Lew Moorman: One More Vote to Move us Forward

1. Wow.

   This is possibly the most ridiculous endorsement I’ve read during this election cycle.

   Your article is super whinny. Look around the country. Plenty of cities like San Francisco are revisiting their ride share ordinances because they are starting to have concerns for public safety. If these progressive cities are having problems with their background checks (As is the Texas State legislature) maybe it’s not a COSA problem, maybe it’s an Uber problem.

   I seriously question the judgement of anyone who’s main sticking point when it comes to voting is Uber. Uber is the Walmart of ride services and has a total disregard for public safety, data transparency, and the poor. Uber gets in trouble for red lining all the time. It’s high time we address the needs of our brothers and sisters in the parts of the city that are often marginalized and left out of every conversation.

   Technology doesn’t make a great city. People make a great city. No matter how hard you try, San Antonio will never lead the country in technology. Quit trying to put all of the cities eggs in that basket. We aren’t Austin and we don’t need to be.

   I challenge you to spend time in some of the neighborhoods in this city beyond the Pearl and whatever gated community you live in. I think a lot of what Castro did was great but under his leadership, the level of poverty in this city actually went up. That’s the problem we need to solve.

   I like Uber, I take them places when I travel. I’d like to see them here. At the end of the day, though, it’s absence has never once made me question my commitment to this city.

   If someone won’t move here because we don’t have Uber, do you honestly think that they are the kind of person who come here (even with Uber) and actually stay and invest in the community? I doubt it.

   1. No one is claiming Uber is the cure to all of our issues. Or that it is a perfect company. You say it is a bad company that creates bad jobs? Have you talked to the many cab drivers that switched to uber as drivers? Do you feel the number of driver jobs should be limited by a city mandated medallion system? Forget uber the company – how about the idea of new businesses that actually do employ a lot of people.

      We will never be San Francisco. We will not be Austin. We do not need to – I do not want us to be. And technology cannot cure all. But, the truth is the jobs of the future will involve technology – in all industries. Look at any manufacturing floor. Look at a modern call centers – or a hotel front desk. And the things we need to help those less well off can be enhanced by technology – free education streaming to any house for one.

      My simple point is we need to lean in and explore how we can embrace the positives of what is happening. I begrudge no one for making sure we protect citizens and establish checks -but i worry when our first instinct is to block change.

      Would be very open to hearing your ideas on how to engage more broadly in our community and help those falling behind.

      1. Hey Stanford Law – Large cab companies which treat their workers as employees, but claim they are contractors will get get their clocks cleaned by the decisions that come out of the class action suits progressing against Uber/Lyft.

         A little better than cab companies doesn’t make Uber/Lyft wiping their butts with hard won worker’s rights, violating the ADA, and redlining neighborhoods any more right. A cheap ride like that has too many hidden societal costs.

         Tech bloc should be about moving ALL of us forward.

         1. In more ways than just public policy the innovation sector has moved the U.S. forward.

            1. Nice way to say something meaningless.

               Yes, the innovation sector – wtf ever you take that to mean – has been moving the world forward thousands of years before the days of Tesla (the man, not the car) and Marconi.

               But don’t let them fool you, Uber/Lyft are all about screwing the worker and their intent is to move to driverless cars as soon as that tech is viable, eliminating workers from their business model entirely.

               Unless you support basic income, jobs are still a necessity for the majority of the US.

               Without jobs, very few will be able to afford a ride. Guess we’ll all be healthier walking and bicycling everywhere with all our forced leisure time.

               Funny how the lofty thinkers always forget the consumer part of the equation.

         2. Disruptive businesses like Uber are typically disruptive for a reason: they challenge the status quo and bring to market a better solution, based on consumer demand. I chose to use Uber over a cab when they were here because I believed it was a better solution, and that should be MY choice as an informed consumer. Mr. Moorman isn’t stating that San Antonio needs to be a tech-centric market like Austin, it just needs to embrace change and technology more in order to keep up with the rest of the country and ensure we continue to attract businesses to our city.

            The best way to help poor San Antonians is ensuring that there are JOBS available to them. As someone who previously worked to court companies to open offices here, I can tell you that explaining to these groups how wonderful our city is gets muddled when they ask us why Uber isn’t active here anymore. It sends a message to these companies that we are a city that does not embrace change.

