BIKE: Mostly Well-Done AusChron Article on SCB (Bury the Hatchet)

[Michael Bluejay]

Bear in mind that all this comes from someone who apparently thinks I 
haven't updated BicycleAustin.info since 1999.  Doesn't exactly seem 
like a credible source.

Besides, all Stuart is doing is to try to eventually champion an 
outcome that resulted in CARS PARKED IN BIKE LANES, just like we had 
before.  This is victory?

Maybe I'm wrong and this really IS a stunning picture of success -- a 
protracted multi-year effort which ended with cars parked in bike 
lanes.  If this is the kind of success that cyclists can expect in 
Austin, I can't wait to see what other future battles we can "win".

I can't believe I have to say this:  If cars are parking in it, it's 
not a bike lane.  Dare I say, "Duh"?  On what planet could not only 
motorists but also *cyclists* think it's no problem when cars park in 
bike lanes?

Answer:  Austin.

-MBJ-


On Jan 18, 2005, at 10:54 PM, Stuart Werbner wrote:

>> From: Lane Wimberley <bikelane>
>>
>> Just to set the record straight, I did participate in the process, 
>> right up to
>> the point that the Gandy proposal was rejected by the city, at which 
>> point
>> the working group was completely out of the picture, and Gandy, Nagy 
>> and
>> a few others had complete control to do whatever they wanted.  At 
>> that point,
>> any cyclist perspective or representation was completely out of the 
>> picture,
>> to the best of my knowledge.
>
> You missed quite a few meetings throughout, so I was/am having extreme 
> difficulty in
> remembering exactly when you stopped participating.
>
> Had you participated more in the W/G, you would have been aware of the 
> following:
> 1) The last and final version of the Working Group (W/G) plan that was 
> rejected by the city
> staff was not significantly different from what is now on the verge of 
> being implemented.
> 2) Charlie Gandy, himself, made a point of advising EVERY participant 
> in the W/G of what
> minor changes would likely be made in the proposal to reach a final 
> compromise with city
> staff, in the event that the staff rejected the first proposal.
> 3) Paul Nagy actively and consciensciously disseminated any and all 
> information that became
> available from staff. How do I know? Because I going around him a few 
> times just to make
> sure I wasn't missing anything, and guess what? I wasn't. I still feel 
> pretty sheepish about
> that...
>
>> And, I was an active participant -- to the extent that I could be.
>
> Good for you. A star on your forehead.
>
>> There were many voices there, and it was a struggle to keep things 
>> civil, to keep them
>> from devolving into chaotic argumentation.
>
> I'm sorry you were having such difficulty getting along with your own 
> neighbors.
>
> Funny, I seem to remember things calming down more and more, 
> especially after about 6 of the meetings, or so. It started happening 
> to me around the time I started realizing that the city
> staff member designated to guide us toward a consensus solution was 
> actually impeding our progress. I had made the mistake up to that 
> point of thinking it was more the fault of the residents,
> or maybe that a compromise solution wasnt even possible. Both, of 
> course, were incorrect.
>
>> My principal goal in the process was to make sure that folks 
>> understood
>> the importance of the corridor to cyclists, and the importance of the
>> city's responsibility to provide for cyclist safety.  Other than 
>> that, I kept
>> quiet.
>
> Thanks for your contribution.
>
>> Your words remind me of a heated response I arroused in Alan Lampert
>> after I complained about the outcome, in which he felt that it was 
>> unfair of me
>> to complain when he perceived that I hadn't contributed.  Ironically, 
>> he was
>> the only person in the group to attack me during one of the working 
>> sessions
>> for attempting to contribute.
>
> I'm sorry you also had difficulties with Alan. Both he and Curba are 
> very good people, and cared a whole lot about the outcome of the 
> process, even after they moved off of SCB into a Rosedale home; and 
> still, even after they started preparing for their move to S. 
> Carolina.
>
> But, you have definitely aroused a heated response in me, too.
>
> Why? Because you have basically dissed virtually everyone who actively 
> participated in the Working Group.
>
> Why/How? Because you are implying that everybody allowed themselves to 
> be hoodwinked by that infamous Gandy/Nagy Axis of Evil.
>
> Ok, so you think I'm a naive fool. I've been called a lot worse 
> before. But, everyone else on it, too?
>
> What about Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman, who personally intervened a 
> number of times to keep the process on track? Is she another naive 
> fool, or just an un-named co-conspirator?
>
> How about Preston Tyree, a local nationally recognized traffic and 
> bicycle safety expert who I worked with to get the ACA to officially 
