Better Know a Candidate: Cid Galindo

Editor's note: In hopes of getting a little more information on how the candidates in the May 10 Austin City Council election may respond to issues facing Austin, we sent out a few questions. Up next is Cid Galindo, who is running for Place 4 against Jennifer Gale, Robin Cravey, Laura Morrison, Sam Osemene and Ken Vasseau.

1. The Austin Music Commission is considering reducing the decibel limit under the city noise ordinance. Do you think that the noise ordinance should be changed?

In general, the more dense the environment, the more sound is tolerable. We need to have an ordinance that reflects this reality that not all areas of the city are the same, and encourages outdoor live music venues in our more urban areas, but not in our exclusively residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, sound measurements should be made from the point of the complaint, not the source of the sound because of the unpredictable ways that sound travels.

2. Has the McMansion ordinance been successful? What do you think of City Council's recent decision to reject OCEAN's request to further restrict home sizes on small lots in East Austin?

Integrity and character are what make our neighborhoods worth preserving. That is fundamental, and that is why I am calling for “areas of stability” in my suggestions for improving the neighborhood planning process. The McMansion ordinance has stopped many of the most flagrant violations of neighborhood integrity.

If we care about affordable housing, however, we have to modify the ordinance. It’s practical result currently is anti-affordability and elitist, in that its prime beneficiaries are homeowners with existing large, well-built homes in the most desirable locations. This occurs because under McMansion, homes like those can no longer be built, so the existing ones appreciate in value much faster than they would otherwise. I believe the city council made the right call on OCEAN’s request.

3. Some neighborhood groups have attempted to opt-out of the vertical-mixed-use program for most or all eligible properties in their neighborhood. Would you vote to approve or reject those decisions?

The intention of VMU is to give neighborhoods a tool to direct growth along corridors while meeting other neighborhood objectives like affordable housing and more services within walking distance. I believe all neighborhoods should be, and are, willing to absorb a fair and reasonable amount of growth over time in exchange for community benefits. I will work hard to understand the specific concerns of each neighborhood and make my judgments on a case by case basis.

4. What should the city government do to promote or discourage suburban development? What about condo/apartment development downtown? What about condo/apartment development in other parts of the city?

Suburban development per se is not bad, but low-density single family sprawl is. Sprawl is the primary cause of our traffic congestion issues, and a major contributor to the degradation of our water quality. We must develop policies that will move us away from sprawl-based patterns of growth to more compact, mixed-use urban forms that reduce our dependence on our cars. We have a model example of this form of development in the Mueller airport redevelopment.

5. Homes near downtown are generally more expensive than homes in the suburbs. Should the city do anything to change that? What?

The price difference between homes near downtown versus the suburbs is a function of supply and demand. However, the result of dispersing younger and lower income families to the perimeter of the city is not a sustainable model for building a great city for the 21st century. The city must step forward to change this pattern of development by using it’s existing land holdings, powers of taxation, land entitlement, and low cost municipal bond financing to partner with major employers and mixed-use town center developers to create more projects like Mueller, that offers 25% of its housing stock at levels affordable to families between 60% to 80% of median income, in the heart of the city. I am committed to making this change happen, because in the long run, it creates neighborhoods that are loved, and are net property tax generators, not net tax consumers.

6. Austinites love cars (80% of us drive to work by ourselves), but hate traffic. What would you do to get Austinites to commute differently and/or reduce traffic? How often do you get to work by some method other than driving? What is your alternative method?

I don’t love my car, but I recognize that in Austin, I could not function as productively without it. We have to create a new comprehensive plan that encourages more transit choices, but more importantly, changes the patterns of development that create the demand for more road infrastructure. I think we would be a lot happier if we could spend less time in our cars and still be as productive. I have made work and housing decisions that allow me to ride my bike or take the bus to work most days, without losing productivity. I understand that not everyone can do that in today’s environment, but my goal is that everyone in Austin eventually have that choice.

