Name Change for Robert E. Lee

This weekend we got documents from the City of Austin regarding the potential name change of Robert E. Lee Street. The information we were send is in the attached file. We returned them in support of the name change.

-Felicity

DOC013118.pdf (550.1 KB)

So will it be called ATM road? I want it changed also, but not to that. Why isn’t there a vote on a few selected options placed in the docs? Or maybe a vote by proposition? Seems kind of like one person’s choice being rammed down our collective throats. Again, I want a name change, but there was no chance for input.

I hear you! I don’t love the new name - mostly because of the spelling, etc. But we’re in support mostly because I dislike the association between R.E Lee and Barton Springs even more.

I do wish the process had been more open and collaborative. Two main issues - many of the “iconic” Austin or Texas names have been used over in the Mueller redevelopment, so they can’t be reused for our area.

And it seems like the City has been wanting to honor her for a while, so when this controversy blew up it probably seemed like an easy win.

Some details on Azie Taylor Morton here: http://kentakepage.com/azie-taylor-morton-the-first-african-american-treasurer-of-the-us/

1 Like

Have you ever dealt with CM Kitchen!

Ramming it down our throats is correct. Kitchen reads & has participated in discussions on the BHNA listserv. She lives in Barton Hills. When this issue was hot after some vandals spray painted REL signs, more than 20 names were suggested by posters there. That’s where I submitted my suggestions:

I figured, if they wanted to make a statement, go for it. John Brown is my favorite. He doesn’t get much recognition, but he was the match that really lit the fire.

No, Ann Kitchen ignored all her constituents’ great suggestions and picked a bureaucrat that nobody suggested just because she was black. Bureaucrats are rarely leaders or heroic. You don’t advance in a government bureaucracy by taking risks. The “honor” of having an important street named for you used to be based on old-fashioned stuff like fame and bravery. Now it’s based on race. Kitchen even said so in her press release when she formalized the application for name change.

There are many names that would be okay with me including benign stuff like Parkside. But Kitchen wants to ram this down our throats. I’m gagging on it and I know many others are too. The stupidest part is, it was totally unnecessary to create controversy over it because I don’t think anyone strongly objected to changing the name. I think she did it to appeal to people outside the neighborhood - People who she wants to vote for her for something other than CM.

We really need to just move away from naming it after a person. I’m voting no. No disrespect intended.

The quit naming streets after people coalition - you never know what dirt might come up! I can get behind it. Serenity Dr.

I prefer Serenity Now Dr.

I was hoping for Shudde Fath.

Does anyone know where this process is?

We voted “no” and submitted comments. There is very little community support for the name Ann Kitchen chose and it should not be rammed down our throat.

Has anyone else heard/been made aware of the potential expenses to the homeowners including having to pay a title company to re-deed the property with the new street name? Is this a rumor? Anyone know what this might cost?

What’s happening with CM Kitchen’s REL name change? I learned about the existence of the Street Name Change Property Owner Support Form from a neighbor who posted back on Friday, January 26 that they had received it. I knew this neighbor does not live on REL, and while I do not have an REL address, I am on the corner of REL and this neighbor does not. Nor does this neighbor own property on REL. Based on proximity, since this neighbor had received the SUPPORT form, I should have received it too.

I wanted to express my disapproval of the name Kitchen dredged up so I sought out more info. Over that weekend, I discovered that others who do not live or own property on REL had received the form. I learned that the form was to be returned to city bureaucrat, Lauren Seyda, Project Coordinator for the Signs, Markings & Banners Division of the Austin Transportation Department. A neighbor also gave me her contact info - phone number & city email address.

On Monday morning, January 29, I called Lauren to request the form so I could express my opinion. I got her voicemail and left a msg. I knew there was a deadline for submission of the form and I’m very familiar with typical city bureaucrat unresponsiveness, so I tried again in the afternoon. Once again, I left a brief polite msg on voicemail. Of course, you must be very polite with bureaucrats or they will make you pay for it, no matter how crappy their so-called customer service is to the taxpayers who provide their paychecks.

