#atxcouncil: #TROXROX CodeNEXT, property taxes...and taxpayer funded lobbying!

"in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him."
Ephesians 3:12

We attended an event last night where Ellen Troxclair spoke last night about several topics related to both council and the current special session:

Part 1:



Highlights:

• Council hasn't kept their word on homestead exemption.

• City is hitting the full 8% increase every year.

• In time of unprecedented growth, city manager still having to use recession tactics on budget.

• Broke with TML on property taxes.

• It's not the state's responsibility to protect local officials.

• Leffingwell testified in favor of the Senate property tax bill.

• Hopefully CodeNEXT will bring increased supply online.

• Lots of people in her district would LOVE to live in Central Austin, but council policies make it impossible for them to afford to live there.

• Austin spends $1 million per year on lobbyists at the capitol.

• Post-capitol testimony bullying from other council members: "Kind of astounding."

Part 2 (Note: There's about a one minute gap between part 1 and part 2):

Highlights:

• Explains the evils of taxpayer funded lobbying.

• Nothing much happening on implementing the corridor component of the 2016 transportation bond.

• No final candidates on city manager.

The WORST campaign execution we've ever seen....

"Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before a fall."
Proverbs 16:18

We've been biting our tongue on this for three weeks, but here goes: Ridesharing Works for Austin ran the worst, most tone-deaf, campaign we've seen in 25 years of following politics.

Where to begin?!?

• Political mail has it's place, but people don't appreciate multiple daily mailers starting over a month before election day.

• Sending notifications related to the election through the App is fine, but to receive political text messages to which you haven't consented is creepy.

• Don't claim people who don't support your campaign do; this applies doubly when the police chief in question isn't popular in the first place.

• Speaking of unpopular, making a former mayor who was essentially ridden out of town on a rail when he left office less than two years ago your most prominent campaign spokesperson probably won't go well.

• Don't bring in a bunch of dimwitted D.C. based rent-a-campaign types to run your field operation when there are local people (with a record of winning) who can do a much better job for a fraction of the cost.

• Speaking of your field operation, when homeless people start showing up to work as canvassers in large numbers, you should be worried.

• It's ok to spend enough to win, but when the amount of money you're spending becomes a major campaign story and the money is going to fund the type of overkill described above, you have a problem.

It's also worth pointing out that RWA's messaging SUCKED.  The opposition had a simple message: "stand up to corporate bullies."  We didn't agree with it, but that message was concise and effective.  RWA could have built their campaign around the fact that council's regulations would lead to higher prices and longer wait times with no benefit to public safety.  Instead, they oversold a disjointed collection of secondary concerns without a unifying principle.  When the media started picking apart those claims, they were done.  C'est la vie....

We could go on, but long story short congratulations to Ridesharing Works for Austin for giving Jeb Bush a run for his money (pun intended) in running the most bumbling, expensive, and inept campaign of 2016.

We hope your consultants got paid as well as Jeb's....

Partying with Austin's Future Taxpayer Friendly Leaders

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice."
Proverbs 29:2 (a)

Local Voice Solutions -- Tonight, taxpayer friendly candidates in 6 of Austin's 10 city council districts spoke at an event in East Austin.  The candidates discussed affordability and the role that Austin's massive, boondoggle prone, city government plays in exacerbating that problem.  This website bring you their remarks in full.

Michael Cargill, District 1:



Highlights:

• Proprietor of Central Texas Gun Works.

• Most conservative candidate in District 1 on the subject of firearms.

• Running to obstruct Mike Martinez's gun grabbing agenda.

• "We're going to maintain all of our constitutional rights."

• Plan for traffic: Widen 183, as a free road, to give commercial traffic a viable path around Downtown Austin.
• Austin is one of the few major cities in America where big trucks pass through downtown.

• Sell "Prime Real Estate" downtown and relocate city offices to the outskirts of the city.

• "We don't need that rail, that rail to nowhere...."

 Jay Wiley, District 6:



Highlights:

• "I'm running because we need a new voice for taxpayers at City Hall...we've never had that before."

• The (in)famous Gretchen Gardner quote.

