BIKE: BicycleAustin endorsements

[Fred Meredith]

Michael,

Thanks for a pretty good and level-headed response to Patrick Goetz. 
Of course, his rant was par for the course as you pointed out.

I can only speak for myself, but I do recall that internally we (ACA 
Executive Committee) discussed putting together a forum sponsored by 
ACA, but it was just too much to tackle with all the other bike 
month, education and AHCC activities we had taken on.

If we did tackle such a task again in the future (we've done it in 
the past), our specific questions would probably not begin with 
demanding a stand on the current helmet law. I understand that the 
helmet law issue is paramount in your own set of priorities and I 
respect that. Just don't expect ACA to put it quite so high. I would 
personally rather see bicycle safety education as a high priority 
with the city, but then that is the top of my list.

Good response though and thanks for being the lightning rod and 
attempting to get responses from the candidates and share that 
response with us.

Fred (speaking only for himself) Meredith

At 5:24 PM -0500 5/8/05, Michael Bluejay wrote:
>Re: Patrick's long rant about BicycleAustin's City Council endorsements
>
>Nothing like a Monday morning quarterback.
>
>I'm sorry that Patrick has just now noticed the BicycleAustin 
>endorsements after the fact.  I don't know how many times I posted 
>here about them, both before and after they actually went up.  It's 
>rather late in the game to slam something when there was plenty of 
>time for input beforehand.
>
>I stand by my decision to not endorse Leffingwell.  His campaign 
>provided zero information to me about his transportation positions. 
>His website contains little more than the typical vague 
>"transportation is important" rhetoric that all politicians espouse, 
>e.g.:
>
>"We must be diligent in our ongoing efforts to address this region's 
>mobility problems, because beyond the simple hassle of traffic jams, 
>our transportation problems are also a drag on our economy, damaging 
>to our environment, and, too often, the cause of fatalities. While 
>the City Council alone has only a limited ability to significantly 
>impact traffic congestion (although I believe there are a few simple 
>steps that could be taken quickly to achieve some worthwhile 
>improvements), city leaders can and must work cooperatively with 
>other jurisdictions and our regional partners to deliver effective 
>solutions."
>
>What the hell does that say?  Nothing.  He does go on to say he 
>supports mass transit and bike/ped facilities, but is typically 
>short on specifics.
>
>Incidentally, I not only emailed the survey to each candidate but I 
>also personally called each and every campaign to let them know I 
>had done so, and invited them to call me if they had any questions 
>or concerns.  I told them they had a week to return the survey but I 
>would still post their answers even if they returned them late, up 
>until election day itself.
>
>I also stand by my decision to endorse Steven Adams.  According to 
>his survey, he would sponsor and vote for a repeal of the helmet 
>ordinance, is unhappy about what happened on Shoal Creek, supports 
>reform of CAMPO, ad opposes the CAMPO road bonds.  This is better 
>than what we've gotten from our current set of councilmembers.  If 
>Leffingwell would do these things and more, he certainly didn't 
>communicate that.  And it would be ridiculous for me to infer from 
>Leffingwell's brief and vague mumbo-jumbo on his website that he 
>would take even these specific positions that Adams said he did.  I 
>don't endorse based on how vague someone shows they can be.
>
>Again, maybe Adams really would push for more roads, as Patrick 
>asserts, except Adams told me the exact opposite, saying he would 
>oppose the CAMPO bonds.  I take candidates at their word, since it's 
>the only way I can do so unless the candidate already has a long and 
>well-known history of lying, which Adams does not.
>
>I also stand my decision to endorse Jennifer Gale (who garnered 
>nearly 10% of the vote by the way, a respectable showing in a 
>several-person race in which she had no budget).  Gale is admittedly 
>a bit eccentric but her positions on bike/ped issues are stronger 
>than anyone's, and I'd rather have someone on the council who's a 
>bit eccentric but has a strong stand on the issues than someone 
