Every now and then some good environmental news about our backyard comes along. It turns out that Austin, Texas is the number one city in America for clean technology industries according to SustainLane (“the premier online sustainability best practices knowledge base”), a recent Time Magazine article, and others.
There are a number of exciting advances in green technology happening in Austin.
Chief among them is the Pecan Street Project, the country’s largest urban ‘smart grid’ network. A smart grid allows utility companies to gain real time feedback from individual consumers across their entire network and should provide great increases in efficiency, reliability of service, and even enhanced security.
Austin recently opened the largest solar farm in Texas, a 30 megawatt facility in Webberville. The Webberville Solar Project is but one step in reaching the city’s goal of getting at least 35% of its energy from renewables by 2020. Other steps in this direction include the sale of the Fayette Coal Plant, a notorious polluter.
Clean tech companies like Joule Unlimited (a biofuels producer), HelioVolt (a thin film solar panel manufacturer), SolarBridge (which makes AC modules for solar panels), and many others make Austin a creative hot spot for the industry.
This great environment for the clean technology industry did not just appear out of thin air. A strong partnership between our local (city owned) utility (Austin Energy), the University of Texas’s Clean Energy Incubator (a program which provides venture capital funding and laboratory space to new businesses), Austin’s forward thinking city council, and state and federal funding sources provides the unique conditions for the clean tech sector to flourish. The Pecan Street Project, for instance, was partially funded through a large grant from the 2009 Federal Stimulus.
This year’s elections will have very real consequences for the burgeoning clean technology industry in Austin. While I’m sure Brigid Shea (a former councilwoman and Save Our Springs director) would be a stalwart environmental defender, Lee Leffingwell has some very real accomplishments he can point to. The partnership between public utility, university, private enterprise, and city council works in Austin in a way it doesn’t work anywhere else. I would be very cautious about making major changes here.
Yesterday, the Charter Revision Committee, appointed by the Austin City Council primarily to consider the representative structure of Austin government (currently all at-large districts) and make a suggestion to the council, finally voted on its suggestions.
The following motions were passed on this penultimate meeting by the committee:
A motion "to change the current structure [of City Council] to some form of geographic representation" passed overwhelmingly. There was one "no" vote - from Ken Rigsbee (a Republican).
A suggestion to Council to then form an independent redistricting commission (that would exist for future census, too) was passed, based on a memorandum by the the committee's working group. More on that below, but this proposal passed with just two dissenters - David Butts and Fred McGhee.
A proposal for a 10-1 plan (10 single member districts and one at-large mayor with no other at-large seats) barely passed after much discussion. The vote was 8-7. The alternative plan, that failed, was 10-2-1.
This is all just the first step. None of these motions become law until the city of Austin, via ballot measure, says so. And nothing will appear on the ballot until the City Council approves it.
You would think that the big story is the almost unanimous support for single-member districts in the first place, but it's not. That was almost an afterthought, and after all, the activist community has supported the idea for decades. (How else would one explain it getting on the ballot six separate times?) The bigger stories were the other two motions.
The heavily supported idea for an independent redistricting commission is huge. In the past, a plan for single member districts would come with a map, and voters would reject the map. It's almost impossible to draw a map that satisfies everyone, so a commission finally came up with a separate proposal. Here, the idea is to put a commission on the ballot, instead, that would ensure that every group has an ability to affect the actual maps. This commission would have 14-members semi-randomly selected from a 60-person pool, generally meeting three major requirements. The first goal is for a "fully diverse commission" based on "gender, race, ethnicity, age, student status, sexual orientation, home address [geography]." Second, strong stipultions would be in place to avoid any conflicts of interest. Third, the pool should be "highly qualified," a phrase that refers largely to voting history, but also would take into account other knowledge bases, such as statistics.
This step is huge: the independent commission idea, instead of a map on the ballot, probably increases the chances of passage. That even "student status" found a place in the document shows how far this commission was willing to go to ensure that every community have a place at the table. (Special thanks to current UT Student Government Representatives John Lawler and Yaman Desai, as well as a few select Austinites for Geographic Representation, for pushing the student measures.) The City Council should keep with this theme, particularly the diversity section.
