"Innovative Teachers" launch COMPETITOR to incumbent (ie. leftist) Teacher Unions

"Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others."
Phillipians 2:4

Via the Hayride:

Teaching, as anyone knows, can be a taxing job, especially in public school environments. Just this year nationally, the number of teachers leaving the profession after just one year has reached an all-time high.

Even in a conservative state such as Texas, the bureaucratic hurdles, required paperwork, a focus on high-stakes test scores, and disciplinary restrictions make it increasingly difficult. Simply removing a disruptive student is now against the rules in many public school districts — the polar opposite from the days of wooden paddles or sitting in the corner.

Comparatively low salaries for the level of work they do have turned many teachers to the “gig economy” to supplement their pay. Union-led efforts to address this has resulted in higher paychecks for edu-crats and administrators, and an expansion of the public education system infrastructure. And that’s not to mention a combative stance toward school choice. The once-sacrosanct summer vacation becomes shorter and the work days become longer.

....

The new organization seeks to provide an alternative to the multiple teachers unions present in Texas. The strategy, while to provide an objective voice for Texas teachers, would naturally stand by conservatives and Christians who often feel that they are being suppressed by the public ed system.

....

[T]hey will need 5,000 members to begin an adequate insurance pool. The existing teachers unions in Texas provide insurance for teachers who find themselves on the wrong end of the administration and lose their jobs — the insurance will keep them afloat while they pursue various appeals.

This is fantastic.

The cynical among us, led by this author, often look at so-called 'professional organizations' with a jaundiced eye.  They frequently become pro-status quo political actors.  In practice, this often translates into leftism.

But that's not to say professional organizations have no place.  As this example illustrates, teachers still need to buy insurance.  If someone new can provide better value, minus the wretched politics, so much the better.

Bottom Line:  Someone should have done this decades ago.  Unfortunately, they didn't.  You've gotta start somewhere.

#atxcouncil's latest act of DIMWITTED TYRANNY illustrates why #TXLEGE MUST GO FURTHER THAN Huffines' Transportation Bill

"Neither do they put new wine into old vessels: for then the vessels would break, and the wine would be spilt, and the vessels would perish: but they put new wine into new vessels, and so are both preserved."
Matthew 9:17

Here we go again:

The Austin City Council early Friday morning gave its regulators a hammer to brandish on electric rental scooters and dockless bikes. What remains to be seen is when the city will use it.

The council, on a unanimous vote, approved an ordinance tweaking several sections of existing city law to make it clear that leaving scooters or bikes on city right of way for rental is illegal in Austin, absent that person or company applying for and receiving a city license to do so. The new ordinance also clarifies that the city may impound such vehicles found in violation of city rules, redeemable by the owners at the cost of $200 for each scooter or bike.

Robert Spillar, director of the Austin Transportation Department, said after the meeting that his office, after sending warning letters to the two companies now operating scooters on the streets — Bird Rides and LimeBike — would begin impounding scooters for the companies operating without a license.

The ordinance says that no person — including customers, not merely representatives of the scooter or bike companies — may “place, store, or park, or allow another person to place, store, or park, a vehicle, machinery, or other item on a street, alley or sidewalk” for the purpose of selling, renting or leasing the item.

Predictably followed by:

AUSTIN -- Two motorized scooter companies have pulled their fleets from the streets of Austin after the city council adopted an emergency ordinance.

Both LimeBike and Bird came under fire after bringing their business to Austin without permits from the City. In fact, a Thursday night council meeting lasted until 3 a.m. Friday in part due to debate over the controversial scooter companies, which allow users to register the scooters for use via smart phone and then leave them in sidewalks or streets for the next user once they are done.

Annnnnd sigh....we've seen this movie before.

Dan Keshet details the potential stakes:

new technology has the potential to change cities in extraordinary ways: dockless scooters as well as their kin, dockless and docked bikes, hoverboards, e-bikes (personal or shared), etc. The post will focus exclusively on dockless scooters, but many of the observations and almost all of the recommendations apply to their cousins.

Why do I see so much potential in these little devices? In part, it’s because dockless bikes have already claimed a huge share of transportation users in places they’ve been deployed at scale, despite only having been around a couple years and despite having some challenges scooters don’t have.

Keshet goes on to discuss various economic and technical reasons why he sees so much potential in various dockless technologies.  You really should read the whole thing.  The short version is that it's a potentially very low cost was for significant numbers of people to get where they're going without adding to traffic.

There's a lot we could say about this topic, but we'll leave it at this: We told the Texas Senate so (sorta, but even we didn't fully understand where technology was headed).

Last year, as the Texas Legislature was cleaning up the Austin (and other cities) City Council's Uber debacle, the Texas Senate heard several bills related to municipal ground transportation regulations.  Most of the bills were limited to TNC-style "ridesharing" services (eg. Uber/Lyft).  But Senator Don Huffines had SB 113, which would have forbidden municipal regulation of passenger transportation services provided through traditional automobiles.

