So I’ve been wanting something to replace the music in our house for quite some time. We bought wireless speakers several years ago that are fantastic for parties and having kids (moving to another room? just pick up the speaker and go). The problem has been getting a stereo that works with them. And with an iPod. And with CDs, and it’s been a mess. So here’s what we’ve tried that we decided didn’t work quite how we wanted.

• Having all mp3s on Playstation 3. Clunky interface. No control via iPod/Android.
• Streaming to Playstation 3 using UPNP - too slow. No control via iPod/Android. Needs separate dedicated music server.
• Dedicated music server hooked directly to wireless speakers. Cost for new system. Energy usage.
• Stereo with iPod dock. No android support. iPod docks stop working.

So I began playing with my router and noticed I could put PHP on it. I decided to setup a web server to play with and in doing so, noticed that DD-WRT/OpenWRT had sound support. Puzzled, I looked it up and turns out I could plug this:

into the USB port on the back of my router and have sound. Intrigued I tried plugging in a USB hub and a USB hard drive with the sound card, and was able to get all my MP3s on the router with sound output.

I started writing my own interface, but found out there was already a program called MPD (Music Playlist Daemon) compiled for the router that had iPhone and Android control apps. So now Julie and I can walk around our house, pull out our phones and start, stop or change the music. And it’s all running off a router that was always on anyway. No music stopping because Tim has to reboot his computer.

Here’s the partlist if you’re interested in replicating it yourself:

• USB Sound Card
• Netgear WNR3500L
• USB Hub
• USB Hard Drive
• Wireless Speakers (any should work)

Race #8 was miserable. Hot and still. Race #10 felt a bit better.

Race	Time	Min/Mile
2	27:57	9:01
4	26:15	8:28
6	25:42	8:17
8	27:13	8:47
10	26:50	8:39

So I’ve been thinking a lot about libertarianism. It’s constantly paraded as “more freedom”. But the more I think about it the more it seems that it appeals to those who’ve become disenchanted with Democracy. It reminds me of the Russians constantly trying to revive the communist party because they felt it worked better. Ultimately if private companies provided all the functions of government, if they built our roads, provided our electricity, and removed our sewage we would have less control. Our democracy would disappear and we would have one or two choices. Perhaps this disillusionment with government and popularity of libertarianism goes hand in hand with our indoor TV culture. It’s too hard to get out and make a difference.

It’s much easier to just have a choice of two horrible Internet providers and pick one. Rather than have the government be the Internet provider and have to make decisions about infrastructure spending democratically, you can pick from one of two equally bad private entities.

The choice becomes easy, but you no longer have any Democratic control. We should strive to make our government more effecient, not to privatize it. Because privatizing it just the first step to corporate totalitarianism.

This post reminded me of one of the easiest ways we could encourage pedestrians in Austin. Neighborhoods love culdesacs. They keep cars away from your house and provide extra hard-scape for kids to play. The problem is that they also frequently create long impenetrable walls to pedestrians. In our previous neighborhood the developer had actually provided one of these sidewalks between two houses. No road went along with it. And it allowed pedestrians in the neighborhood to leave the neighborhood and walk to a bus stop. It could have been better. It could have been a walkway that went directly to the bus stop. But it was much better than the circuitous route that was almost twice as long to exit the neighborhood via the main road entrance.

So perhaps the City of Austin can setup a program to encourage people in the middle of blocks to give up some land for sidewalks. Perhaps have a trade where the city financially helps rebuild a homeowner’s fence in exchange for the land for the sidewalk. And maybe it wouldn’t even need that much. There are a lot of people in Austin who want it to be more walkable. The number of people willing to donate some land to the city in exchange for a sidewalk might be bigger than we think.

This one felt really good. And the time was much better.

Race	Time	Min/Mile
2	27:57	9:01
4	26:15	8:28

So I twittered after reading this chronicle article about my frustration that they interviewed Jason Sabo. He’d led the most unproductive group of parents who kept challenging the numbers, but were unwilling to even acknowledge or talk about any sort of compromise or fix for AISD’s facilities and budget problems. The group was known for labeling any potential solution as “trying to close ‘good’ schools”. So apparently Jason Sabo monitors twitter for mentions of his name:

tthomas48:

@mdahmus: Jason Sabo was one of the worst of that lot. He tried to change the facts rather than fix the problems.

texassabo Jason Sabo

@tthomas48 If “that lot” refers to several hundred concerned parents, thanks for the shout out! Bad #s are not facts. @saveatxschools

tthomas48 Tim Thomas

@texassabo Attacking the numbers was unproductive and rallying parents with unreleastic solutions is not something to be proud of.

