|
Austin City Council 
Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:36 PM CST
|
(Sarah saved me the time and energy from writing my own post. Thanks! - promoted by Phillip Martin)
This afternoon the Austin City Council moved unanimously to approve Item 16 on the agenda, the purchasing power agreement with Gemini Solar Development Company to build a 30 MW solar plant at the Webberville tract. That means that by the end of 2011, Austin should be the proud home of the nation's largest utility scale photovoltaic installation. This is a tremendous milestone for both the City and Austin Energy that will set us up as a leader in solar energy, create jobs, attract industry, and protect our citizens from volatile future energy prices while curbing our global warming emissions.
Lee Leffingwell made the motion to approve item 16 with three additional recommendations. The first direction was to include a provision that any federal stimulus funds, rebates, or incentives recovered would be passed on to Austin, rather than kept by Gemini. The second was to create a new task force to review future energy projects. The task force, he promised, would consist of diverse stakeholders and not be weighted in terms of energy usage. This is an important point, as several representatives from the city's large scale industrial users such as Spansion and the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) specifically requested that future stakeholder meetings be based upon the size of user consumption-- meaning that in future energy projects, city council dialogue would be dominated even more than ever by large industrials. As David Power, Public Citizen's Deputy Director, testified, that sounds a little too much like, "for every dollar I spend, I get a vote." Cheers to Lee Leffingwell for insisting on a more inclusive process.
The third and final additional direction was, as expected, to roll the power purchase agreement into Green Choice, so that citizens would be able to voluntarily opt into a program to buy solar power at a locked-in price. Councilman Mike Martinez stated that he would be more than happy to be the first person to sign up for such a program, except that Leffingwell already called "shotgun" on that distinction.
Council members Sheryl Cole, Laura Morrison, and Randi Shade all made additional comments in support of the plant, stating that this was a tough decision to make in hard economic times but that this solar plant, far from a luxury item, was an important element of Austin's long term energy goals.
The Austin City Council has earned Public Citizen's most heartfelt appreciation for proving itself, once again, a renewable energy leader. We especially respect the time and effort that the Council and its staff put into this contentious process, and look forward to working with them on future projects.
We also encourage Austinites to express their thanks to the Mayor and City Council for approving this historic first step towards our renewable energy future.
Sarah McDonald is Public Citizen's Media Coordinator and blog lady. But that doesn't mean she's not her own person!
Original post can be found at www.texasvox.org
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 00:22 PM CST
|
|
Ed. note: We dedicated a lot of time to this issue because of its importance to our local and state community. Texas absolutely must be a national and world leader in the renewable energy industry -- both in wind and in solar. As we at BOR expand into our own office space, we hope to continue bringing this level of discussion to the big picture issues that matter most. If you want to see more work like this and support the efforts of those on BOR who are committed to bringing the best coverage of state and local politics, we would ask you to contribute to TexBlog PAC as a gesture of appreciation. As the Austin City Council prepares to pass the solar energy plant as we speak (and they may have done it by the time I finish with this post), I wanted to provide a single place to look back at the coverage of the past week. The Austin Chronicle noted our work in their "headlines of the week:" The perfect forum attendance of mayoral front-runners Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken has spread to the Internet: Burnt Orange Report (www.burntorangereport.com) queried both candidates extensively this week on the future of solar energy.
The Chronicle had their own excellent story on the intricate policies of the solar legislation for the city. The article, titled, "Cool City: Solar Subsidies" rounds out a lot of what I wrote last week regarding the Green Choice program and other cost programs. Here's a link to all major stories on the issue: I'll update the post later today or tomorrow with a wrap-up of today's coverage of the meeting.
|
|
Discuss
:: (13
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:00 AM CST
|
|
Bill Spelman may make it to filing day without an opponent (and I hope he does) which actually allows for him to potentially run an interesting election campaign this spring centered around a less politically driven discussion about the budget and future of Austin. It's almost like we get an extra few months head start as him as a councilman, which of course, being a professor who's done a lot of survey and field research, he could very well use to incorporate into solutions and ideas for the city. That's a huge benefit for Austin as most candidate don't get to catch a breath from the politics of the campaign trail and then getting sucked into Council Land never to be heard from for 3 years.
