The Austin City Council has released the final ballot language for the upcoming propositions including the citizen-initiated Prop 1 and 2. For the first time in Texas history, a municipal council was directed by a court to rewrite ballot language as it was found that the language did not "present a fair measure of the proposed measures [and] chief features" and gave the City Council a deadline to change the language. Since I covered the last, and now found illegal, ballot language, I'll do the same for this final version. But first, the standard disclaimer:

Although I currently work for the City of Austin, I am in no way representing or advocating *any* official position of the City in this matter. I am writing this as a concerned citizen of Austin who would like to see our government as transparent and efficient as possible and I am using information that is publicly available elsewhere to make my points.

At this time, I am neither for nor against the proposed Charter amendment. My focus with this post is to try and bring a non-biased look at the proposed amendment and the ramifications it would bring if enacted. This opinion is put forward in the hopes it will facilitate discussion and will bring other concerned citizens into the issue. So please, do not read anything into this post that is not explicitly stated.

The City Council's final language appears thusly:

Proposition 1:
Shall the City Charter be amended:

1. to provide online access to public information, which for the most part is already available, by creating an online electronic data system for most City communications and documents at taxpayer expense;
2. to require that private citizens' emails to public officials be placed on the City website in "real time," including emails or electronic communications between private citizens and public officials in all City departments, and limit the ability of citizens to keep private the details of these communications, unless legal exceptions apply;
3. to require that the heads of all City departments, all city manager's staff and all city council members and their staff post online in "real time" information about meetings and phone calls with private citizens; and
4. to prohibit the city from exercising state law protection for information that could expose the City and taxpayers to greater financial and legal liability and risk?

So let's again breakdown each section.

1. to provide online access to public information, which for the most part is already available, by creating an online electronic data system for most City communications and documents at taxpayer expense;

This is more representative than the last ballot language which included sections on certain departments possibly releasing private information (Library, Health clinics, Police Department, etc) which Proposition 1 did not call for. "For the most part," this statement is accurate and correct but it does miss a crucial goal of the amendment: efficient access to public information. While it's true that most of this information is available, the Open Records request mechanisms employed by the different departments throughout the city are not efficient. The request can take as much as 10 days before the requestor even knows if the information can be retrieved. The amendment seeks to clarify and accelerate the public's access to this public information by putting online as much public information as possible (and, most importantly, where approved by City Council) to let the public find what it needs without using valuable employee time first. As mentioned elsewhere, APD alone will have to fill 2500+ Open Records requests this year and countless hours of employee time will be used in fulfilling those requests. The amendment's core argument is that it is more efficient for the public to search these records first and then be able to put in specific requests for particular information than the current system.

2. to require that private citizens' emails to public officials be placed on the City website in "real time," including emails or electronic communications between private citizens and public officials in all City departments, and limit the ability of citizens to keep private the details of these communications, unless legal exceptions apply;

This statement is still misleading. First, the premise that email will be placed on the City website in "real time" is not required by the amendment. The ballot language premise is a very broad interpretation of the clause "expeditiously as possible and to the greatest extent practical" and does not mention to the voters the circumstances that would have had to happen for that situation to become realistic. The City Council is the determining body on the practicalness of any measure that is not explicitly stated within the amendment so this situation would have to be:

1. Sponsored by some department, citizen's initiative, etc., to be placed on the Council's agenda.
2. At that meeting, Council would have to deem that situation practical.
3. If found practical, Council would have to draw up ordinances and resolutions to meet and enforce the requirements of the situation.
4. Council would have to pass the ordinances and resolutions.

So, if "real time" posting of email on the City's website ever does happen, you can lay the blame squarely on the City Council as they would have been the ones who found the situation to be for the public's benefit. Just for argument's sake, other scenarios that could have been used by the Council on the ballot that would have been just as misleading could be the amendment calls for all private citizen's Social Security numbers to be placed on the City website in "real time," or that all victim's records at APD will be placed online in "real time" (I've actually heard people mention that one). The amendment simply does not call for these scenarios nor would the amendment supercede any current state or federal laws in place to do so.