The other big story, of course, was the final 8-7 vote for a 10-1 system. 10-1 passed the committee (and received heavy audience applause), but the real story is that nothing passed with an overwhelming amount of support. After months of discussions and consistent agreement to adopt Single Member Districts, the committee barely agreed on "how." The 10-1 advocates needed the support Ken Rigsbsee, who was adamantly against any change at all, to win the day. The alternate motion, 10-2-1 (2 would represent a couple at-large seats), failed by the same margin, 7-8. Each side showed passion, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, no one thought, "Your slightly different plan is good enough." Ann Kitchen rhetorically presented 10-2-1 as a compromise idea, but received no votes from 10-1 advocates. Then, upon losing the vote, some in the minority insisted upon its opinion being heavily represented to City Council, anyway
The lack of clear, obvious agreement will affect this process all the way until the voters give word in November. After the committee confirms a staff report of their decisions, likely on February 16, the ball goes to City Council's court. Overwhelming support exists for both change and the independent commission, so every member will likely support change in that direction for fear of backlash. But as for the numerical structure of a Single Member District System: I am sure that 10-1's victory will be taken into account, but I expect each Council Member to give even greater weight to their own, personal opinion. Mayor Leffingwell has pushed a 6-2-1 plan, so he'll likelywill he continue pushing a hybrid? And no one really knows what the others will back, either. Keep in mind that every current member was elected in an at-large seat.
But once City Council agrees to a plan of any sort, what will those who lost their fight do next? Fighting against 10-1, 10-2-1, or anything else is one thing when doing so in these recomendation and legislative settings, but will the same fight continue to the ballot box? If so, Austin is doomed to stay with its draconian system only of at-large districts. City Council should deliberate carefully and actually take into account the winning 10-1 argument from their appointed committee, and each side should feel free to fight for 10-1 or 10-2-1 until the council gives its ruling. But afterwards...here's to hoping everyone comes together so we can actually pass this thing, whatever that may be.
[Below the jump, you will see the vote count for 10-1, and later links will be added to see the documents approved with the second motion for an independent commission.]
Lee Leffingwell continues his strong campaign for re-election as Austin's mayor, announcing the endorsement of two high-profile Austinites today: Willie Nelson and Lance Armstrong. BOR received the following announcement from the Leffingwell campaign:
Country Music Legend Willie Nelson and Seven-Time Tour de France Winner Lance Armstrong Endorse Mayor Lee Leffingwell
AUSTIN, TX - Mayor Lee Leffingwell is excited to announce today that he has been endorsed by two of Austin's favorite adopted sons - country music legend Willie Nelson and seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.
"I love Austin and I think Mayor Leffingwell has done a real good job of helping keep it a special place," said Nelson. "I'm proud to give him my endorsement."
"Mayor Leffingwell has been a strong leader and I think he deserves another term," said Armstrong. "I hope my fellow Austinites will join me in supporting him for re-election."
Willie and Lance join Lee's growing list of more than 500 endorsing community leaders.
It's no surprise that Willie endorsed the Mayor, since the Mayor renamed several blocks of 2nd Street in downtown Austin as Willie Nelson Boulevard. The photo at right is from the ceremony marking the occasion, which I cribbed from the Mayor's Facebook page.
Notably, both world-famous Austinites are significant humanitarians. As a co-founder of Farm Aid, Willie has raised tens of millions of dollars to help American family farmers. He's also a stalwart supporter of marijuana legalization, which I'm guessing would probably poll pretty well here in Austin. As a founder of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, aka Livestrong, Lance has raised immense amounts of money, awareness, and support for cancer survivorship. He also advocated forcefully for Prop 15, the 2005 statewide Constitutional Amendment that dedicated $3 billion in general revenue bonds to support cancer research, prevention, and detection. Lance is also a local business owner -- his bicycle store (and coffee shop) Mellow Johnny's is a stone's throw from City Hall.
You can view the rest of the Mayor's sizable and notable supporter list on his website, www.LeffingwellforMayor.com.
Austin's mayoral election will be held on Saturday, May 12. At this time, it's unclear at this time if we will have even had our Democratic primary by then.
Today, Freedom to Marry, a national organization promoting equal marriage rights, issued a major statement of nearly 100 mayors across the county who signaled their support for same-sex marriage rights. Co-Chair Annise Parker of Houston was joined by Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro in representing Texas as part of today's announcement.
