#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.

#TXLEGE, #atxcouncil: "Abortion access" workaround illustrates POINTLESS STUPIDITY of original lege bill

"Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good."
Romans 12:9

Of course they did:

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Austin City Council members were joined by advocates at City Hall Monday afternoon when they announced their proactive budget measure to protect residents’ access to abortion services.

Last week, four city council members announced they planned to support up to $150,000 of city money being used to support transportation, childcare and counseling for women seeking abortions.

Mayor Pro Tem Delia Garza attended alongside council members Greg Casar, Leslie Pool and Paige Ellis, who were joined by representatives of several abortion rights advocate groups, including the Lilith Fund and Fund Texas Choice.

Under the budget, local tax dollars would help pay for services like rides to and from a clinic. Under Texas law, it is illegal for local tax dollars to directly support abortion providers, so city council members say their decision aims to work around the barriers put in place.

Is anyone surprised?!?

Because if you are, you've been living under a rock.

During session, our state 'leaders' touted SB 22 as a major pro-life victory:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday signed legislation that prohibits cities and counties from doing business with abortion providers. The bill, which takes effect Sept. 1, specifically prevents local governments from entering into reduced tax and lease agreements with such organizations. It also prevents cities and counties from "advocacy or lobbying on behalf of the interests of an abortion provider or affiliate."

It does not impact hospitals or doctor's offices that perform fewer than 50 abortions per year.

Clinics that could be impacted include the Planned Parenthood in East Austin, which signed a 20-year lease with the city for $1 per month.

 Blah, blah, blah.

For council to find a cleverly lawyered way to technically comply with the letter of the law, while gutting its spirit, was completely predictable.  That they did so is a textbook illustration of why that bill was always a waste of time.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is a dullard, a liar, or a twit.

Imagine what could have happened if the lege had taken advantage of the opportunity to pass bills that actually did something.

(But send money....)

Bottom Line:  Council's action are awful.  Duh.  They're also completely predictable considering the incentives the lege created.  Spare us the phony outrage.

#atxcouncil: Beyond policy considerations, there simply isn't enough time to make an informed decision re: Soccer Stadium

"Also it is not good for a soul to be without knowledge,
And he sins who hastens with his feet."
Proverbs 19:2

Council is meeting this afternoon to discuss the alternative McKalla place proposals.  We're undecided about attending.  But, the fact that they're expecting to be able to make a final decision in two days after hearing about the alternative epitomizes why we said what we said at last Wednesday's meeting:



Highlights:

• This testimony occurred shortly after Adler 86ed CodeNext

• Too many "moving pieces" and "plates in the air."

• Lots of things (starting with the Ohio lawsuit) about which we don't know the outcome.
• Seems far fetched that they'll be resolved in a week.

• U.T. doesn't want to temporarily host a team.
• "Throws a big monkey wrench into our ability to successfully host a team in six months."

• Take 2019 off the table -- Too soon, too many unresolved issues.

• Macro concern remains MLS' business model.
• Fear we're making 20, to 40, to 80 year commitment for a league that might not be around in 10 years.

• Leslie Pool agreed with our point about U.T. not hosting a team.

We also largely agree with these remarks from local activist Bill Bunch:

Highlights:

• "Please reject this boondoggle...."

• Compares soccer stadium to Water Treatment plan #4, the biomass plant, and the Domain subsidies.

• "It takes my breath away that this is still on the table in this form."

• "The process has been broken and the product is indefensible."

• Council has "a fiduciary duty" to represent Austin Water customers.

• "You can't be serious about affordability in general and give away this kinds of corporate welfare.

• If the city can't find a good use for the property, it should be sold in an open and competitive process.

#atxcouncil: Latest Soccer Stadium Proposal Sucks As Badly as the Previous Ones....

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

[Note on Format: We're going to offer commentary on quotes from the Chronicle article immediately following the relevant section, rather than holding them to the end.]

The Austin Chronicle details the latest on the ongoing soccer stadium debacle:

Last Friday, city staff released its report declaring McKalla Place "viable" for a soccer stadium, and later that day, Precourt Sports Ventures released their plan to build what they call a "legacy asset" for the city. Although many Council members have been unable to delve into the city's 34-page report, let alone Precourt's 189-page proposal (they're a bit busy with a project called CodeNEXT), those who did comment didn't do so in committed fashion.

Leslie Pool, who represents District 7 where McKalla is located, tempered enthusiasm for the city's report, noting that staff only acknowledged the site's viability for a stadium. "What is suitable for the site may not be what is most desirable for the site," she said, while anticipating plenty of hay to be made of Precourt's offer. Her colleague Alison Alter shared that same view of the city's report: More analysis would be needed to determine if Precourt's proposal is in the best interest of the city.