> endorse the W/G proposal? It did, BTW, officially endorse it in April 
> 2002.
>
> And, what about Paul Nagy -- President of Allandale NA at the time, 
> who worked his ass off on this 5+ year effort? Extra meetings with 
> city staff, council staff, forwarding emails, answering questions. 
> Putting up with impatient and initially suspicious cycling advocates 
> such as myself. There isn't one email I sent him that he didn't at 
> least acknowledge. And, he answered virtually every question I asked 
> him. And, not only that, but I can't even remember one wrong answer.
>
> Paul was instrumental in the solution that we now have, that is good 
> for both cyclists and
> the residents of his and the Rosedale NA. Easy to see why he was 
> President of the Allandale NA.
>
> And, what about Charlie Gandy, himself? Here is a man who also (in 
> addition to Preston) makes
> his living promoting traffic solutions that improve safety, as well as 
> other worthy goals. Guess what he got out his efforts, besides his 
> consulting fee, which DID NOT a penny of the crapload of
> OT he donated? I'll tell you -- the privilege of being virtually 
> condemned by city staff. Do you really
> think he was willing to suffer that just to help a bunch of folks keep 
> their precious on-street parking?
>
> Maybe he cared about his own city, and the people in it. Maybe he 
> cared about doing the right thing.
>
> Here is truly The Big Lie -- that somehow the W/G agreed on one thing, 
> and it got
> hijacked and contorted and perverted by Nagy (a casual cyclist 
> himself, BTW) and perhaps Gandy. And, what we are about to see 
> implemented bears no resemblance to the final W/G proposal -- this
> is a total myth.
>
> It is utterly ridiculous, and you know it. Just pull the electrodes 
> out of your skull for a second, and admit it.
>
> I am terribly disappointed in you!
>
>> I also remember a break-out group I participated in that consisted of
>> residents, cyclists and a city planner/engineer-type.  The 
>> recommendation
>> that we jointly came up with was excellent, and we were all very 
>> excited
>> that it was a good, safe compromise with unanimous consensus within 
>> the
>> group.  But, because it did eliminate some (not all) parking, it was
>> rejected out-of-hand by the Gandy/Nagy faction.
>
> This is untrue. It was rejected out of hand by the city staff, 
> instead. This was why
> the Mayor Pro Tem effectively intervened, yet again. The staff 
> wouldn't even compromise at this point. Funny, how close we actually 
> were, in retrospect.
>
> The original W/G consensus plan, as well as what is now about to be 
> implemented
> all eliminate "some" parking due to the placement of curb extensions.
>
> I still don't understand what you want/wanted and what you 
> don't/didn't want. Not even a clue. And, at this point, I no longer 
> care. And, if you do respond, I am going to flush your response
> down the digital commoden without reading it.
>
>> In addition to this, I participated in several other ways by 
>> volunteering
>> my time to gather data, etc.  I also tried to keep the folks on this 
>> list up
>> to date on the progress, to solicit their ideas and concerns and to
>> communicate those (again, to the extent that I could) to the working
>> group.
>
> I don't recall ever getting any email from you while you claimed you 
> were participating.
>
>> So, just to be clear, I did participate in good faith, and I did make
>> suggestions and recommendations.  I think I've earned the right to 
>> complain
>> and be critical of both the outcome and the process.
>
> You certainly have the right to complain, even if you never spent a 
> second
> participating on the W/G. So, the fact that you did really doesn't make
> any difference.
>
> I was just making the point that complaining is not nearly as 
> effective and
> as much of a contribution as proposing SOMETHING. "No" or "that idea 
> sucks"
> is a heckuva lot easier to say than "how about if we did this instead".
>
> This world is not short on complainers, but it is very short on doers 
> and
> consensus builders. This is central the reason why it is in such a 
> mess now,
> has been in such a mess before, and will be in such a mess in the 
> future.
>
>> > I'm sorry you feel that way. You're part of the less than 40% of SCB
>> > residents
>> > that voted against the final proposal.
>>
>> I don't think *anyone* had the opportunity to vote on what truly 
>> became
>> the final proposal.
>
> Dream on.
>
> This is the last time I am going to waste any of my precious time 
> responding to
> this garbage.
>
> You and whoever else will have to find another pathetic, unfulfilling 
> pursuit, now.
>
> Best of Luck,
>
>   __o
> _`\<,_
> (*)/ (*)
> ~~~~~~~~~
> Stuart Werbner
> Annuit Coeptis
>
> "Braggin about his big, burly man date while demagogically opposin gay 
> marriage."
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>