Tag Archives: Austin soccer

Should the City Allow A Soccer Stadium On Butler Shores Without An Election?

By Bill Oakey, December 2, 2017

Nope!

The Austin American-Statesman has published a stunning headline story, daring to suggest that the MLS soccer stadium might be plopped right into downtown! Well over 80 readers spoke out loudly against it in the comments section, in no time at all. The scariest part is that some insiders are proposing that the Butler Shores site be approved without the City Charter mandate for a public election.

The City Charter provision requiring a public vote on parkland use was set in motion by Mayor Bill Drake and the Austin City Council on December 9, 1952. On that date, the number one song in the country was “Why Don’t You Believe Me?” by Joni James. All these years later, we must still ask that same question. When lawyers successfully sue the City, the taxpayers get to pay their hourly fees plus court costs. To the big dreamers who want to build the soccer stadium on Butler Shores without an election, we can offer this. The number one song on January 31, 1953 when voters approved the Charter Amendment by 61% was “Don’t Let the Stars Get In Your Eyes” by Perry Como.

Read the history of the City and State laws protecting parks in the two blog postings below:

https://austinaffordability.com/2017/11/09/soccer-stadium-on-city-parkland-would-require-public-vote/

https://austinaffordability.com/2017/11/13/lets-clear-the-air-on-soccer-stadium-election-requirement-issue/

Advertisements

Statesman Covers Soccer Stadium Public Vote Issue

By Bill Oakey, November 25, 2017

Philip Jankowski did a pretty thorough job of covering the issue. (See my blog posting with the legal details). By the way, I would never support a soccer stadium at Butler Park! Maybe at Decker Lake, but only if the neighborhood association supported it.

Austin American-Statesman

Bringing pro soccer team to Austin, building stadium may trigger vote

By Philip Jankowski, November 24, 2017

Using parkland as the new home for a Major League Soccer stadium could require voter approval.

While local soccer enthusiasts might be elated at the news that a Major League Soccer team is serious about making Austin its home, they might have to persuade Austin residents at large to approve bringing the city’s first professional sports franchise.

An election over bringing the Crew SC soccer team — currently based in Columbus, Ohio — to Austin for the 2019 season is becoming a growing possibility as parkland in the core of the city is emerging as a potential location for a stadium that would need to seat at least 20,000 people.

Such a drastic change to parkland would be reminiscent of an effort two years ago to build world-class golf courses in far East Austin, something that the city ultimately said would likely need an election.

While Crew SC owner Anthony Precourt has promised he won’t use taxpayer money to build a facility, the economics would make much more sense if the city were able to provide the land for it free of charge.

To that end, the Austin City Council has ordered the city to research what city-owned land could be used for a MLS stadium, including parkland. Several media reports show that Butler Shores Metropolitan Park has emerged as the most attractive location for Precourt.

The park sits in a choice spot along Lady Bird Lake, just behind the Zach Theatre where Barton Creek empties into the Lady Bird Lake. It also meets Precourt’s goal of having a stadium in the city’s core.

But repurposing the parkland would likely trigger a public election, something Precourt’s lobbyist Richard Suttle said Precourt’s company would prefer to avoid.

Suttle said the company has conducted surveys leading it to believe voters would approve a proposal to bring the team to Austin. But holding an election could threaten Precourt’s desired timeline for a move to Austin for the 2019 MLS season.

Precourt would like to have a site for a stadium picked by Jan. 1 and an agreement with the city in place by the summer. Meetings those deadlines would be difficult if the city held an election in either March or May, and outright impossible if a soccer election were held in November 2018.

“We are not afraid of an election on bringing in MLS to Austin,” Suttle told the American-Statesman. “The only concern I can think of is we have a finite amount of time to take advantage of this opportunity and we would have to evaluate whether an election scenario fits into the scheduling.”

Texas law states that no parkland can be sold at any price without voter approval. Austin’s city charter underlines the law, adding restrictions for leasing parkland as well. A drastic change in purpose for parkland would also trigger an election under state law.

But laws mandating an election are not entirely ironclad. Suttle said a stadium could be considered a parkland use. Concession contracts do permit government land to be used for private business purposes. The city also refused to give a definitive answer to whether an election would be necessary.

Council Member Kathie Tovo, who spearheaded a resolution to search for city-owned land as a possible home for a MLS stadium, said she sees similarities to a previous attempt to build a world-class golf course on parkland in 2015.

Tovo said that when the council was considering building the PGA-level golf courses at Walter E. Long Metropolitan Park, the contract before the council felt like “a way of skirting a vote.”

