Category Archives: General Affordability Updates

Austin To Consider Challenging Commercial Property Appraisals

6 Replies

By Bill Oakey – May 19, 2015

The City of Austin will decide within less than two weeks whether to formally challenge the tax appraisals of non-residential commercial properties. This would be a landmark event that comes as very welcome news. For far too long, commercial property owners have enjoyed the benefit of special loopholes under Texas law that allow them to gain property tax appraisals that often equate to only 60% of their true market value.

Texas is one of a tiny handful of states that do not require sales disclosure of properties after completed real estate transactions. This creates a tremendous burden on tax appraisal districts. It is much harder for them to determine actual market value of many commercial properties than it is for residential units. Residential units can be appraised in bulk, because of common characteristics in residential neighborhoods. But commercial properties vary widely in all sorts of respects, causing appraisals districts to face lots of challenges in trying to accurately estimate the market value of every building within their jurisdictions.

in Travis County, 90% of commercial property owners challenge their appraisals, and they often take their cases to court. The deep pockets of the big corporations dwarf the budget of the appraisal district, creating a very unlevel playing field. Many of the very same companies that receive tax subsidies to locate in Austin turn around and protest their tax appraisals, shifting the burden to residential taxpayers. The whole picture does not bode well for the beleaguered homeowners who have seen their tax appraisals shoot through the roof in the last few years.

A Great Big Thank You to Mayor Pro-Tem Kathie Tovo and Council Members Ann Kitchen, Ellen Troxclair Don Zimmerman!

These four City Council members have co-sponsored a resolution for Tuesday May 19th  to formally challenge this year’s tax appraisals for large commercial properties. A final decision on whether to file a challenge must be made before June 1st. The City has been studying and preparing for this potential action since last year. Of course there are risks that tax collections might be delayed. Bold actions always come with risks. But a fight for fairness is always a noble fight! One might ask, why doesn’t the Texas Legislature pass better laws to close the loopholes enjoyed by the rich and powerful? (silly question).

And one might say that commercial property owners might just raise their prices to their customers if they were suddenly required to pay their fair share of property taxes. But I have a much different outlook on the situation. Why should good, hard working average citizens be taxed out of their socks, year after year, while the big boys skate by without paying their fair share? I’m not the least bit concerned about how tough the fight is. The fact that we have new people on the City Council who are bold enough to stand up for the taxpayers is something to celebrate. I support the City Council resolution. Let the battle begin!

You Are Invited to a Property Tax Appraisal Forum

Dear Travis County Resident,

Commissioner Brigid Shea invites you to the Property Tax Appraisal Forum on Tuesday, May 19th from 6:00-8:00pm at the First Unitarian Universalist Church (4700 Grover Ave; 78757).

The forum will provide information on the current status of tax appraisals and the efforts underway to ease the burden on homeowners. The speakers will address concerns and provide information that you may need for appeals and exemptions, as well as an update on current legislation.

Speakers Include:

Brigid Shea, Travis County Commissioner

Kathie Tovo, City of Austin Mayor Pro Tem

Bruce Elfant, Travis County Tax Assessor

Marya Crigler, Travis Central Appraisal District Chief Appraiser

Dick Levine, Center for Public Policy Priorities

Leigh Murrin, Real Values for Texas

Sincerely,

Brigid Shea
Travis County Commissioner, Precinct 2
Address: 700 Lavaca, Ste.2.700, Austin, Texas
Phone: 512-854-1489
Email: Brigid.Shea@traviscountytx.gov
Twitter and Facebook: CommishShea

Watch The Austin Training Video, “Women Leading In Local Government”

Leave a reply

By Bill Oakey – May 14, 2015

The world of Austin politics exploded this week when the Austin American-Statesman broke a shocking story about a City management training session on Women Leading In Local Government. The firestorm erupted when all seven of the newly elected female City Council members found out what their own city’s executive staff did. Not only did they allow a condescending approach toward women to be presented in a training session, but they turned around and defended such a thing after the fact. As of today, one assistant city manager, Anthony Snipes, has already been suspended over the fiasco.

