@tthomas48 What we’re talking about here is IP geolocation / geolocking. This feature is built into some web survey providers. IMHO, the bad news is that IP location is often undependable. The best solution is probably membership applications and confirmation postcards. The good news is that FAN and AustinSpeaksUp are probably fine without any layer of discrimination installed. Consider, FAN is almost certainly not infiltrated with members of ANC or StopStealthDorms, and their communities are not infiltrated with us either. It takes a lot of emotional energy to politic and folks rarely go to the effort of exploring outside their home territory. We can revisit geolocation as a requirement if we discover abuses in the future.
@ChadV I’m just talking about putting a select on the form that has districts to choose from.
<select>
<option>District 1</option>
<option>District 2</option>
...
<option>District 10</option>
<option>Outside Austin</option>
</select>
I’ve used geolocation for a calendar on a site I own and as you say it’s not so great…
1 Like
I’m not sure if there’s any problem to be solved. The more things you have people fill out, the more likely they’ll be to not fill it out. The BCRC has a similar form on their website and they don’t have a requirement for district or address or anything else. It’s simply just first name, last name, and email address. I think they might just be trying to limit us without themselves having a limit, just to make sure we get less people sending emails. I don’t see Liz complaining about their similar form. I wonder if there’s a reason for that?
1 Like
TThomas,
Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint. I believe that maximizing participation by Austinites and minimizing ballot-stuffing are both equally important to the democratic process, so I hope you’ll consider my point…even when we disagree, I think there’s often common ground to be found.
Pete, the reason you haven’t seen me complaining about BCRC is that I didn’t know who they are until I googled it just now.
@tthomas48 Yeah, I see no problem with asking for folks to identify their locale based on the honor system. That provides even more of an idea on where different districts stand. Could turn up some localized misinformation that can be addressed.
@Pete_Gilcrease I’ve found myself filling out surveys and wondering why they DIDN’T ask me more about my demographics. Made them seem less credible. FUD aside, anyone who balks at voting or filling out a comment form due to something so trivial, likely has an ambiguous opinion anyway.
@ChadV The main advantage of that I think we be for the people that put out the petition would know what district people were in. I think generally the city council members look up people and find out what district that they are in anyways. I’d hate to do their work for them. =) A lot of people don’t know what district they are in and might be less willing to fill it out and send an email if that was added, even if it’s an optional field. Anything like an exact home address for the software to find their district I think would prevent a lot of people filling it out also. They might assume that they’d be sent spam or their address information might be used somehow. I’d expect a decrease in the number of people that participate with every new field put on the form and the goal is always to get as many people as possible. People can easily just get the city council members direct email address and email them without having to identify where they live, so this isn’t that different. It just makes it easier.
@Pete_Gilcrease I guess I don’t see those items as being show-stoppers. Nor would I depend on the City Council to be the sole point of confirmation. I’m mindful of how we can accommodate our membership’s ideas, develop our processes together, and make this an environment that fosters group efforts. I think in terms of solutions.
Obviously, there can always be a “don’t know / prefer not to say” option, plus an embedded link to a district map. That little district pick-list could save hundreds of hours of work and inspire confidence on multiple levels. It might be educational to see how many people even know their district, eh? A disclaimer about addresses not being used for other purposes will be sufficient for those not already too suspicious to participate.
So what passed on first reading would require a supermajority on Council to approve a PUD on unzoned land only if a supermajority at planning commission votes against approval. Thoughts?
It’s definitely a step in the right direction from the original proposal.
Anybody else notice how Pool and others say they just want to ‘level the playing field for PUDs’ but when the Mayor put forward an amendment that would do just that, Pool almost had a stroke!
1 Like
@LFranklin and all, @Pete_Gilcrease set up a resource outside of FAN and publicized it here and in many other online forums. There is no issue of compatibility with the FAN vision, because it is not a FAN initiative.
I think there is some good discussion here around ways to improve the resource @Pete_Gilcrease is providing, and perhaps principles in the FAN vision and the openness and transparency with which FAN conducts itself can guide those improvements. But it’s up to Pete to determine what he’ll do with his own creation.
1 Like
Very true, not so much in this group, but in groups like ANC you will definitely be shouted down if you don’t toe the party line.
1 Like
@jim_bronson I’m very happy that we have a team here who would never dream of disenfranchising a member or shutting down a lively debate.
1 Like