Disclaimer: I support Brewster McCracken for Austin Mayor(Jeff Brooks is the paid political director for Brewster McCracken for Mayor)
If any single thing defines the city of Austin, it's the music. When you walk along any downtown street on any given night, the air is filled with music. We have world-class jazz at the Elephant Room, Irish folk at B.D. Riley's, indie rock at Emo's, incredible blues at Antone's, and every other kind of music coming out of countless classic Austin music venues. South By Southwest and the Austin City Limits Music Festival now rank among the highest-profile music events in the world. It all adds up to music scene unique in the world, which is the envy of many another city.
And it has to be protected.
Austin's music industry is under threat, and the present economic crisis has only made the situation worse. Local musicians, like everyone else, are having a difficult time finding affordable housing and quality affordable healthcare. The steady growth of downtown has put price pressures on our music venues, many of which are having trouble keeping their doors open. The result of this is that we're bleeding musicians, many of whom are leaving for other cities- not by choice, but out of sheer economic necessity. If we don't address these issues soon, we may wake up one morning to find that we're no longer the Live Music Capital of the World.
Much as I enjoy making my out-of-town friends jealous with stories of the Austin music scene, this is not a mere question of bragging rights. The problems facing our music scene have to be addressed not just for the sake of the music itself, but because we cannot afford to lose such an important contributor to the local economy. Our music scene annually generates more than $1.6 billion for the Austin economy, pumping $25 million of tax revenue into the city coffers and employing around 20,000 Austinites. The difficulties facing the Austin music scene are not only a moral and cultural issue, but an economic one as well.
Brewster McCracken has made the promotion of Austin's creative economic sector a key element of his mayoral campaign, and the music scene is obviously a huge part of this. It shouldn't surprise anyone, then, that Brewster has announced a series of detailed policy proposals designed to address the problems facing our music scene.
As was recommended last year by the city's Live Music Task Force, Brewster wants to create a Music Department at City Hall, which would serve as the principal organizing force in building up the necessary infrastructure to ensure a vibrant music scene. He is calling for efforts to help Austin musicians and others who make their living from the Austin music scene find affordable housing and quality affordable healthcare by working with local organizations like the Health Alliance for Austin Musicians. And he wants to craft common sense development policies for downtown that will help keep existing music venues in business, as well as making it easier for new ones to open up.
Brewster already has a long record of supporting the Austin music scene. Bands have Brewster to thank for being able to load and unload their gear for free in the special loading zones in front of Austin clubs, which is a much bigger deal than you might imagine. He has pushed for exempting South By Southwest shows from the sound ordinance, and has proposed transforming the original site of the Armadillo World Headquarters into a premier central location for independent Austin musicians, to include recording studios and perhaps even a museum about the history of Austin music. I could go on.
In light of Brewster's innovative proposals and past record with the music industry, it should come as no surprise that some of the biggest names in Austin music have thrown their support behind Brewster's candidacy. They include country music legend Jimmie Dale Gilmore, singer/songwriters Sara Hickman, Troy Campbell and Jo Carol Pierce, Susan Antone (we miss you, Clifford!), Latin music advocate Luis Zapata and many, many others. Is it a coincidence that those who best understand the issues facing the Austin music scene are lining up solidly behind Brewster? I don't think so.
By contrast, I have not heard Lee Leffingwell say anything about the music industry since the beginning of the mayoral campaign. A quick check shows that there is no mention of the issue at all on his website- not one word. Considering the critical importance of the Austin music scene to our city's economy, I would expect any mayoral candidate to make it a high priority, even if he or she personally didn't care about music. The fact that Lee doesn't consider it worthy of even a mere symbolic statement of support should give pause to anyone who loves Austin music, and especially to anyone who makes their living from it.
I love Austin, and I love Austin music. I worry about the future of our amazing music scene, and I think that we need to elect a mayor who both understands these issues and will give them the attention they deserve. If you agree, you should cast your vote for Brewster McCracken on May 9.