Having strong allies and leaders in Texas helps move the national conversation about equality in the right direction and I'm happy to include Mayor Leffingwell's statement below.
MAYOR LEE LEFFINGWELL SIGNS FREEDOM TO MARRY PLEDGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
AUSTIN - Mayor Lee Leffingwell has today joined dozens of mayors from across America in supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry by signing on to the Mayors for Freedom to Marry Pledge. The Mayors Freedom to Marry group - an effort of the national Freedom to Marry organization - aims to expand public and political support for ending discrimination in marriage.
"I'm proud to stand with the gay and lesbian community and defend their right to equal marriage," said Mayor Leffingwell. "The tide is changing in America and I hope that by joining this loud chorus, I can play a small role in helping set us on a path to full marriage equality in our country in my lifetime."
Other big city mayors to sign the pledge include Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, Michael Bloomberg of New York, Michael Nutter of Philadelphia and Thomas Menino of Boston. Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who is openly gay, is the only other Texas mayor on the list.
Community leaders in Austin applauded Mayor Leffingwell's decision to join the coalition.
"As the first openly gay person elected to serve on the Austin City Council, I am especially appreciative of Mayor Leffingwell's leadership on this issue," said former Council Member Randi Shade. "Mayor Leffingwell recognizes the importance of achieving marriage equality and is willing to fight for it."
"Mayor Leffingwell is to be commended for his pro-equality stance with regard to the Freedom to Marry initiative," said Rich Bailey, President of the Stonewall Democrats of Austin. "For too long we have seen the LGBT community used as a wedge issue in politics and it is refreshing, but not unexpected, for the Mayor to be supportive of the right of all consenting adults to enter into marriage."
"This is a very important step in the path to equality," said Anne Wynn, Founder of Atticus Circle. "I started Atticus Circle in 2004 in response to the trend of states constitutionally prohibiting same-gender couples from marrying and I am so happy to see my hometown standing up to achieve equality for every parent and every partnership."
"I appreciate Mayor Leffingwell's endorsement of this petition along with other U.S. mayors," said community activist Celia Israel. "It is yet another reason for all of us - not just GLBT Austinites - to be proud of our city."
"Mayor Leffingwell echoes the values and beliefs of Austinites - that ALL men and women are created equal," said Eugene Sepulveda, former co-chair of President Obama's GLBT Leadership Council.
"I've always known Austin to be a community of respect and I am glad to see our Mayor taking the lead on this issue," said Karen Gross, Austin Community Director for the Anti-Defamation League. "I hope other Texas mayors will follow suit and join this important effort."
"Public support for marriage equality has grown in leaps and bounds in this country over the past few decades and too often, politicians refuse to catch up with the times," said Karl-Thomas Musselman, publisher of the Burnt Orange Report. "Mayor Leffingwell is instead reflecting Austin's values by rejecting discrimination and embracing our entire community."
There's a municipal election this May, but you probably wouldn't know it if you weren't paying close attention. That's because what might have been an exciting election season with the opportunity to oust two of the council members that voted to keep our elections in May has instead turned into a bit of a snooze-fest with no real challengers announced against any of the incumbents.
Nevertheless, Lee Leffingwell is clearly taking nothing for granted as he seeks his second term as Mayor. His campaign has been working hard since November to rack up supporters, endorsements, and the all-too-important campaign war chest necessary to mount a strong re-election effort. Leffingwell has remained active in the community since he was elected, so it's no surprise to see such a broad and deep list of Austinites supporting the Mayor.
This past week, Leffingwell published his public supporter list on his website, and announced an impressive fundraising haul through the end of 2011. The supporter list, available here, is impressive in not only its size (500 and growing) but also in its scale, featuring notable current and former elected officials, city board and commission members, and a wide range of community activists. Not only has Leffingwell been endorsed by his 2009 opponent Brewster McCracken (and McCracken's #1 supporter, Alamo Drafthouse impresario Tim League), he also shows a broad range of support from people who backed both Randi Shade and Kathie Tovo in the last municipal election. Tovo's treasurer Joe Pinelli is on the list, as is former council member Jennifer Kim.
