Showing posts with label Austin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Austin. Show all posts

Sunday, March 21, 2010

NEWS ALERT: EDDIE RODRIGUEZ ARRESTED FOR DWI!

Well, well the incumbent in HD 51 (http://bit.ly/cs93sB) has gone and got himself arrested for DWI. Seems he is lacking in good judgment and self control.

Here are links to
a couple of stories on the incident:
http://bit.ly/9loSH5
http://bit.ly/9gH3Oc

It is noteworthy that there are so few and such content-less stories on the arrest of Rep. Rodriguez in the Press. Of course, it's only been three days since the incident. But, I almost forgot, Rep. Rodriguez is a Democrat and thus has immunity from negative press coverage during this "innocent until proven guilty" phase of his prosecution. If he were a Republican, the rules would of course be reversed and he would likely be considered by the Press to be guilty until proven innocent.

KXAN-State Representative Arrested for DWI
http://bit.ly/a1t5sS


Rep. Eddie Rodriguez is a died-in-the wool “we need an income tax” liberal who has not represented his constituents well and is the kind of incumbent that deserves to be defeated, even not considering the current DWI charges against him. It's time for Rep. Rodriguez to retire and who best to retire him that someone who actually grew up in HD 51 and thus understands the district. That someone is Eddie's Republican opponent, Marilyn Jackson.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Austin's Comprehensive Plan

The City of Austin is putting together a "Comprehensive Plan" and seeking community participation on it. This 2-year process of putting together a new comprehensive plan has kicked off recently with public forums this week.

How to get involved?

First, anyone can take the Issues and Aspirations survey, at any Austin library or online at http://www.imagineaustin.net/survey.htm.

Second, Austinites can host their own planning party--ask for a "Meeting in a box," and invite a few people over to participate. The Imagine Austin Meeting-in-a-Box has everything you need to host your own meeting.

This process is a 'set up' in that while public input is solicited, the powers-that-be at City Hall have pre-ordained the ideological orientation of the outcome. Specifically, 'Sustainability' is the name of the game:
Sustainability and climate change are overarching issues to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
This blog has previously pointed out that 'climate change' is code for hyperbolic CO2-phobia, that we are not in fact warming in recent years (not for last 10 years) , that CO2's impact is overrated, and that anything Austin does or doesn't do relative to CO2 has miniscule impact on temperatures. There is nothing Austin needs to in the next 20 years specific to 'climate change' except possibly replace our coal plant with nuclear (but that would be more for general pollution concerns).

Nevertheless, I took a crack at their survey. Here goes:

1. Please tell us what you think Austin’s strengths are:

Educated citizenry and UT at heart of city, part of a good state (Texas), technology-based economy, music scene and culture, capital city, Barton Springs.

2. The second step in crafting a Vision is identifying the ways in which Austin can be improved—what issues and problems do we need to address to become a better city?

Please tell us what you think Austin’s weaknesses are:


Too much nanny-statism in city hall, too many liberals running the city, traffic problems, crime, excessive panhandling, high property taxes.

3. You’ve told us what you think is great about Austin, and where you think we can improve. Now we would like to know what needs to be done.

What ideas do you have for improving Austin in the future?

Embrace nuclear power, use monorails (instead of the flawed light rail system), widen the Mopac bridge and Mopac from 1st to 45th, loosen density building zoning regs, turn some preserve areas into parks, keep taxes low, end nanny-statism such as phony 'green' audits on houses and smoking bans.
What do you think?

Thursday, August 28, 2008

The Domain: A Deal You Can Refuse

Come on now! Take a break from the Obamamania and RSVP for the the Central Texas Republican Assembly meeting on September 16, 2008 at which important information for taxpayers in Austin will be presentation by Brian Rodgers, Founder of Stop Domain Subsidies.

Click here for the details.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Austin City Council Candidates

I don't live in the City of Austin but I have received some emails from folks who do, and I promised others that there would be information about the Austin City Council races on the Travis Monitor.

The emails I received were from folks who were making and seeking recommendations of candidates for City Council Places 1, 3 and 4. I have posted their comments below and edited them to remove names of non-candidates.