(Brooks is a stated McCracken supporter (as you can tell from the tone of his post). Given the high level of discussion that this post has generated in the "user posts" section, I decided to promote it to the front page so more of our community could comment -- in case they hadn't seen it in the user section. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
I like and admire Lee Leffingwell. He has done some excellent work during his time on the City Council. He's a good man and he probably would not be a bad mayor. That being said, I will be casting my vote for Brewster McCracken on election day.
One major reason is their respective approaches to alternative energy, which will undoubtedly emerge as one of the great job creation engines in the coming years. Brewster routinely talks our ears off with specific and detailed proposals for how to create jobs in the alternative energy sector, and he is spearheading the Pecan Street Project to make Austin into one of the great alternative energy hubs of America.
Lee, on the other hand, merely talks softly about forming a "Green Collar Jobs Council", that exact function of which is unclear. Frankly, it seems to be little more than an invitation to local leaders to sit down and chat about creating green jobs, which is what we are already doing anyway. While Lee has been excellent on many environmental issues during his time on the Council, he has never taken a lead on embracing the alternative energy economy as a means of strengthening the local economy and contributing to solving our energy problems.
This can be seen in recent actions on the dais, when Brewster pushed for the final approval of what would be one of the country's largest solar power plants, while Lee called for yet more delays. The stated rationale for the delay, as articulated by Lee and Mike Martinez, was to explore the possibility of having individual consumers subscribe to solar power. Brewster, on the other hand, thinks that solar power must be a central element in the overall Austin energy matrix. For myself, I agree wholeheartedly with Brewster. Solar power shouldn't be the parsley on the dinner plate; it should be part of the main course.
And consider the creative sector, another sphere in which Austin is well-positioned to create thousands of new jobs in the coming years. Brewster has been the most proactive member of the Council in pushing for policies to assist the development of filmmaking and digital media ventures in our city. Chief among them is Austin Studios, which has, according to the Austin Film Society, pumped $1 billion into the Austin economy over the last decade.
About the economic opportunities presented by creative industries, however, Lee says virtually nothing. As with alternative energy, Lee has simply not lead to the same extent as Brewster.
A quick glance through Facebook stresses this point. There are two individual groups of creative professionals supporting Brewster: "Film and Digital Media Professional for Brewster McCracken" and "Artists and Musicians for McCracken." No similar groups have emerged for Lee. The creative economy is simply not something Lee has taken an interest in, despite its enormous potential to be a driving force for job creation in our community.
Put another way, if the candidates were pieces of technology, Brewster McCracken would be a Blu-ray player, while Lee Leffingwell would be a VCR.
The current mayoral election is essentially a debate between the 20th Century vision of the Leffingwell camp and the 21st Century vision of the McCracken camp. While I think Lee's heart is in the right place, I simply don't see think his proposals are the ones to move our city forward. Brewster's agenda, on the other hand, is one for the 21st Century, and I think Austin should be a 21st Century city. That's why Brewster will have my vote on May 9.
(I was at this event and it was very interesting to see and listen to Brewster's speech. Austin's creative economy I think is the future, but the question for now is, can it be organized into a meaningful electoral coalition. I did like the forward looking nature of McCracken's arguments. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Disclaimer: I am a supporter of Brewster McCracken for Mayor of Austin.
I just got home from the Creative Convergence event for Brewster McCracken, which was held at Momo's on W. 6th Street. It was a fun experience and I thought it reflected many truths about Brewster as a candidate and about the mayoral race in general.
First of all, the turnout would have been considered large under normal conditions, and it eventually got so crowded that I had great difficulty getting to the bar to order my next pint of Fireman's #4. But the turnout was particularly large when one considers that the event had been promoted entirely through social media (I myself learned about it from Facebook). No phone calls were made, no mailings were sent out, and yet the place was still packed. Brewster said that it was probably the biggest turnout for any Austin political event that had been promoted solely through social media.