Figuring that Lauren may ignore phone calls, I followed up my two attempts to contact her with an email, exactly as follows:

Lauren,

I called this morning at about 9:00 and left a voicemail for you with my contact info because I need to find out about a proposed street name change. I called again a few minutes ago at 3:00 since I haven’t heard from you yet. In case you aren’t working today, I figured I’d shoot you this email to ask you to please give me a call. My neighbor, [name redacted], suggested you are the person I should contact to discuss this matter. She received a notification of a street change application that I apparently should have received as well but I haven’t received it. She said it required a response and I certainly want the opportunity to do so. Thank you.

Rod Sanders
512-XXX-XXXX

On Tuesday, January 30, I did not hear from Lauren by mid-afternoon so I decided to call again. I received the same voicemail msg as before. Past experience informs me that this could go on indefinitely. I looked up the general department number to see if anyone answers the phones there anytime. It worked! I spoke to the receptionist. I was informed that Lauren does not work at the main facility on Austin Blvd and nobody in that building could help me. I was directed to the Toomey Road facility where Lauren allegedly “works”.

I spoke to the receptionist there. I was told that Lauren was in class. She had been in training Monday and she was in training today as well. I asked to speak to someone else who could help me with my concerns. I was told that there was nobody available to assist me. I asked for Lauren’s supervisor. I was told that her supervisor was also in training and could not be reached. I asked how long the course was so I would know when I could expect to speak with Lauren. The receptionist did not know. I would just have to try again later.

On Wednesday, January 31, I did not hear from Lauren by mid-afternoon again. I called the Toomey Road office to see if Lauren was still in training. I spoke to the same receptionist. I was then told that there was no training. The receptionist apologized for giving me incorrect information yesterday. He began to tell me a different reason, stopped himself midsentence, and stated that he better not tell me the real reason Lauren was unavailable. However, she was still unavailable. Plus, there is nobody in the entire city who can answer questions about this other than Lauren. Even her supervisor would be unable to help me. Then, late that afternoon, I received the following email:

Hello Rod,


My apologies for not connecting by phone; I tried your number this afternoon and it just rang and rang.


If you own property directly abutting a street in which there is a pending case for street name change, you should have received a property owner support form in the mail approximately a week or two ago. Please provide me your address and I can investigate whether you should have received a form, and if so, why you didn’t.


Thank you for contacting me.

Lauren Seyda

The truth is I had been home all day with my land line phone right at my fingertips and the ringer on extra loud as always. Further, my phone does not ring and ring. It goes to voicemail very quickly if I don’t answer. IOW, the first sentence from Lauren was a total lie. And what followed was nothing but one lie after another. Bureaucrats do not need training for this. It almost comes naturally. But because I have so much experience with this kind of treatment, I knew I had to take it and be polite.

I explained that I am aware of several neighbors who live on several different streets who received the form and that I live and own property closer to REL than any of them, so clearly, I should have received the form. She wrote back:

Rod,


Thank you for your response. Let me look into this further and I will be in touch tomorrow.

Lauren Seyda

Late afternoon on Thursday, February 1, Lauren called me. Apparently, she had not looked into it further but she had determined that I did not meet the property directly abutting requirement. Thus began a series of lies to attempt to explain away a simple point. It was so ridiculous, I wish I had a recording. It started with Lauren checking a map for the first time to see where my property is. How she had looked into this further without doing that I did not ask. She didn’t even know the address.

How many people received the form? She didn’t know - but hundreds. Really? Hundreds? REL isn’t that long, is it? Well, you have to consider the multi-family units. The example given was the Spring condos at REL and BHD. Right.

How does she explain the people I’m aware of who received the form while I did not. Oh, she doesn’t come up with the list of people who receive it. That’s done by a totally different department. This of course, is a favorite Catch22 of bureaucrats. They are not responsible. I’ve been told over and over that Lauren is the only person in the bureaucracy who deals with street change issues. There is nobody else who can assist me. But when I finally get thru with my simple point, she is not responsible. Perfect.

How can I get to someone who can answer my simple questions? Oh, Lauren will take care of it. I am merely a person affected by this name change. I can’t have direct access to people who make these determinations. Lauren assured me that she would take care of everything and all would be right with the world. Let’s see, rang and rang?, property directly abutting?, look into this further?, hundreds of recipients? Sure, I believe she’ll take care of it alright. Like, who wouldn’t? I ended up wondering how Lauren got that job. CMs have a lot of power when it comes to hiring city bureaucrats.

