There seems to be a bit of a hullabaloo going on about advertising in this year's city council elections. It first started out with Rick Culleton of Discount Electronics started using his ad space in the Austin Chronicle on behalf of Austin City Council Place 1 candidate Jason Meeker (possibly in violation of state ethics laws).
Well, that came and went until yesterday, when a full page ad (.pdf) was taken out by Mr. Culleton as an individual, this time aimed at both Councilmembers Lee Leffingwell and Jennifer Kim. Now, it appears that he has taken that message to the airwaves, spending his own money on a similar message on TV.
I've found the whole episode a bit strange- I'm not sure I'd spend that much money randomly in a city council race but this is Austin and stranger things have certainly happened. Randi Shade released the following statement in regards to the apparent independent expenditure.
"I've been made aware today that Mr. Rick Culleton, the owner of Discount Electronics, has begun airing television commercials which are critical of Jennifer Kim and which advocate for my candidacy. I want to make clear that I have never met with or talked to Mr. Culleton about my campaign, and have no previous association with him. Mr. Culleton did make an unsolicited online contribution to my campaign on Wednesday night, and while I appreciate his support and advocacy, I am in no way involved in his effort and have not received any notification from him regarding any of his
independent expenditures."
Key Point: The lesson from "The Unforeseen" I took away was that we have to learn how to work in harmony, think in long-term plans, and appropriately envision how to protect our open/green spaces. Politically speaking, that includes taking measures to prevent developers from going to the Legislature with enough leverage/energy to trample the S.O.S. ordinance -- which was Shade's point, and why I agree with her.
I begin this journal by saying that I love Barton Springs as much as anyone, and I'm about as anti-development as they come. I want Showdown to stay, I think it's crap that Las Manitas is being replaced, and I've signed more S.O.S. petitions than I can count. I've got a painting of Barton Springs hanging on my wall in my Boston apartment -- so respect where I'm coming from when I say that I agree with Randi Shade on Barton Springs.
Earlier, our writer Mark Duncan wrote a journal titled, "Shade Proclaims Austin Should Negotiate Away Barton Springs." I was alarmed, astonished -- until I read what she actually said, and how grossly (re: politically) her remarks have been interpreted:
What I told him was how sad it made me to see it result in legislative action. That the will of the citizens was ... of Austin was basically taken by legislative process. And that there wasn't a better compromise that made everybody a winner. Because really when you saw the original proposal less land would have been developed than what ultimately did get developed. And I just ... You know I think that was what I was talking about, the importance of compromise. It was in the context of the Domain subsidies discussion that we were having."
Those remarks sound like she's lamenting the fact that legislative action took place -- and I agree. In the comments to Mark's post I remarked that a good political leader will anticipate the next move of their "opponent." So when the law gutting the S.O.S. ordinance was passed then vetoed by Governor Richards in 1993, what happened? Because that exact same bill passed two years later -- and in those two years, knowing that it still lived there, any number of things could have been done to seek a compromise.
We need crusaders for a cause -- they are absolutely necessary, and I'm one of them when it comes to Barton Springs Pool. But I can't see every political reality out there, and that's where I trust my City Council Members to look out for what is a reality. And the reality is that, if something is in the Legislature, one city isn't going to stop it -- and unless the Speaker of the House is from Austin, you're very unlikely to build enough partners in the Legislature to save your cause. What needed to happen from Richards' veto in 1993 and Bush's signature in 1995 was a compromise, pure and simple -- and we needed the City Council to figure out how to make that happen.
Why I Trust Randi Shade
There's never been anything that has given me the impression that Shade doesn't appreciate Barton Springs. She speaks openly and publicly about it, and about protecting it. From the Clean Water Action / Texas Vote Environment Questionairre:
In general, I believe we should continue buying as much land as possible over the Edwards Aquifer and unfailingly rotect what we already have. I will be an advocate for strict enforcement of the SOS rdinance and will work to advance policies that result in the reduction of pollutants flowing nto the Barton Springs watershed and other urban watersheds.
Question: Despite a lot of talk, water quality in Barton Springs has deteriorated significantly in the past ten ears. What will you do to protect Barton Springs?
Shade: If elected to the City Council I will be a consistent advocate for the strict enforcement of the SOS ordinance and will work with the rest of the City Council and the community at large to advance policies that result in the net reduction of pollutants flowing into the Barton Springs watershed. Barton Springs Pool is the “soul of the city,” and the fight to protect the quality of water in the Barton Springs watershed is representative of the larger fight to protect and improve water quality everywhere.