Council Member Brewster McCracken has stated that the email issue had been "[...] litigated and you all lost. ... [T]his language has been upheld as being accurate." At the time, he was talking to the amendment supporters in the Council chambers who rewarded this false statement with an appropriate response (boos and catcalls). As explained in this post, from the judge's own ruling, speaking specifically about the email issue, he stated "I don’t know that there are any city departments that would be excluded but certainly private citizens emails to any public official because there are exceptions that apply." As mentioned by myself and others, and which is validated by the state judge, private citizen's email has exemptions and, for various reasons, may not be put online. The City Council and their supporters *really* need to drop this red herring...

I'm still having a hard time finding the section that the Council is referring to when talking about "limit[ing] the ability of citizens to keep private the details of these communications,". There is nothing in the amendment that limits the citizen's right to privacy when dealing with their government. There is language that makes it harder for the City Council, City Managers, Division heads and their staff to keep their calendars and non-public meetings about City business with others secret. There is language that makes it harder if you are seeking economic benefits from the City to keep those negotiations secret. There is further language that makes it harder to keep the misconduct of police officers secret. But if you are a private citizen, all of the federal, state and local privacy laws on the books are not superceded by this amendment and will remain so. I can't stress this enough.

Finally, I would like to give some credit where it's due. Council Member Jennifer Kim tried to add more descriptive language to the ballot on this point. Specifically, she tried to have the words "consistent with state and federal privacy protection laws" substituted for the phrase "unless legal exceptions apply." Council Member Kim, I commend your attempt and agree that your phrase is much closer to what the judge ruled in his decision and thank you for your attempt at clarification.

When I first read this clause in the original language, I withheld my personal comments through the litigation that followed in the hopes that the Council would change the language and drop this fallacious clause. I'll go out on a limb here... If Proposition 1 is defeated, it will be challenged in court and it will appear on a later ballot because of this clause. Council Members McCracken, Dunkerly, Leffingwell and Mayor Wynn, your steadfastness to this particular language will cost the city more future litigation, the costs associated with it and another dubious legal distinction for this City Council.

3. to require that the heads of all City departments, all city manager's staff and all city council members and their staff post online in "real time" information about meetings and phone calls with private citizens; and

This is another misleading statement about what the amendment calls for. The relevant section from the amendment follows:

(B)OPEN ACCESS TO CITY CALENDARS

1. For all matters involving City business, the following people must maintain calendars of all meetings and maintain logs of all telephone calls:
   1. City Councilmembers and their staff;
   2. City Manager and his or her staff;
   3. Assistant City Managers and their staff; and
   4. all department heads.
2. These calendars and logs must contain the time, date, subject matter, and persons involved in all meetings and telephone calls involving City business. These calendars must be used to schedule and record all past and future meetings that occur after the implementation date of this section.
3. Calendars and logs must be posted online in real time and be accessible to the public.
4. “Meetings” includes all informal and formal meetings including but not limited to telephone conferences, videoconferences, happy hours, and luncheons.
5. This provision must be implemented within six months of approval of this amendment.

I highlighted the relevant sections in that clause. If you are a private citizen and you are speaking to a public official through one of the listed means about City business, then, according to the amendment, that must be noted in the appropriate log. The federal government, proposed by none other than one of the most conservative members of Congress, Newt Gingrich, follows much the same system. It is a way the public can see who their elected officials are talking to and about what subjects. If you are going to call Mayor Wynn and tell him how great or not great he is, there is no need to record the call as that is not City business. Further, if a Council Member calls their doctor, that call is not subject to the documentation clause. Only City business is required to have the notation. Another branch on that limb... This clause will also be seen by a later court to be misrepresentative and misleading and will help to overturn a defeat of the proposition.

4. to prohibit the city from exercising state law protection for information that could expose the City and taxpayers to greater financial and legal liability and risk?

This section must be referring to the requirement of the amendment that pertains to public information. Here is that section from the amendment.

SECTION 4: Public Information.