Meanwhile, I tried to report my findings to readers on the BHNA listserv. But the powers that be weren’t having it. See, CM Kitchen lives in Barton Hills and reads the BHNA listerv, so it’s impolite to criticize any initiative she may take. It is also unacceptable to point out certain facts, like the Democrat Party control of the NA and the listserv. It’s unacceptable to post political content. However, if you are a Democrat Party organizer and/or would like to promote a Democrat Party fundraising event, that’s cool. Post away.

Also, the CENSORS will determine what is political and what isn’t. It’s often surprising what is and what isn’t considered political. Often posts on the same topic can be political and not political depending on one’s point of view. Do you wish to praise Democrat CM Kitchen’s position on something? Please do. Do you wish to criticize CM Kitchen’s position on some issue? In the interest of decorum and civility, please keep your opinions to yourself.

Follow a few simple PC rules and you should be fine. Right now, we need to make racism our primary concern. This is the party line. We need to look under every rock to find instances of racism, and like picking at a scab, make it bleed and hopefully get infected. In this way, we can get our candidate elected. If you don’t want to engage in the divisiveness of identity politics, you should be shunned. Perhaps, a little smear campaign will shut your piehole.

One thing that does not need to be brought out is that the diversity movement is really a divisiveness movement. That exposes the hypocrisy of actions like changing REL to another name based on race. Honor the first black bureaucrat to head a govt agency because it took Kitchen a lot of research to come up with it. Cast aside real democratic input to impose top down demockeracy.

But I digress. Stan Ostrum, by kicking me off the BHNA listserv, made sure I can’t learn about things like that form going out to my neighbors while I’m in the dark. I can no longer see discussions like the one that informed me of these actions affecting me. And please note, Kitchen, Ostrum and others of their ilk don’t live anywhere near REL. They think they have the right to make this change and they’re gonna do it despite what those affected want. This is how these NAs operate. They do not represent resident interests, yet the city accepts this deeply flawed system as a valid neighborhood voice.

It’s gonna cost a bundle. They aren’t gonna talk about that, just like with the school name changes. They’re gonna spend my tax dollars to do it because they have the power. It’s all going on behind the scenes right now. CM Kitchen has hinted at some kind of scheme whereby the real stakeholders will get reimbursed for any expenses they may incur, maybe even for “inconvenience”. Sounds slushy to me. And the only way that can happen is if the stakeholders approve her top down demockeracy, race-based name.

If anyone reading this knows what’s up, how those forms are being handled, who’s handling them, or anything else related to this subversion, please inform me. I have no access to any info because I’ve been intentionally excluded from the process. They could have already stamped out the signs down on Toomey. How can we stop it?

Have y’all seen the latest on the Robert E Lee Rd name change? I bet not because the COA has been maintaining radio silence while making their standard backroom deals. I figure that, after they’re done deciding what they’re gonna do, they’ll let us know. Have Texas open meetings violations taken place? Probably. I don’t know the law but these people seem to pretty much ignore legal technicalities unless someone calls them on it. Then they get their legal dept geared up to justify whatever it is they’ve done or want to do.

Ya think that might have something to do with why the state is always busting Austin’s balls? Like for instance with Kitchen’s cab company funded anti-Uber campaign where she made every driver out to be a rapist or something. It’s so easy to smear the powerless little guys while appearing to be the valiant savior! Well, mission accomplished I guess, if the mission was to make it harder for those without a law degree and a cush govt job to get by in Unaffordable Austin.

Sorry. I get on these tangents sometimes. Back to the topic at hand. It turns out that quite a bit has been going on. If you’ve seen the news, please tell me where it’s been reported. The principle of transparency in democracy dictates that we, the people, are an informed public. I personally haven’t seen or read anything in the media about the name change for months. Nobody has replied to my request for more info in this forum.

Remarkably, there has not been even one post related to the Robert E Lee name change on the Zilker listserv - you know, the one that is not affiliated with ZNA but just looks like it is. The one that some readers here have been banned from for … well, just because. I think I might try to post a variation of this over there just for grins. I’ll clean it up first. I bet they block it anyway. After all, why would people in the neighborhood need to know anything about an important issue affecting many people in the neighborhood? In the interest of civility, it’s better to keep the discussion to lost & found pets, etc.