Email A (re: Place 3)

Place 3 is Jennifer Kim's seat...[You would do well to consider candidate] Ken Weiss ( http://www.weissforplace3.com/main.html ). He's ex-military, led disaster relief missions, and is a small business owner.

Email B (re: Place 4)

I'm voting for Cid Galindo ( http://www.cidgalindo.com/ ) mostly because Laura Morrison hates Republicans and actually said so in a recent email. She made us sound as if we were the devil or something.

Email B (re: Place 3)

I'm also voting against Jennifer Kim who believes that 90% of the women in the military were raped. I guess by the men in the military?

Email B (re: Place 1)

Anyway, I also voted for Jason Meeker ( http://jasonforaustin.com/ ), as Lee Leffingwell ( http://www.voteleffingwell.com/ ) is much more dangerous than Meeker, and Meeker is against any mandatory effort to make your home zero-carbon footprint.

It's a tough year for choosing candidates for City Council.

Email C (re: Place 4)

My very good friend ______ is opposed to Cid Galindo because he’s fanatically committed to centralized planning and such boondoggles as the ridiculous rail projects.

We are supporting Nigerian Sam Osemene ( http://www.vote4alonghorn.com/about.htm ), [a] very decent parole officer who’s campaigning as a small government fiscal conservative.

The Blogger's Closing Comments

Not sure why the author of Email C had to put the qualifier 'Nigerian' before the name 'Sam Osemene'. I thought we are supposed to elect Americans to public office.

Place 3 is the only one I have a personal interest in. I want to see Jennifer Kim defeated. She is a very attractive left of center politician whom I have personally seen court the vote of the Taiwanese in the local Asian community, exploiting divisions within it, and making the rifts wider than they otherwise would have been. Her political career needs to end with this term on the Austin City Council.

It’s a hard thing to do, unseat a socialist, tree hugging, anti-growth Austin Council member (not to mention a babe) but it is a noble cause.

The lesbian Randi Shade ( http://www.randishade.com/ ) running against her would probably not be a good choice either.

That means Ken Weiss is definitely the man for Place 3.


Links

Austin City Council Elections (previous Travis Monitor post)

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A613684

http://austin.about.com/od/politics/tp/Austin_City_Council_Race.htm


http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/28/0428place4.html

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Statesman Blurs Immigrant vs Illegal Distinction

Statesman reports on "Immigration rights marches losing steam?".

Is this about legal immigrants and advocating for them? No! So why the dishonest headline? This is a story about getting the illegal aliens and their friends to march so they can get 'legalized'. When it happened in 2006, it backfired, as voting-entitled-Americans aka Citizens realized how dangerous the illegal immigration trend was, and they were not happy about surrendering to it. This is a sob story about how 'immigration rights advocates' see less enthusiasm by "unauthorized immigrants" (illegal aliens) because, horror of horrors, they might get picked up by ICE and deported.

It is very dishonest to call this "immigrants rights". These are not legal immigrants, and legal immigrants have zero to fear from enforcing the law and sending illegal aliens back to their home country. Consider this nonsensical statement in the article: ".. now every immigrant is threatened by being not only detained and deported but being put into jail, and that is pretty harsh."

Immigrant? My family includes (legal) immigrants; I work with immigrants; immigrants are friends of mine. And no, immigrants are not only are they not threatened by it, they welcome the USA enforcing the law as it should.

American Statesman journalists and the 'lamestream media' need to stop kowtowing to the illegal immigration activists and stop using euphemisms that blur the real distinction between legal immigrants and illegal aliens (e.g. copouts like 'unauthorized immigrants'; they are not immigrants at all, they are foreigners or aliens). These groups are *ADVOCATES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS* not "immigrants rights organizations".

City Council Energy Rules afflict Austin Homeowners

People are waking up to the terrible and unnecessary burden the Austin City Council is placing on home-owners and home-sellers with their draconian energy-saving rules. This is based on the nutty and false idea that cutting energy use in Austin will help the climate (it won't; the impact will be miniscule to nonexistent - even if all Austin adopted huge changes, it would impact average global temperature by mere millionths of a degree). Like with their water-use restrictions, this is nanny-statist eco-extremism run amok. The large pocket-book pain ain't worth the fly-speck gain environment-wise.