            1. Change for the sake of change is a silly shell game of inefficiency.

               As I have explained in many a comment to this political screed, Uber/Lyft are a piss poor business model that are about to be bitched slapped back into place by the courts.

               Holding them up as innovation to emulate is foolish, short sighted, and ill informed.

               Hot tip: Be sure to sell your Uber/Lyft holdings before the verdicts.

   2. What a charming comment Jason!

      Ride share and Uber are not the “end all” issue that you seem to think we believe, but when a city rejects such prospects it *flavors* the conversation negatively for the tech minded. These are drops in the bucket *against* the city, not for it. That is all.

      During TechStars this year we had many companies weighing heavily where to base their offices, and many did heavily consider San Antonio. The transportation issues for those coming from the west coast was a factor, but not *THE* factor, just *A* factor.

      I know many of them used our bike rental services downtown, that was a plus.

      There are certainly other issues that motivate us, but the collection of tech professionals brought together via Techbloc are obviously going to focus on the technology issues, that is what that particular group has in common, thus their focus.

      I will be voting for Leticia Van de Putte because at Techbloc I had a chance to talk with her and I liked her thoughts about Uber and how we can reach a compromise. Julian Castro left some big shoes to fill, and I just don’t see Ivy Taylor being anywhere near the inspiring mayor that Mr. Castro was, she certainly had a rare opportunity to show us what she was made of – and I don’t feel she did much with that opportunity.

      I too share Lew’s dislike of Mayor Taylor’s stance on LGBT issues.

      And really? Uber is the Walmart of ride share? Every time I’ve ever used Uber it has been in very clean high end cars with very friendly drivers. The Uber driver we called in Houston three weeks back had us actually crying from laughter, he was world class.

      I’ve yet to have a bad experience with Uber, your mileage may vary.

   3. There are literally two sentences about Uber in this endorsement, one of which dismisses it as not a substantive issue on its own, but more of a symbol of the Taylor administration’s overall lack of vision and mishandling of the situation. I think the “ridiculous endorsement” you’re responding to has more to do with what you expected to read than what you actually read.

   4. Jason, you seem to be the whinny one, especially with some of the assertions you made. With regards to rideshare, actually the number of cities embracing the business models exceeds those “rethinking” it. Portland is a great example and is one that has proven to be a model for many to follow.

      With regards to technology, maybe you should look at some of the jobs reports. Focusing on the tech sector is helping move many municipal economies into a more competitive space. Technology encompasses quite a bit more than just coding software. Manufacturing is more technology focused. In fact, San Antonio is starting to develop programs that provide tech training along with manufacturing jobs, driven by Toyota Texas.

      To drive the point home even more, San Antonio is considered the cybersecurity capital of the nation. Fostering more development in this area, including STEM education, can position the city for greater job growth. Alternative energy is another sector that continues to grow.

      No Jason, you provided more whining that solutions. Lew offered solutions and lined up behind the more progressive and forward thinking candidate of the two. Mike would have been preferred, but the citizens spoke and now we have two. The better of those two is Van de Putte.

      1. Public service message for all you STEM types:

         Whinny – Sound made by an animal of the equine persuasion.

         Whiny – Sound made by butt hurt Villarreal supporters

2. I’m glad you shared your thoughts and perspective. I join you in encouraging everyone to vote!

3. You tech dudes need to put your political muscle behind SAABN. More than Uber/Lyft which are about to get judicially spanked for their poor labor practices or Google Fiber which has no problem cooperating with municipal broadband systems, turning on the dark fiber network that already exists in San Antonio would be the biggest bang for the buck and would make the greatest difference to our city’s tech cred than any other project.

   It just needs to be flipped on.

   All that is lacking is the political will and if anything, tech bloc should have a surfeit of that now.

   End the digital divide, use your power for good, and help bring ALL of San Antonio to the future.

   1. Thanks for pointing this out. This idea has come to our attention and I personally love it. Per the comments above, the idea of broad low cost/free bandwidth could be a game changer. I also know it is top of agenda for several city leaders. Would love your ideas and engagement on how to push forward even faster.

      1. You can find me on reddit – /u/GiganticPinkFlamingo, but San Antonio’s SAABN Maven extraordinaire is Lettie Ozuna.

         I know she would love to hear from you.

