30 Oct District 8 City Council Candidates: Similarities, Difference, and Bold Ideas

District 8 is home to Barton Springs, so it is not surprising that water has emerged as a major issue in the district’s city council race. In fact, Eliza May, Darrell Pierce, and Ed Scruggs all mentioned protection of Barton Springs and the Save Our Springs ordinance as a top environmental priority for the region.

“The push for more development in the southwest has led to calls for increasingly dense commercial and multi-family projects,” Scruggs wrote in this questionnaire responses. “This is not only at odds with the environment, but also with the area’s under-developed infrastructure.” He cautioned against increased development at the expense of the city’s water quality, calling into question the wisdom of allowing several recently approved projects to bypass the SOS ordinance. Despite the obvious struggles in balancing environmental quality with economic growth, Scruggs said that he does believe its possible to develop a southwest Austin that is compliant with the SOS ordinance.

May also expressed her strong support for the SOS ordinance in her questionnaire responses, writing that she was on the leadership team that pushed for the passage of the SOS ordinance in 1992. She even named this effort her most significant environmental accomplishment, saying that the ordinance, “protected the sensitive Edwards Aquifer for generations and preserved the culture of Austin in doing so.” And, to ensure that development continues to be kept in balance with environmental quality, May said that she would be supportive of a bond package that includes a land conservation program, in order to “stymie the growth on the Edwards Aquifer and the region.”

Major disagreements – Proposition 1

One area that has invoked disagreement amongst the District 8 candidates is transportation. Pierce separated from the pack by establishing himself as the only candidate who supports Proposition 1 and the currently proposed urban rail line.

“While the selected route may not be the most optimal route and does not provide a regional plan for future connections, it is an initial route that will relieve some congestion and add value to our current transportation tool box,” Pierce wrote. “I believe we as a community should not risk that it may take years before we will have another opportunity to consider urban rail…” He added that the positive impacts from rail are just too good to pass up, including job growth, property and sales tax revenue, and traffic decongestion. However, he did note that after Proposition 1 is passed, a regional plan needs to be developed that shows the people of Austin where and when additional rail lines will be constructed.

Scruggs and May, on the other hand, have both come out against Proposition 1.  In particular, May proposed a more organic process for developing a transportation plan for Austin than that which has been used by Project Connect and the planners of the proposed rail line. She called for gathering more stakeholders in order to identify, prioritize and collectively promote solutions to the district’s mobility problems.

Energy and Climate – A strong advocate

On issues related to climate change and Austin Energy, all three candidates who filled out the environmental questionnaires expressed their support for action on climate and a transition to renewable energy. However, Scruggs emerged as the strongest advocate for these issues, naming climate change as the number one environmental problem facing District 8.

His approach was much different from May’s, who wrote that while she accepts the scientific consensus that climate change is man-made and happening now, she needs more information about the city’s Climate Protection Plan before she can express her all out support for it. “When I’m elected, I will work to create policies that focus on using renewable energies and public transportation to fight climate change,” she wrote, while acknowledging her lack of comprehensive knowledge on the issue. “I am willing to learn and listen,” May said.

Pierce as well, showed a more tentative support of Austin’s leadership roles in combatting climate change and expanding its renewable energy portfolio, writing that he, “would be open to,” several of the recommendations listed in the Austin Generation and Resource Planning Task Force Report, including retiring Austin’s Decker gas-fired power plant and upping the city’s renewable energy goals.

Scruggs, on the other hand, has made Austin’s progressive stance on climate change a highlight of his campaign, writing that, “the threat posed by continued climate change must be addressed both globally and locally.”

“Austin has done much through its leadership and established policies to validate the ability of municipalities to take action,” he continued, noting that, “this is a critical “end around” state and federal gridlock and perhaps the most likely way to address climate change in the United States.”

In order to grow Austin’s leadership role, Scruggs called for a “dramatic” increase in the use of renewable energy and said that strong goals are “in our grasp.” He also shared his enthusiasm for local solar, writing that Austin should strive to see, “solar panels atop every public school, library, and government office building.” And lastly, he suggested that Austin Energy start looking at investments in energy storage technologies in order to achieve its ambitious renewable goals, adding that, “ we must accomplish this in a fiscally responsible manner that protects the viability of the utility.”

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

From Scruggs: The city should establish a “quality of life buffer zone” of open space around industrial development.

From Scruggs: Local eating establishments should be offered incentives for growing a certain percentage of their own fruits and vegetables or participating in a composting program.

From May: Move the city’s water conservation program from Austin Water into an independent agency.

From Pierce: The city should work with its water partners to create a ‘water dashboard’ to collect and measure the various ways water is used. This dashboard could compile real data in order to form an integrated water supply and conservation plan that would include goals, objectives, and performance measures.