Commentary on "Public Transportation in Austin"

     Although I have not attempted to use public transportation here in Austin more than a couple of times, I can agree that the system is in need of major reform.  In my experience, although minimal, using public transportation was much more of a headache than a convenience, and I felt very uncertain as to whether or not I had gotten on the correct bus and which stop it was that I was supposed to get off at. Christopher Pelletier’s analogy in his editorial, “Public Transportation in Austin”, comparing the colorful lines on the bus route map to an abstract painting is genius, I believe, because it is sadly quite accurate. He’s correct in saying that “the population of Austin has outgrown the city’s infrastructure”, as it is terribly evident every single morning and afternoon in rush hour traffic. I may not have had much experience with the public transportation system, but I have spent more than enough time sitting in a traffic jam in the middle of IH-35. Furthermore, not only does IH-35 get clogged every morning and afternoon, but Hwy 183, and Loop 1/Mopac as well.

     There really is no way to avoid traffic in the city as the infrastructure stands right now, but a possible solution, as Chris mentioned, would be integrating an underground rail system such as those that work so well in New York City, Washington D.C., and many other major cities across America. I’ve had a fair amount of experience navigating those systems, and not only are they convenient and easy to figure out, but fun and speedy as well.

     When will city officials finally realize that this is what we need, rather than a Metrorail that hardly takes us anywhere? I don’t know, but I hope that the time comes soon so that we can avoid a “colossal and expensive complete overhaul”, as Pelletier put it.

Panhandling: It's Got to Go

When I began to think about Texas state and local government and what can be done to make a positive change here in the greater Austin area, the first thing that came to mind was the issue of homelessness and how prevalent panhandling has become. It seems as though I cannot go anywhere more than five miles from my house without seeing a homeless person on the side of the road holding a sign and asking for money from those who pass by. Initially I feel for these people as I know that it must be extremely tough to be without a home (if they truly are homeless), but on the flipside, I feel strongly that they ought to be offering a service, or putting forth some sort of effort when asking for assistance, as it is not right for them to beg with a sad look and their face and try to make passers-by feel guilty for not lending a helping hand when they are doing nothing themselves to help out anyone either. What’s even worse is when you are walking down the street, say South Congress, and a homeless person walks right up to you and asks for some change, and then ridicules you when you say you haven’t gotten any. I understand that there are those in need, and I am all for good will and generosity, but the issue of panhandling in the greater Austin area has gotten to be way out of control, and the government ought to take action and outlaw this shameful act that has become a lifestyle for so many.

                As an immediate plan of action, I offer that the local and possibly even the state government make it illegal to beg for money without offering some kind of service, entertainment, product, or the like. I believe that it is entirely okay for the homeless to ask for work, or food, or to put out a jar when playing music etc., but when the only effort they are putting forth is walking up and down a sidewalk while holding an intelligible cardboard sign, they ought not to be given anything. Furthermore, those who wish to make money could simply sell things such as a newspaper (The Austin Advocate, published just for homeless people to sell) or water bottles (I have made hundreds of dollars off of this in fundraisers) to make some extra cash. There is simply no excuse for not working for the cash that they, the homeless panhandlers, desire so much to have.

                Now, I have been in cities, such as New York City, where being homeless and out on the street is altogether banned, and it is very nice, but I am only offering that we take a small, simple step at first. It won’t be easy, and it will take some time to enforce and to really catch on, but the city of Austin should outlaw panhandling, effective immediately. 

A Clever Approach

In a June 4^th, 2012 article entitled, “Ten thingsyou should know about the demographics of Texas”, blogger Charles Kuffner of offthekuff.com shares statistical data regarding demographics in Texas that support his apparent affinity for immigration and immigrants. Now, because Kuff’s blog is left-leaning and liberal, his assertions need not be readily apparent as it is primarily liberals who read his blog, but nonetheless, Kuff’s support of immigrants is not as ambiguous as it may initially appear to be.  Kuff lays out his argument in the simple format of 10 interrelated facts. The first seven facts that Kuff presents basically provide information showing the prevalence of communities of color/minorities and immigrants in Texas, and then the final three facts get to the point  Kuff is really trying to make, which is that immigrants and minorities are important to Texas and it’s economy. Each of Kuff’s facts or pieces of evidence is well supported in the fact that nearly all of his numbers have embedded links to their original sources, and the numbers are specific, rather than general estimates. In Kuff’s final three statements, he says that “Communities of color add billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs to Texas’s economy through entrepreneurship”, “Immigrants are essential to the economy as workers”, and “Immigrants contribute to the state economy through state and local taxes”, thus formulating a conclusion that there are many positives that come from minorities and immigration. His evidence is not only persuasive, but it covers Mexican Americans, Asians, Latinos, those in Houston and in Dallas, and immigrants as a whole, in all of Texas. The way in which Kuff went about sharing his thoughts on immigration was clever, in my opinion, and his less straight-forward approach should be welcomed by many. He adds at the end, with likely the wink of an eye, “Just some things to keep in mind.”

Voter ID

In a recent Dallas Morning News editorial entitled “Texas makes a case against Voter ID”, the author (unknown) discusses the issue of whether or not Texans should be made to provide some form of voter identification before casting their votes at the polls, and chooses to defend the opposition.  To begin his argument, the author brings the audience up to date on the most recent debate over the Texas voter ID laws, and reminds everyone that “The importance of this case extends beyond our borders because Texas and other Republican-controlled states are also bent on challenging the Voting Rights Act.”  By doing this, the author attempts to prevent less informed readers from quickly moving on to another article that they believe to be more important, or one that they know more about. Then, the author presents his argument that “the [Voter ID] law is injurious to democracy”, followed by a few points of evidence. According to one of his sources, a statistician from the University of Texas at Austin, an estimated 167,724 registered voters would be disenfranchised if the law were to go into effect, which hypothetically, according to the author, would be the “equivalent of denying the vote to every person in Grand Prairie or in Brownsville”. Furthermore, he mentions that most of those that would be affected are minorities, and that this could be seen as intentional discrimination against those in this demographic. To conclude, “Voting is a right”, according to the author, “and citizens should be skeptical of any measure that broadly impedes participation”, and there are ways to safeguard the electoral process without denying thousands of registered voters the right vote. It is made apparent that the author is anti-Republican on this issue, as he points out that they are the ones that are pushing to pass this law, but he does go about providing a counter argument respectfully and even provides somewhat of an acceptable middle ground that voters could agree on. Finally, by providing just enough information as to persuade the audience, and by making it more realistic through an analogy, the author formulated a fairly solid case and has me leaning slightly towards his side.

Sensible School Budget

A little over a month ago, on June 12, 2012, a writer for the Austin American Statesman published an editorial, entitled Taxpayers might get a neededbreak in next year's Austin school budget, about reasons to be thankful for the way in which the Austin school budget is set up for next year. This article in particular caught my attention because among all of the negative or disheartening articles, it seemed to be one of positivity and thankfulness. In it, the author explains how Austin School Superintendent Meria Carstarphen and company have proposed a budget for 2013 that calls for more spending, but does not place the burden upon the tax payers. It sounds as though the committee has put much thought into their proposal and has come up with sensible ways to raise the money, rather than raising taxes in a time when many other agendas are calling for tax increases. In addition, they still plan on giving a pay raise to all district employees, and there is a push for full disclosure to tax payers on what they already pay for and are going to vote for in the upcoming polls. This editorial was a nice, encouraging read.