know that our next mayor must take a steady, balanced approach to maintaining fiscal discipline while pursuing good new ideas to help maintain and improve our quality of life.  If elected, I’ll approach the difficult budget decisions ahead with a clear set of priorities.  For me, reliable basic services will always come first – water, electricity, trash, roads, public safety, public health, parks, libraries.  Once we’ve done what we must to ensure that our basic needs are met today, we should do everything we can to advance an agenda that makes Austin even better tomorrow.

By pursuing a clear, ambitious vision and doing a better job of working more closely together as a community, I’m shamelessly optimistic that we can make incredible progress over the years ahead, and I hope very much that you will be part of it.  As a native son, I know I have a bias, but I believe wholeheartedly that Austin, Texas is the greatest city in America.  And I know that if we make the right choices now, we can make it even better for future generations.
 
HOW THE RACE IS GOING SO FAR

While the road to Saturday, May 9th is long and likely treacherous, I’m very proud of the campaign that we’ve run so far, and pleased with the support we’ve earned.  

We launched our campaign just over a month ago from the steps of my childhood home in the Bouldin neighborhood, and had a large, enthusiastic crowd.  Since then we’ve put up our campaign website at AustinLeadership.com and opened our campaign headquarters at 7th and Lamar, just north of Whole Foods. Two weeks ago we had a campaign kick-off event at the HQ (beer and bbq!), and I’m guessing that I’ve campaigned at 50 or more different community events over the last month.  We’ve also had some great roundtable discussions with various groups at our HQ.

As of today, our supporter list is nearly 1,000 people strong, and we’ve won (by unanimous vote in each case) every group endorsement that’s been given so far – the Austin Police Association, the Austin Firefighters Association, the Austin / Travis County EMS Employees Association, and the Austin Central Labor Council.  (I’m also proud to announce here for the first time that Representative Eddie Rodriguez has joined our list of endorsers – I’m really honored to have Eddie’s backing in this race.)

We’ve also got a long list of upcoming house parties, fundraisers, volunteer days, and other events, so I hope that we will see you very soon on the campaign trail.

I’ll readily admit that most of our success so far has had much less to do with me than with my excellent campaign team.  I’m very lucky to have the help of a great group of people, many of whom I believe are well known to the BOR community.  

My campaign manager is JD Gins, who served as Texas Field Director for the Barack Obama campaign last year and is a long-time community organizer and activist.  My political director is Susan Shelton, a local Democratic precinct chair and a member of the State Democratic Executive Committee.  My fundraising director is funnyman Matt Parkerson, who managed my Council re-election campaign last year.  

Helping us with outreach to the African-American community is my friend Eleanor “Cookie” Thompson, who’s well known to anyone involved in Austin politics over the last two decades.  Heading up our Hispanic outreach effort is Crystal Viagran, who works at UT and is a leader of the Latinos for Texas club. Both Eleanor and Crystal played key roles on the Travis County Democratic Coordinated Campaign last year.

I’ve also got a great team of consultants helping out, including BOR’s own Matt Glazer, who is leading our web and social media strategy.  Amy Everhart, who has helped lead several Council candidates to victory in recent years, is providing daily guidance to our campaign staff while managing her day job at the Sierra Club.  And Dean Rindy is our famous media consultant.

Last on the list, but first in our hearts, is the deadly duo of Mark Nathan and David Butts, who have together elected every current Austin City Council member (but one), as well as most other local elected officials in Travis County.  Mark and David have helped lead me to victory in both my campaigns for City Council, and I’m obviously hoping that they can work their magic again this year.

I also want to acknowledge my great Council staff – Nancy Williams, Larry Schooler, and Janet Jackson (her wardrobe is functioning perfectly well, thank you) – for everything they do to keep our office running smoothly.

More important than any of our staff or consultants, though, are the many volunteers who have already played a major role in this campaign.  I want to say a quick special thanks to Mary Pat, DT, Aaron, Dave, Mohammad, Donna Beth, Tory, Laura, Shawn, Jim, Deena, and many others who have given lots of volunteer hours already, and who I know will be giving more over the months ahead.  Thanks guys.

Finally, no good campaign is ever without a campaign dog.  Ours is Smokey.

