Author: Bridget Grumet
Editorial writer for the Austin American-Statesman
Grumet: Feeling frustrated with the media? Switch off cable TV and turn to local news
Today the American-Statesman's editorial board joined hundreds of newspapers around the country in standing up for the importance of a free press, particularly as President Donald Trump continues his dangerous rhetoric against journalists. While Trump's cries of "fake news" ring hollow against the well-sourced reporting about his administration, however, there's no denying the media sometimes suffers from a troubling credibility gap with the public.
A Gallup poll last year found just over a third of Americans (37 percent) believe news organizations "get the facts straight." That's a depressingly low metric for people in my industry, and one I think grossly underestimates the painstaking work journalists do everyday. Yes, reporters sometimes make mistakes. But most traditional news organizations strive to correct the record quickly and with transparency.
Part of the problem, of course, is the catchall nature of "the media," a term that includes everything from local newspapers to the New York Times and the Washington Post, local television affiliates and 24-hour cable news, online news outlets and blogs, not to mention the hodgepodge of information showing up in people's Facebook feeds.
I reached out this week to Kathleen McElroy, the new director of the journalism school at the University of Texas, and she suspects much of the consternation revolves around 24-hour cable news, which offers a mix of news and political commentary, largely around hot-button national issues. Her advice to people growing disillusioned with media coverage? Turn your focus to local news coverage.
"Very little of what's newsy is what's happening on cable," said McElroy, who worked at the Statesman in the late 1980s and later became an editor at the New York Times. "How much of what you're consuming is national politics? If you're consuming only national politics, maybe it's time to think about your school board, your city council, your planning board, what's going on in the churches in your area."
Indeed, many of the issues most likely to affect your everyday life — your commute, the conditions at your kid's school, what you're paying in taxes and getting in services, even this new-fangled Major League Soccer stadium you might have heard about — are local topics covered by your friendly neighborhood newspaper.
"People cannot go to a 12-hour City Council meeting in Austin," McElroy told me. "They can try to read CodeNext on their own, when that was still viable, but good luck on that. How much information do you need from neutral, professional sources? I think it's a lot more than people think. Whether it's a restaurant review or reading about the classification ratings that are coming out in schools or about the (California) wildfires, that's information that goes beyond what's going on in Washington."
While we're talking about neutral, professional sources, please bookmark PolitiFact.com/Texas, the truth-squading project spearheaded by the Austin American-Statesman, in collaboration with the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News. Their rigorous work seeks to verify or debunk various statements made by local and state officials, and they post links to all their backup materials so you can check the math yourself. They're even tracking how Gov. Greg Abbott and Austin Mayor Steve Adler are faring on their campaign promises.
You can also see how the Austin City Council has voted on dozens of issues, including the ones you're most interested in, at the Statesman's wonderful VoteTracker project. The database goes all the way back to the start of the 10-1 council in January 2015. Spend some time with it to see what your district rep has been up to. It's worth knowing before heading to the polls this fall.
Please support the work of the Statesman and other local news outlets that work tirelessly to cover Austin news. We all have a stake in keeping this community strong.
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on August 16, 2018 Categories UncategorizedTags newsLeave a comment on Grumet: Feeling frustrated with the media? Switch off cable TV and turn to local news
Grumet: Goodnight CodeNext (with apologies to Goodnight Moon)
In the great map room
There was a consultant
And a neighborhood vexed
And a picture of
The transect zones from CodeNext
And there were 11 council members
In yellow vests and hard hats
And a planning commission
At odds with the ZAP
And three drafts of a code
That made people holler
And piles of invoices
For eight million dollars
And a petition drive for an election fight
And a frustrated mayor who turned off the light.
Goodnight CodeNext.
Goodnight residents vexed.
Goodnight transect zones we had to reject.
Goodnight hard hats
And the yellow vests
Goodnight meetings
Goodnight protests
Goodnight codes
Goodnight roads
Goodnight maps
Goodnight ZAP
Goodnight density cries
And goodnight preservation sighs
Goodnight complaints
And the petition drives
Who wants CodeNext revived
And goodnight to the mayor keeping his reelection alive.
Goodnight affordability.
Goodnight to all that's fair.
Goodnight to growth problems everywhere.
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on August 2, 2018 Categories UncategorizedTags newsLeave a comment on Grumet: Goodnight CodeNext (with apologies to Goodnight Moon)
Manley: Yes, APD is concerned about 3-D printed guns
Too often after a mass shooting, we reach the sickening discovery that the gunman never should have had a weapon to begin with.