The plan had firm support from then-City Manager Marc Ott, but stalled after Ott signaled that having an election would likely be the best course of action. In the end, the council opted to request a new master plan for the entire park.

Voters also narrowly defeated a proposal to turn a portion of the park into a hotel and golf courses in 2000.

Tovo told the Statesman the city might be best served by holding an election if the council attempts a license agreement with Precourt for a stadium. She said her resolution asking the city’s staff to identify city-owned properties that could serve as a possible stadium location was a way for the city to get ahead of the likely large amounts of input it would receive if parkland is chosen.

“It was important to me that we approach any consideration of locating a soccer stadium in a way different from the Walter E. Long discussion several years ago,” she said. “I want to make sure that at the outset we discuss whether community benefits outweigh the loss of a public space.”

But Tovo said she wanted to hear what the city attorney’s office thinks about whether an election would be required.

Austin resident Bill Oakey, a retired accountant who blogs about affordability, has researched the laws and said that using parkland for a stadium would “absolutely” require an election. The scale of the project would move it beyond smaller concession contracts, and Oakey said he would support a large-scale, public-private partnership if it brought in revenue for the city’s parks.

“That would be a win-win, but it would have to come with an election,” he said.

And even with indications that voters might support it, Circuit of the Americas Chair Bobby Epstein, who is working to bring a minor league team from the United Soccer League to the track’s land in 2019, said there is always a risk when voters are involved.

“The more hurdles you have to jump over, certainly the more challenging the goal becomes,” Epstein said.

Let’s Clear The Air On Soccer Stadium / Election Requirement Issue

Follow on Twitter – @AAffordability

By Bill Oakey – November 13, 2017

Above All, This Is an Issue of Transparency

Soccer is a popular sport for people of all ages. Many folks would love to see a major league (MLS) team come here. The last thing we need is another messy, expensive legal battle over whether a stadium on City parkland would require a public vote. Supporters of bringing a soccer team here should embrace an election and rally people to support it. Under the right circumstances, a public-private partnership can be a valuable tool in our affordability arsenal.

In early 2015 I was in the City Council chambers when a local attorney threatened to sue the City if the Decker Lake golf course proposal were not put to a public vote. This followed many months of frustration over why City legal staff insisted that a license agreement with the developer would not trigger an election. Both the Colony Park Neighborhood Association and the Austin American-Statesman endorsed the call for an election. Finally, on April 29, 2015 City Manager Marc Ott reversed course and recommended that the City Council consider putting the proposal on the ballot. Today we should expect the same standard for the proposed soccer stadium.

Let’s Take a Deep Dive Into the Details

My blog posting from last week delves into the history of the City Charter requirement, dating back to 1952. Over the weekend, I finally uncovered the City staff’s reasons for initially not supporting an election on the Decker Lake golf courses. Buried in the digital equivalent of mothballs is this official question and answer document, dated March 5, 2015. Here is a portion of the relevant text:

Council Question and Answer

Related To

Item#28

Meeting Date

March 5, 2015

Additional Answer Information

QUESTION 1: In 2000, voters rejected a ballot proposal to create a golf course at Walter E. Long Park. (The City Charter requires Council to get voter approval before selling, conveying, leasing, mortgaging, or alienating parkland). Please provide specific details about that 2000 ballot measure, including the acreage that would have been allocated for the course and whether that proposal was to sell or to lease the parkland.

ANSWER 1: The ballot proposal in 2000 included a golf course development with a hotel on parkland which required a referendum as the contract was for a lease of the parkland. The hotel would trigger a Chapter 26 due to the change of use of the parkland. The referendum did fail by approximately 49-51%. The approximate acreage is the same being considered today, approximately 735 acres; however, the current contract will be a license agreement for public recreational facility with commercial elements similar to those found on other municipal golf courses (green fees, event space rental, food and beverage, equipment rental, limited retail, etc).

QUESTION 2: Please explain why converting 735 acres of parkland to use as a private golf course does not require voter approval.

ANSWER 2: The proposed development is for a public golf course, not a private golf course as stated in the question. Voter approval is not required because the land will remain open to the public as a park use and will be owned by the City of Austin. The City will not sell, convey, lease, mortgage, or alienate parkland by entering into a license agreement for the finance, design, construction and operation with Decker Lake Golf of a public golf course. The course will be operated by a private contractor similar to other PARD concessions. Supplemental information will be provided to Council from the Law Department as an attorney-client privileged communication.

