(This is not the opinion of the whole LSDBA group, just me, Ben)
On Wednesday, my girlfriend and I went downtown to Mother Egan's for the monthly Democracy for Texas meeting. The main event of the evening was a debate on prop 1 and prop 2. Supporting the initiatives was Kathy Mitchell from the ACLU and S.O.S., while opposing then was a lawyer and Councilman Lee Leffingwell.
The meeting started with all four people being introduced, and then each side made an opening statement on Prop 1. It became clear that there were specific problems in the past with openness in city government that led these groups to join together to write this citizen initiative, with the biggest ones being the land development process (as seen in the dealings with AMD over its new space in the aquifer) and police oversight (with ACLU had a major problem with the sealed negotiations that led to the last police contract).
One of the big points of contention was the cost of implementing the amendment. The proponents say it would be in the $3 million range, while the city estimates $36 million. How could their estimates be so far apart? One reason is whether emails would need to be posted for public view. My reading of the amendment language seems to support the city's view that this would be necessary, while the proponents say that the language has escape measures that would allow them to not post them because it's not "practical".
The Q&A was heated, with about half of the people seeming to want to learn more, and half pushing their own agenda. It got a bit uncivil at times, but the DFT organizers finally stepped in as moderators to guide the debate forward. Ultimately, after hearing both sides and reading the Livable City study, I'm going to vote against prop 1; I support its spirit, but it's a badly worded proposal with lots of contradictions and poorly understood effects, and I think it would harm our city government more than the enhanced openness would help us.
On Prop 2, I left with a different opinion. The language of this amendment is much clearer, and it seeks to constrain the city to always favor policies that support protecting the aquifer. There are reasonable arguments that the handcuffs it puts on city government may hurt some of their efforts, but I think the priority it places on protecting the springs and aquifer is very much needed, especially as more development is attempted in that part of the city. Lee Leffingwell did indicate that he has been working on ordinance drafts that would do similar things but with more nuanced language, and I appreciated the attempt by the council to work towards the same goals, but I think having this language as part of our charter would ensure a consistent policy and show that the people of Austin strongly favor protection over new development.
Liveable City has studies of both propositions with a good explanation of what they would do, but no endorsements.