"For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." Galatians 6:8
With runoff elections today, here are some things on which to keep an eye. We don't claim this list is comprehensive. Nevertheless, it's what we'll be watching for.
Democrats:
U.S. Senate -- We've been meaning to do a longer writeup on this topic for about six months, but haven't gotten around to it. Nevertheless, MJ Hegar is, easily and by far, the most compelling Democrat to run for statewide office in at least a decade. Royce West, by contrast, is a rather middling state senator.
Cornyn's 100% safe against West. He's probably about 85% safe against Hegar. In the event, however, that Donald Trump and Greg Abbott continue to run the national/statewide environment into the ground, do NOT underestimate her.
Travis County County/District Attorney -- While they aren't related, Delia and Jose Garza are running for those respective criminal justice positions on essentially pro-criminal platforms. Woe unto all of us if either of them wins. Both are favorites.
Dutton/Lucio -- Two of the more conservative Democrats in the legislature face unexpected runoffs. Both seem likely to win comfortably...but we would have said that in the first round. Major implications for next session if either falls short.
Republicans:
Abbott's coattails -- Honestly, this is the only GOP question that matters right now. Abbott's made a big show out of endorsing in five races. In two others he's made endorsements that are essentially gimmes.
Abbott really needs to run the table; if he loses more than one of these races, it's a **MAJOR** embarrassment.
HD-60 (Francis/Rogers): Foremost among races where Greg Abbott has run his mouth is this open seat race for an otherwise obscure state rep seat west of Ft. Worth. Jon Francis is the consensus conservative candidate. Abbott recently declared war on Francis' family.
Abbott really needs his candidate (Glen Rodgers) to clear 60%.
Morrow's race: Barring a (richly deserved) act of Divine retribution, the latest season of "Robert Morrow torments the Texas GOP" likely ends tonight.
Nevertheless, it's been (really, really, really) funny.
The final margin will still be interesting. Had the GOP handled this situation even remotely competently, Morrow wouldn't clear 10%. If Morrow gets north of 30%, that's an embarrassment for the GOP, no matter how they try to spin it.
Again, this list isn't comprehensive.
[Note: Texas Scorecard has an analysis of both parties Congressional runoffs here.]
Bottom Line: The macro-narratives are "can the Dems seize an opportunity (for once)" vs. "can the GOP avoid utterly, totally, and completely humiliating themselves (all over again)." We don't pretend to know the answer. Stay tuned.
"And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity." Ecclesiastes 2:19
Today's primary day...whoop de frickin' doo.
You're probably going to be hit up by people pitching cheap, sentimental, claptrap. Your "Patriotic duty" or some such nonsense. Maybe something about veterans.
Whatever. 97%(+) of the people who win today are going to suck within five years. 90%(+) are going to suck from the second they're sworn in.
Now, look, we're not saying don't vote (although we can't justify spending more than ten minutes in line). Especially if you live somewhere where there's an open primary for state rep or Congress. Furthermore, there are plenty of people running you should vote against (Kay Granger and Delia Garza come to mind).
But if you do choose to vote today, do so with very, very, very low expectations.
Cuz' you're gonna be disappointed with 97%(+) of these clowns.
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Austin City Council members were joined by advocates at City Hall Monday afternoon when they announced their proactive budget measure to protect residents’ access to abortion services.
Last week, four city council members announced they planned to support up to $150,000 of city money being used to support transportation, childcare and counseling for women seeking abortions.
Mayor Pro Tem Delia Garza attended alongside council members Greg Casar, Leslie Pool and Paige Ellis, who were joined by representatives of several abortion rights advocate groups, including the Lilith Fund and Fund Texas Choice.
Under the budget, local tax dollars would help pay for services like rides to and from a clinic. Under Texas law, it is illegal for local tax dollars to directly support abortion providers, so city council members say their decision aims to work around the barriers put in place.
Is anyone surprised?!?
Because if you are, you've been living under a rock.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday signed legislation that prohibits cities and counties from doing business with abortion providers. The bill, which takes effect Sept. 1, specifically prevents local governments from entering into reduced tax and lease agreements with such organizations. It also prevents cities and counties from "advocacy or lobbying on behalf of the interests of an abortion provider or affiliate."