We testified in favor of Senator Huffines' bill specifically because it was the only one we thought could anticipate the next municipal ground transportation debacle.  But even that bill was only limited in scope to services provided though traditional automobiles.  At the time (which was barely over a year ago) dockless scooters et. al. weren't even something we'd imagined.

And that's a textbook example of why we need a permissionless standard when it comes to new technology.

Bottom Line: The cheapest and easiest solution for traffic congestion is to allow new technologies to meet consumer demand.  Unfortunately, the municipal governments want "their" cut.  Thus the legislature really should step in and put an end to these shakedowns once and for all.

#atxcouncil Invents New Entitlement (and you'll NEVER believe what Wendy Davis said)

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?!?"
Matthew 20:15

It's done, at least for this round.

Early this morning, in a 9 - 2 vote (Troxclair and Houston against), the Austin City Council created a municipal entitlement.  For every thirty hours any employee at any private/non-profit (but, of course, the City of Austin itself is exempt) employer will now be required to receive an hour of so-called "sick leave."  What could possibly go wrong?!?

Obviously, benefit mandates beget fewer jobs.  Obviously, this new entitlement will strangle startups in the cradle.  Obviously, the employer/employee relationship is none of the city council's business.

But we took a more practical route during public testimony:



Having worked (off and on) in the service industry since 2003, allow us to elaborate on the point we made about this new entitlement being abused: People are going to exploit this new entitlement to nurse hangovers.  People who work in the service industry like to get hammered after work.  If you stay out till 3AM and you have a 6AM start time, it doesn't take a genius to see how this new entitlement will function in reality.  Anyone who tells you otherwise either a) doesn't understand the service industry or b) is a liar.

And paying people to come in late to work because they have a hangover is wildly unfair to the rest of the team.

As for supporters:

The lovefest continued:

Meanwhile, Austinites are left with fewer jobs, lower wages at the jobs that remain, and higher cost of living.

Thanks council!

--------

If last night's debacle had been limited to bad economic policy, it would have been bad enough.  But supporters devised an even more diabolical rationalization for this new entitlement.  And you'll never believe which washed up hack of a politician they trotted out to make it:

:

[Note: That really happened.  Wendy Davis testified immediately following this author.  You can view the full six surreal minutes between the 8 minute mark and the 14 minute mark here.]

So, according to the left, we need to invent so-called "sick leave" entitlements to facilitate the slaughter of innocent children.

Gotcha.

But they weren't done; check out Alexa Garcia-Ditta from NARAL:



Again: That really happened.

Psychotown.

-------

Silver Lining: For as horrifying as that abortion talk might have been, it's also why we're confident the legislature will nuke this ordinance; even the RINO's can't kill it now.

-------

Bottom Line: There's a reason why, during public testimony, we used the phrase "hot mess."

Cruz outlines next step towards Telecommunications Freedom

Note: We found this picture through a Google image search...pretty cool 'eh?!?

"Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—"
Colossians 2:20

Repealing so-called net 'neutrality' is a good first step, but significantly more needs to be done:

the restoration of internet freedom may be short-lived, as there are already scores of politicians and state and local regulators who have indicated an interest in replicating the Obama administration’s fatally flawed rules at the state and local level. As harmful as the FCC’s rules have been for broadband investment and innovation, replacing such rules with a patchwork of state and local requirements would have an even more detrimental effect on the internet.

The Constitution’s Commerce Clause provides Congress with the power to regulate interstate commerce. Given that the internet permits consumers and businesses to connect to others in different states (as well as countries), broadband services are inherently interstate services and must therefore be protected from state and local interference. As the FCC rolls back the Obama-era regulations on the internet, it should also take the opportunity to affirmatively recognize this.

Allowing the Obama administration’s dangerous policy to infest the internet through state and local government mandates serves no purpose other than to stifle America’s entrepreneurial spirit, frustrate innovation, and block economic opportunity.

Steve Forbes recently raised concerns that allowing state and local regulators to recreate these regulations would create “a crazy quilt-like patchwork of state regulations governing the internet — unquestionably, the most border-free platform ever known to humanity. It would be chaos, and a massive deterrent to investment, innovation, and growth.”

Read the whole thing here.

Casar uses service industry as human shields for terrible idea

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves."
Matthew 7:15

No thank you:

Austin City Council Member Greg Casar helped kick off a campaign Monday to get an ordinance passed requiring all employers in the city to provide paid sick leave to their workers.

“Almost 40 percent of Austin’s workforce is not allowed to earn paid sick days by their employers,” Casar said in a news conference at the Workers Defense Project on Manor Road.

“If you are a service sector worker or a construction worker, it’s more likely than not you don’t have paid sick days,” he said. “But this isn’t just low-wage workers. Twenty percent of middle-income Austinites are not allowed to earn paid sick days by their employers.”

About 223,000 Austin workers (37 percent of the total workforce) do not receive paid sick days, according to figures from Work Strong Austin, a coalition of community organizations that launched the campaign Monday.

Casar said he will introduce a resolution at the Sept. 28 City Council meeting and hopes to work with the community, businesses and the rest of the council to get an ordinance passed by the end of February. It would apply to part-time and full-time workers, he said.