         Hit me up and I’ll hook you up.

         But I am hoping you already have her in your contact list.

      2. Ok, Lew.

         Time to see if you just talk the talk or if you walk the walk.

         Getting SAABN turned on should be tech bloc’s #1 political priority.

         The fiber is there, just dark and waiting. It will take mere carpet dust financially to make this happen. Probably less effort than arranging a happy hour for 600.

         With Uber/Lyft acting like small children who have taken their ball and bat home, SAABN is the most tangible, accessible and game changing prospect on the horizon. If we light up SAABN, Google will come and you know it.

         Evidently, Lettie Ozuna – who Mike wanted as his digita czar if he had become mayor – has agreed to an AMA over at r/sanantonio this Thursday.

         This is the change San Antonio needs.

         Be there or be square.

         1. Okay, you try to make funnies, but you’re a little behind the time on SAABN. Nirenberg is the one to talk to right now about SAABN. Ozuna continues to be a driving factor, but Nirenberg is carrying the torch forward. He’s already secured the agreement with CPS Energy (try to keep up, it’s moving fast). Besides, Nirenberg also sits on the FCC’s Intergovernmental Advisory Committee where they focus on municipal policy.

            BTW, not sure if you understand SAABN, or whatever it’s called now, cannot be used for private consumption. TX law only allows public organizations (e.g. those with elected bodies) to leverage the bandwidth.

            Also, SAABN has nothing to do with Google Fiber, who is already in evaluation of the city to determine feasibility. SAABN has nothing to do with pole rights and Google couldn’t use the fiber if they wanted to.

            Touch base with TJ Mayes if you need to catch up. He’s helping Nirenberg with municipal broadband policy and action.

            1. Ron is sharp, but Lettie is the acknowledged subject matter expert on SAABN and the councilman can’t match her knowledge base.

               There are solid reasons why SAABN needs to move forward with the participation of as many stakeholders as possible. Leaving SAABN just to COSA and CPS would be a huge mistake. Ozuna explains it best, so tune into her AMA tomorrow and learn something.

               Oddly, you seem behind the times. Back last February while you were napping, the FCC issued a ruling overturning state restrictions on municipal broadband for consumers. Fed trumps state. Of course, getting SAABN turned on and working is a process and there won’t be municipal broadband for the masses overnight, but the barrier you brought up as proof of my ignorance ain’t so much anymore.

               Yes, the ass backwards, tech hating state of North Carolina is asking to have the FCC ruling tossed, but this is Texas and the ‘bidness of Texas is ‘bidness. Municipal broadband will dramatically hasten the flow of tech from California to Texas, and smart Texas politicians don’t need to be taught how to butter their toast.

               You might also want to look into how Austin partnered with Google with their city network, GAATN. And while TJ Mayes is a decent fellow – for an attorney – working hard as a city council chief of staff, speaking with him is a waste of my time at present.

4. “Van de Putte cannot give away our future to the unions without giving away her own political future.”

   What political future? She’s been on a downhill slide ever since she tried to coattail Wendy Davis to the capitol. She’s running for mayor as a consolation prize. Don’t even believe for a second she’ll try for a second term. I’d be surprised if she even bothered finishing the first term, if she wins–she’s looking to Castro as a mentor here, not Hardberger.

   As for the “if you don’t vote you can’t complain” schtick, I *already* voted–like you, for Villarreal. More importantly, I *didn’t* vote for Ms. Business As Usual here or Ms. More Of The Same over there, and I’m not going to this time around, either. I want neither of them sitting in the mayoral seat. There is no “none of the above” option on the ballot. I don’t believe in “lesser of two evils” voting, as that only serves to perpetuate the flawed system we have created for ourselves.

   Besides, whichever one wins, SA loses.

   1. Those critical of Van de Putte only show their ass.

      Do some research. Learn about the lady. You may be surprised by what you find out.

      In Texas, our representatives and senators cannot be professional politicians. They are paid peanuts and work night and day for five months every two years in Austin. The rest of the time, they return home to their “real” jobs and shoehorn campaigning in around earning a living.

      Van de Putte is a pharmacist and not on the rich Northside. She has been a steadfast and tireless warrior for decades, never fearing the long odds in Austin while fighting for veterans, workers, Planned Parenthood and reproductive healthcare for women and men, children’s healthcare, education, the environment, voter access, LGBT rights, etc.

