Place 1: Lee Leffingwell
Of the candidates for Place 1, Leffingwell stands out from most of his rivals by having a clear command of how technology can help solve problems. We're a bit concerned that he may downplay Austin's racial problems, but he is certainly not ignorant of them. His engineering experience has taught him to identify and solve problems in the best possible manner. City councils need people like that to cut through the jungle of equivocation that local politicians threaten to become entangled in.
Leffingwell's main rival, Steven Adams, strikes us as well aware of the problems facing the city of Austin and the student community. His solutions to those problems, however, lend themselves too solidly to conservative libertarian ideology. He would make a well-meaning public servant, but we just don't feel his solutions would actually work when they make contact with the real world.
The Texan endorses Lee Leffingwell for Place 1 of the city council.
Place 3: Mandy Dealey
The race for Place 3 is filled with very well-rounded, intelligent, qualified candidates for the position - Austin would be well off with any one of them in office. They all have opposed the toll road plan. They all believe that urban development should take the form of mixed-tier, downtown development instead of big boxes on the aquifer, they all have plans for dealing with Austin's traffic congestion, and they are aware of proposed solutions to homelessness in Austin.
They are all very experienced - indeed, every candidate, when asked what distinguished them from their rivals, talked about their experience and not ideology, policy or even personality. They also tend to support similar stances on policy issues, which have made it even tougher to make a decision.
We like Margot Clarke's background on environmental and progressive issues, we believe that Jennifer Kim's experience in securing grants would help her bring additional funding to Austin, and we're interested in how Gregg Knaupe would use his blog to increase government-citizen transparency if elected. All would make good council members.
But in particular, we are fond of Mandy Dealey's ideas toward improving race relations in Austin, which include having, in her words, an "open, awkward conversation" about Austin's racism problems with the leaders of minority communities. Solutions to racial tensions have to come from the grassroots, and Dealey seems the most likely to go to the grassroots to seek solutions.
For this reason, the Texan endorses Mandy Dealey for Place 3 of the city council.
Place 4: Betty Dunkerley (Incumbent)
If a politician has done a good job, then there is no reason for one to lose one's position. Dunkerley was instrumental in helping to solve Austin's budget crisis of recent years and is poised to cautiously bring back funding for city services as the economy recovers.
None of the other candidates for Place 4 caused us to think there was sufficient reason to replace her. While we may not always agree with Dunkerley's solutions, she is better qualified than any of her challengers.
The Texan endorses the incumbent, Betty Dunkerley, for Place 4 of the city council.
City-wide smoking ban: No
Bars and live music clubs should be one type of place where people who don't work and play well with others can be relatively free from government restrictions. That means no noise restrictions, no dress codes and certainly no smoking ban.
Early voting begins today, and a measure to ban smoking from all restaurants and bars is on the ballot. Ban advocates say people in a public place should not endure health risks associated with smoking.
At first glance, their argument seems convincing and straight forward. Second-hand smoke is clearly a health risk; one can't argue with that. People also have a right to go about their daily business without being harmed by someone else's actions.
This argument justifies banning smoking from, say, grocery stores, clothing shops or municipal buildings. But bars and music clubs are a different story. For one, going to a bar or club is completely avoidable. Groceries are essential to survival; music and booze, no matter how much you like them, are not.
Where to draw this line is up to interpretation. It might be reasonable to ban smoking at some restaurants. But telling a bunch of liquored-up, head-banging people with nasty dispositions they can't smoke because of the health risks is laughable.
Maybe clubs should include a surgeon general's warning that says, "Mosh pits are known to cause black eyes." The city could also require clubs to put up "wet floor" signs whenever a beer is spilled. Or maybe the city should inspect bathrooms; the toilets in some Austin bars and clubs are definitely a health hazard.
Cancer is, of course, more serious than black eyes or dirty bathrooms, but the point is the same: The city should leave bars and clubs as free from restriction as reasonably possible.
Opponents of the smoking ban claim that it would harm Austin's live music scene. But people are not going to stop seeing live music because they can't smoke. Smokers who care enough about the ban to boycott clubs would quickly realize that Austin without live music is not Austin at all.
The smoking ban is not a bad idea because it would kill live music. It's a bad idea because it restricts smoking to a residence or the sidewalk. It's a bad idea because it tells bar owners they can't offer something that's legal elsewhere. But, mainly, it's a bad idea because the city shouldn't embark on a doomed crusade to sterilize dive bars.
Be the first to comment on this article!