Talk:Austin, Texas/Archive 1

stuff

Stuff that needs mentioning from what I recall about the place from a short visit:

rolling hill country surrounding the place.
the river running through town, and the lake up the road, complete with Larry Ellison's mansion IIRC.
Dazed and Confused was shot there. You can see the moonlight towers all over the joint :)
Large amount of recent development.

The phrase, "46.7% are non-families" isn't clear. If the term "non-families" has a general meaning among statisticians, I'd appreciate a link to a definition.

--Gil Dawson

Mr. Merkel's right, how come there's no mention of the Moon Towers? I added a few sentences. Hope I did it correctly...

--Gyrofrog

Need mention of local attractions including the Congress Avenue bat colony (would explain the Ice Bats name) and Barton Springs. Link to Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau -- http://www.austintexas.org

--flowdelic

Regarding 1900-1969...Ramiro Martinez should be listed ahead of Houston McCoy as the person that "gunned down" Charles Whitman. According to a recent article published by Texas Monthly, ("96 Minutes", Pamela Colloff, Texas Monthly, August 8, 2006, Volume 34, Issue 8), Martinez, McCoy and a civilian named Allen Crum stormed the observation deck. Martinez fired the first shots at Whitman with his service revolver and finally brought him down with McCoy's shotgun. McCoy was overheard consoling Ramirez following the shooting.

Progressive populist 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Restated Republican/Democratic with conservative/liberal. Although the Republicans since the 1980's have been the party of conservatism, this was not always so, and its pretty recent politically speaking. Roadrunner 04:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dividing vs gerrymandering

Although "gerrymandering" may seem like a politically loaded term that violates the NPOV principle, going by the current entry on Gerrymandering, it's appropriate and does not violate NPOV: in the case brought by Dems against the GOP to fight redistricting, the Dems argued the new district lines were drawn for racially motivated reasons. The GOP argued back that it was done strictly for political gain. This is the very essence of gerrymandering, and I suggest the word can be restored, and should be, because it is more descriptive. NPOV writing doesn't need to be weak.

After looking into this a bit, I agree that this should be called gerrymandering, so I reverted to the previous revision. My assumption that the Republicans would have at least denied gerrymandering proved incorrect.

--paperhat 03:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The gerrymandering is stated as fact in the article. However, it is only an allegation. The only thing I found about it were various blog entries. Allegations by blogs should not be included in an encyclopedia. The Republicans wrote that they redistricted to rectify the 1990 gerrymandering by the Democrats [1]. --Nyr14 July 8, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

If the only thing you found regarding that was blog entries, you didn't look very hard. See the above discussion. This is not blog speculation--this is the substance of the arguments made in court. The Republicans themselves explicitly argued that the lines were drawn for politically motivated reasons. adamrice 8 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

The arguments made in court by the Democrats were that the Republicans gerrymandered. However, the courts have ruled that the Republicans didn't gerrymander.

The Associated Press reported, "The three-judge panel reconfirmed its original decision that the map does not unconstitutionally gerrymander Texas voting districts for partisan purposes[2]."

The Dallas Morning News: "A panel of three federal judges unanimously upheld Texas' 2003 congressional redistricting plan on Thursday, once again rejecting claims by Democrats and civil-rights groups that the map is so zealously partisan that it's illegal."

"Judge Higginbotham said 'the record supports' Mr. Abbott's contention that the Legislature's 2003 remap amounted to 'dismantling a prior partisan gerrymander that had entrenched a minority party'" [3]

--Nyr14 July 9, 2005 03:18 (UTC)

The Dem's argument in that suit was that the GOP's redistricting was done for racist purposes. The GOP countered that it was done for political purposes. That's gerrymandering. The court found basically that as long as it wasn't done for racist purposes, it was OK. Furthermore, the previous districts were not drawn by the Dems, they were drawn by a judge. adamrice 9 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Can you please cite a source? Other articles where one might expect to see that (if it were true) would be Texas, Politics of Texas, or Texas Ten, but it isn't on those pages.

The judges ruled "the map does not unconstitutionally gerrymander[4]" --Nyr14 July 9, 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Here's an article on the arguments while the suit was pending. "In general, Taylor relied on specific and distinct mapping details to argue that every district in the map pursues a partisan Republican end without violating voting rights." Here's an article on the decision of the judges. "...the judges said that from the trial evidence they were 'compelled to conclude this plan was a political product from start to finish.'" To say that it did not gerrymander unconstitutionally is not to say that it did not gerrymander at all. adamrice 04:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrymandering is defined as "To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections.[5]" To win 66% of the seats in a state that is about 60% Republican is not an unfair advantage (especially when you account for the fact that FPTP systems tend to exaggerate the majority party's winnings, e.g. in the 2005 British Parliament elections the Labour party received only 35.2% of the vote but received 55.2% of the seats Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005#Overall_results. The redistricting wasn't a gerrymander. Before the redistricting was done, in 2002 the Republicans received 56% of the vote statewide but only received 47% of the seats; that was a gerrymander. --Nyr14 16:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you really hang on like a terrier, don't you. Are you really going to suggest that this map is not gerrymandered? When three districts have been meticulously drawn to pinwheel out from the intersection of Guadalupe & 38th and run all the way to the border? When Austin is the largest city in the USA to (now) lack its own representative in Congress? You've decided to draw on a definition defining it as unfair advantage. That's actually not the way it is defined here in Wikipedia. adamrice 17:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't gerrymandered, unconstitutionally or otherwise.

