My response is not as well drafted as it should be. I started late and had several competing items.
I am confused by the document. Is this supposed to be distributed in its entirety or just part of it? Which parts are to be distributed and which parts are the “talking points”? Because of that I have a hard time reviewing it. There are so many different colors in the document that I lose track of what is going on. The legend at the top outlining them does not help me. The colors are a distraction to me. Are the colored items part of the final product or just comments?
Your document is very comprehensive in scope, detailed and supplies the accuracy so lacking in the ZPVP.
Here is what I am looking for when I review the document.
Brevity
Winning arguments
A clear target audience
No ambiguity
Ability to rearrange the material to address a different audience with different interests/concerns
Forward thinking (mid-2100s), long term solutions
Consistent with City Policy and Goals
Expanding the base of support of our arguments and undermining key parts of the ZPVP among the public
I’m going to start by saying that it is 75% too long for a presentation to a CM or the Mayor. That is an arbitrary number. You must assume that you have 15 minutes at most to make your case. After that, your assumption is they have quit listening or have to go to a different meeting. We will not have enough time in front of a CM to address all the issues you have raised at the level of detail. Plus the other points (see below) that need to be raised. I got an hour with CM Kelly Chief of Staff because I know him pretty well. I was lucky. I think Holly and I will get some good time with CM A. Alter because we (especially Holly) knows her well. The rest, well I got 20 minutes with the Mayor’s policy aide. I had about 15 minutes with CM Fuentes policy aide. Maybe because of the touchiness of the issue we will get longer. I can’t see us getting 10 minutes with Harper-Madison or Velasquez. The rest I don’t know. We will get time with Ellis and Pool. We will need six votes on each recommendation. I can draw up the Recommendation, at least the way it would appear in the Environmental Commission. I can even draft it for the Council.
There are a couple of policy wonks who will dive into this level of detail and it is absolutely CRITICAL we have these numbers because we may be asked for the information or challenged by someone. When we are we will have to have the numbers that you dug up.
When I go into a meeting like this with a decision maker I take in 5 power point slides each with 3-7 bullet points on it and sentence of explanation below it.
point
sentence
sentence
sentence
point 2
sentence
sentence
Next slide
and so on. In a presentation we need to keep it simple for the listener. Parking garages evil, grass good. If they ask why, then give them an answer with the supporting document. Of course everyone has their own style and every audience is receptive in their own way. Your mileage may vary.
There is a larger packet of information that is the backup data explaining each slide with solutions. If someone is looking for a solution to a problem I raise, I bring up the backup document (say 15 pages) and say, okay on page 7, item 9 is a proposed solution. My introduction mentions each document I hand out and the purpose of each.
I disagree with your asks. The reason is that they are too narrowly focused on parking, primarily. You do bring up the theater, which is great. While parking is a key item, you are almost making it the only item. I believe this is not a sustainable strategy as it ignores people with other agendas. For example, it completely ignores Equity. It completely ignores policy consistency with the Austin Mobility Plan, Austin Climate Equity Plan, and Net-Zero emissions goal. It would be difficult for me to support “only” these asks. I know people who oppose the ZPVP who would want other “asks” in it as well. Safety is good, but the Homeless item is a hot potato. It will piss too many people off. I can give you the names of the votes you will lose.
From my perspective to say that we will accept the ZPVP with ONLY these changes is not correct. It fails to address other key problems.
So, onto reviewing the document as it stands.
Assumptions:
The document will be distributed to the CM and Staff
The document will be available for public review
PARD and DesignWorkshop will see this and try to address the issues
The folks who oppose the plan “come hell or high water” will not like this at all, though they will agree with parts. They will disagree with the compromise.
Proofreading I will say that you use bolding too often. If you use it too often it loses its impact and simple becomes part of the normal text. It is like typing in ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS. THE POINT IS LOST IF IT IS USED TO MUCH. Bolding and all caps should be used sparingly and selectively.
Drop all of the colors.
Drop everything in blue. Summarize it in a short paragraph. Enclose a link to various studies as backup. Keep it brief.
The section starting “The preciousness of Zilker Park” is outstanding as an introduction.
“Our minds need the psychological relief of green spaces.” Anonymous Zilker Park User
You launch into the parking problem. This is going to pass regardless. State support of the plan by saying something like:
The Zilker Park Vision Plan is the product of three years of intensive work by Austin Parks and Recreation Department supported by the DesignWorkshop, public input, commercial park vendors, and many area non-profits. It has drawn upon many years of work by previous groups (list) and studies (list). The final vision plan attempts to address many current deficiencies in Zilker Park while preparing it for the next 100 years.
While it has made some outstanding recommendations in some areas, we (listed below) believe there are several deficiencies in the Vision Plan that need to be corrected to ensure it meets its ambitious goals. These changes are based on current and evolving best practices, technologies, transportation trends, and the realistic needs of Austin today and for the next fifty years.
