What is the latest on the endangered salamander?

To: laura.pierce@mail.utexas.edu Subject: Jimmie Dale Gilmore and Shawn Colvin this Friday! ***** SOUL OF THE CITY CELEBRATION ********** ********** THIS FRIDAY! ********************* GET YOUR TICKETS NOW! This Friday, June 6th, Jimmie Dale Gilmore and Shawn Colvin (plus some very special guests) will headline a benefit concert - the Soul of the City Celebration - to celebrate the 7th anniversary of the all-night council meeting that spawned the SOS movement. When: 8:30 p.m. Friday, June 6th, 1997 Where: La Zona Rosa, 612 West 4th Street, Austin, Texas The event will also feature a multimedia exhibit which will include videotaped testimonials from the Council meeting. Also, a new SOS t-shirt designed by GUY JUKE will be available at the event. TICKETS ARE NOW ON SALE AT STAR TICKET OUTLETS OR BY CALLING 469-SHOW. ADVANCE TICKETS ARE $12 FOR GENERAL ADMISSION SEATING AND $25 FOR TABLE SEATING PLUS A SERVICE CHARGE. IF AVAILABLE, TICKETS WILL BE SOLD AT THE DOOR. If you have any questions, feel free to call the SOS Alliance office at 477-2320, ext. 41.

From Brigid Shea: Subject: Urgent council message: don't amend SOS Dear Friends of Barton Springs: The City Council has called a special meeting for this Tuesday Afternoon at 4:00 pm at the Council Chambers, on Second Street between Guadalupe and Lavaca. The sole purpose of the hearing is to adopt a City "grandfathering" ordinance to substitute for the state grandfathering statute that was repealed this last session of the Texas Legsilature. AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED THE NEW ORDINANCE WOULD AMEND THE SOS ORDINANCE TO DELAY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANOTHER ONE TO FOUR YEARS !!!! Please attend this public hearing, bringing friends and family along if possible. If you cannot attend, please phone, fax or email the Councilmembers (esp. Mayor Watson, Daryl Slusher, Gus Garcia, Beverly Griffith, and Bill Spelman). Phone and fax information for the Council is set out below. Here's how I see it. You may feel differently. I urge you to convey your opinion to council whatever it is. This issue is too important for the Council to only hear from a few of us. They are hearing plenty from the developers and their lenders--the same ones who have ignored the wishes of Austin citizens who have been working hard to protect Barton Springs since the 1970s. Remember how offended we all were when the RULE Council delayed SOS only 3 months in 1992?? Now, after 5 years of nefarious delay by the previous council, and collusion between the City Manager, Mayor Todd, the City Attorney and developer lobbyists, our new "pro-SOS" council is considering an ordinance that would give up to four more years to "begin construction" outside compliance with the SOS requirements. In my view this proposal is wholly unacceptable. The only reason given for such a delay is to "show the Legislature we The only reason given for such a delay is to "show the Legislature we are reasonable." This has never worked in the past and will not work this time unless we give Jim Bob Moffett, Gary Bradley and a few others everything they want. That means many millions of square feet of commercial and industrial development, many thousands of apartments, traffic nightmares on Mopac, Brodie and other arterials, and tons more pollution for the aquifer and Barton Springs. SOS was reasonable in 1992 and is reasonable today. In my view there are simply no good reasons for further delay in enforcing SOS, and numerous good reasons to implement SOS now!! In summary, these reasons are as follows: 1. Voter Mandate: SOS was passed under the City Charter by two-thirds of Austin voters. Because of the high turnout in the SOS election, SOS received anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent more votes than any sitting council member. All of the current councilmembers were supported because of their support for, not opposition to, implementing SOS. SOS should not be amended unless (1) it is publicly posted as an SOS amendment, (2) there is ample time and opportunity for informed public input, and (3) the proposed amendments provide superior protection for Barton Springs. The proposed ordinance flunks all 3 of these criteria. 2. Science Mandate: The science is now clear that SOS requirements are absolutely necessary to prevent further pollution. The science also tells us that the aquifer and springs are already damaged, and that we must begin now to repair the damage and not continue allowing more damage to be done to the watershed. 3. Federal Mandate: The Endangered Species Act requires the City to avoid further jeopardizing the survival of the Salamander. We worked extremely hard to make this listing happen. The City should be helping us implement this federal mandate, not lead the charge to undermine it. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service stated in the listing of the Barton Springs Salamander that development should comply with current regulations. While it did not name the SOS ordinance, it is clearly understood. Backing away from SOS requirements is in direct conflict with these guidelines. The federal Clean Water Act also requires the City's stormwater management programs, which includes its implementation of water quality ordinances, to acheive nondegradation. Allowing more time for more polluting development violates the Clean Water Act. 4. Fairness Mandate: SOS is fair; those persons already lined up to build in very short order can do so under SOS. What is most unfair it to allow more polluting development that cannot be cleaned-up. Further delay of SOS implementation is not fair to the citizens of Austin. It is also not fair to attack the RULE council for a 3 month SOS delay but somehow give the okay to our "pro-SOS" council to approve even more delay, following five years of delay. This is especially true given that the information developed in the last 5 years makes it even more clear how important it is to stop excessive development in the Barton Springs Zone. SOS was carefully drafted to be not only effective in protecting water quality, but fair to landowners. Now is not the time to reward those developers and their lenders who chose to ignore the citizens, the scientists, and the federal mandates to protect Barton Springs. Please attend the public hearing or convey your views by phone or fax before the 4:00pm Tuesday meeting. Also, please be courteous. The Councilmembers are our friends. Please address the merits of the issue and refrain from any personal attacks. We believe the Council will stand by SOS if they hear your concerns. You should also thank councilmembers, especially Daryl Slusher, for successfully challenging the unconstitutional Circle C legislation. Council contacts are as follows: Mayor Watson: 499-2320, 499-2337fax Gus Garcia: 499-2264, 499-1887fax Daryl Slusher: 499-2260, 499-3212fax Beverly Griffith: 499-2258, 499-1886fax Bill Spelman: 499-2256, 499-1884fax Willie Lewis: 499-2266, 499-1890fax Jackie Goodman: 499-2255, 499-1888fax Unfortunately, we don't have email addresses for the council members at this time. Thank you for your attention. Bill Bunch Save Our Springs (S.O.S.) Alliance, Inc. P. O. Box 684881 Austin, TX 78768 U.S.A. Voice (512) 477-2320 FAX (512) 477-6410 Electronic info@sosalliance.org http://www.sosalliance.org