Some of the information included in that proposal had been established: a projected $354 million in community benefits to the city over 25 years; the $200 million, 20,000-seat stadium, fully financed by PSV; and a plan to devote more than half of McKalla's acreage to "open and accessible space." The city report supported PSV's claims of an economic boom for the city: Third-party analysis firm Brailsford & Dunlavey forecast a $384 million boost in economic activity and $332 million in wages over a 20-year period. Travis County could gain another $474 million and $461 million, respectively.

• Anyone who believes "economic activity" forecasts 20 years out is a fool.

But PSV also provided insight into how they hope to structure a deal: The city would retain ownership of McKalla Place, infrastructure surrounding the stadium, and the stadium itself once construction is completed; and the city will be responsible for "all site preparation, remediation and off-site infrastructure," raising the eyebrows of those council members. The city report found that roughly $15.9 million in infrastructure costs would be required to improve water transmission systems and transit ($13 million for a new rail station). PSV President Dave Greeley said the language is "part of a broader conversation with the city," and that according to the reports they had reviewed, further remediation on-site would be unlikely.

With city ownership of the land and stadium, PSV would be exempt from paying property taxes – no small handout at a time when rising taxes are the central focus of some residents. But PSV wouldn't be getting the lot for free – rather, via a 20-year lease at $1 per year, the "most amusing" aspect of the proposal, said Pool. PSV would have the option to renew the lease for three more 20-year terms, at that cush fixed rate.

• So the city takes all of the risk on the deal while the team pays no property taxes...got it.
• To say nothing of the fact that the city is so bad at maintenance that giving them ownership will make the asset depreciate faster.

One benefit that did receive more attention, however, was a partnership with Foundation Communities to provide affordable housing throughout the city. An initial $500,000 investment from PSV would go toward building the Waters Park Studio development near McKalla, and another $4.3 million would be invested into the nonprofit over 25 years.

• Obviously, this website doesn't support that sort of expansion of subsidized housing in the first place, but even so $4.3 million over 25 years is just cheap. 

Two such options manifested Tuesday night, when representatives for Capella Capital Partners and Whitfield-Chen presented ideas to a Gracywoods Neighborhood Association meeting. Capella already owns three acres next to McKalla Place, which they plan to use for an 11-story office building and 22-story "downtown style" residential building with about 285 units sold at market rate. Four years ago, the group entered negotiations with the city to buy or lease the McKalla lot, which they'd transform into a mixed-use development with six acres of green space, four or five multifamily residential buildings (units affordable and market rate), retail, and a spot for a new rail station, paid for by the developer. Managing partner Neil Francois said in 2016 that the city had appraised the McKalla site at $29 million. By comparison, city staff's more recent report valued the property at $9.6 million. Pool, who attended the meeting, was shocked at the discrepancy, and said she would look into why the two appraisals were so different.

• So, they're trying to muscle out a privately financed mixed use project in-favor of a heavily subsidized one?!?  Got it....
• And, to do so, they're now lying about the value of the land. 

Read the whole thing here.

Bottom Line: You don't even need to look into the details on this one, what they're telling us is bad enough....

#atxcouncil to Citizenry: Drop Dead

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

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

Looks like our answer is becoming clearer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plain language of the statute in question states:

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

(1) a charter election conducted under law;  or

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

[Note: Emphasis added.]

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

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

Speaking of gaslighting, check out this gem:

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

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

[Note: Emphasis added]

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

Bottom Line: Hubris rarely works out well over time.

#atxcouncil: Special treatment for Greg Abbott (higher electric bills for the rest of us)

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

We testified against a couple of items at last Thursday's council meeting:

• Item 90: "Approve an ordinance waiving fees in an amount not to exceed $6,800,000 and requirements related to the vacation of right-of-way, associated with the development of Phase One of the 2016 Texas Capitol Complex Master Plan."
  
  We first discussed the "Capitol Complex" office plan back in June.  This is a project that illustrates the phoniness of so much of the highly theatrical conflict between the City of Austin and the State of Texas.  And, when push came to shove, the city gave the state everything it asked for.
  
  At issue is the absurdly lavish renovations for state office buildings immediately north of the Capitol.  The state of Texas is sought (and received) a $6.8 million fee waiver.  Because it's better to give special treatment to politically favored entities than to create low/simple, fees for everyone.
  