Brewster was introduced by Thom Singer, who made a lovely speech in which he touched on a topic that I have lately mentioned here on the Burnt Orange Report: namely, that many people criticize Brewster McCracken as being "ambitious" or "visionary". To point out the absurdity of this argument, Mr. Singer quoted a poem recently penned by Paul Graham, Cities and Ambition.
Great cities attract ambitious people. You can sense it when you walk around one. In a hundred subtle ways, the city sends you a message: you could do more, you should try harder.
In short, being ambitious and having bold visions for the future is a positive trait, not a negative one. I think that the man currently sitting in the Oval Office has proved that decisively, despite how often his political enemies (Democratic and Republican) have denounced him for having his head in the clouds.
Brewster's speech itself was tailored to the audience: in this case, digital artists, musicians, and other people involved in the "creative economy". He reflected on his own creative efforts in the writing of his novel (which, as he humorously pointed out, never got published), and discussed how the creative energies of Austin are not only a source for cultural innovation, but can serve as a powerful engine of job creation and thus contribute to the strength of Austin's economy.
He also stressed one of the ideas he often hits on: in the midst of the present economic turmoil, our city should be determined not merely to survive, but to emerge from the crisis as a better and stronger community than it was when the crisis began. Listening to him speak reminded me of why I decided, back in 2005, that I would support Brewster if he ever ran for mayor: he understands the practical problems facing our community and plans to deal with them decisively, but he also has ambitious visions for the future of our great city. Some might want to merely hunker down and ride out the storm, but Brewster is a man who sees the opportunities within the present troubles and wants to take advantage of them.
Speaking personally, that's the kind of person I want as my mayor.
Disclaimer: I am a supporter of Brewster McCracken for Mayor of Austin.
Yesterday, the Austin City Council was supposed to make a decision on the proposed deal with the California-based Gemini Solar Development Company to build what would be one of America's largest solar power arrays. The City of Austin would be the array's exclusive customer.
If approved, the array would be built on 300 acres in eastern Travis County and would come online in 2010. It would generate 30 megawatts of electricity (enough to power 5,000 homes) and would contribute significantly to Austin's goal of obtaining 30% of its power from renewable energy sources by 2020. We currently get 11% of our power from renewables.
As it happened, though, the Council did not approve the project. Instead, in true bureaucratic fashion, they voted to delay the decision until further notice.
Councilman (and candidate for mayor) Lee Leffingwell and Councilman Mike Martinez were the Council members that pushed for the delay. They pointed out that several major companies have raised concerns over the cost of the project, which would be $10 million a year for twenty-five years. While not cheap, it's a better alternative than remaining dependent upon coal-fired power plants, whose electricity is gradually becoming more expensive anyway. In the long run, this is a good deal, even without considering the positive environmental impact.
Councilman Martinez has recently suggested waiting until the summer (i.e. after the mayoral election) to make a final decision on the issue. But Gemini's bid will expire in a month, so such a delay would be the same as canceling the project altogether. One wonders if there is more to Martinez's desire for delay than meets the eye.
Councilman (and candidate for mayor) Brewster McCracken, who has emerged as the strongest proponent of alternative energy on the Council, was the loudest voice on the dais arguing against the delay, saying that Austin should approve the project as quickly as possible. Not only would the solar power array be good in and of itself, but it would also help raise Austin's profile as a center of the alternative power industry.
Austin's credibility is also on the line here. We have been working on the deal with Gemini for a long time now, and to delay and perhaps cancel the deal at the last minute makes our city look like a tease. If we back out of this stage without good reason, energy companies will be less likely to consider Austin for major alternative energy projects in the future. Frankly, we'll look ridiculous and our reputation as an environmentally-conscious community will be badly tarnished.
Leffingwell and Martinez are wrong and McCracken is right. The City Council should approve this project immediately, and get those megawatts of solar power flowing into the Austin electric grid as soon as possible.
