BIKE: Curb Island Meeting @ Gullett

[Patrick Goetz]

Mike Dahmus wrote:
> 
> Jackie Goodman. Period.
> 

Which is why, by the way, I support the Jennifer Kim campaign (no point 
in keeping this a secret, since the Chronicle has called me on it anyway 
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-05-13/pols_roundup3.html). 
  As much as I like Jackie as a person and as much I think her heart is 
in the right place, the last thing Austin needs is another Jackie 
Goodman, which is what Margot Clarke has promised to be.

Sucking up to neighborhood psychopaths has simply never proven to be in 
the best interest of the city as a whole.  On the contrary, it's 
frequently disasterous; SCB being just one small example of failed 
policy (after failed policy).  As Mike pointed out, when you're elected 
to be a leader, you lead.  This means making decisions that aren't 
always going to make everyone happy.  SCB is a perfect example of a 
vague, mushy, "consensus" solution which cost a lot of money, which is 
considerably less safe than what it replaced, and which almost everyone 
hates.

Consensus only works when someone is willing to draw a line in the sand 
and says these are the non-negotiable guidelines, as Kirk Watson did in 
the case of the Triangle Development.  [The guidelines where A) the 
development is going to happen, so get over it B) it must include a new 
urbanist mix of residential, retail, and commercial -- i.e. the 
neighbors got mandated A) and the developer got mandated B), then they 
were told to duke it out.]  In the case of SCB, the car-free bike lanes 
should have been non-negotiable, as they were in every plan that had 
been proposed prior to Gandy and the neighbors should have been 
guaranteed some functional traffic calming.  In the absence of mandates 
we ended up with no bike lanes and no traffic calming.  This makes the 
helmet loonies and 7-car Gordon Freakshow happy, but doesn't do much for 
the other {Population of Austin - 5} folks.

> 
> Their abrogation of responsibility here is primarily to blame - although 
> I also blame the rest of the UTC for their vote for providing at least 
> some apparent cover for the consensus-compromise-plan.
> 

I accept my share of blame for this -- I was completely wrong in not 
coming out strongly against the 10-4-6 plan.  I still think they snuck 
the bike crashers in later, as I would not have supported these in their 
current configuration.  When you're wrong, it's best to just admit it 
and move on to trying to fix the problem.