I'm now writing a blog over at my new website, PoliticalSuicide.org. I'll only be using this blog for updating ideas and thoughts on OpenNetwork's philosophies, goals and the like. If you're looking for the more Austin-centric stuff, jump on over to the new site!

Thanks for your readership and I'm looking forward to many new posts (and your comments) in the future!

Over the last few weeks, the topic du jour for me lately seems to be growth in Austin and specifically the abundance of new luxury condominiums being built downtown. It seems that everyone I know has either been talking about it or have joined in the conversation at some point (well, I guess we "Southies" have never taken kindly to development...). I first got turned on to this topic from a post where I questioned a statement made by Austin's City Manager Toby Futrell in response to a City Auditor's report that was critical of her's and the City Council's development plans. To summarize, in the report, the City Auditors:

"presented an audit that found that Austin does not have an "overarching vision for growth" or anything that ties together a patchwork of smaller city-planning efforts."

To which the Ms. Futrell, who disagreed with 3 of the 4 city auditors who authored the report replied:

"In fact, the City has a vision and it is widely recognized. Our vision is for 'Austin to be the most livable city in the country.' "

I linked to a few indicies that refuted that claim and the post got a few comments, but none seemingly more vocal or condescending than M1EK, but he did put me on the path to research his claims which eventually led me here.

Now, M1EK's been making a claim that by building luxury condominiums downtown, by the mystical force of "trickle down," Austin's housing market will actually become more affordable (btw, he has never linked to anything that would support this point of view). I've seen this comment of his on mine and a few other blogs (actually highlighted here) and I still have serious problems with this assertion.

The vehicle that M1EK is using for this argument is now called supply-side economics. In his example, by adding more supply to the market, no matter what the price, it will eventually bring lower prices long-term to the whole market, not just the luxury segment where the current supply is being increased. While that may be true in general terms, I'll put forth that the supply isn't the greatest determining factor in this "affordable housing" scenario; I feel the demand in this limited market segment will be the more important quality as that will drive up the existing outlying property prices and will not, as M1EK asserts, increase affordability for the general public. Below, I hope to show that while in theory, M1EK's premise is generally correct for most things, there's not enough places (or plans) to build the sheer number of condominiums needed to make his assertion true in this case.

The Parking Lot

In M1EK's example:

"The only thing worse for affordable housing than building a bunch of high-priced condos downtown and continuing business as usual everywhere else is: NOT building high-priced condos downtown and just continuing business as usual everywhere else.

Trickle-down sucks in tax theory but it works like gangbusters in real estate. I own a moderate condo unit near (not in) downtown and I can tell you that it's fairly easy to observe a depressing influence on the rent I can get for it thanks to the indirect influence of those downtown units. Some folks who used to live in high-end housing in that neighborhood (Clarksville) now live downtown; some people who used to bid up the price for moderate housing like mine moved up to previously high-end condos in Clarksville."

So to begin, let's use a thought exercise... My premise is while I agree that we have to start building at some point, we're not going to get affordable housing only building luxury condos. Where I work, there are approximately 200 parking spaces in the parking garage and across the street from the building. If you're a manager, you get a reserved space otherwise, it's first-come, first-served. Out of the 200 total parking spaces, approximately 50 of them are reserved. There are about 300 employees (250 regular employees and 50 managers) in my department so on any given day, probably 250 or so show up for work and require a parking space (not everyone drives a car in; some bus, some ride bikes, some car pool, some are sick, etc). We already have too many people for the available spaces so demand has already outpaced the supply for the freely available spots (much like the overall housing market here in Austin).

Now, let's start adding new employees, say 5 per quarter (20 per year), 4 regular employees and 1 manager. We already have 250 people trying to snag one of the available 150 parking spaces so the demand is already at a premium. Now, when the new employees start, one of the freely available parking spaces becomes assigned for the new manager, decreasing the available supply for the regular workers while at the same time, increasing demand for those freely available spaces. Does this help the available supply for the regular workers? Of course not. The supply of parking spaces for them hasn't increased (this is like the current situation for affordable housing; there's only so much available within the city. And between rising property values and homeowners that are fixing up their current properties, more properties are moving out of "affordable" and into more exclusive markets).