@tthomas48 Next time we’ll be sure to embrace bad numbers and “realistic” solutions like closing good schools. #lovethesetwitterdebates

tthomas48 Tim Thomas

@texassabo Yeah no ones suggested any other solutions. Like perhaps redrawing boundaries or tweaking the transfer policies.

tthomas48 Tim Thomas

@texassabo Challlenging “bad” numbers sounds like you’re trying to help, but really you’re just trying to justify closing other’s schools.

@tthomas48 Really? Can’t remember ever thinking or saying that, but thanks anyway for the clarification. #blessthemindreaders

@texassabo Feel free to tell me. What is your goal in having #AISD correct their numbers?

Crickets…

Think this shows I’ve been futzing too much with technology over the last year and not pushing myself enough. A really slow start on a beautiful evening in the low eighties with a strong breeze.

Race	Time	Min/Mile
2	27:57	9:01

I’ve gotten educated about Kathie Tovo. I’ve read her interviews. I feel like I have a pretty good idea of where she stands on the issues. And I agree with her on quite a lot. But her stance on new development I think is going to stop Austin in its tracks. I know I’ve said Kathie Tovo was anti-development and that her stances will increase housing prices in Austin, pushing even more low-income residents out of the city proper, but I wanted to point out what she has actually said.

“The current TIA [Traffic Impact Analysis] is requirement is not sufficient. As our city becomes more dense, we do need more accurate TIAs and not just for very large projects, but also for medium-sized ones as well.”

Traffic Impact Analysis is one of the easiest ways that neighborhoods block new development projects. And it’s one of the most meaningless. You can do the traffic impact on Barton Springs for a new building on Barton Springs. But does anyone ever do the traffic impact on Barton Springs for a new housing development in Round Rock? Dense buildings in central Austin may mean more cars, but they could also mean more people taking transit, biking or walking. More sprawl in Round Rock means more cars in Austin, period.

“Just a few of the many policies that would help include greater use of city land for housing, support for nonprofit housing developers, and improving the development process for affordable projects. I also pledge to support additional money for affordable housing in the proposed 2012 bonds.”

Her views on affordable housing is entirely that it can be done with tax dollars. While I will support these bonds if she is elected, I don’t think this is what most people in Austin think of when they think of Austin becoming un-affordable. The big problem is that this could easily lead to hollowing out the center of Austin even more. If the only housing in Austin becomes subsidized for the poor, and housing for the extremely wealthy, then we won’t have made much progress. Central Austinites will still be able to get their tables bused, and their lawns mowed, but there won’t be a creative-class or middle-class in Austin any longer. We have to build new housing in Austin until prices go down. It’s always interesting to me that people bemoan the bust of the eighties. The bust of the eighties was GREAT for the growth of this city. It provided tons of cheap property, made the city very affordable and allowed for explosive growth in the ninties. We need new development and we needed it two decades ago. If you’re not a millionaire you can choose to preserve Austin’s neighborhoods, or you can choose to be able to live in Austin. Pick one.

“continued development pressure and higher rents assure us of future issues as the music scene tries to adapt to the changing real estate market. One needed change would be greater attention to sound design before permits are granted both for venues and for new residential development coming up around our entertainment districts.”

I do think she has a point here, although perhaps not the one she intended. Rich people tend to have a lot of political power and they’re already turning down the volume in our city. In the future they may stop new development of music venues and remodeling of existing ones by putting in sound design requirements that are prohibitively expensive. This isn’t predominantly coming from the apartment dwellers, though. It’s from the neighborhoods where the half-million dollar homes are. KGSR’s “Live at the Grove” was shut down by a homeowner just across the street, who bought into the neighborhood AFTER they started the concert series. It is now “Unplugged at the Grove”. Morrison and Tovo are two of the dominant politicians behind unplugging the music in Austin.

“I believe that the Residential Design and Compatibility Standards have reduced conflict in our central city neighborhoods. Although some feared that passage might stifle building in our city, that concern has not been borne out.”