Carl Tepper, President of the Small Business Group of Austin, sent this note:


The below ran on KXAN the other night as a follow-up to an earlier story about the same issue: KXAN News Video: "Realtors target new green remodeling idea"

Good for the public that they're calling City Hall demanding that their elected officials answer for this crazy idea. The "Task Force" should be ceased immediately and it's insulting that it was started in the first place.

In the story it's amazing that the elected officials would lie blatantly about their pet project. We put up with so much "weird" and creepy stuff from the City of Austin elected officials already, but this is directed straight at our homes. We have to ask ourselves where we draw the line.

This is a concept that WILL cost you thousands of dollars when you sell your home or business (yes, commercial property is included). They say that the "BUYER" will pay. But we all know that an appraiser will determine these costs and the BUYER will require the SELLER to pay in the end by a reduction of value. This is also a direct attack on the elderly, many of whom have much of their personal wealth attached to their homes.

The Austin Board of Realtors is right-on here. They deserve a commendation for sounding the warning about this ridiculous effort. THANK YOU Austin Board of Realtors.

The website Keep Austin Affordable has the latest on the impact of these rules and the effort to stop them.

Friday, November 9, 2007

An OfferThey'd Better Not Refuse

AN OFFER THEY’D BETTER NOT REFUSE
By Bob Ward

Nov. 9, 2007 - A couple of city council members in Austin are demonstrating the inherently larcenous nature of government.

Mike Martinez and Betty Dunkerly are proposing to charge taxicabs a $50 annual fee if they have advertising on their cabs.
Placing an ad on an existing taxicab imposes no additional burden on the city – no extra administrative chores, no additional expense. In return for that $50 a year, the city delivers no product, provides no service So why would the city hit up the cab owners with an arbitrary $50 annual fee?

Because it can.

If they don’t pay they will be forcibly denied the opportunity to do business. On the docks in New Jersey, Hoboken and Brooklyn, this is a familiar practice and it has a name. It’s called Extortion. When Italians do
it, it’s considered a crime, when governments do it – and they do it all the time – it’s called revenue generation.

But whatever it’s called the principle is the same – pay up or you will be shut down. And what do you get for your money? You get to exist and earn a living.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Single-Member Districts in Austin's Future?

A Charter Revision Committee has been set up (at the instigation of Austin City Council Member Mike Martinez) to look at moving Austin to a mixed single-member-district plus at-large City Council membership. The charter committee is actively reviewing proposals, and you can expect a future city election to feature a charter amendment.

Monday, October 22, 2007

"Zero footprint " regulations makes ZERO sense

Austin Mayor Will Wynn wants to force homesellers to drastically upgrade energy efficiency as a requirement for sale:

The objective of the point-of-sale provisions is to improve the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock, which far exceeds the number of new homes that will be affected by the upcoming building code changes. "Why should only homebuyers of newly constructed homes benefit from this science and benefit from this very different affordability equation?" Wynn asked.

These 'zero-energy' guys get a Zero in economics and an F in understanding energy:

"The objective of Austin's plan is to make homes "zero-energy capable": energy efficient enough that it is cost-effective to install solar panels or other on-site electricity generation such as wind turbines. Without the energy efficiency improvements, the benefit of on-site generation is lost through leaky ducts and windows."

1) If a house uses less energy, then the price/watt-hour of generation infrastructure goes up. Putting in the batteries, electronics and controls for solar panels is not cheap, and becomes even more expensive relative to your energy bill the less you use.

2) Any 'benefits of on-site' relative to using central power are overwhelmed by the simple fact that solar and 'on-site' wind are hugely expensive and variable/unreliable relative to central power. ZERO economic consideration.

