#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.

Zimmerman's lawsuit is potentially VERY far reaching

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

By now, we assume you've heard about Don Zimmerman's latest lawsuit against the City of Austin:

On Wednesday, Don Zimmerman, a former Austin City Council member and current candidate for Texas House District 47, filed a lawsuit against the city of Austin over its budget amendment that provides $150,000 to assist women seeking abortions with logistical costs such as transportation.

The funds are intended by proponents of the bill to go to pro-choice organizations such as Fund Texas Choice and The Bridge Collective, which help women get abortions.

The lawsuit was filed the day after the city council approved the new budget and abortion amendment.

There's a lot that could be said about Zim's lawsuit, but we found the following section most interesting:

The city's expenditures, however, violate another Texas statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who "furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purposes intended." 2A Texas Penal Code Article 1192, at 433 (1961).

Bottom Line: It doesn't take a genius to see the implications there.

-------

Zim's full lawsuit:

Zimmerman v. City of Austin... by The Texan on Scribd

#atxcouncil adopts (yet ANOTHER) Record-Setting Budget; Flannigan voting Aye....

"But the former governors who were before me laid burdens on the people, and took from them bread and wine, besides forty shekels of silver. Yes, even their servants bore rule over the people, but I did not do so, because of the fear of God."
Nehemiah 5:15

The not surprising part:

The Austin City Council approved a $4.1 billion budget for the upcoming fiscal year, with more money going toward homelessness outreach and an increase in the minimum wage for city employees.

Council members on Tuesday voted to lower the rate at which Austin taxes homeowners, dropping it from 44.48 cents to 44.03 cents per $100. But because property taxes are calculated on the value of a home and that number continues to rise for most people, the owner of a median-priced home will see a property tax increase of roughly $67.

....

The tax rate is higher than the rate City Manager Spencer Cronk proposed last month. Council members raised the rate in order to pull in an additional $2 million to fund services.

With this council, with the votes available on this dais, this was expected.

The surprising part:

The vote was 10-1, with Council Member Ellen Troxclair voting against it.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

In other words: Jimmy Flannigan voted AYE.

This is a dangerous move for Flannigan.  Jimmy Flannigan has carefully cultivated an image as fiscal moderate.  It allowed him to campaign in 2016 as a kinder, gentler version of Don Zimmerman.  With every record setting budget and tax increase that Jimmy Flannigan supports, his alleged fiscal moderation narrative unravels.

And that's before you get to the FACT that Jimmy Flannigan supported the "sick leave" entitlement (*) and the soccer stadium.

A pattern is emerging.

Bottom Line: With all due respect to District 6, Don Zimmerman told you so....

-------

[ * - In fairness to Flannigan, his vote for the "sick leave" entitlement might have been a blessing in disguise.  The deal that was cut to gain his support helped create the rushed process that doesn't comply with state law.  Flannigan's last minute switch strengthened the legal case.]

#TROXROX: Austin Chronicle throws tantrum after Troxclair qualifies for "Best of Austin"

"rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer;"
Romans 12:12

[Note: For all Austin-resident readers who click forward and vote in the Chronicle Awards, we request that in addition to voting for Troxclair for "Best City Official,"  you also vote for Caleb Pritchard for "Best non-Chronicle journalist" and Austin Monitor for "Best non-Chronicle publication."]

Dat's gotta sting.

Check out who made the finals of the Austin Chronicle's annual "Best of Austin" awards:

Readers are encouraged to vote for Troxclair (and Caleb and the Austin Monitor) here. [Note: Austin residents only]

On that news, we're not surprised by the Chronicle's petulant and snotty write up of Troxclair's TPPF speech last week:

Though personal responsibility and resiliency are hallmarks of TPPF's brand, and Troxclair herself said several times that she wanted to be positive, it appeared the council member couldn't help herself: With its taxes, bag bans, composting, and burdensome water restrictions, Austin has quickly become even more of a liberal hellscape than it had been in years past. "Until last year you weren't even allowed to wash your own car in your own driveway," she lamented. "I mean, what is more American than spending a Saturday afternoon washing your own car in your own driveway?"