It would be foolish to think that wikipedia is perfect as it is right now. I've inserted the "unfair" part into the gerrmander definition because that is an unfortunate oversight. The American Heritage Dictionary defines gerrymander as "To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections[6]." Encarta's Dictionary: "try to get extra votes unfairly: to manipulate an electoral area, usually by altering its boundaries, in order to gain an unfair political advantage in an election[7]" Ultralingua.Net: "To divide unfairly and to one's advantage; of voting districts[8]." Cambridge Dictionary of American English: "to divide (an area) into election districts (= special areas of voters who elect someone) in a way that gives an unfair advantage to one group or political party[9]" Webster Dictionary, 1913: "To divide (a State) into districts for the choice of representatives, in an unnatural and unfair way, with a view to give a political party an advantage over its opponent [10]." Online Plain Text English Dictionary: "To divide (a State) into districts for the choice of representatives, in an unnatural and unfair way, with a view to give a political party an advantage over its opponent.[11]" 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "to arrange election districts so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power by means of a redistribution act, and so to manipulate constituencies generally, or arrange any political measure, with a view to an unfair party advantage.[12]"

--Nyr14 03:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a slightly different definition from Webster's College Dictionary (version published in 1991): "the dividing of a state, county, etc. into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible"

That's pretty close to the definition that I would give based on my personal knowledge and past studies. However, I think Nyr14 has put forth a number of references to definitions that lead me to believe that the modern conception of this term generally includes an explicit or implied "unfair" aspect. My new opinion is that we should change the wording so that, rather than stating the central city "has been gerrymandered". We should say something along the lines of "has been split amongst multiple sprawling districts that do not conform to any unifying economic, geographic, or cultural theme. Many political observers have characterized the resulting districting layout to be a typical case of gerrymandering. It should be noted that modern usage of this term imply a degree of unfairness of illegality that has not been indicated by judicial review"--67.100.137.40 20:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer internal links

There were several external links ([http://...]) sprinkled throughout this article, which would seem to violate the "prefer internal links" policy. I've changed them to regular Wikipedia links ([[...]]). - dcljr 23:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record, here are the URLs that I removed in favor of nonexistent Wikipedia article links. Someday when the articles get written they can be used as external links in the respective articles, or even as reference for writing the articles in the first place.

http://www.waterlooicehouse.com/ to be used at Waterloo Ice House
http://www.waterloorecords.com/ to be used at Waterloo Records
http://austin.about.com/cs/architecture/a/moonlighttowers.htm possibly to be used at Moonlight Tower (or whatever the appropriate title would be)
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/tol/tree.htm possibly to be used at Zilker Tree
http://www.austinpolice.com/ possibly to be used at Austin Police Association
http://austintollparty.com/ to be used at Austin Toll Party - dcljr 00:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- dcljr 00:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, though, how many of these articles (if written at all) would ever expand past the stub stage? I can imagine "Waterloo Ice House" and "Waterloo Records" being nominated at WP:VFD because they aren't sufficiently noteworthy. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Austin Wikipedia Meetup

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin. Next meeting 2005-05-09. Bovlb 23:39, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Gerrymandering compromise

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The courts found that the plan was not "so zealously partisan as to be unconstitutional". But this doesn't mean the plan was not a gerrymander. Something like the following might work best:

However, two of its three congressional districts are presently held by Republicans; this is largely due to the 2003 redistricting, which left Austin with no congressional seat of its own. Democrats contend that this is flagrant gerrymandering designed to limit their influence; Republicans argue that their redistricting plan only worked to undo the gerrymandering done by previous redistricting schemas.

If we present both sides claims without taking sides in the factual dispute, it'll be closer to NPOV. Thoughts? Meelar (talk) July 9, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

Two of the three seats being held by Republicans is more likely due to the fact that Texas is an extremely Republican state; 61% of Texans voted for Bush in 2004 [13]. --Nyr14 July 9, 2005 17:00 (UTC)

I don't think even the Republicans have tried to claim the district lines they've drawn qualify as gerrymandering. Just look at the multiple (Dem) districts that snake north-south from central Texas to the Valley, or the (Rep) district that snakes east-west from central Austin to NW Houston.

So I don't think the text should be ambiguous as to whether there's gerrymandering. Now, the questions as to whether the gerrymandering was unconstitutional, that's where I think the NPOV is to state that the Republicans and the courts have said the answer is no, but the Dems have a case that the answer ought to have been yes.--67.101.66.213 9 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say the Republican re-redistricting was to "correct" previous Democratic gerrymandering, since the previous map was drawn by a judge. It is also facile to argue that because 61% of Texans voted for Bush that they would vote the same at the state and local election. Nyr14 is apparently too young to remember the phrase "Reagan Democrat." adamrice 16:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The previous map was drawn by judges that basically kept the 1990 map that had been gerrymandered by Democrats. As I have said before Texas is a heavily Republican state (the exact percentage isn't important just the fact that they have a good majority) and FPTP systems exaggerate the majority party's winnings so 66% of the seats isn't odd. --Nyr14 22:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the gerrymandering part since you haven't responded in over a week. --Nyr14 21:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I stopped responding because I felt like I was hitting my head against a wall. adamrice 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came late to this discussion. Give me a bit to get caught up and I'll probably weigh in too. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Elevation

Does anyone know the Elevation of Austin above sea level?