As such, In Fact Daily (subscription only) has published a really key interview a couple days ago now that has made the rounds and I think expresses this. Some clips below.
In Fact Daily, Michael May: Former Place 5 City Council member Bill Spelman wants his old job back, and it looks at this point like no one is going to stop him. Spelman doesn't have an opponent so far, and there is freedom that comes with that. In a wide-ranging conversation with In Fact Daily, Spelman was not shy about wading into the tougher issues facing the city, like where to cut the city budget if the economy doesn't improve. "We're doing better than most cities," he says. "But we have to prepare ourselves for hard times. I think the next budget year is going to be worse than this one."
With city leaders already cutting back on everything from hiring new employees to library hours, Spelman says the Council is going to have to make tough choices in the years ahead. "Some budget cuts are easy," he says. "But some are hard. We only have contracts with our public safety employees. It's always easier to cut into libraries or parks, where the employees don't have contracts. But at some point we're going to run out of options. I don't think the public safety contracts should be on the table now, but if the economy gets worse, we're going to have to investigate that."
It's not that Spelman doesn't think public safety is important. This is a man who left the City Council in 2000 to run a national community-policing program. He just thinks that Texas' collective bargaining rules - which only allow the police, fire and EMS unions to negotiate contracts - skew city priorities.
Spelman is what you might call a progressive pragmatist; it is an attitude he also brings to the recent Wildflower PUD controversy. He believes the Council did the right thing by postponing a vote on the project, rather than killing it outright. "The developers can already build retail with single-family housing in back," he said. "I'd like to see something better than that. The developers say they are willing to set a higher standard, and they say they have a plan that will protect the aquifer, but they didn't prove their case. So, right now, I'm not sure which vote would have better protected the environment."
Spelman is in a rare position. He's been on the Council, but he's spent most of the decade teaching public policy at the LBJ School at UT. It's given him a different perspective on what city government should be doing.
"It's hard to see the big picture when you are making decisions everyday," he says. "On Council, you're always stuck in the weeds, having to make a decision about this zoning case or that one. And you can make good decisions about which weeds to cut, but the important stuff happens at a higher level."
For one thing, I think it's a fool's errand for anyone to file against Spelman now who launched over 750 supporters this weekend and has been going all over town with town halls, policy meetings, and neighborhood events not to mention garnering all the endorsements that one could possibly get so far. And the second point is that it's really exciting to be able to have some honest discussion and debate outside of the Mayor's race and to a lesser extend the Place 1 contest which in the big picture helps to drive the discussion this spring.
|
|
Discuss
:: (8
Comments)
|
|
Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:30 PM CST
|
|
Yesterday evening, I wrote a detailed post on the Austin City Council & the future of solar energy in central Texas. The post examined the proposed 30MW Gemini solar plant project that could come to Austin if the City Council approves it this Thursday. To learn more about the project, I interviewed two key members of the City Council -- and the two leading candidates for the next Mayor of Austin -- Brewster McCracken and Lee Leffingwell, to learn what they had to say about the project. I posted my interview with McCracken earlier this morning. Below is a transcript of my interview with Lee Leffingwell. --------------------------- Phillip Martin: I'm an undecided voter, and I see you on the elevator. What is the one thing I should know about this project? Lee Leffingwell: First thing I want to tell you is that I will be voting for the proposal this week. I know there's been some criticism, especially in the context of the mayor's campaign, about the delay that I supported on this vote. I've actually heard some speculation that I don't support the idea of investing in solar, but I do. I just felt the delay was important so we had the opportunity to listen to everyone's concerns and think through all the implications of making a big investment like this -- $250 million. I've heard some of those criticisms, and I wanted to ask you about them. Can you start, though, by talking to me about the concerns you've had about the project? There are basically three questions that I've had about the proposals. The first is about the rapid and ongoing advancement in technology for solar. Is this the right time to make this size of investment? It's sort of the idea of if you think things will get better and cheaper in just a short time, if we waited would we get a better deal? It's like the idea of people that bought the first iPod a few years ago and found out just a short time later that an even better phone cost half as much. The second concern is given what is happening in Washington with the stimulus package and the federal legislation this is going to involve a sizeable investment in renewable energy -- are we going to leave money on the table by acting now instead of waiting for this to actually happen? The third concern, which has actually already been proposed and we discussed at the last meeting when we voted for the delay, is could we incorporate this into our Green Choice program so that customers should choose to sign up for this batch and voluntarily pay a premium for it and reduce the amount of the fuel charge that all the rest of the utilities' customers would have to pay to cover the costs of that investment. I think I understand those