So management decides to do something about it. They authorize redeveloping the small area where the dumpsters are right next to the building (for an additional 3 places) but they're all reserved for the CxOs, as they are ultra-swanky, shaded, cars-washed-by-virgins spots. The spaces are only for the CxOs and no one else. So here's M1EK's premise; the 3 reserved spots that used to be occupied by the CxOs have now been freed up for additional managers (the 1-for-1 property tradeoff) but did building the addtional spaces help the rank-and-file employees by increasing their supply? No. The old parking spaces remained reserved for management. So, in the next 3 quarters it takes to fill the old reserved spots with new managers, my department has now added 12 more people to the first-come, first-served spaces further decreasing the available supply where they can park. The only thing that will help relieve the demand for the rank-and-file employees is new spaces where they can park or new spaces in their segment.

So seeing that their available parking spaces have now shrunk to about 140, the rank-and-file employees submit a protest to the City Council who sympathize and decide to redevelop the field adjacent to the building (cutting down the landmark 300+ year old oak tree, mind you [look for "Rainey" on the page]) and put in an additional 50 parking spaces. But when completed, they decide that the spaces are only for City Council and management and, additionally, they deem that 40% of the spaces are only to be used by their families. No one else can park there which leaves most of the spaces unused most of the time (this is downtown development and the 2nd home thing which I'll get to below). Is this unfair to the rank-and-file employees who are still fighting over the ever decreasing spaces? You bet. Are they upset? Beyond belief. Can they do anything about it? Absolutely not.

So is this experiment wholly accurate? Of course not. In real life, the City Council would open up the new parking to tolling... ;) Actually, the only thing that is really left out of the experiment is some influx of "affordable" housing but it will be in the less desirable areas of Austin (in the situation above, those spaces would be located blocks away from the building) and since M1EK's assertion is that building downtown luxury condos will increase affordability for the average citizen, the model above is accurate enough to get the point across. But, model aside, let's try and determine some real numbers.

The Numbers (with links!)

Using M1EK's example that seemingly the only people looking to move into these downtown condos already live in Austin (a 1-for-1 property tradeoff and I know he's generalizing...), one can make the argument that demand for these downtown luxury condos will be limited to a very small percentage of the current Austin population (the current total Austin population is 690,252) and thus, will not have the effect of lowering the prices of the individual units downtown or the surrounding areas. A quick run of the numbers shows of those that can afford an average downtown property cost of over $300k, based on the 29% rule, the target buyer must be making at a minimum, $65k/yr and would probably have to make a bit more than that for credit card bills, recreational and living expenses, etc. The median income in Austin is $68k/yr so, working in *very* general numbers, we'll say 50% of the current residents in Austin that could afford the property and of those, another smaller percentage would actually be looking to move (even though this logic is a bit flawed -- median income does not evenly correlate to population -- but this is just for fun). I'll just pull a number out of the air here as I haven't been able to find this number anywhere so I'll be generous and say that 2% of the Austin population are looking to move of the 50% that can afford it . So, we have a maximum of 12,580 people in Austin who could currently afford the minimally priced condos and who are currently looking to move (not all of these properties downtown will be available at the $300k level).

Now, based on national statistics, 40% of all housing transactions last year were for 2nd homes. So let's remove from the equation 40% of the available downtown properties because these people already have primary residences somewhere else and generally speaking, the properties won't be available to those looking to move from the periphery (except maybe as rentals at some point but couldn't find a figure for how many 2nd homes become rental properties). The Council wants 20,000 eventual downtown residents so let's average 2.4 people per residency, we need about 8,400 individual properties minus the 40% that are second homes which leaves 3,360 total residential units available on the market. So, this year, we now have 12,580 current Austin residents looking to move into the eventual 3,360 average priced properties downtown.

And this figure does not take into account those people who don't currently live in Austin and are moving down here (based on census data, Austin's population grew 10,000 per year over the last 3, so we can add roughly another 5,000 additional home seekers per year divided by 50% who can afford it = 2,500). So until developers build at least 15,000 individual residences downtown and then add 2,500 additional units per year, the demand for those properties will not go down and the prices will remain where they are and will probably creep up over time.