Where to begin?!?

Start with the fact that Casar's proposal would lead to fewer jobs and lower cash wages for the jobs that remain.   That's what happens when you mandate higher benefits while the employer's revenues stay the same.  We also wouldn't be surprised if Casar's proposal accelerated the move from 1040's to 1099's.

When you mandate higher costs for something, you shouldn't be surprised when you get less of it;  when Greg Casar wants to mandate higher minimum benefits for each new employee hired, you shouldn't be surprised when a lot fewer people are hired.

Beyond the generally anti-employment nature of Casar's proposal, move on to the fact that for the jobs that remain it would stack the deck in favor of large, established, employers.  That's because large, established companies are more capable of absorbing cost mandates than their smaller, newer, competitors.  Casar's proposal is as anti-startup as it gets.

[Note: Because Casar's proposal would stack the deck in favor of large employers, we wouldn't be surprised if the Chamber ends up supporting it; that's what we would make of any potential "business" support.]

[Note II: We also wouldn't be surprised if Casar's proposal resulted in a new round of wage waivers for big employers.]

Consider some of the Food and Beverage companies currently achieving national prominence that began as Austin-based startups in the past few decades:

• Amy's Ice Cream

• Pluckers

• Chilantro

• Peached Tortilla

• Deep Eddy/Tito's/Dripping Springs vodka.

• Every craft brewery that's sprung up over the past few years.

• We could continue naming local brands, but we think you get the point.

None of the companies we just listed would have survived their early years if the type of mandate Greg Casar now proposes would have been in place 10 or 20 years ago.  At this point, most of those companies pay higher wages and offer more benefits than the industry average.  But none of those companies could have done so had they been forced to absorb those costs in their early years.

Casar wants to frame this as a fight against McDonalds.  But the truth is that McDonalds is going to be fine either way (and they might even benefit from his scheme).  The reality is that Casar's proposal is a declaration of war against the next Amy's, the next Pluckers, and the next Chilantro.

Finally, there's the personally insulting nature of this entire proposal.  It's not a secret that this author works in the service industry, and we will simply point out that we are perfectly capable of negotiating with our various employers without 'help' from grandstanding politicians.  If anything, by making it more difficult to find another job, the afore mentioned grandstanding politicians decrease our leverage with various employers.

[Note: While we're on the subject of how #atxcouncil mandates have effected us personally, don't tempt us to tell about our experiences navigating the stupid little "ban the box" ordinance they passed last year.]

We understand that Casar et. al. have cherry picked sympathetic examples to justify their position.  That doesn't change the fact that the best way to produce favorable working conditions is to have a robust market with lots of competing employers.  Mandating higher employment costs doesn't help anyone.

Bottom Line: Casar's proposal is kryptonite for local employment.  It would be bad for everyone, but it would be even worse for early stage startups.  Nothing good can come from this mandate.

#TXLEGE: Responding to Straus' strange little letter

Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from the Lord,
And their works are in the dark;
They say, “Who sees us?” and, “Who knows us?”
Isaiah 29:15

Late yesterday afternoon, Joe Straus sent the following letter to Dan Patrick:

#TXLEGE 85 (R): Straus Letter to Patrick re: avoiding special by Cahnman on Scribd

First things first, if you're negotiating in good faith, why would you say "both chambers have worked diligently" on the Governor's emergency items?!?  Everyone already knows the House slow-walked them all.  And they're still playing games on Ethics reform.

Furthermore, if you're negotiating in good faith, why would you highlight the House's actions on the property tax bill when they just gutted it?!?

Technically, Straus is correct that SB 1 and SB 310 are the only things the legislature needs to pass this session to assure continuity of government; but there's a big difference between continuity of government and a satisfactory end to the legislative session.

That being said, the following Senate bills remain in play and if they were to pass we would end this legislative session reasonably content:

• SB 2 - Property Tax Relief
• Note: The bill as it was passed out of the Senate is the bare minimum of what's acceptable.

• SB 13 - Ending Mandatory Government Collection of Union Dues.

• SB 19 - Public University Tuition Freeze.

• SB 20 - Ending Abortion Subsidies in the Health Insurance Market.

• SB 415 - Ending Dismemberment Abortion.
• Note: We've heard talk this could be amended onto another bill; that's potentially a face saving way to move it forward.

• SB 451 - Abolishing Municipal Regulations on Short Term Rentals.

• SB 1151 - Protecting Free Speech on Public University Campuses.

As stated above, this is not an exhaustive list of bills we support (or bills the legislature should have passed), but if these bills pass (in their current form; note: Except SB 2, which needs to be fixed on the floor) we can accept the results from this legislative session.

In the event of a special session, we intend to make BIG asks on: Guns, Life, Taxes, and Municipal pre-emption.

Bottom Line: We suggest House leadership move forward with the bills listed above; they might not be crazy about the things for which we are currently asking, but we can assure them that they're going to HATE what we ask for in a potential special session.

#TXLEGE: Uninspiring Uber bill slogs through Senate....