Residential Design and Compatability Standards is known as the McMansion ordinance. She feels it has not stifled building in our city, yet I don’t drive through Central Austin and see tons of new duplexes, and four-plexes. I assume that most of the people I know who say they would like to live in Central Austin, actually would live there if they could afford it. So I’d say it has definitely stifled development, the only other option is that developers are lazy and uninterested in taking people’s money (which seems unlikely). The only places we’re seeing a lot of new development are in areas that are predominately populated by politically powerless minorities or in areas away from the neighborhoods like Lamar north of Barton Springs. Not to mention that it has created the trend of those bizarro tiny third stories on buildings (start looking for them, it’s an easy way to tell if a remodel happened before or after McMansion).

The Water Treatment Plant

I really think this is just a wedge issue for some suburban voters in far-West Austin and some SOS people. The water treatment plant is being built at 620 and 2222. It’s just a way to pickup votes and is not a particularly interesting debate. Shade voted for it. Since Tovo wasn’t in power she can say she wouldn’t have and pick up a lot of rich West Austinite votes. Considering this interesection already contains a fitness club, HEB, Target and Starbucks, it’s a bit hard to pretend that a Water Treatment Plant is somehow the development in the area that will break the camel’s back.

“The discussion of density must mature as our city grows. The question should be about what type of community we want to live in and what type of businesses, services, and housing we need to make that happen”

I think ultimately Tovo has made that decision. She wants to live in a ultra-wealthy suburban neighborhood in the inner city, without new aparments, but adding the occasional new store and light business condo development. I think that’s how the majority of Austinites would like to live. But ultimately there are too many of us and more moving here all the time. The only way towards a sustainable future is to build lots more new housing to try to lower prices and create the kind of concentration in the city that will allow the walkable, transit-oriented, eco-friendly future so many of us imagine. That’s why I’ll be voting for Randi Shade on June 18th. Join me.

I just posted a comment on a speakup austin! in response to a request for subsidizing business development in East Austin. And it got me thinking about explaining in black and white, why new development is the only way to get affordable housing in central Austin and stop gentrification.

I think ultimately there is no way to provide enough affordable housing through subsidizes. Nor is there a way to stop building of condos and boutiques in East Austin through bans or code enforcement. We’ve been doing that, and in the past decade we’ve seen the African American population pack up and leave and the colonization by whites.

We have to attack the real problems of Austin:

1. The majority of Austin wants to live in zip codes 78704 (Bouldin, Zilker, Travis Heights), 78701 (Downtown), or 78751 (Hyde Park).
2. There is not enough affordable housing in Austin, and not enough public will to spend the kind of money it would take to build hundreds of thousands of units of subsidized housing.

The answer has been staring us in the face, but seems unattainable. Provide more housing in 78704, 78701, and 78751. That’s where people want to live. So provide them housing. This will pull hipsters back out of East Austin leave more housing for the poor. Because the hipsters want to live off South Congress, and 2nd Street, and off Duvall.

Encourage the destruction of old apartment buildings and replacement with ones that double or triple the number of residents. Provide incentives to replace Hyde Park’s old suburban style office buildings with ground floor commercial with residential above. Allow automatic up-zoning of single-family lots to multifamily to allow duplexes and four-plexes. We need more housing and we needed it a decade ago.

Will this create changes in the neighborhoods? Absolutely. But in case you haven’t noticed there’s already been changes in the neighborhoods. Hyde Park, Downtown, and 78704 are almost entirely white, and the median income of whites living in Austin is $90,000/year. The neighborhoods have already turned into upscale white suburbs. If we’re going to fight to keep Austin weird we need to get the artists and weirdos back in there. And we’re going to need a lot more housing to do so. Pretending we can keep Austin weird by subsidizing housing for 10 artists is just silly.

Common wisdom is that families won’t live in apartments or condos. But 78741 says that they will. We just need more condos or apartments that are 2br+ and that can be had for less than $1000/month. And we’re going to need a LOT more apartments, before we start seeing those prices again. The first hundred-thousand are going to be $2000/month. The next hundred-thousand may be $1500/month. But if we keep building we’ll get there. And we can’t get dismayed by the initial high prices. Because the demand for a $400,000, 600 square foot condo just shows how much building we have to do.

Or we can keep doing what we’re doing. You can’t afford to live in central Austin right now can you? And the prices are still going up. Do you have a better solution?

Hey did you know we’re having a city election in Austin on May 14th? Did you know early voting starts May 2nd? Fantastic, here’s some info on where to vote.

