Early voting for the Austin mayoral election starts Monday. It runs from April 27th through May 5th. The actual election is on May 9th (also my birthday!). If you haven't decided who to vote for let me give you my two cents.
First, if you aren't planning on voting, that's just foolish. This past November Al Franken won a Minnesota Senate seat by 312 votes. That was out of nearly 3 million votes cast. 312 out of 3 million. That's all that made the difference in a statewide Senate race. That's such a small percentage I can't even figure it out. Like one-tenth of one percent or something. (And hopefully Al will get to take his Senate seat before 2014 when he runs for reelection.)
By contrast, the Austin mayoral election is going to be decided by a lot fewer votes. The projected turnout is around 60,000. If Austin were to pull a Minnesota then this election would be decided by 6 people. (Or maybe six-tenths of one person, not actually sure on the math on that one.) So, it is incredibly important for you to get out to the polls and vote.
If you haven't looked into the Austin mayoral race there are five people running. But only one of them is right for Austin. His name is Brewster McCracken and he is the current Mayor Pro-Tem. And yes, his name sounds like it should be, "Coming this summer Will Ferrell in Mayoral Race: The Legend of Brewster McCracken," but he's an incredible candidate.
There's a bunch of reasons why I support Brewster, but I'll only list a few of them here. As an aspiring screenwriter who wants to get back into the film business, I want to see Austin as a thriving metropolis of film. In 2002 Austin was second only to Hollywood for film productions. But with the recent tax incentives in Albuquerque and Shreveport, Austin is losing business to our neighbors to the east and west. Brewster is a strong proponent of getting Austin's tax credits back to where they should be: the best in the country. He believes that the creative economy (both digital and music) is a top priority for the continued success in Austin. Most people probably don't realize the vast amount of money that a film brings into a town. But it is massive. They spend millions of dollars on housing, clothing, props, food, and rental cars, just to name a few. Not to mention the hundreds of local people hired for each film.
Brewster also believes that Austin can become the clean energy capital of the world. He wants to bring in solar, wind and biotech to make this city green in both the literal and figurative sense. And he's got the credentials to back it up. Brewster has been the driving force in the city for the Pecan Street Project, a revolutionary initiative designed to keep Austin at the forefront of clean energy.
A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of driving Brewster around town to a few campaign events. While in the car, we got to chatting about my past political experiences amongst other things. I told him about how I was in Missouri during the gay marriage ban in 2004. He shook his head and said that those bans were just horrendous. It's that sort of candor and honesty that we need from our politicians. By contrast, John Kerry supported Missouri's ban in 2004. We need more than just pleasantries about equal rights from our politicians. We need their open support towards fighting injustice.
This election is incredibly important. Austin, much like many other places in America, is at a crossroads. One path is to continue the way things were, and hope that jobs and prosperity returns. The other path is with Brewster McCracken. He wants to build an infrastructure of clean energy and creative digital media for Austin. Those are jobs that can't be shipped overseas. And that's the kind of leadership that Austin needs right now. Please get out and vote.
I didn't go to last night's City Hall Hustle event, but apparently Wells Dunbar included a scripted rap battle as part of the format. The video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Now what's interesting about this is that considering how McCracken's campaign is presenting the contrast between he and the much older Leffingwell, Leffingwell and his team clearly understood the format better and seemed much more comfortable in it, with threats, insults, self-referential boasts, et al.
McCracken, on the other hand, basically treats this as a poetry reading, with some sincere but wack material about the 80's, his corporate partners and the pecan street project, and on the occasion when he does the dozens his heart just doesn't seem in it. And maybe that's a credit to him, I don't know.
This has nothing to do with who should be mayor, of course, but it's pretty clear that Leffingwell had a better handle on the event.
Now, Dunbar's back-up track (as anybody between 25 and 40 should know) is the instrumental of the epic Mobb Deep Classic, "Shook Ones Pt II".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
It's no sin not being able to kick a freestyle. But watching McCracken push through this thing, I immediately thought of the chorus of the song:
"Son, they shook...
'cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks
Scared to death, scared to look
They shook"
Seriously, though, mad props to both campaigns, especially McCracken, for agreeing to it and having fun with it.
What happens when the alternative becomes mainstream? As the city of Austin delves further into its live music and hipster vices, with $200 ACL-fest ticket and plethora of skinny jeans, suddenly grunge is luxe. In last night's Hustle for Mayor, hosted by the alternative weekly newspaper the Austin Chronicle, the two mainstream candidates Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken sipped coolly on Lone Stars and Miller Lites while answering softballs in front of a youthful, sweaty crowd at The Mohawk.