concerns, and let's see if we can't tackle them one at at time so we can unpack them a bit. Let's start with the Green Choice program. For those who aren't familiar with it, can you explain what it is and what role you want to see it play in the financing of this proposed solar project? The Green Choice program would help reduce the fuel charge. Roger Duncan has already confirmed that we can and we will, incidentally, offer this solar energy utility for customers through the Green Choice program, because there is no doubt that this will be very expensive energy. I'm hoping that we'll find lots of people out there who are willing to pay the premium to sign up for it. I especially hope that folks in the environmental community here in Austin will sign up for it, too. I've already offered to do that myself, and I hope that a lot of others will share their commitment in the form of paying a little bit extra to sign up for this. The Green Choice program has always been here for these renewable energies. Originally the cost is a little higher, but over time we see that green choice batches go down in price so that customers actually save money over the course of time. Let's go back and talk about the stimulus funding, if we can. I read a quick wrap-up of the debate the other night, and your response in the Statesman -- in regards to the stimulus funds -- seemed to be that you were discussing improving roads and creek erosion as a priority, as opposed to solar energy or environmental economy... Obviously, part of our stimulus funding package is going to be specifically for renewable energy, and that part of the stimulus money I certainly want going towards solar energy. That part, that I guess, was referenced in the Statesman was in regards to discretionary funding. The part of the stimulus package for solar energy, though, I want to make sure I don't lose out on. We've learned that there may be as much as $800 million in grant money for construction of renewable energy facilities, and I know there's going to be a lot of competition for that money. I want to make sure that, number one, we are at the table for those funds, and that number two -- and this is important -- that the benefits accrue to the city, and not to the vendor. To continue reading the interview, click "There's More" below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (10
Comments, 1598 words in story)
|
|
Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 07:00 PM CST
|
|
Ed. note: The following 2,500+ word piece, and the interviews tomorrow, were completed on volunteer time. If you want to see more work like this and support the efforts of those on BOR who are committed to bringing the best coverage of state and local politics, we would ask you to contribute to TexBlog PAC as a gesture of appreciation. We may just be kid bloggers, but we are committed to the community, and we believe journalism should be reflective of community values and community interest. Thank you for being part of our community, and enjoy the reading. On Thursday, March 5th, the Austin City Council will vote on a proposed contract with the California-based group Gemini Solar Development Company that could potentially launch the solar energy industry in Central Texas. The official language on the Austin City Council's March 5, 2009 agenda reads as follows: Authorize award, negotiation, and execution of a contract with GEMINI SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, San Francisco, CA, to purchase up to 30 megawatts of solar-generated power over a 25-year term at an estimated annual amount of $10,000,000, for an estimated total contract amount of $250,000,000. Proponents of the measure point to the 30 megawatts of solar power the plant will bring to the city over the next twenty-five years, and argue that Austin can't wait to begin buildings its roots in the solar energy field. The proposal, championed by environmental groups and the Austin semiconductor community alike, has generated interest in communities as far as San Antonio, who envision developing a partnership with Austin to help, as a San Antonio Express-News article puts it, "chase the sun" in order to establish an economic corridor for the region that creates jobs and protects the environment. However, some concerns persist about the project. The price tag -- though the most competitive among fifteen proposals made to the Austin City Council -- still appears to bring too little bang for the buck. At a time of economic uncertainty, there is worry that Austin is paying too much for too little, and that more time and a better negotiation process could lead to a proposal for a plant that would generate more energy at a lesser cost. The proposed solar power plant has made its way into the Austin mayoral race. Austin's Mayor Pro Tempore, Brewster McCracken, has arisen as a strong and unflinching voice in support of the project. McCracken highlighted the proposed Gemini project during a trip two weeks ago to meet with San Antonio City Councilmembers (Source); he also hosted a "convergence event" focused on the possiblity of building a renewable energy corridor between the two cities. Lee Leffingwell, a fierce advocate of sound environmental policies in Austin, has focused less of his campaign attention on the project, spending more time on announcing endorsements. That being said, Leffingwell has stated that he supports the project, and that his concerns are more about implementation and making it cost efficient for the city than anything else. (Source) Though the political implications of the vote are relevant to Austin's mayoral race, today's post will not delve into the political positions of McCracken or Leffingwell. Instead, I will post interviews with each Councilmember tomorrow, each of which extensively -- and almost exclusively -- discusses their views on the Gemini project and the future of Austin's renewable energy economy. Today's post will focus exclusively on the pros and cons of the proposed project. Specifically, I will examine the following questions: - What is the history of the Gemini project?