But it gets worse. Council meetings are too frequent and too long, she said. The makeup of Council doesn't match the overall political views of the city at-large, which she described as roughly 30% Republican (in accordance with 2016 voting totals). Since the last election, when Troxclair lost the comradery of Don Zimmer­man and Sheri Gallo, she can no longer get an easy second on her motions. Zimmerman, in the audience for Troxclair's speech, had spent the hour before her keynote regaling the foundation's crowd with tales of his bureaucrat-busting days.

Now that Zimmerman and Gallo are gone, Council is an even less friendly place for Trox­clair. "A lot of times I feel like I'm going to Council to bang my head against a wall," she admitted. "I get a lot of headaches." But the CM didn't hint at any newfound strategy moving forward. And she defended her decision to testify at the Capitol earlier this year against several of the city's positions, telling an appreciative crowd, "I'm sorry, I did not remember giving up my right to free speech when I ran for office."

And yes, we are aware of the irony that we're doing more to promote Ellen's candidacy this year than we did to promote our own when we were nominated last year.

Read the full chronicle piece on the speech here, read our write-up of the speech here, VOTE FOR ELLEN (and Caleb and the Monitor) here.

Bottom Line: Austin Chronicle...u mad bro?!?

Astonishingly inept Austin ISD bond draws remarkably diverse opposition coalition

"You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning."
Leviticus 19:13

[Note: There was a lot of ambient noise in the background and the sound wasn't amplified on site, so the audio quality on the videos we shot turned out terribly.  Unfortunately, because we were filming, we didn't take notes during the press conference.  We've included the videos below, but hope readers will cut us some slack over the fact that we're writing up today's events from memory without the aid of notes or good video.]

It takes a special act of chutzpah to push a tax hike so big that you piss off every Republican in town, while structuring said tax increase so that the burden falls disproportionately on the Black and Hispanic communities in East Austin to subsidize affluent white people on the west side of town, which pisses off half the Democrats; with this current bond, somehow Austin ISD somehow accomplishes that feat.

This afternoon, a broad trans-partisan coalition of grassroots Austinites held a press conference in East Austin to highlight a number of flaws with the current Austin ISD bond proposal.  Objections ranged from the sheer size of the package, to the deceptive marketing of a tax increase that could easily surpass $600/year for median Austinites, to the fact that the district is holding East Austin schools hostage to the bond while structuring the bond so most of it's 'benefits' are seen elsewhere.

Obviously, this website has been opposed to the bond ever since we learned of it's magnitude (combined with the fact that they've never completed the process of selling off other real estate holdings they assured us they would complete before attempting another bond).  It's just a gigantic ask when their recent record of financial stewardship doesn't inspire confidence.  What have they done with the maintenance budget they already have?!?

Taxpayer advocate John Goldstone explained how the district is using deceptive language to minimize the tax impact.  The district is claiming the bond won't change the tax rate.  But you don't pay a tax rate, you pay a tax bill.  And more debt service means higher taxes.  In this case, Goldstone estimates the tax hike at over $600 per year (we will deflect all questions over how he came up with that number to Goldstone himself).

A number of other community advocates, including former #atxcouncil candidate Pete Salazar (ran against Greg Casar in 2014), LULAC head Gavino Fernandez, and Grey Panthers head Richard Franklin, discussed how the bond places a disproportionately large tax burden on the black and Hispanic communities on the East side to disproportionately benefit affluent white folks in the West side.  To be honest, we hadn't thought about that aspect prior to hearing it today.  But it's completely true.

And that's what's interesting: We've been fighting poorly conceived bonds for several years in Austin.  And it seems like there's more opposition on "the left" this time than we've seen previously (or that they're at least more engaged).  And the district has no one to blame but itself and its own arrogance.

Bottom Line: Early voting begins in two weeks; Election day is November 7.

-------

Is Austin ISD Bullying Engineers to invent support for bond?!?

"They are deeply corrupted,
As in the days of Gibeah.
He will remember their iniquity;
He will punish their sins."
Hosea 9:9

Don Zimmerman asks some fantastic questions:



Highlights:

• Austin ISD exaggerating problems 

• Decision to close T.A. Brown was "a political move designed to build support for a bond campaign."

• "I think it was political theater and I don't appreciate it."

• "The district was putting pressure on engineers to exaggerate their interpretation of the studies."

• Contractor issues denial.

• Parents of students at the school agree with Zimmerman.

• Austin ISD declines to comment.

Debriefing #ATXCouncil's "Satanic Invocation"....

