AUSTIN News Thread

[pscajunguy]

Originally Posted by Tech House

Condi Rice, is on the college football playoff committee?!? I don't know if it's irony or just epic comedy that someone so competent, educated, and intelligent, would be involved at the highest levels of decision making in both Operation Enduring Freedom (war in Iraq pt II) and Operation Eternal Clusterfuck (NCAA football.) I'd say that the UT prez gig would be a nice change of pace for her, but then I remember why that job opening exists in the first place and.... well, Condi is obviously the right choice.

As a self-proclaimed "liberal", whatever that is, I think it would be awesome if Condi Rice would be President of UT. It almost seems to me that that would be a step down in her potential, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, at all. But then, after all, am I really a "liberal" when two of my most respected people of all times are the "conservative" William F. Buckley and Condi Rice, or am I just getting to be older? Or am I actually just a conservative, in reality, and William F. Buckley and Condi Rice are actually both liberals! Anyway, I would like to see someone try to "fire" her! GO CONDI! I could see her being President of Stanford, but if she ended up at UT, it would the best thing for UT (maybe even better) than UT hiring Charlie Strong, and we would have a National Championship in no time, as well as an even greater University!

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

But then, after all, am I really a "liberal" when two of my most respected people of all times are the "conservative" William F. Buckley and Condi Rice, or am I just getting to be older? Or am I actually just a conservative, in reality, and William F. Buckley and Condi Rice are actually both liberals!

I'm on board with everything you said. I'm very liberal on many issues but fairly conservative on a few. I value independent thought, always considering all reasonable points of view, and avoiding partisanship. I think Buckley and Rice both have great intellectual integrity. I'm kind of over Buckley, he seemed to get more Fox Newsy as his mind began to fail. Same for George Will, whom I also admired in the past. And look at McCain's courageous stance against torture. There are many more examples of conservatives who aren't caught up in the childish polarized political screamfest.

But I digress. Yes, Condi would be a tremendous "get" for UT. The one concern I'd have is that her insider connections to corporate boards, military contractors, and lobbyists, could lead to UT becoming increasingly influenced by strings-attached financial resources. The U could be somewhat coopted as a kind of think tank for the military industrial complex. And I'm not even a conspiracy theorist, so imagine what the Alex Jones types will come up with if she's at UT.

[The ATX]

Should Austin grow up? Hell yes.

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local...w-up/20337661/

[The ATX]

Here's a link to that Houston Chronicle article The Trouble with Austin mentioned in the KVUE report:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/loca...5950477.php#/0

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...th-in-2/njr72/

Austin area housing forecast: continued health in 2015
3:59 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015 | Filed in: Business

Central Texas homebuilders will put more homes on the ground across the region this year than last, and buyers can expect to see prices rise at a slower pace than they have been in recent years, a local housing expert said Tuesday.

Rude said he expects builders to start construction on between 12,000 to 12,500 new homes this year, a 10 percent increase over 2014.

[airwx]

This article has some responses to the call from RECA last week for 100,000 more housing units, including a few quotes from Mayor Pro Tem Tovo. http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...austin-reacts/

RECA calls for more housing; Austin reacts
Tuesday, January 20, 2015 by Elizabeth Pagano

Last week, the Real Estate Council of Austin released a paper calling for a fix to Austin’s affordable housing problem. As a solution, the group called for 100,000 new housing units in the city by 2025.

The paper, which is filled with statistics about Austin’s decreasing affordability, increasing population and what lies ahead, states in part:

“For some, the answer lies in enacting new measures that would freeze today’s housing in place to slow appreciation. The Real Estate Council of Austin argues that these measures are counterproductive, serving only to preserve the root cause of the problem: too little housing.

[austlar1]

Can somebody explain to me how the mayor pro tem position is determined in Austin. I know we don't vote for the office. Is it the longest serving council member or the one who got the biggest victory margin in the general election? Does the city council elect a mayor pro tem. If so, when did Tovo get the nod for this position?

[KevinFromTexas]

The other council members vote for the mayor pro tem.

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...rn-ready-work/

Tovo was elected mayor pro tem in a vote of 10-1. Zimmerman attempted to forward a motion to have the position determined by lottery, but no one seconded that motion. Zimmerman also cast the lone vote against Tovo’s nomination.