I have some time right now, so I thought I would share an update to my personal saga. This chapter is rather long, so grab a beverage, get comfortable, and settle in for more intrigue as we enter the bizarre realm of city government. But first, you might want to note that there is a series on Fox News called Legends and Lies. Set your DVR for tomorrow’s episode because it’s supposed to be about Robert E Lee. It’s an hour, showing at 7:00pm and again at 10:00pm. I pretty much watch all history shows, and I read history - a lot.

Okay, let’s take a step back in time. Take my hand and we’ll experience the mysterious world of city govt together from when this name change idea really got rolling.

We all get frustrated by the city bureaucracy. I’ve wasted untold hours in it. But some have found a shortcut to getting things done. It’s a little risky but that’s true with anything worthwhile, right? Next time you have an issue that you would like addressed, why not consider vandalism? As shown by this example, it turns out, vandalism works!
August 13, 2017 - https://www.statesman.com/news/local/south-austin-robert-lee-road-signs-vandalized/oaZeLbmK4lOnwtY56DJNRO/

August 15, 2017 - Our City Council, always watchful for unlawful acts like destruction of public property that cost taxpayers while damaging the aesthetics of our beautiful city, were quick to swing into action. What could they do? The Monitor gave what was probably the most detailed report: https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2017/08/council-member-wants-officially-rename-robert-e-lee-road-take/
So, as we see, the best way to get these bureaucrats to take decisive action is thru the destruction of public property. If we learn nothing else, this is a worthwhile takeaway. But wait. There’s a stumbling block. Reading the report by Audrey McGlinchy, you may have noticed that there is a small matter of public input by those most affected by a street name change:

Once someone brings an application forward, the city mails support forms to all the property owners on that street. If less than 50 percent of the property owners agree with the change, the application goes no further.

Yesterday, I contacted McGlinchy and asked her to check with CM Kitchen about this because it seems it doesn’t quite work this way. At least, not in this case.

Some may recall that I saw thru the plot and reported in this forum that there appeared to be political skullduggery taking place. The obvious indicator to me was the choice for the new name. While I have been pursuing a deserved opportunity to participate in the process I learned of only by reading a post by a neighbor on the BHNA listserv, I’ve learned nothing to dispute this conjecture. In fact, it’s been reinforced time and again as I persist in my effort to be heard. Here’s the beginning of the most recent email I have received from Lauren Seyda (4/2/18):

Hello Rod,
_ _
You ask a lot of good questions in your email. First and foremost, attached is a property owner response form for you to complete and submit back to me. I will provide it as Council backup document with the other forms. I should have sent you this form initially, my apologies.

Cool. Only a couple months of presenting evidence in the form of legal property description, reference to plats, cajoling, begging, wasting hours researching and writing, and just general persistence in the face of mindless bureaucracy, and success! You too, can succeed. Just sacrifice your life. You only have one to give for your city, so make it count! Note “a lot of good questions.” These are questions that largely go unanswered. But one relates to what Lauren calls a “property owner response form.” The rest of her first paragraph addressed one issue as follows:

You make a sound point in regards to calling it a “support” form; the name of this document can change and I will make the change on street name change cases moving forward; it is simply procedural and was named as it is when my predecessor managed the street name change program.

Well, ya gotta take small victories where you can get em in these parts. Note that bureaucrats are never responsible, and they’ll let you know that. See, the form that was sent out to 289 recipients asked for them to return it in Support of the name change. It was not worded like a vote. Here’s the way I presented it to her:

…why is the heading Street Name Change Property Owner Support Form? The implication is that support for the change is sought. That was the first thing I noticed when I saw it. I thought is was biased in favor of the change. Why doesn’t this notification just say something neutral like Proposed Street Name Change Property Owner Notification?

The wording is intended to elicit support ONLY. If you are opposed, the implication is that you need not return the form. One gets the impression that not returning the form is the easy way to vote against it. In fact, my neighbor, who did receive it initially, thought exactly that. Then, if you don’t like the idea that the street will renamed for a bureaucrat based on her being a black female instead of for someone famous and courageous, you don’t have to do anything. You don’t run the risk of having social justice warriors label your comments as having racist overtones, like Stan Ostrum did to me to justify kicking me off the BHNA listserv.