According to the training speaker brought in from Florida, women “ask too many questions” and they “have no interest in financial matters.” Well, as an affordability advocate for the past few years, I can tell you this much about the women on the Austin City Council. Don’t mess with them unless you have your facts straight. The best representation of financial expertise would be Mayor Pro-Tem Kathie Tovo. She has served very well as Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee. Council Member Delia Garza chairs the Regional Affordability Committee. Any doubters of feminine fortitude and financial forthrightness should also take note of Leslie Pool, Ora Houston, Ann Kitchen, Sheri Gallo and Ellen Troxclair.

Rather than repeat the details of the widely circulated news story, I will point you here to the full video of the training session. 

You can also watch the “Revenge of the Seven” as they spoke to the news media about their frustration.

Can We Afford To Sustain The Austin Boom? The Numbers Say No

4 Replies

By Bill Oakey – May 12, 2015

I will never forget the time that I was standing on the shore, gazing out across the beautiful, peaceful sea. Then it started coming, slowly at first, until the sound of its engines overwhelmed me. It was a huge airplane, slicing through the previously silent sky, with an ominous roar. Suddenly the plane dipped and I saw the flames. It was all too real! Was I actually about to witness a crash? Fortunately, I did not fall out of bed. The nightmare just jolted me awake.

On May 11th, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) approved their 2040 Transportation Plan. To the tune of $35.1 billion. That divides out to $1.4 billion every year for 25 years in a row. The Austin area shares the biggest chunk of that burden. And somehow we have to pay for it all.

Our CTRMA toll road authority got a bond rating upgrade last fall…all the way up to BBB and BBB-. Their ambitious plans for both North MoPac and South MoPac call for adding express lanes with high-cost variable tolls that favor the wealthy. But expensive transportation plans are just the beginning.

The shelves in several local offices are bulging with lots of other plans. Travis County’s Downtown Campus Plan and the City’s Downtown Austin plan are already underway. In fact the “Congress Avenue Urban Design Initiative” kicks off on May 20th. You are invited to come and witness the plan to transform Congress into the Champs Élysées of Texas.

Parts of some of these plans are essential, for repairs to aging infrastructure. But just close your eyrs and try to imagine a giant list of plans for every “corridor” of the city. We have an Urban Forestry Plan, a new Aquatics Plan, and an untold number of others – some probably still being “planned.” We have City plans, County plans, Central Health, ACC, AISD, utilty expansions, etc. A new hospital to replace Brackenridge, a new Erwin Center.

One of my affordability goals is to ask for a master list of plans that would include an itemization of costs, with the grand total and the yearly cost to taxpayers. There is little doubt that those figures will be completely unsustainable. That means our public officials will need to set some priorities. The stampede toward Austin from all four corners of the Earth may not end well.

it makes me think about the march of the brooms.

Does anybody remember the story of “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice?” Maybe there is a great sorcerer out there with enough power to make Austin’s boom last forever. Maybe he can even help us defy gravity. But what if the Great Sorcerer steps away. And we are left with his bumbling apprentice to control all of those brooms – the cars and the plans?  They just keep multiplying, they just keep coming.

You can watch “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” on YouTube.

And I have one other musical option. I will warn you – this is a sad story. It’s about bumping head-on into a sobering reality, with a lead character who is a little bit less than sober. It’s an old country song by Porter Wagoner, “The Cold Hard Facts of Life.”

Holy Cow! Dallas Also Embroiled In Toll-Road-In-The-Park Battle

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – May 8, 2015

Thursday night’s Austin City Council hearing on toll lanes over Lady Bird Lake brought back fond memories of grass-roots citizens coming together to fight for the Save Our Springs Ordinance (SOS) back in the early 90’s. The overwhelming majority of last night’s speakers do not want a double-decker bridge with unaffordable surge-priced tolls built over Lady Bird Lake.