It does not impact hospitals or doctor's offices that perform fewer than 50 abortions per year.
Clinics that could be impacted include the Planned Parenthood in East Austin, which signed a 20-year lease with the city for $1 per month.
Blah, blah, blah.
For council to find a cleverly lawyered way to technically comply with the letter of the law, while gutting its spirit, was completely predictable. That they did so is a textbook illustration of why that bill was always a waste of time. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a dullard, a liar, or a twit.
Imagine what could have happened if the lege had taken advantage of the opportunity to pass bills that actually did something.
(But send money....)
Bottom Line: Council's action are awful. Duh. They're also completely predictable considering the incentives the lege created. Spare us the phony outrage.
"God sets the solitary in families; He brings out those who are bound into prosperity; But the rebellious dwell in a dry land." Psalm 68:6
Apparently, there was some sort of "housing summit" yesterday. As part of the festivities, Council members Casar, Garza, and Renteria introduced their so-called "housing justice" agenda. Based on the first item alone, the entire initiative is doomed to (very expensive) failure:
Renter protections that require developers to pay the relocation costs of tenants who are displaced if the property they live on is redeveloped;
Forcing developers to "pay the relocation costs of tenants" is a sure-fire way to torpedo new construction. As developers evaluate their return on investment, forcing them to absorb relocation costs for dozens or hundreds of people per project, they will naturally engage in far fewer projects. That means we're stuck with our current housing stock for the forseeable future. It's just common sense.
Then there's the fact that the terms aren't even defined. Specifically, how do you define "relocation costs"?!? How do you define "displacement"?!?
As for the rest of the "plan," it's an unworkable hot mess of subsidies for some and tax increases for others. The politically privileged would get multimillion dollar city hall contracts. The rest of us pay for it.
Then there's the fact that the politically directed allocation of housing createsmulti-year waiting lists. Vulnerable citizens would be forced to pay unnecessarily high market rates for several years before they have a realistic opportunity for a subsidized unit. Either that or they'd leave town entirely.
Bottom Line: Multimillion dollar city hall contracts for some. Higher tax bills for everyone else. What's not to love?!?
"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, But a just weight is His delight." Proverbs 11:1
We attended yesterday's council discussion of the Merck 'incentive' package. The discussion was about what you'd expect and it passed on a 7-3-1 vote. The only (modest) surprise was that Greg Casar and Delia Garza joined Ellen Troxclair in voting no.
The supports made all the same claims of "high paying jobs" and "innovation" that supporters of these sorts of projects always make...but, of course, those sorts of claims never pan out.
"I wish that I could come here cheer-leading this deal the way everyone else who seems to be testifying on it is, but I don't think there's any way to describe this deal as anything short of 'disgraceful.'
"Let me give you one number that sums up everything you need to know about this deal: $171 BILLION; that is Merck's current market cap."
"As a point of comparison, I looked it up this morning, that is the equivalent of the GDP of New Zealand...and this is who we're going to give a tax break to [sic]?!?"
"An innovation zone at the Dell Medical school sounds like a lovely idea, and I think some good things can come of it, but I also think that with a market cap of $171 billion Merck can pay for it themselves."
"Think about the homeowners, think about the person trying to start a business in their living room, think about the person selling stuff on Etsy...why should that person, barely making ends meet, have to subsidize a development that's gonna happen either way for a company that is currently worth $171 billion?!?"
The job claims of these sorts of projects never materialize.
"If we are going to go ahead and pass this deal, I really don't want to hear anyone on this council ever again complain that we may be looking at a budget cut for something in the future."
Like we said, Troxclair was joined by Garza and Casar in voting no. Garza argued that other companies are already doing the things Merck claims it will do. Troxclair eloquently explained the difference between special interest 'incentives' and meaningful relief for taxpayers.
But the most interesting explanation of a no vote, by far, came from Casar. During his vote explanation, Casar publicly let the cat out of the bag that council is only doing this to grease the skids for a much bigger incentive package from the Enterprise fund that the Governor's office is preparing to announce. We'd been hearing that for a week, but couldn't report it without burning sources. Casar spoke accurately about the history of corruption in Enterprise fund activities. Casar said he couldn't "push forward" any deal involving the Enterprise fund. We don't say this often, but we commend council member Casar and thank him for his vote.