So where do those people go who want to live downtown but the demand for that prime property has forced them to look elsewhere? They go into the adjoining neighborhoods, like Clarksville and Barton Hills, and drive up the price of the current properties due to the demand and not down by supply as M1EK surmises. Generally speaking, Austin is being influxed with new residents from places other than Austin. These residents, usually coming from places that have higher property prices, don't balk at a $300k downtown condo like some of us long-time Austin residents. I think we'll find that most people who are moving downtown into the luxury condos will generally fall into three groups:

• Professionals from outside of Austin who don't currently own any Austin property
• Professionals that bought the condo for a 2nd property (I would argue that this figure will probably be a bit higher than the national average in this case as we're primarily talking about condominiums in a now cosmopolitan and hip city, further increasing the demand)
• M1EK's scenario of upwardly mobile Austin residents

So while there is some merit to M1EK's premise, I feel it's not the driving factor for greater affordability throughout Austin.

Here's another example. M1EK's premise depends on the total number of available properties in Austin to gain eventual affordability. But just like with Ferraris, unless you add tens of thousands to the supply, they will have a minimal impact on the prices of the rest of the cars on the market. And this exactly what we have here. The developers are adding more Ferraris and relatively few Camrys. Sure, the price will fluctuate a bit for the Ferraris in their own luxury segment (due to demand, exclusivity, etc) but this price will be unaffected by the supply of Camrys as the target consumers are not the same. If the market was suddenly flooded with Camrys (affordable housing), there would have to be a helluva lot of them to have any impact on the Ferrari prices (luxury units) as the buyers of Camrys and Ferraris are in different market segments. People who can afford to live in a $300k condo, generally speaking, are not looking for $150k Clarksville condos or Barton Hills duplexes unless that's all the market has to offer.

M1EK's example may have happened twice (once by his anecdotal evidence of talking to his neighbors and I'll give him another one just because) but, generally speaking, that is not what is going on. If things really did work the way M1EK thought, we'd all just start out living on the periphery of downtown and with no further increase of income, over successive moves inward, we'd have the ability to keep moving centrally until we got to dead-center of town where only the super-rich dwell (as remember, his premise is that by building properties downtown, expanding the total supply, the surrounding properties will fall in price). It's the market in reverse and I just can't see the market working this way. Generally speaking, the market works the opposite way where property values increase dramatically downtown and the property prices increasingly ripple out into the surrounding neighborhoods. In this scenario, no matter how many luxury condominiums you build, it doesn't decrease the affordability of the surrounding areas (Ferraris and Camrys).

Additional Factors

Now, in addition to what I've outlined above, there are other factors which will drive the price of these properties up and in my opinion, will do so even more than the demand. One of those factors, gentrification, would also contribute heavily to an increase in outlying property prices. As I mentioned in my post:

"Yes, M1EK, I did *a lot* of research into your property value claim (the same lame "my Clarksville condo" rant I've now seen on no less than 2 other blogs). Over the last few weeks I've read numerous density articles, affordable housing scenarios, case studies (Portland, Seattle and New York), blogs and comment threads and even the city's development plans (like the City Auditors, I wasn't impressed). I even went so far to talk to 2 MBA's (one in real estate). I couldn't find a *single* sentence or person that supported your "trickle down" assertion (building luxury condos leads to increased supply which leads to more affordable housing citywide). The overwhelming theme I gleaned from those articles and my research is that there is no direct link between building downtown luxury condos and the lowering of property values from previously higher priced properties in outlying areas. In fact, I saw more examples of the opposite; the building of luxury condos downtown increased the housing prices nearby and displaced traditional residential neighborhoods. As shown by this article and from here:

"Gentrification usually increases the property value of an area. This is a positive development for city officials (by raising tax revenue, which is often dependent on property values), the middle class, as well as existing resident owner-occupiers. Unfortunately this same rise in property value can be devastating to those in lower income groups, when children of such residents find they can no longer afford to live in certain neighborhoods. As a result, there tend to be very strongly opposed views on gentrification, with some seeing it leading to healthier, more vibrant cities, and others seeing it as destroying poor communities. Both views would seem to be correct."

