Austinist: Better Know a Candidate: Cid Galindo

mdahmus

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:23:37 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:07:56 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:01:42 -0600

You don't want to know

seth

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:47:29 -0600

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

seth

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:53:11 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:28:24 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:45 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:54:11 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:53:52 -0600

cid galindo is indeed an impressive candidate. and i think he did well at the forum. and in yer face elvislives.

cinnamongirl

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:49:18 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:31:27 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:00:02 -0600

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.

shilli

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:32:17 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:27:12 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:04:20 -0600

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.

shilli

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:52:24 -0600

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

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:44:53 -0600

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).