As those (few) of you have who have been following this race closely so far know, there have already been some minor controversies and emerging policy distinctions between the candidates, and I’ll just touch on a few of them briefly (ha-ha) here.  

First there was the non-controversy initiated by one of my opponents over whether my announcement for mayor in January should trigger a separate special election before May 9th at taxpayer expense.  Ultimately the Council voted unanimously that the election be held on May 9th at no additional taxpayer expense.  Obviously, I never would have exposed Austin taxpayers to that kind of risk if I was not 100% certain of the law.  I was.

Then, the day after I announced my candidacy, one of my opponents went on a conservative talk radio show and characterized my platform as “socking people’s pocketbooks.”  My opponent also said that I was “in favor of prohibiting homeowners from selling their homes until they got a government-approved energy upgrade” – an unfortunate revival of a scare tactic we saw play out in last year’s Council races.

Just a few days later, one of my opponents compared me to Senator John McCain.  While it’s true that Senator McCain and I both served our country as pilots in Vietnam, the accuracy of the comparison ends there.  I’m a proud, lifelong progressive Democrat.  Frankly, it was hard not to take some exception to being compared to the Republican who chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. 

As I said, I view these attacks as minor campaign controversies at best, but they did actually serve to help make plain at least two meaningful policy distinctions between myself and Brewster McCracken, the candidate behind them.

Namely, they helped make clear that I favor letting Austin voters decide whether to invest in transportation infrastructure and an expanded rail system by 2010, while Brewster McCracken does not.  And they also helped make clear that I favor a specific new proposal to promote energy conservation and improve residential energy efficiency citywide, while Brewster McCracken does not (or else doesn’t understand the proposal).  

In fact, over the first month of this campaign, it’s become clear that there are other policy distinctions between Brewster McCracken and myself that provide voters with a clear choice.  For example, I favor putting a proposal for single-member districts in front of Austin voters; Brewster McCracken does not.  I oppose public safety and social services budget cuts, and oppose a wage freeze for city employees; Brewster McCracken does not.

As the race progresses over the next 2-½ months, I feel certain more policy distinctions will emerge.  I also feel pretty certain that more attacks will come.  I want to be clear, though, that I respect Brewster McCracken’s enthusiasm for specific issues, especially for promoting clean energy and digital media.  I also think his signature issue, the Pecan Street Project, could be a real asset to Austin once the cost is made clear.

But it’s becoming plain that Brewster McCracken and I do offer a different set of priorities on key policies – again, differences that will give Austin voters a clear choice on May 9th.  I’d like to believe we can keep the race focused on those policy priorities, and move away from political attacks.  We’ll see.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

If you are still reading at this point, you’ve got some spare time on your hands, which indicates to me that perhaps you’ve got enough time to help our campaign!

If you like what you’ve read so far about my ideas and priorities, I invite you to visit our campaign website to learn more about my personal history and my record on the City Council.  If you are ready to engage to help us win on May 9th, you can take the first step by filing out this short form and letting us know what you are willing to do.  Most of all we need your volunteer help and your financial support.

If you have any specific questions you would like to ask me, please feel free to do so by emailing me at info@austinleadership.com.  I’ll do my best to respond quickly.  I’ll also do my best to respond in short order to any comments on this post, or to any comments left in response to the posts on our own campaign blog.

Thanks again BOR friends.  I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts, and I look forward to hearing yours – hopefully not only for the next 2-½ months as a candidate, but also for the next 3 years as Austin’s 51st mayor.

Sincerely,
Lee Leffingwell

PS – I know, it’s incredible that there would be a PS on a post this long, but I also wanted to say thanks to BOR readers for your support in the mayoral poll last month.  In many years of reading BOR, I can’t remember many instances where the winner of a BOR poll didn’t actually win the race.  Let’s hope that trend holds…
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Lee Leffingwell: Worth a Look and a Listen (2.00 / 1)

I have attended two of Lee's aforementioned round table discussions, and it was apparent in both that Lee is really listening to people's concerns, and that he is putting serious thought into what our community needs to stay strong and get stronger. His plans--detailed in the above post--will take what makes Austin great and use it to make the most of the current climate, and will include fighting for federal stimulous money and putting it to work. After I attended my first round table discussion, I decided to give my time to this campaign. I think Lee Leffingwell is the right person to lead Austin today.