The man who killed 26 people at a Sutherland Springs church had a military court domestic violence conviction that should have barred him from buying a gun, except the computer database hadn't been updated with his information.
The teen accused of killing 10 people at Santa Fe high school wasn't old enough to buy a gun, but his father had left his own firearms within the 17-year-old's reach.
And authorities had received multiple warnings about the man who eventually opened fire at the high school in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 people. Had law enforcement properly acted on those warnings, they might have taken his AR-15-style rifle for everyone's safety and referred him to the mental health services he needed.
These are not responsible gun owners. They are people who slipped through the cracks of our existing gun safety laws — with tragic and infuriating consequences.
[cmg_anvato video=4447146 autoplay="true"]
That is why the recent discussion over 3-D printed weapons — which can be built without any background check, using computer coding the Trump administration is allowing to be freely shared on the Internet — has sounded such an alarm bell for me.
Editorial: Homemade 3-D printed guns should be regulated like any gun
No, I don't expect the streets will become flooded with blocky-looking plastic guns that start to melt after firing a few rounds. But the sophisticated computer files for do-it-yourself gun parts provide a new path for someone to get a firearm without that pesky background check.
Austin Police Chief Brian Manley agrees these 3-D printed weapons create another hole in our gun safety net.
"Those that are lawfully allowed to own and obtain a weapon, there are so many avenues for them to do that," Manley told me Monday. "Those that choose to build their own, some may do it because they're a hobbyist, but this also opens up the possibility and likelihood that criminals could use these, and these weapons will end up on (people) that legally should not have them and may be obtaining them for illegal purposes."
It's important to understand this technology goes beyond the plastic guns produced by 3-D printers. Similar computer coding can be used with the Ghost Gunner, a $1,700 computer-controlled milling machine anyone can buy online, to produce the metal "lower receiver" piece that is the body of an AR-15-style rifle. Producing your own lower receiver allows you to bypass the background check normally required for a firearm. You can order the remaining gun parts without a background check, and after some assembly you've got the same kind of weapon that's been used in several mass shootings.
Latest: Judge denies motion to prevent publishing of 3D-printed gun blueprints
I appreciated hearing Manley's concern on Monday, because Austin Police Lt. Lee Rogers gave a different impression in a brief press conference last week on do-it-yourself weapons. A reporter asked if these unregistered, untraceable guns posed "any additional dangers to officers or the public." Rogers answered "no."
"A firearm is a firearm," Rogers explained. "The safety to officers and the public would be the same regardless of that."
Well… yes and no. From the perspective of a street cop patting down a person who turns out to have a gun, it doesn't matter if it's a commercially produced firearm or a homemade one. Either way, the officer will run the check to see if this person is allowed to have such a weapon.
But from the larger public safety perspective, Manley assured me Monday, the department is absolutely concerned about this new technology, particularly the untraceable nature of these homemade firearms, which don't have serial numbers. When such a gun shows up at a crime scene, he said, it will be much more difficult for detectives to tie a weapon to its owner, which could make it harder to solve crimes or find connections between incidents.
When North Austin-based Defense Distributed posts its downloadable gun designs online Wednesday, it will be "a new day for all of law enforcement," Manley said. He said APD will issue a training bulletin reminding officers to treat homemade guns the same way they handle commercial ones.
The department will watch for any uptick in the appearance of these weapons and will compare notes with other agencies, the chief said.
"As a society, we have to be aware of these changes, especially because of what we're seeing occurring on a much more frequent basis with (shootings involving) mass casualties," Manley said. "We have to make sure we're paying attention to any new technology that might make weapons more available to those who try to acquire them for illegal purposes."
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on July 30, 2018 July 30, 2018 Categories UncategorizedTags newsLeave a comment on Manley: Yes, APD is concerned about 3-D printed guns
Grumet: Don't disparage the 'Anti-$100 Bill Coalition' in soccer debate
I know it's a popular sport to joke about the passionate level of civic engagement at Austin City Hall, especially when ideas get bandied between advisory groups for months on end and City Council meetings run till 3 a.m.
But we should cheer for the smart, inquisitive people who make the time to attend public meetings, read up on various proposals and ask tough questions, especially when taxpayer dollars are on the line. They make our city better.