Due to the hilly nature of Austin, the elevation varies from about 425 to about 1000 feet. The two elevations I've seen quoted most often are 501 feet and 597 feet. Additionally, the runway at Austin-Bergstrom International airport is approx. 541 ft (164.9 m). EWS23 02:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

(I have taken the liberty of moving this contributor's content down into chronological order so it will be noticed and to faciliate discussion. It begins below. --67.101.66.193 16:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

There is WAY too much liberal/Democrat Party POV/'spin' in the politics section. Offending parties need to clean this up or have this done for them. Example problems:

Effects of Stunted Growth: Austin's roadways are completely overloaded these days because anti-growth Democrats didn't make appropriate, responsible upgrades to the existing infrastructure. There is no mention of this in this section.

I think Austin's transportation problems are complicated and not easily blamed entirely on 'anti-growth' Democrats. That's a part of it, but so is the nature of TxDOT funding past and present, growth patterns being different from "expected" patterns, conflicting jurisdictions, etc. That said, you're right that this isn't covered enough. I welcome attempts to start something on this.--67.101.66.193 19:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll be happy to point this out, but it somewhat flies in the face of rationality to assert that counter-growth choices were not the major reason for the lack of infrastructure development. I'll take a stab at it -- again -- and let the fur fly for those so inclined. --66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Holier-than-Thouness: Pervasive undercurrent throughout this article with respect to language. It's obvious to a conservative, but transparent 'NPOV' to a liberal. Examples:

(1) Vandalism of the recent re-write for this section -- which merely reversed labels and adjectives for liberal and conservative areas -- was somehow intolerable to the recent changer. Note that the Democrats have a 'stronghold' while Republicans 'tend to...' blah-blah-blah.

"As a result of the major party realignment that began in the 1970's, central Austin became a stronghold of the Democratic Party while the suburbs tend to vote Republican. To a limited degree the division between Democratic and Republican precincts coincides with the aforementioned divisions between supporters of environmental regulations and supporters of unfettered urban growth. One consequence of this is that in the most recent redistricting plan, formulated by the Republican-majority legislature, the central city has been split among multiple sprawling districts that do not conform to any unifying economic, geographic or cultural theme.

I think "stronghold" is a fair word for central Austin. By that I mean Austin proper, not the metro area.--67.101.66.193 19:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but with that point of clarity added. --66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Exaggeration and convoluted language: "Many (????) political observers have characterized the resulting districting layout as gerrymandering. The plan was contested in Federal court, but a judicial review of the redistricting plan determined the plan was not illegal." (NOT illegal...? How about "legal and not requiring any changes"...which is the truth, and which is how this sentence was rewritten?)

This language was hashed over for a while. I don't think it's perfect, but I was able to live with it. I recommend you read the talk re. this section if you haven't and see the views that we are trying to accomodate.--67.101.66.193 19:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's moronic, double-redundant and counterintuitive language, but the "not illegal" phrase is actually kinda growing on me: it is at once both too-clever-by-half and self-convicting. I agree with leaving it alone.--66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Pure political Nonsense: In the following, if John Kerry "defeated" 'Bush' (and note the disrespect of not using the President's full name or title) and "won" something...what was it, exactly? The fact is that 'Kerry' lost the state and its electoral votes (which a rewrite made clear), and happened to have a majority in Austin.: "Overall, the city leans Democratic; in the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry defeated Bush by a wide margin in Austin."

I am with you that "defeated" is not accurate vs. "more votes." I don't like the "won the popular vote" concept either. I can't get myself worked up over "President Bush" vs. "Bush"--67.101.66.193 19:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the first point. We can agree to disagree on the second. NPOV removed with the premise that the rewrite regarding "defeat" to remain as last edited. --66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- Fix it...or I will. -- --66.69.219.9 15:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...clean up complete. Thank you for your cooperation.

P.S. Sixth Street, the old Pecan Street, was historically a "red light district". Those not knowing that should do their own homework.

