#atxcouncil: Save Austin Now *MIGHT* have firepower for serious change

"[R]edeeming the time, because the days are evil."
Ephesians 5:16

Interesting:

A group that has opposed city policy changes allowing camping in many public spaces in Austin announced plans Monday to take camping rules to voters in November.

Matt Mackowiak, chair of the Travis County Republican Party and co-founder of the nonprofit, nonpartisan group Save Austin Now, said the group plans to bring a petition to the November ballot that would reinstate a ban on camping in public throughout the city, restore ordinances banning sitting and lying in public places, including the University of Texas campus, and bar panhandling overnight from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.

....

By Monday, the online petition had more than 88,000 signatures. For the initiative from Save Austin Now to get onto the ballot, the group must get signatures from 5% or 20,000 of Austin’s voters, whichever number is smaller.

There are two relevant numbers: 289,450 and 88,000.  The first is the number of people who voted in the 2018 Mayoral election (assuming you trust Travis county's election results).  The second is the number of people who have signed the online version of the petition.  Obviously, 88,000 isn't enough to flip the city on its own.  But it's a pretty good start (and it's more than any of Adler's challengers got in '18).

That being said, there are a couple of other interesting #'s: 27,599 and 36,434. Those are the total number of voters in Districts 6 and 10 respectively in 2016. We don't know what will happen, but we guarantee you there's no way Jimmy Flannigan or Alison Alter want to run for re-election with the homelessness ordinance on the ballot.  That's pretty much the last issue those two will want to discuss.

Bottom Line: Many things remain up in the air, but there's good reason to believe this will be the best anti-status quo cycle since 2014.

#atxcouncil: Alter claims discarded syringes are being used for...insulin?!?

"A fool has no delight in understanding,
But in expressing his own heart."
Proverbs 18:2

Yeah, um, no:

Just one of the moments from 2-4 work session, about the large number of syringes at the 183 & Cameron rd. encampment fire this week. #ATX #Homeless #IsSheSerious #delusional or #stupid @GregAbbott_TX pic.twitter.com/XCdxYh6xAx

— Sylent One ATX (@atx_one) February 7, 2020

Pretty self-explanatory.

Bottom Line: Your move Tarrytown, Northwest Hills, and Great Hills (cuz' the camps are springing up along 183 again).

#atxcouncil: Homelessness and the FASCINATING Political Geography of Abbott's Jurisdiction

"[R]edeeming the time, because the days are evil."
Ephesians 5:16

We've obviously said our piece about Greg Abbott and Austin homelessness.  We think Abbott's talked a lot more than he's acted.  Furthermore, the modest actions coming this week don't really solve anything.

Last night, however, we we discussing all of the above with a friend who lives in North Austin.  We explained why we think there's less to Abbott's announcements than meets the eye.  This person didn't disagree, but then said something we hadn't considered:

You're probably right...but if all Abbott does is use TxDOT to clean out the area under highway overpasses, it'll take care of everywhere [the homeless] congregate in my neighborhood.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Not a bad point.

The primary place the State of Texas (and thus Abbott) has jurisdiction is highways.
Given that, consider how highways intersect Austin city council districts.  Specifically in North Austin:

• MoPac is entirely within district 10 and the most conservative parts of district 7.

• US-183 snakes through districts 7, 10, and 6.

• Even I-35 gets in on the act in district 7.

Districts 6 and 10 have elected Republicans in recent memory.  District 7 has never been seriously contested.  In the current climate, however, it really ought to be (*).

None of this, of course, is to say that TxDOT moving homeless individuals away from highway overpasses really solves the problem.

But it is to say that it could make a visible difference in the lives of the type of people who are swing voters in local elections.

Maybe even enough to change turnout models...especially for December runoffs.

Bottom Line: Given where everything's located, even underwhelming changes could have an oversize impact.

-------

* - By Republicans AND sane Democrats.

#atxcouncil to Citizenry: Drop Dead

"And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
Matthew 24:12

It's not a secret that we support the goals of CodeNext.  It's also not a secret that we have zero confidence in the city's ability to produce a document that meets those alleged goals.  Finally, it's not a secret that we've been taking a wait and see approach.

Looks like our answer is becoming clearer:

The Austin City Council on Thursday voted against placing a petition ordinance on November’s ballot that would have asked if CodeNext should be put to a vote.

The vote sets up a likely legal challenge to the council’s action. Local attorney Fred Lewis, one of the leaders behind the petition that garnered more than 31,000 signatures, said after the vote that he would sue the city.

“The council, a majority never wanted the public to vote on CodeNext,” Lewis said. “So we will go to court and we will ask the court to respect the wishes of the voters and allow them to vote.”

The vote was 6-4 with council members Alison Alter, Ora Houston, Leslie Pool and Kathie Tovo against. Council Member Ellen Troxclair was absent from the meeting.

At this point, it's not even about the content (although that sucks too); it's about the lawlessness of the process.

The city's "reasoning" is based on a highly technical reading of the phrase "zoning."  According to those with whom we've spoken, the city's reasoning is...specious at best.  They're gaslighting via legalese.

The plain language of the statute in question states:

(a) Notwithstanding other requirements of this subchapter, the voters of a home-rule municipality may repeal the municipality's zoning regulations adopted under this subchapter by either:

(1) a charter election conducted under law;  or

(2) on the initial adoption of zoning regulations by a municipality, the use of any referendum process that is authorized under the charter of the municipality for public protest of the adoption of an ordinance.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

This is clearly a) an initial adoption, b) "any" referendum process, and c) public protest; anyone who claims otherwise is either a fool or a liar.