Perhaps the only thing larger than Leffingwell's supporter list is his fundraising haul: an impressive $87,624, with $80,000 cash on hand. That's pretty solid for a campaign that is hampered by antiquated contribution limits of $350 per individual, which, I will note, make running a professional campaign that focuses on voters outside of the traditional city electorate nearly impossible, unless your entire staff can work essentially for free, or you can self-fund to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Today Leffingwell announced the endorsements of the Police, Fire, and EMS employee associations as well. The public safety organizations backed up their support with a full-page ad in today's Austin Chronicle touting not only Leffingwell's accomplishments but the impressive achievements of our city as a whole. Download the ad here. Here's the statistics the ad sites about Austin under the leadership of Leffingwell:
Kiplinger's Personal Finance called Austin "the best city for the next decade." (June 2010)
Austin is #2 on Forbes' list of America's Most Innovative Cities. (May 2010)
Austin ranked first for best economic recovery in the U.S. according to Forbes.com. (March 2010)
Portfolio.com places Austin at the top of the list for "Small Business Vitality Rankings 2010." (January 2010)
Austin ranked #1 among the nation's 10 best places for young adults. (Portfolio.com, May 2010)
Portfolio.com lists Austin in the top 10 for Best Quality of Life. (May 2010)
Austin ranks "low" for Rate of Home Foreclosures according to RealtyTrac's Year-End 2009 Metropolitan Foreclosure Market Report. (January 2010)
Austin ranks #2 among Best Places to Retire & Row in the U.S. (RowingandCulling.com, January 2010)
Grubb and Ellis rank Austin "Best City to Invest in Commercial Real Estate." (January 2010)
Austin is the 9th Easiest City to Find a Job according to Juju.com's Job Search Difficulty Index. (January 2010)
Austin ranks #2 on Forbes' List of Cities Recovering from the Foreclosure Crisis. (December 2009)
As Leffingwell likes to say, if there was a list of cities on lists, we'd be on it, and probably ranked #1!
Meanwhile, former council member Brigid Shea still seems to be circling around a potential mayoral campaign. She filed a treasurer's report with little fanfare back in December, the same day that a poll on municipal issues went out to voters around Austin. However, Shea reported only $4,200 raised from a handful of donors. I hear constant rumors that the campaign is struggling to hire staff. And with so much support already behind Leffingwell, it's tough to see how Shea pulls together a winning coalition.
Let's be clear: challenging an incumbent mayor is very different than challenging an incumbent council member. To say that the Mayor needs to be ousted--and to support the ouster of said Mayor with time and or money--is to suggest that the fundamentals of our city are not strong and that we are in need of serious change at the top. People who want to support a campaign for the sake of "giving voters a choice" or simply because they need clients are nevertheless suggesting that things are going wrong in Austin. And looking at the list above of Austin's accomplishments, it's hard to take the suggestion that things are going in a bad direction very seriously.
Leffingwell ran in 2009 on a platform of focusing on the fundamentals, and he's definitely kept City Hall's eye on the ball. At the same time, he's helped oversee tremendous job growth, especially in biotechnology and information technology, two forward-looking industries that represent long-term potential here in Austin.
While people may disagree with Leffingwell on a few individual votes, his overall record speaks to a balanced approach to meeting the wide range of needs of folks in Austin. Leffingwell's job growth numbers are particularly impressive, with over 2,200 new jobs relocated or created here in Austin during his first term. It's easy to criticize the mayor when you're an independently wealthy gadfly that doesn't actually depend on sustainable job creation at all income levels. It's a lot harder to actually do the work of bringing jobs to Austin in a way that protects taxpayer resources and provides a diverse range of opportunities for our growing city.
The full press release from Leffingwell's campaign is below the jump. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen if anyone will actually take the plunge against the Mayor, and what rationale for replacing our successful city leader they might muster.
Environmental activists scored major victories this week both locally, with Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell’s announcement that the City of Austin will sell its share in the Fayette Coal Power Plant in La Grange and move towards a coal free energy future, and nationally, with two major developements in the Keystone XL “tarsands” pipeline saga.
