Austin Contrarian

Keep Austin Wonky on SMDs

Julio Gonzalez Altamirano at Keep Austin Wonky disagrees with my dire prediction that single-member districts will degenerate into a system of ward courtesy:

While it is certainly possible that on many minor zoning and planning issues an SMD representative’s constituents will be essentially indifferent, it seems that in several of the new districts the newly empowered median voters would have strong preferences about packing density into the center city on either affordability (boost supply) or environmental grounds (reduce transit footprint). A ‘strong’ version of the ward courtesy hypothesis just seems too deterministic and statistically implausible. For example, look at how many 4-3 votes there are on recent Austin City Councils – and these folks are elected by essentially the same voter universe!

It just seems highly unlikely that the new set of SMD median voters (and whatever policy entrepreneurs they unleash) will be utterly homogenous in their indifference to planning and zoning to the point that a perpetual tit-for-tat amongst legislators is possible.

Read the whole thing.

The model I have in mind is Chicago's, where the practice is called "aldermanic privilege."  I suppose where Julio and I disagree is on the degree of suburban voters' indifference to central Austin zoning matters.  If suburban voters had much of a preference they would turn out to vote now, but they don't.  In my experience, only a very small percentage of the population takes a big-picture view of zoning matters.  Most people don't care unless a zoning decision affects them directly.  This leads to a natural parochialism.  I don't see SMDs improving that; on the contrary, I think they will make it worse. 

Making corruption easier won't make it less likely

Critics of Austin's current system of city-wide Council elections are correct that Council elections are dominated by a "white, liberal, central city power base" a/k/a central Austin homeowners.  I think this is a bad thing.  Central Austin homeowners are a parochical lot and they elect parochial Council members who adopt policies that stifle new housing and development and run up the price of existing housing.  Central Austin has fewer residents, more expensive housing, and lower-quality housing than it should have, thanks to a system dominated by central-city voters.

And I will support an alternative system as soon as someone proposes a better one.

From where I sit, parochialism is the City's principal problem.  Single-member districts are not a cure for  parochialism.  On the contrary, they institutionalize parochialism.  A Council member whose district will be affected directly by a particular vote will have an incentive to consider only the effect on his or her district, rather than the broader harm or benefit to the City as a whole.  Council members whose districts will not be affected  directly will have an incentive to defer to the affected Council member; they will want and expect that deference to be reciprocated.  That is the genesis of "ward courtesy."

SMD proponents argue that city-wide elections are corrupted by money, but it is the SMD system that is prone to corruption.  In a ward courtesy system, you only need one vote for zoning changes as a practical matter.  That makes corruption a more feasible proposition, both economically (fewer people to buy off) and logistically (fewer people on the take means less chance of getting caught).   And for those who really believe that money has been buying Austin's elections, note that switching to single-member districts will make elections cheaper to buy.  SMDs won't rid politics of money; they'll just stretch the money a bit farther.

If someone can convince me that Austin won't degenerate into ward-based politics, I'll switch my support to SMDs.  I'd like to see a larger Council representing more diverse viewpoints.  But I don't like the incentives created by single-member districts, and I think incentives are a better predictor of the system we'll get than banal assurances that our new Council members will act for the common good.

Single-member districts

I was ambivalent about single-member districts for a long time.  The current system of city-wide elections has obvious problems.  The most glaring is that elections tend to be dominated by a handful of central neighborhoods.  These are the neighborhoods that, more often than not, turn out to fight urbanization, dense infill and everything else that is good and just.  Not surprisingly, our Council is sometimes hostile to infill development in the central city, despite its alleged commitment to the environment.  (Expect "sometimes" to become "often" in the Morrison/Tovo era.)  Single-member districts would ensure that suburban and east Austin voters have a larger voice in city government.

But single-member districts worry me, too.  What worries me most is the practice of "ward courtesy" in (some? all?) single-member district cities.   "Ward courtesy" is an informal agreement among Council members to defer to the council member whose district would be affected by the vote.   And nothing affects a district like zoning.  Council members consequently get a de facto veto of  zoning changes and conditional use requests in their districts.  This turns wards into little fiefdoms.  Property owners save a bit of time, I guess -- it's less trouble to pay a visit to one council member rather than seven -- but if that one council member is dead set against your project, you're done.  Because so much often depends on a single council member's vote, the system invites backroom dealing, at best, and outright bribery and corruption at worst.  

In Austin, "ward courtesy" would stifle, slow, impede, strangle -- pick your verb -- infill development in central Austin, because central Austinites tend to vote for the statist, anti-development types.  My sense is that's what turns them out to vote in the first place.  They don't like change, they don't like densification, they don't like outsiders parking on "their" streets.  They will elect council members who don't like change, don't like densification, and don't want outsiders parking on "their" streets.   And these council members will give short shrift to property owners and developers proposing dense, infill developments that rile their constituents.  Even when the developments would produce a net benefit for the city as a whole.