I was disappointed Thursday evening when Precourt Sports Ventures lobbyist Richard Suttle, speaking to a roomful of people at the Central Library about the possibility of bringing a Major League Soccer franchise to Austin, drew an unfortunate analogy to the city's reputation for civic engagement.
"Overwhelmingly this is a popular deal," Suttle said of the MLS proposal, still being negotiated, in which Precourt would pay $1 a year to use city-owned land for a stadium but wouldn't pay any property taxes on the venue. The franchise promises to provide other perks and regional economic benefits.
"Now, there are some folks that have questions," Suttle continued. "And in Austin, I tell the story that if we decide we're going to give out $100 bills on Congress Avenue on Saturday for free, no strings attached, the Anti-$100 Bill Coalition will be formed by tomorrow, and we'll have discussions on what that would look like."
Editorial: Negotiate MLS stadium deal on Austin's terms, not Precourt's
Some folks in the crowd chuckled. A few people booed. One woman yelled out, "That's very unfair." I shared her sentiment.
I'd love to see Austin have its own MLS team, and I see the tremendous potential for it to bring different parts of the city together. But residents are right to ask serious questions about the financial cost to the city, the impact of traffic and parking on the neighbors, and the tradeoffs other cities have experienced when a pro sports team comes to town.
These residents shouldn't be likened to naysayers who can't even see the good when it's raining Benjamins.
Suttle told the crowd, and later emphasized to me, that wasn't his intention.
"All I mean by that is that we have a robust city where we like to talk about stuff, and that's a healthy thing, because we always end up with a better solution when we have everybody in the room, everybody talking," he told the crowd.
He told me the "Anti-$100 Bill Coalition" was "meant to be the most absurd example" of community feedback, not a commentary on the soccer stadium critics.
Commentary: MLS stadium deal should score points for the community
In fact, Suttle said he left the meeting with a to-do list based on the concerns residents raised Thursday evening.
"I heard loud and clear that the neighbors that live within a mile of the place, a mile east on Braker (Lane), are concerned about people parking in their neighborhood and walking to the stadium," Suttle told me. "What that means is I've got to go find the model on how they solved that in the neighborhoods near Zilker Park for ACL." Additionally, Suttle said he recognizes Precourt needs to provide a specific plan for parking. The current site plan has only 1,000 parking spaces for a stadium that will seat 20,000.
He also took note of concerns one resident raised about drainage and water quality, as the McKalla tract is near the headwaters of Little Walnut Creek. One speaker wanted to see more details on the perks for youth soccer; another wanted to see Tejano music incorporated into events at the site; another suggested the deal include a clear cap on the city's financial contributions to the venture. All duly noted, Suttle said.
The most recurring criticism I heard Thursday evening, though, is that Precourt wouldn't pay property taxes on the stadium, which would be built by the franchise and then given to the city. One estimate puts the unpaid property taxes at $5 million in the stadium's first year, including roughly $2.7 million for Austin schools, $1 million for the city of Austin, nearly $850,000 for Travis County, almost $250,000 for Central Health and about $230,000 for Austin Community College.
Kind of the opposite of handing out free $100 bills to the public.
Precourt is still negotiating other financial terms with the city, with the goal of bringing a proposed deal to the City Council Aug. 9.
But a word of advice: Listen to your critics. Use their concerns to make your proposal better for Austin. And leave the absurd analogies at home.
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on July 20, 2018 Categories Austin City Council, Politics, Sports, UncategorizedTags news1 Comment on Grumet: Don't disparage the 'Anti-$100 Bill Coalition' in soccer debate
Grumet: Did Austinites really buy into the city's plastic bag ban?
While H-E-B and other retailers consider whether to bring back disposable plastic bags, I've heard some interesting discussions about how much Austinites actually supported the city's recently nullified plastic bag ban.
That's because plastic bags didn't entirely go away. Remember, Austin's ordinance only barred stores from providing those wispy, single-use plastic bags, but H-E-B lawfully provides thicker, reusable plastic bags for sale. Did residents simply replace one kind of plastic bag with another, and send the same amount of plastic into the trash?
Let's look at the numbers.
Our recent editorial noted the bag ban led to Austinites using nearly 200 million fewer disposable plastic bags a year. But that same editorial also pointed out the weight of single-use plastic bags kept out of the landfill was nearly offset by the 23 tons of the thicker, reusable plastic bags arriving each year at the city's recycling centers. Those centers aren't equipped to recycle plastic bags, so those bags end up going to the landfill.