So now I can finally express my opinion on the official Form as a “backup document,” whatever that means. I think it might mean a non-voting opinion or something. A couple months of back & forth with Lauren might tell me what it means exactly. Probably not worth it. I haven’t done it yet. One reason is that it turns out the votes don’t matter anyway. That’s right. Those of you who thought you were participating in a democratic process of some sort, the joke’s on you.

See, despite the intentionally(?) misleading wording, the vote of those who returned the form was 45-20 against the name change. Of those who actually own property on Robert E Lee, the vote was 28-12 against the name change. Oh, and BTW, the person who started this thread, as well as most of the other recipients of the Support form, received it “in error.” I’m not making this up. I have it in writing. And the result of all this charade is the City Council will decide anyway. Did anyone see the notice of the public hearing? I thought I was paying attention but I seem to have missed it. Lauren says it’s April 26.

But wait - There’s more. I got a surprise phone call on Thursday, March 29. It was none other than our favorite local Social Justice Warrior (SJW). This is the person who submitted an application for street name change to honor a person, place, institution, group, entity or event, per city code 14-5-4(7). Specifically, she wrote:

It is prudent to honor a person that is more aligned with the City’s values of diversity and inclusion and the Imagine Austin Vision of valuing and respecting all of its people.

There is so much wrong with this, I could write 20 pages on it. But I’ll spare readers that and just touch on a couple things. First, of the valid reasons for a street name change in the city code, this is the only one she could remotely invoke. Second, it doesn’t really even qualify under that reason because her wording belies the real reason for the change, as if we don’t already know. What does “more aligned with the City’s values” mean? Does CM Kitchen, by virtue of her office, determine city values? This name sure doesn’t reflect my values. Apparently, it doesn’t reflect the majority of respondents to the support form values either.

But what is going on here in essence is not the honoring of someone. It is the dishonoring of Robert E Lee. That’s not one of the acceptable reasons for a street name change. Honoring and dishonoring are not the same thing. Actually they’re antonyms. But in CM Kitchen’s and her City Council’s SJW world, honoring and dishonoring are interchangeable. For political purposes of course, in the quest for Diversity, Inclusion and all the altruistic things SJWs fight for. They will turn any word on its head for their noble cause!

And BTW, the first thing it says on the application form she submitted is this: Agreement of at least 50% of the property owners abutting the subject street must be obtained in order to place request on Council’s agenda. (Bold emphasis on the original form.) Ann cut off our conversation because she said she had to go to a meeting, but she said she was going to call me back by Tuesday, April 3. Since I was taken by surprise by her call, I wasn’t really ready for her anyway. I was happy she called and I was looking forward to her return call when I would be able to ask her questions about stuff like her rationale and why Council had scheduled a public hearing without the majority of affected property owners’ support. But she did not follow thru on her promise to call me back. This post is one result of her failure to do so.

One thing that really threw me off when she called was the first thing she said: “This is not my initiative.” She repeated that a couple times during our short conversation. Were y’all ready for that? I’m still processing it. Looking back, Greg Casar (D4) is the one who first came out strongly in favor of vandalism, er street name change. Hmmm…Maybe Casar is behind the vandalism. Not outside the realm of possibility. But he thought the street should be renamed for Frederick Douglass.

So, there must be someone else involved. I had already figured Kitchen didn’t come up with this new name on her own. Looking thru the likely suspects, Ora Houston (D1) takes top spot because she’s a black female. BTW, she’s also the one who pushed so hard for ridiculous capital view corridors. Stunt tower development along the east side of I-35 for the stupidest reason imaginable. I suggested it was Houston. Ann neither confirmed nor denied that it was another brilliant Ora Houston idea. Politicians are so good at obfuscation to straightforward questions.

But, at an August 15 work session, a cabal comprised of Mayor Alder and CMs Casar, Alter, Pool, Tovo and Flanagan agreed to try to pull this off. No Ora Houston but my guess is she’s hiding behind the curtain while the others lap up their White Guilt soup. Are work sessions open to the public? Has there been an open meeting violation while these so-called public servants plot to go against affected constituent interests? I don’t know. I just know that the street name change code is very vague and these politicians appear to be taking advantage of that to the max.

So, a result of that work session was proudly announced by CM Kitchen in a September 20 press release entitled “Time to Rename Robert E. Lee Road.” This is an excerpt:

The naming of local streets is an important symbol of the values that we hold, and the recent escalation of overtly hateful rhetoric and actions demands that it’s time we change the names of streets and leave behind the discriminatory legacy that we still struggle with today.


