Austin Votes: Focus on Proposition 2

On May 13, Austin voters will determine the fate of several city charter amendments. Perhaps the most controversial is Proposition 2, referred to as the “Clean Water Amendment.” Prop. 2 would amend certain policies involving the Edwards Aquifer and require the City to fight projects that seek to circumvent the Save Our Springs rules adopted by voters in 1992.

Prop. 2 was proposed – along with Prop. 1, the “Open Government Amendment” against “secret deals” – in response to Advanced Micro Devices’ (AMD) proposal to build a massive new office complex at the corner of Southwest Parkway & William Cannon in southwest Austin – a piece of land called the “Lantana tract.” This land sits just outside (and uphill from) the Edwards Aquifer’s “recharge zone,” the environmentally-sensitive area where anything spilled on the ground finds its way directly into the groundwater below. The Lantana tract sits inside the “contribution zone,” which borders the recharge zone and drains directly into it.

It’s pretty much common knowledge that Mayor Will Wynn and his office granted the necessary building permits to AMD for this project behind closed doors, away from the watchful eyes of the public. This was done because the Mayor knew that citizen opposition to the deal would be strong. Not the smartest move for a man who has consistently sworn that he is “100 percent committed to protecting the Edwards Aquifer and Barton Springs.” It's only because of the alarm sounded by the obsessive Save Our Springs Alliance (SOS) that we even heard about this closed-door deal in advance.

AMD – historically an upstanding citizen of the Austin business community – has turned over a new leaf over the past few years, ignoring countless pleas by citizen groups that they choose another development site that doesn't drain directly into the sensitive Aquifer recharge zone (as critics point out, there are plenty of safer sites). Why AMD is so adamant about building on this particular spot is unclear, but the location itself does seem very convenient, located just off of Mopac. It's also interesting that the move forms an essential part of the computer chip manufacturer's latest plan -- a renewed offensive against its long-time rival, Intel.

To alleviate public criticism for its controversial development project, AMD has vowed to develop the Lantana tract using the latest in “green” technology; however, critics point out that pollution levels predicted by AMD will still exceed the 1992 SOS rules, and that the Edwards Aquifer – including Barton Springs – will be unavoidably (and irreparably) damaged by the project. Despite AMD’s generous efforts to build their complex using “sustainable growth,” it does seem that at least some pollution will issue forth from the behemoth office compound into the sensitive ground below. The question is, will the emissions from AMD’s new complex be substantial enough to harm the Edwards Aquifer, the source of Barton Springs, the pride of Austin, our most treasured, unique natural resource? Is "some" pollution acceptable?

Whether you vote for Prop. 2 or not basically depends on where you place yourself on the pro-Barton Springs / pro-Business ideological continuum. How valuable do you think the Greenbelt, Barton Springs, and the Edwards Aquifer are to Austin? Would it even really matter if suddenly we found ourselves without them? How crucial is it to Austin’s economy that we allow businesses to develop in one of the most environmentally sensitive spots in Texas? Can we preserve the Aquifer and encourage business at the same time in Austin, or are the two mutually exclusive?

While it seems highly unlikely that economic growth would be abruptly stunted by Prop. 2’s passage (in 1992, the same argument was made against the SOS rules; since the rules were passed, Austin has seen nothing but growth), it seems quite clear that this effort to preserve the Edwards Aquifer will come with some added costs. On that there is no debate. Passing Prop. 2 will officially add protection of the Aquifer to the city’s charter for the first time and likely protect it for years to come, but voters must ask themselves whether the necessity of preserving this natural resource warrants paying the extra expenses.

Of course, as they say, nothing‘s free in this world.

If you plan on voting, you might as well inform yourself if you haven’t already. Here are some good places to start:
• How to vote
• Basic Q&A on Sanity Island
• A detailed analysis of Prop. 2 on Liveable City
• AMD
• Stratus Properties, AMD’s real estate developer
• Save Our Springs Alliance – Edwards Aquifer Preservation Plan
• Everything you ever wanted to know about the Edwards Aquifer
• Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District

*Image from Biologicaldiversity.org.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By s in News on May 8, 2006 1:36 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

descartes

if passed, propositions 1 & 2 would devastate austin's economic future! there is an answer to be found, but these are not they.

Manfred

Anyone in this city with an ounce of sense understands that we need to protect the Barton Springs Zone. That's assumed. So, what we need is a plan to do just that.

Mayor Wynn and others criticize Prop. 2 because it's "not the right way to protect the Springs." But where is their alternative plan? You see, voters want to let their voice be heard, they want to tell city government that they want to protect the Springs -- that's what voting's about. When only one alternative is available for protecting the Springs, that's the only choice we have.

Perhaps if Mayor Wynn and the rest of the business community -- who say they're so committed to protecting the Springs -- should have offered us an alternative plan. They have not. Thus, as a voter, all I see is (i) a plan on the ballot that seeks to protect this valuable area and (ii) opponents to that plan who don't offer their own solution. Makes me think that Mayor Wynn and the rest don't REALLY want to protect the Springs -- they just want to preserve their right to build shit on top of it. Not too impressive. I'm voting for it, so my voice can be heard.

Julie

"Whether you vote for Prop. 2 or not basically depends on where you place yourself on the pro-Barton Springs / pro-Business ideological continuum."

not really. See Mike Clark-Madison's excellent article on props 1 & 2 from last week's chronicle

Unclean Hands

Prop. 1 and Prop. 2 are not "open," not "clean" – and definitely not progressive

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2006-05-05/pols_atlarge.html

M1EK

"Why AMD is so adamant about building on this particular spot is unclear,"

Their CEO lives in the Barton Creek Country Club. As with almost all corporate relocations, it's all about making the boss' commute easier.

AMD's been misrepresenting nearly everything about this process, and I don't even particularly like SOS. Opinions might differ about whether Prop 2 is the right response, but AMD is clearly in the wrong here.

M1EK

"Why AMD is so adamant about building on this particular spot is unclear,"

Their CEO lives in the Barton Creek Country Club. As with almost all corporate relocations, it's all about making the boss' commute easier.

AMD's been misrepresenting nearly everything about this process, and I don't even particularly like SOS. Opinions might differ about whether Prop 2 is the right response, but AMD is clearly in the wrong here.