"The Lord has made all for Himself,
Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."
Proverbs 16:4

[Note: The hearing can be viewed here.  The section on HB 100 begins just after the one hour mark.  Our testimony is at the 1:28 mark]

The saga of the Uber bill continued into the Senate State affairs committee this morning, where Sen. Schwertner introduced yet another committee substitute...which means conference committee.  To be honest, this bill becomes less appealing with each new iteration.  But, nevertheless, it remains superior to the status quo and we continue to support getting this bill to the Governor.

A good metaphor for the trajectory of this bill is that TPPF switched their testimony from "for" the bill to "on."  TPPF outlined issues with the licensing and fee aspects of the bill that represent a potential barrier to entry for new competitors.  We echo TPPF's concerns and were very close to changing our own testimony...

...when the City of Austin invented yet another objection out of thin air.  Now, they claim to be worried that the bill will threaten "data privacy."  Please.  This is nothing more than an attempt to shift the goalposts.  Likewise, the taxpayer funded lobbyists at the Texas Municipal league said something about "airports."  And therein lies the rub: we need to get this issue out of the hands of disingenuous local officials and their taxpayer funded lobbyists.  We can address the flaws in a future session.

One woman objected to the bill based on the experience of a friend who had been raped by an illegal alien Uber driver in Boston; we addressed her concerns in our testimony.

As stated above, we testified that we shared TPPF's concerns with the bill.  There's a reason why Senator Huffines total dereg. bill was the only one on which we'd testified in favor back in March.  This bill still includes too many regulations, and too many mandates, but nevertheless the state legislation continues to have fewer regulations and mandates than the various local ordinances.  Seeing the City of Austin once again shift their goalposts solidified our position.  But understand that, as technology continues to evolve, we are going to have to revisit this issue in future sessions.

As to the woman who was worried about TNC drivers who have been previously deported: We pointed out that, from the Texas Senate's perspective, SB 4 renders the issue moot.

Bottom Line: This bill sucks. But the status quo sucks even more. Just get this bill to the Governor.

-----

2017 #TXLEGE Tesla Bills look MUCH Stronger!!!

"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”
Mark 2:22

Yes, thank you:

Instead of looking to create any kind of carve-out that favors the high-end electric car maker, legislation filed Friday would simply allow any vehicle manufacturer to sell directly to Texans — bypassing the middleman dealers — in Tesla's biggest challenge yet to a longstanding state ban on the practice.

The proposal "will allow manufacturers of vehicles any weight, class, size or shape to sell direct to consumers," said state Rep. Jason Isaac, the Dripping Springs Republican who filed the legislation in the House. "It’s a simple, free-market bill to allow that to happen."

State Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, is carrying the legislation in the upper chamber. He and Isaac filed their bills, Senate Bill 2093 and House Bill 4236, on Friday with hours to go until the deadline to submit legislation for the biennial session.

....

This time around, Tesla is hopeful the legislation is written in a way that assuages concerns that it is giving preferential treatment to the company.

"There are no carve-outs, incentives, subsidies, breaks or deals for any manufacturers here," tweeted David White, who has previously served as a spokesman for Tesla in Texas. "This is all about the consumer and it’s the direct sales model Texans have been asking for."

....

For Isaac, the issue goes beyond Tesla. He recalled having something of an epiphany after recently touring an Amazon facility in Texas and seeing robots zip around with pallets: What if similar technology could one day be used to haul containers up and down the state's highways?

"I really believe in the next 10 to 20 years we are going to see a complete change in our transportation system," Isaac said, "and the last thing I want is any barrier to that technology being available."

We read the bill here, and we can't find anything to dislike; read the full Trib piece here.

Bottom Line: Sometimes, when you have to wait a session or two you just end up with a stronger final product (Note: Something similar might be in the process over parental educational choice).  It might not be necessary, or right, but it's also reality as long as the roster looks the way it does.  This might be one of those cases.

Did Charlie Geren just do something...good?!?

"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins."
Mark 2:22

Whoa, whoa, whoa...wait a second...what?!?

State Rep. Charlie Geren isn’t about to let Texas get left in the dust when driverless vehicles start easing their way into everyday life. Especially since car manufacturers need somewhere to test them and could one day need someplace to mass produce them.

“I don’t want General Motors, or Ford, or Volkswagen, or Uber or anybody going anywhere else because Texas isn’t quite ready for this yet,” Geren told The Texas Tribune late Thursday.

The Fort Worth Republican this week filed House Bill 3475, which seeks to lay the framework for driving autonomous vehicles on Texas roads. Geren’s under no impression that the technology is well tested — or well trusted — enough that Texans are going to be walking into dealerships and buying driverless cars anytime soon. But he wants to get the ball rolling so car companies can expand testing of the technology in the state.

The article goes on to detail objections from Google, who believe Geren's bill might slow the development of autonomous vehicles.  Then, of course, there's the fact that this is coming from Geren.  So trust is, putting it mildly, minimal.

So we decided to read the bill.  It's a simple, two page, bill that's not written in lawyer language.  Soo...it seems like a good start.