3) It is a myth that these regulations will protect anyone's 'climate'. There is practically non-existent benefit to Austin, Texas, USA or the global environment in Austin marginally reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 years. They claim their plan will save 221,597 tons of CO2 by 2015. Even with that hugely biased and optimistic number, The world emits 7 Gigatonnes per year, so that will be 0.0028% of total CO2 emissions; yet 7 gigatonnes is itself less than .5% Of the C02 to be emitted (in next 90 years) to cause the 'dreaded' increase in temps of 2.5C on average. So even if Austin saved this amount yearly (200,000 tons) until 2100, it still would be impacting temperature no more than .000035 degrees C, an unmeasureable quantity. The impact of having these regulations between now and 2025 would be measured in a few millionths of degrees! ZERO environmental benefit!

4) A simple way for Austin to have "Zero carbon footprint" on our energy use: Replace the La Grange coal plant and natural gas usage with nuclear generation capacity. Nuclear is emissions free, doesn't pollute the air, and cost-effective. With one more nuclear plant, Austin will be almost all on non-greenhouse-gas emitting power (mostly nuclear). The reduction in CO2 by moving 1GW from coal to nuclear would be around 8-10 million tons of CO2 reduction per year, or about 50 *times* the reduction in CO2 these onerous City of Austin regulations would save.

5) To the extent that energy efficiency is good and it pays for itself, people do it already. Most new homes have the key energy efficiency features that make sense economically. Existing homes don't do as much due to the different rate of return on doing upgrades and peoples finances.

Energy efficiency that costs way beyond the economic rate-of-return ends up hurting people, and the regulations on top of it add further costs locally, with no benefits, either economically or environmentally. What should be done instead of regulations is awareness and voluntary auditing, which Austin has already.

Most economists put the cost/benefit price tag for C02 reduction at less or about $30/TCo2. So the cost of these regulations and changes should be no more than $6 million, or they are uneconomical and ineffective.

To summarize it - the ZERO energy plan has:
ZERO economic and common sense.
ZERO environmental benefit.
ZERO consideration of better alternatives.
ZERO respect for taxpayers and home-owners.

Can we fire Will Wynn and the other promoters of this bad idea?

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Climate Change Bills in Austin and Washington

Climate change bills before Congress propose regulating energy use intrusively and massively - at great cost and with little benefit. Heritage notes:


The current upward trend in temperatures is not unprecedented and will not lead to unprecedented catastrophes unless a very unlikely pattern appears, and this view is supported by the scientific evidence. Indeed, vir­tually all of the alarming rhetoric surrounding glo­bal warming--a massive rise in the sea level, deadlier hurricanes, the spread of tropical diseases, and other calamities--lies outside the scientific consensus. These climate bills would address real concerns, but these concerns are not catastrophic.


In addition, whatever the adverse consequences of warming, even the most stringent of the pending bills would reduce only a fraction of those conse­quences at a large cost. ... Ironically, carbon dioxide emissions in several Kyoto nations have risen faster in recent years than U.S. emissions. This raises serious questions about the efficacy of bills that mimic the Kyoto approach.


Climate legislation runs the real risk of doing more economic harm than environmental good. Congress should carefully weigh the costs of these proposed measures against the likely benefits.


This claim could be lobbed even more so against the foolish attempt by Mayor Wynn and the Austin city council to over-regulate housing construction, demanding drastic changes in energy use not only in new homes but even in existing homes that are sold.


The Austin proposal represents huge regulatory over-reach on the part of climate-crazed liberals, eager to stamp out the use of energy. Here's a simple "zero carbon footprint" solution - go nuclear for all Austin's electric needs. Then there is no reason or excuse to browbeat people into turning off their ACs or putting expensive solar panels on their house.

Friday, October 5, 2007

Austin City and AISD budgets

Slicing up the Austin taxpayer pie...


The Austin city budget pie chart is shown below. This does not include the $300 million plus spent by Cap Metro; nor does it include the AISD budget of over $700 million; nor does it include the ACC budget of $157 million; nor does it include the Travis county budget of $400 million; nor does it include the Healthcare Tax district budget of over $50 million; nor does it include the Austin Energy slush fund. So what's left? Police, firemen, parks, and ... well, what exactly does transfer/others mean? Graft, corruption and waste?!? (the Chronicle says: "This nebulous category accounts for project funding and support staff in offices like sanitation or the law department. The budget proposes an increase for funding these offices, including council offices.")