The term “public information” means information that is required to be produced under Texas Government Code § 552.021. Public information also includes the following categories that must be produced in response to a public information request:

1. INFORMATION RELATING TO CIVIL LITIGATION. That the City is a party to litigation does not render information relating to that litigation less important; rather it often means the information is a matter of heightened public interest. Therefore, the City must not withhold information relating to civil litigation under Texas Government Code § 552.103, but it may withhold under other Public Information Act exceptions.

First, the amendment states that the City cannot withhold information under the following Texas Government Code section:

§ 552.103. EXCEPTION: LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS INVOLVING THE STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.

1. Information is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 if it is information relating to litigation of a civil or criminal nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or may be a party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision, as a consequence of the person's office or employment, is or may be a party.
2. For purposes of this section, the state or a political subdivision is considered to be a party to litigation of a criminal nature until the applicable statute of limitations has expired or until the defendant has exhausted all appellate and postconviction remedies in state and federal court.
3. Information relating to litigation involving a governmental body or an officer or employee of a governmental body is excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) only if the litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that the requestor applies to the officer for public information for access to or duplication of the information.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1319, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

From this summary, under the “litigation exception,” a governmental body can withhold information about pending or reasonably anticipated civil or criminal litigation. This exception allows the government to hold back otherwise releasable public information because it feels there is or may be some sort of litigation that might include that information. This is an important concept to grasp. The information being sought by the public does not have to be actually involved in litigation; it just has to be deemed by someone in government that it might, at some point in the future, be part of a litigation claim. Further, the entity can keep this information secret until the statute of limitations expires for the whatever the phantom offense this information may be involved in.

As these examples show, this section of the Public Information Act has been abused by government entities in the past. Historically, this exemption in the Texas Public Information Act has been used in 2 ways:

1. a shelter to keep clearly public documents secret that otherwise would not be exempt and
2. as a delay tactic to allow further court motions and "grandfathering" claims to be filed on a dubious ordinance or law.

Proposition 1 still allows the broad and correct exemptions for attorney work product and attorney client privilege that will protect all information related to any litigation the City may be party to. The City does not need this exemption and it's prohibition will not expose the "City and taxpayers to greater financial and legal liability and risk." The City can still use the other numerous, broad and generous Public Information exemptions that protect Public Information through any litigation process. The prohibition in using this one exemption will make it easier for private citizens and watchdog groups to get the public information they already own even if it might cause embarassment or legal problems for some in the government.

So, in summary, I still feel the language on the ballot is misleading. I also feel that even though the City Council has tried their best to stack the deck against this initiative, it will still be a close vote come election day. I guess we'll see how things shake out.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos. Keep in mind I wrote this for non-Austinites but since it has to do with the upcoming Propositions, I posted it to AustinBloggers as well.

If you go a little over 1 mile southwest from the direct center of downtown Austin, Texas, you'll find yourself at one of the greatest natural sites left in Texas:  Barton Springs pool.  Fed by the endangered Edwards aquifer, the water is a clear and cool 68 degrees year round, making the swimming in the middle of the Texas summer at least bearable until the cool Fall breezes sweep in.  Barton Springs is in the southern part of a 12 mile long greenbelt of undeveloped land that snakes through the western edge of Austin, much of which has been set aside by the citizens of Austin in bonds to protect the green space as well as the sensitive aquifer that resides beneath it.  Most Austinites visit Barton Springs pool a couple of times a month in the summer to roast in the Texas sun and share the natural experience with other Austinites so close to the hustle, sprawl and large, multi-story buildings of downtown.  To most in Austin, Barton Springs isn't merely a swimming hole; it's a generational gift to them from their parents and a prime example of what defines Austin as a city and a culture.

Environmental protection of Barton Springs has gone on since the beginning of the environmental movement but really unified in the late 80's.  Since then, various local ordinances dealing with development over the aquifer have been passed as well as hundreds of millions of dollars for land purchases to protect the sensitive natural area from development.  But, as some would say, there's a new threat to the green space and possible future existence of Barton Springs.  And disturbingly, the threat seems to reside within the very governmental body chartered to protect the springs:  the Austin City Council.