Or some suitable BS. You don’t have to believe it. Just don’t get people angry in the first paragraph. Give them two paragraphs before you start making enemies. I usually start annoying people after the first paragraph. I always hope people are better than I am.
Then list the points that you would like to have changed.
Parking
Amphitheater
Multimodal Transportation (bikes, mass transit, walking, flying, whatever)
Equity (historically disadvantaged) and ADA Compliance
Climate Change (carbon neutral)
Safety and Security
Then state each point will be addressed in order defining the issue and a reference to one or more recommended solutions.
Shuffle the information under each bullet point. It saves the trouble of explaining the organization of the document.
Take the point Safety and Security.
Maintaining Lou Neff Road provides essential access to Police, EMS, and Fire resources in case of emergency. Structurally sound roads are required for fire access even during normal times. During inclement weather, paved roads will allow consistent access when non-paved roads might be washed out due to flooding or erosion. ADA parking along Lou Neff Road will provide Equity for Disadvantaged Park users and drop-off points for park users with large loads.
Adequate APD patrols should be a required part of the Zilker Park Vision Plan to enforce parking and speed regulations and laws are essential to minimizing theft, hazardous driving, and other illegal behavior.
Some additional wording could be added, but it is more concise than what is in green and red in the original text immediately under the section labeled SAFETY. You need not explain that people drown in Barton Springs and EMS needs access or other items.
Let’s not “mix metaphors”. Everyone is talking about “parking” not transit. So, let’s keep the same nomenclature. Yes, transit is in there but people are upset about parking garages. Let’s pile onto that. No one knows what “transit” means in this argument and if you have to explain it you have lost your audience.
Homeless is a Safetly issue. Move it down there. It is not a transit or parking issue. Just do the crime thing. If you broaden this too much you are going to start an argument about something different. We are defending Zilker Park, not the lack of a viable Homeless strategy of the City. Stay focused. Security cameras, graffiti and debris are safety issues that go there or are maintenance issues. Let the Housing folks deal with the Homeless. Keep in mind, I believe it is an issue and Homelessness is a critical concern, but not in this document.
The footprint and map are great things. The quote is good in paragraph (B). Put it in and label it Anonymous Geologist or what ever her title is.
Yes, an underground garage is impervious cover. End of statement. Don’t explain it unless you want to refer to a longer attached document. Let your statement stand as is. Include hyperlinks as appropriate.
I love the list of parking locations. Don’t include the one of the Airport spots. Believe me, no one will ever drive to the Airport to catch a bus to Zilker. In my opinion is discredits the argument. I might add that “free” shuttles could be run from there to Zilker on a 30-minute basis between 10 and 8 (for example) full or not. Add elementary schools, underused shopping centers, parking garages (private) within two miles if you can find them. Our job is not to negotiate the contract, but just to find them and list them as possible locations.
You might want to include some parking lots that CapMetro uses for transit hubs. There is one near the Academy on US 183 near Duval Road and another near Lamar and 183. Lots of spaces there and they already have bus service. Just add an express to the Park.
Under the section IT REQUIRES A ROBUST MASS TRANSIT SOLUTION I love those points. Take a look at the one “Green Days at Zilker”. You have two sets of parentheticals adjacent to each other. This is grammatically wrong. Besides that, we should not, at this point, suggest a solution. That goes in the supporting document. Just say “see page 10; Section 2” or something. It keeps this part shorter.
Next. You can’t say “no bikes” on a bike trail. There is a list of people you are going to piss off that is so long you won’t even believe it. You will lose their support and you are cooked. Drop this. This is a deal killer. I’m not saying I dont’ agree, I’m saying you are going to lose more support that you are going to gain. The point is that you are trying to gain support not lose it.
I’m conflicted about parking on Lou Neff. It should be ADA or used for drop offs. An alternative is to charge $25/hour. Lou Neff is open for emergency use only, closed for through traffic.
I am not sure about who runs transportation. I don’t think it is COA Transportation Department. I believe it is CapMetro. Now the Transportation Department may subcontract it out to CapMetro which subcontracts it out to a 3rd party. So, the shuttles should be run by CapMetro. That way they integrate into the existing mass transit system, such that it is.
The rented bike and scooter hub is a great idea. It won’t work because why would people actually walk 15 feet to put their scooter some place when they can just leave it in the middle of a parking lot. But it is worth a try.
I like the idea of using school parking lots as transit points. Get AISD some money. If you use elementary schools they are almost everywhere and always almost empty on the weekends.
Free admission to Barton Springs? How about if they present a transit pass that serves as free entry to the pool?
I’m not sure this link is useful. It doesn't tell me anything useful.
DP welcome center with last mile transit hub copy.jpeg
DP proposed last mile transit hub with robust shuttle design
dp-supplemental-pages.blogspot.com
Minor points. The list of items to remove, rework it so it reads:
The following items should be removed:
Amphitheater on the Great Lawn
Welcome Center
Parking garages on Azie Morton and the underground parking garage
This format is shorter, cleaner. You can have back up documentation supporting your conclusions. As I have said before, narrowing Barton Springs Road will not happen while cars are on the road in Austin. Don’t beat a dead horse. No Council Member or Staff Member I spoke to believes this is real.