  But where this issue really chaps our hide is all of the highly sensationalized 'conflict' that we so frequently see between the city and the state.  It's not a secret that this website believes the unchecked growth of government at the local level is the biggest macroeconomic threat Texas faces, and that the state is well within it's rights to to rein it in.
  
  It's difficult to know whose cronies are getting paid on this project, although if history is any guide then Greg Abbott and Kirk Watson are the two likeliest suspects.
  
  Ora Houston voted against.  Leslie Pool abstained.  Each of the other nine voted "aye."
  
  

• Item 3: "Authorize negotiation and execution of a 15-year power purchase agreement with a subsidiary of INTERSECT POWER for the full output of electricity from a utility-scale solar generation facility with capacity of 150 to 180 megawatts, in an estimated amount of $10,000,000 to $12,000,000 per year, and a total estimated amount of $150,000,000 to $180,000,000."
  
  Mayor Adler can claim can claim this mandate will save consumers money all he wants, but this municipal government doesn't have the credibility to make "we have to spend money to make money" type assertions [Note: A cynic might accuse them of gaslighting].  We didn't believe them when they made similar claims about the new development services office building.  We don't believe them now.
  
  Our biggest issue is that this mandate will drive up electric bills.  Austin energy isn't going to absorb this cost.  They'll pass it along to ratepayers.
  
  But the other fascinating aspect of this contract is the "climate change" hypocrisy.  Whatever one feels about the underlying veracity of global warming, it doesn't change the fact that the same streamlining of residential construction in the urban core that would lower housing costs and shorten commutes would also reduce carbon emissions.  And this solar energy mandate is nothing more than a wildly expensive political workaround (with other people's money) to make up for the fact that council lacks the political will to fix the housing issue through CodeNext.
  
  Finally, it's absurd to make a ten year commitment.  If this were a 2 to 3 year contract, we'd probably overlook it.  But to commit ourselves for a decade bears an eerie resemblance to the biomass plant debacle.
  
  Ellen Troxclair voted against; the other 10 voted "Aye."
  
  

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

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

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

Oh good grief.

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

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

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

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

-------

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

#atxcouncil: Late Breaking opportunity to curtail corporate welfare in budget?!?

"If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him,
He also will deny us."
2 Timothy 2:12

Sign us up:

Austin’s 2018 budget discussions are crawling to a close this week, and City Council members are looking for more cash.

Council Member Leslie Pool began the week’s talks Monday with a request for the city to revisit its economic development payments to the Domain — revitalizing a debate that’s been ongoing for at least a decade.

It wasn’t clear whether the suggestion had any support to move forward, and the council didn’t immediately return to it after an executive session to discuss legal matters behind closed doors. The council is expected to adopt the budget sometime this week. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

Austin in 2003 approved a $37 million tax break over 20 years for the Domain in exchange for the development creating jobs and affordable housing. Some buyers’ remorse settled in after that, and a push to revoke the Domain’s incentive package became a ballot proposal in 2008, but voters rejected it.

The city’s agreement with the Domain, which is in Pool’s North Austin District 7, includes a stipulation that any payments are subject to agreement from future councils. But Mayor Steve Adler and Council Member Jimmy Flannigan pushed back strongly against the city backing out of its end of the economic incentive agreement, saying it would be a terrible precedent to set. Austin needs to live up to its deals, they said.

“Every time, as a city, we talk about going back on a previous agreement, the next agreement becomes more expensive,” Flannigan said. “Every time we send a signal to the community that we’re not going to hold ourselves to agreements we make, the next negotiation becomes more expensive.”

....

Some council members have expressed frustration with the budget overall and want more funding for health and social programs.

 Thoughts:

• While the Statesman article says Pool is a longstanding opponent of corporate welfare, this is the first time we remember hearing her speak about it.  We will point out she voted for the Merck deal back in April.  Still, welcome to the fight!!!

• This actually builds on a recent experience of our own.  Last week, we attended an event where we were able to come to an agreement with several people with different views from our own to cut corporate welfare in order to create room for both tax relief and social services.  Thus, this might be an outline for a "grand bargain" on the city budget.

• Broadening the tax base allows you to lower the tax rate.

• Flannigan's argument is cute.  The opt out clause was part of the original deal to which the developer agreed.  Thus the city wouldn't be backing out of anything but merely executing authority it already has.

• Speaking of Flannigan, this is the biggest contrast with his predecessor during his time on the council to date.  If Flannigan really wants to make this a hill on which he's willing to die, we are absolutely willing to make this a campaign issue in 2020.  Remember, District 6 residents are the one's paying the higher property tax rates that are the natural results of this sort of carving up of the tax base.

• Speaking of which...have we mentioned that broadening the tax base allows you to lower the tax rate?!?