• "Here's the big picture.  The big picture is that the affordability problem we have in Austin is the direct result of a big and expensive local government.  We've seen what big, expensive government looks like.  It looks like Higher property tax bills, and worse energy bills every month, and it looks like worse and worse traffic every day because we've got all the wrong priorities at City Hall."

• "What I want to do is I want to lower taxes, I want to lessen the bureaucratic largesse at City Hall, and ... most importantly change the culture at City Hall to one that's fiscally responsible and respects taxpayers."

• "We are weeks away from putting the first conservatives on Austin City Council in my lifetime; let's get it done."

Ellen Troxclair, District 8 (She likes puppies and Uber):



Highlights:

• Over a decade of public policy experice at the Capitol combined with real world experience in the Real Estate industry.

• Not a day goes by, either in the campaign or her business, where she doesn't hear about how the Austin CC's decision are negative effecting resident of District 8.

•  "Seems like every year in Austin our cost of living is increasing while our quality of life is not improving."

• It took conversations with thousands of voters before she met her first voter who said property taxes weren't too high...and that person was a recent California transplant.
• Author's Note: We welcome California transplants to Austin...as long as you don't vote for the same crap policies that ruined California.

• "I don't think that our goal, as Austinites, should be to be slightly better than California."
• Author's Note: Ellen makes Chuck DeVore proud!!!

Ed English, District 7:



Highlights:

• "I'm running for a lot of reasons that fall under the umbrella of fiscal responsiblility."

• "I want to be part of a council" that ends wasteful spending and gives taxpayers real relief.

• Donated "several thousand hours" over "a two year period" to pass 10-1 in the first place.

• Seize this opportunity to represent the citizens.

• Only candidate in his district that has worked in the private sector.

• Knows how to ask the right questions about contracts.
• No more water treatment plant #4 or biomass boondoggles.

• First candidate, in any district, to oppose the rail bond tax hike...aka. Leffingwell Loser!!!

Erin McGann, District 9:



Highlights:

•  Only non-incumbent in District 9 and only candidate in the District who is against the rail.

• Background in finance, auditing, and budget review.

• "I am running for city council because our budget is entirely too fat, our spending is not very judicious, and we've got a lot of unicorns and glitter sitting around city hall and not very much bricks and mortar."

• "My opponents are being strongly supported by the status quo and by all of the special interests in Austin so I am being seriously outspent."
• Author's note: Donate here.
  
•  Needs blockwalkers and phonebankers.

Bill Worsham, District 10:



Highlights:

•  "It is way past time to just talk about the traffic, the cost of living, and the red tape that we have to endure in the city of Austin.  

• Endorsed by TAG and TFL.

• Specifically committed to reducing red tape for resturant owners.

• "We are right on the issues of this campaign"

• Opponents are imitating their campaign...."we are the rocket that's ready to launch."

Alternatives needed to restore Affordability

"But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?"
James 2:6

Erin McCann, the only non-incumbent running in Austin City Council district 9, nails it:

Austin, TX (September 15th). Austin residents have been vocal about the two most troubling issues facing Austinites: affordability and traffic. Regrettably, the major concerns of Austin residents have not been heard at City Hall. Fortunately, there is hope in November. Austinites will have the opportunity to elect a concerned and qualified citizen in every one of the newly created City Council Districts. In District 9, Erin McGann’s victory in November would ensure a completely new City Council, while giving District 9 residents a representative who listens to their concerns.

The back of the purple & white shirts McGann’s supporters wear walking the streets of District 9 read, "We cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein’s famous words are especially relevant as the current City Council pushes through measures that will negatively impact every Austin resident. On Monday, September 8th, the Austin City Council voted to increase spending in the City budget for 2014-15, resulting in an increase in property taxes, Austin Energy rates, and Austin Water Utility rates.

McGann’s opponents in District 9 both voted in favor of these increases. In a statement this week, McGann said that, “Although I am happy to see some much needed additional funding for our first responders, it is disturbing to me that the City Council professes to be actively working to make Austin more affordable, while increasing utilities and spending the budget surplus they discovered in less than two weeks. This surplus could be returned to the taxpayer in the form of even lower tax rates for homeowners.”