Strangely absent from the stage -- but not the venue -- were lesser-known mayoral candidates David Buttross and Josiah Ingalls. Nevertheless, Buttross managed to distribute glossy push-cards to attendees and Ingalls, a janitor at the Downtown Hilton, stood awkwardly in a poorly fitting suit and tie at the back of the audience. He was, as one Chronicle staffer put it, "uninvited."
The Chronicle, representative of Austin perhaps now more than ever in its scenester popularity, seemed unapologetic for eschewing an alternative voice in its Austin mayoral debates. A questioning of senior staff writer Michael King resulted in him saying "I don't think he's a serious candidate - do you?"
The Statesman's endorsement of McCracken praises him as a leader who has learned from his mistakes and is ready to lead Austin into the future by investing in clean energy, biotech and digital businesses.
McCracken has a broad view of what Austin needs and how City Hall should manage in a budget crunch. He can build alliances and should be a visible, active mayor. We have not always agreed with McCracken, and he has made his share of mistakes on the council, but he seems to learn from them.
The endorsement, although expected, gives a definite boost to McCracken's campaign, although it could be off set by what seems to be a likely upcoming endorsement by the Austin Chronicle of Lee Leffingwell.
Place 1: Chris Riley
Nearly everyone, including the Statesman, seems to think that both Chris Riley and Perla Cavazos are able candidates who would do a great job for Austin on the City Council.
While little separates Cavazos and Riley in their campaigns, Riley has more experience and we believe is ready for the City Council. Cavazos has a good career ahead of her and with a bit more seasoning will be an even better candidate.
No matter the result in Place 1, the consensus is that Austin will have elected a well-qualified and prepared council member.
The Statesman also endorsed incumbents Mike Martinez and Shery Cole along with Bill Spelman, a former council member who is running unopposed.
I had kind of forgotten about this actually but it looks like the McCracken campaign got some entries after extending the deadline in their "Your City, Your Vision" user generated ad contest.
These five finalists were judged this week by Richard Garriott, Richard Linklater, Robert Rodriguez, Elizabeth Avellan and Brewster McCracken. A winner has been chosen, and will be released via brewstermccracken.com and via Twitter.
The winning entry will air nightly next week during the Daily Show / Colbert Report hour on Comedy Central in Austin. Below are the 5 finalists. Watch them and then vote on your favorite at the end of the post.
In the City Council election, one persistent piece of inside baseball concerned political consultant and opposition researcher Jason Stanford's involvement with the Jason Meek er Place 1 campaign - first as Meeker's campaign manager, then for the ostensibly independent ad campaign financed by Discount Electronics CEO Rick Culleton, attacking incumbents Lee Leffingwell and Jennifer Kim. With Leffingwell a potential mayoral candidate in 2009, there has been speculation that Stanford - a friend and associate of Place 5 Council Member Brewster McCracken, also mulling a mayoral run - was in the race to bruise Leffingwell and thereby boost McCracken's chances next May. However, in a conversation with the Chronicle last Friday, McCracken said Stanford would have no role whatsoever in his potential mayoral bid. Noting that the issues the Stanford-drafted ads hammered effectively hurt him as well (the Las Manitas loan fracas and voting to increase council pay), McCracken said he was "really displeased" to learn about Stanford's involvement in the Culleton campaign and added, "I'll never work with the guy."
I wouldn't make an issue of this (because political stories regarding staff are inside baseball) if but for the following reasons.
We cover inside baseball on BOR.
This was enough of an issue last year that it led to press statements to distance the campaign from those activities. Strong, absolute statements.
$10,000 is a notable amount of money for a notable turn on last year's statement.
That said, I'm glad everyone's friends again as I like both McCracken and Stanford. The only thing I can't wait for is the release of all that juicy opposition research. I hope we find out that Lee Leffingwell is actually being controlled by the spirit of Jennifer Gale or that he's part of the Austin Secessionist movement!
An important community leader wrote me yesterday - still making up their mind on who to support - and asked me to articulate how I'd decided to support Brewster McCracken for mayor over Lee Leffingwell. I wrote:
Why am I supporting Brewster for mayor over Lee? It's about leadership, vision, ambition and courage. I'll admit right off that Lee has the fourth attribute in abundance. I've appreciated his willingness to support what he believed to be the right position even knowing that it might disappoint friends and supporters.