• Broad base, low rates.  Broad base, low rates.  Broad base, low rates.

Bottom Line: Anything that moves us away from special privileges for big players and towards clear and consistent rules for everyone is a trend we should encourage.

#atxcouncil: #TROXROX, proposes redirecting corporate welfare into core services....

"I love the Lord, because He has heard
My voice and my supplications."
Psalm 116:1

This is a fantastic idea:

Today’s City Council budget work session will almost certainly feature discussion about a proposal from Council Member Ellen Troxclair that seeks to reallocate money from the city’s Hotel Occupancy Tax to pay for more expenses for Austin’s parks, which she argues will free up money from the General Fund budget that can pay for historic building preservation and other community priorities.

The crux of the proposal centers around the fact that by law Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue can only be used for tourism-related expenses, such as the budget for the Austin Convention Center, marketing and upkeep of local sites that are considered a draw for visitors. Troxclair’s Option A proposal seeks to use much of the expected annual increase in HOT revenue next year to pay for $11.8 million in “parks and preservation” expenses that currently come out of the General Fund. 

A resolution headed for next week’s Council meeting – co-sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo and Council members Leslie Pool and Ann Kitchen – directs city staff to prepare budget documents and any ordinance language needed to redistribute HOT revenue in the manner Troxclair has outlined.

More here:

Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo, a co-sponsor of the Troxclair proposal, emphasized that the measure was not attempting to divert HOT funds to general parks spending, but rather to “cultural facilities” run by the Parks and Recreation Department. 

Cities are allowed to use up to 15 percent of HOT revenue on “cultural arts” projects and up to 15 percent on historic preservation. The city has already maxed out its cultural arts allocation, but it could still spend millions more to preserve historic structures. 

Other Council members expressed general skepticism of the convention center’s value, pushing back on the argument that the city is missing out on economic opportunities by not expanding the existing center so that it can attract and accommodate bigger events. 

“Being the place where all of the biggest conventions are isn’t necessarily a plus for our city, particularly downtown, where things are so darned congested,” said Council Member Leslie Pool.

A few thoughts:

•  We partially feel like we're commenting about this subject under duress, because "hotel occupancy taxes" are a politically directed extra cost that reduces the amount of money tourists have to spend in actual businesses.  Thus, they should be repealed in their entirety.  Until the legislature takes that step, however, the Troxclair et. al. proposal represents a significant improvement upon the status quo.

• "Visit Austin," from which the majority of the funding will be re-allocated, is basically a politically controlled slush fund.

• They say that if you live long enough, anything is possible; we only bring this up because we never thought we'd see Kathie Tovo and Ellen Troxclair on the same side of anything.
• That being said, considering that the Convention Center is in her district, it's noteworthy that Tovo supports this proposal.

On Ora Houston, Gentrification, and Unintended Consequences....

"Do not go up, lest you be defeated by your enemies, for the Lord is not among you."
Numbers 14:42

This is such a depressingly terrible idea:

A proposal from Austin City Council Member Ora Houston could dramatically affect the redevelopment of East Austin by imposing new height restrictions on future projects to protect certain views of the state Capitol. 

Houston’s proposal for five new Capitol view corridors comes as developers increasingly eye East Austin for high-rise development, fueling fears about further change in this once-working class part of town.

“This whole conversation, this whole wanting to have some visual history of the relationship between black East Austin and the Capitol started back in 2015,” said Houston, who was inspired by the fight over the once-proposed One Two East development, which would have built a pair of apartment towers on the east side of Interstate I-35 at 12th Street. Those towers, she said, would have been a “vertical barrier, just like some people see I-35 as a horizontal barrier.”

“People in different parts of East Austin need the same kind of views of our Capitol as other people have,” she added.

[Author's Note: Emphasis added.]

No council member, "people in different parts of East Austin" (like everyone citywide) need 150,000 units of new housing to reverse the trend of ever increasing housing costs we've seen over the past decade; it's economics 101, as supply goes up, price goes down.

'Views of the Capitol' are irrelevant to this discussion.

Still, it's interesting to see who's supportive:

Her bid is co-sponsored by Mayor Steve Adler and Council Members Leslie Pool, Kathie Tovo and Alison Alter.

It's not difficult to understand why Tovo, Pool, and Alter [sidenote: Where's Ann Kitchen?!?] support this: This is a typical Austin Neighborhood Council initiative to use any excuse in the book to maintain high housing prices for existing homeowners.  Likewise, Adler's motivation is easy to discern: complicated regulations on the front end grease the skids for shady subsidies on the back end.  Still, Houston's support for this bullsh...nonsense...is disappointing.