Also, we must confess that we LOVE this provision:

(c) A political subdivision of this state may not impose a local fee, registration requirement, franchise, or other regulation related to an automated motor vehicle or automated driving system.

In other words, Geren is pre-empting another shakedown from the Austin City Council "burdensome over-regulation" at the local level.

Some might object to the $10 million insurance requirement, and any insurance mandate would be less than 100% free market.  But, realistically speaking, it's difficult to see how a bill like this could pass without some form of insurance requirement.  All things considered, it's a surmountable hurdle.

Bottom Line: If it stays close to its current form (admittedly a big if) then Charlie Geren's autonomous vehicle bill seems like a meaningful step forward.

-----

Read the full Trib article here; read the bill here.

What Trump's Administration means for Austin Tech....

"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,"
1 Timothy 2:1-3

[Author's Note: The discussion starts at the 17:10 mark on the video; the period between 58:15 and 59:55 is the transition between the first speaker and the panel.]

We did not attend this event, and we certainly do not agree with everything that was said, but nevertheless the discussion is all sorts of interesting:



Highlights:

• Matthew Dowd:
• Founded four companies.
• Presidential Election: "Unprecedented but predictable."
• Shifting of cultural, economic, political tectonic plates.
• Doesn't use the phrase, but explains the Kondratiev wave pretty much perfectly.
• Acceleration of everything.
• Last 15 years = Third industrial revolution.
• In less than a decade, we've completely redefined marriage and sexuality.
• Technological change is a double edged sword.
• Growth in knowledge accompanied by a decrease in wisdom.
• Social media has increased tribalism; confirmation bias.
• Bernie Sanders and Trump: "Were basically independents."
• Entrepreneurs have tremendous opportunity in an environment with this much uncertainty.
• Government is the last place in the U.S. that has resisted innovation.
• Founding fathers were entrepreneurs; early U.S. was a startup.
• "To get to the promised land, it's going to be on the backs of entrepreneurs."
• No matter what else you think of him, Trump has revealed brokenness of status quo.
• Trump will neither destroy nor fix the U.S.; either one of those actions can only come about by the actions of its citizens.
• Author's Note: We fully support Ted Cruz's re-election to the United States Senate and would VIGOROUSLY oppose a potential Dowd candidacy, but we nevertheless found his discussion of the opportunities available to entrepreneurs in the current climate illuminating.

• Panel:
• Basically a bunch of SJW's constructing straw man arguments via half-truths.
• Unpredictability is the only thing you can predict.
• Blah, blah "climate change."
• Stupid comparison between 'green' energy and fast internet; compares Oil and Gas to dial-up.
• Neglects to mention that windmills are 14th century technology.
• Green energy will miss Obama's "vision" (ie. crony subsidies)
• The chick talking about immigration willfully misrepresents executive orders and regulations as laws passed by Congress on multiple occasions.
• Author's Note: This is a textbook example of why so many Americans felt like no one was listening to them in the first place...which created the climate that ultimately allowed Trump to be successful.

Cruz: Dangers of U.S. surrendering internet protocols to international bureaucrats.....

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."
Ephesians 5:11

[Author's Note: While Senator Cruz focuses on the security aspects, there's also an economic component that bears consideration.  Will turning internet protocols over to 'international' bureaucrats lead to regulatory capture by incumbent industries?!?  In a post-AirBnB, post-Uber world it doesn't take a genius to see how horribly the untended consequences of this sort of move could backfire.]

We don't often get involved on Federal issues, but this one's important; kudos to Senator Cruz:



Highlights:

• "[The internet] wasn't invented by any politician."

• "It was invented by the ingenuity of the American people with the financial support of American taxpayers."

• "Since the internet's inception, the United States' government has stood guard over critical internet functions; in almost any other country that power could have been used to deny internet access to websites that were deemed politically undesirable."

• "Because of the first amendment to the constitution...the United States' government; as long a it has authority to oversee the infrastructure of the internet, has a duty to ensure that no website is denied internet access on account of the ideas it espouses."

• In 16 days, USG relinquishing "historic guardianship" in favor of international body.

• ICANN = Global bureaucracy with blurred lines of authority.

• "Sadly, ICANN officials have already begun showing extraordinary affinity for China; the world's worst abuser of internet freedom."

• Reporters weren't allowed to cover ICANN conference.

• "Why risk it?!?"

• "What is the problem that is trying to be solved here?!?"

Leslie Pool's Tech Duplicity....

"Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminished,
But he who gathers by labor will increase."
Proverbs 13:11

We noticed an interesting Facebook post from Natalie Gauldin over the weekend; following the links led us to this post on the Council message board about the current budget process:

[Author's Note: Emphasis added.]

Followed by this, on Pool's office letterhead:

Leslie Pool Tech Slush Fund

In other words, the same Leslie Pool who voted to unconstitutionally ban Short Term Rentals and regulate ride-sharing out of commercial viability now wants to funnel taxpayer money into some vaguely defined 'tech'-related "Public Private Partnership"...what could possibly go wrong?!?

