Page Two

THE NEWSPAPER THAT CAME TO BREAKFAST: One amusing aspect of the controversy over the Stratus Properties deal has been the repeated editorial fulmination of the Austin American-Statesman defending -- indeed, trumpeting -- the proposed development agreement. The Statesman's editors are in permanent high dudgeon at the notion that anyone in town should dare oppose this shotgun wedding between the city and the developer, a marriage upon which All Reasonable People Must Agree. That's been the tone of the paper's commentary on the public debate over Stratus since its inception, most recently reinforced July 20 ("Stratus isn't the city's biggest problem") by an allusion to Kaufman and Hart's The Man Who Came to Dinner. According to the Statesman, opponents of the Stratus agreement are like the play's unwanted houseguest, who "makes everyone miserable for the seemingly interminable duration of his stay."

For those of us professionally required to endure the local monopoly daily (daily), that's a butter knife that definitely cuts both ways. The July 20 editorial is a case in point. After denouncing opponents for presuming to question this "reasonable settlement," the Statesman quotes a letter from environmental engineer Lauren Ross: "Assuming that the City of Austin were to grant Stratus zoning that would allow them to develop up to 3 million square feet of commercial development, the proposed development represents less of a risk of water quality degradation than would development that could occur under the City's current water quality ordinances" [emphasis added]. Note Ross' significant qualification of her statement (the presumption of a spineless council), which precedes the paper's grudging admission that Ross now opposes the deal -- although the editors can't quite bring themselves to explain why.

We can. On July 18, Ross told the City Council, "Table this vote until we can craft an agreement that is more than half-baked, that has real enforcement, that reduces impervious cover, provides adequate setbacks from Longhorn and other pipelines, and, most importantly, is truly a community consensus." You won't find that considered judgment anywhere in the Statesman, but it was reported last week by the Chronicle's Amy Smith, who follows today with more details on disputed aspects of the agreement (p.22) -- details that have gone mostly unreported in the daily.

We suppose the Statesman considered Ross' measured criticism of the agreement and its anti-democratic imposition too "puerile and nasty" to report, which is how it characterized the opposition in a July 11 editorial titled "Less talk, more leadership." In the July 11 piece, the editors recommended the council close off public debate, a deplorable "carnival" in which "good information is swamped in a sea of invective, [and] neighborhood voices are drowned by a crowd of no-growth activists." (The council dutifully followed the editors' recommendation.) Has the Statesman helped seriously to provide that "good information," or given weight to "neighborhood voices" that have been excluded from the negotiations? Hardly: The editors have been too busy insisting that opponents shut up and the council vote immediately to approve the deal, even though critical matters remain to be negotiated.

The Statesman's Wednesday morning cover feature, "Specter over springs," is at bottom one more commercial for the best of all possible deals, as its subheads insist: "Barton pool's pollution up, but not enough to stop Stratus, city experts find"; "Stratus deal, though not ideal, beats alternatives, city says." Edited as though intended to provide cover for the council on the eve of its final vote, the story admits that the water in the Springs, and therefore the aquifer, is steadily being degraded. But alas, Stratus has us over a toxic barrel, and there's nothing we can do -- not even postpone the vote long enough to determine what the deal in fact is, or to have a full public discussion of its potential consequences. Read the stories, and then note well the "Barton Springs toxic sediment" chart on page A12: Does this prospect truly "beat the alternatives"?

The Statesman's arrogant dismissal of public debate has characterized its coverage of the issue from Day One: June 28, the morning following the very first council hearing on the proposed agreement. Leah Quin's report began, "Austin's terminal democracy was on crowded, colorful display Thursday night ..."

But our favorite example of the Statesman's terminal journalism occurred the day before (June 27). Under the headline "Approve Stratus deal and move on," the editors denounced any possible alternative as too expensive (conveniently omitting any reference to the deal's $15 million cost to the city, not including inevitable future infrastructure). The paper then devoted a second editorial to a "Q&A" with Stratus CEO Beau Armstrong by editorial page editor Arnold "Softball" Garcia. The Statesman treated Armstrong's self-justifying answers on the proposed development (including the explicit threat of more intensive development "if this agreement isn't approved") as gospel, without so much as a follow-up -- and headed the piece with the smiling face of good ol' Beau. Stratus couldn't have asked for a better (free) advertisement.

Nasty? No. Puerile? Definitely -- enough to make sensitive readers reconsider their breakfasts.