A Look at the State Code That Protects Public Parkland

Notice that Answer 1 above mentions that the 2000 election for a hotel and golf course was necessary because the project would “trigger a Chapter 26 due to the change of use of the parkland.” That refers to Title 3, Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. For a historical  perspective on the application of this law, check out “Pitfalls In the Use Or Taking of Park Land,” presented to the Texas City Attorneys Association in 2014. Attempting to decipher these will make your eyes glaze over. That’s why we have lawyers. Suffice it to say that both the Austin City Charter and State law aim to protect parkland from unauthorized changes of use.

The Bottom Line – When Does a License Agreement Cross the Line Into “Alienation of Parkland?”

It all comes down to the scale of the enterprise. It appears that only small operations and concessions are permissible. Former City Manager Marc Ott perhaps said it best in his April 29, 2015 memo to the City Council. In it he stated, “While we have a variety of license agreements for the use of parkland, I have to acknowledge that none of them may approach the scale of the one currently in front of you for consideration. With that in mind, giving our residents an opportunity to directly vote to either sell or lease the land may be an equally viable option.” (This quote appears in an Austin American Statesman “Viewpoints” piece, dated June 10, 2015).

Can the Community Come Together On Golf and Soccer Facilities?

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could put past disagreements aside, and approach these opportunities with a positive spirit. Perhaps our park system could benefit financially with revenue from a limited number of public-private partnerships. But we need an open and transparent process, followed by a public vote.

One Final Tidbit – ESPN’s Take On an Austin Soccer Team

Last month, the sports network asked some probing questions about whether Austin would be a good fit for an MLS franchise. It’s always fascinating to read what the outside world thinks about major goings-on here in the Capital City. The article is highly recommended.

Musical Accompaniment for This Blog Piece

  1. “One Million Lawyers” – Tom Paxton
  2. “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” – The Beach Boys
  3. “Get Together” – The Youngbloods

Soccer Stadium On City Parkland Would Require Public Vote

By Bill Oakey – November 9, 2017

A resolution at today’s City Council meeting seeks to identify sites, including City parkland, that could be used for a major league soccer stadium. We should hope they are aware that the City Charter requires a public vote before City parkland could be put to such a commercial use.

This topic came up a few years ago when two commercial golf courses were being seriously considered for Walter E. Long Metropolitan Park. A contract was prepared and the City still has a webpage describing that contract. But entering into that contract would have been a clear violation of the Charter, without a public vote. And there is a new golf course proposal in the latest Colony Park master planned community project.

Here is the section of the City Charter that applies:

Article II, Section 7

All powers and authority which are expressly or impliedly conferred on or possessed by the city shall be vested in and exercised by the council; provided, however, that the council shall have no power to, and shall not:

(A) Sell, convey, lease, mortgage, or otherwise alienate any land which is now, or shall hereafter be, dedicated for park purposes, unless:

(1) the qualified voters of the city shall authorize such act by adopting in a general or special election a proposition submitting the question and setting forth the terms and conditions under which such sale, conveyance, lease, mortgage, or other alienation is to be made

The 2015 golf course contract was described as a “license agreement.” Using that language is a lawyer-ly trick to try to get around the Charter. If the term “license agreement” was used to circumvent the prohibition against leases, surely it falls within “otherwise alienate” and would be clearly prohibited under both the letter and the intent of the Charter.

In November 2000, the City did hold a required election to decide whether to put a hotel and golf course at Walter E. Long Park. See the two articles below:

1. Austin Chronicle – March 24, 2000: https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-03-24/76535/

2. 2000 Election Results, Austin Chronicle – November 10, 2000: https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-11-10/79348/

The Charter Provision Dates Back to December 9, 1952

At 10:00 AM on that date, Mayor Bill Drake and the City Council held a meeting and voted to put Proposition 6 on the ballot. The parkland provision was included as Article II, Section 4. (a). In the election on January 31, 1953, it passed by a 61% margin  (Click to enlarge picture).

The history archives show that there was plenty of lively debate throughout the city surrounding this round of charter amendments. It was a complete overhaul. Emma Long, Austin’s first female council member, was a major force behind the charter revisions. Today a huge precedent is at stake.  A new 2018 Charter Review Commission is hard at work planning for an election next year. If you served on that commission, you might get stars in your eyes thinking of your contribution to the City. But what if your efforts got approved by the voters, only to be tossed aside by City officials in the future?  We should respect our legacy and vigorously defend our Charter.

Quick Musical Note:

The number one song on the day of the 1953 election was “Don’t Let the Stars Get In Your Eyes” by Perry Como.

Austin Mayor Bill Drake dressed as Santa Claus – From The Portal to Texas History