I've recently seen the ward courtesy system in action in another city.  It's not pretty.  And it's convinced me that single-member districts would be bad for Austin.

There is a simpler fix for the flaws in the current system of city-wide elections.  Have municipal elections coincide with national and state elections.  Council would better represent the city as a whole (and we'd save a little money to boot).  But even the status quo is better than than the single-member district system.  For whatever reason, even though Council elections are dominated by central neighborhood voters, Council members are often surprisingly reasonable in the aggregate.  There is a group dynamic that tempers the more extreme views.   Single-member districts would destroy this dynamic.  And subject us to the arbitrary preferences of a single person.

Regression from the dais

"Regression" as in "linear regression."

Last Thursday's debate on Water Treatment Plant No. 4 got awfully technical, but I was still surprised to see a councilmember (Laura Morrison) discuss a linear regression from the dais.

The video is jerky but the audio is fine.

H/t Keep Austin Wonky.

Stacking the deck

Although Laura Morrison ran for City Council as the Austin Neighborhoods Council candidate, I  thought she'd at least try to avoid the appearance of cronyism.  Surely she'd avoid stacking her appointments with the same old ANC activists but would mix in some fresh faces --  there are lots  of people, I thought, who can be counted on to reliably toe the ANC line. 

I was wrong.  

At last Thursday's Council meeting, Morrison appointed Jeff Jack to the Board of Adjustment.   (The BOA rules on variance requests.)  I realize many neighborhood types have been complaining that the BOA has gotten too lax.  But Jeff Jack?   Jeff is a former ANC president, one of the members of the Waterfront Overlay Task Force, a founder of Save Town Lake, etc.  He is Austin's activist-in-chief.  How many hats can this guy wear?

It only takes two "Nays" votes to nix a variance.  Bryan King is already a reliable "Nay."  I understand Morrison's desire to put another reliable neighborhood type on the BOA, but surely Morrison could have found someone else willing to show up to BOA meetings to vote "No."   (By the way, note the potential effect on restaurants seeking to switch to cocktail lounges to avoid the new noise ordinance restrictions.)

For the Planning Commission, she nominated  Kathy Tovo, a former Bouldin Creek NA president and ANC regular.  Why not simply nominate Danette Chimenti, Morrison's successor as ANC president?  Perhaps she knew that Spelman intended to put Danette on the Planning Commission.

Especially galling is that Chris Ewen was not reappointed.  Chris was a reliable advocate of reasonable density and new urbanist principles.  With his departure and the appointment of Tovo and Chimenti, the Planning Commission is now firmly in ANC's control. 

And then there is Morrison's appointment of long-time activist Mary Arnold to the Waterfront Planning Advisory Board.  Katherine Gregor has already explained why this violates the ordinance's command that board members be drawn from the fields of urban design, environmental protection, architecture, landscape architecture, historic preservation, shoreline ecology, neighborhood conservation, civic art, and real property development.  

Someone should just draw up a list of the dozen or so neighborhood representatives who seem to serve on every board and commission.   When one is appointed, we can cross her off the list and move to the next name.  When we get to the end of the list, we can simply return to the top of the list.

I thought Austin had a deeper pool of neighborhood activists.   

Update -- more reactions:

Karl-Thomas Musselman at Burnt Orange Report.

M1EK.

Also, commenter Kevin Ludlow points to this list of citizens serving on more than one board or commission.

. . . or maybe not

Some legislators must think the "local options" bill too radical an experiment in participatory democracy:

Rep. Joe Pickett, chairman of the House transportation committee, said a transportation funding bill reported out of his committee earlier this week is unlikely to reach a vote on the House floor. The bill is the House companion to a senate bill authored by Sen., John Carona, R-Dallas. Though they have serious differences in their approaches, the two bills would each give counties in Texas' largest urban areas the right to call tax elections in which voters would be asked to pay more to fund highway and rail projects.

"To get to the floor in this session, I would say the chances are very tough," Pickett said, noting that while he supports the bill it needs to be scheduled for a vote by the full House if it is going to pass. He says that's an unlikely prospect.

"Local option" grinds along

Senator John Carona's (R-Dallas) "local option" transportation tax passed the Senate in mid-April but is being "simplified" (i.e., weakened) in the House:

A simplified version of SB 855 emerged Tuesday that would let counties in 85 percent of the state call elections asking voters for a one-time, 10-cent-a-gallon tax increase.  The ballot would have to specify what projects the money would go to, along with their cost and completion dates.

The money could be used on roads or passenger rail, assuming that an accompanying constitutional amendment to allow such elections passes the Legislature and is approved by voters in November.  The Texas Constitution currently allows gas tax money to be spent only on road projects.