      In comparison, Ivy Taylor is a small minded bigot.

      The choice should be easy.

      1. “Do some research. Learn about the lady. You may be surprised by what you find out.”

         I did. Have you? Not just what you want to believe and what you want to see, but all of it? The tax evasion, the backroom dealing, the repeated audits, the “taking my ball and going home” “tactic,” the hitching-my-cart-to-whichever-horse-looks-promising historical record, the dodgy campaign financing? I was both surprised and not-surprised by everything I found.

         Ms. Van de Putte has done a lot of good stuff; there’s no question about that. Only time will tell whether the price we paid was too high. But her questionable tactics and murky intentions and desperate straw-grabbing antics don’t paint a promising picture for future performance. Ms. Taylor’s the same; some ways she’s better, some ways she’s worse. But neither have a positive balance in the “pro” column, and that’s the bottom line.

         Do yourself a favor, though–ease up on the SEO-friendly campaign adjectives next time. Your post reads like a bulk mailer.

         1. I’ve passed through Van de Putte’s office every legislative session for almost 10 years and unfortunately for my neighborhood, Taylor was my city council representative for far too long. I’ve dealt with both and have formed my opinions accordingly.

            Do yourself a favor, read the TPR profiles on each candidate, hold your nose and vote, because your writing style is butt hurt, immature, ill informed and whiny. I only wish it had some SEO polish.

            PS – People seem to forget, but Van de Putte leading the democratic state senators to New Mexico was to stop illegal gerrymandering on the part of the GOP majority, not some childish whim to see another state’s nature preserves and obstruct legitimate business of the state.

5. Great article Lew! When recruiting tech talent today its probably the most embarrassing thing to tell them that we don’t have Uber. Ask any recruiter from Rackspace or any other tech company. This small issue will be the one that defines us as a backwards city. Go vote people!

6. Sad…but realize the integrity of bi-partisanship.

7. Absolutely the only choice is Leticia! We need strong leadership.

8. Great commentary Lew.

   By now we’ve all exhaustively expressed various policy reasons why one runoff candidate may be better than another. And I too agree we need to support whichever candidate ultimately becomes elected to office.

   However, the greater issue impacting our future and the interest of representative democracy at the municipal level is voter turnout.

   As a community, this is an area we all need to unite on. Civic engagement is a fundamental component to our society as we know it. When voting statistics indicate only 18% of voters are under the age of 50, and 5% are between the ages of 18-35, we can all agree there is a problem: an indifferent detachment from the civic process that elects the leadership of our great city.

   This issue doesn’t end at the conclusion of this runoff. We need to actively pull together to increase engagement and participation throughout the year by keeping this conversation alive in the months and years ahead. Whether it’s a presidential election or a school board election, our participation is necessary to maintaining healthy community for future generations to come.

   Regardless of individual political proclivities, the process itself can reveal and then demand future candidates pay attention to issues, which disparate, underrepresented groups within our city find most important.

   The biggest challenge we face is dispelling this feeling of apathy among voters who feel their decision doesn’t matter, or that the choice of candidates in a given race is inadequate. Further educating the public on the importance of civic participation can only improve our turnout in this runoff, and more importantly, future elections, while also evolving the import of conversations on different policy matters that affect us all.

   To this end, I encourage all parties, media groups, and interests alike to diligently join together, in order to increase civic participation in a non-partisan manner.

   This is what will change the political landscape of our city to more appropriately reflect the wants and needs of our community.

9. Dido. Very well written. Equally must also be a priority.

10. Thank you for bringing up LVP’s connection with Police and FD. I see signs every day saying they endorse her and it just seems like she’s in their pocket.

11. Lew thanks for your leadership and for speaking up on this important issue.

    Whether folks agree or not, we need you and others to continue generate techie involvement, thinking and conversation. I am sorry you got some slagging in response to your comments, more on that behavior later. Instead, I thank you for taking a lead and your call for more participation.

    I supported Mike, but prior to and since the announcement of the run off, I have spoken with both Leticia and Ivy personally about the race and tech issues in general.

    After some fiscally conservative, socially libertarian soul searching, I am supporting Leticia for Mayor. And I urge other tech minded folks to do the same. See more about why below.