There now exists a palpable disconnect between the Austin City Council and local environmentalists who feel that their government is no longer working for them.  Fueled by this frustration and using history as a guide, the Save Our Springs Alliance drew up and circulated 2 amendments to Austin's City Charter.  The amendments, primarily a response to what the environmentalists felt was a closed door, back-office deal brokered between a developer (Stratus Properties), a client (Advanced Micro Devices), and the City Council, strive for transparency in the land development process as well as seeking to hold local government accountable by using technology to facilitate the opening of information to the public.

Unfortunately, the current situation echoes one from just 16 years ago.  In 1990, a developer (Freeport McMoRan) sought to develop 4,000 acres within the Edwards aquifer and on top of Barton Springs by building hundreds of homes and apartments.  The citizens of Austin quickly banded together in an effort to block the development by lining up to speak against it in front of the City Council.  Over seven hundred speakers signed up to speak in front of the Council against the proposed development that night.  By the end of the epic Council meeting, the development was stopped by a unanimous vote of the Council, 7-0.  This victory essentially started the formal defense of Barton Springs (at the time named the Save Our Springs Coalition) and some much needed local ordinances were drafted to further inhibit development within the sensitive area.

But, after the Council meeting when the draft legislation was released, the lobbyists and developers tried to stop the most damaging parts of the ordinance; the "nondegradation" clauses which prohibited futher polluting within the aquifer.  After nearly a year of redrafting, the Council finally adopted a loophole-ridden version of the original draft.  Some felt this "Composite Draft" did not protect the springs adequately so the Save Our Springs Coalition wrote up a competing draft and set off to collect the required 20,000 signatures needed to put the ordinance on the ballot.

Once the signatures were collected and verified, the City Council delayed the recognition of the citizen-sponsored ordinance to where it could not get on the May 1992 ballot but it eventually made it onto the August 1992 ballot.  But in that time, the developers filed requests for development within the Barton Springs area in the hopes of "grandfathering" if the new ordinance from SOS passed.  Interestingly, it was also during this time that a Chamber of Commerce led campaign against the SOS amendment was undertaken, directed by none other than George W. Bush's right-hand man, Karl Rove.

When the election was finally held and the citizens of Austin finally had their say, the citizen-drafted and citizen-sponsored ordinance passed by nearly 2-1 (65% approval).  The ordinance finally put in place some much needed environmental protections to protect Austin's premier natural treasure.

It's with that history still fresh in the minds of the citizen environmentalists that a new threat to the springs comes forward.  Since the passage of the SOS ordinance in 1992, citizens have asked major employers to not build in the sensitive areas of the Edwards aquifer and to locate in the "Preferred Development Zone;" an area still close to downtown but not located over the aquifer and thus does not affect the water quality of Barton Springs.  That is until recently, in what these citizen environmentalists believe have been back-room deals with the Austin City Council, Advanced Micro Devices' new offices was "grandfathered" within the zone even though they appeared to have no legitimate grandfathering claim.  Worse still, the development would be a monster; a $220mil, 875,000 sq. ft. office pavillion which would serve as a "hub" for other development spurs into the sensitive area.

So, with history as a guide, the SOS Alliance drafted 2 new amendments to the Austin City Charter and went about collecting the 20,000 signatures that each amendment required to gain entry on the voting ballot.  Each amendment attacked what they saw as a problem in their efforts to be included at the discussion table for development within the Edwards aquifer and specifically with the AMD situation.  

The first amendment, now known as Proposition 1 and commonly referred to as the "Open Government Online" amendment, tries to bring tranparency to the local government and its elected officials.  It provides for new accountability and transparency standards for the highest City officials; the City Council, City managers and their staffs, and Division heads.  It requires phone and meeting logs to be posted "real time" to the City's website for those officials as well as defaults the City's Public Information policies towards openness.  It makes it harder to keep the public out of the now-secret negotiations between developers and the City as well as opening up police misconduct records to public scrutiny, bringing Austin inline with 2,000 other law enforcement agencies across the state of Texas.