Highlights from the meeting included Travis County Commissioner and SOS co-founder, Brigid Shea, reading a letter from Luci Baines Johnson. The crowd in the Council Chambers went wild! Several speakers pointed out that major cities around the world are now or have been removing highways from parks and waterways. These include Seattle, Portland, Boston, Singapore and even Seoul, South Korea.

When the dust settled and all the speakers had made their appeals, newly elected Mayor, Steve Adler, shined like a beacon. He spoke eloquently of Lady Bird Lake, Zilker Park and Auditorium Shores being the “Crown Jewels of Austin.” No one who engaged with him could match his grasp of the details. There wasn’t a person in the room who could match Adler’s acumen for citing Federal regulations, previous CAMPO grant application language or any other minute details. (My own whimsical thoughts of challenging the Mayor to a game of Scrabble have been placed on hold indefinitely).

After lengthy discussions and much nitpicking over the wording, the City Council voted 9 to 2 to adopt a resolution calling for an independent City study of alternatives for the road’s size and location. The resolution also calls upon the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), to work closely with City officials in their own study, which is already underway. Importantly, the resolution does not call for abandoning the road project altogether. Many speakers supporting the single option of four toll lanes over Lady Bird Lake characterized the Council resolution as nothing more than an environmentalist attack on traffic relief for South Austin.

Take a Look At What’s Happening In Dallas!

It turns out that the good people of Dallas are fighting a very similar battle. And it will all come to a head in a big City Council election happening tomorrow (Saturday May 9th). Take a look at the article below:

Poll finds Dallasites’ support for toll road within Trinity River levees tepid

 Follow @brandonformby bformby@dallasnews.com

Transportation Writer, Dallas Morning News

April 22, 2015

As the size of the Trinity Parkway grew in recent years, so did a chasm between how Dallas residents and top city officials view the controversial toll road, a poll by The Dallas Morning News shows.

Public support for the $1.3 billion project planned within the Trinity River levees is tepid, even though voters have twice approved it and the City Council last week signaled strong support for a new idea on how to construct it.

Of Dallas residents who have formed an opinion on the road, 40 percent oppose it and 23 percent favor it. The News’ poll found opposition even higher among registered voters, with 65 percent against it.

Most aren’t swayed by plans to initially start the toll road with fewer lanes and interchanges than what could eventually be built decades in the future.

Federal highway authorities this month approved construction for the road designed as a large, high-speed tolled highway that would run inside the city’s planned massive park alongside the river.

Project opponents say the survey results lay bare a long-growing disdain for the road — and a burgeoning distrust of the city officials who back it.

“This poll clearly shows that Dallas voters are now decisively rejecting the Trinity toll road,” said Angela Hunt, a former City Council member who led the failed 2007 referendum to reduce the size of the project now going forward. “The people pushing for this road are not representing the interests of Dallas residents.”

While opponents for years have said that the road is inhospitable to the planned park, that wasn’t the primary factor fueling opposition citywide. The project’s $1.3 billion cost is, say those who opposed it in the poll.

Toll road supporters, meanwhile, say the numbers highlight the need to better educate an electorate that still has a large group of undecideds. More than a third of residents either haven’t received enough information to form an opinion or have yet to make up their minds.

Two-thirds of those surveyed said downtown highways need traffic relief, though only 17 percent believe Trinity Parkway is the right solution.

Mayor Mike Rawlings, a chief supporter of the road, said something must be done to alleviate congestion. The City Council has called for public meetings about the Trinity Parkway in coming weeks.

“Through those meetings, I will have the chance to get an accurate sense of where the community stands on the new parkway vision,” he said.

The primary reasons for backing the road among those who favored it were congestion relief, even though traffic estimates show it won’t provide a dramatic overall benefit and would worsen bottlenecks in parts of southern Dallas.

