Comments for Stop Domain Subsidies

Comment on Contact Us by LJCurtis

LJCurtis — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:39:00 +0000

Hi Ron — I’m sure there are many people who are voting NO, thinking they’re voting against the subsidies — and probably the opposite is true too. Too late on the yard signs! It’s too late to change our slogan too! As for the handouts, I have no idea what you’re talking about. The point now is to simply get out and talk to people. You can join us at the polls and we’re quite effective there with a 30 second pitch. If you want to help, call mw at 657-2089 between 9 and 9. Thanks! Linda for SDS

Comment on Contact Us by RonLogna

RonLogna — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:39:33 +0000

Three Items
1. I know 2 people who voted NO, thinking they were voting against the subsidies
2. The yard signs are not very effective both in design and statement.
3. There doesn’t seem to be an effective slogan and effort to clearly summarize what Prop 2 is or why one would vote for it.
OK, 4 Some of the handouts I have seen have a “peoples Party” look and feel. Not to good in Texas.

Comment on A Pig at City Hall by LJCurtis

LJCurtis — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:06:33 +0000

Dear mdlonghorn: We couldn’t have said it better. SDS

Comment on A Pig at City Hall by mdlonghorn

mdlonghorn — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:43:59 +0000

Prop 2 passage would bring none of the dire fallout that the Statesman’s Chicken-Littles predict. This is the same tired collection of scare-tactics used each time a charter amendment appears on a city ballot. What readers will never see in print, except here, is the true reason for the Statesman’s reflexive opposition to voter initiatives, like charter amendments: too much democracy means that the politicans cannot keep the taxpayers’ money flowing to their favored friends (and advertisers), the real estate lobby. Anyway, the Statesman has no credibility in opposing this measure because it is well-known that Arnold Garcia and Mayor Wynn are adept at coordination of staged media coverage and opinion pieces. Thoughtful readers should recall the mea culpa issued 29 January, 2004 by Mr. Garcia, soft-soaping his egregious ethical lapse when he conspired with Mayor Wynn to publish certain content at times advantageous to the mayor’s personal agenda.

Comment on Austin Prop. 2 by LJCurtis

LJCurtis — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:55:57 +0000

Hi Scott — Perhaps you’re right and we’re wrong on our message. We’ll see come election day, and it’s too late to change ours. That doesn’t preclude you, or anyone else, putting some dollars together to make their/our case. Seriously, it’s too late to be having this debate. We have argued, for a full four years now, against the “deal is a deal” argument, that it was done in bad faith — make sure you’ve watched the documentaries on this sight and you’ll see. But perhaps we’ve led with protecting our local economy, which many felt was as strong if not a stronger argument. It’s a fine line. Thanks for taking the time to write….SDS

Comment on Austin Prop. 2 by Scott Allen

Scott Allen — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:19:27 +0000

You’re arguing this thing COMPLETELY wrong. I was all set to vote against Prop 2 until I dug through all the emotional appeals and got to the part about misrepresentation.

I agree that we should support local businesses, but tax subsidies for business development are commonplace, all over the country. When was the last time any of those 500 businesses ASKED for economic development assistance??? If you don’t ask, don’t expect it.

But as the opponents are saying, “a deal is a deal”. UNLESS it was entered into in bad faith / fraudulently, or the other party has breached the contract. That’s clearly been done in this case, and that is the ONLY reason the action of Prop 2 is even conscionable at this point.

If you want to garner more support, stop leading with localism and taxes and lead with the breach of contract / bad faith.

Comment on Contact Us by AustinRealEstate

AustinRealEstate — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:16:34 +0000

Thanks for the work on this issue. I’m all for passing prop 2 and loved the letter from Simon Property Group that you found recently.

Joe
Do you have a website badge for supporting it? I’m happy to add it to my website.

Comment on The City of Austin can still walk away from a $65 million taxpayer subisidy of the Domain luxury shopping mall without penalty! by LJCurtis

LJCurtis — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:56:06 +0000

To Squeak — we did this last week, upon your advice! To iciphene, we get your point — believe us! Please send our site to your friends in Austin. We’re in a big fight now with the City, two newspapers, and the big developer interests who could care less about the “affordability” of Austin. What’s in it for them, is all they seem to want to know. Thanks — SDS

Comment on The City of Austin can still walk away from a $65 million taxpayer subisidy of the Domain luxury shopping mall without penalty! by iciphene

iciphene — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:59:43 +0000

I saw the Will Wynn ad in the Chronicle. So, what exactly is “affordable” at the Domain? I guess someone who lives in a overpriced condo downtown would think it’s affordable, but the rest of us who live in old Austin wouldn’t.

Comment on Frequently Asked Questions by LJCurtis

LJCurtis — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:28:32 +0000

Hi Pat — the Domain issue (Prop 2 on your local ballot) would stop the City from granting most retail subsidies, including the $64 million to the Domain. It doesn’t relate to zoning issues. You think zoning is complex — you should try to understand the Domain subsidies, which the City gave only a week’s notice for. Then the developer broke their word. Vote FOR Prop 2! Thanks for asking…SDS