Brewster McCracken "St. Louis" Ad Causes a Stir

Now? (3.00 / 1)

I find it interesting that only now does McCracken's comparison cause a stir.  He has made the comparison as early as, if I remember correctly, his campaign kickoff.

And I agree; it is a very fair comparison to make.  And yes, politically it's not going to fly the way he is bringing up the question, especially in a widespread advertisement.  But I feel like his campaign has tried to bring it up in other ways throughout this cycle, and it has failed.  So it referred back to way 1 -- this.

Really, why haven't we been having this discussion the whole time?

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 04:38:03 AM CDT

St. Louis: semi-typical doughnut-hole city (0.00 / 0)

They really missed the point - St. Louis metro area has continued to grow somewhat, but the city itself crashed. Do we want that here?

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 07:26:42 AM CDT

I've lived in both cities... (0.00 / 0)

...and Austin is without a doubt the "healthier" city. As M1ek said, the City of St. Louis is dying, while urban sprawl has made the suburbs huge. If I remember correctly, there was a point in time where The City of St. Louis required it's employees to live within its proper boundaries, to try and combat the sprawl. Might even still be that way.

---

by: Zeero @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 08:22:49 AM CDT

St. Louis is dying (0.00 / 0)

I'm originally from Missouri and St. Louis is dying a slow death.  

I've got plenty of progressive friends that live in the City of St. Louis but none of them send their kids to the city schools and all their jobs are in the suburbs.  

There is some downtown redevelopment, but there are huge swaths of the city that are decrepit.  All you have to do is take their light rail from the suburbs to the Gateway Arch to see it all.  

---

by: Jobu @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 09:09:21 AM CDT

Light Rail (0.00 / 0)

I spent 10 months of last year working for SEIU in Mo on there home care campaign. About half of that time in St Louis. Yes, there are parts of STL that sucks but overall I found the city very easy to get around and there light rail is great! I used it to get to the airport several times.
If Brewster want to use this as a example fine, hell he could stick closer to home and use Lubbock as a example. More empty buildings there on 50th St than you could shake a stick at!

---

by: T.G.Caraway @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 09:20:02 AM CDT

What a surprise (0.00 / 0)

St. Louis residents defend their city.

Next.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 09:31:35 AM CDT

McCracken's Comparison (0.00 / 0)

This is really pretty slippery stuff. The histories of development in St. Louis and Austin are radically different, the former beginning as a trading center on the River but falling behind to attract leading edge industry adequate to replace lost older industrial employment. Not much of that scenario fits Austin. The media design and execution are super, however.
Austin's best shot is to develop more features that make it a destination vacation center. If that means becoming more flexible about decible levels for live entertainment and seeking even more subsidies for film production, that's what we need to go for.  McCracken's on the right track on this issue. Leffingwell's reliance on the neighborhood associations for political support makes him weak on this issue.
What we don't need is end-to-end high rises along the Colorado and even more Capitol-view-obstructing  construction. Both of those scenes will undermine the visual appeal of the city for tourists and residents alike. McCracken's acceptance of major support from developers and realtors puts him in a hole on this point.
On balance, I see Leffingwell as "safer," apparently a view held by many voters.

---

by: texun @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:22:38 AM CDT

Controversy? (0.00 / 0)

If you want controversy, what about Lee's print ad with Eddie Wilson threatening to withhold chicken-fried steak if we don't vote for Lee?

I guess if we vote for Brewster, we aren't deserving and aren't real Austinites.  Threatening our chicken fried steak is fightin' words.

---

by: Jeb @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:30:36 AM CDT

the diff (0.00 / 0)

The difference is Lee's Eddie Wilson ad is funny.  

---

by: BeatrixKiddo @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 11:16:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Funny as a heart attack (0.00 / 0)

Actually, less chicken fried steak means less cholesterol. Less cholesterol means a healthier Austin. A healthier Austin means lower medical insurance rates for city employees.