[Note: Once Abbott's part of the deal is publicly announced, we're going to have a longer post about what this whole sordid episode teaches about how Texas politics really works.]
But, long story short, the Austin City Council, the Governor's office, and the Governor's U.T. cronies are getting together to give a massive tax incentive to a company whose market cap is the equivalent of the GDP of New Zealand.
Bottom Line: It just is what it is, but what it is is grotesque.
"Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminished, But he who gathers by labor will increase." Proverbs 13:11
[Author's Note: The Statesman has a cynical, though plausible, analysis of the politics here.]
In what can only be described as a crying shame, on Thursday a 6 to 5 majority on the Austin City Council voted to "indefinitely postpone" council member Ellen Troxclair's proposed affordability action plan. The vote doesn't kill the action outright (why would they have the guts to do that?!?), but it does take the planning process back to square one. That being said, absent a public backlash, it's hard to see how this returns in anything resembling its current form.
The plan, in which Troxclair was joined by council members Flannigan, Houston, Kitchen, and Mayor Adler, had at least twenty components. We'll include a PDF of the full proposal below this write up, but suffice to say that it reflected individual priorities voiced over the years by each of the five co-sponsors. From our perspective, tangible metrics for aggressive housing construction, simplification of permitting, biennial performance reviews for all city departments (how are they not doing this already?!?), creation of a "no tax increase" option for council during budget season, creation of a similar "no rate or fee increase" option for city utilities, ensuring projects from the 2016 transportation bond are completed on time and on budget, and a fair regulatory environment for mobility service providers (ie. starting with, but not limited to, Uber and Lyft) packed the biggest punch. As a team effort from five individual council members it wasn't perfect, and there were a few things in there that we're not crazy about, but it was nevertheless a significant step forward.
The initiative was supported by a diverse array of community partners, including the Independent Business Alliance, the NAACP, the Austin Tech Council, the Hispanic Contractors association, the Real Estate council, and Goodwill industries (yes, THAT Goodwill). Not that we're always crazy about their priorities, but even the Austin Chamber of Commerce supported this approach. When are the Independent Business Alliance and the NAACP ever on the same side of anything?!?
We didn't keep a tally during public testimony, but our informal guess is that it ran 2 to 1 in favor. Space limitations make it impossible to catalog everything, but a few moments stood out. The CEO of Kerby Lane cafe discussed how it's becoming prohibitively difficult to open restaurants in Austin because the majority of employees can only afford to live in (*shudder*) Williamson county. The representative from Goodwill pointed out that, even if we don't agree on all the specifics, getting this diverse of a coalition to support a measure was significant in and of itself. Personally, we were struck by a slide from a representative of the real estate industry that showed house prices have nearly tripled in the past decade. From the opponents, we were struck by a gentleman named Gus Pena who protested that the plan didn't do enough for the homeless while overlooking that it would produce significantly more housing.
During dais discussion, Council member Garza passed the buck to Austin ISD and the state over robin hood; she's not exactly wrong, but her point is irrelevant as long as the city refuses to take care of business in its' own area of jurisdiction. Pio Renteria offered hyperbole about laying off police officers while similarly refusing to accept the city's share of responsibility. Greg Casar at least had the courage of his convictions to advocate for a housing bond and "workforce development programs" for "low and moderate wage workers." On the one hand, we appreciate Council member Casar advocating an alternative policy; on the other hand, we've taken this approach for decades, and
the results seem meager. If the last billion dollars didn't accomplish your goal, and if the billion before that didn't accomplish your goal (to say nothing of all of the untold previous billions going back to the 1930's)...why is the next billion is going to be different?!? Furthermore, the city has had record revenues at its disposal every year of the 10-1 council and the idea that widespread budget cuts are coming anytime soon seems...far fetched. In a city where the median income is less than $33,000 and the median city employee makes around $60,000 lightening the burden on the people paying the bills doesn't seem unreasonable.
[Note: You can read a press release from the council members who opposed the plan here.]