According to the City’s website, every month Austin residents will experience an “approximate $2.72 increase for the typical Austin energy customer.” Along with this increase, Austin Water Utility will “implement a system-wide rate increase of 8.1%.” As for property taxes, this budget will implement “an approximate increase of $3.49 per month for the owner of a median-priced home, estimated at $202,254.”

In addition to these tax increases, the City has proposed adding $28.5 million to existing City debt, which is currently more than $5 billion, not including interest.. All current City Council members voted to borrow the $28.5 million in order to purchase a tract of land at the intersection of Bull Creek Road & 45th Street, bypassing a vote by citizens and committing them to additional spending in order to develop that land. This action, according to Mayor Leffingwell, would negatively “impact property taxes, without voter approval.”

In November, Austin residents will have the opportunity to decide whether or not to spend $1.4 billion on the proposed Austin Rail Project. The City Council, including McGann’s two opponents in District 9, voted unanimously in favor of Prop. 1, Austin’s Rail Project. Without truly addressing Austin’s most pressing issue, traffic congestion, this project will commit Austin tax-payers to further tax increases in the future. According to the City of Austin, once the project is completed in 2030, the Rail will carry only ½ of 1% of all Austin commuters. The projected ridership numbers fall very short of even carrying a small portion of those who will move to Austin by 2030.

As for the cost, according to the project planners, the $1.4 billion price tag would cost $155,000 per rider. This figure does not include the estimated $22.1 million in annual operating costs. Keep in mind that the last rail project cost 5 times what the City planners had projected. According to AustinAffordability.com, in order to fulfill the full Project Connect plans “80% [of future project funding] must come from local funding sources.” This would put an enormous burden on Austin taxpayers.

To truly address traffic congestion in Austin, the newly elected City Council must focus its stretched resources on a more sensible and effective approach to the problem. More effective alternatives include building new roads, improving existing infrastructure, traffic-light synchronization, improving and extending bus routes and schedules, encouraging expansion of services like Uber and Lyft, and even consider staggered City employee work hours.

McGann is publicly encouraging residents to vote no on the Rail proposition in November.. But she does understand that “traffic desperately needs to be addressed, and there are many other options on the table. Congestion can be positively affected with a more thorough, less expensive approach. The options include, but are not limited to, improving existing roads, providing City and State employees with bus passes and responding to the need for later and more frequent bus lines. When addressing the traffic issue, we must balance the cost to the citizen of Austin and remember our goal to keep Austin affordable for its diverse citizens.”

 Amen, amen, amen!!!

The true cost of Austin rail emerges

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Wow:

Read much closer, however, and it becomes clear that the $1 billion will pay for only one small piece of that rail web — the part shown in lighter green, for $600 million of borrowed money — and those seven yellow circles for the other $400 million. And building the rail part will require at least another $600 million from the federal government.

All of this is no accident, of course. Getting to that map on that mailer — also posted on the advocacy’s group’s website at www.letsgoaustin.org — has been a three-year process.

The city of Austin and its junior partner Capital Metro had foundered trying to build popular support for a Central Austin light rail system when, in 2011, they called in experts from other cities with light rail on the ground. What Austin needed, they said, was a long-term transit vision. Get that done properly, they said, and maybe you can sell the initial piece of rail.

....

Turns out that transit vision has been refocused a couple of times, adding those extensions and altering an earlier Mueller extension to end it at that neighborhood rather than continuing north to U.S. 290. The latest version, largely reflected in the flier map, was approved by the Austin City Council and the Capital Metro board this summer, officials tell me.

Well, OK. So, that’s the current vision version, which has the distinct political advantage of showing rail going out in every direction, eventually.

But if Proposition 1 supporters are going to argue — as they increasingly are — that the 9.5 miles of light rail and its 18,000 rides a day in 2030 are just the beginning and that you have to start somewhere, then it is equally valid to note that the overall system will be costly. How costly? And who will pay?

....

We might eventually get another 100 miles or more of rail in greater Austin, as that map shows. And it could cost well above $6 billion to get it, though the feds surely will chip in some of that. That doesn’t include finding the money going forward to pay annually for train engineers, mechanics, managers, fuel, electricity, track and signal repairs, and, in time, replacement train cars.

So, yes, Proposition 1’s 9.5 miles of rail is only a start. So is the $600 million Austin taxpayers are being asked to pay.