Can you cite a source or at least a date range for this? My understanding is that East 6th/Pecan has always been respectable. And there are several other areas that come to mind first as long time or current red light districts. So if nothing else a date range would be good.--67.101.66.193 19:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing interest in this, and am a big believer in people doing their own basic homework. I'll also admit that the red light aspect of "Pecan Street" is in its distant past. Left as-is (no ref. to the above). --66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--66.69.219.9 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found your edits to be far more biased than the original article. Austin IS liberal, especially when compared to the rest of the state. The politics mentioned in the article are meant to highlight this. Stating that Kerry won a strong majority in Travis county is an acceptable observation, as it provides contrast to outside readers to Texas, known throughout the rest of the country as a Republican stronghold. Bush was referred to as 'Bush' in line with current Wikipedia trends, as he had been obviously mentioned multiple times (twice, to be exact), with full title, earlier in the article. The gerrymandering plan was challenged as illegal - stating that it was deemed 'not illegal' is an acceptable term, and is most certainly not POV. In addition, your tone in this post is ridiculously argumentative and in no way in line with the community WP wishes to foster. I was in no way involved, I didn't revert your edits, but I strongly agree with the reverts. Your edits were biased. The article clearly presents an accurate view of Austin politics. Whether they are in line with yours or not is a moot point. Bbatsell 18:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, liberal Bbatsell. Your argument only demonstrates for the umpteenth time that liberals are incapable of seeing their own bias. The fact that Austin "IS" liberal does not justify the liberal spin, word choices and POV as contained in the article's Politics section. This is Wikipedia, which aspires to a NPOV, not the Austin American-Statesman/local fishwrapper. Don't like my attitude on the Talk page...? That's your prerogative. But the fact of the matter is that it does not carry over into the article itself. My comments in the article are FACTUAL, and in fact do not engage in the sort of spin-ology that the liberals have. Take a Midol and re-read the article's edits from a factual standpoint. 66.69.219.9 18:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my $0.02 that I think the wording in the politics section is fairly good NPOV. And I say this as someone who's been described as slight to the right of Attila the Hun. Keep in mind that this article is referring to Austin proper, not the Austin metro area. That neccessitates highlighting that much of the politics in the city proper is pretty leftist, especially because of high turnout in central neighborhoods. Perhaps it can be made more clear that words like "stronghold" are referring to the center of Austin proper, not the larger center of all Central Texas.--67.101.66.193 19:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you (whoever you are, Mr. 66.69.219.9) see "liberal bias" where others do not does not make you right and them wrong. It is just as likely (or dare I say, more, considering the number of different people who have contributed to this article) that you perceive anything short of conservative bias as liberal bias. adamrice 14:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Yawwwn." And, your point? NPOV is NPOV, liberal slant is liberal slant. On Wikipedia, we aspire for NPOV...not lib-speak, however self-reinforcing that may be. --66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your condescension, telling me how "we" do things on Wikipedia. I was also under the impression that "we" set up accounts and usernames, rather than hide behind anonymous IP numbers. My point, since it apparently didn't penetrate on the first try, is that you have apparently set yourself up as the sole arbiter of NPOVness, but your ability to discern bias is not better, and is probably worse, than all the other contributors collectively. The idea that a patch of land would be disputed in Wikipedia strikes me as a bit bizarre. Shoot, even the Gaza Strip article doesn't have a disputed tag. adamrice 14:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any further objections, I think this article merits the removal of the disputed neutrality tag. I'll do that within the next few days if no one responds. Ario 19:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we get another round of feedback from 66.69.xx.xx, I second the proposed removal of the tag.--67.101.67.73 23:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with above proviso. --66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get rid of the "People's Republic of Austin" bit? I've lived in Austin my whole life and never once heard anybody use this phrase. Does anyone have a source for this? The use of the omniscient "some say"/"they say" gives the phrase the impression of having been added by someone to excuse their own personal opinion. This is not liberal bias, I'm just questioning the relevance and accuracy of this particular phrase. Ario 19:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (more of an anecdote, apropos of little or nothing): I have heard a reference to "The People's Republic of Travis Heights," though this was by someone presumably to the right of most of its residents. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this used enough that it merits inclusion. But it should probably be more specific. I for one have only heard it from conservative Texas circles, usually as an inter-city rivalry term from Dallas and Houston residents. Outside Texas there are bigger "people's republics" that take the term (e.g. Cambridge and Berkeley). I've now added the specificity. --67.101.67.73 23:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BTW, I have heard the phrase "Pravda on the Lower Colorado" used to refer to the Austin American-Statesman more often than the "People's Republic of Austin" label, but it would be naive to think that the latter isn't a used term. --66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that sufficiently clears it up. Ario 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw this used in a Dallas Morning News article about splitting Texas up into 5 different states. I can scan the article if necessary, I think I still have it somewhere. -- Scm83x 07:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiighht. I think you'll find that story having originally been filed from "somewhere in the Davis Mountains." --66.69.219.9 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? Weren't you the one who suggested this? Also, it is in Texas's Constitution that it can split into 5 different states. Also, I don't care who said it, the Statesman is not the "Pravda on the Lower Colorado." I really doubt that the Pravda would have endorsed Bush in 2004. (Sorry, sitting victorious ex-Governor President George Walker Bush).

Well, you've got it pretty much right. It was one of several requirements of allowing the U.S. to annex Texas -- that it be allowed to be broken into four different states if it wants to. But it wasn't part of the Texas Constitution (although it may be incorporated there also), the real legislative power resides in the federal document creating the annexation, the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States (Approved by the US Congress March 1, 1845). [14] Also, as a latecomer to this particular bit of mudslinging, I'd like to take a minute to gently remind everyone involved that you don't have to agree with everybody, but you do have to be civil to them; please read Wikipedia:Civility and try to temper your comments in the future. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is five because the law states four new states plus the old state, but that doesn't belong here at all really. If you do a Google search for "People's Republic of Austin," there are many results from local newspapers and national blogs. The term is used mostly in jest or in spite, but it is a valid term. I think with it being such a small mention, it should stay. -- Scm83x 22:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, yes you're probably right about the 5/4 inclusive of the current area. I don't really see the point of including it, personally -- it may be true, but is it really necessary? Some liberals might call Rush Limbaugh's fanbase the People's Republic of Fathead, but does it deserve a mention in his article? I'm not stridently opposed, but it does seem a little gratuitous. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The highest elevation of Austin is: 8,749 feet (Guadalupe Peak), Which ranks 14th in the State The Lowest elevation is: sea level (Gulf of Mexico),Ranking 3 rd in the State and, a mean elevation of: 1,700 feet. Coming in at 17 th in the state These facts were taken from the on line "Texas Alamanac" at http://www.netstate.com/states/alma/tx_alma.htm --Mr. C2 04:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean highest and lowest points in Texas not Austin, Texas. Neither Guadalupe Peak or any portion of the Gulf Coast are in Austin. And what does this have to do with a NPOV tag? I'm confused. Johntex\^talk 04:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation

The following text isn't neutral in my opinion: "In fact, Austin's well-established excessive traffic problems -- today's most glaring problem with Austin in general -- are largely rooted in historical choices to not support growth by denying highway/infrastructure development." Especially the last bit, which I've added emphasis to. Traffic can be alleviated by highway development for a time, but as more people move to the city or realize how travel has improved, traffic again worsens. Can't recall the name of this theory right now...

With regards to Austin traffic in particular, other initiatives — like the barely defeated 2000 light rail plan — would have probably done more for the city than yet-another-highway.

Which brings me to another point: Austin has denied highway development? I disagree. Interstate 35; U.S. Highways 183, 290; RR-620; Texas State Highways 45, 71, 130, Loop 1/MoPac and Loop 360 come to mind (almost positive I'm missing others). All serving a city with a metro population of only 1,377,633.

I think the idea is that for years, Mopac and I-35 were the only freeways in the area. 183 and 290 have only been renovated into freeways in the last 10 to 12 years, and the others you mention are even more recent. (360 and the eastern section of 183 aren't freeways, due to their at-grade intersections.) Compare this with, say, Fort Worth, where most of the current freeway infrastructure has been in place for 40 years. (Not necessarily advocating more freeways here... but I am suggesting that other cities got to eat more from the trough.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And finally. I just noticed there isn't a transportation section in this article. Any reason why not? Feel free to grab any of my commentary above if you'd like to stub a section. Otherwise I'll try to develop something in the near future. jareha 22:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the sentence to:

"There is a belief in Austin that the cities various highway traffic problems are rooted in the denial of highway/infrastructure development by political action commitees who do not support highway expansion."

Austinforum.net

I have been trying to put a link to Austinforum.net on the resources section for a while however my update has been getting reverted.

A lot of cities with pages on Wikipedia have links to their major local forums. It is something I look for when researching cities in wikipedia. When I couldn't find one for Austin I searched the net till I found what appears to be the biggest and put it on the page. I think we need an agreement to keep it on in order to improve the variety of research options on this page.

Well, I've been living in Austin for some time now. I've heard of and visited many "local" websites, but before right now had never heard of Austinforum.net. Sorry, anonymous. I think the reverts should stay. Boxclocke 07:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bbatsell 08:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But can you guys even tell me of any other online public forums for the Austin area. This isn't a website, it is a forum. Because it is the largest public online forum for the city, it is important as a tool to learn of the city. As long as it is the largest public forum for Austin that we have found it should be on there.

There are a bunch of "austin.*" Usenet newsgroups (which have been around for years), but I wouldn't suggest adding them, either. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LCRA

Changed the 1900 to 1969 section to more accurately reflect how the dams were built. To say it was the Federal Government who built the dams is incorrect. The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) was created in 1934 to complete the dam that the Insull Company started and to also build a series of dams to protect against flooding in Austin and down river. The LCRA was actually created by the Texas State Legislature as a conservation and reclamation district.

From the LCRA website at www.lcra.org:

The birth of LCRA In 1931, a Texas subsidiary of the Chicago-based Insull utility company began construction of Hamilton Dam on the Colorado River in Burnet County, on the site originally proposed by Adam Johnson. The project brought jobs for as many as 1,500 people in the deepening stages of the Great Depression. But a year and a half later, the utility went bankrupt, leaving the dam less than half-built.

Alvin Wirtz, a lawyer and politician skilled in water issues, was appointed receiver for the bankrupt company's assets and began looking for funding to finish the dam. The only option turned out to be a package of loan and grants from the federal government, on one condition: that the money go to a public agency created and owned by the State of Texas.

In 1933 Wirtz drafted legislation creating a Colorado River Authority, modeled after the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. Three times the Texas Legislature considered the bill, and each time — pressured by private utilities and West Texas water interests — the Legislature voted it down.

Finally, Gov. Miriam A. "Ma" Ferguson arranged a compromise, and the Legislature passed the bill. As a compromise to the West Texas interests, the new entity would have jurisdiction only over the lower portion of the river, with authority to store and sell water, generate electricity, prevent flood damages, and implement reforestation and soil-conservation programs.

On Nov. 13, 1934, Gov. Ferguson signed the bill creating the Lower Colorado River Authority. More than three months later, on Feb. 19, 1935, LCRA opened for business. In 1937 LCRA completed Hamilton Dam, renaming it for U.S. Rep. J. P. Buchanan, a key Congressional supporter. That same year it broke ground on Mansfield Dam, which would serve as the valley's flood-control structure. In 1938 it completed construction of Inks Dam, immediately downstream of Buchanan Dam.