[Jdawgboy]

As Pro-tem Tovo better be prepared and understand she has an obligation to listen to the entire population, not just in her district... Or to be more precise listen to only the NIMBY neighborhoods surrounding Downtown while ignoring her Downtown constintents. She really gets on my nerves. How she can justify keeping density levels low and affordable housing is just ludicrous. Yes it's exactly right that it's due to policies she favors along with the ANC that we are in the mess we are in.

I think she wants it to get so bad that people stop moving here and even begin to move out in large numbers of course then housing will be affordable but then crime will be high and property values will plummet. She really doesn't care about the success of Austin and I wouldn't have a problem telling that to her face if I ever got a chance.

[Spaceman]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The other council members vote for the mayor pro tem.

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...rn-ready-work/

I'm already starting to like Zim...He can do nothing as long as he is on the council but just be there as an pain in the ass to tovo...I hope he makes her life hell..

[aqibtalib]

Originally Posted by Spaceman

I'm already starting to like Zim...He can do nothing as long as he is on the council but just be there as an pain in the ass to tovo...I hope he makes her life hell..

Careful what you say about Zimmerman, though...he might sue you.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

As Pro-tem Tovo better be prepared and understand she has an obligation to listen to the entire population, not just in her district... Or to be more precise listen to only the NIMBY neighborhoods surrounding Downtown while ignoring her Downtown constintents. She really gets on my nerves. How she can justify keeping density levels low and affordable housing is just ludicrous. Yes it's exactly right that it's due to policies she favors along with the ANC that we are in the mess we are in.

I think she wants it to get so bad that people stop moving here and even begin to move out in large numbers of course then housing will be affordable but then crime will be high and property values will plummet. She really doesn't care about the success of Austin and I wouldn't have a problem telling that to her face if I ever got a chance.

Her point of view is just as valid as anyone else's. It's politically and civically corrosive to demonize people you disagree with by imputing thoughts and motives to them that are likely to be wildly inaccurate. This reminds me of the type of debate that happens around the issue of climate change, with so-called "skeptics" claiming that the motive of the world's scientists and institutions is to use global warming as a pretext for implementing global socialism (just one among many wild theories), while liberal activists jump to the conclusion that every climate change skeptic is motivated by greed and vested interests in carbon-based fuels.

Tovo isn't the crazed maniacal anti-growth zealot that she's often portrayed as on this forum. I may not agree with her on some of her decisions but I have no reason to doubt her integrity and the sincerity of her beliefs and motives.

En garde, Monsieur Jdawgboy! :

[KevinFromTexas]

^Agreed, but she does this to some degree as well. Her dismissal of the idea posed in the article that airwx posted points to it.

I do agree with her that all ideas should be considered, but the problem is she doesn't fully mean that since she's anti-density all the way. She doesn't represent a common sense approach to the problem. She'll just relay the old tired stereotypes of density = bad.

[austlar1]

Tovo is rather predictable and often a pain in the ass, but I don't think she is the devil in hiding. Her roll as mayor pro tem does not mean much except that she will be called upon to chair city council proceedings from time to time. Hopefully that won't occur when there are important decisions to be made regarding zoning, zoning variations, long term planning, etc. I suspect her election as mayor pro tem was mostly a nod to the fact that she is currently the most senior council member in terms of service on the council. If she is smart and truly ambitious, she might try to use her roll as a way to advance her stature and become a viable candidate for mayor somewhere down the line. I think she would have to demonstrate more flexibility in her positions to make that transition.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Tech House

Her point of view is just as valid as anyone else's. It's politically and civically corrosive to demonize people you disagree with by imputing thoughts and motives to them that are likely to be wildly inaccurate. This reminds me of the type of debate that happens around the issue of climate change, with so-called "skeptics" claiming that the motive of the world's scientists and institutions is to use global warming as a pretext for implementing global socialism (just one among many wild theories), while liberal activists jump to the conclusion that every climate change skeptic is motivated by greed and vested interests in carbon-based fuels.

Tovo isn't the crazed maniacal anti-growth zealot that she's often portrayed as on this forum. I may not agree with her on some of her decisions but I have no reason to doubt her integrity and the sincerity of her beliefs and motives.

En garde, Monsieur Jdawgboy! :

I'm one of those skeptics, but I have no vested interests in oil companies. I wish I did! I'd be swimming in money.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

[Tovo will] just relay the old tired stereotypes of density = bad.