Chart courtesy of Austin Chronicle. More on the budget here.


AISD: The AISD budget message shows the art of OBFUSCATION: What bureaucrats trying to hide the huge spending increases they are engaging in. The message says everything about the budget except the one essential thing - how big it is. Reading the full budget we find: The budget funding totals $748 million, an increase of 13% over the previous year; appropriations come in at $727 million, an increase of nearly 7%. Notably, state funding is doubling from $47 million to over $100 million, but local funding is not going down. AISD did the max tax increase they could without going to the voters, 4 points (from 1.34 to 1.37% valuation) and along with property value increases, that is keeping the local property taxpayers soaked. The cost per pupil is $9,700, but there is a chapter 41 recapture amount of $126 million for net cost per pupil of $8,000. The bottom line: A K-12 education for each single student in AISD costs over $100,000. PDF of full AISD budget.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Brown v Austin PD

Armed suspect was shot and killed while being chased by Austin police, and now Austin Statesman reports he was shot in the back. An enlightening 16 pages of reader comments on the article. A bad enough situation becomes a powderkeg because of the racial aspect - white cop kills black suspect. City Council deos a collective "Ruh Roh" and they are treating the case "as a homocide".

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Small Business Group of Austin: "We Told You So!"

Editors note: The following came from the Small Business Group in response to the Statesman news article on Thursday May 3rd, that reported: "The City of Austin faces a $27.5 million budget deficit in 2008, despite having a robust, growing economy." - when will Austin voters wake up to the fiscal mis-management at city hall? ...



Dear Friends,

At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, we cannot avoid the temptation to say “WE TOLD YOU SO!” in response to a recent article in the Austin American Statesman. If you carefully read between the lines with one eye, and keep your other eye trained on the shoe that’s about to drop, it appears that the City Council and City Management are setting the stage for one of those budgets where they trot out old phrases like “structural imbalance,” “tough choices,” and “strategic enhancements.” This is all management jargon for: “we have no money again and basic services are about to suffer.”

In order to jog your memory, attached is our opinion editorial last summer that called on the Austin City Council to exercise restraint before saddling homeowners with more taxes by taking on a huge bond package of special-interest projects at the expense of basic services. They criticized us for being against parks, libraries, puppies, and sunshine. At the height of our grumbling we were assured that our criticism was grossly misguided, and not only could we afford these projects but the city was going to make “strategic reinvestments” in basic services such as graffiti abatement, public safety, and other core services. What a difference a few months make!

It is important to recognize that nothing revealed in this article is new. In fact, we challenge you to review the budget discussions from the last 4 cycles and you’ll hear the same story. The City Council knew last year that these “cost drivers” were growing exponentially. The City Council knew that we would be increasingly pressed to meet payroll demands for public safety contracts and other core services. Yet, they cavalierly placed a half-billion dollar bond package on the ballot, resulting in another property tax increase, without providing an honest assessment of the fiscal storm on the horizon—one that will ostensibly require either more budget cuts or tax increases. The threat was as obvious then as it is now, and their subsequent actions represent the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

What is perhaps most interesting is the subplot to all of this. You will recall that over the last few years the City Council has approved tens of millions of dollars in tax abatements and incentives for businesses to relocate or stay in Austin. We were told that these public investments would bring jobs, increase the tax base, inject funding into the city for desperately needed services, and relieve the burden on local taxpayers. Whether by design or luck, our local economy has indeed boomed. We have historically low unemployment, a $33 million jump in our tax base over last year, a revitalized Downtown, and increasing homeownership. Yet now, city management appears to be blaming this very same growth and prosperity as the CAUSE of our budget problems. This managerial double-speak is not unlike the City’s Water Utility blaming bursting waterlines in the summer on drought conditions and then blaming bursting lines in the spring on too much rain. You wonder how they can declare these findings with a straight face.