Rep. Buchanan died in 1937 and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, a protege of Wirtz. Johnson realized the potential LCRA and its dams offered the region. He persuaded LCRA to use the electric power from its dams to benefit Central Texas communities and rural areas. LCRA manpower strung the lines that brought electricity to customers of the region's first two electric cooperatives, Pedernales and what is today Bluebonnet.

In 1938 LCRA faced its first critical test, when heavy flooding swept the basin. Critics charged LCRA had worsened the flood by its operation of Buchanan Dam, prompting an investigation by the Texas Senate. The investigation not only exonerated LCRA but also determined that LCRA needed to extend the height of Mansfield Dam by an additional 80 feet to its current height of 278 feet to provide more protection to Austin and downstream communities.

By 1939 LCRA had acquired a service area surrounding Austin from private utilities and began a campaign to convince communities to purchase their local distribution systems and buy power from LCRA. Almost all communities did — and saw retail electric bills drop almost by half from what private utilities had charged. LCRA also sponsored "electric fairs" with local merchants to introduce residents to the benefits of electric appliances.

In 1940 LCRA completed reconstruction of Tom Miller Dam, owned by the City of Austin. The dam had twice been destroyed by floods. The following year, months before the United States entered World War II, LCRA completed Mansfield Dam.

Wrong info

Anybody sees anything suspicious in this text from the article:

Austin, founded in 1839, was first named Waterloo. In 1838, Mirabeau B. Lamar renamed the city in honor of Stephen F. Austin.

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this discrepency using information from here and here. Feel free to improve the way I worded/phrased the new sentences. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving the Austin Wikimeetup

Jimbo Wales is coming to Austin for the SXSW conference. In advance of this event, I would like to revive the monthly wikimeetup. If we have an event in place by SXSW (March 2006), we could possibly ask Jimbo to attend one of our meetings! Please head to Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin and add your name to the list under the Future heading if you are interested. -Scm83x 11:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, anyone interested in the Austin Wikimeetup, please head over to Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin. We may have a chance to meet Jimbo in March if we can get everything together! — Scm83x ^talk

05:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austinpostcard.com

I have been contacted regarding this removal. I do like this resource, although I wasn't entirely convinced of its relevance to the article. Any comments regarding its inclusion or exclusion are welcome. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's relevant because of all of its historical pictures. Ario 06:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting resource. I'd let it stay in. adamrice 15:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shame the postcards have www.austinpostcard.com superimposed on them, or at least those which I've looked at, as many are in the public domain. Regardless, I say add the link back in. jareha 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that its useful, relevant to the article, and should stay. SteveHopson 02:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Wikiproject?

I have proposed the idea of a WikiProject devoted to Austin-related articles on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Austin Wikiproject?. Are there people interested in dedicating some time improving articles related to our wonderful city? Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, I'm interested. However, a lot of my time right now is going into Wikipedia:WikiProject_University_of_Texas_at_Austin. Aslo, there is always so much work to be done at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Texas. I wonder if you would consider bringing Austin-related topics to one of those two projects (especially the latter), as appropriate, rather than a new project? Johntex\^talk 19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture

This picture certainly isn't the best of Austin and I have tried to change it various times, using pictures in the public domain and ones I have shot myself. Yet the photo is constantly changed back to the one on the page right now. I don't understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madbiggie00 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2006 April 4 (UTC)

I suggest you list the potentil pictures here in the form [[:picture_name.jpg]], then we can click on the pictures you are recommenting and have a discussion about how they compare to the current picture. Johntex\^talk 21:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That picture is horrible, and actually kind of misleading in the sense that it gives a false impression of what a central Texas sky looks like on the average day. BarrettBrown

Notable Persons Unnecessary

Anyone else think this is unnecessary, as well as incomlete and misleading?

Unnecessary: These people's biographies should tell the story sufficiently. Perhaps it could exist in a separate entry, it is does for the Houston entry.

Misleading and incomplete: Some of the people on the list only temporarily resided in Austin to attend UT (eg, Wes Anderson) or hold political office (George W. Bush). By that logic, there are many, many more people who qualify. Following this line to its end (the complete list) is absurd: it would make the list too long to be of any use.

Only one further example of how absurd this list might be: George Armstrong Custer--American soldier, quartered at Texas School For the Blind during Reconstruction of the Union Verylongnile 20:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that following anything to its end is absurd. For that reason, I think that suitable controls should exist on the list. The list of notables should reflect the best of Austin, and contain names people who made a significant contribution to the city. By this standard, Gen. Custer should not be on the list. However, Michael Dell, Lance Armstrong, and Stevie Ray Vaughan, each clearly deserve a mention. And yes, George W. Bush would clearly qualify. SteveHopson 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean completing the list is absurd? To be clear, following this logic to its end would mean including every notable person who attended UT or held a state political office in Austin, regardless of whether they "lived" in Austin. George W. Bush may have "lived" in the governor's mansion, but his home is in Crawford, Texas, just as his parents' home was in Houston while they occupied in the White House.

None of this is addressing the fact that the list seems unnecessary and vainglorious. A quick sample of five other cities revealed only one that had a list of notable persons (Des Mones, IA: a very short list indeed). Can you imagine the list of notables from New York or Los Angeles?