But are you feeling like you haven’t heard enough ranting from me lately, and would like to know who I’m voting for? Great! Read on… (and don’t forget to read the Austin Posts’ candidate interviews, and decide for yourself)

Place 1

Let’s start with the easy one first. Chris Reilly has been a pretty good council member. I don’t agree with his every decision, but he’s made practical decisions and he’s not anti-growth. You should read about the other candidates in this race. They’re colorful. Especially Norman Jacobson the anti-fluoridation candidate.

Place 3

This one looks to be a race primarily between Randi Shade and Kathie Tovo. Shade has been a decent council member. She’s admitted that she’s made mistakes and she’s still learning, but she seems to have one of those rarest of abilities in politics - the ability to change ones mind. Her answers in interviews show she’s more interested in solving hard problems where multiple people have legitimate competing view points, then providing easy election sound-bites. Her discussion of single member districts in the Austin Post interview I think really highlights how she thinks and weighs issues.

Tovo was running a fairly information free campaign until recently, but has four main points that you’ll find on her website and reiterated in campaign Q&As:

Completing Communities

<

p>This is central to her platform, and sounds great. But I can’t for the life of me figure out what it means. The best I can gather she wants to integrate commercial into the fabric of neighborhoods so that you can shop and work where you live. Which sounds great, but she was been a driving force in the Austin Neighborhood Council which has spent the past decade fighting any and all change in our urban neighborhoods. So I can’t really buy that this is more than a sound bite, like loving picket fences, lemonade stands, and american flags. I want to work and shop in my neighborhood. But the city has to let a developer re-zone a residential plot to commercial for that to happen.

Ensuring Affordability

She thinks that the foremost issue affecting Austinites is affordability. And that the economic incentives to lure Formula 1 racing to Austin should have been put towards affordable housing. Which is great. But she hasn’t addressed how exactly that would work. Or if we would raise taxes to provide more affordable housing. Because the subsidizes necessary for the city to directly fund affordable housing and property tax abatements and make any real change would be a large chunk of change. And she also spends a lot of time talking about reducing taxes. So it’s puzzling how this could be achieved.

She was also a proponent of the McMansion ordinance that has not only stopped large family friendly housing from being built within the central core, but has also stopped duplexes, four-plexes and apartment complexes. The Austin Neighborhood Council has repeatedly fought apartment complexes in our central core.

Since getting the McMansion ordinance enacted Tovo has moved into a 2700 square foot home. But I think it’s just classified as a mansion, because it’s old.

She also opposed the development at 801 Barton Springs (the vacant lot across from the Palmer events center that houses snow cone stands in the shadow of two tall buildings). Interestingly enough she does still own a rental property in Bouldin Creek that has winter views of downtown. Views that would potentially be obscured by a building at 801 Barton Springs.

So while she says she’s for affordability, her actions seem to be the actions one would expect from those trying preserve the value of their property, over a concern for housing the poor.

Respecting Citizens and Saving Schools

That’s technically two, but seriously? One of those is what everyone’s jumping on this season because of the outrage over the fact that city hall was using email and walking decisions to make decisions outside of public view. But why should we trust Tovo? She’s been a longtime member of the Bouldin and Austin Neighborhood council who are well known for making obtuse decisions outside the purview of public scrutiny. And Saving Schools? Considering the City Council has zero authority in that area, I’d say that’s a pretty strong campaign slogan, with absolutely nothing behind it.

Place 4

This one is a tossup for me. Morrison absolutely needs to go, and it’s unlikely to happen. She along with Tovo are part of the Austin Neighborhood Council crowd. They’re pretty popular and they’ve managed their message about preserving Austin’s character quite well. The problem is that realistically unless you’ve been here longer than Morrison, you’re actually part of the threat to Austin’s character.

During her short time in office she’s been a huge threat to the Austin music community in attempting to shut down outdoor music in favor of the neighborhoods. She’s been against pretty much all new development unless it’s a development by her cohort Brian Rodgers (who basically buys blighted strip malls and makes them prettier, but only slightly more pedestrian friendly). And she’s been a proponent of the historical tax breaks which led approximately 100 of her richest West Austin neighbors to apply for tax breaks in a single year. Costing millions in tax revenue when the city and school district need it most.

Toby Ryan and Eric Rangel are both young and inexperienced. I’m favoring Ryan because he has better name recognition and has a clear plan for helping Austin’s music scene.

So that’s it. My ranting’s over. What do you think I’ve got wrong (or right) here?