We know this is a radical thought in certain circles, but here's a suggestion: perhaps if we left the tech industry alone when they develop helpful products that make life better, then perhaps they wouldn't need to seek handouts from the city.

Bottom Line: It would boggle the mind if it weren't business as usual.

UT's Horizon Fund updates Board of Regents

"So teach us to number our days,
That we may gain a heart of wisdom."
Psalm 90:12

Sigmund Freud is rumored to have once said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."  We thought of that alleged quote during this morning's meeting of the UT Board of Regents' technology committee.  No matter how corrupt the other financial activities of the institution in question, sometimes an effort to commercialize research performed on university campuses is just an effort to commercialize research performed on a university campus.

The UT Horizon fund is a $50 million appropriation designed to provide seed funding to bring to market initiatives developed at UT System institutions.  We've documented their expenditures here.  As we explained last week, we also have a separate open records request related to the Horizon fund working it's way through the Attorney General process.

During this morning's update, Technology committee chairman Wallace Hall called the Horizon fund a "cost-effective" way to bring technological developments developed at system institutions to market.  It's actually not a crazy point to make.  If $100 to $200k of seed funding from the university can get a development away from the university bureaucrats and into the private sector, that's a small price to pay.

Here's the thing: This activity sounds an awful lot like having a governmental entity pick winners and losers.  In a way, it reminds us of Rick Perry's infamous Texas Enterprise Fund.  Obviously, that's not something one should support.

But here's the other thing: The difference with the Texas Enterprise Fund is that, technically, the money going in 'belongs' to the university, not the state.  If the university were to cease this activity, the university still gets to keep the money.  And we'd rather have them investing in something that could be useful than hiring a bunch of 'diversity' related bureaucrats.

Obviously, higher education funding is deeply messed up.  Equally obvious, the University of Texas system has too much money.  In the event that higher ed/UT funding undergoes deeper structural reforms, activities like the Horizon fund should be on the table.  Furthermore, the Horizon fund could be a piece of leverage to make the university negotiate in good faith over tuition next session.  But as long as the current system remains in place, there are far worse ways to spend the money.

Bottom Line: UT's endowment is somewhere around $25 billion.  The Horizon fund is a max of $50 million.  If the university wants to use one tenth of one percent of its resources in an attempt to accomplish something useful, we have bigger fish to fry.

Book Review: PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, by Adam Thierer

"For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.."
2 Timothy 1:7

When did this become a controversial statement?!?

[E]xperimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default....innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if any develop, can be addressed later. (1)

Permissionless Innovation, by Adam Thierer, is an academic investigation of regulatory issues related to technological modernization.  The book argues that attempts to regulate new technologies end up stifling efforts to make life simpler and cheaper.  While we found the academic approach frustratingly slow, that approach is appropriate when explaining these issues to newbs to those who haven't considered them in depth.

Thierer distinguishes between two approaches to regulation: 'permissionless' vs. 'precautionary.'  The permissionless approach gives "entrepreneurs...a clear green light from policymakers that signals a general acceptance of risk taking -- especially risk taking that challenges existing business models and traditional ways of doing things (10)."  By contrast, a precautionary approach entails asking "mother may I" from some political authority and accounting for every possible contingency that might arise before experimentation can proceed.

This discussion has consequences across the economy.  While issues like ridesharing and short-term rentals have forced the question, they're not limited to what we have historically thought of as the 'tech' industry.  The internet is hardly the last platform for innovation (16).  As Theirer explains, "the world of atoms and physical things -- is primed for the same sort revolution that the world of bits -- the information economy -- has undergone over the past two decades" (16).  3-D printing and commercial drones are the first two examples that spring to mind.

As a veteran of the Austin City Council's strange technophobia, we were struck by this sentence: "if harms do arise, consider whether existing laws and regulations are sufficient to address them, before assuming that new rules are required (109)."  In other words, if you really want to crack down on 'party houses' it might be advisable to enforce the noise ordinance that was already on the books before banning an entire industry.  As to the Uber/Lyft discussion, the notion that "[p]olicymakers should relax old rules on incumbents as new entrants and new technologies challenge the status quo (112)" speaks for itself.

From a political perspective, Permissionless Innovation is about pitching to persuades.  As such, there were times when it belabors certain points we consider obvious.  Still, for the intended audience, this is a robust discussion that will get them up to speed in a way that moves the ball forward.

Texas' energy production rendering Saudi Arabia IRRELEVANT!!!

"strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy;"
Colossians 1:11

Your feel good story of the day:

Texas shale oil has fought Saudi Arabia to a standstill

Opec's worst fears are coming true. Twenty months after Saudi Arabia took the fateful decision to flood world markets with oil, it has still failed to break the back of the US shale industry.

The Saudi-led Gulf states have certainly succeeded in killing off a string of global mega-projects in deep waters. Investment in upstream exploration from 2014 to 2020 will be $1.8 trillion less than previously assumed, according to consultants IHS. But this is a bitter victory at best.

North America's hydraulic frackers are cutting costs so fast that most can now produce at prices far below levels needed to fund the Saudi welfare state and its military machine, or to cover Opec budget deficits.