I strongly encourage my fellow BOR readers to get involved in the Lee campaign. From hosting house parties to making phone calls to attending fundraisers, we can all do our part now to help Lee become our next mayor.

Thanks!


Lee: The candidate for Young Austin (2.00 / 1)
While the title seems cheesy, the sincerity is there.

I had an opportunity to sit down with Lee and some youth leaders in the Austin community. Not only did he ask us about our concerns, but he then incorporated them into his plan as outlined here. It is obvious that he is a true servant of Austin, which is one of the highest compliments I can pay to an elected official.

His ideas for youth core, are a true reflection of a call to action by President Obama for young people to serve there community. I believe this program will allow many college and high school students the opportunity to invest in their community, which we desperately need.

I won't let my friends vote for anyone but Lee. I hope you do the same.


[ Parent ]
Leffingwell: The New Tolstoy of Austin Politics (0.00 / 0)
As self-appointed moderator of the 2009 "Channeling Richard Florida Prize for Austin Mayoral Candidates", I accept your entry in the short non-fiction category.  You currently are competing against Brewster McCracken's novel, Josiah Ingall's memoir, and Carole Keenan Wayans' short-fiction piece, "Analysing Austin's Budget."  Jesus Morales is working on a morality play celebrating modesty and humility that I expect to be released shortly (right after he finishes up that cure for cancer).

but on a serious note... (0.00 / 0)
I must express some concern with the following passage:

While protecting the quality of our water has always been central to Austin's brand of environmentalism and must remain so, I believe that climate change has become the most pressing environmental concern of all.  To ignore climate change while professing environmentalism is something akin to fighting over deck chairs on the Titanic.

There is no conflict in Austin between the goals of protecting our water quality and battling climate change.  Indeed, environmentalism is a wide and varying field that often requires complex analyses of competing policy imperatives.  But we must not fall into the trap of thinking that we must destroy the aquifer in order to save the planet.

The fact is, we know the most effective ways to combat global warming.  Dense and connected land use policies, mass transit investments, transitioning to alternative energy (some Council leadership on March 5 would be great), aggressive resource conservation, transitioning our vehicle fleet from liquid fuels to electricity, and a national carbon cap regulatory framework are the most important of them.  What we lack are time and the political will to make the investments when they actually represent budgetary and political costs.  Where you have shown leadership in these areas, I thank you.

But digging deeper into what I believe are the motivations of your comment, I think you are misguided if you think that proposed developments like the Wildflower Commons PUD represent land use policy that will help combat global warming.  Building New Urbanist, mixed-use colonies in the middle of nowhere does not reduce our dependence on the automobile.  Density only works to reduce automobile traffic when it is connected to the rest of the urban fabric: shopping, office, entertainment, recreation, and overall a diversity of such uses.  A project like the WC PUD does not meet this standard.  

It is often said that the environmental community in Austin refuses to compromise.  That is not the case.  We recognize the need for a town center over the aquifer in existing communities like Oak Hill and have been open to negotiation on such a project.  But what we cannot agree to is unrestrained development over the aquifer under the guise of environmental protection.  Such claims are greenwashing at its worst and will be met with the full opposition of a united, environmental community.


On that council leadership on March 5th... (0.00 / 0)
I'm working on some big things for that. Hopefully will have plans finalized today.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
Nice story (0.00 / 0)
Too bad that every time the rubber meets the road, a large chunk of the self-identified environmental community that was so up in arms about Wildflower has also opposed significant increases in density in the urban core, too. From Northcross to the Triangle to Central Market to Spring to the Villas on Guadalupe to the McMansion ordinance screwing garage apartments and duplexes to Jeff Jack's crusade to keep South Austin suburban; and that's just the top of the list.

One of the few reasons I have to be wary of Lee Leffingwell, for instance, is how he rolled over on VMU for the Judges Hill neighborhood, who irresponsibly sought to opt out of VMU for all their properties fronting MLK near UT. That's precisely the kind of decision that screws the environment - more students have to live further away; some take the shuttle bus, but some don't; more driving and more CO2; but, hey, some highly conservative 'progressives' don't have to look at any new buildings, so there's that.