As a Planning Commissioner for the past four years, I have led in the development of the Sustainable City Initiative. This effort lays the groundwork for growth patterns based on a series of seven major town centers along the eastern perimeter of the city, away from our most environmentally sensitive areas, and connected by a robust menu of transportation options. I invite you to learn more about my proposed plan at www.cidgalindo.com.

7. Austin has the potential to be a great biking city and a lot of people bike recreationally, but it is difficult for most people to bike to work. What should the city do to improve the opportunity to bike-commute? Do you own a bike? How often do you ride it to work?

I own a bike and ride it to work at least once a week. We should allocate more multi-modal transportation dollars to bike trails in the suburbs, bike lanes closer in, and single-use bike routes in densest areas that have the highest potential for bicycle commuting. I will support any reasonable measure by City Hall to make biking safer and easier.

8. Are you happy with the apparent resolution of the Las Manitas/Marriott controversy? If not, how do you think it should have been handled differently?

I am still not certain what exactly the final resolution was, but the city should not be in the business of giving “forgivable loans” to any commercial business, large or small. Incentives or economic development are an appropriate city function, but not without clear accountability, defined benchmarks over time, and a measurable return on investment.

9. Do you think Austin is better now than it was 10 years ago? Do you think it will be better 10 years from now than it is now?

Austin continues to be a unique city, but the reviews on whether it is better today than it was 10 years ago are mixed. I think the important question is whether it will be better 10 years from now than it is today — and I think the answer lies in our willingness to move past the old politics and find common ground behind a new comprehensive plan that moves us away from low-density “sprawl” to more compact, environmentally friendly forms form of development like the Mueller Airport redevelopment that allow us to be less dependent on our cars.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

Click here to see the responses from other candidates. We haven't heard from Jennifer Gale, Sam Osemene or Ken Vasseau. If you talk to them or see them around, tell them to send us an email!

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

By Shawn Shillington in News on April 23, 2008 10:32 AM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

lacoste online shop

Thank you"Cid Galindo "now I Know a Candidateknow Better :
:)

mdahmus

Seth,

"I'm just reflecting how you come across in these postings."

No, you're sounding like Lyndon Henry, who basically flat-out said you can't be pro-rail while saying truthfully that commuter rail is a dead end that precludes good light rail from being built where it truly needs to go (what we can build now can't end up on Guadalupe because we can't justify taking a traffic lane for only 10,000 pax/day, compared to the 46,000/day 2000's LRT projected, probably 50,000 with new population).

I categorically reject the idea that you can't say "this rail is bad rail". In fact, if you're afraid to say that, and the bad rail ends up being built, and it does what bad rail typically does (convince the great masses that "rail doesn't work (here)", you're doing the Skaggs crowd's work for them - as was done in South Florida.

I've explained this before enough times that the only conclusion it's possible to come to is that you're one of Lyndon's pals. Which is where the "final warning" comes in: that's where I stop being nice.

(One of the things ROMA did dead right was identify that the line we're building now is regional commuter rail - NOT urban rail, and most definitely NOT "light rail" or an "urban light railway", or other such misrepresentations that were emanating from Lyndon's crew. Otherwise, somebody rides the thing, and ends up having to board a crappy shuttle bus, and thinks "so THIS is the light rail I've heard worked in all those other cities? What a piece of crap!")

HTH.

Slickshu

Can anyone provide soem insight as to why Mr. Galindo completely blew-off 1,000 working poor Austinites from schools and churches from across the community who organized the impressive Austin Interfaith candidate forum on Sunday evening? Every other invited candidate appeared personally to answer questions concerning Interfaith's agenda to boost Austin's middle class. Not only did he not show up, he actually sent a developer as his proxy.

He has fine answers to the questions above -- he's well spoken and certainly competent, all the more puzzling why he would be so disrespectful to Austin Interfaith.

Grape Ape

You don't want to know

seth

I am a little curious, though, what happens after a 'final warning' from Mike....