Wicked Rulers and Prophets
And I said:

“Hear now, O heads of Jacob,

And you rulers of the house of Israel:

Is it not for you to know justice?

You who hate good and love evil;

Who strip the skin from My people,

And the flesh from their bones;

Who also eat the flesh of My people,

Flay their skin from them,

Break their bones,

And chop them in pieces

Like meat for the pot,

Like flesh in the caldron.”

Then they will cry to the Lord,

But He will not hear them;

He will even hide His face from them at that time,

Because they have been evil in their deeds.

Micah 3:1-4

We'll start this post with a confession: This story is actually a month old, but we have refrained from commenting in this space because there were certain sentiments we wanted first to express privately.

In late November, a representative of the satanic 'temple' signed up to perform the invocation at a meeting of the Austin City Council.  In fairness to council, the rules as they existed at the time allows basically anyone to sign up.  Thankfully, by the Grace of God, logistics intervened and the 'invocation' has been indefinitely postponed.

We addressed Council on this topic two weeks ago:

:

Again, to be fair, this has yet to happen.

Following this incident, Don Zimmerman proposed a new ordinance that would require whomever says the invocation to be invited by a specific council member.  We fully support Zimmerman's proposal, which would establish clear lines of both spiritual and political accountability.  Unfortunately, Zimmerman is leaving the dais in two weeks.

Ellen Troxclair also weighed in:



Also good, but Troxclair is going to be outvoted 10-1 next year.

But, again, this hasn't happened yet...which opens another possibility: Perhaps the process of indefinite bureaucratic delay can finally be used for something good.

Bottom Line: The Council majority has had their warning. We can't stop anything. It will be interesting to see what they do...

2016 Austin/Travis County November Candidate Endorsements

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

[Author's Note: For races where we don't offer endorsements, our longstanding rule of thumb in local elections is to take the Austin Chronicle's endorsements and  vote AGAINST whoever they endorse.]

Austin City Council:

District 6: Don Zimmerman (Far Northwest Austin)

In two years in office, despite being in the distinct minority, Don Zimmerman has successfully stopped a hostile annexation, fought multiple municipal level attacks on the first amendment, and delivered traffic congestion solutions for a fraction of what the city bureaucracy proposed.

He's also one of only two council members to have voted against the ride-sharing and short-term rental regulations that have caused so much discord; if the council majority had listened to Don Zimmerman, most of the unpleasantness of the past year could have been avoided.

Finally, Don Zimmerman gives a voice at city hall to those who have been abused by the city bureaucracy (and, let's not kid ourselves, Don Zimmerman is the only reason Marc Ott left town).

District 7: Natalie Gauldin (North Central Austin; Burnet Rd./Parmer Ln. corridors)

In a city that needs to build 150,000 units of new housing over the next decade, Natalie Gauldin is a tenacious advocate for new housing supply.  She has the slings and arrows to prove it.  Just last week, her political opponents launched an over the top smear website against her (Author's Note: Austin Transit Blog has a through rebuke of the allegations here.)

Natalie is also a vote to repeal the ridesharing and STR regulations; obviously, the incumbent voted for both.

On taxation, we've had more productive discussions with Natalie than we've ever had with the incumbent; we don't expect to agree with her on every single issue, but she's light years better than the incumbent.

Distict 10: Rob Walker (West Austin)

This is a last minute addition, and a bit of a longshot, but we met Rob Walker over the weekend and liked what we heard.

Rob is the only viable candidate in this race to oppose the Mayor's "corridor" bond and he supports repealing the ride-sharing regulations.

Rob remains a work in progress on housing issues, but there are no perfect candidates in this race and Rob Walker offers, by far, the best issue mix of any of them.

AGAINST: Prop 1 "Mobility Bond" (aka. Adler's "Corridor" Bond)

This thing costs far too much to deliver far too little.  The city transportation department simply isn't capable of pulling off this complex of a project in anything remotely resembling a competent or timely manner.  And the process by which the bond package was developed was terminally shady.

And that's before you get into the degree to which this package is, in reality, a corrupt "redevelopment" scheme.

Read our archive about this package here.

Austin ISD Trustees:

No endorsements.  They all look terrible.  See the note about the Austin Chronicle above.

Austin Community College Trustees:

Place 9: Jeremy Story

An entrepreneur and philanthropist, Jeremy Story has built successful enterprises in both the for and non-profit sectors.