The poll of 800 Dallas residents, taken April 10-17 by Blum & Weprin Associates Inc. using cellphones and landlines, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. For registered voters, the margin of error was plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Election issue

The results shed light on how residents and voters view the project ahead of the May 9 election for City Council members who decide the project’s fate. The project itself is not on the ballot, but 65 percent of registered voters say where candidates stand on the issue will be an important consideration.

In a contentious meeting last week, council members agreed 10-4 to put together a team to determine which recommendations from a group of privately funded experts could be incorporated into the first phase of Trinity Parkway’s construction.

Those suggestions include initially building fewer lanes and interchanges than showed in designs for the full-scale version of the toll road. At the same meeting, the council also voted 10-4 against dropping its pursuit of the large toll road that some officials have said will eventually be built.

The News polled residents about moving forward on that full-scale project, often referred to as Alternative 3C. More than 63 percent of those opposed said starting with fewer lanes would make no difference in their opinion; 14 percent said it would make them more supportive. But 12 percent said that tactic would make them more opposed.

Council member and toll road supporter Lee Kleinman, who is unopposed for re-election, said that telling poll respondents that Trinity Parkway was a toll road biased the results because there is a strong sentiment against such road projects right now in North Texas.

Kleinman and Rawlings, whose election challenger Marcos Ronquillo is against the road, also faulted the poll for not asking about details of the so-called dream team’s recommendations for the first phase of construction.

The council has yet to formally adopt those recommendations and is just now trying to figure out which ones are feasible and allowable. There also is no plan yet for funding whatever recommendations get used.

Waiting on corps

The city already has received federal highway clearance for the road. It is awaiting approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build the road, park and lakes. Both reviews revolved around Alternative 3C. Kleinman said withdrawing support of Alternative 3C now could delay the road and the park for years.

Toll road opponent Philip Kingston, another council member without a challenger, doesn’t believe the overall corridor would be set back several years. He said it’s better to slow down and be right than speed up and be wrong.

“Are we in a hurry to make a 100-year mistake?” he said.

Craig Holcomb, a former City Council member who is now executive director of the nonprofit Trinity Commons Foundation and a longtime supporter of the road, said many respondents probably wrongly assumed that the bulk of costs will be paid through property taxes.

The city is expected to only spend $84 million, a ceiling set by voters in a 1998 bond election. Most of construction costs haven’t been determined, though officials will probably pursue a mix of toll revenue bonds, federal funds and state contributions.

“We’ll accept money wherever we can find it,” he said.

The Election Battle Erupts, With Felony Charges Recommended

From the Dallas Morning News City Hall Blog – May 8, 2015:

The Trinity Parkway dispute has divided candidates this election

Many City Council candidates are similar in their stances on issues.

But one has divided the candidates, like the council, into pro and anti groups: The proposal to build a toll road through the Trinity River floodway.

That issue has led unopposed anti-Trinity road council members like Philip Kingston to campaign for candidates outside of their own districts. In the middle of campaign season, new design ideas for the project yielded a heated council argument.

When police recommended felony charges against council member Scott Griggs last week after accusations he threatened a city employee, Griggs’ attorneys called the move political retaliation for his opposition to the Trinity project and a pre-election distraction.

The Biggest Tax Appraisal Shock Yet!

3 Replies

By Bill Oakey – April 29, 2015

They’re here!

That expression is somtimes used to announce that a flying saucer has landed. Emotions like horror and fear come to mind, especially when you get a peek at what lurks inside.

The same thing happens at this time every year in Austin.

The new TCAD property tax appraisals are now posted online. If you want to get scared out of your socks, just start picking out addresses from various neighborhoods and take a look, using TCAD’s property search page.