It only takes a moment to see what challenges we face as a city. Our graffiti problem is no better today than a year ago. Stories are rampant about police staffing shortages and lack of money to pay for overtime to cover those shortages. Our neighborhood roads and key intersections around the city are disintegrating and traffic is an utter disaster. The city does nothing to stem aggressive panhandling and vagrancy. Drugs and vicious gang activity are on the rise. And major city departments are under criminal investigation for financial mismanagement.

As we face down this budget shortfall, don't be surprised if we're told that to have more police protection we'll have to close libraries. Don’t be surprised if we’re told that to have well maintained roads we’ll have give up maintenance on parks. Most importantly, do not be surprised if we’re told that to sustain any of this, the city will have to raise our taxes. We will not be fooled by these false choices anymore.

At what point do we demand accountability and leadership from our City Council? Is it time we reject the brochure-like spin developed by public relations professionals for city management in their attempt to make excuses for our fiscal problems at the same time they make decisions that compound the problem? Do we finally refuse the special-interest laden budget that’s produced every year and demand that the core basic services of public safety, neighborhood libraries, neighborhood parks, and transportation be fully funded BEFORE special-interest projects and programs? And, BEFORE they price hardworking families out of Austin with tax hikes compounded upon appraisal increases?

We think it’s time. The Small Business Group intends to take action and we need your help. Please take a moment to complete the attached survey to prioritize the services you’d like to see more of next year. This is your chance to tell our city leadership enough is enough. We’ll compile these responses and share with the City Council as they enter budget deliberations.

Thank you for your attention—without it you may find that the Austin of your immediate future will look and feel much different than the Austin of your past.

Small Business Group

info@sbgaustin.com

----

Small Business Group

Budget Survey

Please take a moment to answer the following questions. Your responses will be used to help us inform the city council where public resources should prioritized for the 2008 budget.

For questions 1-5 you may simply highlight your selection with bold face font or a color. Type in your answer for 6 & 7.

1) On a scale of 1 to 5, how rate you rate graffiti in Austin?

1= A crisis

2= A serious problem

3= No opinion

4= Somewhat a problem

5= Not a problem

2) On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate the state of your neighborhood roads and transportation?

1= A crisis

2= A serious problem

3= No opinion

4= Somewhat a problem

5= Not a problem

3) On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate panhandling and vagrancy in Austin?

1= A crisis

2= A serious problem

3= No opinion

4= Somewhat a problem

5= Not a problem

4) To achieve a balanced budget would you rather see the City Council:

a) “Share the pain” across all services

b) “Prioritize funding” on some services, such as public safety.

c) Raise taxes

d) None of the above

5) Overall, do you feel your tax dollars are well spent by the City?

a) Yes

b) No

c) Don’t know

6) Please list your top 3 issues that you feel the Austin City Council should address immediately.

7) OPTIONAL: Please share any specific public safety related issues or incidents that have

affected you, your business, or your neighborhood in the past 12 months.


Wednesday, January 3, 2007

Walmartophobia

Walmartophobia is the NIMBYism of snobs, and it's catching on in Austin.

Being in the hinterlands of northwest Austin, almost clear up to Williamson county, I was not aware of the controversy surrounding Walmart coming into Northcross mall. Given that Northcross was a dying mall and becoming an eyesore, I couldn't quite grasp the big deal of a solid retailer coming in, even if it is the Liberals' most recent corporate bogeyman. It's not like they were paving a park to get Walmart in. Yet, yard signs decrying Walmart's potential move-in are showing up in the upscale neighborhoods in north Austin.

So a friend explained it to me recently. He said, "Well, they have a fear that 'those people' might come into the neighborhood." Using the scare quotes with his hands.

"What, you mean shoppers?" I replied.
Oh the horror!

While the fear he was more precisely alluding to was downscale shoppers from places like, um, East Austin, the riff-raff who actually is concerned about how much they spend for tube socks and motor oil includes socioeconomic upscale folks like me and my family.

Someone needs to tell the anti-Walmart snobs that 'everyday low prices' won't hurt anyone. And anyone who doesn't want major retailers nearby ought not live in major metropolitan areas with half a million people within 5 miles of where they live.