This is very peculiar. I'm not well versed in what's been going on with the council, so I wasn't aware she had this type of view. Jdawgboy indicated that she was mostly opposed to density in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown, but does that attitude extend to other areas as well? It just makes no sense to me, given that she is ostensibly a greenish progressive. Also, I hadn't thought about the implications of her being the only member of the new council with experience in that role, which could give her more power to sway the direction some of the other council members take in their vision for the city. It's necessary to have at least a couple council members who aren't just gung-ho growth advocates, so that growth can be balanced with quality of life, environmental concerns, and sustainability, but it would be a shame if the new council proves to be downright anti-business and hung up on extraneous progressive causes as is the perennial case with cities like Berkeley.

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I'm one of those [global warming] skeptics, but I have no vested interests in oil companies. I wish I did! I'd be swimming in money.

It's one thing to be a skeptic, but quite another to have a good reason for that skepticism. Hopefully you're not one who believes that it's just a hoax concocted for nefarious political or economic purposes, cuz that's just

Talking about this gets me thinking that it would be nice to have an Austin environmental discussion thread. I wonder if there would be much interest.

[Jdawgboy]

Your points are taken but I will definitely not back down when it comes to her views on density. She doesn't even bother looking at reality. She claims there hasn't been any clear results of the density program... Oh really??? Look around DT and see all the activity going on and you can't see any results? Puleeeze give me a break. She has some nerve...

She constantly likes to say there needs to be more debate on it but that's just her saying let's not do anything but argue and argue with no action being done because she doesn't want to deal with it or she wants to make it as hard as possible to move forward.

Being Pro tem means she is more than your average district councilwoman. She needs and attitude adjustment.

I'll jump off a bridge if she ever becomes mayor...with a bungee cord attached of course.

[austlar1]

The link below is from a pre-election article discussing Tovo's and Riley's positions on density, affordable housing, and the rail initiative. Tovo does not take positions in this interview that oppose any of those things in theory, but what Tovo has done as a council member in the past is side with neighborhood groups that oppose various projects or initiatives that supposedly will detract from the existing characteristics of said neighborhood. She is very predictable in her voting in this regard. I think it is a real stretch to say that she opposes each and every new project. She is selective in her opposition to new development and tends to be very cautious. She gave her constituents what they wanted it would seem because she certainly ended up with a lot of support.

http://www.austineconetwork.com/blog...ndidates-weigh

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Tech House

This is very peculiar. I'm not well versed in what's been going on with the council, so I wasn't aware she had this type of view. Jdawgboy indicated that she was mostly opposed to density in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown, but does that attitude extend to other areas as well? It just makes no sense to me, given that she is ostensibly a greenish progressive. Also, I hadn't thought about the implications of her being the only member of the new council with experience in that role, which could give her more power to sway the direction some of the other council members take in their vision for the city. It's necessary to have at least a couple council members who aren't just gung-ho growth advocates, so that growth can be balanced with quality of life, environmental concerns, and sustainability, but it would be a shame if the new council proves to be downright anti-business and hung up on extraneous progressive causes as is the perennial case with cities like Berkeley.



It's one thing to be a skeptic, but quite another to have a good reason for that skepticism. Hopefully you're not one who believes that it's just a hoax concocted for nefarious political or economic purposes, cuz that's just

Talking about this gets me thinking that it would be nice to have an Austin environmental discussion thread. I wonder if there would be much interest.

I'm a skeptic because I just don't think humans have that big an impact on global climate. Does the earth heat up? Yes. Does it cool off? Yes. It will do what it wants, when it wants. Some people think humans are the cause of everything and want to fix everything. I don't think it's nefarious, but I don't agree with it either.

[austlar1]

If human behavior can alter the shape, appearance, and quality of the natural landscape across the globe (deforestation, the vast spread of mega cities and suburbs around the world, modern agriculture, highways and hundreds of millions of autos and trucks, strip mining, dams, water pollution, air pollution, etc., etc.), cause the extinction of hundreds or even thousands of species of plants and animals, and make it impossible to view the stars in the sky from vast areas of the planet due to light pollution, why is it so far fetched to imagine that these combined activities of over 7 billion humans might have an impact on the atmosphere and climate? There is a huge disconnect in that kind of logic as far as I can tell.