It’s not a pretty sight! Here is a map that shows some of the astonishing appraisal increases, as high as 29% in some neighborhoods. Click the graphic to enlarge it.

web_042915_travisappraisals

By reviewing the values across the City on TCAD’s website, you will see many $60,000 to $90,000+ increases for single family homes. Many of these same homeowners saw appraisal increases last year that were well above 10%. So, guess what that means. Even though there is a 10% cap on the home value used to calculate their tax bill, the assessment amount above the cap sits in the system to haunt the taxpayer in future years.

Even if the taxing entities lower their tax rates slightly to compensate for rising appraisals, tax bills continue to skyrocket.

Think about the longtime Austinites who have already seen their tax appraisals double and even triple in the last 10 or 15 years. Then think about the future. If taxes go up just 5% each year, it would only take 14 and a half years for today’s tax bills to double! That’s becuase the impact is compunded.

Ask yourself if the City of Austin can sustain that kind of tax spiral. Then you might want another cup of coffee.

Have a nice day!

New Travis County Courthouse Is Much Too Expensive!

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – April 2, 2015

My apologies for getting off to such a slow start with the blog this year. 2014 was a very busy time leading up to the City Council elections. That took an abundance of watchdogging and tons of energy. So, now it’s time to take a fresh look at both the City and the County. We need to remain vigilant and ensure that enough folks are looking out for the taxpayers.

The first order of business is to inform you that Travis County has gone far astray in their planning for a much needed new civil and family courthouse. Early last year I was appointed to serve on a Community Focus Committee to review the progress of the project. Unfortunately, my hopes for a cost effective plan have been completely dashed. You will find the details in my letter to the County Commissioners below.

Hello Travis County Commissioners:

I have decided to resign my position as a member of the Community Focus Committee On The Civil and Family Courthouse (CFC).

Please know that this has been a very difficult decision. I have served on the committee since its inception, and did so intending to make a vital contribution to the process. However, as an independent advocate for the local taxpayers, I have concluded that the high cost of the Civil and Family Courthouse cannot be justified. The members of the CFC are actively engaged in educating the community on the project. Without my wholehearted support of the $300 million project, I do not believe that my continued service on the committee would be helpful.

As you may recall, I have been active since 2013 in researching the cost of new civil and family courthouses across the country. I was able to identify one in Broward County, Florida that cost roughly half the price per square foot as the being planned for Travis County. After sharing this information with County officials, I felt confident that we could reduce the cost of our project accordingly.

At their September 13, 2013 meeting, I asked the Travis County Commissioners for a resolution calling upon the consultants to ensure that our new courthouse would be designed as “a national model of cost effectiveness and efficiency.” This language was adopted by the Court unanimously.

Upon my appointment to the CFC, I anticipated much discussion from County staff and the consultants on steps being taken to achieve the status of a national model of cost effectiveness and efficiency. However, this topic was only touched upon lightly, and did not reflect anything close to what I would consider a serious commitment. We were not presented with innovative strategies that would significantly reduce the cost of the project. Instead, we were told fairly recently that factors such as “the hot real estate market in Austin” and “the high cost of labor” will make it necessary to build the courthouse at a cost very close to $300 million.

I cannot point to even one concrete example of a unique cost effectiveness or efficiency planning or design initiative that was presented to our committee. Nor can I recall one single example of such an element that other counties across the United States could look to and say that we established a “national model of cost effectiveness and efficiency.”

What appears quite likely now is a scenario similar to what happened in Broward County, Florida when their proposed courthouse was first placed on a bond ballot. The voters overwhelmingly rejected it. This forced their County officials to delay the project and embark on a much more cost effective plan that would be acceptable to the taxpayers.

Just this past November, Austin voters approved a $386 million construction package for Austin Community College. This price tag included construction of a main campus at Highland Mall, plus renovations for quite a few other buildings. And yet, County taxpayers will soon be asked to pony up $300 million for just one downtown building. This bond proposal is likely to fail, just like the first one in Broward County, Florida.