Read the whole thing here.

Lame-Duck City Council shuts out public to raise electric rates

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Good grief, you leave town for two days and while you're gone:

The Austin American-Statesman reports that Austin’s city council decided that it doesn’t want to hear from anyone who opposes its policies, and doesn’t care about Texas open meetings laws.

Here’s what happened, according to the report. The Austin city council has been interested in imposing some harsh new environmental standards on Austin Energy. Austin Energy, the city-owned electric company, opposes those regulations because it believes that they will force energy prices to hike, by a whole lot. That will hurt the city’s thriving economy and take money out of residents’ pocketbooks. Businesses generally oppose the regulations, while the Sierra Club and other environmental interests support them.

At the city council meeting Thursday night, those regulations were on the agenda. The city council sent everyone home who had come to speak on the issue, which included many who opposed it, with the assurance that the regulations would not be taken up in that meeting. The council said that the regulations would come up in its Friday meeting instead.

So they cleared the room of everyone who opposed the regulations. Which they’re not supposed to do.

And then they reversed course and put the regulations on the agenda, and passed them. Representatives from Austin Energy had left the meeting, and were at a restaurant when the vote took place.

The new council CANNOT take office quickly enough; read the whole thing here.

Travis County Democrats fluffing for Project Connect

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Travis County's Progressive Mafia protects its own:

Last night at a meeting of the Central Austin Democrats, I witnessed a very similar exercise. Speaker after speaker stepped up to the microphone to make their stumbling and uninspired speeches. Like poor little Timmy, they each struggled to launch a winning pitch. It was so sad that it was almost painful to listen.

“I wish I could say that this is a great rail proposal,” the first speaker began. “It is not a great proposal. Maybe it is not even a good proposal. But at least it’s an OK proposal.” Then came the punchline that set the tone for all of the other good little soldiers…

“We have to start somewhere.”

One by one they marched in lock-step to the stage to deliver their remarks. They could have been lip-syncing to a canned recording. The lack of any real conviction or enthusiasm was pronounced. The best that could be said of the expressed pro-rail message was that the City Council supports it. Capital Metro supports it. Some big-name local Democrats support it. Therefore, it must be the right thing to do. And gosh, won’t it be exciting to take that first trip from Riverside to Highland Mall?

Yawn…

These speakers offered no compelling statistics to justify the staggering $1.4 billion cost. Nor did they explain where or how Austin would come up with the remainder of the $8 to $10 billion total cost of a citywide light rail system. If the November bond proposal would double our debt capacity and raise taxes far beyond today’s already unsustainable levels, how would we ever be able to afford to expand the system? One speaker even dared to suggest that building the rail would improve affordability.

A resolution in support of the rail bonds passed by a narrow two-vote margin. Central Austin Democrats accomplished what they set out to do. In the process, they tore a gaping hole in the fabric of democracy. At a previous meeting, they allowed a single presentation from a pro-rail organization. But they never offered equal time to the other side. This shows not only a measure of distinct unfairness, but also a huge dose of insecurity on the part of the insiders who never wanted a fair discussion in the first place. What were they afraid would happen if both sides had been given the same opportunity? And is this the model of behavior that they intend to stand on for all major issues in the future?

[Author's Note: Emphasis added.]

 Sounds like how they passed Obamacare; read the whole thing here.

Portland's Disastrous Light Rail Experience

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Yeoman's work from Ben Wear of the Austin American Statesman:

The Portland transportation scenario is one the Austin City Council — which Thursday voted to ask the public to OK $600 million in bonds in November for a starter light rail line — would dearly love to replicate.

But while Portland and Austin share reputations for liberal electorates and scenic beauty, they have significant differences in history, statewide politics, geography and, perhaps most significantly, timing. What happened in Portland over the past several decades would be a much more expensive undertaking in Austin and might not be financially and politically possible, even if voters say yes this fall.

The Portland rail story, however, is complicated. Though the city’s residents revel in the handy transit options, the system and how it came to be have carried significant costs: a transit agency with hugely underfunded retirement and health care obligations, labor unrest, bus service cutbacks and deferred maintenance of the expanding rail system. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of city, county and school taxes were diverted to build the rail system and seed development along it.