Even after a project is paid for, the bill would allow the extra gas tax money to be used for maintenance and operations.  It would also devote all locally raised gas taxes to transportation; 25 percent of the current gas tax goes to education.

Austin transportation officials couldn't say what a 10-cent increase might bring to Central Texas. However, the North Central Texas Council of Governments has estimated that, with about 6 million people, the increase would raise about $370 million a year. Assuming a similar ratio, the three-county Austin area could bring in about $90 million a year.

Carona's bill likewise limits the gas tax to 10 cents per gallon, but offers a menu of other options, including parking taxes, driver's license renewal fees, and new vehicle registration fees.  It would allow counties raise more money, in other words.

Cities and counties need autonomy over their own infrastructure.  They shouldn't have to beg TxDOT for their fair share.  They will invest their money more wisely and efficiently than TxDOT (usually) because they know their needs better than bureaucrats working off a different agenda.  And cities and counties, like people, have different preferences.  Some prefer more or better roads, while others prefer rail.  Some prefer all the infrastructure they can get, while others would gladly let their infrastructure decay a bit if they could get cheaper gas.  

There is always the risk that cities or counties will invest their money foolishly.  But when a county makes a boneheaded decision, its residents are the ones who suffer.  When TxDOT adopts an idiotic policy, everyone in the state suffers.  Unfettering counties and cities is a good thing, and this bill would be a good first step.

I do have a couple of criticisms.  First, neither bill would allow counties to use the money to maintain local streets.  Counties instead would have to dedicate the money to specific capital improvements identified on the ballot.  A gas tax is a much better way to fund the maintenance and repair of local streets than property and sales taxes, though.  It's more equitable -- those who don't use local streets much don't have to subsidize those who do -- and provides a stable funding source, freeing up general revenue money for other things.     

Second, the 10-cent-per-gallon limit is a silly bit of nannyism.  Any tax must be approved by a majority of the county's voters.  If a county's voters want more, what business is that of the Legislature's?  It's not like central-city residents can stick  suburbanites with punitive tax increases; suburbanites (or others who drive a lot) predominate almost everywhere.  In any event, it's a small increase given current gas prices, and less than the weekly variation in gas prices of a year or so ago.  Ditch the cap.

Me on KUT

A couple of brief quotes.  Around the 1:54 mark.  

Thanks, Nathan Bernier, for not making me sound like an idiot.

KUT

I was just interviewed by KUT about my support for Chris Riley in the Place 1 race. I managed to garble my piercing insights, of course. Perhaps the reporter will be kind.

If my interview isn't left on the cutting room floor, a snippet will air next Monday or Tuesday during the morning show.

Local option

The Chronicle reports that state senators (mostly Republicans) are throwing obstacles in front of Senator John Carona's "local option" bill.  This bill would allow counties to choose from a menu of fees and taxes to fund transportation projects as they see fit.  Options would include imposing a local gas tax or raising vehicle registration or driver's license renewal fees.  "No taxes or fees" would be on the menu, too -- and any increase would require voter approval.

This is a measure long overdue.  Cities and counties need to regain control of their local infrastructure.  Cities and counties know their needs better than TxDOT.  Cities and counties certainly know their preferences better than TxDOT.  We need to devolve more control to the locals, and "control" requires money.  This bill doesn't go far enough, in fact; counties and cities not only need the right to raise new money, they need to get back some of the money they now send TxDOT. 

State Republicans are raising a ruckus, though:

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, called it a "disaster" that, with so many exemptions added, puts the whole new tax burden on "my two favorite people, the police officer married to the school teacher."

There are a couple of points worth making here.  The first is that Patrick's "police officer married to the school teacher" probably lives in the 'burbs, and suburbanites suffer especially hard from dilapidated infrastructure.  Perhaps the police officer and school teacher prefer better roads (or a rail option) to slightly higher fees and taxes.  There are always trade offs.  Under the local option, they'd at least get to vote in a local election.  Patrick and company apparently think the policeman and school teacher are better off when the decision is made for them by suddenly paternalistic Republican senators sitting a couple hundred miles away. 

That leads to the second point.  The "local option" bill is not a tax hike.  It gives county voters discretion to tax themselves if they'd like better infrastructure.  Voters in some counties might prefer creaky infrastructure to higher gas taxes or vehicle registration fees.  Others might prefer more roads, or better roads, or more money for transit.  The point is that counties could sort themselves according to their own preferences.  And gain more say over their urban form rather than having it dictated to them by the bureaucratic TxDOT.

Perhaps that's the senators' real objection.  They fear that if urban areas get even a limited choice over their own infrastructure, they might make choices that the Legislature doesn't like.  The Lege doesn't like the "local" in "local option."