The second amendment, Proposition 2 or the "Clean Water" amendment, seeks to add protection to Barton Springs and the Edwards aquifer by asking major employers to not locate on the Barton Springs watershed as well as curtailing city tax money for developing toll roads in the environmentally sensitive area.  The amendment would limit the city's authority in "grandfathering" claims that have weaker environmental standards than the 1992 voter-approved ordinances where, over the last 14 years, scores of development projects have been allowed to build in the sensitive area with only voluntary compliance to the 1992 ordinance.

Once the signatures had been collected and verified, the City Council originally drew up blatantly misleading ballot language in what seemed to be an effort to discourage the passage of the amendments.  Some citizens of Austin sued the City in court to rewrite the ballot language to comply with the state standards of fairness for ballot measures and for the first time in Texas history (and you have to think about how corrupt Texas politics can be and this was the first time...), a court found that the ballot language proposed by a municipal council would have to be rewritten.  The language originally approved by the Council was found to not "present a fair measure of the proposed measures [and] chief features" of the amendments.  But instead of trying to follow the direction of the judge (who, jokingly said that the state standard could be met by saying "This one is about open government; this one is about the springs") a few on the Council, led by Council Member Brewster McCracken opted to take out the "offending" passages but still leave enormously misleading language.  But because the Council delayed formulation of the original language and then went to court to defend itself, the final, still misleading language had to be placed on the ballot to meet the Travis County's deadline for getting ballots out to absentee voters.  

At its core, this is about how the citizens of Austin feel their government has failed them.  Austin, the poster child for an environmental town if there ever was one, with its collective of actors, artists, athletes, musicians, writers, geeks, students, Californians, Democrats and yes, even Republicans, pride themselves on just how much the environment is a part of their daily lifestyle.  Just look at any of the "Best places to live" lists and Austin is almost always on it.  And usually, at the top of those lists of the reasons why Austin is such a great place to live, it's noted how much green space is available through park lands, environmentally sensitive planning of developments and natural places like Barton Springs, Hamilton pool or Hippie Hollow.  The last thing that Austinites want is a city that looks, feels, smells and functions like Houston or Dallas.  We are all in love with the unique blend of arts, technology, people, scenery and general quirkiness that makes this city so damn appealing and most residents long to keep it that way for future generations.  This truly is a city of individuals but on one issue, Barton Springs, almost all are on the same side.  

Over the coming days I'll be cross-posting from my personal blog into this diary in an attempt to pull attention to this issue from outside of Austin.  I hope to show you, the national Daily Kos reader, the reasons why this issue is important to you even if you live in South Dakota.  As history has shown, what happens here in Austin is sometimes a national warning if we just listen.

So now Prop 1 & 2 have gone down in stinging defeats giving developers and their related industries cause for celebration along with the Austin City Council and Austin Police Department a big sigh of relief. So what caused the defeat of these proposals? Was it the deceptive advertising campaigns and interviews by the propositions opponents? (They were using quotes from the ballot language that had already been found deceptive in state court; 36 million anyone?) Was it a pattern in the media that too easily and too quickly gave a bully pulpit to current and former council members and mayors? (I watched what I would consider a "hit piece" on KVUE the night before the election that left my head shaking in awe at the extremely low quality of reporting that passes for journalism nowadays. I could easily present a case-study of all the current problems of the media with just that one news segment...) In fact, just now (5:06pm, Sun), I witnessed a report on News8 stating that Prop 1 would put all the city's documents online in real time... Geez, a day after the elections and it still isn't being represented correctly.

So there are signs that certainly point to these things being part of the reason why the propositions failed, but the most troubling sign to me would be the voting totals in my own precinct. I live in Precinct 342 (precinct totals are available here) which is the precinct directly to the east of Barton Springs. If any precinct had reason to vote for the amendments, it would be my precinct with its assorted hippies, yuppies, yippies and puppies. But, based on the vote totals, my precinct went 61% against the amendments (averaged). So almost 2 of 3 of my neighbors were either comfortable with seeing Barton Springs get paved over with more office and apartment complexes, restaurants and mini-malls or they were misled by the three-pronged approach of developer supported advertising, council member bully pulpits and misleading paper editorials. On my street, everyone I talked to except for one was in favor of the amendments. Clearly, most of the people I talked to did not have an implementation-level understanding of the propositions and it sometimes took a few minutes to explain to them what the amendments were trying to do, but every last one of them mentioned the $36 million figure which was found to be erroneous by state court and was ordered removed from the ballot language. Councilmembers McCracken, Dunkerly and Mayor Wynn owe the City's CIO an enormous thank-you fruit basket for that estimate...