Here's the thing: The reason the East Side is gentrifying at such a rapid pace is because the affluent NIMBY's at the Austin Neighborhoods Council have made it impossible to build anything in Central Austin.  That impossibility pushes housing demand out to the East Side, which prices existing residents out of their homes.  Once again, Economics 101: if demand goes up, and supply is artificially held constant, price goes up.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Bottom Line: Council member Houston's proposal can only make gentrification on the east side worse...and it's straight up depressing that someone who should know better fails to grasp this obvious point.

Are the DIRTIEST aspects of local Austin politics going statewide?!?

"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

Meet HB 1175 by Hinojosa:

HB01175I by Cahnman on Scribd

This is the Grove exported statewide, and that's a threat to property rights that should make every Texan shudder.

For those who don't follow the ins and outs of City of Austin land use battles, the Grove was a (recently concluded) two-year saga to build new housing on a gigantic empty lot one block away from a major highway.  In a city that needs to build 150,000 new housing units, existing homeowners colluded with anti-growth politicians to use every disingenuous excuse in the book to prevent residential construction on a gigantic empty lot.  As we detailed last fall, welcome to 'neighborhood association' politics: "existing residents buy homes in destination cities, and then utilize land-use regulations and anti-growth public officials to prevent new construction."

And creating new land use regulations at the state level threatens the property rights of every Texan.

Now who, pray tell, is the Austin Neighborhoods Council?!?

The Austin Neighborhoods Council is a protectionist anti-property rights organization that unfortunately dominates politics in this town.  While they attempt to obfuscate with vague rhetoric, their primary function is to keep Central Austin 'safe' for rich white liberals by making it prohibitively expensive for Black or Hispanic families (or anyone under age 50) to live there.  On a semi-related note, ANC's actions to make it impossible to build in central Austin also plays a big role in why Austin traffic has become such a nightmare.

And, apparently, Gina Hinojosa is ANC's lady in the Texas Legislature.

And this bill, if it passes, will give your neighbors a veto over anything you want to build on your property...unless you can get three quarters of the relevant city council to support your position (which is impossible).

Bottom Line: If you want to make the rest of Texas more like Austin, HB 1175 would be a good place to start.

City of Austin subsidizes irresponsible sexual activity....

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
1 Corinthians 1:25

Oh good grief:

Austin Health and Human Services employees have been hanging bags of condoms and lube from trees at Walnut Creek Park since last month to promote safe sex — though neither the HHS director nor the city Parks and Recreation Department knew about it, directors said Friday.

Parks employees took the bags down Thursday, considering them litter, but did not immediately know they came from a city initiative, said Parks Director Sara Hensley.

“Plastic bags, of course, can fall into the creek and hurt critters,” she said. “Then we found out it was an effort to educate the public about safe sex, which we absolutely support, but I’m not sure hanging something from a tree is the best way to get the message across.”

“We have to weigh, is this appropriate,” she added. “Our parks are open to everyone, including young children and others.”

HHS Director Shannon Jones said he didn’t know about the initiative within his department until Friday morning, after a KXAN report broke the news Thursday evening.

“We’ve been informed of the activity as of today (Friday)…but it falls within our department, so we are ultimately responsible,” he said. “Most of the programs that we do, we have a vetting process. We have reminded our staff of that.”

KXAN credited the program to Akesha Johnson-Smothers, a program manager for HIV prevention. According to her Facebook page, she began working for the city this year, after nearly a decade with the Texas Department of State Health Services. Jones said there would be an investigation into the communication and vetting concerning the condom program and possible disciplinary action.

 A few thoughts:

• We basically don't care about the activities in which people engage behind closed doors...but behind closed doors means behind closed doors.

• Likewise 'live and let live' means not asking the rest of us to subsidize the activity in question.

• Regardless of the specific activity under discussion, the fact that neither the head of the health department nor anyone in the parks department knew this was happening illustrates the general dysfunction of city government.

But, in what might be a small Christmas miracle, we completely agree with this comment from Leslie Pool (*):

Leslie Pool, the City Council member who represents the district, had just heard about the condoms Friday. She called the effort well-intentioned but said “we need to do it in a more appropriate way.”

Read the whole thing here.  Empower Texans has more here.  KXAN has more here.

-----

* -- That's a statement we never thought we'd type.

Will Pool's spiteful NIMBYism derail new housing?!?

"And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[a] There is no other commandment greater than these."
Mark 12:31

[Author's Note: Read the first linked Austin Monitor article here, and the second one here.]

