Another problem with Prop I

If you were forwarded this email, please consider getting your own subscription to the Austin Politics Newsletter!

Longtime local advocate/commentator Julio Gonzalez Altamirano suggests that a subtle omission in the language of Proposition I would open the city up to litigation from "the most extreme voices in Austin."

Zoning, transit, infrastructure and development decisions can shape both a home’s value and your quality of life. Lonny Stern combines more than 20 years as an Austin Realtor with a professional background in urban planning, transportation and economic development. He currently serves on Austin’s Zoning & Platting Commission and helps clients make better-informed decisions about the property—and the city—around them.

Find a home that connects you to more of Austin.

City service is noted for biographical purposes only; no City endorsement is stated or implied.

On his website, Austin Metric, JGA highlights one key word in the proposed ordinance. Here is the relevant language:

"The Initiative must be repeated and completed every five (5) years after the completion of the first Initiative or more often as required herein. The City Council is hereby prohibited from ordering an election to increase the City’s maintenance and operation ad valorem tax unless an Initiative complying with this Charter provision has been completed within one (1) year before such an election would occur." 

And here Julio explains his issue with "completed."

Bizarrely, the ballot measure does not define what counts as a "completed" audit. Is it delivery by the vendor to the Auditor? City Council voting to accept it as completed? The City Manager certifying it as "completed"? I suspect this was left undefined to make it easier for residents to litigate whether the audit is, in fact, complete.

This empowers any individual with the ability to litigate with a soft veto over voter-approved tax rate elections (VATRE) by disrupting the VATRE budget development process. City Council would have to complete an audit within 365 days of the VATRE election, but said completion can be litigated right through the budget process and the potential VATRE election date. That would be a mess. And if you can effectively veto a needed VATRE, the consequences carry over into subsequent budgets, creating the need for another VATRE and repeating the downward spiral.

My greater concern would simply be that a litigant would insist that the audit itself didn't actually do what it was required to do.

This reminds me of Matt Mackowiak's prior initiative in 2021, which was marketed as simply requiring a 2 police officers per 1,000 residents but also included a clause requiring that patrol officers have 35% of their time for proactive policing (i.e. not responding to calls). It threatened to be a massive unfunded mandate that would explode the cost of policing. The proposition was soundly defeated, however.

Council honors child care champion Cathy McHorse

Austin City Council and the Travis County Commissioners Court jointly adopted a proclamation honoring the life of Cathy McHorse, a longtime advocate for child care in Austin who died suddenly this summer far too young.

McHorse left a big mark on local public policy, most notably through her championing of Raising Travis County, the dedicated tax for child care that county voters approved in 2024. She was also a great source and always a pleasure to talk to.

The proclamation concludes:

"Cathy's example of inclusive, humble and joyful leadership raised the bar for those lucky to have known her," concludes the proclamation.

Cathy's husband Ed McHorse posted the rest of the proclamation along with photos of the ceremony on Facebook.

The Dog's Head lawsuit

Save Our Springs and PODER are suing to block the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone that City Council voted to create for the Dog's Head development.

Say what you will about Bill Bunch et al, but they have a pretty good track record in court. They succeeded in getting another TIRZ struck down in court three years ago. From the Chronicle:

In his July warning about a Dog’s Head lawsuit, Levinski called attention to a similar suit filed against the city in 2023, after Council approved a TIRZ for the South Central Waterfront, a redevelopment of the old American-Statesman site on the south shore of Lady Bird Lake, which the city argued was blighted. A Travis County judge disagreed, ruling that the TIRZ created for the project violated the state law requiring TIRZs to only be placed in areas where development “would not occur solely through private investment in the reasonably foreseeable future.”

SOS argues that the same reasoning should upend the Dog's Head development:

“The Dog’s Head property is not a stranded, blighted area, waiting helplessly for public rescue necessary to spur development,” it reads. “It sits in one of the fastest-growing development corridors in the nation and the region, bordered by major highways, adjacent to Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, and anchored by Tesla’s Gigafactory. It’s an area positioned for and already experiencing rapid growth.”

The argument that the Dog's Head is blighted is much stronger than the South Central Waterfront. Much of it is a former mine and only a dozen or so people live in the entire 2,600 acre area.

Have a good weekend. See you on Monday.

Check out my latest article in Neighborhood Matters: Why some public spaces suck.