But what troubles me most is not the deceptive advertising or the lax journalism, but what could be the overarching reason why the amendments didn't pass. Again, using my precinct as a lab, Will Wynn and Brewster McCracken won re-election (82% and 74%, respectively) who are possibly the most pro-growth council members/mayors in recent history. Props 4 (64%) and 5 (75%), which had to do with increasing term limits and increasing campaign contributions, also passed easily. Let's also assume that voters were swayed by the deceptive advertising which was funded almost entirely by developers and their sub-industries PACs. That means, in my precinct, one of the few precincts where Barton Springs actually touches and runs through, it appears that a majority of my neighbors are pro-industry, pro-developer and pro-growth over environmental protection of one of Austin's greatest natural treasures or my exhaustive research into the amendments are completely and utterly wrong. I'm not comfortable with either conclusion...

Now, it's true that my neighbors may not have had the time to go through all the amendments and really understand what they were voting on but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and at least assume that there was a cursory examination. So, in my precinct, located in the 78704 zipcode, the supposed hub of granola-crunching, tree-hugging environmentalism of Austin; Progressivism has died not by kicking and screaming, but by a flat-out majority suffocation. It seems to have been replaced by what I'll call "Closet Conservatism." You might know what I'm talking about here. It's like State Proposition 2 from 2004 which banned gay marriage here in Texas. That was an issue where people were quick to announce their support in front of their friends and family who may be gay but then secretly voted against it in the voting booth. The Barton Springs protection issue seems to be the 2006 version of the gay marriage amendment in my precinct...

I'll be honest. A non-progressive Austin is an Austin that scares me. I come from Dallas and lived there for 17 years and I loathe to see Austin turn into Dallas. I am not one of those people that find Trammell Crow developments on every other street corner attractive. I don't really care to have a Starbuck's within easy driving distance so it doesn't cost me more than that cup of coffee in gas to drive my SUV through the drive-thru. And I certainly don't care to see one of my most cherished things I love about Austin, Barton Springs and the accompanying greenbelt, something I use on nearly a daily basis, get paved over by the Trammell Crows and AMDs of the world. So the question is: What do we do now?

For starters, if my precinct is any measure, the election results should be challenged on the misleading ballot language. As I mentioned before, all that one needs to do is show that news report on News8 the day after the election as evidence in court to show that the ballot language was confusing and was not understood by a majority of the citizens. Also, I can't help but wonder how citizen-sponsored amendments, each of which required 20,000 signatures on a petition, managed to garner just over half of that number in support in the final election. I would think that the same 20,000 people who were motivated enough to sign the petitions should have been motivated enough to go to the ballot box. I know that you will never get 100% of those people out to the voting booth but just over 50% seems a bit low. And finally, we need to really keep a skeptical eye on this city council and it's future actions. As shown in the double-speak of the ballot language of Prop 5, the misrepresentation of Props 1 & 2, the "surprise" announcement of the new Green Water treatment plant location as well as the grandfathering of the AMD property, this council seems to go to great lengths to cloak their intentions. Hopefully, the incoming new council members will not be bullied by other members of the council and they will hold true to their campaign promises.

When I first started blogging about this issue, it wasn't because I was for or against these particular amendments. It was my belief that certain council members were not being honest to their constituents, purposefully muddying the waters to possibly benefit their campaign contributors instead of the people they are supposed to represent. After this election, I'm left with the disappointment that I find myself no longer in a progressive majority or that Austin is moving away from its environmental roots. Neither of those conclusions gives me the warm fuzzies for the coming years...