There's an open house at the new sos offices tonight. Thursday that is, 9/18/97. Call 477-2320 for directions.

SOS just won a major victory with the Bond Election that Austin voters approved, including a 15,000 acre buffer of green space, a flood tunnel for Waller Creek, and a larger Austin Convention Center. It raises the hotel tax and the water rates to pay for it. SOS is strong, and well organized thanks to the efforts of Brigid Shea and Robin Rather (daughter of Dan Rather), who head up SOS. I'm expecting an email any day from Brigid on the place, time of the victory party.

that's a victory years in the making! Yea!!!!

Personally, I'm against any new taxes, in any form, for any reason. If there aren't enough people for an idea to fund it, without taxes, it ought not come to pass.

good news for the springs!

Frankly, It's all about quality of life. I like the springs, I dislike giving money to politicians. If you give politicians money to accomplish something, sooner or later they will steal the money, and come back saying that they need more. Austin has more than it's share of crooked politicians.

wow, that's quite a pessimistic view. Do you believe in government of any kind? Believe that any of it is worthwhile, that is?

On the side of the courthouse in my hometown, in letters eight feet high, carved into solid granite, there is a saying, "VOX POPULI VOX DEI", that is the extent of the government I believe in. Translation: the voice of the people is the voice of god. Says nothing about any politicians. Personally, I believe, if you lined all the lawyers and politicians up, and shot them, tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

that is an unfortunate majority opinion nowadays. we live in the greates country ever in the history of the earth, and people fail to realize that its greatness is due to the way it governs itself. it is easy to criticize the government and wish it was mimized when one is living the benefits of that government. of course it is not perfect, no human endeavor is. but government can work, particularly to protect the interests of the disenfrachised have nots.

wow, shoot them all huh? Can politicians ever distance themselves from their positions in your opinion or do you consider them a race all of their own?