My opinion is that this list be deleted (or made very, very short) and a link to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Austinites) be put in its place. Verylongnile 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that its very easy to play the 'take a concept to its extreme end' game. The list we have here is not out of control and represents who Austinites are. If the list got out of control in the future, we could always create a separate page devoted to the topic, as is done on the San Jose, California article. No, every student at UT and every resident of the Governor's Mansion do not make significant contributions to Austin as a community and should not be included. As far as George H.W. Bush and Houston, he represented Houston as a Congressman and returned to the City in retirement -- I certainly would think that would qualify as a notable resident.

Concerning your "survey" of other cities, your work here seems very shallow. A Google search of Wikipedia for the term "Notable natives" returns 862 individual articles -- more than 90% are cities -- including Stockholm, Springfield, Ohio, Helsinki, and Fargo, North Dakota. A similar search for the term, "Notable residents" returned 13,600 articles, including Turin, Venice beach, and Plano, Texas. Even your reference to "Des Mones, IA: a very short list indeed," seems shallow. Assuming you meant Des Moines, Iowa, the "short" list includes 18 names.

Would help if you (Steve Hopson) read what I have written. Either address the concerns or remain uninvolved. And please try to be less abrasive.

1) "The list of notables should reflect the best of Austin, and contain names people who made a significant contribution to the city." These are not definable parameters. What does "the best of Austin" mean? What can be considered significant or insignificant? Why should denizens have to make a significant contribution to their cities in order to be considered notable?

2)"No, every student at UT and every resident of the Governor's Mansion do not make significant contributions to Austin as a community and should not be included." I did not suggest any such thing. I am suggesting that we close the door on out-of-town students and out-of-town politicians altogether, as they are not neccessarily considered residents of Austin.

2)"The list we have here is not out of control and represents who Austinites are. If the list got out of control in the future, we could always create a separate page devoted to the topic, as is done on the San Jose, California article." It is not a question of whether or not the list is "out of control"; I am mostly concerned about the accuracy of the list. Further, I have already suggested (twice) that the list be removed from the main article and a link be put in its place to the list that exists at Category:Austinites. The list is far from being comlete and is already unwieldly.

3)"As far as George H.W. Bush and Houston, he represented Houston as a Congressman and returned to the City in retirement -- I certainly would think that would qualify as a notable resident." My point exactly. He may have lived in Washington, DC for all those years, but he was never a resident. He voted in Houston, payed taxes in Houston, etc. Similarly, George W. Bush was never a resident of Austin.

4)"Concerning your "survey" of other cities, your work here seems very shallow." I made a "quick sample", not a scientific survey. To wit: Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; Des Moines, IA--only Des Moines had a list in the main article, and it was rather short when compared to Austin's. The same is true for the cities on your list: Fargo, Helsinki, et al. I take exception to you twice calling my work "shallow", assuming you meant "shoddy". Considering that your response to such "shallow" work consisted of a Google search, I should think this is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

I was just looking at the "London" article, [15], which is deemed a "good article" under "good article criteria" and saw that there were quite a few noted Londeners in the article. Would it be appropriate to, say, include the fact that Michael Dell makes Austin his home under the section on technology? And that Lance Armstrong makes Austin his home under the section on sports and leisure? I agree that George W. Bush lived here (as a function of his role as governor), but he's not an Austinite. Redheaded dude 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Section

Hello folks. Austin native here. The entire sports section should be rewritten. This is pathetic. The Austin sports scene is dominated by the stellar University of Texas sports program, which is mentioned almost as an afterthought. This should be the absolute first item mentioned, and additional accolades should be mentioned as well, such as all years UT football won national championships, as well as the fact that the UT sports program as a whole dominates college sports. Actually I could find a citation for this if need be - I'm not just ranting. UT and UCLA regularly are ranked #1 and #2 for overall sports programs. The mention of the large number of Longhorn olympians should be included, (including but not limited to Kat Osterman). The mention of the professional teams in Austin should follow an extended discussion of the UT sports program, possibly including seating capacity and picture of memorial stadium. Mention of Darrel Royal would be a welcome addition, as he is an Austin icon. The swim center is the best in the state of Texas. The facilities are second to none. This entire section should be completely redone to accurately reflect the true nature of Austin sports. ArteWorks Business Class 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then if there is no objection here should i just start writing? ArteWorks Business Class 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ArteWorks - yes, please feel free to improve the article. My only suggestion would be to keep in mind that this article is about the whole city of Austin, and so the sports section shouldn't overwhelm the whole article. You may want to consider including a pointer from this article to Texas Longhorn Athletics and then to help us improve that article's coverage of UT sports. Other places you may want to check out include Category:University of Texas at Austin, Portal:University of Texas at Austin, and Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and of course 2005 Texas Longhorn football team...Hook em! - Johntex\^talk 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I used to own and operate a now defunct longhorn sports site at mightyhorns.com - it was one of the first longhorn fan sites, even before hornfans. It was in operation from 1997 to 2000. Anyway, I have maintained a friendship with one of my writers from that site. His name is Bert Hancock and currently he writes for Roger Clemens Inside Texas. He knows all about the horn sports program and history more than I do. I have contacted him and asked if he is willing to write a couple of paragraphs for review. When he gets back to me I will post them here for discussion and then after a few days if no objection I will make them live. If he isn't interested then I'll try to come up with something, but will likely need some assistance after I submit the first draft because although a huge fan I am certainly no expert in the history and such. I'll keep everyone posted. ArteWorks Business Class 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today I posted a note on hornfans asking if anyone wanted to help rewrite this section and got a bunch of sarcastic smack talk about it. So I posted a link to this page and said if anyone wants to suggest revisions to do it here. Maybe if nothing happens in the next couple of weeks I'll go ahead and come up with some suggested language for comment. ArteWorks Business Class 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical of recruiting authors from outside Wikipedia. New editors are always welcome of course, but they have a downside in that they don't know the ropes here. I'm particularly concerned about recruiting them from a partisan location because of the risk of their introducing undue bias to the article. Again, any of them are welcome if they play by the rules, but I actually hope your message does not result in a flood of new poeple who are mainly interested in talking about how great UT sports are. We have quite a lot of editors watching this page already. If needed, we can always recruit more eyeballs from Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Texas, or we can nominate it at Wikipedia:Texan_Collaboration_of_the_Month. Johntex\^talk 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, can you please post a link to the Honrfans discussion? Johntex\^talk 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[16] <-- link. Sorry if this wasn't a good idea. My choice of words on the thread may have been poor as I said "de facto editor" all I was trying to say was that in the absence of anyone else doing anything I would be the one ending up writing the first draft. Discussion has gotten more friendly since this morning. Chime in if you like! ArteWorks Business Class 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate section started

