Prepared for those who have more than a causal interest in the Barton Springs Pool Master Plan
Dancrow
JB
Dan,
'The tunnel will flip, people can die, the pool will be ruined!' Where do those crazy rumors get started? I am very thankful you were able to reign that one in. And while improved bypass tunnel repairs are about to begin, it seems only a bandage rather than addressing the bigger picture: how does the bypass fit into the pool as a complete system, how does it address the balance between the natural and man made environment of the pool?
Synopsis:
-There are a couple of assumptions you mentioned in your letter to Peter Steinhardt that I would like to reign in: Money, Input, Influence.
-Overlook trail and gate do not fit the mandate of the Master Plan. “agreements have been totally disrespected” is a gross overstatement that confounds our search for solution.
There is a lot of concern and confusion regarding money being spent. Lots of people are calling for money to be spent on other aspects of maintenance and water quality protection rather than the Grounds Improvements the city is asking for and our public process has vetted. The money that is available is only available for the Grounds improvement project (which addresses both maintenance and water quality issues)and can not be spent elsewhere on other issues of concern that have been raised. Many of the issues raised beyond the scope of the grounds improvement are very valid and we should definitely tackle them in the future. However, leaving the south side alone is not an option because it has issues that must be addressed, can be addressed, and in good faith we have all here been trying to address according to the common ground we reached in the Master Plan regarding the feel of the southside which "should be different and more casual than the north side and should continue to be appreciated and preserved", as you mention.
Public input has been the foundation of this grounds improvement project process. The first step was open design charettes before any plans had been made. Bill Bunch's all accessibility trail through the ravine is a product of this. So is the disabled community's desire for a vantage point that has left us with the very poorly placed overlook. So to is the god awful gate solution that is the product of public input process gone haywire. Yes, there were problems in this process, but they were not from a lack of public input. I would like to focus on those problems if we can get past crying so much wolf about public input.
The superhero/villain status you approach in comments regarding Robin Cravey will go well into the Barton Springs Comics we can all sit down and write in a few years. Robin Cravey played the key role in bringing the idea of a comprehensive vision to address a pool fallen into neglect which produced the master plan. Due respect is deserved despite the frequent daemonization. I have been to several bars with Robin Cravey and he is well liked at all of them. Sometimes they tell him about a good beer they have coming in, he’ll ask about for a beer he likes, and perhaps even he gets the occasional free beer. But Robin doesn’t tell them how they should run their bar or when they should serve up their specials. There is much to be said about a fair amount of the traction that Robin Cravey maintains these processes is due to his support of and willingness to work with city staff for a solution as opposed to fighting against them and veiled calls of incompetence. That is not to say that his approach is immaculate. But I completely agree that the honey of a positive attitude will help things fly much smoother than a lot of the vinegar being pissed around.
From your email to Peter Steinhardt, “In conclusion, we reached common ground in the Master Plan regarding the feel of the southside which "should be different and more casual than the north side and should continue to be appreciated and preserved", and in the Master Plan another agreement is set out regarding the preservation of the south lawn. These agreements have been totally disrespected along with the written mandate of Sara Hensley that said that the public should be presented with the scope and needs for a project as the first step in the process before a call for proposals and bids go out...”
I am having difficulty reconciling the differences between your problem with the process and your disappointment that it’s outcome is not how you preferred (which comes across as leave it alone and do nothing). To say that the “agreements have been totally disrespected” is a gross overstatement. I do agree that certain aspects are at odds with our mandate regarding the south side, the overlook trail and the gate. Aside from that, I don’t like animal fencing for humans.
I want to fix the shabby outcome of the process with a general consensus of our common ground.
Respectfully,
JB