Pedestrian overpass. This is something else I am conflicted by. It speeds traffic along Barton Springs by eliminating at grade crossings. Anyone know how many pedestrians killed crossing there? And is makes it easier to cross for the pedestrians, faster too, no wait times. It can be photogenic if done right. But if it is done nice, it is expensive. Or we can have a cement bridge that is ugly and gets the job done.
Remove all of the names in the text. At the bottom add a section called “signed by” and list the names. You may use mine. Who is “we”? If you use the word “we” then you need to have names. I see yours and Holly’s. I believe we are all working on this and it is my opinion “we” should be you, Lisa, Holly, Kim, and I. Britton too. There may be others as well. I’m not sure that Lisa, Holly, Kim and I should put our relationships to our Commissions on any publication as that is most likely an Ethics violation. I dont mind telling people that in conversation, assuming they ask, but I do consider it problematic on an email. For example, Claire and Mike don’t use their relationship with the City in their communications. I carefully explain that I am a citizen of District 6. That way it is clear I am exercising my right to address a topic, but not attempting to leverage my position or speak for the Commission when I don’t have permission. Ethically and morally I feel I am okay.
You have several paragraphs explaining “how the document is structured”. My suggestion is that the document might be too complex if it requires an explanation. I did not review this section as I believe it should be removed.
Don’t waste time or words on narrowing Barton Springs Road. This will never happen. EVER. Discussing the topic takes up valuable space and time. No one will ever agree to this. The people that use Barton Springs Road will literally KILL the Council if they approve this. This line of discussion must be removed. CM A. Alter almost lost my precinct because of speed bumps. I had to visit the opponents personally to win them back.
You have a phrase “bikes are dangerous when ridden on the Butler Hike & Bike Trail”. Now, I don’t disagree with that statement. But look at the way it is worded. Bikes, dangerous on a Hike and BIKE Trail? That needs to be reworded. This is the type of wording that will stand out to a bike rider and his 10,000 friends. We don’t need bad press.
I see the phrase “new and critical information” too many times. Create a list of “new and critical information” and list the items under that. Avoid repetition.
“Prechter tells us: Zilker Park”. This should simply state “Zilker Park”. “Diana Prechter has collected…” should read “Practical data has been collected…"
There is no need to authenticate a statement. At the bottom of the document you can reference your study, website for your information the Austin Climate Equity Plan, Austin Mobility Plan, etc.
Let me tell you what everyone is missing from this list of asks:
Solar power
Catchment water for irrigation
Composting toilets
Butterfly gardens
Removing old natural gas lines
Regular testing of runoff from the old pistol range
Regular testing of runoff from the Butler Landfill
Dark Skies lighting
EV charging stations
Wiring for EV at every parking spot
Carbon offsets for any concrete construction
Recycling stations
No sale of food dishes that cannot be recycled
No sale of bottled water
Public gardens for growing food. They do this in NYC of all places
Use of kiosks to distribute information via QR codes to replace a visitors center
Benches in the shade along hike/bike trails.
Historical markers emphasizing Park history and Native Americans
Wind power (as appropriate)
Any construction comply with Austin’s Green Building 3-Star rating
Bird friendly glass to reduce bird strikes
Defined recycling strategy
Defined composting strategy
Ongoing census of animal species and plant species
Long term strategy to minimize negative user impact on the Park
Some of these are park specific. Some we require of commercial builders who request variances before the Environmental Commission. Is PARD better than Richard Suttle?
Shall I go on?
My last point has to do with the umbrella non-profit. I agree that it is a bad idea. The situation is this, from my point of view. Several years ago the City passed a motion or Ordinance or something that said this was the way we were going to do business for the Parks going forward. This strategy is used all over the Country as a funding mechanism. Briefly it allows the City to have parks but fund them “off the books” and keep taxes down. They lose some control, but in the current vernacular, that’s “the cost of doing business”. Another issue, I am told, is that if I gave $1B to the City for Zilker Park, they have no way to handle it. It goes into the General Fund where the frivolously spend it on Police salaries, new ambulances, library books, etc. Now I don’t know if this is a problem with the way the State allows the City to handle gifted funds or if it is because the City is too damn lazy to manage its accounting properly. Regardless, it is what we have to work it and the odds of it changing significantly for Zilker Park are almost zero. Kim, Lisa, and Holly probably know more about this than I do. Anyway, rather than doing away with the non-profit, I would suggest we push for tighter oversight via a publicly appointed board, hire a non-profit via an open bidding process for five-years and then open the bidding again, require a City appointed auditor to review the books, publicly disclose donors, and some other things. If that is argued as an “open government” thing, we may win. I don’t think we will win by abolishing the non-profit.
