UPDATE: An A2W reader sent me an e-mail asking me to clarify a point in this post. The decision to put items on the City Council agenda is done at a managerial level above the City of Austin Bicycle and Pedestrian Program.
——-
In a move reminiscent of some of the slimier actions taken by legislators up the street under the pink dome, city staff is playing calendar games with the final briefing to City Council on the Downtown Bicycle Boulevard Plan. This can only can be assumed to be a move to limit outside pressure for possible changes in the final plan.
After moving the date of the staff briefing to our elected officials several times, the date of Thursday, June 24 was settled upon a couple weeks ago. All those involved were basing this date to schedule further meetings to lobby for or against the recommendations. Yet, in my inbox this morning I found the following message from staff:
The Downtown Bicycle Boulevard Capital Improvement Project will be presented to City Council as a Briefing this Thursday, June 10, 2010. The briefing was moved from June 24th, back to its originally scheduled date of June 10th, 2010.
Add to this the fact that no one from the public will be allowed to comment on this briefing, and you start getting the feeling our public servants don’t want more input from their citizens.
This is an unfortunate development in a process that while contentious has been very open to public input up until this point. To cut out the citizenry during the end game shows that either everything until now was just for show or a desperate attempt at expedience from a staff weary of hearing from citizens unhappy with their recommendations. While I sympathize with staff having to deal with vocal opposition to their actions, an active citizenry is a cornerstone of our democracy and part of the job. Suck it up.
I hope everyone will contact our City Council and ask that 1) staff stop playing with the calendar and return the briefing to its previously scheduled later date and 2) allow public input on a staff decision that will effectively change the Master Bike Plan, a document voted on by our elected official and carrying the force of law.
You may contact the entire City Council at once via their group e-mail here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm OR contact them individually here:
Mayor Lee Leffingwell- (512) 974-2250
Place 1 Councilmember Chris Riley- (512) 974-2260
Place 2 Councilmember Mike Martinez- (512) 974-2264
Place 3 Councilmember Randi Shade- (512) 974-2255
Place 4 Councilmember Laura Morrison- (512) 974-2258
Place 5 Councilmember Bill Spelman- (512) 974-2256
Place 6 Councilmember Sheryl Cole- (512) 974-2266
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 11:34 am
I can understand that the pressures and the desire of closing this chapter has instilled into staff a “I have conquered the fear of rejection” mentality; but it should not preempt the transparency of the normal democratic process.
Please City Council Members do not allow these closed doors games!
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Alonso, the closed-door games are coming from City Council themselves, who rarely have the stomach for choosing between competing interests and likely were the real source of the ‘compromise’ that’s worse than doing nothing at all.
I’m more disappointed in the failure of the cycling community to learn anything from the Great Shoal Creek Debacle of ’00.
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 11:58 am
M1EK,
I think we’ve learned plenty, but the results have not yet changed. More work needs to be done along the process to make that happen.
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
So, Mike –
I imagine that I’ve got a good idea what you feel the “cycling community” (not that it’s some single cohesive entity, but I know what you mean) should have learned from Shoal Creek (I’ve seen your writeups on the situation and can’t really find fault in them) — but what tells you that this community hasn’t learned anything from it?
I imagine that you’re referring to some actions (or actions that weren’t done but should have been) rather than simply thoughts so what is it?
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Don’t participate in a process whose outcome can be clearly seen a mile away as one likely to be compromised away to near-nothing in a charette or other such exercise. Simply don’t participate until you’re positive they’re ready to make CHOICES, not just wuss out and compromise; because in many cases a compromise is worse than the status quo.
What does not participating buy you? Well, for one thing, it means you’re not going to hear ten years from now “well, we did what you cyclists wanted! Why are you complaining now?” – which, in fact, you still hear about Shoal Creek.