Map of Barton Springs, 1935

In the late 1920s and 1930s, when the City of Austin transformed the ranch land sold to it by Andrew Zilker into a space for public recreation, Robert E Lee Road was the name of the original road circling the Barton Springs Playground and Pool. This name emphasized the deliberate segregation of City facilities as established by the 1928 City Plan.

Fast forward to my discovery of the Support form mailing and my exclusion from the recipient list. In response to my opposition to the name change on the BHNA listserv, Mary Ann Neely, Democrat Precinct Chair, posted CM Kitchen’s claim to the listserv and expressed her support for her Democrat comrade. Let’s not forget that Lee and nearly all Confederates were Democrats. Same party with the exact same views - dividing people based on race - that’s Diversity.

I had seen old maps of Austin but I had never seen one showing Robert E Lee circling Barton Springs. I searched for this map. No luck. I requested documentation to back up both the implicit claim that the street was named to support Barton Springs segregation and that the street had ever circled Barton Springs. I asked for the source of the map section shown in Kitchen’s press release.

The result of my request for documentary proof was no reply and expulsion from the BHNA listserv. While I can no longer see posts to that listserv, others have told me that no further discussion has taken place on the topic. They wouldn’t go so far as to fabricate a map, would they? I collect maps. I have thousands of them. As I’ve stated previously, the best map I’ve found of the old road is from the 1940 census (too big to upload but I posted it earlier).

Back to Kitchen’s press release, another important point:
…by initiating the public process from Council, the application fee and the infrastructure costs of the change is not put on the requesting individual.

That’s right. It doesn’t cost CM Kitchen to do this. It costs taxpayers. And believe me, it is not cheap. Anyone who tried to do this on their own would be out hundreds, if not thousands of dollars just to submit the application. They’ve got incompetent staff working on this. Look at the mailing for an small example of the inefficiency and waste. Heck, it cost $700 just to replace the 4 vandalized signs. That doesn’t include the big one on BSR.

This last excerpt brings us up to date:
…if there is not unanimous approval by all of the property owners abutting the street, then a public hearing will be held. At the end of the entire process, the renaming of the street will then come to Council for a vote.

So, according to the city code, they don’t have a valid reason for the name change. They apparently sent more Support forms in error than correctly. (There’s more to this and I’m still learning.) They excluded some who should have received the form. I’m not alone in that. They worded the mailing in a way that discourages opposition. They misled stakeholders into believing there was a democratic process underway when in fact, the process only gives stakeholders an advisory vote. They may have fabricated a map to justify dishonoring Robert E Lee. They met in a work session to devise a plan of action. They came up with a name that nobody on any of the many social media sites where alternatives were discussed ever suggested. And most disturbingly, they showed their plan to me when they threw me off one of their organizing and fundraising platforms on the bogus grounds of racist overtones.

What could possibly be wrong with all that?

Let’s see. I wonder who might show up at the public hearing. Do you think we might be treated to a series of hateful SJWs decrying white privilege, telling us how rotten Lee was, lecturing us on the horrors of slavery, invoking white guilt and just generally stirring up a lot of divisive feelings among folks who these wise city fathers say should just get along? I wouldn’t be surprised. How many people who oppose this name change do think will want to speak up when they open themselves up to charges of racist overtones? Do I want to speak my mind in public, maybe as shown on TV, and risk vandals taking action on my property because it works? My views may be in the majority but at a public hearing, somehow I think not.

Sorry. I get on these tangents sometimes.

Gee, you think?

I personally haven’t seen or read anything in the media about the name change for months. Nobody has replied to my request for more info in this forum.

Perhaps it’s because you’re the only one opposed to the idea? Just a hunch. (Actually, it’s most likely because there’s no worthwhile news to report as the name change winds its way through myriad city departments.) Regardless, the name is a fait accompli that you’re wasting your time attempting to get thrown out, particularly given your repeated comments both here and on the ZNA listserv that strongly infer racism on your part.

After all, why would people in the neighborhood need to know anything about an important issue affecting many people in the neighborhood?

Hmmm. Maybe it’s because you’re the party making such a ridiculously big deal about it, whereas no one else is?