On Wednesday, Mayor Leffingwell pledged to join other major cities across the the country in moving Austin off of polluting coal fired energy production by selling Austin Energy’s share in the aging Fayette Coal Plant. The Fayette plant is a notorious polluter that, according to the Sierra Club, “produces approximately 307 pounds of mercury each year. Only one gram of mercury is needed to contaminate an entire 20 acre lake.” Austin has access to viable clean energy alternatives, such as wind power, and the Fayette plant’s inability to comply with upcoming federal emissions standards will see its operational costs “rise significantly over the next few decades.” As Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director for the Sierra Club Austin put it:
We congratulate Mayor Leffingwell on the renewal of his commitment to move Austin beyond coal. Today's announcement is consistent with a plan first crafted over a year ago and approved unanimously by City Council in February. Mayor Leffingwell called for a dialogue with the community, with Austin Energy, and with the LCRA. We welcome this dialogue, and as a first step, Sierra Club has developed a plan to phase out of the Fayette Coal Plant by 2016.
I do have a couple of concerns with the announcement that I will look into further in the coming days. The first is that the electric grid in Texas is run by Ercot (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas) an organization that was first created in 1941 to help industrial production along the Gulf coast. Under deregulation, Ercot is the sole authority to determine how power flows across the “nodal system” that exists in Texas, for, unlike the other large regional power grids in the US and Canada, Ercot is contained within the borders of Texas and therefore not subject to Federal interstate commerce regulations. In Texas, if a plant near Dallas has excess capacity, and Waco experiences a power surge, then Ercot determines how much power moves between the two cities. Even though Austin would sell its share in the Fayette plant, it is not clear whether the city would have a say on which plants were providing power generation to Austin Energy customers. For more on Ercot, read this extensive PDF. Also, LCRA (the Lower Colorado River Authority) has stated that they are “proud” of the Fayette plant and have "no plans to close [the plant] and will not support any plan to shut down the plant."
It is also significant that Leffingwell made his announcement at press conference kicking off his re-election campaign. When Randi Shade lost her seat to Kathie Tovo in June, Leffingwell lost a strong pro-business ally, and needed support from the generally left leaning council for his big pet project, a $500 million water treatment plant. It is critically important for Leffingwell to hear from his constituents just how important Austin’s clean energy future is.
Please contact the Mayor and tell him that you support his decision and want to see Austin powered by clean technologies. You can easily write him here, or you can attend the Sierra Club’s Town Hall meeting:
Sunday, December 4, 2011
TSEU Office at 1700 South 1st Street, Austin, Texas
3:00-5:00 PM
Nationally, the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring dirty, “tarsands” bitumen from Alberta, Canada to Houston and Port Arthur hit two major obstacles this week. First, President Obama decided to delay a decision about the pipeline for up to 18 months as the State Department re-evaluates the enivronmental impact of the pipeline route which would take it through at least seven states and over several critical aquifers including the vast Ogalalla Aquifer in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska and the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Texas. Any spill in these areas would be a disaster for millions of farmers, ranchers, and would pollute municipal water systems. The initial State Department environmental impact statement was written by a paid contractor of Transcanada, the very company that is trying to build the pipeline. An independent EIS drafted by professionals who are not employed by Transcanada will show how dangerous this pipeline really is. The administration’s own Environmental Protection Agency has already issued two statements condeming the pipeline, but under an obscure Johnson administration executive order from 1968, they do not have jurisdiction over pipelines that cross international borders.
Obama’s decision is definitely about the 2012 presidential election. In 2008, Obama ran a progressive campaign, pledging to provide good governance, end the wars, fix the economy, provide health care, and protect the environment. The results of his first term have been suspect, at best, on all of these issues, and he needs the support of his progressive base to win his re-election. As Ian Davis, of the Sierra Club, put it, “if he caves on [the pipeline] he will lose his volunteer base,” because this is “a litmus test issue for young people.” In practice, this delay enables anti-pipeline advocates to increase pressure on the administration from multiple angles, and hopefully make it politically unfeasible for the pipeline to be built. In Texas, this pressure comes in the form of 391 commissions. These 391’s are “super governments” formed when any number of mayors or city councils vote to form one and are able to “join and cooperate to improve the health, safety, and general welfare of their residents.” 391’s were instrumental in defeating Rick Perry’s hated Trans Texas Corridor, and are the basis for pipeline opposition in Texas.