[ Parent ]
you're confusing (0.00 / 0)
neighborhood groups with environmental groups.  There may be some common membership, but none of the groups I am a member of opposed any of the projects you mentioned.  Yes, we are commonly asked to.

[ Parent ]
Where's the Support Then? (2.00 / 1)
Where then are the environmentalists that are speaking up in support of responsible infill development along transit corridors so that the Council will have the political cover (and backbone) to stand up to the neighborhoods?  



[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
there is a lot more of that going on than you think.  I think of the Barton Place kerfuffle of last year and how many environmentalists showed their support for the developer.  Environmentalists were leaders in the Envision Central Texas process that advocated for dense, connected, nodal development.  As I mentioned below, there was opposition to McMansion from some environmentalists.  I think we are well represented in the high-level planning discussions that center around land use as well as large projects that provide the most impact (e.g. Mueller, etc.).

What we don't do a lot of is the weekly grind of zoning cases.  Part of that is time and part of that is strategy.  We play a lot of defense against bad proposals that takes up a lot of our time. As I'm sure you know, speaking out at boards and commissions and Council is a time consuming process (and well-paid for the people usually representing the 'pro' side).  When given the option of spending time stopping a project that will do a lot a damage or advocating for a project that will provide a minimum benefit, a rational actor will pick the former.

The strategic conundrum is more of a true dilemma.  Should I piss in a potential ally's cheerios if I might need him for a bigger fight down the line?  I know M1ek's answer :), but I'd be interested to hear your perspective on that.


[ Parent ]
Strategery (0.00 / 0)
Part of the issue is the absence of advocates for the ECT vision.  The best example being the CWS project.  During the ECT vision process, it was clear to me that redevelopment along the south shore of the lake would be a hotly contested test of the ECT vision.  And, when the test came, many of the ECT leaders were either in opposition or nowhere to be found.

Unfortunately, it is in the weekly grind of zoning cases where we see the Council making poor decisions that are inconsistent with the ECT vision.  Recent examples include redevelopment of the Parks & Wildlife training facility on 51st Street, redevelopment of the nursery on Koenig Lane and Ave. F, and the proposed SOS compliant mixed use project on William Cannon near Oak Hill's proposed town center.  Two of those projects were voted down, and the other required a huge fight so that it would include basic sidewalk connections to the adjacent neighborhood and the rest of the city.

It is in the daily grind of zoning cases where decisions are being made that will affect us for decades to come.

I've been talking with some folks about what we might do better to support the Council in upholding the ECT vision and in seeing that the ECT vision is incorporated into the City's comprehensive plan, and I'd be glad to meet with you to discuss this further.


[ Parent ]
absolutely, Jeb (0.00 / 0)
I know ECT is looking to get more involved in local issues and I'd like to be a part of that.

[ Parent ]
No, I'm not (0.00 / 0)
I'm still remembering looking at my monthly issue of the Sierra Club newsletter which argued against Wal-Mart at Northcross (because the Sierra Club's leadership lived nearby, by the way; good work there; now we get a standard one-story sprawlmart instead of a slightly-more-urban design) and has published the same exact whines of "well, sprawl didn't completely stop, so smart growth must have been a failure" that you hear from the ANC itself. I've seen "Save Town Lake" co-opt people from your groups to protect rich peoples' views in Travis Heights and protect Jeff Jack's delicate sensibilities when there was precisely zero environmental argument against height there.

Where were your groups when some of those proposals (and others that died, publically or privately) needed help? Where were you when Laura Morrison tried to get Spring stopped? Where were you when she apparently succeeded in getting 7Rio delayed to the point of death? Where were you guys when the 'environmentalists' like Marygay Maxwell got the McMansion ordinance to disincent garage apartments and duplexes?

I don't remember any help then. In most of those cases, the only folks willing to speak up in public about the environmental benefits of density were some brave members of the Planning Commission, one of whom got beaten by Morrison later on for his trouble. Am I remembering incorrectly?