A reader suggested these numbers mean Austinites didn't strongly support the city's bag ban, which the City Council approved in 2012 and the Texas Supreme Court struck down last month. When the free disposable bags went away, the logic goes, customers simply paid for the heavier, reusable plastic bags and then threw them away, too.
I don't think that's the story those numbers tell, though.
Consider the old brain-teaser about which weighs more: A ton of feathers or a ton of bricks? The answer, of course, is they weigh the same. A ton is a ton. It just takes more truckloads of feathers than bricks to hit the one-ton mark.
That's also the case with plastic bags: Specifically, you get about seven times as many disposable plastic bags per ton as you would thicker, reusable plastic bags, according to the weights of both bags provided in this 2015 report for the city.
That report even included a helpful photo from H-E-B showing, on left, a box containing 100 reusable cloth bags; in middle, a box containing 250 of the thicker, reusable plastic bags; and on right, a box containing 2,000 disposable plastic bags.
This photo provides an at-a-glance comparison of a box containing 100 reusable cloth bags (left); a box containing 250 of the thicker, reusable plastic bags (middle); and a box containing 2,000 disposable plastic bags (right). H-E-B provided this image for a 2015 Austin report on the city's plastic bag ban.
Let's be clear: 23 tons of plastics headed to the landfill is a bad thing, whether it's composed of thicker, reusable bags, or seven times as many disposable plastic bags. But in terms of measuring Austinites' compliance with the spirit of the bag ban, the number of bags matters. Considering the weight of discarded bags remained about the same, it seems only a fraction of Austinites were throwing out the heavier, reusable plastic bags, compared to the number of residents who used to toss disposable plastic bags.
In other words, many Austin residents made the switch to reusable cloth bags, or used the heavier, reusable plastic bags repeatedly, as intended.
I should also tell you: None of these plastic bags have to go in the trash.
True, you can't recycle them in the blue recycling bin that you roll out to your curb. But H-E-B and Randall's have recycling bins near their store entrances where customers can drop off plastic bags and other kinds of plastic film, such as bubble wrap and the plastic wrapping that comes around paper towels.
Last year H-E-B recycled about 1,000 tons of plastics statewide from those bins, spokeswoman Leslie Sweet told me. She didn't have a breakdown for the Austin area or for plastic bags only. But rest assured that number includes some of those heavier, reusable plastic bags, which in fact bear markings on the bottom proclaiming they are "recyclable."
The thicker, reusable plastic bags sold by H-E-B are labeled as recyclable – but you can't put them in Austin's blue recycling bins.
Why doesn't the city recycle them?
Blame the machinery. The items placed in residents' curbside blue bins go to recycling processing centers where machines separate paper from metal and glass bottles from plastic ones. Any kind of soft plastic material, such as plastic bags or bubble wrap, gums up the gears, a city spokeswoman told me.
But the city does accept plastic bags and film for recycling if you drop it off at the Recycle & Reuse Drop-off Center in Southeast Austin.
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on July 12, 2018 July 12, 2018 Categories Austin City Council, Environment, UncategorizedTags newsLeave a comment on Grumet: Did Austinites really buy into the city's plastic bag ban?
Grumet: Austin should look to LA, where an MLS team pays property taxes
The new Los Angeles FC stadium opened this spring — and it plans to pay property taxes. Photo by Harry How/Getty Images
I recently noted that property-tax free stadiums tend to be the norm in the professional sports world, and we know that Precourt Sports Ventures wants just such a property tax-free deal in Austin. If Austin moves forward today with negotiating a Major League Soccer stadium at McKalla Place, however, it might find some useful lessons in Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles FC's fancy new Banc of California Stadium just opened this spring on government-owned land. And it's going to pay property taxes.
"There was never any issue about property taxes being charged or not," Seth Burton, LAFC's vice president of communications, told me late Wednesday via email, responding to questions I'd sent earlier. "The stadium is a private development and did not request or need property tax defrayed."
The Los Angeles FC stadium seats about 22,000, a shave above the 20,000-seater that Precourt Sports Ventures proposes to build in Austin. It's worth noting the LAFC stadium has other bells and whistles that brought construction costs to $350 million, well beyond Precourt's $200 million stadium budget in Austin (I don't have the details on the Carson, Calif. stadium that's home to LA's other team, the LA Galaxy). LAFC fully financed its stadium construction, just as Precourt proposes to do.