But (no surprise here) the cake was taken by Kathie Tovo. Tovo spoke about all of the allegedly wonderful work council has done on affordability since she campaigned on the issue in her first (2011) campaign. Unfortunately, by whatever metric you choose (housing costs, property taxes, utility rates) affordability has gotten worse over the past six years. Perhaps the time has come to try a new approach?!? To be honest, Tovo sounded a lot like UT Football fans making excuses for Charlie Strong in that she just "needed more time." Well, similarly to Charlie Strong, there comes a time when you have to stop grading on intentions and start grading on outcomes. What did Einstein say about trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?!?
Bottom Line: Any serious attempt to translate "affordability" from a vague buzzword into tangible relief requires addressing housing costs, city spending/taxes, and utility rates/fees. Thursday's proposal, while far from perfect, would have represented a significant step forward on all three. Unfortunately, the council majority chose to protect privileged bureaucrats at the expense of struggling renters, local businesses, and homeowners. Total missed opportunity. It's a damn shame....
Austin residents got their first look at the person who will be the city’s first-ever Chief Equity Officer during a town hall event Thursday night at the Palmer Events Center.
The chief equity officer, a position newly created by the City Council, will head an office focused on identifying gaps and disparities in services and programs in the city, as well as help create ways for city departments to address those needs. The position will also help community groups work with the city to ensure equal access to city programs and services.
At the event attended by about 100 people, including Council Members Delia Garza and Kathie Tovo, the three finalists for the position were given 10 minutes to make opening remarks to the audience and then answered questions for 15 minutes. The city initially announced four finalists for the position, but one candidate, Parisa Fatehi-Weeks, withdrew her application before the town hall, the city said.
The three finalists are: Veronica Briseño Lara, director of the small minority business resources department at the City of Austin; Brion Oaks, vice president of health equity at the Southwest Affiliate of the American Heart Association; and Kazique Prince, a senior policy advisor and education coordinator for Mayor Steve Adler.
It gets better:
The event was the first time the community at large heard from the candidates, though the consulting group that helped the city with recruiting for the position had sought out community input during earlier stages in the search.
[Author's Note: Emphasis added.]
We don't remember the source, but we vaguely recall hearing scuttlebutt that the fix is in and that Adler's guy is going to get the position. That would render this entire 'search process' an expensive smokescreen. Obviously, that would be consistent with Adler's m.o.
Equally obvious: Whatever disparities may or may not exist in Austin's municipal government won't be solved by adding another layer of bureaucracy at a six figure annual salary.
“For My people are foolish, They have not known Me. They are silly children, And they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge.” Jeremiah 4:22
It's a shame it had to work this way, but we suppose it isn't a surprise:
Divided Austin City Council puts $720 million bond on November ballot
Austin voters, who already had some weighty decisions to make Nov. 8, will now have a $720 million question to answer as well.
An unexpectedly divided Austin City Council gave final approval Thursday to Mayor Steve Adler’s “go big” transportation bond proposition, a mixture of improvements to major city arterial streets; bikeway, sidewalk, trail and transit expansions citywide; and suburban highway projects. What had been an 11-0 preliminary vote a week ago fell to 7-1-3 Thursday, with some council members raising concerns about the ballot language, tax impact and even the rushed process that led to the huge bond proposition.
“I am dismayed that a $720 million bond that is on the November ballot is a product of the way things have always been done,” said Council Member Ora Houston, who represents District 1 in East Austin, explaining her “no” vote. “I feel like I’ve been bullied.”
Council Members Delia Garza, Ellen Troxclair and Don Zimmerman, for various reasons, abstained.
If Austin voters OK the all-or-nothing package, which is five times larger than any transportation bond ever approved in the city, the city property tax by about 2020 would increase by around $56 a year on a $250,000 home.
The council, in giving third-reading approval to an ordinance calling the bond election, also agreed on the specific and lengthy ballot language. Voters will see a single sentence, about 150 words long, that names nine major roads that would be reworked to include alternative transportation modes. The ballot will also name highways that would be expanded and city streets designated for repairs.
That language, however, will not include a specific estimate of what the property tax effect will be for an average home owner. The council last week, on a preliminary 6-5 vote, had said it wanted such wording.