What I see happening downtown is an economic segmentation of the super-haves (i.e. - Congress, 2nd street and the new high-rises), the haves (like M1EK and myself; our outlying areas) and the have-nots (the East Austinites that are soon going to be priced out of their neighborhoods through higher property taxes and moved out through infrastructure placement and building). I believe this is counter to Austin's traditional blending of cultures and income levels throughout their neighborhoods. So in the anecdotal spirit M1EK is fond of, I'll use where I live as an example of the "traditional" neighborhood. I live in a duplex in Barton Hills. The surrounding houses in this neighborhood roughly start in the $300's and go up. I couldn't afford to live in this neighborhood otherwise (I live on a city worker salary, for pete's sake!) but because there is "worker affordable" housing in this area, I can enjoy the benefits of living in this neighborhood (the key one being I can ride my mountain bike to work safely on the greenbelt :). What's key to greater affordablity is a supply of housing within the segments that people can generally afford. That's why I've been posting that we need more "affordable housing," and not just addtional inventory in the luxury segment.

While I'm at it, I guess I should define what I mean by "affordable housing." When I talk about "affordable housing," I'm not talking about the traditional political definition of the term. I'm not talking about putting government subsidized housing on 2nd street or the like. What I am talking about is "worker affordable housing," which is generally set at about 70% median income (roughly $1,400/mo rent) versus "affordable housing" which is 50% and below median income (about $700/mo and below) **. As far as my research has been able to produce, there's only one property being built downtown that could fall into that "worker affordable housing" range as their rentals will be starting at $1,400/mo: Red River Flats.

So for me, a long time (11 yrs) Austin resident, it concerns me to see the current pattern of development that excludes the types of developments which will lead to the "unblending" of what I feel is one of the defining characteristics of Austin. Economic segmentation is how places like Dallas developed and I have a bit of firsthand knowledge there as well. I lived in the McKinney Ave. area just before the big redevelopment boom and moved to Austin about 3/4 of the way through it's completed development. I saw the moderately priced area where I lived soar to unaffordable in a mere few years which benefitted the property owners (like my father who owned a few of those condos) but didn't do anything to bring middle-income families to the area (seemingly, the "rocket shot" of property prices hit just after the completion of the driving range. Go figure...). I saw the residents of the low income side (east of Central) displaced in fairly short order as the property values skyrocketed and they were left looking for affordable housing elsewhere. (But give credit where it's due... At least Dallas had the foresight to put in a good mass transit system so at least for those that can't afford to live downtown but need to work there, an inexpensive and efficient people moving system is in place.) In my opinion, Austin needs to stop this segmentation or we risk losing what makes this city so great. We can do this by building (and the City supporting) affordable housing initiatives (like inclusionary zoning) and the building of more "worker affordable" housing like Red River Flats downtown. This really will bring diversity to downtown and will speed the migration of middle-income families to the downtown and surrounding areas.

Finally, I see gentrification being the larger threat to long-term property values and see little merit to M1EK's "trickle down" scenario to stem the upward trending property values. We currently have a very developer friendly City Council and Mayor, seemingly offering tax breaks and incentives to any of their PAC supporters that come within breathing distance (see the above mentioned post for some details). I suppose time will tell if gentrification is truly going on downtown as the growth starts to spread eastward but the seeds certainly seem to have been planted. I'm all in support of development downtown and certainly support NuPro's ideas for new urbanization (I hope she'll post about the importance of bringing middle-income families to downtown) but I feel there must be greater support from our City Council to provide affordable as well as luxury housing downtown with a coherent development plan if they truly want to meet their goal of 20,000 people living downtown while preserving cultural and economic diversity that is so much a part of Austin.

Ah, a sad day has come in my blogging life. I've decided I will no longer allow a commenter to keep an entry here on any of my future blog entries. I really hate to do it. I tried to be understanding and I certainly believe in free speech for all. But unfortunately, that same concept seems to be lost for my now former blog friend, M1EK.

You see I was pretty much ok with his seemingly ill-informed and usually fact devoid rants attached to a few of my posts. I was willing to give some of my blog space to let him air his grievances and attempt to make his points. I really do enjoy seeing other people's points of view as I try to learn where they are coming from and how they formed their opinions. But there were two reasons why I decided I will no longer allow any of M1EK's comments to remain here.