We first discussed the Grove three weeks ago; some new developments:

ARG Bull Creek Ltd. is ratcheting up pressure on City Council members to approve the Grove at Shoal Creek, a massive planned unit development it hopes to build on a 75-acre lot at the corner of Bull Creek Road and 45th Street.

In a letter addressed yesterday to Mayor Steve Adler and all 10 members of Council, Jeff Howard, an attorney for the developer, states that the company will abandon its plans for a planned unit development if Council adopts a number of changes to the project offered by Council Member Leslie Pool, the leading opponent of ARG’s proposed project.

If ARG ditches the PUD application and instead pursues conventional zoning, the developer warns, the resulting project will be a group of expensive single-family homes rather than a mixed-use development that includes affordable housing, office space, retail and more parkland than would be required under conventional zoning.

Among the many amendments Pool has proposed, the one the developers view as the most unworkable would reduce the number of daily vehicle trips the project is allowed to generate by 25 percent, from roughly 24,000 to roughly 18,000.

That limit, argues Howard in the letter, would result in a nearly 50 percent reduction in office space, a 33 percent reduction in retail development and a 25 percent reduction in residential units.

Pool and the Bull Creek Road Coalition, a neighborhood coalition that Pool used to lead and that opposes the current Grove proposal, have said they do not object to the amount of housing proposed for the site. Instead, they want less commercial space on the site.

ARG has countered, however, that if it reduced vehicle trip counts only by reducing commercial space, the commercial development allowed would be too small to create the necessary “critical mass” of retail.

In other words, rather than taking a meaningful step to address Austin's housing shortage, Pool wants to continue business as usual.

Also, the notion that the opponents only object to the commercial space is nothing more than a disingenuous stall tactic.

Then this happened:

Mayor Steve Adler hopes to start the process of approving the Grove at Shoal Creek, a controversial planned unit development in Central Austin, at City Council’s next meeting on Thursday.

At a Council work session on Tuesday, Adler explained to Council colleagues that he supports approving a draft plan of the PUD on “first reading” at their next meeting. He noted, however, that whatever is approved on the first reading (of the required three) will simply be a “placeholder” draft that he will be open to changing after further talks with city staff, neighborhood groups and the developers pushing the project.

Adler suggested that the “placeholder” ordinance largely mirror the recommendation made by the Zoning and Platting Commission in July but incorporate some of the amendments proposed by Council Member Leslie Pool that would reduce the amount of retail and commercial space allowed on the now-vacant 75-acre field at the corner of Bull Creek Road and 45th Street.

So...Pool's stalling has gotten us to a situation where Adler's office is trying to "broker a compromise."  Great.  That usually works out swimmingly.

We honestly don't know what to say.  We have no idea what will happen.  We find ourselves tempted to use language inconsistent with a family friendly website, but will suffice to say that this is a textbook example of 'governance' under Austin's old guard.

Bottom Line: We live in a city with a chronic housing shortage.  Someone wants to build LOTS of housing.  How is this even controversial?!?

"The Grove" and Austin's disengenous NIMBY Establishment....

"And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12:31

[Author's Note: The Grove is up for final approval at today's council meeting (Item 73).  According to sources at City Hall, they're expecting about 8 hours of testimony.  We don't feel like sitting through the hearing, so this blog post can serve as written testimony.]

Let's suppose you live in a city with a severe housing shortage.  Let's suppose, further, that there was a gigantic empty lot one block away from a major highway.  Would it make sense to build housing?!?

Of course it would.

But old guard Austin begs to differ.

-----

We discovered this issue a couple months ago when we started examining Natalie Gauldin's candidacy in district 7.  Natalie cut her teeth fighting for it.  But our thoughts today are only tangentially related to that race.

Mostly, we're incredulous that people oppose building housing on a gigantic empty lot in a city with a housing shortage.

How is this even controversial?!?

-----

The short answer is that it's 'controversial' because of a phenomenon called "neighborhood association" politics; as Forbes explained this past summer:

[E]xisting residents buy homes in destination cities, and then utilize land-use regulations and anti-growth public officials to prevent new construction.

In this case, the anti-growth public official is Leslie Pool.

-----

At this point, it's worth pointing out that we're not crazy about every aspect of this project.  As part of the political sausage making process, a whole bunch of unnecessary 'affordable housing' subsidies have been tacked on.  That being said, it's probably the best deal we can get within political reality.

On net, it moves the ball forward.

But this was never about 'affordable housing,' and now the NIMBY's are yammering on about "traffic."

-----

It's the subject of 'traffic' where the disingenuousness of the opposition becomes obvious.  Remember, in the first section, when we said the site was one block away from a major highway?!?  That highway would be MoPAC.