But after an executive session Thursday morning, the council emerged and voted 7-4 against including that provision on the ballot, doing so on the advice of the city attorney. Zimmerman, Troxclair, Garza and Houston were in the minority on that vote.
Assistant City Attorney Leela Fireside in last week’s open session had told the council that if the tax impact of the bond borrowing over time approached what appears on the ballot, that could limit spending under the bond to some amount lower than $720 million. She recommended against including such language.
That advice continued in Thursday’s closed session, an incensed Zimmerman said. He left the backstage meeting early.
“It’s not legal advice, it’s lobbying,” Zimmerman said. “There’s a difference. I’m sick of it. They want to give the city the unlimited power to tax.”
The real shame here is that some components of this package have merit. But they've been shoved into an enormous, complicated amalgamation. And if you have any faith in the city of Austin's ability to execute this in anything remotely resembling a competent or timely manner, we have mineral rights in South Texas we'd love to sell you.
If Adler were serious about addressing mobility, he could have done two things over the summer:
Break the bundled proposal into its component parts, giving voters several smaller/ simpler propositions from which to choose.
Delivering a credible and detailed plan for how the city would execute this plan if the voters say yes.
Unfortunately, Adler did neither of these things.
[Sidenote: Before anyone asks, that was the exact message we delivered council (twice) back in June.]
And that's before we review the actual ballot language; if that's not legally binding, that's a whole separate can of worms.
Kudos to Zimmerman, Troxclair, Houston, and Garza for not walking this plank; it doesn't take a genius to see a coalition.
Bottom Line: Bond packages are usually unanimous. For Adler to lose four votes on the dais is pathetic. Then again, considering the aloof presumption with which Adler has conducted himself throughout this process, it isn't surprising.
"There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the Lord’s counsel—that will stand." Proverbs 19:21
[Author's Note: The full agenda for the meeting can be viewed here.]
We attended a substantial chuck of yesterday's uber-marathon Council meeting (14 hours and counting when we left at midnight; ultimately 16 hours). Our thoughts are in the order events occurred. For those only interested in the transportation bond, that discussion is at the end:
Item 79: They actually approved approximately $275k per year to build 2 luxury public bathrooms on street corners downtown. This despite the fact that every downtown hotel already has bathrooms that any member of the public can use as long as they don't make a scene while doing so. Kathie Tovo justified this project on the grounds that the homeless would relieve themselves on the street if the city didn't provide facilities. Passed 8-2-1 with Zimmerman and Troxclair voting Nay and Gallo abstaining. We can't prove it at this point, but we strongly suspect someone's getting paid.
In addition, during later public testimony over the bond package, a female firefigher testified that there are numerous fire stations around Austin that don't even have male and female bathrooms despite the fact that a previous council moved seventeen years ago to provide them; for council to move forward with taxpayer funded luxury bathrooms at a time when city owned firestations have been waiting almost two decades for sufficient facilities seems...odd.
Item 56: The ball appears to be slowly moving forward on APD's plan to buy license plate readers to scan citizens' vehicles. We're not a lawyer, and we haven't reviewed the relevant jurisprudence, but this strikes us as one of the most blatant violations of the fourth amendment we've ever seen. Making matters worse, the vendor will be allowed to keep data from license plate scans as long as it "has commercial value." So it's both unconstitutional and a special interest boondoggle. In addition, one of the members of the public who testified in opposition raised concerns over whether such a proposal would turn APD into "mobile debt collectors" for things like traffic tickets. Thankfully, they at least dropped the civil asset forfeiture component. Council voted 6-5 (Zimmerman, Troxclair, Casar, Houston, Garza, and Kitchen voting AYE) in favor of Zimmerman's amendment to restrict APD from "executing" the contract and merely allow them to negotiate it. This will be back in front of council in August.
Items 57/58: Unfortunately, council went ahead with their poorly conceived APD body camera policy and contract. First things first, between the cameras and iphones being purchased to play the footage, we're talking about $17 MILLION. Council went forward with using Taser (yes, THAT Taser) for the cameras at a cost of $12 million despite the fact that another vendor (Utility) was offering a technically superior product at a fraction of the price (Author's Note: We apologize, but we didn't write down the number of their asking price).