We heard Jeremy outline his pro-student, pro-taxpayer agenda for ACC a couple weeks ago.  Suffice to say, an organization that currently sees only 4% of its students move on to four year colleges has considerable room for improvement.  He also supports streamlining the process by which student may obtain certifications in skilled trades.

On the pro-taxpayer side, Jeremy Story is the only candidate running for the ACC board (IN ANY PLACE) who supports a moratorium on tax hikes.  This is important because if there's a single member of the board raising heck during the budget process, that will attract the attention of the media.  Case in point: Don Zimmerman.

Other places: No endorsements, but....

We haven't done our own homework, but we've heard reasonably positive things about Douglas Gibbons in place 6 and Michael Lewis in place 4 from ACC sources.

Travis County Races:

District Attorney: Maura Phelan

Maura Phelan has over 20 years of criminal law experience, her opponent last practiced criminal law in the 1980's; Maura Phelan is the only candidate for District Attorney who has the basic qualifications for the office.

Beyond qualifications, Maura Phelan wants to reduce the backlog of mental health cases that keep vulnerable citizens in jail by default.  Currently, the Travis County DA only has one attorney overseeing 10,000 mental health cases.  This is abhorrent.

Finally, Maura Phelan will end the disgraceful criminalization of political differences which the Travis County DA's office has become notorious over the past few decades.

Sheriff: Joe Martinez

Joe Martinez is the only thing standing between us and a nightmarish outbreak of politicized identity politics in the Travis County Sheriff's office.

Similar to Maura Phelan, Martinez also wants to focus on mental health to keep these vulnerable citizens away from violent criminals.

Then, of course, there's that whole second amendment thing.





Commissioner's Court, Precinct 3: Gerald Daugherty

We supported his opponent in the primary, and some of our misgivings remain, but we have no doubt that Gerald will be light years better than whatever hack the D's are running against him.

And it doesn't hurt that he's produced the best campaign commercial of this entire election cycle.

State House of Representatives:

District 46 (East Austin/Manor/Pflugerville):  Gabriel Nila

Gabriel has been doing the Lord's work against dramatic odds in this longest of longshot districts.

He has been aided in this quest by running against a multi-decade incumbent who can't seem to stop tripping over her own corruption.  This past weekend, we learned about another sweetheart contract she had obtained for herself and her family from Austin ISD.  Now she says she wants to retire early next year which will enable her to milk the state's retirement system one last time.

The only way to halt this shenanigan (Sidenote: Besides abolishing state pensions for legislators) is to deny the incumbent another term by voting for Gabriel Nila this November.

Bottom Line: A lot of people who vote for president aren't going to vote in anything else on the ballot.  It's what political science types call 'undervoting.'  But down ballot races are where real political power is held and they are often EXTREMELY close.

Alder's "Corridor" Bond: Opposition holds Campaign Event

"Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth."
1 Samuel 17:49

South Lamar Blvd. -- This afternoon Ashley Schor, proprietor of Bead It at the corner of South Lamar and Oltorf, opened up her business to a rally and press conference for opponents of Mayor Adler's so-called "corridor" bond.  As a business owner on South Lamar, Schor would be sacrificed in pursuit of the Mayor's so-called "smart" corridors.  A variety of citizens, candidates, and elected officials spoke.

From our notes:

Jim Skaggs (Longtime taxpayer advocate):

• Construction can drag out for months, or even years, at a time which will directly threaten the viability of every independent business in this bond's path.

Ora Houston (#ATXCouncil, D1 -- East Austin):

• "Just because I do not support this bond does not make me a 'do nothing.' "

• This bond would make traffic worse, not better.

• We don't know the final cost.
• Author's Note: $720 million is essentially what is known in business as a W.A.G.

• Flawed process created flawed proposal.
• "Corridor" plans were developed pre 10-1.

• "Corridor" re-development threatens local businesses.

• Bond ignores district 1.

Don Zimmerman (#ATXCouncil, D6 -- Far Northwest Austin):

• City attorneys misled council behind closed doors; by excluding a provision related to tax impact on the ballot language, the city has given itself authority for unlimited taxation to repay bonds.

• City transportation department could put district 6 projects on the back burner.

• Floated 2018 proposal: Something 'less expensive' ($500 million ish) with council, instead of the city bureaucracy, directing the project.