The first reason was that you can't have meaningful debates with someone if they will not back up their assertions with fact. In 2 of M1EK's comments here, his condescendingly bold assertions were utterly devoid of any fact I could find. Yes, M1EK, I did *a lot* of research into your property value claim (the same lame "my Clarksville condo" rant I've now seen on no less than 2 other blogs). Over the last few weeks I've read numerous density articles, affordable housing scenarios, case studies (Portland, Seattle and New York), blogs and comment threads and even the city's development plans (like the City Auditors, I wasn't impressed). I even went so far to talk to 2 MBA's (one in real estate). I couldn't find a *single* sentence or person that supported your "trickle down" assertion (building luxury condos leads to increased supply which leads to more affordable housing citywide). The overwhelming theme I gleaned from those articles and my research is that there is no direct link between building downtown luxury condos and the lowering of property values from previously higher priced properties in outlying areas. In fact, I saw more examples of the opposite; the building of luxury condos downtown increased the housing prices nearby and displaced traditional residential neighborhoods. As shown by this article and from here:

"Gentrification usually increases the property value of an area. This is a positive development for city officials (by raising tax revenue, which is often dependent on property values), the middle class, as well as existing resident owner-occupiers. Unfortunately this same rise in property value can be devastating to those in lower income groups, when children of such residents find they can no longer afford to live in certain neighborhoods. As a result, there tend to be very strongly opposed views on gentrification, with some seeing it leading to healthier, more vibrant cities, and others seeing it as destroying poor communities. Both views would seem to be correct."

It's almost like you pulled that purely anecdotal story out of an unnamed orifice. But anyway, that's really not relevant as my blog post had little to do with property values but with livability and our city manager's quote that their development plans are aimed to make Austin the "most livable" in the country (which my post pointed to 4 indicies that showed Austin was actually accomplishing the opposite). You didn't counter the facts I linked to.

The second reason is a bit more personal. I'm a big enough man to take criticism for taking a stand on an issue and then opening up the comments to anyone who wants to say their piece, agree or disagree. I'm not intimidated by those people whose opinions differ from mine. In fact, I applaud those that have a differing world view. It's what makes this whole whacky place worth living. But unfortunately, you don't seem to hold those same beliefs. Earlier this week, I read a blog post of yours about bicycle helmets and that you are against them and don't want to see mandatory helmet laws. As a very active commuting cyclist (and on/off competitive cyclist over the last 20 yrs so I felt I had something to add), I thought I'd leave a comment on your blog where, in a strange twist of fate, I actually agreed with your main point (there shouldn't be mandatory helmet laws for adults in which I actually bolstered your point by raising the issue that mandatory helmet laws have a detrimental effect on cycling participation; a good way to truly make cycling safer is to separate the cyclists from cars using real bike lanes and if no one is cycling, it becomes harder to gain the ears of those in positions to actually do something worthwhile about cycling safety. Your post didn't cover this angle but I see from the comments you did post, all you were looking for were cheerleaders and not informed debate). I hit submit and voila, it's off to the moderation folder. Now, I have no problem with moderated comments for limiting comment spam or for keeping offensive language and the like off the blog. But my comment contained no spam, no offensive language and actually supported your point. But you still didn't see fit to publish the comment. Its almost like you didn't publish the comment for personal reasons... Hmm...

Now, that's fine. That's your right. If you want to make it personal because we disagree on the "trickle down theory" of hi-rise luxury condos and livability in Austin, so be it. So in response, I'll no longer allow your comments to stay on any of my posts from now on (turnabout is fair play, eh?). Oh, I'm not going to be a wuss like some people I know so I won't be turning on moderated comments or turning off comments completely. I'm not going to ban your ip or do anything like that. You'll still have little windows of opportunity to blurt out your rants but the next time I log on, I'll remove them. I'm no longer willing to allow you to take up comment space and puff up your perceived blogger ego using my blog site. Unlike you, M1EK, I believe in diversity of opinion; I just don't care about yours anymore.

So fare thee well, my old friend. Can't say I was glad to know you...

Or at least that will be the lasting sentiment from this story. And, you know, that's fine with me. I've been *intimately* involved with this particular issue as my wife and I were affected by this personally.

Almost 2 years ago, I learned that Travis County had published our marriage license online, which included our names, addresses, social security numbers, birthplaces and driver's license numbers. For most people, the standard marriage license form doesn't include that information and so it's fit to publish online. What we did different from most people was we filled out a "Declaration of Informal Marriage," a form that legally recognizes a common-law marriage. This was required by my employer (the City of Austin) so I could extend healthcare coverage to my wife.