And even in this showcase transit town, there’s a stubborn and surging anti-rail current. Several suburban cities and a neighboring county in the past couple of years have passed referendums requiring voter approval of rail spending, a procedural step that has bedeviled Austin transit supporters but one that Portland has managed to sidestep since the mid-1990s. And despite all the alternative transportation options, about seven in 10 people in greater Portland use a car to get to work, six of them driving alone.

No freeways have been built in the Portland area in the past 30 years, a source of unrest in suburban, conservative Clackamas County to the south and Washington state’s Clark County just across the Columbia River. And despite all the rail lines, the metro area’s road congestion, according to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s most recent urban mobility report, is roughly equivalent to that of Austin.

 But at least it was dirt-cheap and had with clear lines of authority:

By September 2015, when a $1.5 billion Orange Line extension into suburban Clackamas County is set to open, TriMet and the city of Portland will have spent about $4.1 billion building 82 miles of light rail, streetcar and commuter rail lines. The local share of that comes to $1.38 billion, or about a third.

Even that tab was split multiple ways, with three counties, the Portland Development Commission, Metro (Portland’s transportation planning agency) and others kicking in. The federal government has paid about 56 percent, including almost 60 percent of the light rail cost, and the state has spent about 11 percent.

At best, Austin and Capital Metro will see 50 percent from the Federal Transit Administration for the area’s first light rail line.

That assumes Congress continues transit grant funding at something like its current level — no sure thing, given the state of the federal highway trust fund and Washington’s wheezing political culture — and that assumes Austin manages to shoulder its way to the front of a lengthy line of municipal supplicants for the money.

....

Light rail construction costs nationwide have been increasing at a rate far outstripping inflation for reasons that aren’t really clear. Portland’s Orange Line will cost more than $200 million a mile. Based on the $1.4 billion cost estimate for the initial 9.5 miles of Austin light rail — $147 million a mile — building a 60-mile system comparable to Portland’s would cost $8.8 billion.

As it stands now, if the feds cover half the cost, Austin-area taxpayers are looking at a long-term tab of $4.4 billion. Absent help from state government or some other source of income, that would consume much of the city’s bond capacity for decades to come.

[Author's Note: Emphasis added]

 But at least those ridership projections held up:

Rail critics in Portland, pointing to U.S. census statistics, assert that transit has become less popular there since rail’s 1986 debut. In 1980, Cato Institute fellow Randal O’Toole says, the census reported that 9.8 percent of Portland area residents used transit (buses, at the time) to get to work. In 2012, 75 miles of rail transit later, that number had fallen to 7 percent.

And it's not like, true to form for "progressive" social engineering attempts, it ended up hurting the people it was allegedly supposed to help:

Some critics say the rail expansion has come at a cost to Portland’s poor, especially those who don’t live near a light rail line. Bus service hours have dropped 9 percent since 1987, even as Portland’s population has boomed.

About those unfunded pension costs:

TriMet, meanwhile — despite fare increases, service cuts and elimination in 2012 of a no-fare zone downtown — has a $1.1 billion unfunded liability for future employee health care benefits and employee pensions, according to a January audit by the Oregon secretary of state’s office.

The agency’s executive director, Neil McFarlane, told the American-Statesman that those pending, uncovered costs are not related to rail spending. Rather, he said, former TriMet leaders made unwise concessions in negotiations with the union representing transit workers.

“That was a bad call long ago,” he said.

 Glad they cleared that up!!!

Finally, there's the corrupt, crony, real estate "development":

Government has to help in various ways, he said. “It’s not just sprinkle this magic dust on the landscape and cool new housing will spring up.”

Those incentives Hales advocated 18 years ago have occurred in a big way. Portland has a civic animal absent from the Austin scene: the Portland Development Commission. This arm of city government, created in 1958, over time has formed 25 urban renewal areas throughout Central Portland, in each case collecting property taxes growing from the increased land and building values in those districts.

Between 1996 and 2013, the commission took in almost $1.3 billion in such “tax increment” revenue — money that might otherwise have been spent on schools or city or county services — and so far it has spent about $775 million, according to figures from the commission.

