30 Oct District 4 City Council Candidates: Similarities, Differences, Big Ideas

Neglect. This was the singular sentiment expressed by nearly every District 4 candidate in their questionnaire responses. Living in the district with the least amount of parkland, a large working class and Latino community, and a proximity to Austin’s growing downtown that leaves it at risk for gentrification, the District 4 candidates probably have a right to feel that way. But, they are not going to take it any more. Several of them are calling for environmental justice, and they have a long list of ideas to make sure that their constituents are getting a fair share of Austin’s ever-growing pie.

Many of them called attention to the prevalence of industrial and polluting industries in the low-income and minority neighborhoods of District 4. Monica Guzman called the practice an example of, “continued systemic classism and discrimination,” and labeled it both a social and environmental justice issue.

Sharon Mays added to this thought, writing that although there are circumstances in which light industry can co-exist in residential neighborhoods, “City Council needs to recognize that low income and minority neighborhoods are also RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS and deserve the same protection given to neighborhoods with higher property value.”

“The intrinsic value of a member of our community,” Mays said, “is not parallel to the value of the property in which they reside.”

Laura Pressley even proposed a local Air Quality Ordinance to deal with this issue of industry and residential neighborhoods. She said that this is the best way to “address the environmental injustices” of the area.

Another environmental justice issue that has been raised by the candidates from District 4 is the overall lack of parks, and the systematic neglect of abandoned or open spaces. Both Guzman and Roberto Perez called attention to the health and water quality impacts of human waste that has been found in the streams that run through District 4. They both wrote that homelessness is a serious issue in the district, which has contributed to the contaminated streams.

Blighted properties also pose environmental and health hazards. Guzman wrote that there is an apartment complex on Rutland Drive that actually has a creek running through it. She said that issues like these need to be fixed through street cleanups, stricter code enforcement, brownfield redevelopment, and a renewed focus on upkeep of park land.

However, the key to these cleanup efforts, added Pressley, is to ensure that they do not simply encourage gentrification and push the existing residents out of their homes and neighborhoods. She said that given the problems with the Rundburg area, property prices are low and developers are already looking to move in. Pressley wrote that she would not allow the neighborhood to be spruced up, only to be taken out of the hands of those who already live there, explaining that her “goal is to protect District 4, reduce our crime, and prevent displacement of our families.” However she did not go into the much of the specifics of how she would achieve those goals.

Tying Low Income Programs to Job Growth

An overall feeling of neglect has penetrated into the candidates’ views on Austin’s utilities as well. They say that rebates and services have not been distributed equally across all income levels. Gregorio Casar took the issue one step further, pulling this feeling of neglect into the larger environmental movement, writing that, “under the 10-1 system, environmental policies will fall in priority if we do not ensure our environmental policies are paired with economic justice issues.”

He said that if an expansion of the city’s weatherization program is tied to apprenticeship programs for those living in low-opportunity areas, as well as a dramatic reduction in utility bills, then important environmental issues like climate change will be connected to even larger swaths of the community. “Creating sustainable jobs out of our renewable energy efforts and energy efficiency programs can get more people connected to the environmental movement,” Casar wrote.The key, he explained, is tying environmental progress to good, green jobs.

Major Disagreements – Climate Change

The most significant disagreements amongst the District 4 candidates all had to do with climate change and energy. Louis Herrin III immediately distinguished himself from the group by saying that he does not believe in man-made climate change. “The planet has always had climate change,” Herrin wrote, adding that, “citizens have less affect than nature has on climate change in Austin.”

Herrin also warned of the upcoming effects of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new carbon emission rules, writing that they could penalize the city for being early adopters of renewable energy. “City of Austin needs to learn how to play the game and not be the leader,” Herrin said.

Herrin also expressed his opposition to shutting down Austin Energy’s existing power plants in order to switch to 100 percent green energy, which has not been proposed in the near-term by any major local environmental organization or policy maker. The city has committed to going carbon free by 2050 and encouraged Austin Energy to do so even sooner, but only if it can maintain its affordability goals in the process.

A general confusion about the city’s energy policies appeared in several of the candidates’ questionnaire responses, most egregiously in the answers provided by Marco Mancillas.

He wrote that the most important energy challenges facing the new city council include, “overcoming the ignorant decisions of the past city councils, righting the ship, and driving forward with a more realistic overall real world strategy. This includes the decision to invest in the wood chip burning plant, and the decision to go 100 percent solar.” However, the reality is that no decision has been made, or even discussed, regarding Austin Energy obtaining 100 percent of its power from solar.

Natural Gas and nuclear

The future of natural gas also arose as a contentious issue amongst the District 4 candidates, with Mancillas and Herrin standing up as proponents of the energy source and Casar, Guzman, Mays, and Pressley coming out against it and advocating for the retirement of Austin’s only gas-fired power plant. “I take it as a given that we have to take dramatic action to reduce carbon emissions,” Casar said, in explaining his reasons for supporting a phaseout of natural gas from Austin Energy’s power portfolio. “Replacing Decker even makes economic sense considering a possible increase in natural gas prices in the near-term,” Casar wrote, while also pointing to the concept that the peak load services delivered by Decker could easily be replaced by solar, since it performs best in the late afternoon when Austin needs the energy most.

Mancillas, on the other hand, directly countered Casar’s stance, writing that “natural gas will be cheap for years to come.” He promoted the growth of natural gas-fired power generation, as a less carbon-intensive and cheaper alternative to coal.

Austin Energy’s stake in the South Texas Nuclear Project also led to clashes, with Pressley, Guzman, and Casar all calling for a phaseout of nuclear power from Austin Energy’s portfolio, and Herrin expressing his support for its continued use. “I am for nuclear energy,” Herrin wrote. He said that it can be safe and clean and that new technologies are being developed that will allow nuclear waste to be taken care of in a safe and cost-effective way. Pressley adamantly rebuffed that idea, crediting her experience as a physical chemist with keeping her well-educated and informed about this issue. She said that radioactive waste, “is the most damaging byproduct that has no technical solution to remove, mitigate, and reduce the negative environmental and health effects.”

Big Ideas: A collection of the candidates' most unique plans for Austin

From Greg Casar – create a special committee on city council to provide some much needed attention to Austin Water.

From Laura Pressley – direct council to ensure that Austin Energy engages in lean business/benchmarking practices and reduces costs year on year instead of raising rates. This saved cost could be a way to balance any potentially added expenses from the growth of renewables in Austin Energy’s power portfolio.

From Sharon Mays – Stop Austin Water from having to make transfers to Austin’s general fund each year. Since the utility is operating at a loss, Mays wrote, this transfer seems inappropriate and the money could be better spent by investing that money back into the utility.