So when I found out this form was available online and the state required redaction of the social security numbers had not been done, being intimately familiar with this subject (I'm an Information Security Analyst at the City), I called the County Clerk's office and asked to speak to someone who would be able to pull the graphic. Over numerous phone calls to at least a half-dozen different people, I couldn't seem to get a hold of anyone that understood what I was asking for. After about a week of calling and talking to people, the "official" solution (and I'm calling that "official" as this was the highest level person that I could get a hold of even though I asked on numerous occasions to speak directly to Ms. DeBeauvoir herself) was that I would have to file a petition with the court to have the record changed from public information to private (at a cost of at least $300). This was crazy, I explained. Because I do this exact same thing at my day job (look at vendor's applications for weaknesses and re-engineer them to fit the City's security policies), I knew there was some kind of technical disconnect to the person I was talking to. As I kept explaining, I wasn't trying to change the status of the record. I had no problem with it being public. My problem was that this system was publishing records online in violation of the State of Texas' Public Information Act ( § 552.141. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION IN APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE) and that Travis County could be held liable for any security breach that could be traced to their website. After all, I wasn't asking to invalidate the record; I was asking for the stupid web application to not publish the one pdf file that contained the information.

So I asked to speak to one of the programmers as I knew I could convey exactly what I was trying to get across to someone technical. I was told I couldn't speak to a programmer as it was an application developed by a vendor and I had no way I could talk to them directly. My concerns would be relayed to them, I was told. So, almost 2 years later and after my wife picked up the phone tag baton, putting multiple 90 day freezes on our credit knowing our information was easily available to any and all, I'm glad to see that the clerk's office is finally doing the right thing. Kudos to you and your staff Ms. DeBeauvoir. I only wish that I could have talked to you directly oh, so many years ago...

But you would think I would end the story there, but I'm not. I'm going to use this as an example of something that is very close to my heart as well as put a few warnings out there. The application that the clerk's office uses, Public Access .NET, is a proprietary application which the clerk's office probably doesn't have rights to access or change the source code. I'm assuming from all my conversations with their staff that no one at the clerk's office has access to the source code of the application much less the right to change the functionality of the application itself (remember, I don't know this for sure; I'm *assuming*).

So I'll offer up this first warning to government officials. Proprietary software and government do not mix well. As Ms. DeBeauvoir states, "I am a strong supporter of open government; however, my obligation as an elected official is to respond to legitimate public concern and to do everything within my authority to protect people now." So, if the public's best interest is the priority, by doing everything in her power, that application should be open and accessible to other programmers outside of the company that developed it. This allows the government entity the option to work on their time schedule and not the agenda of another company. So if a pressing security issue crops up (like publishing social security numbers online), the entity has the option to call a local programmer and immediately address the concern. Like I said before, from my understanding of the application and how these things are put together, this could have been as easy as changing a single field in the database and not a whole rewriting of the application itself. This concept, called open source, is the perfect fit for any government entity who espouses their belief in open government because it practices what it preaches. It allows for the open review of the code by independent 3rd parties and allows changes to the functionality on the government entity's time schedule. I can say that most of the online projects that the City uses have either been developed in-house by our talented programmers or we have access to review the code if needed. We love it from a security standpoint as we can see exactly what is going on and can tailor the app to fit within the City's strict security policies. It's a win for the people's government and a win for the developer.

My second warning goes along with the spirit of the first. The company that developed the application, Hart Intercivic, also developed and programmed the voting machines used in all elections here in Travis County. Hart Intercivic keeps the programming code of these machines as well as the tablulation software proprietary and thus secret. If I could think of any application in the world that needs to be open sourced, it's voting machine software. As shown by the last few election cycles and in numerous other instances, the software has come under scrutiny as irregularities become more prevalent. So, if we value our democracy and if Ms. DeBeauvoir really believes in open government, we need to petition to have a true independent code review of the voting machines we use here (and don't believe the results from the ITA or "Independent Testing Authority" that all these machines must subject themselves to. The ITA is actually just three companies which are paid by the voting machine manufacturers themselves. An article by probably the most prominent voting machine expert, Avi Rubin discusses this "independent" setup). So please, if you value democracy, email or call the Travis County Clerk's office and pressure them to have Hart Intercivic release the code to a true independent party for review. If Hart Intercivic was publishing all my personal information online in direct violation of state law, who knows what the *truly* secret code is doing...

The Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer has been declared in the Alarm Drought stage. According to the Chronicle:

"One of the drought indicators, Barton Springs, is flowing with 31 cubic feet of water per second, much less than the average 53 CFS, said BSEACD hydrogeologist Brian Hunt. Spring flows and levels in monitor wells briefly increased after rains in early May, but they have been steadily dropping since then. Currently, groundwater users, such as the cities of Buda and Kyle for example, are required to reduce usage by 20%. That could mean lawn-watering schedules or outright bans, said Hunt. Area sprawl development isn't necessarily to blame, he said, but likely exacerbates the situation. If dry conditions continue, the aquifer could reach critical stage by late summer, triggering 30% usage reductions and even lead to crackdowns on chronic water-wasters. The district is urging people to be water-wise at all times. Find more information at their Web site,http://www.bseacd.org/."

I find the timing of this announcement personally interesting based on a conversation I had with a co-worker this week. Their main point was "Who really cares if AMD puts their development within the recharge zone? It's not like that development can block recharging the entire aquifer!" Well, here's the reason why it matters. Recharge zones are typically geographically small areas where the water from the surface starts making it's way down to the aquifer. As this generalized cross-section shows, water, for the most part, doesn't make it's way down from the contributing or artesian zones. To further complicate things, different parts of the aquifer are replenished from different recharge zones (there are usually geologic features that direct water into one zone or the other). So while the Edwards aquifer may be getting recharged down in San Antonio, that usually doesn't do Barton Springs a whole lotta good.

So enter AMD and it's 850,000+ sq. ft development planted directly on top of the recharge zone. As this map shows, the recharge area for the Barton Springs area is relatively small (bisect Hays county and go north to where the aquifer zones stop and that is basically the Barton Springs Segment of the aquifer). So now add the huge AMD complex, the impermeable cover that is associated with it (roads, parking lots) and the infrastructure that will also be needed (water pipes, underground cabling, etc). The impermeable cover will collect particulate and chemical pollution from the cars/trucks riding/parking on it. When it rains, this pollution will be picked up and accelerated into the Barton Springs recharge zone and straight into Barton Springs pool (and don't tell me about the catchments they will be putting in place. No catchment can provide 100% filtration). So we will all get to swim in the eventual gasoline/oil/diesel/chemical mixture that along with low inflows/outflows to the aquifer, we'll see a rapidly degenerative effect on the quality of the water. And, I might mention, that's only if there is a Barton Springs pool left because of the reduction of water collection within the zone that the AMD and eventual future developments will provide.

So sound the alarm, I say! We need to make sure our elected officials know that Barton Springs has entered into drought stage. I hope that the rains will come this summer and replenish the stores but outside of a stray hurricane, I think we're in for another long, hot summer.

I've been meaning to comment on this story for quite some time now. Unfortunately, it's taken about 2 weeks to actually find the time to sit and jot the thoughts down. The story, which is split into 2 parts, reports that there is a Prop 2 "resurrection" movement afoot by SOS and the Council to take the best elements of the defeated Prop 2 and try to incorporate those as ordinances. Now, to me, this is certainly a fine idea and I think even the opponents of Props 1 & 2 agreed that something had to be done to protect the Barton Springs area. But, contained in the article is a quote from Council Member Lee Leffingwell (one of the most fervent anti-Proposition opponents) who disagrees with that idea:

"Not so fast, opponents say. On Saturday, 69 percent of voters cast ballots against the measure. So some neighborhood and business leaders say that those ideas have been roundly rejected and that more community input is needed to create a lasting solution to the vexing issue of development in the environmentally sensitive area.

Council Member Lee Leffingwell, who crafted the ordinance, plans to slow the process and allow for a larger community discussion to take place. Input from interested parties as well as the two city bodies now considering the ordinance will provide the springboard for conversation."