That money has been used to spur development in a variety of ways: forgivable loans to businesses; grants; property tax abatements; environmental remediation of former industrial sites; and construction of parks, streets, sidewalks and other streetscape improvements.

The commission has thrown money directly into the rail kitty from time to time, as well, Executive Director Patrick Quinton told the American-Statesman. It put $30 million toward the Yellow Line to Northeast Portland, $10 million into the ongoing Orange Line construction and at least $40 million into the streetcar projects.

 But finally, after almost 30 years, the central planners' plan is WORKING!!!

Hales says all those urban renewal districts, and all the tax revenue invested in them, are about to begin paying off for local government treasuries.

Read the whole thing here.

The Urban Rail Swindle fleshes out details

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1



Highlights:

• Council voted unanimosly for Urban Rail.

• "Regional significance to relieve congestion" is governmentspeak for money laundering.

• Lee Leffingwell will be advocating for rail "as a private citizen on my own time."
• Personal Note: How stupid does he think we are?!?
• Secondary Note: Don't answer that 

•  "You can do road improvements that assist mostly the motorist or you can do road improvements that will assist future rail. So if you put a preference on road projects that can improve future rail, we think this is disingenuous. Because it's all about, it's really about rail,"

Technology Threatens Austin Taxi Cartel

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Great news in the fight for affordable alternatives to driving while intoxicated:

The San Francisco based transportation network company Lyft recently announced plans to bring its ridesharing platform to Austin, despite city regulations. Lyft has been widely hailed as the free market’s response to government sanctioned taxi companies.

Using their smartphone, a user can coordinate a ride through the downloadable Lyft app with one of the company's drivers. Drivers do not charge fares, but instead ask for donations from their passengers, which according to reports can be anywhere from 20 to 30 percent cheaper than a normal taxi ride.

While many are celebrating Lyft’s advent in Austin, city officials have warned the company that car sharing programs like Lyft could be “outside the law.” Currently, the Austin City Council is trying to decide whether services like Lyft violate city codes.

....

In Austin, Lyft drivers must have a chauffeur’s permit according to the existing city laws. Drivers who are caught transporting people without one will be charge with a Class C misdemeanor and could have their car impounded.

Despite the legal ambiguity, Lyft has decided to start operations in the city anyway and hope for the best. Lyft officials told Breitbart Texas reporters that they are willing to work with the city. They claimed that as it stands, city code does not account for their innovative and unique business model.

 But, of course, you can't better yourself economically if it threatens the fascists:

Ridesharing service Lyft launched its Austin service at 7 p.m. Thursday.

By Monday, three Lyft drivers were issued tickets and two of their vehicles were impounded, according to city transportation department spokeswoman Samantha Alexander.

....

Under city law, it is illegal to operate a ridesharing service if you pay drivers over the federal gas mileage reimbursement of 56 cents per mile. The Lyft service in Austin is free for passengers in its first few weeks. Drivers are being paid by Lyft itself through “ride credits” determined by passengers.

But who cares about people dying from intoxicated drivers when there's big business/big government collusion to protect, right Lee Leffingwell?!?

Austin City Government Outlaws Your Sober Ride

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

One detail in this story from Monday caught our attention:



There are only three licensed taxi operators in Austin.  Taxi licensing restricts supply, increases prices, and directly leads to the carnage described in this news report.  But Lee Leffingwell would rather protect the cartel, and who cares when little people are killed or raped as a result....

Urban Rail: The Next Great Austin Swindle

Kudos to the Austin Chronicle for this long article on the latest utopian scheme from the central planners at Austin City Hall (and the Obama administration!); the scheme calls for building a new rail line from the area around Highland mall, down the east side of UT campus, into downtown.

First things first, the timetable:

[T]hey will likely be on a ballot proposal in November 2014

But nothing's set...yet:

"several more months of discussion before we put anything on the ballot. Any­thing could change between now and then."

But this is a wide ranging plan with obvious Agenda 21 fingerprints:

In the long term, Project Connect, the regional planning initiative under the Cap­it­al Area Metropolitan Planning Organ­iz­ation, envisions a public transit system that connects not only all of Austin, but also other destinations in the Central Texas region, such as San Marcos and San Antonio.