Leslie Pool initially moved to postpone consideration of the contract to August, but she later pulled the motion after asking questions of APD. Kathie Tovo called now a "time for action" following a "deliberative" process. Keep in mind, they tried to ambush us with this contract 6 weeks ago.
More troubling is the incomplete policy council pushed forward related to body camera footage. While Kathy Mitchell of the Texas Criminal Justice coalition cited "incremental progress" in terms of allowing public greater access to body camera footage, there are still numerous hurdles to public access. A representative from the Electronic Frontier Foundation urged caution because whatever policy adopted by council would subsequently become subject to typical governmental inertia; specifically, "we should be very careful about a cobbled together system." Everybody supports police bodycameras, but there's no reason council couldn't have taken another month or two to get the policy right. Council will rue this day whenever the inevitable dispute between an officer and a citizen provokes outrage that this policy proves insufficient to quell.
Item 57 ($12 million for body cameras) passed 9-1-1 (Zimmerman voting Nay, Houston abstaining); Item 58 ($5 million for iphones) 7-3-1 (Zimmerman, Houston, and Pool voting Nay; Troxclair abstaining).
"Special Called Meeting" -- Council also considered Ellen Troxclair's proposal to expand the city of Austin's homestead exemption to 14% from the current 6%. For obscure legal reasons, this had to be considered as part of a "special called meeting" instead the regular agenda. Council watered Troxclair's proposed 8% expansion (to 14%) all the way down to 2% (to 8%). We had actually left the meeting at this point so we missed the discussion, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out why the current council would water down a tax relief package.
Item 83: This was the discussion of the Transportation bond. We left following public testimony, so we didn't see much of the discussion between council members. Something eventually passed 8-3, but we aren't familiar with the details and will refrain from commenting further until we digest said details.
That being said, we are going to re-iterate the concern we expressed in our public testimony and in our open letter to the mayor: Does the city bureaucracy have the capability to execute this plan in anything resembling a competent or timely manner?!? $720 million is a lot of money, and this package has a lot of moving parts. As the female firefighter testified, the city still hasn't been able to produce male and female bathrooms in fire-stations despite having promised to do so seventeen years ago. If they can't deliver bathrooms, are they really capable of successfully executing a major transportation project?!?
[Author's Note: The firefigher's testimony is at the 17:35 mark; our testimony is at 23:30]
"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart." Galatians 6:9
[Author's Note: The Austin Monitor has more here.]
Yesterday's council mobility committee hearing about a potential November transportation bond...was substantially less terrible than it could have been. We suppose one benefit of low expectations is that they're not impossible to exceed. We came into the hearing expecting to have guns blazing and to be a solid "Hell NO"; we are pleased to report that, at least for now, that attitude is premature.
[Note: Our testimony can be found at the 68:15 mark.]
We encouraged council to "think small" and to use this process "to build trust." It doesn't take a genus to realize that, between the 2014 rail bond and the recent Prop. 1 debacle, relations between council and the citizenry are (to put it mildly) frayed. We believe a small proposal can allow tangible progress to be made in some areas while simultaneously lowering the temperature in the room as we discuss longer term solutions. We also support breaking any potential bond package into its component parts, giving voters a diverse mosaic of a la carte options and allowing them to direct council. We were pleasantly surprised that several other speakers, who might not share our philosophical outlook, also encouraged Council to break any potential bond package into it's component parts. We fear a big, clunky, bond package with lots of moving parts will be as divisive and noxious as the two previous referenda mentioned above. If there were ever a time for cautious incrementalism over "boldness," a November 2016 transportation bond is it.
As to substance, we remain intrigued (though far from sold) by Mayor Adler's proposal to streamline major city corridors. Between the bus 'queue jumps', the left turn 'bays', and the traffic signal timing improvements there could be a lot of low hanging fruit that could substantially improve mobility on major city streets without busting the budget. Done properly, streamlining major city corridors could encapsulate the Pareto principle. That being said, we have little faith in the ability of the city's transportation department to implement the corridor proposal in anything resembling a competent or timely manner. Depending on the details, we are also open to discussing a modestly sized package that could begin to address Austin's woefully inadequate sidewalks. We are open to a modest amount of highway expansion, though we doubt there's time to do anything effective in time for November. In many ways, highways are similar to rail in that right now probably isn't the time to do something that divisive.