In other words, it's pretty much impossible to site a project of this nature in a location where it would have less of an impact on 'traffic' in the surrounding neighborhood.

Personal note: we frequently travel through this intersection for work.  By standards of Austin's traffic, the 45th/MoPAC intersection isn't that bad.  But, of course, this isn't about 'traffic'....

-----

At this point, let's circle back to district 7.  This issue highlights the single biggest difference between Natalie Gauldin and Leslie Pool.  Donate to Natalie's campaign here.

-----

Bottom Line: How is this even controversial?!?

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.

Local establishment goes all in for Pool in #ATXCouncil D7....

"He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will be destroyed."
Proverbs 13:20

Show us your friends and we'll show you your future; from this week's Austin Chronicle:

Leslie Pool Campaign Kick-Off Join Lloyd Doggett, Donna Howard, Elliott Naish­tat, Eddie Rodriguez, Celia Israel, Gina Hinojosa, Brigid Shea, and Elizabeth McQueen is the special music guest. Thu., Sept. 8, 6-7:30pm.

That list is practically a who's who of Austin's NIMBY old guard.

Speaking of Celia Israel, someone who's so inclined could have a lot of fun with that connection.

Gauldin strongly positioned in #ATXCouncil District 7

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

[Author's Note: District 7 covers North Central Austin, from Burnet Rd. up to Parmer Lane.]

Looks like Natalie Gauldin has Leslie Pool one on one; from her latest campaign newsletter:

I’m excited to announce that I am officially the ONLY candidate challenging the incumbent District 7 City Councilmember. This is great news for our campaign! We will not need to head into a runoff and we will not need to compare ourselves to other candidates. Voters will have two choices and I am confident that our message will resonate with the majority of District 7 residents. Maintaining the status quo is not enough to truly address the transportation and affordability concerns of the average Austinite. It’s time for a change down at City Hall and we can get there with YOUR help!

Thank you to everyone who has been spreading the word about this campaign. I have been going door to door speaking with voters daily since July. In that time, I’ve had countless people mention seeing the yard signs out in the area or having spoken with their supportive friends. I really appreciate you helping to give me a head start on earning their votes.

....

Whether you choose to participate in the campaign by block-walking in the area or by making a contribution to the campaign, we thank you for your support. By joining together in this effort, we are confident we can continue to move towards a more affordable Austin with transportation options that work for everyone. Make sure to stay tuned for exciting updates on social media and our website over the next few weeks.

We can't find a link to the full newsletter, but you can sign up to receive e-mails for yourself here.

#ATXCouncil District 7: Natalie Gauldin's PROMISING Launch!!!

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

We recently attended Natalie Gauldin's campaign launch party for council district 7.  We followed that up with an extended telephone conversation.  We don't expect to agree with her on everything, but we have substantial overlap on the biggest issues Austin will face over the next few years.



The biggest issue where we agree is housing and land use.  The biggest reason why housing costs in Austin have exploded in recent years are NIMBY-style restrictions that prohibit construction in the urban core.  This restricts the supply of housing (which increases the cost) while simultaneously pushing what construction does occur to the perimeter (which, of course, begets traffic).

Gauldin wants to expand 'opportunities and options' for land use.  She wants to lower housing costs by increasing property rights.   As one example, she wants to lift lot-size restrictions that incentivize building McMansions instead of multi-unit residences in the urban core.  She has recently led an effort to secure new construction in central Austin and also helped reduce restrictions on 'granny flats.'  In other words, her record includes tangible steps in the right direction.

Gauldin's priorities on council will be affordability and transportation...which segued into our discussion of technological regulation.  Council's actions over the last year related to Uber/Lyft and Short Term rentals were a distraction from her priorities.  Gauldin opposes both.  As future cases emerge, she would need to see meaningful public demand for regulation and data that proves the regulations in question would achieve their intended purpose before she would consider it.  This is a remarkably refreshing perspective for a member of the Austin city council.

In discussing taxes, without prompting she brought up the fact that 'fees' on Austin energy bills are actually hidden taxes.  She didn't know it when she brought it up, but that's actually one of our gigantic pet peeves in local governance.  On property taxes, she is unenthusiastic about expanding a homestead exemption that ignores the hidden tax burden on renters, but she wants to discuss more meaningful reductions in the tax rate.

We also discussed various scenarios for reforming the city bureaucracy.  We were pleased to learn she believes the city staff should serve the priorities set by the elected council, not the other way around.  This stands in contrast to an incumbent who has been a rubber stamp for the bureaucracy and voted to give the city manager a raise.