So, the latter of the four qualities, they both possess. And, I believe Brewster is the runaway winner on the first three.
Some people say (especially his opponents' paid team) Brewster is at a disadvantage in building council coalitions. This isn't true. Look at his record of passing important City of Austin initiatives; it's strong. And, I've spoken with several of the other council members who agree Brewster has and can bring together votes to pass ordinances. Whether he's a bit brusque or less than warm at times doesn't prioritize for me. This isn't my experience, but I hear it cited. Nevertheless, I think the test of whether you'd most like to have a beer with someone has - thankfully - finally, lost credibility.
Vision - you're an insider. I know you have a good perspective on this. Lee's smart, deliberate and thoughtful, and vision hasn't been his strong suit. I agree that during the last 3 weeks, his campaign is putting out talking points and positions which give him more depth in this arena. These have also been crafted after Lee's disastrous statements suggesting retrading our economic development contracts with major employers and not recruiting new major employers - fortunately, both positions since retracted. Brewster's vision (& leadership bringing together collaborative partners) is prodigious.
Ambition. I've come to look for this in good leaders with very tough times ahead - think it comes from working so closely with entrepreneurs the last 26 years. You're one; you know. Sometimes that drive for self fulfillment through success and advancement is the only thing that can keep you in the race despite pessimism all around and/or when you are emotionally and physically exhausted. Wouldn't work (for good of community anyway) if it wasn't coupled with an impassioned ambition to make things better for our communities. You and I agree there isn't any debate about the good motives of either Brewster or Lee. I do have questions about Lee's ambition and drive - heck, he had to be drafted into the race for mayor. How sustainable is his drive and will he work for us 24/7? Brewster is like the Energizer Bunny; he doesn't know but to work 24/7 for the rest of us.
I know you've been disappointed by Brewster's votes at times. And, I realize you and others feel betrayed by the Loew's vote for instance. So you know, I think this represented pragmatism over what we all might (Brewster included) have preferred. It was never that Brewster wanted to support Loew's over protecting the aquifer or supporting friends to whom he pledged support on this issue - quite the opposite. But, he was convinced (and advised by city and other attorneys) that it was an unwinnable court battle that would cost the city millions and that we'd still lose. Lee's made the same call several times, and, yes, I know you've voiced equal disappointment and anger toward him. I value their bottom-line-realistic pragmatism over ideology, when the latter is unwinnable. The city's needs are too many and financial resources too scarce to pour them into battles we can't win. I'm all for going to the mat when it's do or die, however.
I don't doubt where either candidates' heart lies. Brewster is still committed to as green, as dense, as affordable and as economically vibrant a caring community as you and me. I support Brewster for mayor because he's the best candidate to help us preserve AND enhance Austin's quality of life.
Seeing that neither Carole Strayhorn or Brewster McCracken has any hope of overcoming the staggering pile of endorsements that the Leffingwell campaign has racked up (30), I'm more interested in the battle for second place that occurs to be going on between the two of them.
Before today, it stood at.
Carole Stayhorn: 2
BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association)
Small Business Group (so small no one can find it)
Brester McCracken: 0.5
ALGPC (co-endorsement with Leffingwell)
Well, BIG NEWS. Carole is pulling away after having SHOCKINGLY won the endorsement of ChangeAustin.org (even though she never showed up to their candidate forum which Leffingwell attended).
Here were their endorsements as emailed.
ChangeAustin.org, formerly Stop Domain Subsidies (Prop 2) in last November's election, proudly endorses:
Carole Keeton Strayhorn for Mayor
Perla Cavazos, Place 1
Mike Martinez, Place 2
Bill Spelman, Place 5
Sam Osemene, Place 6
ChangeAustin.org is working to reach 30,000 voters before the election in May, just a portion of the 123,209 voters who supported Prop 2, to get them to the polls.
The big question now is who will get the Austin Women's Political Caucus endorsement tomorrow? And who exactly would it be an upset for if they got it? Carole because Leffingwell has 90% of all group endorsements? Or Leffingwell over Carole even though he lacks certain feminine parts? Or Brewster over anyone? Or Buttross or Ingalls over Brewster because it would vault them ahead of him by half in the endorsement count?
