Shade Proclaims Austin Should Negotiate Away Barton Springs

What a Radical Interpretation (0.00 / 0)

I didn't take her remarks like that at all. I heard, "well, we took the hard stance, and got screwed pretty bad. If we would have compromised a little, maybe we would only have been screwed a small amount..." What's wrong with that?

/I'm writing a diary about this now...

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

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:41:44 PM CDT

Read the letter for the real history (0.00 / 0)

Austinites tried to negotiate and compromise with the developers for decades, and Gary Bradley used this as a stalling tactic to get more development and gut existing protections. The citizens had no choice but to draw a line in the sand if the Springs were to be protected. Would you trust the Bush administration if they told you they swear there is no torture going on? Burn me once . . .

The problem here is Randi is getting her history from a movie, not the people who lived it.

It's like saying, I saw "Roots" so I think I've come up with a policy for racial reconciliation or watching "Silver Streak" for our transportation policy.

Elliott McFadden
Ignite Consulting
Direct Mail, Design & Automated Calling Services for Political & Non-Profit Clients.

---

by: bikindem @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:59:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh (5.00 / 1)

So real history can be read from a letter, but not watched from a movie? Interesting. I remember the movie having plenty of interviews and footage from the people who lived it. And even if it didn't, I sure as hell have learned the history, so let's not turn this into a gravitas, "I know best" argument. That's losing focus on the point:

Austinites did a tremendous thing by standing up to the City Council in that meeting. But once the line has been drawn in the sand -- and you've won -- you can't just sit on your laurels, and that's what happened. The only reason it was protected in '93 was because Richards vetoed the legislation -- so what happened at the City Council over the next two years to prevent the exact same legislation from coming up, only to have Bush sign it? Are you telling me there was nothing that could be done -- no adjustments to the ordinance, no deals to be struck, nothing -- to prevent that law from being signed into law?

Or is it that the City Council had been so pressured to stay firm with a line in the sand so they were handicapped from preventing the inevitable.

Some things you can't predict -- they are the unforeseen. Some things you can, and action must me taken to prepare when something is coming. Clearly, none was, and I share Randi's sentiments that it's sad that nothing happened to prevent the groups promoting that law from bringing it up again, or from the legislators signing it (an even bigger dragon to slay).

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

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:09:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent comment, Phillip (0.00 / 0)

Nothing wrong with making some compromises to consolidate and secure your gains. There is way too much of this 'all or nothing' mentality on the left, and we always seem to end up with nothing.

What's that quote that Burka likes so much about the Democrats - don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

---

by: el_longhorn @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 17:30:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll insert one remark here (3.00 / 1)

and that is that not all situations lend themselves quite so cleanly to compromise.  It all depends on the terms.  If I told you I plan to kill 10 people, but if you agree not to oppose me I'll only kill 5, is that a situation you'd compromise on?

Water pollution is obviously not murder, but there is a certain point where the water is 'polluted' beyond repair.  Recent scientific evidence has pointed to a water quality level equal to about 10% impervious cover across a watershed.  We are currently at 9.something % over the Barton Springs section of the Edwards Aquifer.  The SOS regulations mandate 15-25% or less.  Obviously that isn't good enough, even without grandfathering (hence the open space acquisition and TDR efforts).  Compromising on SOS would have increased the allowable IC even higher and thus been completely useless for our goals.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 23:25:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

At times, yeah (0.00 / 0)

Compromise is a tricky thing, because the things you give away can be things you can never get back.

Crusaders and compromisers fundamentally are working for the same thing with different approaches, but neither could succeed without the other. If you have a strong compromisers and weak crusader, too much is traded away. If you have a strong crusader and weak compromisers, perhaps you have humongous victories and humongous losses -- and there can be value in each.

Long-term, the two types of roles (compromiser, crusader) need to learn how to work with each other's strength for the shared purpose of the work.

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

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 23:45:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which one was Silver Streak? (0.00 / 0)

Was Silver Streak the one with Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor on the train or the one where they were in a prison rodeo?  I think getting transportation policy ideas from either would be bad, but getting policy ideas from the prison rodeo escape plot would be better - I guess.

---

by: Mark Littlefield @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 21:44:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not surprised... (0.00 / 0)

I'm not surprised after seeing the IRV poll results last week that the Kim campaign would go on the offensive against Ms. Shade.  But when I read what Ms. Shade said in the transcript, it doesn't seem to me to really say what the Kim campaign says it says?