>who's completely straight-laced and will continue to drive this city 
>towards mediocrity or worse.
>
>Incidentally, I first endorsed Jennifer Gale in 2001 for the Mayor's 
>race.  The endorsement is still listed on BicycleAustin.  Nobody has 
>complained about that, until now.
>
>As for people not getting to vote on the endorsements, excuse me, 
>when does any publication go to its readers for that?  Editors 
>always choose endorsements themselves.  Did the Statesman or the 
>Chronicle consult Patrick before publishing their endorsements?  I 
>don't think so.  BicycleAustin is a publication, not an 
>organization, and it says so in no uncertain terms (and in pretty 
>colorful letters) right on the from page of BicycleAustin -- right 
>next to the candidate endorsements.
>
>As for the idea of making this a community effort, it is to laugh. 
>How many of the nearly 200 people on this list bothered to 
>participate, OR EVENT COMMENT, when I invited submissions of 
>questions to ask the candidates?  Nearly zero.  Rob D'Amico mailed 
>me a question (thanks Rob), and Roger Baker sent a rant saying he 
>didn't like the questions, but didn't offer any of his own.  (After 
>I pressed him to do so, he finally did.)
>
>Yet if the community wants to get involved, then great!  The only 
>reason I surveyed the candidates is because NOBODY ELSE WAS DOING 
>SO.  I don't particularly *want* this job, but I felt strongly that 
>cyclists' interests should have some representation, so I did the 
>work.  In the past this sort of thing was done by the League of 
>Bicycling Voters which disintegrated as soon as the helmet law was 
>amended to be kids-only.  But if they would start up again, or if 
>any other organization (e.g. ACA) would like to survey the 
>candidates, I would be HAPPY to let them do so.  My only concern is 
>that I want specific questions asked (e.g., Would you repeal the 
>helmet law, would you get cars out of bike lanes, etc.) rather than 
>something vague (like "Do you support mass transit?").
>
>-MBJ-
>
>>Message: 3
>>Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 12:04:55 -0500
>>From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>
>>Subject: BIKE: bicycleaustin.info city council endorsements
>>To: Austin Bikes <forum>
>>Message-ID: <427E46B7.4040405>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>The City Council Candidate endorsements listed on the bicycleaustin.info
>>web page are as follows:
>>
>>    Place 1: Steven Adams
>>    Place 3: Margot Clarke
>>    Place 4: Jennifer Gale
>>
>>Perhaps I should have been paying more attention to this; unfortunately
>>I wasn't.
>>
>>Steven Adams?  Did no one involved in this decision bother to attend a
>>single Place 1 candidates' forum?  This is not dissimilar from a Jewish
>>organization passing over David Ben-Gurion in order to endorse Heinrich
>>Himmler.  Not to mention an embarrassment to the entire bicycling
>>politics community.
>>
>>At Lee Leffingwell's victory party last night I enjoyed the distinct
>>embarrassment of having Lee ask me why *bicyclists* chose to endorse
>>Steven Adams for place 1.  Anyone who knows Lee knows that he will be a
>>dead-on advocate for bicycling and pedestrian issues, and anyone who's
>>been to even one candidates' forum knows that Steven Adams was a joke
>>candidate, running on the Republican "we need to cut taxes and waste in
>>order to make Austin affordable again" ticket with no clear ideas of how
>>this might be accomplished other than to reduce the (apparently) high
>>levels of civic expenditures on public art.  You can be sure that Steven
>>Adams would regard bike facilities as another form of government waste;
>>money that should be spent on expanding free roads for "real"
>>Austinites.  This is a candidate who thought that Envision Central Texas
>>   was a dumb idea and that the results were not representative of what
>>people actually think.
>>
>>I explained to Lee that any candidate who hadn't filled out the emailed
>>survey was automatically disqualified, but I could sense from our
>>discussion that he wasn't entirely convinced that this was a good enough
>>reason not to get an endorsement; in any case, we left it at that.  I
>>trust that -- being a good guy -- Lee will continue to advocate for
>>bicyclists despite this slap in the face.  FULL DISCLOSURE: Lee is also
>>a strong supporter of public transportation, has promised to take the