I was surprised that we didn't have a climate section already, so I decided to make one. It's still a little short at the moment, but it has great room for expansion. I also borrowed a template box from our friends over at the Dallas, Texas page for displaying averages, which I'm probably also going to add records to as well. Anyone is welcome to help me expand this- I was thinking of including things such as relation to tornado alley, flash flooding, etc..

On a side note, I've tried to make this section pretty well sourced, using <ref> tags. Hopefully we can slowly but surely make this article better sourced as a whole. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education

Just throwing the idea out there, There needs to be an Education section and it must include LASA the Austin magnet high school.

Ender Wigin—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ender wigin (talk • contribs).

Photo

For what it's worth the photo of the "Hill Country" is nice but not exceedingly impressive. Among other things the "hilliness" does not stand out (if you only glance at it you might not even notice that it was taken from the top of a hill since the vegetation is really what stands out). Does somebody out there have a free picture that maybe gives a better visual? --Mcorazao 17:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think showing the vegetation is important (amazingly people still think we live in the desert) but that is not what the caption is explicitly referring to.

page needs to be expanded

I was reading the Richmond,_California wiki, which is much longer than the Austin,_Texas one, especially given the difference in population sizes and that Austin is much more well-known. Perhaps someone would want to use the Rickmond wiki as a template for expanding Austin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.233.121.152 (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

ATX?

"ATX is a recently popular abbreviation for the city of Austin."

I've never heard it. and never want to.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.83.206.176 (talk • contribs).

- I hear this used all the time, and have for probably 4-5 years.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.62.211.101 (talk • contribs).

I've also heard this for several years; it seems to be relatively popular. Eric (EWS23) 02:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead birds

Recent reports have indicated that birds have literally and actually fallen DEAD out of the sky. 65.173.104.227 07:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Churches" section

I went ahead and removed this section, because there must be over 100 churches in Austin. We could never hope to list them all, and we certainly have no reason to list them all. It has a real chance to turn in to a "list my church here" section, followed by a "after listing my church I should make a wiki article on it" section.

If there are notable churches that deserve mention, maybe they could be listed, but there should be a reason why they are notable listed.

Yes, I realize this might be taking Be Bold a bit too boldly. If someone really feels the section has merit, re-add it. I will not revert your change. Come here and say why it should be re-added and we can all discuss it. Mishatx 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're not being too bold. Every city has churches, and very few are notable by encyclopedic standards. A short list of selected churches does very little good. I don't see any reason to retain this section. Thanks for being bold and deleting it! (Of course, your previous statement still stands- if anyone thinks there is any merit to this section, state your arguments logically; perhaps there is a reason we haven't thought of.) Eric (EWS23) 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I sort of lied before. Based on the above, I decided to remove the section when it was re-added anyway, as it was just a list of churches with no assertion of notability. If you feel it has a place in the article, state why. *Mishatx*-In\Out 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a short list of the largest congregations (not just churches) does merit mention. The article has a lot of information that is not notable by encyclopedic standards - especially to a non-local audience. This information is included because it does affect many Austinites, as does the membership of major congregations. For example, the article goes into great detail about our transportation network and includes a mention of every school district and institution of higher learning (several of which I have never seen mentioned elsewhere). I think we should allow mention of the City's religious groups in a spirit of inclusiveness and with the goal of creating a well-rounded article. TheMindsEye 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be ok with a section that purported to list largest / oldest / most newsworthy churches in Austin, but not one that just lists 10 or 15 churches as though someone was remembering what they passed on the way to work today. *Mishatx*-In\Out 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've created Category:Churches in Austin as part of my effort to move articles in Category:Austin, Texas into subcategories. --Vossanova ^o< 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details

For a city like Austin, this article lacks pictures. Im adding one to this article, and one to the UT Austin article. Not the best of pics, but will do.--Zereshk 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]