[ Parent ]
dunno (0.00 / 0)
about the Sierra Club, although Chris Lehman always spoke in favor of density when I speak with him.

As for McMansion, I got beat up pretty bad by Brewster when I opposed it in 2006.  Look it up.  I lost a lot of votes over that issue.  


[ Parent ]
I can't remember (0.00 / 0)
McMansion being part of that campaign. I guess it wasn't on my radar yet.

WRT the Sierra Club; they've been relatively anti-density in practice. It's easy to say "I support density where it blends in with neighborhoods". Laura Morrison and I can both say that, and have it mean two completely different things in practice.

Opposing Wal-Mart at Northcross was anti-density. The SC backing Save Town Lake was anti-density. (there's nothing natural about Town Lake - it's a built environment and always has been).

As for your other comment, I remember a lot of people correcting errors with Barton Place, but I didn't see ANYBODY speaking very loudly about it - and that's probably the best example you've got. As for the 'rational actor' - given the fact that our power to loosen overly suburban zoning in the city core is basically unlimited, while our power to limit development in the hinterlands is severely restricted; I'd argue that the best cost/benefit ratio is achieved by pushing density here.

But even if it's not, again, it's hard to be out there and NEVER get any support from the supposed environmentalists. Maybe they're all just so darn busy; but maybe, just maybe, I'm right; and they generally don't agree with your opinion on density's role as a solution to the problem.


[ Parent ]
Oh, and... (0.00 / 0)
I don't remember ANY environmentalists speaking up with me against McMansion - it was me, a few enlightened urbanists, and a bunch of developers. It was pretty damn lonely out there on that limb when I spoke in front of the Planning Commission.

[ Parent ]
darn it (0.00 / 0)
trying to find a 3rd party link on google reminds me of how little coverage I got in that race.  You'll have to take my word on it, but I do have some saved emails saying basically, "I'd vote for you, but you're against the McMansion ordinance".  Brewster even asked me that question directly at least one forum.

One other thing I'll mention is that I've never been told by Council Members that they want to see us support any specific infill developments.  If our display of support was important, I'd imagine we'd get more direction in that area (they frequently ask for a show of support on other specific issues).  I think they just want to push the cases through with the minimum amount of hassle.


[ Parent ]
powers in the hinterland (0.00 / 0)

given the fact that our power to loosen overly suburban zoning in the city core is basically unlimited, while our power to limit development in the hinterlands is severely restricted; I'd argue that the best cost/benefit ratio is achieved by pushing density here.

If we were talking about developers pushing for their original entitlements under grandfathering rules, I'd agree with you.  Instead, what we have are developers asking for additional rights in inappropriate areas - decisions which are absolutely discretionary for Council.  And in this last case, we did achieve some success - a kicking of the can another 6 months and a promise that the developer will need to significantly improve the project in order for it to get approved.  This type of proposals isn't an isolated case, it's been happening for some time now, at least since "new urbanism" began to gain currency as a buzz word.

I'd also argue that our currently inadequate mass transit infrastructure makes infill along transit corridors a much harder sell.  Thus, large NU projects such as Mueller, North Burnet/Gateway, and the SH130 proposals might make more sense in the short run while we get our transit lines built.

Anyway, all of this minutiae is getting far beyond my original point, which is that there is no conflict in fighting for better water quality and against global warming.  Whether or not the environmental community is fighting for center city density at a level of vigor deemed appropriate by new urbanists is an important but secondary question.  For the sake of this election, I'm hoping to find out what the candidates think since they're the ones whose votes matter.


[ Parent ]
Yet . . . (0.00 / 0)
Opposition to the Domain, one of the keystones of the North Burnet Gateway Plan, was the focus of the Prop 2 campaign last fall and further efforts.

I agree that we're all in general agreement on the importance of conserving water quality and working to offset climate change.  The challenge comes when the rubber meets the road with a project like Northcross, the redevelopment of an existing commercial center with significant stormwater improvements and carbon reductions.

Too often in these fights, we're seeing the environment lose out to political expediancy.


[ Parent ]
Some of us were having drinks (3.00 / 1)
Others were eating dinner. I honestly can't remember.