Rob Walker (Candidate -- #ATXCouncil, 10 -- West Austin):

• We certainly need to 'do something' but we don't need to do something stupid.
• Author's Note: That will make the original problem worse.

Jerry Patterson (Austin Resident and former elected official):

• There's a difference between 'doing something' and fixing the problem.

Ashley Schor (Business Owner):

• Adler's scheme would destroy the character of the "corridors."

Bottom Line: We'd love to begin fixing traffic congestion, but step one is to halt this massive step in the wrong direction in it's tracks.

------

Zimmerman delivers low-cost traffic congestion solution

"See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil."
Ephesians 5:15-16

We've intended to comment upon this for several days, but Travis Tracker beat us to the punch:

Zimmerman arranged for not only an even distribution of Cap Metro "quarter-cent" fund dollars to each of the 10 city districts, but found a low-cost solution to using those dollars to alleviate a traffic snarl on eastbound Anderson Mill Road at Research Blvd. The original cost estimate was in the hundreds of thousands, but with a little ingenuity, Austin Transportation was able for a quarter of the cost to chisel away a few extra feet of roadway from the traffic island and paint a dedicated right-turn lane for vehicles wishing to exit Anderson Mill and turn onto the southbound 183 service road.

Read the whole thing here.

Zimmerman gives Unconstitutional Bureaucracy HECK!!!

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,"
Romans 1:18

This is great:

The outspoken conservative possibly broke city campaign rules, the commission decided Wednesday, when he failed to include the following disclaimer on a mailer he sent to voters in his Northwest Austin district: “This campaign has not agreed to comply with the contribution and expenditure limits of the Austin Fair Campaign Chapter.”

The disclaimer is required of candidates who do not agree to strict spending limits ($75,000 during the general election campaign and $50,000 in a runoff). Candidates who do agree to spending limits are rewarded with campaign money from the city’s fair campaign fund, which is funded by lobbyist registration fees.

In recent years, few candidates have taken advantage of that option; the only current Council members who signed the fair campaign contract during the last campaign were Pio Renteria and Leslie Pool. Those two, along with candidate Susana Almanza, received roughly $28,000 from the city – or a third of the $83,000 in the fair campaign fund at the time.

Zimmerman also opted not to sign the fair campaign contract. And in an ostensible attempt to express his contempt for the rule, he added a couple of extra words, along with some strategic punctuation, to the required disclaimer: “This campaign has not agreed to comply with the contribution and expenditure limits of the so-called “Fair” Campaign Chapter.”

....

In a short statement, Zimmerman vigorously rejected Morgan’s claim. He had “substantially complied” with the ordinance by including a disclaimer that included all of the key information required by the rule, he argued.

But just as important, he said, the disclaimer requirement is unconstitutional since it “compelled” him to engage in speech that he disagrees with. His first oath is to the U.S. Constitution, he said, not city ordinances.

....

As he did in hearings over two ethics complaints last year – one against Zimmerman and one against Arif Panju, Zimmerman’s appointee to the Historic Landmark Commission – Commissioner Brian Thompson barely concealed his contempt for the respondent and his defense. He criticized Zimmerman’s claim that the ordinance was unconstitutional, pointing out that the commission’s own legal counsel had said that courts had upheld similar laws throughout the country.

Read the whole thing here.

#ATXCouncil Majority Rubber Stamps Adler/Ott Budget....

"And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!"
1 Kings 12:11

At this point...it's not surprising anymore:

Approved Austin 2017 budget comes with higher tax bill, new programs

After months of debate over the 2017 Austin city budget recommended by staffers, most of the changes the City Council made to the $3.7 billion budget were incremental compromises. Increasing the homestead exemption for seniors to $82,500 instead of $85,000. Adding several hundred thousand dollars in health and human services increases instead of a few million.

Once all the details were hammered out Wednesday night, the City Council approved a budget that will charge the typical resident about $87 more in city taxes and fees next year. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

Next year’s operations include a 2 percent pay increase for city employees, to kick in during the pay period before Christmas. There’s funding for a new curbside composting program, at a cost of $4.2 million to the city and a phased-in cost of $64.80 to homeowners after five years. There’s $600,000 more for housing aimed at reducing homelessness.