I'm not going to find someone who's perfect to run for City Council. But Shade has done numerous things that has impressed me and allowed me to trust her throughout her campaign:
She's open and honest with the community. Find her controversial at times, disagree with her, but you know where she is. Her blogging here at BOR has impressed me, and if I at least know what a City Council member is thinking then I know that I need to change his/her mind. I never knew what Kim might do, so Shade is an improvement over Kim.
She understands partnering with adversaries. Partnering with adversaries doesn't mean caving, it doesn't mean selling out, and it doesn't mean kowtowing to their wishes. Partnering with adversaries has the same positive benefit as being open with the community --- you know what "the other" is thinking/saying, so you aren't blindsided by it and can manage their needs and hungers.
Does Shade have more developer friends/supporters than Kim? Maybe. Matt says so, and I fully trust Matt. But is that inherently bad? If the candidate demonstrates a pattern of being out of touch with the community, yes. But Shade has shown no signs of such aloofness (unlike Kim), and I think there is value in having a City Council Member that understands all the factions in the system.
She understands the roles we play. Shade knows there are diehards -- like many of you, and like me -- on things like Barton Springs, and she knows she's got to be responsive to those voices. When asked the question in the audience (provided Mark's report was correct, and I trust that it is), she answered the question in a context, and didn't take it personally. Beyond someone who can manage others in a group system, leaders must be able to control their own passions and act as a lighting rod for the community -- and then, once the storm passes, focus on the real adaptive work that needs to be done. Kim has never shown to be much a leader (more of a follower) on a lot of issues, which doesn't impress me.
Shade would be closely watched if/when she is elected to the Austin City Council. I've never read or heard anything from her that suggests political scheming. Her remarks -- which Mark and others have found so offensive -- weren't a reflection of someone who was out to "negotiate away" Barton Springs. Her remarks were a reflection of an honest politician, discussing how difficult the tradeoffs can be in the highly charged political world, and how sad it is when the soul of the city --- her words, not mine --- comes under threat from development.
Something Randi Shade said at a forum has a few people concerned.
Transcript of Randi Shade's statement at the Thursday, April 17 Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA) Candidate Forum
Question: You told Brian Rogers that we should have negotiated SOS instead of passing SOS. Why do you feel this way?
"Well, I don't think that's exactly what I told Brian Rogers, but I don't know. Is he here? What I talked to him about was my viewing of the movie "The Unforseen" which I highly recommend you all see if you haven't.
It's been showing at the Alamo Draft House for about a week now. Alamo Draft House South. What I told him was how sad it made me to see it result in legislative action. That the will of the citizens was ... of Austin was basically taken by legislative process. And that there wasn't a better compromise that made everybody a winner. Because really when you saw the original proposal less land would have been developed than what ultimately did get developed. And I just ... You know I think that was what I was talking about, the importance of compromise. It was in the context of the Domain subsidies discussion that we were having."
Environmental leaders from Austin have written an open letter criticizing Shade for her openness to compromise away Austin's commitment to protect Barton Springs.
Former Mayor Gus Garcia, former councilmember Brigid Shea, Bill Bunch, Ann Kitchen, and Robin Rather released an open letter to the Austin public today criticizing city council candidate Randi Shade for recent comments that the city should have compromised with developers on the SOS ordinance.
"Ms. Shade's statement that we should have negotiated with developers shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation the Austin community was faced with," the letter says. Ms. Shade made comments at the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA) last Thursday that Austin had made a mistake by not compromising with developers instead of passing the SOS ordinance.
The Save Our Springs Alliance was born in 1990, when Freeport McMoRan, a mining company, threatened to develop 4,000 acres (16 km²) of land it owned along Barton Creek. When it came time for City Council to approve the development, though, an all-night meeting ensued wherein citizens decried the company's actions and professed their love of Barton Springs, what many refer to as the "Soul of the City."
The Save Our Springs Ordinance was a community driven effort launched in 1992.
This ordinance was put on the ballot by citizen initiative after decades of attempted negotiation with the developers who were building over the watershed. After developers negotiated away more and more protections and a pro-development council sided with business interests over community interests, it was clear the negotiation failed.
As the letter states, "The community made clear its will with the overwhelming passage of the SOS ordinance that the Springs were to be protected, not bargained away."
(Bumped. This came out last Friday afternoon so many of our weekday readers may have missed it. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Earlier I promoted a post regarding some poll results in the Austin City Council races conducted by the Capital Area Asian American Democrats (consider making a donation to them to cover the cost of the poll like I did). I received word that the results were slightly off as they were the raw numbers prior to being weighted to the electorate.
I have posted the official poll results below. The changes are marginal but do reflect a lower level of undecided voters across the board and Robin Cravey swaps positions with Jennifer Gale in Place 4.