Speaking of the incumbent, did we mention that Natalie Gauldin is challenging Leslie Pool?!?  That, by itself, should tell readers everything the need to know.  We'd rather discuss the challenger's positives than the incumbent's negatives, but we can go there as necessary.

That's not to say we agree with Natalie Gauldin universally.  She has a higher opinion of the viability of bike trails and rail than this website.  That being said, her views on issues like bike trails and rail make her a better fit for the district.

Bottom Line: Housing costs and land use regulation are the biggest issue council must confront in coming years.  We cannot address Austin's affordability challenges unless we tackle housing.  While we do not expect do agree with her across the board, the early signs on the most important issues are highly encouraging.

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]
  
  

Split Council gives Courthouse Alternative Bronx Cheer

Left to Right: Council members Pio Renteria, Ellen Troxclair, Kathy Tovo, Leslie Pool, Don Zimmerman, and Ora Houston

"There is desirable treasure,
And oil in the dwelling of the wise,
But a foolish man squanders it.
Proverbs 21:20

Austin City Hall -- In a disappointing development, Austin City Council member Ellen Troxclair (Southwest Austin) was unable to obtain a second in today's hearing in the Audit and Finance committee to forward an alternative County courthouse proposal to the full Council.



[Author's Note: Our testimony begins at the 7 minute mark.]

The proposal, by Council members Don Zimmerman (Far Northwest Austin) and Ora Houston (East Austin), would have directed the City Manager to find an alternative location from city owned property in East Austin.

Council member Houston discussed the potential for an alternative courthouse location to spur economic development in her district.  She advocated creating "alternative population centers" beyond downtown.  Going back to 2013, residents in Houston's district have asked why major governmental development needs to take place in a downtown area that is already severely congested.  Also, the cost of downtown parking is a serious hurdle her district's residents when they use the current courthouse.  Zimmerman explained common financial objections to the current proposal and mentioned that the city could collect $87 million in property tax revenue over the next 40 years from a mixed-use development on the current proposed courthouse location.

During public testimony, this author stuck to the logistical nightmare the current proposal entails.  As a governmental building where people come and go at 9AM and 5PM, a new courthouse 1.5 blocks from City Hall would deposit more cars on already gridlocked downtown streets during the worst of rush hour.  A mixed-use facility, by contrast, would have people coming and going throughout the day and wouldn't worsen the rush hour bottleneck.  We also pointed out that people who do business at the courthouse but don't have office space downtown hate the logistical nightmare of doing so.  Finally, we mentioned that if bus service to that part of town was insufficient, it was far easier to add bus service to East Austin than it would be to surmount the logistical nightmare the current proposal worsens.

A representative from the pro-Courthouse side spoke next.  She outlined the litany of complaints about the current courthouse that no one disputes.  Calling East Austin "the middle of nowhere," she said "the people's business belongs centrally [sic]."  She mentioned Gerald Daugherty, the Republican county commissioner whose support for this proposal has landed him in hot water.  Finally, the pro-courthouse representative appealed to bureaucratic solidarity with "a sister body," your "fellow governmental entity."

Council Member Houston took offense at the characterization of East Austin as "the middle of nowhere."  She chastised the pro-Courthouse representative: "thank you for telling us what's best for us."  She also said that Travis County had yet to respond to request she'd made for information on the current proposal.  Council member Houston got the pro-Courthouse representative to admit between one-third and 40% of the parking at the new facility would go to Courthouse staff.  Finally, Council member Houston cited this author's point about the ease of redesigning bus routes favorably.

At this point, Council member Zimmerman pointed out that by building "out" instead of "up," an East Austin courthouse would cost between one-third and half of the downtown proposal.

Local activist David King closed public testimony by calling the alternative proposal a "GREAT" idea: "if we're serious about equity, this is our opportunity."

In response to public testimony, Council Member Pio Renteria (Southeast Austin) said he couldn't support the alternative proposal unless the county were to move all the county offices along with the Courthouse.  Council members Kathy Tovo (Central Austin) and Leslie Pool (North Central Austin) echoed the pro-Courthouse representative's bureaucratic solidarity argument.  When Council member Troxclair attempted to forward the resolution to the full council, she couldn't find a second.

Bottom Line: While the resolution was unsuccessful, today's hearing highlighted public interest in a better alternative to the current proposal.  Rather than a playground for rich downtown lawyers on prime real estate, Travis County needs a courthouse for everyone.  Public demand exists.

-----

Highlighting the logistical nightmare of the current proposal, within two minutes and half-a-block of City Hall, we saw this: