Monday, April 10, 2006

Debate Thursday at St. Edwards over Props 1 and 2

Please mark your calendars and plan to attend!

Public Forum on Prop. 1 and 2

OPEN GOVERNMENT ONLINE AMENDMENT
&
SAVE OUR SPRINGS AMENDMENT

Moderated Debate & Question/Answer Session

This Thursday, April 13, from 6:30-8:30pm, a public forum on this decade’s two most important Austin charter amendments will take place at St. Edward’s University.


SAVE THE DATE

WHEN:
Thursday, April 13 2006, 6:30-8:30pm (doors at 6:00)
WHERE:
St. Edwards Campus: Jones Auditorium in the Ragsdale Center—the debate will be in Room 100, on the west side of the bottom floor (Ragsdale is the long building in the middle of campus).
WHO:
Speaking In Support:
Bill Bunch, Executive Director of Save Our Springs Alliance
Glen Maxey, former State Representative and Clean Austin Campaign Director

Speaking In Opposition:
Gus Garcia, former Mayor
Daryl Slusher, works for Austin Energy and former City Council member
Presenting the most passionate, informed, and open discourse on these crucial issues, Thursday’s forum is designed to thoroughly expose, educate, and involve the public in the “Open Government Online” and “Save Our Springs” debates.

Debate hosted by the Environment Science and Policy program of the School of Behavioral and Social Sciences at St Edwards University.

Free parking for event. Campus Maps at: www.stedwards.edu.

7 Comments:

At 6:51 AM, Anonymous Stanly said...

Should be fun to hear. Did you see the latest from the Chronicle -- usually a shoe-in to support SOS and the "progressive" causes? They hate this thing. So much for them just analyzing it and not taking a side. I think a side was just taken. When the Statesman and Chronicle agree, Vegas would give Prop2 100-1 odds.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2006-04-07/cols_pagetwo.html

 
At 11:44 AM, Blogger JS Hatcher said...

I have read the Chronicle article (thanks for posting a link and not the article itself).

About the odds, I'm not so sure. The Statesman endorsed Sonleitner and the Chronicle was so split that it had to do a "no endorsement" over Sonleitner or Eckhardt for the Travis County Commissioner's race in March. Despite the lack of support from the Austin Chronicle and the Statesman, Sarah Eckhardt ended up winning by a landslide over the incumbent Sonleitner.

Just a thought.

 
At 2:03 PM, Anonymous Calvin said...

Well if you do win this one, all of us will be losers in my opinion. SOS is as Black points out "increasingly fringe", and these ammendments are designed precisely to stymie economic growth in Austin -- particularly to try and stop AMD. But whatever, we will see in May. In the meantime, SOS lost in court yesterday and it remains to be seen if they will lose in the court of public opinion in May. Trotting out the footage from 1990 to try and create new energy is just plain sad. Creating a new documentary video and then a cartoon (very cute by the way) is as one observer said "jumping the shark."

 
At 9:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It also sure looks like the losses are piling up on Prop 1.

Besides the devastating and oh-so on target Black editorial, just in the last week the Austin Parks Foundation, Austin Progressive Coalition, Capital Area Progressive Democrats, Central Austin Democrats, University Democrats and West Austin Democrats have all come out solidly against Prop 1 and most against Prop 2 as well. Looks like people are starting to realize that it wasn't the ballot language that was misleading, it was the petition drive.

And we still don't know who paid for that petition drive do we?

 
At 6:06 AM, Blogger Gritsforbreakfast said...

There's never been a horse that can't be rode, never been a cowboy can't be throwed. We still have a great shot at winning the election. The criticisms in the Chronicle repeat patently false claims being spread by opponents - perhaps they'll change their tune when the editorial board hears the other side.

We're lucky the vast majority of progressive groups in town who've considered the amendment have endorsed it including ACLU, Consumers Union, the Gray Panthers, South Austin Democrats, Zilker Neighborhood Association, Sierra Club and many others. As for the CAD/Austin Progressive Coalition endorsement, I was told by attendees the vote was swayed by a paid consultant for Stratus Properties who convinced attendees of several arguments the judge ruled were outright fabrications. I'm confident that when voters hear what the amendment really does - not the falsehoods told by shills for Stratus Properties - that they'll make an informed choice to support it.

Oh, and campaign expenditures will be filed today at the City Clerk - as you well know, the campaign has complied fully with all required disclosures. Cheers,

 
At 2:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Stratus shill debated you at the Progressive Coalition and you still lost? That's pretty lame.

I thought the students would be all over this, but I guess not.

 
At 7:39 AM, Blogger Redheaded Dude said...

I'm reading over these posts too late! The election was yesterday, and we all know that both Props 1 and 2 were soundly defeated. I will note, however, at this late date, that it's fascinating to me that almost all the comments here from anyone other than the "Contributors" are against both 1 & 2. Did this not alert the contributors that something might be wrong? Reminds me of the famous Pauline Kael quote after the Nixon landslide, 'I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won, I don't know anybody who voted for him.'

Clearly, liberalism is not dead in Austin, Texas--just check the election previous to this one where even the progressive Republicans (ie, Patrick Keel) were tossed out. However, perhaps this election is a watershed (pardon the SOS, Barton Springs pun). We love to "Keep Austin Weird". But let's admit that there has been an "Established Liberal Leadership" in Austin who may be in for a surprise when even the left-leaners who love Austin don't always toe your Liberal Leadership line.

This is not meant to be a rant; sorry if that's what it's turning into. It's meant to be a message to the "Contributors": Move over, old man! (and woman!) There's a new wind blowing in Austin! Listen to the progressives who have the voice and the (numbers for the) vote. They may not be as "nutty crunchy" as you and your "Established Liberal Leadership", but when you put something you like on the ballot, it may just be too far left for the "New Liberals".

 

Post a Comment

<< Home