Both stadiums also involve government-owned land. Burton told me the LAFC stadium sits on state-owned land that is being subleased from the University of Southern California. Precourt wants to build its stadium on the 24-acre McKalla Place tract owned by the city of Austin, which the franchise seeks to lease for $1 a year.
But here's a key distinction: When the construction dust cleared, LAFC retained ownership of the soccer stadium it built and plans to pay property taxes on it. The first bill hasn't come due yet, so Burton couldn't provide a dollar amount. "The process to determine the amount of taxes is ongoing," he said, which is not surprising, considering the challenges involved in appraising a sports venue for tax purposes.
In Austin, Precourt has proposed giving the stadium it builds to the city. This city-owned facility would remain off the tax rolls, much like the city-owned stadiums used by FC Dallas (technically based in Frisco) and the Houston Dynamo.
The property tax question is just one piece of the puzzle for Austin officials to figure out if they proceed today with Precourt. It's possible some other combination of benefits makes better sense than putting the stadium on the tax rolls. But it's instructive to know there's a place where an MLS team pays property taxes without flinching.
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on June 28, 2018 June 28, 2018 Categories Austin City Council, Sports, UncategorizedTags newsLeave a comment on Grumet: Austin should look to LA, where an MLS team pays property taxes
Grumet: What would Austin soccer stadium pay if it paid property taxes?
Financially speaking, it's the biggest unknown in the proposal for a Major League Soccer stadium site at McKalla Place: How much property tax revenue would the city forfeit if the stadium was kept off the tax rolls?
Michael J. Gaudini, a policy advisor with Council Member Leslie Pool's office, fired up Excel and calculated some reasonable estimates that provide some scale to the debate, with some caveats I'll explain in a minute.
We know a private appraisal in 2016 valued the land at $29.5 million, and we know Precourt Sports Ventures plans to spend $200 million building the proposed 20,000 seat stadium if the Columbus Crew SC moves here. Using those values, Gaudini estimates such a stadium would pay roughly $5 million in property taxes its first year, if the stadium and the land were both fully taxed.
That bill would include $2.7 million for Austin schools, $1 million for the city of Austin, nearly $850,000 for Travis County, almost $250,000 for Central Health and about $230,000 for Austin Community College. (Gaudini's spreadsheet has exact dollar figures, but I'm rounding here for ease of discussion.)
Of course that's just Year 1. Gaudini forecast three scenarios stretching into the next 25 years, rightly recognizing that forecasts become less reliable the further you reach into the future.
Grumet: Austin's MLS stadium numbers aren't as strong as they look
Under his first scenario, assuming a 4 percent growth in property taxes each year, the total lost tax revenue over 25 years would be $211 million, including $114 million to Austin schools, $42.5 million to the city of Austin, $35 million to Travis County, $10 million to Central Health and $9.6 million to ACC.
Under his second scenario, assuming a 6 percent growth in property taxes each year, the total lost tax revenue over 25 years would be $278 million, including $150 million to Austin schools, $56 million to the city of Austin, $46 million to Travis County, $13.5 million to Central Health and $12.7 million to ACC.
Under his third scenario, assuming an 8 percent growth in property taxes each year, the total lost tax revenue over 25 years would be $371 million, including $200 million to Austin schools, $74.6 million to the city of Austin, $62 million to Travis County, $18 million to Central Health and $17 million to ACC.
The 6 percent or 8 percent scenarios are the likelier ones, if recent history is any guide.
These forecasts are built on assumptions, including the idea that tax revenues will continue on a steady upward march for the next quarter century, between fluctuations in the tax rate and growth in property values.
One could also debate whether the construction cost of the stadium is the best way to value it for tax purposes. We know that hasn't been the case at the Circuit of the Americas, which has successfully lowered its tax appraisals by arguing the Formula 1 racetrack is worth only a fraction of what it cost to build.
I asked Gaudini about this, and he acknowledged the Travis Central Appraisal District might look at other indicators to set the value, as the agency did for COTA (the appraisal district, understandably, didn't want to speculate with me about a proposed stadium's tax bill). But he found several indications, including this presentation by the Tampa-area tax appraisal office, that construction cost is a fair value to use.