I have some time right now, so I thought I would share an update to my personal saga.

And that’s my exit cue…

P.S. I’m assuming you have no hobbies. I’d suggest getting one.

And the examples are?..missing.

So sayeth the comsummate SJW. As if to prove my point of the slime tactic, the only weapon available to those of little knowledge or experience. Listening to slanderous garbage like that is why opponents won’t show. It’s also how the City Council cabal planned it. They had the votes to dishonor Lee when they reacted to the vandalism. All else is a show - Another waste of taxpayer dollars that could be going to sidewalks - A bureaucratic procedure to act like they’re following the law when they are actually acting against the majority and in violation of their own City Code. Amazing that they still wanted to deny me a voice. That’s how intolerant of other viewpoints they are. Neither you nor the council occupies the high moral ground. It only takes 6 votes. I can count - Casar, Alter, Pool, Tovo, Flanagan and Alder cooked this up. That doesn’t even count Houston.

You don’t know what I post on the ZNA listserv because you’re banned, remember? And I stand by everything I’ve written on any forum. I haven’t made even one racist comment. The proposal for name change is race-based tho, and it is therefore a racist proposal.

BTW, inference takes place on the part of the recipient, not the messsenger. Maybe you could use a remedial English course, counselor. English is my first language. I’m also fluent in a dialect known as Ebonics. It takes real immersion. That’s not available in Pemberton Heights, not Bouldin, not Zilker and definitely not Barton Hills.

You’re back on ignore.

So sayeth the comsummate SJW.

Seriously? Just FYI, “social justice warrior” (SJW) is a term that’s effectively nonexistent outside of the alt-right fringe. I had to Google it the first time I saw it last year, and was both mildly amused and insulted by its definition. Much like “leftist” and “globalist,” it’s been co-opted by the right and employed as a catch-all term for anyone and everyone involved with an imaginary “vast left-wing conspiracy” trying to prevent making America great again.

While I’m not personally insulted by it, this particular term first emerged as a means of belittling Black Lives Matter activists. I’m guessing you haven’t seen any of the white nationalist commentary leading up to last year’s devastating march in Charlottesville, the one in which one of your compatriots purposely drove through a crowd of “leftists,” mowing down scores of them and murdering at least one. These neo-Nazis viewed, and still view, “social justice warriors” as their main “oppressors.”

And the examples are?

…immediately made redundant by your subsequent five words! It’s not quite as brazen as using the N-word in the next sentence following a claim like “I’m not racist,” but it’s close.

I haven’t made even one racist comment. The proposal for name change is race-based tho, and it is therefore a racist proposal.

Rod, I’ve said before that you’re a smart person, and unless you’ve been entirely brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, you know as well as I do that “racism” is a construct specific to persons of color who’ve been subjected to systemic racism both past and present. It explicitly does not refer to All Things Race-Based. In a similar vein, “racism against white people” is also fictional and a frankly pathetic attempt to recast longtime oppressors as “victims.” If you seriously think you are (or have been) in any realistic way “oppressed” by the actions of POC and “SJWs” … well, you’ve just proven your own racism all by yourself.

To put it another way: either you’ve been brainwashed by a steady drip of Breitbart toxicity and the like – embracing the Myth of the Oppressed White Male in the process – or you’re once again trolling for attention by making comments you know will piss people off. I used to think it was the latter, but I’m starting to think it’s the former, and that I was giving you way too much credit.

Ann just called me again. Once again she repeated that the REL name change is not her initiative. I said that’s not the way I understand it. She was adamant that the REL name change is NOT HER IDEA!

Remember when this all started, it was about that wacko in Virginia plowing into a crowd protesting about Confederate statues.That was followed by spray painting 4 signs on REL. Two days later, this is part of the transcript from the City Council work session (8/15/17):