Let there be no mistake about it, Travis County is badly in need of a new civil and family courthouse. In fact, that need is long overdue. However, I think it would behoove the members of the Commissioners Court to re-examine the current project with its high cost and come up with a streamlined proposal that would place a much smaller burden on the taxpayers.

I strongly believe that some serious fundamental questions were not addressed in the early planning for this project. Please consider the following points and how they relate to the courthouse project:

1. Travis County now has 16 civil and family courts. And yet they want to build a huge skyscraper the size of the Frost Bank Tower to house those courts. We have been told the increased space will be needed to handle court expansion well into the future. But has Travis County really seen that much of an exponential expansion of civil and family courts in recent years? Has there been a definite trend towards increasing the number of courts in sufficient numbers to justify such a large, expensive building?

2. Wouldn’t some of the money being proposed for such a large courthouse building be better spent toward programs for conflict resolution and better coordination between City, County and non-profit social programs? Such an effort could reduce the number of cases that ultimately wind up going to court.

3. Austin’s overwhelming traffic, water and affordability issues will pose serious challenges for planners with the City, County, AISD, ACC and Central Health. We will need bonds for transportation improvements. AISD will need bonds for building improvements and new schools. The City and County will both need bond money for various projects to keep pace with growth. We face ongoing pressure on water and electric rates as a result of the water crisis and the high cost of maintaining the electric grid.

Taxpayers can only absorb so much. Therefore, we look to our leaders for smart planning and the best judgment possible on every project that comes before us to consider. The lavish and expensive building that is being proposed for the new courthouse might have been acceptable in an earlier time when the cost of living in Austin was not as high as it is today. We simply cannot afford a “business as usual” approach to a project as important as the badly needed new courthouse.

I urge the Commissioners to please think long and hard about the September 10, 2013 resolution I proposed that was adopted unanimously. Then go back to the drawing board and plan a new civil and family courthouse that does indeed represent a national model of cost effectiveness and efficiency.

Stay Tuned for New Reforms Under the New City Council

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – January 25, 2015

As 2015 gets under way, Austin is on the verge of the biggest era of reforms in decades. This is indeed a very exciting time. Mayor Adler and the members of the new 10-1 City Council are already at work developing the new Council committee structure. That will provide the framework for a brand new approach to bringing items to the full Council for decision making.

The public hearing last week to discuss the new committees was very well attended and quite enlightening. Most of the speakers expressed optimism that the new system will allow for better opportunities for public input. We all still have a lot to learn about who new proposals will be brought to the Council and how we can advance affordability reforms.

Here are just a few of the reforms that I will be working on with the new Council:

1. The 20% homestead exemption – We need to require private event promoters to pay their own way instead of asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars in fee waivers. The last Council asked the staff for input on some ideas to use funds from other sources besides the City budget to help offset some of the fees. Let’s hope the new Council movers forward in that direction. Every opportunity to save money in the budget needs to be considered. I have proposed limiting the percentage of unfilled staff vacancies, and disbursing funds to fill vacancies from a centralized account.

2. Truth in Taxation.

3. Reducing or eliminating Capital Metro fares for seniors and citizens with disabilities.

4. More improvements in transparency and a new public engagement ordinance.

Hopefully, there will some positive progress to report on very soon. Stay tuned!

What Happened To “Affordability” In The Council Runoff Campaigns?

5 Replies

By Bill Oakey – December 8, 2014

Have you ever stood next to a giant balloon just as someone pulled the plug and let the air out of it? At first, you hear a giant shhh-ing sound that is so loud and pervasive that it catches everyone’s attention. Then, once the sound begins to taper off, you forget that the change is still taking place.

That is exactly what’s happening with the affordability issue in the City Council runoff campaigns. For several months, candidates touted their concerns about it, usually branding it the number one issue. Some listed it in a tie for first place with traffic. Now here we are, just over a week before the election, and the affordability platforms are nowhere to be found.

