Barton Springs Public Process

On the bartonsprings@yahoogroups.com email list, this week Steve Barnick, past president of Friends of Barton Springs Pool, wrote:

Deda or anyone else for that matter,
Find me one spec of written or spoken evidence that support your accusations.

FBSP never came out in support of the cutting down of the trees. Our support was
for raising awareness of the condition of the trees and finding ways to take
better care of the trees. We were just as surprised as everyone in the community
regarding the decision to cut them down.

The only thing we didn’t to during this time was rant, rave about this decision.
Instead we listened, attended meetings, organized a tree care fund raising event
and worked with the city to get the tree situation where it is today. Our
message remained positive and the results were positive.

Respectfully,
Steve

His request for “one shred of evidence” has provoked an outpouring of documentation. Among them:

From Susan Bright:

SusanBright,

Poet/Publisher, Plain View Press

P.O. 42255

Austin, TX 78704

http://www.plainviewpress.net

From Deda Bea:

I think Susan covers many points of FBSP’s support for cutting down the trees.

You, and FBSP, supported the Master Plan, which supported and funded the “study” from that out-of-state company and the results of their study which determined all of the heritage trees needed to go. It wasn’t FBSP who questioned those results or arranged for Don Gardner, a local, well-respected arborist to give a second opinion, which is actually what gave clout to the grassroots uprising which eventually saved the trees. This is why I find it disingenuous for FBSP to claim credit for it. Yes, you remained “positive” in light of death sentence for the majority of large shade-giving trees, but had others not been so positive about the clearcut, those trees would be gone now. I also recall that several of those trees just happened to be in the path of many of the “improvements” that FBSP was advocating for at the time. It’s great that FBSP got behind Don’s findings, but it is just plain wrong to pretend that you’ve always supported saving the trees, or in some way deserve credit for iFBSP deserves no such credit!t.

From Karen Kreps

Re: FBSP did NOTHING to save the trees from being cut – how dare Steve claim they did?

Steve,

How dare you–or Robin Cravey–or anyone with FBSP claim to have worked to protect the trees at Barton Springs Pool???? SHAME ON YOU!

FBSP has doggedly supported the Masterplan, which funded the faulty study of the trees and called for the urgent removal of 29 trees because they caused a so-called danger to the public.

Brian Leonard has videotape of a meeting I attended in which Robin Cravey said, “Some trees will have to be sacrificed” – sacrificed for WHAT??,  and that “FBSP would be there with shovels to help plant replacement trees” — as if a new sapling could take the place of the great heritage that need provide much-needed shade.

You and FBSP did NOTHING to turn around the plan to fell those trees. Some of the trees marked for removal stood in the direct path of projects proposed by the Masterplan that FBSP strongly supported — such as to build a second bathouse on the south side, or to create a new and unnecessary second ADA path through the wooded area behind the diving board.

The two things that mainly that contributed to the public awareness of the folly of removing the 29 trees and  ultimately got PARD to reject the plan was 1) the establishment of a new website built by Peter Steinhardt, Susan Bright and myself, bartonspringspublicprocess.com, which casts sunshine on the administration of our great  natural resource and 2) the May 1, 2009 press conference that Susan Bright and Abbe Waldman organized outside the entrance to the pool. That was where Susan, Bill Bunch, Robin Rather and highly respected local arborists (including Nickey Bishop, ISA-Certified Arborist; Michell Brown. Owner, Xanadu Nursery; Graham Rasor, Masters in Horticulture from Texas A&M University; Scott Harris, Arborist; Guy Leblanc, ISA-Certified Arborist, and Cheyenne Thomas, Arborist) spoke up in defense of the trees and where elementary school kids contributed poignant drawings begging to save the trees.  NO members of FBSP were active in those activities. Robin Cravey did show up in the back of the audience for the press conference, but he didn’t utter a word at it — much less help to make it happen. If you want documentation, look here: http://earthfamilyalpha.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html.

As Deda wrote, I’m also glad that FBSP finally came around to seeing the folly of the plan to remove the trees, but shame on you for claiming to have spearheaded that effort. After the plan to remove 29 trees failed, FBSP has gone on to promote other plans linked to the Masterplan that are equally detrimental to public enjoyment of the pool, such as to carve giant terraces in the south lawn to allow for that unnecessary second ADA path, to over engineer the bypass tunnel out of fear that it would float away, and the monster dredge that you are currently advocating to occur this fall.

If you have any doubt about the second ADA path being not needed, please see the report that was sent to Fahad in 2007. it is posted on http://bartonspringspublicprocess.com/2010/07/ada-access-not-needed-on-south-side-per-1987-study/

FBSP seems more interested in creating the semblance of being in support of the public use of the pool than the actual fact. Yesterday you forced the closure of the pool an hour early for your Aug 12 press conference. You even went to the effort of setting up your promotional tent in front of the pool, as you normally would do on a busy Saturday, Since the pool was closed all day, I doubt the public paid any attention to your tent. It must have been only for the sake of the news camera.