(Sorry to bump such a large post, but Brewster McCracken has also issued a statement which is added as an update to this post below; please read it. It is encouraging to see campaigns engage on this. With more discussion looking to take place on this issue here at BOR, I think this opens up the discussion for "next steps". - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Ed. Note: Time Warner Cable cannot put off investing in 21st Century business strategies -- such as improving broadband deployment -- if they want to remain comeptitive in the Austin market for years to come. Raising the price of internet access for Austin consumers is a band-aid solution to a complex problem -- and it is one we cannot and will not support in its current form. However, there are some very plausible alternatives Time Warner Cable and the City of Austin can pursue moving forward that are better aligned with the city's economic, strategic, and cultural purpose.
I'm encouraged by the early response from both the Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken campaigns, and hope to continue a smart, responsible conversation on the issue going forward. Austin has the opportunity to lead the way on this issue for all of Texas. In two years the Public Utility Commission will be up for sunset review, and the question of how to invest in broadband deployment will take center stage at the Texas Capitol. Now is the time for a smart and responsible dialogue that can generate big-vision strategies for our future. We cannot wait for two years -- Austin can lead today.
Over the coming days, I will be facilitating a discussion about better possibilities for broadband deployment in Central Texas. We in the Burnt Orange Report community invite all voices -- from Time Warner Cable, consumer advocacy groups, private sector businesses, and University academics -- to participate in the conversation, because this is an issue that can significantly change the very purpose of our community -- both offline and online -- for decades to come.
In a strategy that's likely to rankle consumers but be copied by competitors, Time Warner Cable (TWC) is pressing ahead with a plan to charge Internet customers based on how much Web data they consume. Starting next month, the company will introduce tiered pricing in several markets. [...]
Time Warner Cable had been testing a plan to meter Internet usage in Beaumont, Tex., since last year. By charging a premium to the heaviest broadband users, much the same way cell-phone providers collect fees from subscribers who exceed their allotted minutes, Time Warner would upend a longstanding pricing strategy among Internet service providers.
Under the plan, customers will be charged on a tiered system based on the speed of their connection and how much they download. The tiers would start at 5 gigabytes a month and top out with a "super-tier" of 100 gigabytes per month. Customers will be asked to pay between $29.95 to $54.90 for up to 40 gigabytes, Dudley said. The $29.95 price would be lower than most Central Texas customers currently pay for the service.
The company says it has not yet figured out what it will charge for the "super-tier."
Omar Gallaga -- my new favorite reporter -- had a lot more details up yesterday, based on "conversations he had with Alex Dudley, vice president of public relations for Time Warner Cable." From his post on Austin 360, TWC/Road Runner tiered Internet pricing coming to Austin/San Antonio:
No plans for rollover bandwidth from month to month. Use it or lose it.
“86 percent of our customers at least have nothing to worry about,” Dudley said, “That’s the percentage of customers that will be left unaffected by the trial.” I asked if that’s in comparison to Beaumont and whether that’s a very different market. He replied, “Internet usage is a lot like television viewing. It doesn’t vary from geographic area to geographic area.”
While this will affect customers in real dollars in San Antonio/Austin, this is still considered a trial in terms of whether it will continue to other TWC markets.
The three-month grace period will begin in early summer.
A gas-gauge-like Internet usage monitor will be on the TWC Web site. Customers will also get info on their usage in their monthly bills.
The 100-Gigagyte “super-tier” will be “significantly more expensive” than the $55/40 GB a month tier mentioned in the BusinessWeek article. However, “We haven’t settled on a price yet,” he said.
I’m waiting to hear back about customers under contract and how this will affect their terms. [Ed. note: Gallaga later reported that Time Warner Cable had not yet decided if customers can opt-out of their contracts when this change occurs].
Dudley cited bandwidth-hogging things like HD video and BitTorrent as reasons for the change. “It’s not about trying to limit anyone from doing anything. It’s trying to provide a business model that allows them to do what they want to do for the foreseeable future,” he said. [Emhasis added]
Final thoughts from Dudley: “We know we’re going to learn a lot in this trial. We will listen to feedback from our customers. We’ll make decisions based on what we learned.”