In November of 2006, the good people of Austin voted to approve a $90 million bond package for the construction of a new central library. This May, public meetings are scheduled to be held to allow Austinites to give their input on the design of the facility. Now is a good time for anyone who takes an interest in this issue to start considering what form we wish our new central library to take.
I think there are three main factors to consider. First, will the new library fulfill its primary purpose of expanding our library system's capacity and improve library services. Second, will the new library be able to function as a pleasant and attractive public space, thus playing a critical role in the redevelopment of the area around the Seaholm Power Plant? Third, will the new library be an architectural landmark worthy of our wonderful city?
Disclaimer Up Front: I am a supporter of Brewster McCracken for Austin Mayor.
In the late 18th Century, the English city of Birmingham was relatively prosperous, but certainly nothing to compare with the capital in London or the great trading centers of Liverpool and Glasgow. It took some time for people to realize the city's vast untapped potential. Most important were the men of the Lunar Society, an informal Birmingham dinner club of local business leaders and inventors, whose membership role reads like a who's-who of geniuses. Meeting every evening there was a full moon (so there would be enough light to find their way home), this gathering of brilliant men endlessly debated and discussed how to apply new scientific discoveries and technological inventions to the improvement of their community.
Among the members of the Lunar Society were Matthew Boulton and James Watt, the two men most responsible for the development of steam power technology, who went into business together in 1775. With Boulton providing the financial backing and Watt the inventive genius, Birmingham suddenly found itself transformed from a provincial backwater into the center of the Industrial Revolution. The new steam engines provided the power, literally and figuratively, that shattered old ideas of trade and manufacturing and created an entirely new economic system. By the beginning of the 19th Century, Birmingham had become a global economic powerhouse, while innumerable communities that had failed to embrace the future entered a state of decline from which they never recovered.
Austin in the early 21st Century has much in common with Birmingham in the late 18th Century. As the old industrial model of fossil fuel power declines and the new model of alternative energy arises, our city is fortuitously positioned to take advantage of the coming changes. Our people are highly educated and we have a well-earned reputation for technological innovation. We are already ranked as one of the nation's leaders in alternative energy, largely thanks to forward-looking policies implemented by Austin Energy. If we ranked American cities in order of how well-positioned they are to take advantage of the coming Green Economy, Austin would have to be close to the very top, if not at the pinnacle itself.
Few people understand this as well as Brewster McCracken, who has made the eager embrace of the emerging Green Economy one of the centerpieces of his time on the City Council. Some cynics may denounce his attitude as "visionary" (is there something wrong with having vision?), but many unimaginative people doubtless pooh-poohed the men of the Lunar Society when they sought to lead Birmingham into its future.
McCracken's emphasis on alternative energy has found its most concrete manifestation in the Pecan Street Project. By forming a great coalition between the city government, the University of Texas, the Environmental Defense Fund and an assortment of high-tech companies, the project intends to create a new energy matrix that not only will provide our great city with vast amounts of alternative energy, but will develop new energy technologies that can benefit both our city and the nation as a whole. The project is unique in America and has the potential to play a major role in the development of the Green Economy, both locally and nationally.
Making Austin a center for the development of alternative energy is not only good in and of itself for obvious environmental reasons, but will serve as a powerful engine for Austin's economy. The development of alternative energy will create untold numbers of new jobs for our city, just as the development of steam technology did for Birmingham during the Industrial Revolution, and, for that matter, just as the development of the semiconductor industry did for Austin in the 1990s.
It's ideas like the Pecan Street Project that make me support Brewster McCracken for mayor. As much as I like and admire Lee Leffingwell, I frankly cannot see him taking the lead on issues such as this in the active and dynamic manner Brewster has. As Brewster himself pointed out at the opening of his campaign office, we should hope and expect Austin not to emerge from the current economic turmoil merely intact, but rather as a stronger and better city than it was before the troubles began.