The $970 million general fund also includes money to hire eight new employees to test DNA evidence for police, one facet of the rape kit backlog that prompted emotional testimony before the council two weeks ago. Austin also set aside $475,000 to help keep live music venues and $400,000 to extend healthy food options.

The new property tax rate of 44.18 cents per $100 of property valuation will be a decrease from last year’s rate of 45.89 cents. The council also voted earlier this summer to increase the homestead exemption, knocking 8 percent off the taxable value of a home, up from 6 percent. But with rising property values, most homeowners will receive higher tax bills. For the typical homeowner, that will mean a $46 increase in the annual property tax bill.

Fees in most areas of the city will also increase, including an average water cost increase of $35 for the year. But, thanks to a deal approved last month between ratepayers and Austin Energy, annual electricity costs will decrease an average of $44 for the year.

Council Members Don Zimmerman and Sheri Gallo voted against the budget, saying they couldn’t support the associated tax and fee increases. Council Member Ellen Troxclair, who recently gave birth to a daughter, didn’t attend the vote, but issued a written statement detailing her opposition.

The budget speaks for itself; nevertheless, THIS is an extraordinary act of chutzpah:

Translation: I totally just increased your taxes across the board, but y'all better thank your lucky stars I didn't increase them even further...#ANewWayForward.

Wonder Woman Ellen Troxclair says it best:

Amidst a record population influx, record development revenues, and record levels of tourism, our City is benefitting from over $40 million in additional revenue this year. Yet, our city government spending is greatly outpacing this growth, meaning current residents are still being asked for more.

Bottom Line: However you define it, every single person on that dais campaigned on the issue of "affordability." We can quibble over the relative importance between housing costs and direct governmental levies in driving Austin's affordability challenges, but the fact remains that BOTH matter. And, over the past two years, the incumbent council majority has made both issues worse...#ANewWayForward.

-----

Update: Amen, Matt Mackowiak...

Business as usual #ATXCouncil makes things worse....

"A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself,
But the simple pass on and are punished."
Proverbs 22:3

[Author's Note: Our testimony on the budget can be found at the 22:50 mark of part 4 of item 44 here.]

Last night, council made Austin's housing more expensive and telegraphed that nothing is going to change with regard to city spending.

By a 9-1 margin (Zimmerman voting nay, Troxclair off the dias), council adopted an ordinance (item 29) to impose vaguely defined 'worker protection' standards on some sort of 'expedited permitting process' that they want the city bureaucracy to develop in the coming months.  If this sounds needlessly complicated, that's because it is.  In other words, rather than simplifying the permitting process for everyone, they wasted time on obscure contingency planning for something that might happen at some point in the future.

Obviously, Austin's permitting process is a nightmare.  Ann Kitchen correctly called it "dysfunctional" while Mayor Adler correctly noted that the current process adds to everyone's housing bill.  Nevertheless, they both voted to make said process even more complicated.

We don't know where to begin on the budget.  Suffice to say, with the notable exception of Don Zimmerman, council was oblivious to the consequences of their ongoing attempts to nickel and dime citizens.  In other words, the status quo prevailed.

In our testimony, we pointed out that every single member on that dais campaigned on the issue of affordability.  Yet they're moving forward with all sorts of tax and fee hikes.  We suppose it isn't surprising, but it's still very disappointing.

We don't disagree with Mayor Adler when he says that housing costs are a bigger driver of Austin's affordability challenges than direct levies from the government.  But taxes and fees remain a big part of the problem.  And last night, they made both worse.

Bottom Line: The culture at city hall needs to change.

Phony, anti-Zimmerman, "Outrage": The latest fallout....

"For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there."
James 3:16

At last Thursday's council meeting, Don Zimmerman made a completely reasonable comment.  That didn't stop the phony outrage machine.  The Travis County Democrat politburo even used it to fundraise!!!

That being said, there were a couple of interesting developments over the weekend.

First, Don's office released a video comparing his remarks last Thursday to other remarks he's made previously that generated no such reaction:



-----

That being said, we think THIS is the most interesting reaction:

You can learn more about Celia Israel and the issue in question here.

-----

Finally, one personal note: We didn't think about it until we started writing this post, but we actually first heard Don say something along these lines back in 2013 during the school bond campaign.

Adler's bond gets worse; votes melt away....

“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.”

Read the whole thing here.

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.