On the whole, I understand the challenge Dudley is articulating in the second to last bullet -- that they are concerned about downloading. But that concern is a fundamental misconception of not only how data is transferred across servers, but of the exponential value of the power of the internet to increase the social network. Jacqui Cheng -- writing for the esteemable site, Ars Technica -- explains in an article titled, "Shooting yourself in the foot: Time Warner's usage caps":
Instead of developing plans designed to discourage consumers from feeding at the bandwidth trough, cable companies would be better served in the long run by making investments in new technologies like DOCSIS 3.0 and the kind of infrastructure improvements necessary to meet bandwidth demands. Those kinds of expenditures can be unpopular with shareholders unwilling to see earnings suffer in the short term so that a company can better position themselves to compete in the long term. But it's a better alternative to positioning your company as the Dollar Store of broadband providers.
We'll have a more specific discussion about the possibilities for broadband deployment in the coming days. In the mean time, we encourage our readers to follow up on the resources below, become informed, and help us sustain a dialogue that helps Austin's business and consumer needs.
According to new reports today, Time Warner Cable is introducing a new pricing structure for Austin-area Internet users. Under the new plan, consumers would be placed on a tiered and metered billing system, and charged for the amount of bandwidth they use.
This approach, and Time Warner’s specific plan, should be of grave concern to Austin. Right now we need to be encouraging, rather than stifling, economic recovery and growth in Austin. This plan moves us in the wrong direction. It potentially puts Austin at a disadvantage as we compete against other communities to attract, retain, and grow prosperous businesses.
I’m obviously concerned about the impact this plan would have on individuals and families, who would have to begin to monitor their Internet use. The new pricing system would have a significant impact on anybody who uses the Internet to watch videos, download music, movies, or television shows.
But I’m deeply concerned about the impact of the plan on business owners, especially those working in creative industries that require regular access to broadband Internet service. Introducing an economic disincentive for Austin businesses to use the Internet to communicate, collaborate, innovate, and deliver services is very worrisome at best, and catastrophic at worst.
If Time Warner believes that is has no choice but to introduce usage caps, I would call on them to propose caps that are realistic and reasonable. The usage caps proposed in their new plan are neither realistic nor reasonable.
For example, if a consumer downloads Season 1 of “Friday Night Lights” in high definition from iTunes, they will have used 30.86 gigabytes of transfer. This one purchase would put that consumer over the limit of all but the most expensive tier that Time Warner is offering under the new plan. It’s easy to see how the costs associated with the ongoing, high volumes of Internet use that many businesses require be could be astronomical.
Internet access should be expanded, not constrained. Innovation and creativity should be unleashed by the Internet, not shackled by draconian usage caps. This is vital to Austin’s economic recovery. I hope that Time Warner will work with City officials and the community at large to reconsider this bad plan.
UPDATE: Brewster McCracken has issued a statement as well.
I recognize Time Warner’s legitimate concern about the viability of its business model, but the approach they are proposing is bad for Austin. By placing a tariff on the flow of information, Time Warner is also undermining the Internet’s fundamental values of openness and equality.
More than virtually any city, Austin is a center of innovation and creativity. That innovation and creativity increasingly is taking place through digital media, video games, independent film and social media.
For instance, digital independent filmmaking has empowered creative artists to make movies without the financial backing of corporate studios. When the city funded the upgrades to Austin Studios recently, we funded installation of terabytes of digital media bandwidth. This will empower the independent filmmakers and video game creators working at the studios to transmit their content over the Internet. Time Warner’s approach could make it so prohibitively expensive to produce films and video games using digital technologies that filmmakers would have to return to celluloid and projectors and video game producers would abandon multiplayer online games.
It isn’t just filmmakers and video game creators. Musicians and social media innovators are developing new distribution models that rely on Internet streaming and downloading to achieve new independence from the old corporate studio and label model.
That’s why Time Warner’s information tariff proposal negatively impacts our efforts to position Austin as a leader in independent film, music and creative media.
The Time Warner proposal also undermines political expression and organization. President Obama, for instance, used the Internet and social media tools to empower new voters and create new ways for political campaigns to organize. This increased voter turnout, particularly among younger voters.
Finally, everyday customers are increasingly saving money, accessing new products and information and better connecting with each other through video streaming, music downloading and social media networks.
As a community, we need to be concerned about the impact that Time Warner’s actions will have on the local economy and on community values.
This proposal will make it more expensive to innovate. It will increase costs for local businesses. The very people who would carry the brunt of this tariff are the people who the Internet has empowered to connect and create without having to turn to large corporations to fund their efforts.
Time Warner’s information tariff proposal is inherently constricting to the local economy. This business model also severely hinders the potential of the Internet. It is not good for Austin. It is bad for the principle of an open Internet. It undermines the public interest.