You know what's really killing vertical development? The price. The anti-development crowd is made up people who can't afford these condos and those who just don't want anything. Actually build some real affordable units and you'll halve the opposition.

The problem is everyone is sick of luxury condos and that seems to be all we get.  

I write for Treaty Oak (because, you know, it can't type).


[ Parent ]
Well, duh (0.00 / 0)
If the only place you allow any density is downtown, on the most expensive land in the city, then, of course, your condos are going to be expensive.

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
... but it's not my point. My point was to coopt the opposition which you've been unable to accomplish.

But, since you mentioned the land, you only pay for it once, not 50 times. The dirty little secret is that these people are addicted to the fat margins on the lux developments.


I write for Treaty Oak (because, you know, it can't type).


[ Parent ]
The cost of the land is the most important part (0.00 / 0)
Look at how comparatively little it costs to get a loft in one of the new buildings east of I-35, if you think the land cost isn't the primary factor.

When the ANC prevents all infill; even on transit corridors; you're only going to see expensive condos. (Of course, new housing will tend to be more expensive than older multi-family in this market, but we could be seeing new $150K condos on Burnet and Guadalupe, for instance - the ANC prevents that from ever being possible).


[ Parent ]
I'd be interested to see the numbers (0.00 / 0)
cost of land is definitely higher downtown, but it is also much more expensive per square foot to build a 50 story high rise than a 4 story condo building.  Excavation costs and the price of steel and concrete have driven up the price of the downtown condo.  Then, prices are excacerbated by what the Treaty Oak mentions.  Every damn project downtown is super luxe.  The management fees for the Austonian alone are almost a grand a month.  Granite countertops are just the tip of the iceberg.  I wish we could get a developer to give us the breakdown in where the costs lie: land, construction, and finishing.  Would be interesting to see.

I do agree that there are supply side issues in the central city market, but I don't think they are as important to the current pricing as you suggest. We have four large growth areas in the relative center city north of the river: Downtown/West 5th, West Campus, Mueller, and North Burnet Gateway.  We have many smaller projects being built, such as the East Avenue PUD, the Crestview "TOD", all of the various projects in near East Austin, the Barton Springs/Zilker/S Lamar projects, and the explosion that is about to occur along the Riverside corridor.  That's a lot of capacity for a city with a weak housing market.  And most of those projects are luxe, including the ones in West Campus (who would pay for their kid to live in a luxury condo???).

Where I mainly agree with your supply side concerns is in the medium to long term.  My preference has always been to do "easy" stuff like NB/G.  But there's not a lot of that left unless we decide to sprawl out to SH 130.  That's when things will get difficult, but hopefully we'll have real mass transit to help us make the case for infill.


[ Parent ]
as an example... (0.00 / 0)
of what I'm talking about, consider West Campus.  Due to the UNO, supply of housing has increased tremendously in the area. Yet, the price of that housing has also increased, as cheap, functional, but crappy apartments were torn down in favor of luxe projects like Quarters, Jefferson West, and others.  Is that an improvement?  Environmentally I would say yes, due to more students living closer to UT, but from a welfare perspective I'm not so sure.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that apartment prices in Riverside have plunged.  So is the net result a segregation of UT students by wealth?  There should be some social scientist researching this!


[ Parent ]
Overall rents for student areas went down (0.00 / 0)
That's what you should look at - you shouldn't expect a developer to not want a brand-new building to command good rents.

(BTW, rumor has it a lot of those West Campus apartments are empty, and that rents will drop soon).


[ Parent ]
I hope so... (0.00 / 0)
considering I'm an active participant in that market right now.

And my criticisms weren't directed towards developers, but towards the policy.  Businesses will always try to maximize, but we need to evaluate whether our policy is achieving its goals including any unintended consequences.


[ Parent ]
I'm a landlord in that market (0.00 / 0)
and drops in rents away from West Campus hurt my bottom-line; yet I still support density near UT. It's retarded that we think it's a positive thing to get students to spend an hour each day on buses as part of their college experience.

[ Parent ]
council leadership (0.00 / 0)
"...as mayor I'll continue to push as hard as I have on the Council to expand our utility's commitment to buy and sell energy from renewable sources.  As mayor, I'll oppose increasing our dependence on coal or nuclear power, and support increasing our use of wind and solar power whenever possible."