Zimmerman poised to test "Konni Burton Theorem"

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

We have recently developed an informal hypothesis.  We've dubbed it the "Konni Burton theorem."  It goes like this: In swing districts, credible advocates for limited government win where kumbaya-style moderates lose.

In 2014, Konni Burton was elected to a Texas Senate seat in a Tarrant County swing district that was previously held by Wendy Davis (yes, THAT Wendy Davis).  During that year's general election, Burton was such a strong advocate for limited government that she refused to endorse the Texas "Medical" Association's monopoly over liability insurance.  Burton was successful in a district where moderates Mark Shelton and Kim Brimer had recently lost.

We mention Konni Burton as a long winded introduction to the fact that we attended Don Zimmerman's Austin City Council re-election campaign kickoff party last night and we sense a similar phenomenon.

Obviously, Zimmerman has been an unapologetic advocate for economic liberty and tax relief during his time on Council.  He leveraged his position on the dais to defeat the Travis County Courthouse bond.  He also stopped a hostile annexation for the first time in city history.

And, at least based on last night's turnout, Don has struck a chord in district 6.  Several dozen people showed up over the course of the event, though we didn't think about doing an actual body count until after the fact.  At a minimum, Zimmerman should have no trouble finding volunteers.

As we wrote about Burton and Zimmerman back in January: "Burton and Zimmerman are the most prominent voices in their respective legislative bodies in opposition to corporate welfare and other forms of cronyism and rent-seeking (*).  Both represent districts that are competitive in a general election.  Burton and Zimmerman's success proves that disgust with rent-seeking for purposes of "economic development" extends beyond Republican primary voters into the general electorate."

Bottom Line: We'll see what happens, but if Don Zimmerman ultimately wins re-election (especially in this climate), it will provide a lesson in how to win swing districts that others would be wise to emulate.

Body Camera FIASCO illustrates #ATXCharter reform necessity....

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

We've been intermittently watching the APD body camera process; we concur with this statement from TAG in its entirety:

Austin's Public Safety Commission addressed transparency and privacy issues on Tuesday.

APD Body Camera Policy development is a corrupt process. Last night, the Public Safety Commission discussed the APD Body Camera policyand asked our coalition partner, Matt Simpson of the ACLU, to testify.  Below is the email sent to each of the members of the Public Safety Commission. For more information on the continuing conversation around body cameras in Austin, check out the Austin Body Cameras website. To the members of the Public Safety Commission, I wanted to share my experience as a stakeholder participating in the discussions with APD and other community stakeholders to develop a policy on the Austin Police Department Body Camera Policy. I am currently on the Steering Committee for Texans for Accountable Government.  TAG believes  "that power should be rested in the nearest locality.  Our local representatives are much more accountable to us than are those over a thousand miles away in the District of Columbia." -- TAG website.   But that accountability only happens when members of the community get involved. It's clear from the most recent draft of the APD Body Camera Policy that APD does not want accountability. The city council, by approving the TASER contract at the June 23 meeting, gave a stamp of approval for a corrupt process. Here's what should be the process: APD comes to the city council-- our elected and therefore accountable representatives-- with a request to adopt body cameras.  The community stakeholders and APD come together to develop a policy to determine how the cameras will be used and how the footage will be released.  From the policy, the stakeholders and APD agree on a list of hardware and software specifications for the RFP. What happened instead is that the city council had no framework for determining whether or not $17 million was a reasonable price to pay for what TASER was offering. Now we are supposed to craft a policy after the equipment has been purchased.  It is clear from the most recent draft and from comments made during our meetings that APD is free to ignore our requests for drafting the policy.  They haven't blatantly ignored us, but the language in the most recent draft does present a very different tone than what we discussed in our meetings. I ask that the Public Safety Commission keep a close eye on the process for APD to adopt new technology.  I'm sure Matt Simpson of the ACLU laid out the concerns from the community stakeholders-- our elected and appointed officials must insist on due diligence from city employees so that we are not ignored. Thank you, Carly Rose Jackson Steering Committee, Texans for Accountable Government

Bottom Line: It's bad enough that council (with the notable exception of Don Zimmerman) abdicated what little oversight they had over this process; it's even worse that both the contract and the policy were developed in the bowels of the bureaucracy in the first place.

Notes on Yesterday's #ATXCouncil Meeting....

"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.
  
  [Author's Note: Community Impact has more here.]

• 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]