Scott Sheffield, the outgoing chief of Pioneer Natural Resources, threw down the gauntlet last week - with some poetic licence - claiming that his pre-tax production costs in the Permian Basin of West Texas have fallen to $2.25 a barrel.

"Definitely we can compete with anything that Saudi Arabia has. We have the best rock," he said. Revolutionary improvements in drilling technology and data analytics that have changed the cost calculus faster than almost anybody thought possible.

The 'decline rate' of production over the first four months of each well was 90pc a decade ago for US frackers. This dropped to 31pc in 2012. It is now 18pc. Drillers have learned how to extract more.

Mr Sheffield said the Permian is as bountiful as the giant Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia and can expand from 2m to 5m barrels a day even if the price of oil never rises above $55.

Read the whole thing here.

How #ATXCouncil's strange crusade against Innovation threatens basic constitutional protections

"A ruler who lacks understanding is a great oppressor,
But he who hates covetousness will prolong his days."
Proverbs 28:16

Fantastic Statesman op-ed this morning from TPPF about council's anti-AirBNB ordinance:

Already, Uber and Lyft have been driven out of town thanks to municipal micromanagement and ballot language chicanery. Now, the short-term rental industry, which includes companies like HomeAway, Airbnb, and VRBO, also finds itself under assault from an overzealous city council hellbent on regulating every aspect of daily life.

Central in this skirmish is Austin’s new ordinance governing short-term rentals, or STRs. The ordinance, which was approved in February by an overwhelming majority of the Austin City Council by a 9-2 vote, is a near-perfect example of the nanny state run amok.

....

But as intrusive and inappropriate as these regulations are, it’s the city’s new enforcement powers that are truly unsettling.

To make sure that people are abiding by all of its new rules, Austin has given its code officials the ability to conduct warrantless searches, at all reasonable times, of “all buildings, dwelling units, guest rooms and premises” in search of possible code violations. And since some of the restrictions don’t go into effect until after 10 p.m., officials could well show up in the dead of night to search every nook and cranny of an STR looking for any sign of bad behavior — all without a warrant.

Giving city officials the power to search residential properties without a warrant is not just unwise; it’s downright un-American.

Americans have certain fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. These are not forfeit simply because a person stays as a guest at a short-term rental. Nor are they surrendered because a person legally owns and operates a certain kind of investment property. Austin’s ordinance runs so far afoul of these basic tenets of American society that it deserves nothing short of total repeal.

And that’s where we step in.

Read the whole thing here.

TPPF helps STR users DEFEND THEMSELVES from City of Austin!!!

"A ruler who lacks understanding is a great oppressor,
But he who hates covetousness will prolong his days."
Proverbs 28:16

Last winter, the Austin City Council banned a popular type of vacation residency ("Type 2" Short Term Rentals or "STR's"; aka. the anti-AirBnb Ordinance) within city limits. In so doing, they violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, but they didn't expect anyone to fight back. This morning four STR owners, with assistance from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, fought back.

The lawsuit, Zaatari et. al vs City of Austin et. al, challenges the constitutionality of the city's regulation.  Specifically, by giving the Austin code department (yeah, THAT Austin code department) unlimited jurisdiction to perform warrantless searches on private residences to enforce the ordinance, the city violated the fourth amendment's provision against unreasonable searches.  In addition, by drawing an arbitrary distinction between residential leases under 30 days ("short-term") and leases over 30 days ("long-term"), the city violated the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause.

The anti-AirBnb ordinance was part of council's bizarre campaign against innovation and the sharing economy.  Not that it's relevant to the underlying privacy and property rights issues, but fewer than 10% of all complaints ever filed against STR's have been related to noise or other 'bad neighbor' issues and there have been literally zero citations against STR's for those issues.  Readers are welcome to speculate about council's underlying motivation, but doing so is beyond the scope of this report.

In addition to a media conference call this morning, TPPF also helped arrange a media availability at an STR property owned by one of the plaintiffs this afternoon.  The property, located in Ann Kitchen's (yeah, we know) district, is owned by Ahmed Zaatari.  Zaatari, who immigrated from Lebanon in the late 1990's, converted the property to an STR about a year ago after he was laid off from an energy industry related job following the downturn in oil prices.  Zaatari typically rents the property in increments of two to four days.  In addition, Zaatari pays both property taxes and the City of Austin's 15% hotel occupancy tax.  To illustrate to absurdity of the ordinance, consider this: at the peak, between three media camera crews, this author, Zaatari, and four TPPF staffers, at one point there were 13 people on-site, which actually violated the ordinance (*).  Look at the picture above: Does it look like the property was overcrowded in any way, shape or form?!?

Most chillingly, Zaatari pointed out how the ordinance is "reminiscent of the system in Lebanon" where economic opportunity is doled out by political connections instead of merit.  In Lebanon, "what matters is who you know" and "you had to put yourself in servitude to some political boss."  Speaking of political bosses, Zaatari described a meeting he had with Ann Kitchen where she promised that council wouldn't attack "the good actors" (ie. the ones who actually follow the law and pay the city's taxes); we can see where that led.