Leffingwell has an excellent opportunity at the March 5th meeting to prove his commitment to increasing our use of solar power whenever possible.  With the vote on the Webberville solar plant next Thursday, Lee has a chance to really show his colors on the issues of renewable energy and climate change.


[ Parent ]
I give Lee credit (0.00 / 0)
for expressing his admiration for Brewster's environmental work in general and the Pecan Street Project in particular. But I think it illustrates the different approaches between Lee and Brewster. Lee has done some excellent things during his time on the Council, but most of his ideas (i.e. banning plastic bags) are far too small to address the problems. While these ideas are very nice and I support them, in the grand scheme of things they are rather like trying to put out a house fire with a squirt gun.

Brewster, on the other hand, knows that big problems require big solutions, which is why he has focused on such large-scale initiatives as the Pecan Street Project. These are the ideas that will bring Austin out of the current economic crisis and make our city prosperous, and this is why Brewster should be our next mayor.


Lee has done a lot of big things (0.00 / 0)
I was on his draft list because Lee has done a good amount of important environmental work.  His solid waste work (plastic bags, sustainable events ordinance, zero waste ordinance) was strong, but I have even more respect for his successful championing of water conservation (though I'd like to see a delay of WTP #4), his SOS modifications which for the first time created a mechanism for TDRs within the aquifer, the ban on coal tar sealants, and his push for a revision of the erosion and sedimentation control criteria manual.  A lot of this is technical stuff that many people don't see or understand, but I think it is good work.

To be fair, I credit Brewster with the VMU ordinance as a good start on achieving center city density along transportation corridors.  I'm a little skeptical of his forays into clean energy given their relatively recent appearance, but I hope he continues to advocate for them.


[ Parent ]
Why is it... (2.00 / 1)
that every time a McCracken supporter mentions the Pecan Street Project, it's as if he's the one who thought of it, implemented it and is carrying out on his own.

Everyone on council supported it. What Brewster has done is promote Brewster which is his only real talent.


I write for Treaty Oak (because, you know, it can't type).


[ Parent ]
Impressive (0.00 / 0)
While I disagree on several fronts with Lee, I will agree that this is an impressive summation of his goals, plans and campaign. It's a pleasant read and it carries his personality. (So if someone else helped write it...they did a great job!)

He also used the word "bike" once, which is better than never. I wish we could have seen more of this up-front leadership when he was (still is) just a council member. But then again, I'm not a council junkie, so maybe I've just missed it.

As for being wary...heck I'm wary of everyone. And if I disqualified candidates for votes on developments alone, I'd have no one to vote for, especially in this race.

Way to go Lee! Let's hear from Brewster.


the right mix (0.00 / 0)
I hardly think that water conservation efforts, water quality initiatives and climate change protection are small potatoes. Leffingwell may play the game a little different than McCracken, but he gets big things done and takes care of the small ones too. That's why I get the sense that the community is coalescing around Leffingwell.



Lee's Leadership (3.00 / 1)
I first met Lee about five years ago at Lloyd Doggett's 2004 campaign kick off, and even then you could tell that Lee had the chops to be a great elected official.

Over the last several years I've had the great fortune to work with Lee and his office on a number of environmental issues.  On plastic bags, green events, and zero waste Lee has shown tremendous leadership.

Particularly on the upcoming Austin Green Events ordinance, Lee has shown a forward-looking vision and a determination to craft a progressive and fair law.  The Green Events ordinance will make Austin's large public events the most sustainable in the country, and this ordinance will be a national model.

Lee has served Austin diligently and honestly on the City Council.  I know that he is the leader Austin needs as Mayor.


Nice post (0.00 / 0)
This is a nice, long post. I appreciate it.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

Promises with a change? (0.00 / 0)
First off I've met with Lee on one or two occasions in the past and generally like the guy, so don't take this as Lee bashing it's not. That said this statement comes off as political pandering:

To help solve our traffic problems, my platform also includes a proposal to hold a transit election by 2010.  If approved by voters, this bond package would help us make investments in roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes.  I believe the package should also include funding for expanding our rail system, and if elected I'll work with Capital Metro and potential funding partners like UT and Travis County to craft a viable plan to present to voters.  (Capital Metro would actually have to hold the election to win approval to expand our rail system.)