Stop wasting time at meetings and start pressuring city council members – and if you don’t have enough pull to exert the pressure, don’t bother; spend your time with your family and your friends. You might convince city staff you’re right, but when the business owner talks to the city council, you’ve completely wasted your time (and worse, in some cases, by lending that patina of approval to the crappy end-result). Most of the time those meetings are flytrap endeavors anyways – designed to keep you AWAY from the city council and wasting your time with people who have no real power to do anything.
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Oh, and stop wasting time writing plans – start investing time building up a better city council (again). Council obviously will ignore the plan whenever it’s slightly difficult to implement.
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I agree with M1EK that having good people at the City is critical. Plans are just words on paper if you don’t have people to make the plan a reality. The difference today is the people. As mad as I am at staff for this latest bonehead move, I think Bike/Ped staff do a great job of planning and interacting with the public. Now, a change of staff or at least an attitude adjustment higher up the chain of command may be in order. Similarly, the Council today is different than that of Shoal Creek. Do we have 4 council members to get it done? I don’t know. I do also think there is a slow, but growing change in the community towards cyclists. Sure, you can point to comments on talk radio or the Statesman that are vile, but I found attitudes to be shifting in our direction. Does that mean we are there yet? No. Should be continue to push? Yes. Should we participate in the discussion even if the results are in doubt? I think so. I think we should still engage at all levels but be willing to draw lines in the sand.
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
The Council is worse now than during Shoal Creek, on cyclists’ issues. Morrison would never prioritize anything over the local ‘neighborhood’ (defined as “the nearest neighborhood unless it’s DANA, in which case I listen only to OWANA); and everybody else but Riley is silent. Watson’s council was far better on cyclist issues (not good enough, but far better). Even Wynn’s was better.
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
M1EK,
I was on personally on a ride on Rio Grande and Nueces recently with both Council Morrison and Riley, and they are both in support of a true bike boulevard. The devil is in the details of course, but please refrain from assuming positions from our elected officials if you haven’t bothered to ask them.
on Jun 7th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
If people want to cast blame at this point, I wouldn’t start with leadership (just yet) or staff…Instead, point your finger at bicyclists. There are a choice few who have done more damage to moving forward than any business owner or elected official.
There some similarities, but then again differences, from Shoal Creek, on this point. Nevertheless, with the momentum we had as a community, it came as a surprise–on the magnitude of Fabio when he broke his nose colliding with a Seagull–that we’re at where we are due to bicyclists.
on Jun 8th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Elliott, the devil is in the details indeed – it’s very easy to say you’re in favor of a true bicycle boulevard when nobody’s asking you to vote for one, just like how each and every council member will say they support density that’s compatible with neighborhoods but obviously behave very differently in practice. Given the awesomely bad things Morrison has done to me and mine and the things I believe in, I won’t be calling her up for a chat anytime soon; I’ll stick to assuming, thanks,
on Jun 8th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Your update seems to refer to Howard Lazarus.
on Jun 8th, 2010 at 9:52 am
M1EK,
In every instance since she’s been on the Council, I’ve seen Laura support the cycling community and the infrastructure we want. Given this record and the fact that I’ve actually talked to her about this, I’ll assume she supports our community until proven otherwise instead of holding old grunges from a time when she held a completely different job.
on Jun 8th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Rob — which bicyclists are you referring to? How was this damage done?
on Jun 8th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Compromise is a virtue polarized folks cannot ever seem to digest, and I’m sure you’ll rail against me for even suggesting it. We’re winning either way. Get over yourselves.
on Jun 8th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
A sample letter:
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The briefing from staff with the recommendation on the bicycle boulevard, has again been moved; this time from June 24th to June 10, with very short notice.
The staff recommendation seems to be an important departure from the approved Master plan, not a slight modification. It should, therefore, be discussed, debated and voted.
Not going through a recordable transparent process will bring serious distrust from a sizable portion of the bicycle community towards our elected officials.
At this point, there are more than 2000 signatures in favor of a Nueces alignment; which repeat the same position expressed in many plans voted by your body previous to the uprising of the vociferous opposition from a minuscule group of affluent austinites raging against the true transportation needs of our city.