All of this is an academic exercise: Precourt wants a property-tax free deal. That's not uncommon: FC Dallas and the Houston Dynamo play their MLS games at city-owned stadiums that don't pay property taxes. With a few exceptions, property tax-free stadiums are baked into the financing for pro sports franchise deals.
Also missing is any sort of comparison to the taxes that other developments might pay if McKalla Place was used for housing or mixed- use projects. Council Member Jimmy Flannigan asked city staff for that very thing at Tuesday's work session with the hope of better understanding the opportunity costs. The council is set to consider two resolutions Thursday: One launches the city's negotiations with Precourt for a soccer stadium deal, while the other allows other developers to pitch plans for the site.
Nonprofit-owned affordable housing on city-owned land wouldn't pay property taxes, though it would help address a critical city need. (Precourt recognizes that and has added an affordable housing component to its stadium plan). However, if a for-profit developer built a mix of apartments, shops and offices at McKalla Place, it likely would pay property taxes.
Grumet: Who'd want part-time MLS stadium jobs? You'd be surprised
These comparisons are beside the point for Mayor Steve Adler, however. He said there's no doubt a mixed-use development on McKalla Place would bring more property tax revenue. But the soccer stadium, he said, would serve a larger community purpose.
"We did the (downtown) library on an incredibly valuable tract," Adler noted. "I don't remember an analysis being done about what we would be able to do if we put that to a mixed use development, which would have been an extraordinary value. We didn't do that because a library was a really important thing for us to have, and now there are thousands of people a day going to the library."
Of course there's a difference between a city-owned library and virtually free use of city-owned land by a for-profit venture like Precourt.
But a soccer franchise would bring other community benefits. Weighing them all will be the City Council's challenge on Thursday.
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on June 27, 2018 June 27, 2018 Categories Austin City Council, Sports, UncategorizedTags news2 Comments on Grumet: What would Austin soccer stadium pay if it paid property taxes?
Poll shows how we're split over CodeNext and what issue can bring us together
What do you think of CodeNext? It may depend, as much as anything, on how long you've been in Austin.
While the legal wrangling plays out at City Hall over whether to put a CodeNext-related item on the November ballot — a subplot with legal questions almost as complex as the rewrite of the land development code itself — I went searching for indicators of what the public actually thinks of CodeNext.
True, more than 32,000 people signed petitions supporting a ballot initiative that would allow voters to decide the fate of CodeNext and similar zoning overhauls, an indication many are concerned about the issue. But as Uber and Lyft can tell you, gathering enough signatures to put something on the ballot doesn't necessarily mean you'll have enough votes to prevail on election day.
The most revealing glimpse I found on CodeNext attitudes comes from a poll commissioned by the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. This scientific survey of 501 Austin residents found 45 percent favored CodeNext and 36 percent opposed it. With 19 percent unsure, a decision could swing either way.
EDITORIAL: With no good options, City Council faces dilemma over CodeNext
Most notably, the poll shows a stark difference in support for CodeNext based on how long people have lived in Austin. Support for CodeNext is 63 percent among those here less than a decade, and just 27 percent among those here more than 35 years. The opposition counts just 23 percent of the less-than-10-years crowd — and more than half of the folks here longer than 35 years.
Now, you may quibble with the pollster's wording of the question, which described CodeNext as an effort "to rewrite the land development code and rezone certain areas of the city … in order to create more diverse housing options and increase density" in Austin or select neighborhoods. The question waves at the expected positives without acknowledging critics' concerns about the potential displacement of longtime residents and the disruption to established neighborhoods.
And the poll, conducted in December by Baselice & Associates with a 4.4 percent margin of error, is no doubt a few months removed from the pulse of Austinites now. Even so, the results provide a helpful map to the fault lines in the CodeNext debate.
The poll showed Democrats supported CodeNext 2-to-1, while only a third of Republicans did. Predictably, support was stronger among the folks who said they believed in planning for future growth, and tepid among those who would prefer no growth at all.
The length of time people have been in Austin struck me as the most useful prism for understanding the debate, though there are exceptions to the trends. I've talked to some decades-long residents who champion CodeNext, and you can count me among the newcomers (I moved here five years ago) who aren't yet sold on the plan. Still, in broad strokes, it helps to understand people on the other side of the divide.
RELATED: CodeNext foes are done with compromise. They're going for the kill.
Most of us recognize Austin is a vibrant city that will continue to draw newcomers (there's no hope, as the joke goes, of building a wall around Austin — and making California pay for it). It's not a question of whether Austin will change, but in what ways, and to whose benefit?