You can fool some of us some of the time, but you can’t EVER rightfully claim that you did squat to save the trees last May 2009.

KK

and

Steve,

In my previous note, I failed to properly acknowledge the great role played by Bill Bunch of the Save Our Springs Alliance. After the City wasted $57,000 on the Daves group study, Bill contracted Don Gardner and got a second opinion.

If you need more evidence that it was SOS and others that saves the tres, and that FBSP did NOTHING to save the trees. just go to this document:

http://bartonspringspublicprocess.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Barton-Springs-Tree-Court-Case-Study.pdf

Here’s an excerpt from it:

Background
The City of Austin’s Master Plan for improving Barton Springs Pool included a tree assessment performed by Davey Resource Group (Davey), which submitted its findings in March of 2009. Davey’s recommendation to remove 28 trees generated enormous public reaction. A month later, the Save Our Springs Alliance (SOS) asked Consulting Arborist Don Gardner to conduct an independent assessment of the trees targeted for removal. His findings called for fewer removals and more investigation of questionable cases.

In May of 2009, Bartlett Tree Experts (Bartlett) responded to a City of Austin Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct a further assessment of 16 trees at Barton Springs Pool. Per the Scope of Work, Bartlett proposed thorough inspections of root collars; buttress, structural, and fine roots; lower and upper trunk condition; and crown condition. Bartlett did not secure this project, and we understand that the City of Austin chose not to award any contract on this RFP due to budgetary constraints.

In June of 2009, after further discussion among all interested parties, the City of Austin reduced to three the number of trees to be removed – all located in the children’s playground.

Raised Consciousness: An Assignment Evolves

Davey’s controversial assessment led to a community conversation that suggests good things for Austin’s trees. Energizing much of that conversation, Don Gardner led a group of citizens, which included City Arborist Michael Embesi, on a tour (recorded on YouTube; link to introduction at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdF5sR9VeD0) of selected subject trees. Mr. Gardner offered frank instruction on tree biology, impacts of construction, thorough risk assessment methods, need for better funding of urban forestry management, and other topics.

In October of 2009, a concerned citizen acquainted with Bartlett called us to discuss the Barton Springs Pool trees. As Don Gardner had pointed out, many of the trees that Davey had recommended for removal did not show evidence of a thorough below ground examination. The Davey report states that “a visual inspection of the quantity and density of both smaller feeder and larger anchor roots within the drip-line of the tree” was used in the assessment, as well as “Soil excavation using the air spade revealed that most trees have greatly diminished feeder roots, possibly resulting from high soil compaction (foot traffic) and high clay content of the soil”. Although the Davey Report provided much useful information, issues uncovered in the assessment were not pursued with further discovery. The condition of the structural support system of the tree below ground is as important as the visible, above-ground tree.

Also, when it comes to giving credit and taking credit, take a look at this email exchange that occurred after the trees were no longer in danger. It’s on the archive on this yahoogroup. First, a note from Dan Crow and then a response from Bill.

September 8, 2009

Dear all who were there for the trees,

Being a part of the community that saved the trees was one of the most rewarding events that has ever come along for me. When I go to the pool and see the trees I am so grateful and proud of all of us and Sara Hensley too. As time goes by the details of our success will fade away, but before they do I hope we will always remember that it was Bill Bunch and SOS that made it possible for us to be effective. They hired Don Gardner at a cost no one else could bear and without Don Gardner we could not have turned it around and the pool would have lost its shady haven for the next 100 years.

This little note may make Bill’s day, but that is not why it is being written. SOS Alliance has been the heart of the environmental community in Austin for as long as I can remember and they just demonstrated with the trees that they are who to turn to when the chips are down so I hope we will not forget what SOS did for us all and remember in our heart of hearts to give credit where credit is due and support where support is due.

Dan

———

9-8-09

Dan,

Thank you so very much for the kind words.  I’ll pass them along to our
board and staff.

What we did — all of us together — would not have mattered but for our
new PARD Director, Sara Hensley.

And she would not have been able to act if the community had not reacted
as they did.  It was a critical mass of Austin citizens who stood up for
the trees, and with heavy lifting from you, Abbe, Zoila, Guy LeBlanc,
Susan Bright, and several others, and Danette Chimenti and Linda
Guerrero on the Parks Board, we (all of us together) were able to save
the trees.

Now our challenge is to keep them saved, and to save the water too.  It
takes a community to save a community spring.

Bill
——–

Steve, at this point you had the hubris to chime in on the conversation and claim to have been a key player in saving the trees:

Dan,
The efforts of SOS to help save the trees is commendable and your note is worthy recognition for a job well done.