- Is 30 megawatts of solar energy capacity a big deal, or is Austin getting too little bang for its buck?
- Is a long-term investment in a solar energy industry worth signing an imperfect yet promising deal with Gemini?
The discussion of those questions continues below the fold; click "There's More" to read, and be sure to come back tomorrow for the interviews.
|
|
There's More...
:: (10
Comments, 2035 words in story)
|
|
Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:22 PM CST
|
(We're trying to pull back on the quantity of event posts here on BOR so don't expect as many of these to be front pages in the future. Still, these forums could be fun. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Fellow Austinites,
We're off to a great start!
 Our campaign kickoff in January had over 200 people at Scholz Garten. Last week, we conducted our first volunteer block-walk and also hosted our first house party in the Circle C neighborhood. And to top things off, we just won the Central Labor Council endorsement.
Thanks to all our supporters who have helped make this campaign a success!
Now let's keep the momentum going. You're invited to participate in the first of our series of community town halls to discuss some of the central issues facing our great city. Come share your ideas and be a part of the solution. Over the next few months, we'll discuss the following issues:
* February 21: Neighborhoods, Public Participation & Open Government
* March 7: Economy & Budget
* April 4: Affordability & Social Services
Our first town hall is next Saturday. I look forward to meeting with you personally to get your feedback regarding how to best improve Austin.
COMMUNITY TOWN HALL
"Neighborhoods, Public Participation and Open Government"
Saturday, February 21
10:00 a.m. - Noon
Will Hampton Library
5125 Convict Hill Rd
Austin, TX 78749
In this era of new responsibility, meaningful citizen participation in local government is crucial to making a city that works for everyone. President Obama has inspired millions across the country to believe in their ability to bring change, and now we need to apply that same can-do spirit to the local level.
Please sign up online and learn how you can make a difference. If you have any questions or suggestions, please don't hesitate to contact me at info@billspelman.org.
Thanks for your support.
Best regards,
Bill Spelman
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:36 PM CST
|
( - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
As the current council elections crank up, I'm not having much regret about my decision to sit out this round. I'm not really sitting it out. I'm just not running for election myself. I do hope to make some worthwhile comments on the election, the election process, and issues facing the city.
As friends and supporters (and candidates!) check in with me to find out my plans, I do regret losing the momentum and loyalty that I built up during my campaign last year. And I miss the excitement and shared enthusiasm of the struggle. Such things fade quickly, and are not easily called back into being.
But, when I sit down to write in my journal at leisure, or take a long walk, or read a book, I feel very good about my decision not to run this time. It's not just that I'm glad to have free time, something that I certainly did not have in the crush of campaigning. More important, I'm glad to be rebuilding clarity and stability of mind. I'm restoring that stock of ideas and ideals that I drew on during the campaign.
If I do run again-and I plan to-clarity and stability will be every bit as important as the momentum and enthusiasm that are fading. Moreover, I have time now to think about the lessons I learned at a gut level during the campaign.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 179 words in story)
|
|
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 07:00 AM CST
|
|
After Chris Riley's successful campaign kickoff at Threadgill's last week, Place 1 candidate Perla Cavazos will hold her kickoff tonight at Nuevo Leon. You're invited to Perla's campaign kick-off on Tuesday, February 3rd from 5:30pm-8:00pm at Nuevo Leon, located at 1501 E. 6th Street.
