Page Two

I feel like an old man being read to by a young boy, but the warm rains seem to be calming me down. Last week, politics editor Audrey Duff eloquently dealt with some of the same issues I'm about to harp on here. I'm going on about the same topic because the coverage of the recent election results on television, in the Statesman, both on news pages and according to the pundits, as well as in the minority community, has me feeling as if I am in Wonderland again.

If two candidates are elected, not because of the color of their skin but because of their clearly articulated ideas, that is racist. It would have been non-racist to vote for Manuel Zuniga, even if you disagreed with him, because he is Hispanic. Eric Mitchell is more African-American than Willie Lewis, so it was racist to vote for Lewis who is an "Uncle Tom" and a "house nigger."

It doesn't stop here. Evidently, the environmental/progressive bloc of voters are evil for consistently voting in elections for candidates who have clearly stated ideas that they believe will most benefit the city. The other voters, all who have exactly the same option to vote, stay home. By going to the polls, the voters are victimizing the non-voters. These voters should either not vote or not vote for the candidates they agree with and who share the same vision for the city but vote for candidates they disagree with. This would be only fair.

Worse, this is a victory in the long-running war between the progressive environmental community and the progressive social/economic justice and minority community. You know, jobs versus salamanders.

What?! What?! What the hell am I missing? The ongoing battle between environmental and social justice? This is insane crap, it poses a dichotomy that doesn't exist. Austin's progressive community has long presented a united front on environmental, economic/social justice, and minority issues. Certainly there are numerous issues on which groups disagree, but the notion that the environmental groups have somehow been responsible for the problems within the minority community is ludicrous. The last boom, battled every step of the way by the environmental community, proved no boon to East Austin.

The conflict is not between jobs and the salamanders, it is not between the minority and the environmental community, it is between visions of this city as a community with a tradition, a definition, a geography in which we want to live or a good place to make a lot of money and to turn into everywhere else. This is not to tar all developers with the same brush. The problem is not Jim Bob Moffett and it is not Gary Bradley, the problem is that people want to move here in unprecedented numbers and we don't want to lose the community during the influx. It is not about personalities or even politics, though I'm not exonerating anyone here, it is about the future of Austin and how it is going to handle all the growth. It is too easy to get into heroes and villians and lose focus on the real problem.

The Watson council is in a unique position. They have a responsibility to provide vision and to move this city forward. They must show a concern for city services and they must vigorously pursue the various Eastside projects. Most importantly, they need to provide a coherent plan for the future of the entire community.

This council is not going to be able to stop or control growth. If any of you believe, with the so-called "greens" in power, that traffic is going to get better and the development of the Hill Country slow (or even recede) is missing the point. Planning is a long-term effort. Decisions made over the last three decades affect us today. Decisions made today will have an impact for years to come.

If we build light rail, it will not lessen the number of cars on the roads. If it is well done, maybe, in a decade or two it will help direct development along appropriate corridors and probably lessen the growth of traffic by some small percentage -- not the amount of traffic there is now or there will be in the next decade, but lessen the still-substantial growth of traffic over the next few decades. This area is over-built now and it continues to be over built. There is no easy way to provide road infrastructure for the existing community (Where, realistically, would we put a crosstown expressway?), but the council can look to the future. Traffic is a huge problem. We need to explore alternative forms of transportation. We need to provide more support and lanes for bikers, Austin could be but is not a very bicycle-friendly city (and I'm not talking about the hysterical and exaggerated conflict over helmets laws -- so much over so little).

This victory at the polls is not a win for the environmental community over the pro-development community. The idea is that this is a win for Austin, that the time for parochial and intramural conflicts is over.

Growth is not going to go away. Growth without planning is devastating. Punishing drivers by keeping roads lousy, bridges inhospitable, or trying to cripple the infrastructure of all growth (rather than control the direction and concentration) will eventually destroy this city. Presenting the complicated dialogue over Austin's future as a "jobs versus salamanders" proposition is also beyond immature, it is insulting. The progressive community has successfully advanced part of our agenda, clean water, clean air, social justice, economic justice, and a decent, caring, lively community. Lead by this council, we have to handle the problems facing Austin together and maturely. But it isn't going to be easy and it isn't going to be quick. Name-calling, from every side, doesn't help.

This week is your last chance to vote in this year's "Best of Austin" issue. If you haven't taken the time to think about all the things that make Austin unique, please do so -- the ballot is on page 57. The results will be printed in September.