>>CAMPO board by the balls in order to push for more central Austin
>>representation, and (a clear sign of intelligence and an open mind) is a
>>supporter of monorail and similar "quality" grade-separated mass transit
>>solutions; i.e. I have other reasons for supporting Lee.
>>
>>There are three issues here:
>>
>>First, despite MBJ's carping, it seems clear that bicycleaustin.info is
>>being seen as the official voice of the bicycling politics community.
>>Since I disagree with all of these endorsements, stringently in the case
>>of Place 1, I have some issues with these endorsements being seen as
>>representing my views as a bicyclist.  Usually endorsements are selected
>>by having interested constituents vote, and I don't recall being asked
>>to vote on these.  So, 2 options:  Next time I would either like to see
>>a disclaimer suggesting that these endorsements are the views of MBJ and
>>don't represent a plurality, let alone majority, of bicycling activists,
>>or the process for making these endorsements needs to be handled with a
>>bit more input from other bicyclists, say for example the people in the
>>trenches who are going to be taking the heat for stabbing a
>>bicycle-friendly candidate in the back for no good reason other than he
>>didn't have time to fill out a survey.
>>
>>Second is the question of how important an emailed survey should
>>actually be.  A similar issue came up at the DANA candidates' forum, as
>>Betty Dunkerley was unable to attend because one of her parents had died
>>a couple of days earlier, and she was out of town.  The point was made
>>that DANA couldn't rightly endorse Betty, as she hadn't shown up at the
>>forum.  After much discussion, it was decided that Betty's record on
>>downtown issues speaks for itself, and she got the DANA endorsement
>>anyway.  Let's recall that Lee's wife committed suicide a couple of
>>weeks ago and there was some question as to whether or not he would even
>>continue to run.  I think this might be an acceptable excuse for not
>>returning the survey.  Moreover, however, is it really a good idea for a
>>smaller interest group (bicycle advocacy) to even have such a policy?
>>Candidates are bombarded by such requests and have limited time and
>>money.  Is it really reasonable for us to expect each candidate to take
>>the time to fill out such a survey, or even see it in the flood of mail
>>that pours into campaign offices prior to an election?  Wouldn't it be
>>better for each of us who care to show up at some larger candidates'
>>forums, ask questions, and then pool our information in order to make an
>>intelligent endorsement?  Sorry to argue for a rational policy on a list
>>where some members routinely suggest that bike lanes are a bad idea and
>>that Hays county law enforcement officials universally qualify for
>>beautification in preparation for sainthood, but, hey, I'm feeling that
>>crazy feeling today.
>>
>>Finally, there is the usual question of pragmatism vs. being pedantic
>>and looking like an idiot.  Endorsements of people like Steven Adams and
>>Jennifer Gale just make bicycling advocates look like idiots.  Jennifer
>>Gale can fill out all the surveys she likes.  At the DANA forum, she
>>showed up a half an hour after all the other candidates had already left
>>and then threw a tantrum afterwords because they wouldn't let her
>>interrupt the organization's endorsement process with a speech.  Again,
>>a single actual discussion with this person indicates, at least to me,
>>that she is a few turnips short of a full bushel in the mental health
>>department. Making such an endorsement turns the political clout of
>>bicyclists into some kind of lampoon of an actual voice in the process.
>>   Perhaps this alone is adequate proof that reliance on a single survey
>>is a very bad idea indeed.
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Forum-bicycleaustin.info mailing list
>>Forum-bicycleaustin.info
>>http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info
>>
>>End of Forum-bicycleaustin.info Digest, Vol 20, Issue 9
>>*******************************************************
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list


-- 
When in doubt ... ride your bike (or at least write about it).

Fred Meredith
P.O. Box 100 (12702 Lowden Ln for UPS/FedEx)
Manchaca, TX 78652
512/282-1987 (office/home)
512/282-7413 (fax)
512/636-7480 (wireless)
More than you want to know at: http://2merediths.com