We realized one final absurdity while we were at the property.  The city of Austin has more restrictions on STR properties than it has on frat houses.  Considering that the whole justification for this ordinance was cracking down on "party houses," that seems odd.

The city of Austin does not have authority to restrict private property rights in this manner.  Doing so violates, at least, the fourth and fourteenth amendments.  They weren't expecting anyone to fight back; they were wrong.

-----

* - It wasn't planned that way, and there were 13 people on-site for less than ten minutes, but the fact that accidentally violated the ordinance during the media availability illustrates the silliness of the whole thing.

Austin's uninspiring Uber/Lyft alternatives make pitches....

"Through wisdom a house is built,
And by understanding it is established;"
Proverbs 24:3

On Thursday afternoon, Capital Factory hosted an event for the new ridesharing companies that have emerged since the failure of Prop. 1.  We appreciate the work these companies are doing and think some of them (Luxe and Wingz specifically) have long-term potential.  Nevertheless, the notion that any of these companies can fill the void created by council's ridesharing restrictions in the short to medium term seems ambitious at best.

The six companies that presented were: RideAustin, Wingz, Arcade City, GetMe, Luxe, and Fasten; a few of them office at Capital Factory.

The most important takeaway is that every single one of these companies costs more than Uber and Lyft.  The price differential ranges from approximately 10% for Fasten to 20% for Wingz to essentially the same rate as taxis for GetMe.  Arcade City allows drivers to charge whatever they want to which the customer will agree; while that's great for the cause of decentralization, the fact that they couldn't even provide a range of prices was perhaps more revealing than intended.  (Of course, this is important because the appeal of Uber and Lyft has always been that their convenience is accompanied by a reasonable price.)

Unfortunately, several have technical issues that illustrate the challenges they will have becoming viable: RideAustin doesn't have an Android version of the App, Arcade City doesn't even have an app, GetMe has done 15 server updates since May, and Wingz requires you to book a ride at least an hour in advance.

By far, the most interesting company present was Luxe.  Their objective is to re-invent urban parking.  Luxe has valets drive your car to parking lots away from the urban core.  In other words, they're parking your car where land is cheaper than downtown.  By using land more efficiently, they probably have a very viable business model.  For example: parking in downtown Austin during the day ranges from $7 to $20 per hour; compared to that, $15 or so for Luxe is a bargain.  We also want to put in a good word for Wingz, who can probably find a profitable niche as an alternative to SuperShuttle type companies.

It's here that we must make an obvious point: Uber is actually a seven year old company.  They were already five years old when they came to Austin in 2014.  Thus, they had already smoothed out most of their technical and logistical issues before they scaled nationally.  Lyft is even older than Uber (though it operated under a different name until 2012).  Bless their hearts for trying, but all of these newer companies have more in common with Uber and Lyft circa 2010 than either of them today.

Bottom Line: This whole situation was completely avoidable and is completely depressing.

-----

Watch the event for yourself:

UT unintentionally reveals Just How Much bureaucracy it REALLY has!!!

“So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”
Luke 12:21

The U.T. system sent out a very revealing press release without intending to do so this morning:

AUSTIN – Julie Goonewardene, Associate Vice Chancellor for Innovation and Strategic Investment for The University of Texas System, will serve asan evaluating judge for a new competition launched today that will award a $100 million grant to a single proposal designed to help solve a critical problem affecting people, places or the planet.

They actually have a bureaucrat whose sole responsibility is "Innovation and Strategic Investment"?!?  Because, clearly, the best way to drive innovation is to put a bureaucrat in charge of it!  Considering that they're at the "Associate Vice Chancellor" level, how much is this person getting paid?!?

It gets better:

Goonewardene currently runs a $50 million venture fund for the UT System, where she oversees an entrepreneurial network and brings resources to assist companies and startups involving university assets.

The U.T. system has a $50 million venture fund?!?

Apparently, they do:

The UT "Horizon Fund" appears to be mostly dedicated towards biotech related efforts, but the details of the fund aren't nearly as appalling as the fact that it exists in the first place.

[Author's Note: That being said, given that we're talking about UT, does anybody doubt that we could have A LOT of fun looking into who's actually getting the money?!?]

Seriously...50 MILLION?!?

At $10k per year, $50 million is the equivalent of tuition for 5000 students!

Sheesh....

Doug Miller: anti-Innovation; anti-Free Enterprise

"Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Matthew 7:20

While reviewing last year's hearing on the Tesla bill for our post earlier today about Wayne Smith, we also re-discovered this gem about Doug Miller:

Not wanting to miss out on the action, representative Doug Miller (Straus Lieutenant) also bragged about his family's history running auto dealerships.

So Doug Miller was standing right next to Wayne Smith as the Tesla bill was killed last session.

Like Wayne Smith, Doug Miller also faces a runoff in HD-73 (Comal, Gillespie, Kendall counties).  Early voting runs through this week.  Election day is next Tuesday.

Bottom Line: We wish we'd realized it earlier, but two of the biggest shills for the auto dealers against Tesla both face runoffs next week.