I don't think most longtime residents want a city frozen in amber, but they do want the neighborhood they've invested in to retain its feeling of home. I don't most think newcomers want to knock everything down, but as we're searching for housing, it's clear to us that much, much more of it is needed.
And here's where the poll provides some common ground: 85 percent of those surveyed agree that "Austin has an affordability problem." (I'd love to meet the 15 percent who aren't feeling the squeeze.) Devise a CodeNext draft that can address that overarching problem, providing more of the affordable units new residents need without physically or financially pushing out longtime residents, and the city of Austin might get more of us on the same page.
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK: Our Viewpoints page brings the latest commentaries to your Facebook feed.
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on May 11, 2018 May 18, 2018 Categories Affordability, Austin City Council, City of Austin, Development, UncategorizedTags Austin City Council, news2 Comments on Poll shows how we're split over CodeNext and what issue can bring us together
Jade Helm takeover was #FakeNews but plans for this counterattack were real
With everything we've learned about the ability of Russian bots to grossly amplify the reach of #FakeNews, we shouldn't be all that surprised by this week's revelation that the 2015 Jade Helm conspiracy theory was an early triumph of this toxic technology.
But before we make our jokes about tin foil hats and move on, we should recognize how such cyber chicanery can have a very real impact.
This part barely made headlines here, likely because it involved wingnuts in North Carolina. But in August 2015, the feds arrested three men who were building bombs, stockpiling guns and preparing to attack our government because of Jade Helm.
Back then, we were all busy rolling our eyes at Gov. Greg Abbott tasking the Texas State Guard with monitoring the U.S. military training exercises happening that summer in Bastrop County, while similar special ops training was held in several other states. But the notion of a martial law takeover by the U.S. military was not an obvious hoax to Walter Eugene Litteral, Christopher James Barker and Christopher Todd Campbell — then 50, 41 and 30, respectively.
HOW WE GOT HERE: A timeline on Jade Helm 15
According to arrest affidavits, these men gathered the materials to make pipe bombs and explosive tennis balls covered in nails. They had dozens of guns, military-issue Kevlar helmets, body armor vests and handheld radios with throat microphones. They planned to ambush U.S. soldiers on a 99-acre camp in Clover, S.C., a town not far from Charlotte, N.C.
"According to (Campbell)," the warrant stated, "he and Litteral intend to booby-trap the camp and draw government's forces into the camp and kill them."
Thankfully that showdown never came. The owner of a military surplus store where the men bought their gear learned of their plot and alerted the FBI, according to the Washington Post.
Of course it's possible Litteral, Barker and Campbell would have planned their attack even without the involvement of Russian bots. After all, the bots simply spread the conspiracy theory that was already out there. It was a real person, right-wing provocateur Alex Jones, who conjured the fever dream in March 2015 that Jade Helm, the multi-state military training exercise planned for that summer, was somehow something sinister.
RELATED: The Americans are coming! Jade Helm and the politics of paranoia
But as the conspiracy theory spread online with lightning speed, with a flurry of comments and shares that suggested legions of alarmed residents, real people took notice. And a handful of elected officials pandered to the paranoia.
U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, issued a statement in May 2015 saying "true patriots" had cause to be "legitimately suspicious." That same month, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, then making his run for president, demanded answers from the Pentagon because "the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration."
I know Republicans had major differences with the Obama Administration. But I think we can agree Gohmert and Cruz didn't exactly nail this one.
ALSO READ: Race, Russian bots and the angst around #AustinBombings
In providing this week's revelation about the Russian bots, former CIA director Michael Hayden helped us understand how the clearly ludicrous Jade Helm conspiracy theory spread so far and wide, and how the success of this operation paved the way for Russian meddling in the social media chatter around the 2016 presidential campaign. And that's troubling enough. But let's not lose sight of the life-or-death stakes in this realm of Internet mischief.
Just over a year after the foiled Jade Helm counterstrike in North Carolina, a gunman walked into a Washington, D.C. pizzeria, convinced it was harboring a child sex ring.
Fake News. Real danger.
Author Bridget GrumetPosted on May 4, 2018 May 4, 2018 Categories Alex Jones, Editorial, Gov. Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz, Terrorism, Texas government, UncategorizedTags newsLeave a comment on Jade Helm takeover was #FakeNews but plans for this counterattack were real