---

by: Frank L. Stated @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:15:59 PM CDT

Exactly... (0.00 / 0)

No surprise at all.

---

by: TeamTexas @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 15:49:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Confused (0.00 / 0)

I was sitting at the Hill Country Conservancy table during that lunch and I thought Randi was talking about when the Legislature and George Bush killed SOS in 1995.  I was also eating dessert, so I may have missed something.

---

by: Rick Cofer @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:36:52 PM CDT

Rather not a compromiser?? (0.00 / 0)

So Robin Rather is taking someone else to task for suggesting that sometimes it might be better to compromise with developers? That's rich! She's the one who left SOS to compromise on a deal with Gary Bradley!

This is not the first time she's made my brain hurt.

---

by: BeatrixKiddo @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 15:55:30 PM CDT

What a load of nonsense (0.00 / 0)

Shade is simply saying what everybody knows - the state legislature passed a law which, even though eventually overturned by the courts, resulted in a TON of bad development in the area. Any negotiation which could have foregone THAT conclusion would have been better than what actually happened (a moral victory and a lot of pavement in the meantime that the city can't tear up even though we 'won' in court).

---

by: m1ek @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:30:31 PM CDT

movie (0.00 / 0)

phillip, the documentarian didn't live in austin during the time she was trying to capture; she's depending on people's memories plus the story she wants to tell, and from her perspective, not having lived through those times. I saw the documentary, thought it was pretty good! but also, because I was here, and involved somewhat, and paying attention at the time, I could tell that a lot of the history was not - frankly could not - be captured in the time allotted. if I were making a film about that time, it would have had a different cast to it.

you know, it would take more than an entire semester course to teach everything that happened back then - events leading up to and flowing from - and you'd still not have it all summed up.

so for a candidate for austin city council to say austin should have compromised with the developers - well, to me, that that's a candidate who is missing some key austin history.

---

by: leslie pool @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 17:50:01 PM CDT

Not really.... (0.00 / 0)

Ms. Pool, I think we've established that Ms. Shade did not say "Austin should have compromised with the developers" - so, unless you can point us in the direction of that quote, it would seem that you are just repeating the Kim campaign's misrepresentation?

---

by: Frank L. Stated @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 20:49:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure (0.00 / 0)

But the movie was about its title -- the Unforeseen, and how we approach such challenges we don't anticipate, and how we learn to develop our values to live in harmony with nature and each other.

It wasn't a documentary about S.O.S. -- that was just a case study. And an excellent one at that. But I also don't think Shade, or myself, is required to have live through the past in order to be able to have an opinion about it. An exclusionary attitude like that is not helpful.

I'd love to learn more about the history. It may take a semester, but it could be something that begins with some posts here on BOR -- so I strongly encourage you to write about some of what went on. I'd love to have that story told on our site.

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

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 22:38:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Phillip (0.00 / 0)

if you weren't in Boston, I'd invite you to our weekly Save Barton Creek Association meetings at Vinny's on Barton Springs Rd.  We have about 400 years of combined environmental activism experience on our board which is a tremendous resource.  It's humbling to work with people with such history.

Alternatively, you can wait five years and hopefully I'll have finished researching and writing my book on Austin Environmental history. :)  There was a gentlemen who did a Master's thesis on the subject, I'm working on tracking it down.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 23:18:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

There's a very real chance that once I eventually come back to Austin, I'll start joining up with those groups and becoming more active. So I'll see you in a few years, if not sooner. :)

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

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 23:40:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ken Weiss Austin City Council Place 3 (0.00 / 0)

I am voting for Ken Weiss for Austin City Council because he is concerned about the environment and knows about the environmental issues.

Randi is not really up to date on the environmental issues.

I went to the Bar Manison for a forum about the dump in east Austin. Ken blew me out of the water with what he knew about the situation and seemed more concerned about the situation with the dump more than Randi did.

If you care about the environment vote for Ken Weiss Place 3!

Good luck to all the candidates and may God Bless them all!

weissforplace3.com

---

by: Gekco789 @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:30:22 AM CDT

Shadey history<b></b> (0.00 / 0)

"Because really when you saw the original proposal less land would have been developed than what ultimately did get developed."

Not sure what she means here.  If she means the original Barton Creek Properties plan that sparked the famous all-night hearing in June 1990, not so.