Now, some would argue (myself included) that the 69% figure used above is completely misleading. While the propositions may have been defeated by 69% that does not, by association mean that 69% of the people of Austin are against protecting the Barton Springs watershed. Most of the Prop 2 opponents had said that protection of Barton Springs is sorely needed but they just didn't agree with how the propositions sought that protection. The fact that 31% of the people of Austin still voted for the propositions considering the outright misleading ballot language is a strong indicator that the citizens of Austin really do value environmental protection over development in sensitive environmental areas.

So now we come to Council Member Leffingwell's statements. On the one hand:

"These charter amendments were written behind closed doors with no public input, no vetting and no opportunity for changes to correct errors and unintended consequences," says Lee Leffingwell, an Austin City Council member who is former chairman of the city's Environmental Board."

And now the other:

"Will you answer specifically which reforms you support and which you do not?

I AM STILL IN THE DISCUSSION STAGE WITH REGARD TO WRITING THE ORDINANCE, AND SO CAN'T COMMENT ON ANY ASPECT OF YOUR SCORECARD AT THIS TIME."

Pot, may I introduce Kettle... (More on that from a blog post by JS Hatcher).

Also, looking around in Council Member Leffingwell's campaign finance reports, one notices that the only PACs that gave Mr. Leffingwell money during that election cycle all had something to gain by defeat of the propositions (granted, these filings were in the 2005 election cycle and the Open Government/SOS amendment campaigns were ongoing but probably not a campaign issue at the time):

• Austin Apartment Association
• Austin Board of Realtors
• Austin Police Association
• BOMA
• Homebuilders PAC

Now, call me a cynic but a council member whose only PAC contributions came from developers, who is now quoted to want to slow down the environmental protections for Barton Springs and is currently doing what he accused his Proposition opponents of doing, does not instill the greatest confidence in me that he should be the one to lead the effort for protection of one of Austin's most sensitive environmental areas. Anyone else on the Council with a bit more cred care to step up?

Toby Futrell and the "Livable City"

The second part of the article is about a little spat between the City Manager's office and a report released by the City Auditors. In the report, the City Auditors:

"presented an audit that found that Austin does not have an "overarching vision for growth" or anything that ties together a patchwork of smaller city-planning efforts."

To which the City Manager took offense and disagreed with 3 of the 4 study authors by saying:

"In fact, the City has a vision and it is widely recognized. Our vision is for 'Austin to be the most livable city in the country.' "

May I introduce Exhibit A against City Manager Futrell's claim. In the studies cited in the post, Austin ranks as the third highest cost of living in the country. Higher than traditional high cost leaders San Francisco (10th), Boston (9th), Chicago (8th) and Atlanta (4th). Austin has the 4th highest average house cost in Texas (behind Ft. Worth, Dallas and San Antonio) and ranks number 12 nationally for the highest average cost of the typical home in America. These are not exactly the most livable conditions in the country.

Now, does city planning have anything to do with this rise in prices? As cited in this document, my guess is that the 29 now-under-construction-or-planned residential developments and super-condos being built on the shores of Town Lake, throughout downtown and in the ultra-swanky 2nd street area will only further inflate these cost of living indices (most have starting prices in the $200's for a 1/1). One can certainly make the argument that development should take place in downtown (I do support that) but of all the projects listed, from what I can tell, not one project is an affordable housing project.

So I have to agree with City Manager Futrell here. She does have an "overarching vision" of Austin. Under her's and the City Council's leadership, they seek to make Austin unaffordable for most residents. They seek to transform the prime green spaces and park lands of Austin into multi-story, multi-million dollar condominiums, raising the cost of living while attempting to replace the few East Austin parks with nasty infrastructure plants needed to clean the crap out of the water from these lofty, rich residents and the eventual Dallas-like sprawl of SH 130. They seek to keep their vision of Austin planted in future city council elections by raising campaign contributions, creating slush funds and erasing term limits. Yes, Ms. Futrell, you and your Council Member friends have a vision for Austin. Unfortunately, it seeks to replace what some of us have come to believe what Austin is about and replace it with a miserably cloned vision of Dallas.

I came from Dallas after 17 years of living there to Austin for the last 10, with most of that time in the Barton Hills area so I've seen the pace of change downtown under a close lens. I can't help but think that with the most developer friendly City Council in my memory along with the unification of former Council Members and Mayors against environmental protections for Barton Springs, it won't be long before we'll see the 580-ft towers being grandfathered in overlooking Barton Springs Pool.