The merits for the staff proposal on Rio Grande are many; yet the abandonment of a true bicycle boulevard, devoted to all level of cyclists is a major blow to our prospects to become a city that is serious about transportation alternatives.
As expressed by staff at the Urban Transportation Commission, the new boulevard plan, excludes inexperienced bicyclists and children from it; this is an important setback in the aspirations of our community to create a future with people educated on sensible transportation policies and environmental options.
In that portion of the city a true bicycle boulevard is only possible on Nueces St. Come and ride both streets and you will feel the gradient differential on both arteries.
I would like to ask from you that please, move the discussion back to the previously scheduled date of June 24; that you open the floor to public input; and that you cast a vote on the plan.
on Jun 8th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Erik,
Regardless of where you stand on this, don’t you think the public should have input to the City Council before staff make a major change to the Master Bike Plan? Don’t you think we ought to have clear time lines for decisions and avoid last minute monkeying around with hearing dates?
As for compromise, I’m for it when we get something out of it that moves the ball forward. I fail to see how rolling over for a handful of loud property owners helps us the next time we want to put in great bike facilities. To me, this is less about the actual outcome then how this positions the city in future decision making. I’m also concerned that the cycling community is so weak we cannot put up a defense to this kind of crap.
on Jun 9th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Elliott, your trust is misplaced – and the grudges aren’t all that old – she’s currently opposing a desperately needed high-rise on W 6th on the purported grounds of affordable housing (really because she doesn’t want to see it from the window of her mansion in OWANA).
She’s fooled a hell of a lot of people; so you’re not in bad company or anything; but I hate to see smart people get snookered like that.
on Jun 9th, 2010 at 9:48 am
M1EK,
I fail to see how a vote on a high-rise has anything to do with Laura’s continued support of bicycle infrastructure. I understand that you may be on the opposite side of that particular issue, but I don’t see how that shows duplicity. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean you get to call them a liar.
on Jun 9th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Elliott, I was referring to your comment that I was just mad about things she did when she held a completely different job. However, downtown density is the cyclists’ best friend; note that in this particular case, downtown residents were strongly in favor of a real bike boulevard, while the old-school drive-everywhere suburbanites running those businesses on Nueces were the most obvious opponents.
Her duplicity on this issue is shown by the fact that she does not care at all about affordable housing – because increased density is the best way to provide that, and she has opposed density everywhere and anywhere since long before taking office; whether said new construction was for the rich or merely middle-class; whether said buildings would be on transit corridors or not; whether those apartments/condos would be in high-rises or low-rises. She’s using affordable housing as a wedge issue to stop this high-rise because, quite simply, she doesn’t want the building at all.
on Jun 9th, 2010 at 11:57 am
M1EK,
I don’t know all the details on this project, but I do know this: I love density and want more of it. At the same time, we’ve been promised affordability with density from many more than one developer in this town who then builds high rise towers with luxury priced units. I don’t blame the developers. I blame our crappy density bonus program. I would say based on my experience with near 2 decades in this town, if a developer talks about density and affordability in the same breath, I’m pretty skeptical. I don’t hold it against our Councilmembers to be equally skeptical.
on Jun 9th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
They’re playing the game they were asked to play. The fact of the matter is that new construction is never going to be cheaper than older rental units – it’s the provision of new supply that drives down the price of the old supply (or at least slows its rise in price). The developers won’t admit this because they’ll get hammered by the ANC guys if they do, but this is fundamental economics of rental property.
And for 30 years now, the ANC has stopped 90% of supply of apartment units in the central city from being built – then, they blame the 10% that went through for not slowing the rise in prices enough. Chutzpah that relatively few ever call them on, unfortunately.
I’m going against my own self-interest here, BTW; I own older rental property in the same neighborhood Laura Morrison’s mansion resides. My rents have gone way up in the last decade partly because of the policies she pushed.