Seth

seth

The reason I liked Cid at the Bike forum was that he was willing to talk straight about transportation. Not that the other candidates were completely spinning illusions that they were going to turn Austin into an all-bike-path metropolis. But he said at one point that bicycling wasn't important if other transportation issues weren't solved. I appreciated his honesty.

I didn't catch his pro-helmet-law stance. That makes me a lot less supportive of him as a candidate for this place. If he were running for one of the other seats....

Mike,

I'm just reflecting how you come across in these postings. I know that you are pro-rail and unhappy with the commuter rail plan. But that subtlety is difficult to expect all readers to pick up on in your angry posts condemning people who support rail but lack your vision.

Seth

elvislives

I guess knowing that Cid Galindo's responses were received prior to this series' publishing does more to support the thought that he is a very strong candidate in touch with many current issues. Thanks for the update Shilli.

Stick that up your can bluejar. I'd like to open a forum on how lame your comments are.

cinnamongirl

Robin Cravey (who got the endorsement and who's campaign I am spending time on) pledged to be the voice for cyclists on the council. He also was the only candidate who pledged to spearhead the efforts to make Austin a more walkable and bikeable city.

As the LOBV endorsement press release stated,

"Robin Cravey really stands out among all the candidates as the champion for bicyclists. He embraced several proposals to make bicycling safer and more viable, like our plan for downtown mobility and our commuter club concept, but he's also a well-rounded candidate who is city politics and knowledgeable about all the critical issues facing our region. Cravey also history of bicycling in Austin and supporting bicycle advocacy."

He is supported by LOBV, Hill Abell, Robin Stallings, Scott Johnson, and many others in the bicycling community.

mdahmus

Seth, you need to cut this the hell out right now. Last warning.

I've been pushing light rail since 2000; if you ever, even just ONCE, read my blog and my comments, the only way you could ever say "vehemently anti-rail" is if you were, plain and simple, a complete liar.

bluejar

cid galindo is indeed an impressive candidate.

and i think he did well at the forum.

and in yer face elvislives.

cinnamongirl

How did Cid do a good job at the bicycle forum? I thought he said he was for a mandatory helmet law. Also, he just like Laura Morrison refused to commit to anything asked by LOBV. When the President of LOBV addressed those two candidates about their lack of commitment, they didn't have strong answers at all.

seth

Saw Mike at the transit meeting last night. Thankfully, he isn't as vehemently anti-rail in person as he comes across online.

Galindo did a great job at the bicycle forum, btw. Very impressive candidate.

Seth

mdahmus

Slickshu, you genius, I said I prefer Cravey and Galindo to all other candidates in all the other races - not just this one. And my animus to the other serious candidate in this race is BOTH personal AND philosophical AND impersonal - i.e. I'd be saying the same exact things about her if McMansion hadn't affected me at all, because it's still wrong - and her past actions opposing density every chance she had are still wrong.

Shawn Shillington

Thanks, elvislives.

I actually received all of the responses (except for Jennifer Gale, Sam Osemene and Ken Vasseau, which I still haven't received) before publishing any of them.

elvislives

Is it just me or does it feel like Galindo had read the other's responses to these Austinist "Better Know A Candidate" questions (and the associated reader comments) and modified his responses to acquiesce to the most reasonable points brought up in discussion?

On another note, thanks for putting this article series together. It's been a helpful tool and - most importantly - didn't take a lot of effort for me to learn about which candidate's I feel are most qualified.

Slickshu

mdahmus, because of your oft-stated personal animus toward the only other candidate in this race, I suspect he could have drooled on the page and you would have embraced has responses as brilliant.

Shawn Shillington

What is the point of having different Places? It is at at large election and the Places are all the same, why not just have all the candidates run for all the open Places, and the top vote getters overall get the spots? I understand the arguments about at large vs. districts, but I don't see the point of separate elections for identical positions.

mdahmus

Very good answers. As I expected, Cid Galindo knows his stuff. (This is why I wish he and Robin Cravey were in different races - they're my top 2 overall).