Do you agree that the ballot language proposed for two ballot petitions – the CodeNEXT petition and the Austin Efficiency Audit – was misleading to the voters of Austin and if so, will you help clarify to voters what these measures really mean – regardless of how you might vote on them? (Note: This article in the Austin Bullldog is a helpful review. Also note: the Texas Supreme Court ruled on August 27 th , in favor of the city of Austin – see KUT report here.) Rate your support on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most support and 1 being the least.

The entire system misleading to people, because it is designed to protect the corporate interests of the state, not defend the sovereignty of the people and the planet. This is a systemic issue we must deal with on a much larger scale.

With regards to the CodeNEXT petition, I am one of the registered voters who signed this petition. I did not sign because I believe our code is fine as it is, I signed because I always support people-powered processes. And it is my understanding that most people who signed the petition understand they were doing so with the CodeNEXT lingo included. So for the 33,000+ folks who did sign, they are likely already aware of their voting position on this measure, and will vote accordingly. However, for the many other thousands of voters who might have never heard the term CodeNEXT, it may be a non-factor. In fact, they might not even know what the land development code really is or know how it exactly affects their lives. This is why we need mass voter education programs, so we can be certain we are doing our civic duty as a society who claims to be democratic/republican/representative in process.

One note about the land development code: I think it should be fluid and adaptive to meet the real-time needs of sovereignty. It should be able to change as needed, as per the votes of relevance, and per the adherence to the principles of sovereignty and honoring the planet.

As for the audit, I do believe the ballot measure could potentially mislead voters, since it nearly goes as far to claim we don’t need an independent audit. It should be considered in the language that the audit could save the city hundreds of millions of dollars and clarified that the audit does not automatically result in actions to be taken, it is simply to offer suggestions that the council and city manager will act upon. I do not side with the City nor some ‘nefarious’ PAC, I side with the people. I think any audit, anytime, is always good for the people. I do believe there is a way to conduct this audit for FREE, in a public, educational, and transparent way, so the people can truly see behind the curtain and make their own determinations.

All of my approach is interconnected with my vow to increase people-power and achieve 100% engagement. This is foremost imperative.

Rate your support: 7