Nebraska, which had been the center of anti-pipeline activism, scored its own big victory against the pipeline this week when Transcanada announced it would reroute the pipeline around the state. The initial route passed through the sensitive Sand Hills region, the primary recharge zone for the vast Ogalalla Aquifer that provides water to a huge area in multiple states across the southern great plains. In some ways, the success in rerouting the pipeline away from Nebraska will make it more difficult for activists in other states (given the strong, bipartisan opposition to the pipeline in the state); however, the mounting costs associated with the delays will eventually force Transcanada to find an alternative route, or non at all. The company’s stock as already fallen 9.1% since October 4, and the delays are projected to cost them up to $1 million per day.
I will continue the discussion next week on both issues, and provide more ways to help get Austin off of dirty coal, and keep the US free of dirty Canadian tarsands oil.
A crowd of notable Austinites gathered in the library of Becker Elementary in South Austin yesterday afternoon to watch one of the school's more notable alumni, Lee Leffingwell, announce his plans to run for re-election as Mayor of Austin.
In front of most of the local print and TV media, Lee pledged to keep Austin focused on the fundamentals, praised our job growth, and touted infrastructure improvements we've made over the last three years. Lee also proved that he continues to be focused on the future of the city he grew up in, reiterating his support for a rail bond election in November 2012, and most importantly stating publicly for the first time that Austin will set a timeline to phase out of Fayette, our coal-fired power plant. The pledge to make Austin's power 100% coal free was a big claim, and Lee promised to work with stakeholders across the city and region to make it happen.
Three years ago, Lee ran as the strong and steady type, ready to hunker down and lead Austin through the recession. By all accounts, the mayor has done just that, protecting public safety and working to protect both our environment and affordability. However, Lee has also supported a tremendous amount of job growth here in Austin, as Council helped bring Facebook, Hanger Orthopedic, and Sunpower to the city, while also watching many local companies expand and employ Austinites.
Initially when he took office, it wasn't necessarily clear if Lee even planned to seek more than one term. However, he's not only done a solid job, he's genuinely grown into the role. In his speech yesterday (reprinted in full below the jump), Lee touched on many of his less well-known accomplishments in his first term -- increasing citizen engagement via his Community Cabinet, supporting the First Lady's Let's Move initiative to fight childhood obesity, and launching Austin Corps to get a new generation of people interested in government and public service. While Lee has definitely focused on the fundamentals, he's also brought a broad, community-wide focus to the Mayor's office, and seems to actually work hard to engage folks across Austin in major decisions. As a native Austinite, Lee's ties to and love for the community run deep. It's hard to argue that he doesn't make decisions with our entire, diverse city in mind.
Now, the only question remaining is if anyone will mount a credible challenge to the Mayor.
Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole had expressed an interest in running, as many City Hall regulars have heard her indicate plans to challenge the mayor. Conceivably a Mayoral run was part of the impetus for her unprecedented move to unseat Mike Martinez as Mayor Pro Tem after the last municipal cycle. But could Cole actually capture the same coalition that propelled Kathie Tovo onto the council? Cole's voting record closely mirrors that of Randi Shade's, in her votes for the Water Treatment Plant, and South Shore and Grayco PUD projects, all of which were vehemently opposed by the neighborhood activists and staunch anti-growth advocates who supported Tovo. And while MPT Cole's signature achievement, the Waller Creek project, will do much to develop an area of downtown in need of revitalization -- and contribute handily to our tax base when finished -- I'm not sure if a large downtown development is the kind of marquis project that wins support from the Austin Neighborhoods Council and the like.
No other credible names have really circulated among the City Hall gossip-mongers to date. Arguably, the recent decision over whether Austin should move its elections from May to November only solidified the Mayor's re-election chances. Lee's vote to move the Election to November -- a move which failed along 4-3 lines, Morrison, Tovo, Spelman, and Cole voting for the May status quo -- was in line with what the majority of Austin voters, and activists, supported. A November election would have saved the City over $1 million in tough economic times, and boosted turnout to something above the abysmal 10% we currently see. That vote -- and in particular, the votes of the four Council members who would rather keep turnout low and municipal elections in the hands of a small cadre of hyper-informed voters seemingly fit to "understand" the issues at hand -- will probably be an issue along the 2011 campaign trail.