Kitchen: And thank you, mayor. I think that was – that was well said. I would echo also that – images that we all have seen in following what has happened there is something that – I mean, seeing the hatred and the violence, it should shake us all to our core and it’s – I think it’s incumbent on all of us and responsibility of the entire country to stand up and say this is not who we are and this is not who we are in Austin, this is not who we are in Texas, this is not who we are in the nation. And I think that we have to speak out and we have to do what we can in every community. So I will be bringing forward an
application for changing the name of Robert E. Lee road, which is the road in our city that leads to Barton springs. It’s a road that happens to be in district 5 but it’s a road that’s really important to our entire community. It’s located in a place that’s treasured by many in our community. So I will be bringing forward that application to initiate the process. I know that there are other councilmembers who intend to be part of that application, and I will let them speak for themselves and this is an application process
_that anyone and everyone on our council can sign onto if they’d like opinion I intend to file it in the next day or two, by Thursday. So some of you have already let me know that you’d like to be part of that. And councilmember Casar and councilmember pool and mayor and others may want to also. And so you just need to let me know and I’ll put your name on it also. _
[12:23:46 PM]
For the public to understand there’s – our city has a whole process, a process of – that involves looking at public safety issues for renaming a road, that also involves conversation on what it should be renamed. And ultimately it will come back to the council for a vote. I expect that process to take a few months. It does take some time. And we’ll do that. We also have to consider the impact on people who may live on this road and both from a cost standpoint and another impact. And so however we move
forward, from my perspective, would be done in a way that is not harmful to those individuals but does accomplish – and I want to be clear. I focus – I support renaming that road. Now, I also want to say that there’s so much more that we need to do as a city. I mean, renaming a road is a symbol. It’s an important, critical symbol, but it certainly is not – you know, we can’t just change the name of a road and say, okay, we’ve fixed the problems in our community with regard to hatred and violence and
racism. We as a community have had a lot of conversation, I hope we’ve had a lot of conversation. We’ve had some, certainly not enough. We’ve been talking about equity, we’ve been talking about institutional racism and the impacts that we see now. So I trust that as a community and as a council we’ll continue that work. So I don’t want to speak for others on the council. I know that – that this is one road, and so I will – I will just say that I think that – I just think it’s absolutely critical that we do this and we move forward, and so I want to do my part with Robert E. Lee in district 5.

There was no community involvement in selecting the name. I asked CM Kitchen where she came up with it. She refused to answer and said she had to go. She refused to answer a lot of my questions. She only called because she’s been getting info requests from the city, originally placed by me.

The tally is in. They figured 167 eligible voters who live or own property abutting REL. They got 12 votes in favor of the name change - 7%. It’s supposed to take 50% for a public hearing. They’re doing it anyway. They violated their own code several times in order to shove this down our throats. Virtue signaling is very important to SJWs. Last thing I said to her is she shoulda named it White Guilt Way.

Meanwhile, it looks like I’m being CENSORED here for writing a post in Spanish. I just got a msg saying my post was being hidden. The 7% is loud, obnoxious and opposed to free speech.

Your post violated the community guidelines by calling out a specific minority group unnecessarily. You could have made your same point about migrant workers sharing housing without zeroing in on just Spanish speakers.

And you deleted my reply to this one too. Why didn’t you reply to my question to you about the CENSORSHIP taking place on Nextdoor. You’re very knowledgable about how CENSORSHIP works, aren’t you, JP? I thought you might have some insight on their creative methods since you use your own to exercise CENSORSHIP here.

Your reply violated the community guidelines - you used curse words and called me names. It was also off topic. If you want to start a thread on censorship in forums, you’re welcome to. We’ve debated that before. I have no knowledge of the Nextdoor platform. Personally I prefer this one :slight_smile:

I would like to just say that I really don’t know what was the point of the community survey of property owners if those results do not carry weight. I am not able to attend the city council meeting it being during working hours so I would like to believe my voice is already present in the form of my written response. I would be interested to know if the city council is presented the result of that survey during the meeting or not and if the presentation of those results is biased or or not so please comment back anyone that can attend.

With that I will share my view that it is indeed time to revisit the “honor” we placed on historical figures that with time I have come to understand are not universal (to say the least). Not being from the south I rarely even made the connection between the street name and the individual. However, if I put myself in the place of others I can easily see why this honor needs to be repealed. That said, given the disparity of views on the topic it is probably best to neutralize the issue by removing any association which any individual as the first step. That is why while I support the changing of the street name I propose to go with some non-specific street like Cedar Elm Drive or Damn That’s a Steep Hill Street as a step in the right direction without endorsing the newly proposed street name. No disrespect meant to the proposed honoree but lets just not inflame the issue when there is an easy middle ground solution. I’m sure there are more pressing issue we as a community need to deal with.