As I've disclosed before, I am supporting Perla in this race, though Austin is lucky to have two (and before Rick Cofer dropped out, three) excellent candidates. Hope to see some of you tonight at Nuevo Leon.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:07 AM CST
|
|
In statements released to BOR, both Chris Riley and Perla Cavazos emphasized their support for single-member districts and their desire to bring the issue before Austin voters within the next two years. Here are the candidates' unedited thoughts on single-member districts in Austin. Perla Cavazos: "I think we've learned this past election cycle the power of grassroots politics and how it helps rebuild communities. That's what single — member districts are all about — bringing government closer to the people and getting the people more involved in creating change. More than contribution limits, single member districts take the money and special interest influence out of city council politics. They encourage increased access and accountability. Right now, because Austin is the 14th largest city in the nation, each one of us is forced to go on TV to communicate to the city at-large. Those will be 30 second commercials, not engaged, back and forth conversations about the direction of our city. If a hybrid system is what it takes to make the transition, I support it. But it's time we realize that forgotten neighborhoods, where voter turnout may be low and easy to ignore, has an economic and opportunity cost for the entire city. This is about making government work, and that's why I'd like to invite my fellow candidates to join me in a pledge that whoever is elected, that we work together to educate the community, and bring this issue back before the voters within two years."
Chris Riley: I support a move towards a hybrid system of single-member districts and at-large council members. The 2010 census will be a good reason to move forward on the issue, with newer, more precise data about where people live in our city. Above all, I support putting this issue before the voters, because no major change to our democratic system of government should be made without the consent of the people whom it will impact.
Given the size of our city in terms of both geography and population, some combination of at-large and single-member districts would provide a way of ensuring more accountability at city hall and more responsiveness to people across the whole city. Right now, many Austin residents don't know who to contact on the council about an issue in their neighborhood. If each area had its own direct representative, there would be no doubt about who to call.
One way I will address this in the short-term is by holding weekly open office hours at City Hall, when any Austin resident can come speak to me in person and share their concerns. It's important that our city government be engaged with and responsive to the real, daily concerns of the people who live here.
In drawing these districts, the City of Austin would need to be very careful to craft proportional and representational districts. We would need to factor in both geography and precinct layout, as well as voter history and turnout. Single-member districts could potentially increase turnout in under-represented areas, which would also be a great benefit to our city.
There are many other issues to consider as part of this process. Single-member districts would vastly decrease the cost necessary to mount a city council campaign. Currently, candidates who can't manage to raise sufficient funds have difficulty competing city-wide, and that isn't necessarily fair to our democratic processes. However, I do not favor an all-single-member-district council. We should have some at-large members to ensure that we keep a city-wide perspective on the council as well.
It is clear from reading their statements that both candidates have given a lot of thought to issue. For those interested, former place 1 candidate Rick Cofer also favored a hyrbid SMD system. What are your thoughts on single-member districts in Austin? Note: I have made small contributions to the campaigns of Perla Cavazos and former candidate Rick Cofer. Update 6:45pm by David: Former (and perhaps future?) council candidate Kedron Touvell has an insightful breakdown of SMD support among council members in the comments that is definitely worth reading. Brewster and Sheryl Cole have always been the strongest opponents of moving to a SMD or even a hybrid system. Brewster talks about "wardism" and Sheryl rightly or wrongly is worried about dilution of the AA vote. Here's where we stand now: Supporters of SMD
Mayor: Wynn (although, supposedly he was the one who killed last year's effort to put up a charter item)
Place 1: Leffingwell
Place 2: Mike Martinez (strong, driving most of the effort)
Place 4: Laura Morrison Strong Opponent of SMD
Place 5: Brewster
Place 6: Sheryl Swing Vote
Place 3: Randi Shade Of course, that's enough votes to get something passed, but the issue is that there has to be a charter referendum in order for the change to be made. And given the lukewarm reception by the public to the Charter Revision process that studied the issue the last two years, not enough members were willing to risk another failed vote (there have been 6 failed SMD amendment votes in the last 30+ years). If Lee wins the Mayoral race, Spelman wins place 5, and one of Chris/Perla wins place 1, then there will be only one strong opponent of SMD left, Sheryl. Then, the issue will almost certainly go before the voters, but not until Nov. 2010 at the earliest.
|
|
Discuss
:: (33
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:09 AM CST
|
|
Since I'm looking forward to spending more time covering Austin elections this spring and because I'm interested in technology in campaigns, I thought I'd start a series of posts that looks at candidates' use of technology.