[Note: We did not know state law allows the option to repeal zoning entirely via. referendum; file that one away for a later date.]

Speaking of gaslighting, check out this gem:

Adler, in extended remarks on the legality of the petition ordinance, said he could not in good faith have placed the referendum on the ballot short of a court order.

“The easy thing to do here would be to put this on the ballot and walk away,” Adler said, “but that wouldn’t be right because it would be illegal. To me, that would be a denial to the oath of office I took. I wasn’t elected to do the easy thing; I was elected to do the hard thing and the right thing.”

[Note: Emphasis added]

That is some 1984-level newspeak; Adler took an oath to uphold the law of which he's now acting in clear violation.

Bottom Line: Hubris rarely works out well over time.

#atxcouncil: Alter's act of pointless virtue signaling to cost Austinites $500k....

"Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil, and cleave unto that which is good."
Romans 12:9

We had noticed they were doing this last week.  We thought it was dumb but didn't give it a lot of thought.  Then we saw this:

The next time the Austin Police Department rearms its more than 1,900 sworn officers, taxpayers can expect to pay as much as half a million dollars more than the last time the department purchased new weapons.

Rather than trade in the Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm handguns, the weapons will be destroyed unless an officer chooses to buy their handgun from the department, according to an ordinance passed with little discussion Thursday by the City Council.

....

The council did not ask the department to make a presentation at any time before the vote, nor did the department make a recommendation, according to Commander Mark Spangler, who is in charge of procuring ordinance as head of the APD Training Academy.

....

By trading in the old handguns, taxpayers saved $362,328. The department also expected to save $157,152 a year on its practice ammunition and $10,233 per year on its duty ammunition, he said.

....

Taxpayers can expect nothing in return as more than $1 million in sidearms will be destroyed, assuming none of the 1,908 sworn officers buys back his gun. Assuming the same savings as 2016, taxpayers will still be responsible for nearly $670,000 in firearms that will be destroyed.

Alter’s ordinance does not speak to the costs.

Here's the thing: Typically, we prefer to see them grandstand over national issues.  They don't have jurisdiction, and it takes up time that could otherwise be spent doing thinks like creating "sick leave" entitlements.  Or banning dockless scooters....

But, apparently, now we've gotten to the point where they cost us money even when they're grandstanding.

Bottom Line:  They've certainly done worse things, but this is highly obnoxious....

#atxcouncil: Flannigan throws District 6 under the bus

"And while He was still speaking, behold, a multitude; and he who was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them and drew near to Jesus to kiss Him."
Luke 22:47

[Note: Allison Alter did something similar in District 10, but she wasn't nearly as blatant about it.]

As we survey the wreckage from Thusday night's/Friday morning's debacle, there's one more element on which we need to comment: Jimmy Flannigan voted directly against the interests of his district.

As Austin adjusts to this new "sick leave" entitlement, a natural follow up question is emerging: Who's going to pay for it?!?  The answer, obviously, is people who've built successful companies.  And where do those people tend to live?!?  In the Northwestern part of the city.  That means District 6 (and, to a lesser degree, District 10).

Here's what makes Flannigan's vote so puzzling:  During the year and a half he's been on council, Jimmy Flannigan has previously voted his district on major things.  Sure, Jimmy Flannigan will pander to his socially liberal base, but on big ticket "dollars and cents" items he has previously represented District 6.  Jimmy Flannigan supported last year's "affordability road map."  Jimmy Flannigan voted against last year's budget.  Jimmy Flannigan supported re-allocating the hotel occupancy tax.  But no longer.  On Thursday night/Friday morning Jimmy Flannigan voted to invent a municipal entitlement, and it's his own voters who are going to be paying for it.

For those interested in his rationalization, we present Jimmy Flannigan in his own words (but we warn you, it's just a bunch of excuses):



To be clear: We like Jimmy Flannigan.  He's a nice guy.  Prior to Thursday night/Friday morning, he had complied a reasonably decent voting record (at least on big ticket items).  Furthermore, we're stuck with him for another two and a half years, so holding a grudge won't accomplish anything.  But Jimmy Flannigan took a really bad vote the other night.  Jimmy Flannigan's vote was terrible for all Austinites, but it was especially terrible for District 6 ("Disproportionate Impact" as the liberals would say).  Nice guy or not, under Jimmy Flannigan's representation District 6 is (once again) finishing last.

Bottom Line: How any representative from district 6 could vote to create a municipal entitlement, when it's their own voters who are going to be paying for it, is beyond us.

#atxcouncil likely to Rubber Stamp $150 MILLION (+) in Solar Energy contracts Thursday

"The crown of the wise is their riches,
But the foolishness of fools is folly."
Proverbs 14:24

The things you learn when you read the City Council agenda:

Oh good grief.

Obviously, the primary reason to oppose this contract is that the $10 to $12 million annual cost will be passed along to ratepayers.  That means higher electric bills.  Then there's also the fact that this contract will run for 15 years.

But what makes this particularly galling is the "climate change" hypocrisy we're likely to see from several NIMBY council members.  We'd expect Kathie Tovo, Alison Alter, and Leslie Pool to use this vote to bolster their environmentalist street cred.  But, when the subject returns to Code Next, those three council members will lead the charge for land use policies that lead to higher carbon emissions.

The same restrictive land-use policies that drive up housing costs and produce traffic also lead to higher carbon emissions.

Bottom Line: Tovo, Alter, and Pool will support for a meaningless mandate that will drive up everyone's electric bills without achieving their stated goals, but then they fight the only policy that can actually accomplish their stated goals...and all for the low, low cost of $150 million (in other people's money).

-------

Addendum: It's also worth pondering whose cronies are getting paid on this contract.