Here are the actual poll results.
IVR Polls surveyed 517 likely City Council voters on April 16. The survey's margin of error is +/- 4.3%.
Place 1
Lee Leffingwell 37.5%
Jason Meeker 13.7%
Allen Demling 3.9%
Undecided 44.9%
Place 3
Randi Shade 26.4%
Jennifer Kim 24.9%
Ken Weiss 11.3%
Undecided 37.4%
Place 4
Cid Galindo 11.9%
Laura Morrison 10.3%
Robin Cravey 10.2%
Jennifer Gale 8.0%
Ken Vasseau 4.8%
Sam Osemene 4.8%
Undecided 50.0%
We don't usually have an opportunity to see a poll like this so what does it tell us? First off, according to the pollster, these respondents are those who self-identified themselves as planning to vote in the city elections, so the undecideds, while high, are not inflated by unlikely voters.
That said- it's clear that these races are very fluid and voter contact via TV, Radio, and Mail will play a large role in the next 3 weeks.
In Place 1, Leffingwell clearly has an established lead with Meeker having to work to get beyond his base if he's to have any chance. This concurs with the wideheld assumption that Leffingwell is headed to victory without a runoff.
In Place 3, a statistical tie exists and while always predicted to be a hard fought race, I wouldn't have guessed that Shade would have had this level of support prior to entering the paid media phase of the campaign (which against an incumbent is a place she's probably happy to be in). Still, it's anyone game, but unless Kim or Shade is able to boost their margins, they'll be going head to head until the June runoff and a long campaign and smaller electorate could shift the electoral dynamics.
In Place 4, it is clear that the lack of an incumbent has the race wide open for whom is going to face off in a June runoff. Morrison, having won the lion's share of endorsements and some of the city's better consultants, does not have the poll numbers to back up what many had perceived to be frontrunner status. There is a clear separation of the field in this place with Gale providing the dividing line of those who are contenders and those who are not; Gale, of course, being in a class of her own.
Also, people may have underestimated the power that a Hispanic surname has, even in city elections (note- he has done some tv already). Combine that with a candidate likely to pick up the moderate to center-right city voters, and we may be dealing with a battle between Morrison and Cravey for which progressive will get to take on Cid Galindo in a runoff. Still, the race has the most undecided voters and is wide open so there is a reasonable chance that we get a Morrison-Cravey runoff that makes Austin lefties a little less anxious.
Share your own thoughts in the comments. The poll script is in the extended entry.
(Randi Shade is running for Austin City Council Place 3 against incumbent Jennifer Kim. I'll try to get up a post later today with all the candidates' finance reports. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Hello BOR Community:
Judging by the posts on today's open thread "What Races Are You Watching?" there weren't many of you anxiously waiting in front of your computers this afternoon for the Austin City Council fundraising reports to come out, but it was a big day for those of us in the running. It turned out to be an especially big day for our campaign, as we found ourselves with a $30,000 lead in cash-on-hand over our opponent, Place 3 incumbent Jennifer Kim.
Between January 1 and April 1, our campaign raised $95,987, making our total amount raised since the beginning of the race in November $158,184. We've spent just over $63,000 in that time, and I loaned myself $10,000 for the race, so we've now got $103,175 in the bank for the last 30 days of the race. Jennifer Kim raised $84,284 in this reporting period, making her total raised since the start of the campaign $143,485. She's reported spending just over $74,000 and has a $7,700 loan, making her current cash balance $74,088.
A $30,000 cash lead (ok, $29,087) is - with all due humility - no small feat in a race against a well-known, well-financed incumbent where the maximum individual contribution is $300, but the numbers alone aren't the best part of the story. The best part is the fact that more than half of our 713 donors, 53% of them to be exact, have never contributed to any candidate for Austin City Council before. These are mostly friends and associates who have worked with me in every venture and organization of which I've ever been a part. That gives me confidence that our campaign can and will continue to bring new people in the process - people who I hope and believe will show up at the polls on Election Day.
At the same time, I'm proud to have the financial support and endorsement of a lot of Austin's most familiar faces, too. Our donors during this reporting period included some of our community's best-known non-profit executives, business leaders, philanthropists, Democratic and pro-choice activists, developers (yes, developers!), educators, neighborhood leaders, environmental and transit advocates, former City Council members and state legislators, former UT student body presidents, and leaders from the Hispanic, African-American, Asian-American, Jewish and gay communities.
Tonight four clubs got together and had a joint forum to endorse in the Austin City Council, AISD and ACC races. Those clubs were South Austin Democrats, Texas Environmental Democrats, Capitol Area Asian American Democrats, and Capital Area Progressive Democrats, and the result are below.