In this post, we'll see what we can find when searching for candidates' names on the Google and offer up some relative grades. Things of importance will be where things rank such as campaign websites, city websites, facebook pages, youtube channels, and what kind of media or other stories show up as well as any search terms bought with search ads. All searches are done logged out of any google accounts as personalized results for me are not comparable to that of an average or non-logged in searcher.
I'm looking at Google only in this case simply because it is by far the dominant player in this field. In fact, 87% of traffic to BOR via search in the last year has been from Google, with 8% from yahoo, and less than 2% for anything else. I also realize that this post in and of itself could affect some of the rankings moving forward, and as a side benefit, by linking each candidate's name to their official campaign website, I'm going to share some of Burnt Orange Report's Google Pagerank of 6 (the highest in the Texas blogosphere and equal to media sites like KXAN or KVUE).
Mayor's Race
Brewster McCracken: A-
Brewster's Mayor Pro-Tem site comes up first, followed by his official city website, and then his Mayoral website. That's a pretty top notch top listing and other than having the Mayoral site eventually float to the top listing, he's well set here. His personal facebook profile is 5th which is a nice touch. The only negative story in the top 10 appears to be one related to Toll Roads thanks to the infamous Sal Costello, though it's not apparent it is a negative piece from the search result. Brewster is also running google ads on his name which is a plus, though they are pointing to his Mayor Pro-Tem site.
Lee Leffingwell: B
Lee suffers from the fact that he hasn't launched his campaign yet and thus has a bit of split focus on his website rankings. While the Draft Lee site is the place holder site until he's in the race, it won't be the URL he uses. It's floating around the bottom at #9 which is good in that it will be easy to dislodge when he announces but until then, isn't really offering much help. His City Council re-election site is the top result (useful if he converts that into his campaign site) followed by his city site. Some interviews, a TV spot, and the Draft Lee facebook page round out the other results with nothing really negative other than this post which is more awkward thank anything else. I'll remove it if anyone from the campaign would like me to. NOTE: The Draft Lee campaign has me listed as a supporter which I never gave permission for so that's kind of irritating. I thought I made it clear that I'm unaligned in the Mayor's race for the purposes of BOR. Seeing that, I'm even more unaligned now personally. The Draft Campaign removed my name earlier very quickly at the request. They were very responsive and it was a mix up in terminology and how I had joined on the website.
Josiah Ingalls: C
Yes, I bet you forgot this 28 year old living on Riverside was running for Mayor. Well, he is, and his top listing is a PDF of his treasurer filing with the City, followed by his MySpace page, and his LinkedIn profile. The 4th result is his MySpace video channel which has a variety of his vlogcasts, the most recent of which are about his campaign.
Carole Strayhorn: D+
While it's hard to choose which name to search for, I assume that Carole Strayhorn is the one that we can most agree on. Even though she had a splashy launch Monday, she's ill-prepared in her google listings. Not a single site that could be viewed as particularly positive or useful for Carole is in the top 10. Her wikipedia page is first and the second is a story on Free Republic with the former GOP state chair Tina Benkiser attacking her for no longer being a Republican. While distancing herself from any GOP label can't hurt her in the Austin electorate, most voters are more likely to be reminded that she's a party flopper of epic proportion.
3 of the top 10 slots are taken up by various versions of the Laughing Ad I created Monday mocking Carole. Round that out with posts from Rick Perry and Off the Kuff attacking her, and you have a pretty awful listing. She'd benefit with some google ads (which would have to compete with mine) to try to direct people to her website. Still, none of the top results are really damaging policy attacks and the plethora of posts about our BOR ad will probably be easy enough to displace which keeps her from getting a failing grade. NOTE: Carole's email sign-up form was broken when I used it and her header title tag is "Return to front page". Hmm, I'll do a website review as a separate series.
Mike Levy: F
Mike Levy isn't a candidate yet, so we can't really rank him. Nothing in the Top 10 for his name is even related to him. More defined searches for "Mike Levy Austin" or "Mike Levy for Mayor" don't yield much more than blogs asking whether he's running for Mayor as well as some old news articles on his tendency to send mass emails and generally be a little crazy in attacking other media entities (the Statesman).
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll |
| Who do you support in the Houston Mayoral Run-off? |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