Lee has put together a strong re-election effort. His campaign will be managed by JD Gins, who helmed his 2009 effort. Joe Deshotel (son of the State Rep, not the State Rep himself) will serve as field director. Given the broad and diverse range of Austinites who came to the launch yesterday -- including Alamo Drafthouse maestro Tim League, perhaps one of the strongest supporters of Brewster McCracken in the 2009 race -- it's clear that The Lee Team is already working hard to grow and solidify support.
Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell was on hand today to meet with President Barack Obama and will be on hand throughout the day. The Mayor will travel with the motorcade throughout today's events, including a rally at Gregory Gym on the University of Texas campus.
"This is an opportunity for us to highlight what is great about Austin," said Mayor Leffingwell. "I want to thank the President for his support of many local projects and the stimulus funds that have created jobs. Austin is a symbol of our national economic recovery, and we owe much of that to the Federal partnerships we have created".
Rick Perry will simply hand the President a letter about border security in Texas and will likely ask for an increase in federal support in either troop support or federal money since he has totally, mismanaged the border and budget. Bill White is on the campaign trail today.
Since last Saturday's election, Tamala Barskdale has received several high-profile endorsements as she prepares for the June 12 runoff against Julie Cowan.
In what promises to be an extremely low turnout runoff, these endorsements could prove to be very beneficial. Barskdale had already been endorsed by the Austin Chronicle, ACC teacher's union, nearly every Democratic club (with the exception of the Tejano Democrats, whose endorsed candidate came in third place) and Burnt Orange Report.
Update: In the runoff for ACC Board of Trustees Place 5, Davis Jones, who finished fourth last Saturday, has endorsed David Reiter. Reiter will face Vic Villarreal, who led the four-person race.
With a 7-0 vote yesterday, the Austin City Council passed a landmark energy plan that sets our city on a path to a cleaner, greener future. By 2020, 35% of our energy will be produced from renewable sources. In the process, our home-grown Austin Energy will become one of the greenest, most sustainable utilities in the country.
The Statesman has a comment from Mayor Leffingwell on this great step forward for Austin:
"I believe that Austin has in the past shown leadership on environmental initiatives," Mayor Lee Leffingwell said. "And I think that we should keep ourselves in the forefront, recognizing that global climate change is, in my opinion, the environmental challenge of our time. This is a global problem, but the sum of local policy is global policy."
This plan demonstrates that our city government is thinking both short- and long-term in its approach to the major challenges facing Austin. The economic downturn has folks watching every penny, so the increase in cost is certainly an issue. Council is on top of this, however -- the plan won't go into effect until specific cost-containment goals are adopted before year-end. It's also worth noting that potential increases in energy costs from renewables -- estimates run as high as a 20% increase -- don't factor in likely long-term increases in costs of natural gas and oil. (Or, might I add, the cost of cleaning up after our dirty sources of energy.)
Our entire planet needs to address climate change, declining fossil fuel stores, and environmental needs now, to prevent greater cost later on. We can invest today in a cleaner future, or pay dearly when our current sources of energy run out. Austin's green energy plan is a great way to accomplish all of these goals.
Burnt Orange Report also received a statement from the Sierra Club praising the landmark plan:
"While the resolution passed by Austin City Council isn't perfect, it sets up a process with the public to examine additional issues -- like how Austin can legally, economically and technically get out of our dependence on the Fayette Coal Plant and how we can create a local power plant through solar on roofs. The Sierra Club and its members will continue to be constructively involved in this discussion on affordable, clean, reliable energy." -- Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director, Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club
Until we have enough alternate sources of energy, many experts think that the City of Austin can't afford to sell off the polluting coal plant -- otherwise at peak energy times (like 5:30 p.m. when folks return from work and turn on their air conditioners) -- we might end up in the dark. Currently, only 12% of our energy comes from renewables. This move to 35% over 10 years is ambitious and achievable, and will give Austin much more room to make the most sustainable energy decisions in the future.
So kudos to our City Council for giving Austin one of the best Earth Day presents possible: a cleaner, greener energy future.
It's no surprise that Willie endorsed the Mayor, since the Mayor renamed several blocks of 2nd Street in downtown Austin as 