Tim Mahoney was endorsed by CAPD, CAAAD, SAD, and TED for ACC
Jerry Garcia was endorsed by CAPD and CAAAD for Austin Independent School District Board
Lee Leffingwell was endorsed by CAPD, CAAAD, SAD, TED for re-election in City Council Place 1
Jennifer Kim was endorsed by CAPD and CAAAD for Austin City Council Place 3
Randi Shade was endorsed by SAD for Austin City Council Place 3
Laura Morrison was endorsed by CAPD, CAAAD, and SAD for Austin City Council Place 4
This list represents all endorsements made tonight at the Democratic Club meetings and links to the website are provided if available.
(I wish city council races could be more about vision than some of the back and forth over who is who's supporters, Either way, it's early and that's going to be part of the discussion as city elections are very important to us here at BOR. I'll promote this for discussion. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
"Hello, Kettle? This is the Jennifer Kim Campaign. You're black."
Last week, two RECA past presidents and a whole host of heavy hitter developers held a fundraiser for Council Member Jennifer Kim.
The hosts of this event included current and former RECA (Real Estate Council of Austin) officers and board members, who are also some of the biggest condo developers in town. Even the folks who are not actual developers on this list represent developers in front of the City Council (translation: lobbyists).
For those who don't know me, I would like to present a brief introduction. In the mid-nineties, I was elected twice to the State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC) representing Senate District 14. I worked at the Travis County Democratic party for some time, where I helped organize rallies for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and others. I am a cofounder of North by Northwest Democrats which was born in my kitchen. Also I have worked on numerous local issues - fighting Exxon Mobil and BP Amoco to prevent the Longhorn Pipeline and pushing Wal-Mart off the aquifer, to mention a couple. I am a former board member of Save Our Springs Alliance. But I'm sure, no matter what I've done, I'm certain to invite some enmity by writing this (yawn).
Recently, I have worked with the Stop Domain Subsidies group to prevent the City of Austin from doling out 65 million of taxpayer dollars to Simon Properties, the largest mall developer in the US, to support high-end retail. As you may know, we successfully completed a petition drive to put the issue on the ballot in November. Twenty-three thousand Austinites signed the petition and we recruited nearly 500 locally owned businesses such as Alamo Drafthouse, Book People, and Waterloo Records. It is through this effort we came to meet Randi Shade.
Our founder, Brian Rodgers, met with Ms. Shade four or five times. At the end of the day, we concluded she is not a good choice for Austin. She began our discussions as "seemingly" supportive of our efforts and over time began to oppose our efforts. This was deeply disturbing to us. One reason, perhaps, is that she is accepting contributions from the few folks who would like to see us fail, like the original developers of the Domain. She claims her campaign contributions have no impact on her ability to lead. We're not so sure. Perhaps more disturbing is her inability to stick with an issue with any kind of conviction. We certainly don't need any more wafflers in any form of government.
In October, Jennifer Kim cast a very difficult vote that was in every sense courageous. In her role as a member of the Capitol Area Metropolitan Organization (CAMPO), she voted to oppose the toll road plan. Her vote was vindicated later when TXDOT admitted to a billion dollar "error" - meaning there would be less money available to build needed roads in Central Texas. Meanwhile, supporters of the toll road agenda are gleefully inundating Ms. Shades campaign coffers with contributions. What does this mean exactly? Perhaps nothing, but do we want to find out after she's elected?
Besides, Jennifer has been a stalwart supporter of the environment, neighborhoods and especially small, locally owned businesses. I have a difficult time wondering why we would elect anyone else at this time.
I think Ms. Shade is adopting the new paradigm in Austin politics as a campaign strategy. The strategy goes like this: Don't commit too much, appear a little left of center, be involved in the community (but not anything too controversial or verifiable) and let the voters project their own beliefs on the candidate. I'm not certain what we have in Ms. Shade and I don't think anyone else does either. I have heard from many folks who tell me that Ms. Shade's responses to queries at the forums are often times "I'll have to get back to you on that" or "I need to to learn more about that." That doesn't give me much comfort. I prefer candidates who exhibit some core belief system or values. I hope you do too.
Please support Jennifer Kim this May. And please feel free to hold Ms. Shade's political feet to the fire - like we do every other candidate in this town.
The Austin Lesbian & Gay Political Caucus along with the Stonewall Democrats met last week and have endorsed the following candidates in the Austin City Council races.
That both the city and state are in need of sound leadership is an understatement. Shade's devotion to public service is striking and it's time that we articulate a desire for change by voting for Randi Shade. -Daron Roberts