As past president of Friends of Barton Springs Pool(FBSP) I think some of the credit goes to the tireless effort by FBSP in raising the awareness to the issues at BSP that culminated in a $6.2M investment in short term projects(tree care being one of them) and a master plan that lays the ground work for developing solutions to a long list of issues that we all face at the pool.

Regards,
Steve Barnick

FBSP deserves no such credit!

You have been past president now for nearly a year. In fact, I don’t see your name listed on their site either as a board member or a committee leader.  Isn’t it time that you let the current (and unfortunately recurring) president Robin Cravey explain to the public what has motivated him to drive so many big construction projects that threaten the open use of the pool to the public, just as it was closed an hour early yesterday for your private press conference?

KK

And Peter Steinhardt added:To the conversation regarding who did what…….

There are some situations that are best served by saying no, some examples might be:

1.Add Ten inches of steel plate and concrete to the top of the bypass to keep it from floating

2.Cut down 30 of the largest and oldest trees surrounding Barton Springs Pool

3.Cut a slice diagonally across the hill on the south side to provide an ADA  compatible path

4.Provide access to the pool via an   500 foot path for folks who are disabled and don’t provide a toilet for them so they must go back up the 850 path to get in their cars and drive to a toilet

5.Close the pool early to make it easier for politicians to get some publicity.

6.Spend $1,000,000 on removing gravel from the pool when in all the years of discussion we have never committed to a plan that would solve the problem of deposits from flooding.

7.Spend  $1,000,000 on removing gravel from the pool when we have tried for years to rebuild the fauna in the pool and now is the most robust it has been in years and removing the gravel will remove the plants and risk the pool in the grandest way ever.

8.Stopping much of the maintenance at the pool while we wait for “master plan” improvements.

9.Prohibit the discussion of providing convenient toilets and hand washing at the playground in the master plan.

10.Prohibit the discussion of providing convenient toilets and hand washing at the theatre in the master plan.

11.Spend $200,000 on solar showers at Barton Springs and provide only the most minimum toilets and facilities for disabled folks.

12.Spend $200,000 on solar showers at Barton Springs when the city is mandating that we use less water.

13.Spend $$$$  for more facility when we need to reinitiate a maintenance plan for all the parks.

These are all schemes and ideas advanced and supported by FBSP and most prominently Robin Cravey.

Steve, I think you are interested in good stewardship regarding the pool and the springs.  I believe you are truly concerned about people and the quality of the parks we have.

Why and how can you endorse these things?  Why do you not call for real analysis and planning?  Why do you not say no, when Walter stands up and says he is going to cut down 30 trees?  Why do you not tell David Johns that the By Pass is in the same place it has always been and it is unnecessary to “keep it from floating”.  Why are you in a hurry to spend millions when we have such unfinished planning?

Considerations we need to make……

a. Figure out how to clean the pool without closing it a day each week.

b. Figure out how to remove the debris deposited by floods incrementally each year

c. Figure out how to accommodate folks of all needs at the pool

d. Figure out how to get the toilets and sinks clean all the time

e. Figure out how to keep the gates and parking lots available for use all the time

f. Figure out how to increase the ease of use and quality of use for the public

g. Figure out how to attract more quality guards and staff for all the parks

h. Figure out how to protect the water quality of the aquifer and the springs

i. Figure out how to explain to staff that being rude to the public is not productive…  I am referring to forcing folks to leave the pool at 9am, closing the pool early for a press conference, locking the gates before folks are gone, closing the entrances when the pool is open, blocking the flow of information, not providing information before meetings, spending city money for chairs, transportation, and whatever else for press conferences at the pool.. etc, etc.

The Master Plan was flawed almost from the start. I started as $500,000 for fixes at the pool and went to $6,000,000. It is operated as if it is autonomous and not part of the Parks Department.  This is not Your’s or Robin’s money.  This is Parks Department money and it needs to be spent in the context of what is needed, not what those who can lobby, can get.  You have never ever really considered what it would take to clean the pool efficiently.  You have never ever advocated for a restaurant that would be open and provide good service for the pool patrons.  You have never advocated for better facilities for the life guards.  You have never advocated for better emergency and elderly facilities.

New lights are a cool idea, but they are not necessary or even better.  New electrical service is a good idea, but at this time we have live wires hanging over the pool at great risk and because of the “master plan” no one is making a move to correct the way they are hung.

FBSP is an organization by charter that does not provide for its membership to vote on anything that makes a difference. The rank and file members of FBSP are not allowed to have copies of the membership list which totally defeats any possibility of their ever replacing Robin Cravey or replacing any board member chosen by him, especially considering the already top down structure of the organization set out in its by-laws. Open board positions are filled by a nominating committee controlled by the president and the issues and actions are dictated by the board and the president.  There are, no doubt, many wonderful folks that are a part of FBSP.  They are trusting that the board will use reason to guide the organization.  Step back for a moment and read the list at the top of this letter.  These are the things to say no to.  But, these are the things that FBSP has advocated for.

Peter Steinhardt