To end by bringing back the example with which I began this blog entry, Birmingham faced tough economic times and responded by daring to embrace the future. Other communities with similar challenges responded by digging in their heels and trying to outlast the troubles using obsolete ways of doing things . History rewarded Birmingham by making it one of the most prosperous cities in the world for more than a century, while the other communities eventually faded into total obscurity. Austin would do will to remember this lesson of history.
During the 80th Session of the Legislature two years ago, when I was a lobbyist for TexPIRG, I spent a good chunk of my time running from Capitol office to Capitol office, cajoling anyone I could get a meeting with to support redistricting reform legislation. I was told that it was a quixotic quest and that I was wasting my time. After all, in the previous session of the legislature, the House Redistricting Committee (led by Representative Joe Crabb, a fierce Craddick loyalist) had not even held hearings on the redistricting reform bills that were filed.
Despite the poor prospects for redistricting reform, Representative Mark Strama had filed legislation in the House and Senator Jeff Wentworth had done the same in the Senate. Wentworth's bill, as it had previously done, eventually passed through the Senate and was sent to the House. Rather to everyone's surprise, Representative Crabb did hold hearings on both bills (on my birthday, which was a nice treat). Of course, that was as far as either bill progressed through the legislative process, but the very fact that hearings were held at all marked an improvement on the previous session.
Nothing daunted, both Strama and Wentworth have again filed their redistricting reform bills in the 81st Session. Is there any chance they might advance beyond the committee stage this time around? With the Republican majority shaved down to a single seat, and with the iron hand of Craddick no longer hanging over the legislators, could we finally see action on this issue?
The legislation of Strama and Wentworth both envision removing the power to draw congressional districts from the state legislature and giving it to some kind of nonpartisan commission. Wentworth's bill, for example, would create a commission of nine members, with two members chosen by the House Republicans, two by House Democrats, two by Senate Republicans, two by Senate Democrats, and a nonvoting chair chosen by the other eight. Both bills would restrict political activities by members of the commission; for example, no member of the commission could campaign for political office or actively support a candidate for political office during their tenure.
Perhaps more importantly, the bills lay out standards which must be adhered to by the commission in drawing up redistricting plans. Strama's bill stipulates that the commission cannot take into consideration the residency location of specific individuals or the past political performance of geographic areas. Wentworth's bill requires ("to the extent reasonable") all new districts to be "compact and convenient" and to take into account natural barriers and political subdivision borders (i.e. county lines). Previous bills that Wentworth has filed have also included a prohibition against using political performance in considering new districts, but he has apparently concluded that his bill has a better chance of becoming law without that provision.
Such commissions as Strama and Wentworth envision are currently in operation in several states around the country. While certainly not without their problems, it does appear that they have increased electoral competition and contributed to a more equitable representation of the voters within the congressional delegations.
Neither Strama's nor Wentworth's bill is perfect, but either would be a massive improvement on the current situation. As we saw during the chaotic spring and summer of 2003, there is presently nothing that prohibits the party in control of the legislature to blatantly draw congressional districts in such a way as to maximize their own partisan advantage. This is an affront to anyone who sincerely believes in the ideals of representative democracy.
One of the things which most surprised me when I lobbied for redistricting reform was in 2007 the reluctance of many Democrats to support it. As the reasoning went, eventually the Democrats would regain control of the state legislature, and we could then screw the Republicans just as the Republicans had screwed us in 2003. Even from a purely partisan point of view, this seemed silly to me; while we have an excellent chance of regaining the House in 2010, it will obviously be some time before we regain the Senate. But more to the point, it struck me as a violation of our party's ideals. Hypocrisy may not be one of the Seven Deadly Sins, but it should be.
We live in a state with a fascinating and dynamic political landscape, and genuine redistricting reform would enhance electoral competition and serve to encourage greater political participation. And for those of my fellow Democrats who relish the idea of using the redistricting power to screw the Republicans when we are able to regain control of the legislature, I would simply ask them to consider being democrats as well as Democrats.