That original 3,500 acres is now  about half developed.  Much of it has come in LESS intense than originally planned, with current owners Stratus Properties finding that larger "estate" lots still sell well. So there have been fewer houses built with less pavement, and with SOS-equivalent water quality controls. This seems functionally equivalent to what a 'compromise' with Freeport McMoran (Stratus' predecessor) might have achieved.

Also, the fights slowed down the damage.  we are still able to swim in the pool fifteen years after passage of the SOS ordinance.

Make no mistake, the remaining half of what is permitted at Barton Creek Properties, but yet to be built, is deeply disquieting.  The permitted plan includes millions of square feet of heavy commercial office and retail development, along with thousands of apartments lining Southwest Parkway.

All this land drains to Sculptured Falls, Twin Falls, the entire lower greenbelt, the Barton Pool in Zilker Park, and Town Lake.  So the struggle around this particular development is not yet over.

---

by: Steve B @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:46 AM CDT

An alternative history (3.00 / 1)

The "road not taken" between the Richards veto and the Bush signature would have been to place the Springs under federal legal protection, which would have blocked the State grandfathering legislative ploy, b/c federal authority supersedes state.  

The SOS citizen group's lawyers did get the Barton Springs salamander listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.  In theory, this law is a potent shield against development that damages water quality.  However, federal US Fish and Wildlife bureaucrats don't enforce the ESA much.

If the SOS ordinance had been written into both our federal species and stormwater permits for Austin, the feds could have delegated power to local enforcement. But alas, our local government did not pursue that crucial extra legal step.

Progress did not stop or entirely reverse, however.  The impetus for the land purchase program which has saved 20,000 acres on top of the aquifer came out of this burst of early 1990s citizen activism.

Another thing that has changed since the Texas Legislature screwed us so badly in the mid 1990s, is that now we have allies outside of Austin in the battle for aquifer protection.  

The Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance is a coalition of fifty groups that cover an area from Uvalde to San Antonio up through New Braunfels, San Marcos, and Austin and out into the Hill Country to the west. We need never be alone again in the state-level legislative battles to protect our groundwater.  

Again, this initiative came from the citizens, not the officeholders.  These politicians always seem to tell us what we CAN'T do, rather than stand up for what can be done.

The SOS struggle, for all its warts and flaws, remains  seminal for all of Austin's present-day environmental accomplishments. Those achievements belong to all of the residents, voters, and activists who participated, not just to those people who are presently members or staff in the SOS Alliance group.

---

by: Steve B @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:18:33 AM CDT

Grasping at straws (0.00 / 0)

I hadn't followed this race very closely and didn't have strong feelings for either of the two candidates until this controversy broke. Now I'm leaning toward Shade because I think the Kim campaign is making a desperate stretch to try to turn Shade's rather ambiguous comments (which she didn't appear to remember verbatim anyway)to an acquaintance after a movie into some kind of evidence that she's anti-SOS or anti-environment.

Shade may not know the history very well--and she should.  But unfortunately, lots of people don't know the history (the original post said the SOS Alliance was born in 1990, but it was the SOS Coalition in 1990; the Alliance came later and is a fairly different animal from the original coalition); I don't imagine Jennifer Kim can recite chapter and verse of that complicated saga.  It's very long and it's very complicated.

My point is that the Kim campaign took a comment that may or may not have been reported correctly, tried to corner Shade with it at a forum, and then took her response and tried to represent it as something it really isn't. That's a form of politics I don't want to support.

It's strange to me that they chose to publish the transcript since it really doesn't, in my opinion, support the claim that they're making. I'm disappointed that Brigid and Gus signed off on that letter.

For the record, I testified against the PUD at the 1990 hearing, gathered petitions to put the SOS initiative on the ballot, and worked fulltime on the campaign in 1992. So this is the opinion of someone who has always actively supported the SOS ordinance.

I agree that The Unforeseen doesn't do a very good job of presenting the whole debate over SOS.  I thought the movie was much more about Gary Bradley as some sort of tragic developer-hero. His story is compelling (although the movie left out most of his really evil ways), but it's not what I thought the movie was supposed to be about.

Re. the history:  I taught a course for a couple of semesters on social problems in Austin and did a unit on the fight for Barton Springs.  I put together what I think is a pretty good compendium of articles about the birth of SOS and the 1992 election.  I'd be happy to loan it to anyone who's interested.

Kedron, I think I  know the guy you're talking about who did  his master's thesis on the SOS fight. I can put you in touch with him if you like, if you'll give me a more private way to reach you. (I don't want to post his name here without his permission.)

---

by: Sarah @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 17:06:08 PM CDT