    I am grateful you point out this race is not about Uber per se, but instead is about the aspirational hopes for this city, and how we are going to shape the next 40 years.

    Are we going to be a city that leans into change, embraces it, and looks for a civic advantage? Even when that change may be scary? (Which all change is.)

    Or are we going to be a city than digs in its heels and says no? I think most of the techie crowd is aspirational, and as a city I hope we become so in both are words and our actions. We are not there yet.

    I do credit Ivy for successfully digging in her heels and saying no on the Uber issue. But she is stubbornly remains on the wrong side of the argument. She frames the issue as a safety issue, but only those who have another gripe about Uber frame the discussion in terms of safety. See comments above – responder has some gripes about Uber. But truly no one feels less safe in an Uber car than in a cab. Really?

    If you ask Ivy her real gripe – it is she was offended by Uber’s tactics. Which is a legitimate concern. But I feel leadership sometimes is about holding your nose, and doing what is right, even if the folks asking you to do it aren’t playing very nice.

    We simply can’t continue to be the one place in the country which hasn’t figured out the Uber issue. Which lands squarely on Ivy’s watch. So who is best suited to fix the issue? Not the one with an axe to grind.

    As for your call for participation, thank you and I applaud Blayne Tucker’s comments about participation and the need for a further conversation as well.

    I too decry the general lack of voter turnout by techies. Folks, things are going to continue to hurt until all the techies step up and actually vote. And regularly!

    So why don’t we?

    I think the answer is observable right here in this thread. I think participation may be less about apathy in internet savvy folks, and more about tone and the lack of civility in social media.

    As an example, take the very first line which was written in response to Lew’s original post. Ouch! Clearly it must be acceptable behavior on the internet to slag someone who dares to speak up. Because that writer did so.

    Just imagine the same thing happening in person…

    Imagine sitting at the Techbloc event, drinking a beer with Lew and having someone walk up unannounced and say to him “This is possibly the most ridiculous endorsement I’ve ever seen…”

    Wha????

    Only the most grossly socially awkward person would slag someone that way face to face.

    But unnamed reader felt no compulsion whatsoever about doing so above.

    And although many stepped up to defend Lew, and his conclusions pro or con- no one decried the first responder’s profound lack of manners.

    Why is that? And can you imagine his mother reading same? Better – his mom standing next to Lew when responder walks up and slags him???

    Wow – I am naïve, I know.

    But I can’t help to think we can all do better, and the first step is to figure out our own tone/civility issue, to truly engage the wide range of opinions which are held in the techie space.

    On social media or in person, we wouldn’t dare shout someone down for having an alternative lifestyle. So why aren’t we accepting of alternative political views?

    I posit the tone and negative energy generated by many folks on social media is itself the turn off for deeper political participation.

    Which may be a major reason many techies think politics is icky, because negative energy can pollute much more easily than inspire. Its on the talk shows and TV, too.

    Plus today’s techies lack any readily available modern alternative for political involvement – especially one which demands a bit more social decorum.

    Attend a candidates forum? A council meeting? Unlikely. Zzzzz

    Slag someone for their views because you disagree with them?

    Easy peasy, done. We see it above.

    So thanks Blayne for calling for further involvement and conversation. But as we move forward, I encourage folks to dare to be different and not denigrate those who dare speak up, even with disagreeable ideas. We techies should be better – and we can be.

    Which is a nice segue back to the mayor’s race.

    Neither candidate was the techie world’s first choice. But who is most likely to listen? To learn? to lean in? To lead? Leticia.

    And who is most likely to hold a grudge because some of Ubers negative political behavior is reminiscent of the very crowd that uses them?

    Eeee. Say what you will about Leticia – she listens, and she doesn’t allow herself the luxury of putting a personal slight – a grudge – in the way of San Antonio and its future.

    Both candidates have a lot of learning to do on tech issues. And whoever wins, hopefully they will.

    If – big if – we don’t slag either one to death with internet perjoratives and social media behavior in the mean time.

    We can do better techies – on participation, and on civility. And we need to!

    Go vote, please. And stay involved with the conversation.

    San Antonio is worth it.

    And no – no nasty responses are needed to prove what an I am for decrying insulting political commentary and behavior on line !!!

Comments are closed.