This leads to the tongue-in-cheek question of why Lee and his supporters are trying to kill us with fried foods and raise our taxes to pay for insurance premiums?

(Wow. This tangential connection thing is really easy. To think that Rove got rich doing this.)

---

by: McKinney @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 14:48:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I basically agree with Lee on this (1.00 / 1)

However, I will offer one exception: College Station. There really are no "bad" reasons to run down College Station, even if it's to score cheap political points, and even though it's never really necessary, either.

---

by: Blake63 @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 11:46:20 AM CDT

It is a fair comparison (0.00 / 0)

I think College Station, LA, anywhere in New Jersey, Norman (OK), and Las Vegas are always free game.

But I think the ad works. What makes the St Louis comparison poignant is that Brewster removes the hypothetical and points to historic precedent of what happens to a community when you assume economic health is a given.

---

by: McKinney @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 15:03:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what a boner (0.00 / 0)

his campaign manager should get his ass fired. what good did that ad do?

---

by: johncoby @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 17:27:29 PM CDT

Sexist are we? (0.00 / 0)

Brewster's campaign manager is a woman.

---

by: McKinney @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 20:46:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

irrelevant (0.00 / 0)

"why haven't we been having this discussion the whole time?"

this sort of discussion does not add anything constructive to the direction in which our city should be heading. spending time on an ill-received city comparison is the political equivalent of play-by-play commentary in sports. it serves no purpose, save generating reader comments and irrelevant back-and-forth, circular arguments.

it would be more constructive to talk about the content of the comparison instead - how to avoid municipal mistakes that could lead to a worse austin (i.e. more barriers to entrepreneurship and mandatory redistribution of wealth, rather than forcing the city to release its tightening choke-hold on a population that only wants to earn its livelihood).

---

by: tonsoffun @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 02:39:44 AM CDT

This comparison isn't meaningful (0.00 / 0)

How apt the comparison is doesn't matter. I can't see how this ad will motivate anybody to vote. There's no call to action, the horizon is too far off, and the consequences of a McCracken vote aren't clear.

However, it does reflect the same narrow preoccupation with central city planning and transit that doesn't really resonate with many of Austin's voters.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:17:03 AM CDT

The ad is poorly done (2.00 / 1)

but the message is important. A city that doesn't invest in its core becomes the standard doughnut-hole where all the vitality is in the suburban areas, making the whole region less well-off (and even if you hate rich condo dwellers, note that most of the poor people are in the city of St. Louis, which doesn't have enough money to adequately care for them, because most of the taxpayers are in the suburbs).

---

by: m1ek @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:36:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As someone who went to high school in Williamson County (0.00 / 0)

I'm annoyed with the St. Louisan reaction to the ad. I wrote about it here, and my fellow St. Louisan Archpundit has also written about how stupid the outrage is.

St. Louis has been making some recent strides and still has a lot of great things about it, but there's no denying that a once-elite city has fallen far behind other American cities.  

---

by: Clark @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:21:41 AM CDT

St Louis Mayor's own web site (0.00 / 0)

I thought the St Louis Mayor's own web site was very telling:

"...for the first time in five decades, the City's population is growing."

For half a century, the inner city was losing people.

Wow.

---

by: McKinney @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:00:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not the 'inner city' (0.00 / 0)

The city (whole thing) was losing population. Classic doughnut-hole.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 11:13:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which is interesting (3.00 / 1)

Because in the greater St. Louis area, the "city" of St. Louis was losing population entirely. I think the difference here in Austin is that we consider the "outer" areas that are still "inside" the city limits of Austin to somehow be the ring of the inner city.

It's like our suburbs are in the city but we think of them as somehow being totally separate.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 11:31:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

St. Louis City separated itself from the County (0.00 / 0)

in the late 19th century because it didn't want to have to pay for county services. Great policy until the advent of the highway system, suburbanization, integrated schools and white flight.  

---

by: Clark @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 08:36:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]