Actually, I did not mean that literally. I do, however believe that the only honest politician, is a dead politician, because a dead politician cannot lie. Instead of shooting them, I would like to see a vote of, "No Confidence", instituted in this country. If you don't like the choices on the ballot, you vote, "No Confidence", and everyone on the ballot for that office is barred from running for that office for life, and a new election is held. Three no confidence votes and you are barred from politics for life. All political contributions including personal expenditures by the candidate should be limited to 1 dollar. Same as shooting them, but not as blood .

So was the student government you were involved in not politics?!?!? How were you so different or should you be lined up with the rest of them?

Student Association was not political like the government is. One major difference was that anyone could form a party and get on the ballot on a party ticket. we had something like 18 parties running in each election, something which the power structure in this country is set up to prevent. It is extremely difficult to get a new party on the ballot. in most states it is nearly impossible. the democrats and republicans get to play by one set of rules. everyone else plays by a much stricter set of rules. T e other major difference is that the nine of us that ran things, weren't elected, or appointed by anybody but ourselves. We were not even officially a part of Student Association although we were the executive officers of the student union. From time to time one of us would run for senate and get elected, but just until someone else could be appointed to the office. Officially we were the executive board of the freshman orientation committee of FOCUS which was the most powerful student organization on campus, and by charter and bylaws FOCUS was totally apolitical. There were nine students on the board, but we also had a faculty advisor. He did not have a vote, but he told us when we were considering something that was a bad idea. Usually he kept us from stepping on the wrong toes, sometimes we had to do it anyway. He was Dr. Barry White, the Dean of Students.

so you see, it really wasn't the same thing as national politics. When was the last time you heard of someone joining a political party to run for the senate, getting elected, and stepping down so that someone else could be appointed to fill his seat? most of the students at the university did not know that our executive board existed. and only a handful knew who was on the board. out of a student population of 45000 less than 300 students knew that the executive board was any more than an administrative function of FOCUS. Only about 50 students knew who was on the executive board. How many politicians could function with that degree of anonominity. Of course, every administrator knew exactly who we were, because, if they were not in an academic function, we could eliminate their job, we never did or even thought about doing anything of the sort. It was never necessary.

the mayor of Podunk, LA sure functions with 'that degree' on anonymnity.

Really? Less than one percent of the residents know who he is? This I gotta see. a town of 45000 people Where less than one percent of the people know there is a mayor, let alone know his name. And This guy has absolute control over the police department, the movie theaters, concerts, allocates all the office space in town, runs all the restaraunts, operates three bars, a bowling alley, and a pool hall, not to mention the only disco in town.

*ouch* good point how bout sonny bono who sure as hell didn't need mayoralness to make him a public figure? Or Clint Eastwood?

Sonny Bono was mayor of Palm Springs and Clint Eastwood mayor of Carmel. I don't know about Sonny Bono, But Clint Eastwood was elected by acclaim. at least the first time. When I was stationed out there, my friends and I used to eat lunch with Clint Eastwood. If you were in the military he would join you for lunch if you were at the restaraunt at the same time. He usually eats at the boars head.

we're not talking about why he was elected, we're talking about why he ran... the whole political evil you keep referring to. So... is he an exception to the rule for politicians then?

Career Politicians, O K ? If you open the hood on your car and do some mechanic's work, does that make you a mechanic?

so what about Ross Perot? On the off chance he were elected, would he be exempt from your abhorrance of politicians?

If Ross Perot was a politician, he'd be president right now. One thing about Ross Perot, he means what he says.

As you may know, the City of Austin is proposing a "peace treaty" deal with Gary Bradley, developer of Circle C. The legal and strategic implications of this deal and its impact on the Barton Springs Zone are extremely complex. As a result, SOS has a formal review team made up of lawyers, planners and scientists evaluating every single detail. So far, SOS Alliance is not ready to support or reject the deal. We do have one major message for the City: the deal MUST BE MORE ENFORCEABLE than it currently is. Specifically, we are asking that an independent third party ( besides the City and Bradley) be added to the contract. This third party would have legal standing and the right to sue, thus making the contract more sustainable over time and less vulnerable to the legislature or future city councils overturning it unfairly. SOS will be delivering this message to the Council tomorrow night, while reserving the right to endorse or reject the deal later after the review team has completed its evaluation. The full SOS board will meet in late February to make its final decision before the Council votes on March 9th. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter and thank you for your continued support of Barton Springs!! from the SOS Alliance dated 2/16/2000 (today)