Grab a copy of this week’s Austin Chronicle and flip to the first full page campaign ad. The words
“Early Vote Labor Rally!” come screaming at you. Then a few pages later comes a candidate who boasts of being “The Progressive Choice.” She proudly touts her support from “Our Neighborhoods,” “Our Environment,” and “Austin Women.” The word “affordability” appears nowhere on the entire page. Then comes another full page ad, “You Can’t Believe Candidate X on the Environment.” You would think that this election was being held in 1985 instead of 2014. All of those issues are still important to Austin voters. But 2014 has been described by most observers as the tipping point for affordability. We either grab the issue by the reins now and wrestle it into submission, or Austin will be out of reach permanently for thousands of existing residents and newcomers of modest incomes.

Perhaps the campaign consultants who wrote the ads are simply stuck in a time warp. Or else they are deluding themselves by thinking that the same old cliches will bring voters to the polls and help their candidates win. It’s convenient to fall back on the same entrenched coalitions and time-worn buzzwords that have been used in every City Council campaign for decades. But those who cannot see the handwriting on the wall face peril if they ignore the warning signs.

Taxpayers are fed up and they want substantive solutions. They expect much more than back-burner treatment of the issues that lie clearly in the forefront of most Austinites minds today. Our city has become unaffordable and we seek the leadership necessary to turn that situation around. We are sick of lip service and we are tired of written reports that list affordability as a goal, while outlining business as usual at every step of the way in every published planning document.

The big picture view of the problem is very clear. Austin has been hyped well beyond our ability to cope with it. Assumptions of massive population growth are not backed up with any notion of where the money would come from to pay for the infrastructure. We are rapidly running out of water, and our roads are so congested that total gridlock can be expected on many thoroughfares in the very near future. And yet, CAMPO, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, just published a report claiming that we will spend $32 billion over the next 25 years for roads and other transportation projects. But they fail to suggest where “we” will come up with that staggering sum of money. According to a chart published by the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, 80% of that $32 billion will need to come from “local funding sources.” Again I ask, what local funding sources? Who in Austin can you point to anyone who believes that local taxpayers can afford $1.3 billion a year, every year, for 25 years in a row for projects of any kind whatsoever? (See my previous blog post, Can Austin Taxpayers Afford to Build a Whole New City)?

The celebrations following the swearing in of the new 10-1 City Council are now just a few short weeks ahead. But that joyous occasion will be followed by a stark reality check. The hard work will be laid upon their laps with a wallop. I know someone who will be down at City Hall reminding them about truth in taxation, budget transparency, limits on funding vacant staff positions, saving budget surpluses for tax and utility rate relief and a host of other affordability reforms. Our voices were heard loud and clear with the trouncing of the urban rail boondoggle. Any politician who did not get that message or does not understand the gravity of affordability among the voters should expect to incur the wrath of the entire city if they don’t stand up and take notice.

If you’re looking for some reading material to tide you over between now and the ushering in of the new City Council, check out this timely, relevant and disturbing article from Salon Magazine that paints a grim picture of Houston that closely parallels our situation here. It’s called “How Oligarchs Destroyed a Major American City.”

From Project Connect to Air Max Shoes

3 Replies

By Bill Oakey – December 1, 2014

This morning, I thought I would check in on the Project Connect website to see what they’re up to. I clicked on the usual http://www.projectconnect.com/ and got a big surprise. I was redirected to anyjordan.com, a website that sells Nike basketball shoes inspired by Michael Jordan.

Further down in my “Project Connect Austin” Google search, I tried a Capital Metro link. That eventually led me to a new address, hidden from view beneath the listed name, projectconnect.com. The site name now appears in your browser address bar as http://www.connectcentraltexas.com

This address is so new that it has no direct link from Google. It appears that our transit officials failed to properly register the domain name for ProjectConnect.com. Or else, there is another possibility. Could it be that Project Connect is undergoing a facelift? Will the new year ring in a new name in an attempt to rehabilitate the failed pro-urban-rail organization?

