Bullock Texas State History Museum
According to Bunch, 'Chronicle' Never Gets It Quite Right
RECEIVED Tue., March 7, 2006
Dear Editor,
The sponsors of the Barton Springs protection and open government charter amendments appreciate the Chronicle's attention to the two ballot measures [“Point Austin,” News, March 3]. We agree that the initiative and referendum process for making law is not perfect. But I&R can play a critical role in making a better future for Austin, especially when insider lobbyists exert undue influence at City Hall. That was the setting for the original two-thirds Austin vote for the SOS ordinance in 1992, and it's the same today.
While the legislative process does have flexibility that I&R does not, it's often not near as open or deliberative. Elected legislators regularly vote on laws they haven't read, don't understand, and/or have had little or no time to consult with friends, trusted advisers, or affected citizens. And they even get paid to do those things.
By contrast, voters will by election day have had five months to read the proposed amendments, ask questions, and decide whether, on balance, Austin is a better place with them or without. Just like legislators when the question is called, voters must choose "for" or "against."
One point of correction. Mr. King writes that the language in the Barton Springs measure concerning toll roads is too vague. As written, the measure only addresses debt-financed toll roads that predict toll collections from substantial traffic increases over the Barton Springs Watershed. While toll-road builders, developers, and Wall Street may want Austin to place a 30-year bet that we will pave over and ruin the Barton Springs Watershed, Austin voters may prefer to prohibit our city officials from making this Faustian bargain.
The sponsors of the Barton Springs protection and open government charter amendments appreciate the Chronicle's attention to the two ballot measures [“Point Austin,” News, March 3]. We agree that the initiative and referendum process for making law is not perfect. But I&R can play a critical role in making a better future for Austin, especially when insider lobbyists exert undue influence at City Hall. That was the setting for the original two-thirds Austin vote for the SOS ordinance in 1992, and it's the same today.
While the legislative process does have flexibility that I&R does not, it's often not near as open or deliberative. Elected legislators regularly vote on laws they haven't read, don't understand, and/or have had little or no time to consult with friends, trusted advisers, or affected citizens. And they even get paid to do those things.
By contrast, voters will by election day have had five months to read the proposed amendments, ask questions, and decide whether, on balance, Austin is a better place with them or without. Just like legislators when the question is called, voters must choose "for" or "against."
One point of correction. Mr. King writes that the language in the Barton Springs measure concerning toll roads is too vague. As written, the measure only addresses debt-financed toll roads that predict toll collections from substantial traffic increases over the Barton Springs Watershed. While toll-road builders, developers, and Wall Street may want Austin to place a 30-year bet that we will pave over and ruin the Barton Springs Watershed, Austin voters may prefer to prohibit our city officials from making this Faustian bargain.
Sincerely,
Bill Bunch
Bill Bunch
[Editor's note: Bill, how can you say, "the initiative and referendum process for making law is not perfect" when it has worked so well in California, authorizing billions in unfunded mandates, drastically cutting taxes, and helping to destroy the state's social safety net? Come on, if it advances your agenda, it must be perfect.]