The crowd that testified ran the gamut. Many supported the corridor plan. Some supported rail. Some supported bike paths. Sidewalks seemed to be almost universally popular. Listening to the diverse array of preferences solidified our conviction that any transportation package should be broken into its component parts and presented to voters a la carte. One personal note: We were astonished by the number of people who used their opportunity to testify to espouse vague gobbledygook yet were unable to ask council "we would like you to do x, y, or z" regardless of whatever x, y, or z might have been.
Council member Garza probably captured the sentiment in the room best when she voiced her concerns about "bond fatigue" and wondered whether "it's too soon" for another major transportation initiative. The committee voted to move forward a placeholder proposal to enable discussion at the full council. In the event a bond proposition does move forward, we will know the details by August; we (really, really, really) hope it doesn't come to this but, if necessary, that's more than enough time to mount an opposition campaign.
Bottom Line: Yesterday's hearing epitomized the best of what 10-1 is supposed to be. The process was open, inclusive, and fair and we commend Council member Kitchen (*) for diligently allowing everyone to express their views without it turning into a logistical cluster[you-know-what]. Time will tell....
For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana, brought no small profit to the craftsmen. He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: “Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worship.” Acts 19:24-27
Yesterday, the local chapter of the League of Women voters held a forum on the upcoming Prop. 1 initiative (ie. the Uber/Lyft referendum). It was an informative event that cleared up our last few unresolved questions. Council member Ellen Troxclair (D8 - Southwest Austin) and a representative from Ridesharing Works for Austin spoke in favor of Prop. 1, while current and former council members Delia Garza (D2 - Dove Springs) and Laura Morrison spoke against.
Garza and Morrison attempted to re-frame the debate into whether or not 'corporations' should be 'allowed to write their own regulations.' This sleight of hand ignores that this debate only exists because of regulations the taxi cartel put into place decades ago. Morrison shrieked about whether the council or corporations would run the city. Garza bragged about the amount of 'public input' that went into the ordinance. Of course, she neglected to mention that the overwhelming majority of said 'public input' opposed council's actions.
Troxclair correctly pointed out that Uber and Lyft's political involvement is defensive in nature, and that they only got involved in the political process after they were attacked by the council majority. On the subject of public interest, 65,000 people signed the petition calling for this vote. If council had listened to the public, this election wouldn't be necessary.
As to the alleged public safety component of this discussion, Troxclair noted that "fingerprinting does not make you safer." If anything, fingerprinting can create a false sense of security. Garza and Morrison, meanwhile, claimed the fingerprinting requirement came from APD and DPS, who recommended them as 'best practices.' Of course, as anyone who has followed government for more than five minutes can attest, the phrase 'best practices' is a meaningless bureaucratic platitude. Garza and Morrison also made a mountain out of the molehill that Uber maintains partial operations in a couple of cities that have fingerprinting requirements (while neglecting to mention that Lyft doesn't operate in any of those cities).
It was left to Troxclair to explain that in Houston, where Uber maintains partial operations despite fingerprint requirements, there are fewer than half as many drivers as Austin despite Houston both covering a larger geographic area and having a larger population. Naturally, the result is higher fares and longer wait times for consumers, but fewer competitors for the taxi cartel. But don't you DARE say this discussion is really about economic protectionism....
Troxclair made one point we wish she would have elaborated further upon. During her opening statement, Troxclair pointed out that the regulations under consideration wouldn't "level the playing field" between taxis and TNCs. A level playing field would require eliminating caps on the number of drivers. Of course, the taxi cartel doesn't want that. As Troxclair noted, there are corporate interests on both sides of this discussion.
This election came about because the council majority has repeatedly refused to listen to the public. We were happy with the TNC regulations that existed prior to December 2015, and we made that very clear last fall. The council majority didn't listen. When the council majority ignored the public, Uber and Lyft helped spearhead a DEFENSIVE political effort with which at least 65,000 Austinites agreed. Then the council majority refused to listen to those 65,000 Austinites a second time and instead chose to trigger this election. The regulations in question have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with economic protectionism. Kudos to Ellen Troxclair for her cogent explanation of these issues at yesterday's forum.