Perhaps we will all wake up shortly after New Year’s Day to find that the old Project Connect has transformed itself into Connect Central Texas. After that, they may decide to rename Capital Metro. Maybe we could even help them choose a name. How about Mobility Austin? Or maybe something more cryptic and flexible, like Code ATX? Actually, that would probably be a better choice for the new name for Project Connect. With Code ATX, it would be much easier to revamp the bureaucracy every time one of their visioning processes gets rejected by the voters.

One final note. It is beyond hope and far too late for Lee Leffingwell to rehabilitate himself. He needn’t bother to change his name. In fact, if the cops were to catch him speeding on his way out of town, they should just move over and let him get on down the road.

Taxpayers Rejoice! Rail Bonds Trounced By 14 Points!

6 Replies

By Bill Oakey – November 5, 2014

We did it! The people have spoken and now we can celebrate! We just defeated the largest tax increase in Austin history! Congratulations to all of you who voted and thanks for all of your efforts…

Balloons

The final tally was 57.2% against and 42.8% for. That is a difference of 14.4 percentage points, a resounding victory by any measure! If you would like to see a breakdown by precinct of how the rail bond votes were cast, check out this report:

Travis County Results By Precinct

Click on the image below to see a City-generated map of the precincts and their percentage of support for the rail bonds:

Urban Rail Precinct Map

Notice the numerous bright red areas where the bonds failed by over 65%. The highest margin that I have found so far is in Southwest Precinct 363, where the bonds failed by 76.36%. There are many lessons that our civic leaders and a long list of insiders from various organizations can learn from this experience. First among them could not be more basic…

Listen to the people!

When over 70 candidates for the City Council precincts began talking with their constituents early in the campaign, most of them learned quickly that public sentiment was against the cost and against the route for this rail plan. However, community involvement was never considered to be a major part of the planning process by the City Council, Capital Metro, or Project Connect. Instead, they relied on the strong arm tactics of developers and other downtown special interests to tell them what was best for all of us. But coming on the heals of a massive tax increase to allow U.T. to build the only tax supported medical school in the history of the nation, voters have made their position abundantly clear – Enough is enough!

Now What’s Next for Project Connect?

That is a very good question. The gang that couldn’t shoot straight never did connect with the public. Hordes of people were not clamoring to take a train ride from East Riverside to Highland Mall. So, now what will happen to all of the staff bureaucrats who have been planning, reporting, compiling and otherwise pontificating on the future of light rail in Austin? Will they disband their operations and turn off the spending spigot? Or will they simply take a break and then get back down to business?

After all, we had the ROMA consultant report on rail almost a decade ago. I shudder to think how many tens of millions of dollars have already been poured down the rat hole for this failed route for a rail system. It was 9.5 miles to be a “first phase” of a citywide system. We would have exhausted our City bonding capacity to pay for it. And yet no one ever publicly talked about how much it would cost to build and maintain a citywide system. It would probably be safe to assume that the planning and building cost alone would be at least $10 billion and possibly much more. The Portland rail system that is so often highly touted got its start in the 1980’s when building costs were infinitely less expensive.

And We Have One More Taxpayer Victory to Celebrate!

img-thing

The ACC proposition to raise the cap on the tax rate went down to defeat last night! This is wonderful news. It is helpful to recognize that ACC has been raising taxes above the rollback rate on a regular basis. Now they should get the message that taxpayers have reached their limit. Remember that little thing called affordability? And besides, property appraisals will continue to increase until the inevitable bust at the end of the boom. So, ACC will have plenty of tax revenue coming in.

For the rest of the City Council members heading into a runoff on December 16th, please remember this. The people have let their voices ring loud and clear. Affordability is the number one issue. You will not be able to sit back and coast along on the time-worn mantras and cliches that have paved the path to victory in earlier elections. Let the debates begin, and may the best affordability candidate win in each of the remaining districts!