Lee makes sure to to put emphasis on the election part, but with Watson's current bills in the Legislature that could become less of an issue. He also points to UT as a partner for funding this rail, but UT has no want to do anything of the sort. The only rail they would want is to Pickle Research and nothing like that has been proposed recently.

Secondly, with the economy down, CapMetro about to go into the red, and Austin about to cut back on basic city services (Police, Fire, EMS, and Parks) how does he believe that the city can afford a new rail system? Our current one is going to cost just north of $10 million a year. $10 million and at maximum capacity will service just north of 2 thousand trips per day(if all of them are going from leander to downtown). This from what was considered by some to be the easiest and/or the most profitable line. The Green line to Elgin proposal is even worse than that.

Lee also talks about how he opposes the above mentioned budget cuts, but I haven't seen his proposal on how we close the budget gap without it. Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it.

I also think it's annoying that he points out his african-american and hispanic outreach as if that makes him an ok guy. What about his Asian outreach? I mean there are almost as many Asians percentage wise in Austin than African-Americans, so why not have an Asian American outreach person? After all they pretty much got Jennifer Kim elected.

Finally, I would like to say that this "Green off" is getting a little annoying. Of the viable candidates in my opinion (Brewster and Lee)  both are very green. So trying to say one is greener than the other is like comparing the blues in the sky on a clear day. What we should be looking at more is leadership and if you're very concerned about Green then who's lead the way towards the most green initiatives. From what I can tell Brewster has taken the lead role there. It's because of his leadership on Pecan Street and a few other reasons why I endorse Brewster.

All that said it's an interesting race.  

Matt Turner


LEE IN EAST AUSTIN (0.00 / 0)

Living in Austin for nearly a decade and having had the opportunity to meet Lee, I'm already sold on his ability to help lead Austin toward the future it deserves.

I am really pumped to see so much public support out there.  Way to go Lee!  I had a great time meeting with you at the house party on the east side this weekend.

To everyone working with Lee: Keep up the hard work; Austin is worth the effort!

To everyone on BOR: Keep posting; those of us that follow these important local elections need to know we are not alone.  GO LEE!


Austin at a critical crossroad (0.00 / 0)
... I'm running because I believe I know the direction Austin needs to go at this critical crossroads, and I feel confident that I can help lead us in that direction.

I think this is the crucial part of the statement.  Elected officials and politicians will make a lot of promises and they can even change their positions.  And there is nothing wrong with that either if the decision is what the community wants.

Lee has a lot of experience working with the community as a whole, and yes that includes the environmental community too.  He put in a lot of time on the Environmental Board before he was elected to council.

I think Lee does listen to input from the community and he asks for a lot of advice from different view points.  So the important thing to me he has the ability to filter through all of that and make an informed decision.  We are at a crossroads in Austin, and I feel I trust Lee with where we need to go.


f.t.o.m.f. (0.00 / 0)
look brewster's got a hot young wife and a bad-ass car.  he's gonna make our city so effin' cool those homeless turds won't set foot in our swingin' burg.  you'll never see a poor person again when he's mayor.  so you politico wankers can get all issue'y if you want but you better get in line because this hip-ass yacht is about to sail, and you don't want to be standing on the shore with grandma and methuselah holding your dinghys.  

LOL (0.00 / 0)
Totally enjoyed reading this comment at the end of this thread.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

[ Parent ]
Connect With BOR
Your source for Texas politics.

On Facebook: BOR
On Twitter: @BOR
On the Go: Mobile App

Upcoming BOR Events

"Do I Look Illegal?"
Arizona GOP Debate Watch

Wednesday, February 22
6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's Restaurant
1307 E. 7th Street
RSVP on Facebook

Save The Date:
Super Tuesday Super Watch Party!
Tuesday, March 6
6:00-10:00 p.m.
Scholz Garten
1607 San Jacinto



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Shared On Facebook

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Grading Texas
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
-
Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Powered by: SoapBlox