With questionable assumptions:

\In justifying the Highland recommendation, Julitz emphasized that Project Connect is a long-term investment. As the area continues to grow, Julitz expects ridership to grow as well.

That fail to account for the obvious:

the rail route would likely go up San Jacinto, on the eastern side of the university. That's not unanimously supported at UT; in October, UT's Student Government General Assembly endorsed the Lamar/Guadalupe sub-corridor on the west side of campus, nearer to the West Campus student population.

Because, duh, most of the population in the area around UT is in WEST (not east) Campus!

But there's Obama bucks to be had in West Campus:

the UT administration prefers the eastern route, especially since the west side will soon be served by bus rapid transit along Guada­lupe and Lamar....MetroRapid will receive considerable funding from the Federal Transit Administration, specifically dedicated to that route.

 So let's neglect what we've learn from current mass transit ridership:

the undeniable fact that the Lamar/Guadalupe corridor has the strongest current population density as well as the strongest current demand for mass transit, as expressed by bus ridership..[because]..the Lamar sub-corridor contains many of the most walkable neighborhoods outside of Down­town Austin.

Because government knows best:

And they've insisted – echoed by the mayor at CCAG Friday – that surveyed public sentiment is only one factor to be considered in choosing a route, and that the project decision cannot rely simply on "a popularity contest."

And government can't do without those Obama bucks:

Dahmus thinks the city is avoiding the Lamar/Guadalupe sub-corridor largely for what he calls a political reason – specifically, to avoid endangering federal support already dedicated to bus rapid transit. The Lamar/Guadalupe area will soon have MetroRapid, which was approved in 2010 as part of Capital Metro's ServicePlan2020, a planned network of bus routes. MetroRapid cost about $47.6 million total, and the Federal Transit Administration's Very Small Starts program covered about $38.1 million of that, or roughly 80%, with Capital Metro funding the remaining fifth, about $9.5 million.

....

[T]he FTA "would be very unhappy if we reprogrammed those corridors after we gave them this plan that put in the bus rapid transit – and then we decide that we want to do rail there instead." The buses couldn't simply be moved to a different area because of the specific contract with FTA. "It's a very competitive system to get money, so cities that play ball with the federal authorities are probably more likely to get funding for their projects,"

This will probably be on the ballot next fall; stay tuned....

-----

Some thoughts:

• The ONLY way rail transportation in Austin could, in theory, make sense is on the Lamar/Guadelupe corridor.  Even there, it probably doesn't.  Any other route will be a boondoggle that fails to solve Austin's transportation challenges.

• This economic development mindset that made New York, Boston, and San Francisco three of the most expensive cities in the country.

• If a local project is worth pursuing, it's worth financing locally.

• Who's getting rich off the Highland corridor?!?

• This shouldn't be the purview of the current lame duck city council.

-----

If readers can stomach Pravdaesque writing, this pro-rail propaganda at the Austin Post is worth reading.

OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT: Stop 'Financial Date Rape' in Austin, TX

Less than a year ago, voters in Austin, TX withheld their consent to a $78 million 'affordable housing' bond.

This fall, financial predators led by Mayor Lee Leffingwell and City Manager Marc Ott are attempting to re-enter the wallets of vulnerable Austinites.

Leffingwell and Ott's predatory campaign relies upon slipping the voters a mickey in a low-turnout off year election that maximizes the special interest vote.

This morning, the Travis County Taxpayers Union held a press conference to blow the 'taxpayer rape whistle' against financial predators like Lee Leffingwell and Marc Ott.  With individual Austin taxpayers each on the hook for $12,000 in local debt (on top of their share of the national debt), Austinites must stay awake.  If Austinites fall asleep, Lee Leffingwell and Marc Ott will violate their finances.

No means No: "How many mulligans does the Austin City Council get with other people's money?!?" asked TCTU analyst Cathy McGuiniess.

The election runs concurrent with the election for Joe Staus' Water Slush Fund.  Early voting begins October 21.  Election day proper is November 5th.

No means NO; Vote AGAINST the City of Austin's 'affordable housing' bond.

-----

No Means No: Contact Austin's government officials via Twitter

City of Austin: @austintexasgov

Mayor Lee Leffingwell: @theLeeTeam