I've been meaning to comment on this story for quite some time now. Unfortunately, it's taken about 2 weeks to actually find the time to sit and jot the thoughts down. The story, which is split into 2 parts, reports that there is a Prop 2 "resurrection" movement afoot by SOS and the Council to take the best elements of the defeated Prop 2 and try to incorporate those as ordinances. Now, to me, this is certainly a fine idea and I think even the opponents of Props 1 & 2 agreed that something had to be done to protect the Barton Springs area. But, contained in the article is a quote from Council Member Lee Leffingwell (one of the most fervent anti-Proposition opponents) who disagrees with that idea:

"Not so fast, opponents say. On Saturday, 69 percent of voters cast ballots against the measure. So some neighborhood and business leaders say that those ideas have been roundly rejected and that more community input is needed to create a lasting solution to the vexing issue of development in the environmentally sensitive area.

Council Member Lee Leffingwell, who crafted the ordinance, plans to slow the process and allow for a larger community discussion to take place. Input from interested parties as well as the two city bodies now considering the ordinance will provide the springboard for conversation."

Now, some would argue (myself included) that the 69% figure used above is completely misleading. While the propositions may have been defeated by 69% that does not, by association mean that 69% of the people of Austin are against protecting the Barton Springs watershed. Most of the Prop 2 opponents had said that protection of Barton Springs is sorely needed but they just didn't agree with how the propositions sought that protection. The fact that 31% of the people of Austin still voted for the propositions considering the outright misleading ballot language is a strong indicator that the citizens of Austin really do value environmental protection over development in sensitive environmental areas.

So now we come to Council Member Leffingwell's statements. On the one hand:

"These charter amendments were written behind closed doors with no public input, no vetting and no opportunity for changes to correct errors and unintended consequences," says Lee Leffingwell, an Austin City Council member who is former chairman of the city's Environmental Board."

And now the other:

"Will you answer specifically which reforms you support and which you do not?

I AM STILL IN THE DISCUSSION STAGE WITH REGARD TO WRITING THE ORDINANCE, AND SO CAN'T COMMENT ON ANY ASPECT OF YOUR SCORECARD AT THIS TIME."

Pot, may I introduce Kettle... (More on that from a blog post by JS Hatcher).

Also, looking around in Council Member Leffingwell's campaign finance reports, one notices that the only PACs that gave Mr. Leffingwell money during that election cycle all had something to gain by defeat of the propositions (granted, these filings were in the 2005 election cycle and the Open Government/SOS amendment campaigns were ongoing but probably not a campaign issue at the time):

• Austin Apartment Association
• Austin Board of Realtors
• Austin Police Association
• BOMA
• Homebuilders PAC

Now, call me a cynic but a council member whose only PAC contributions came from developers, who is now quoted to want to slow down the environmental protections for Barton Springs and is currently doing what he accused his Proposition opponents of doing, does not instill the greatest confidence in me that he should be the one to lead the effort for protection of one of Austin's most sensitive environmental areas. Anyone else on the Council with a bit more cred care to step up?

Toby Futrell and the "Livable City"

The second part of the article is about a little spat between the City Manager's office and a report released by the City Auditors. In the report, the City Auditors:

"presented an audit that found that Austin does not have an "overarching vision for growth" or anything that ties together a patchwork of smaller city-planning efforts."

To which the City Manager took offense and disagreed with 3 of the 4 study authors by saying:

"In fact, the City has a vision and it is widely recognized. Our vision is for 'Austin to be the most livable city in the country.' "

May I introduce Exhibit A against City Manager Futrell's claim. In the studies cited in the post, Austin ranks as the third highest cost of living in the country. Higher than traditional high cost leaders San Francisco (10th), Boston (9th), Chicago (8th) and Atlanta (4th). Austin has the 4th highest average house cost in Texas (behind Ft. Worth, Dallas and San Antonio) and ranks number 12 nationally for the highest average cost of the typical home in America. These are not exactly the most livable conditions in the country.

Now, does city planning have anything to do with this rise in prices? As cited in this document, my guess is that the 29 now-under-construction-or-planned residential developments and super-condos being built on the shores of Town Lake, throughout downtown and in the ultra-swanky 2nd street area will only further inflate these cost of living indices (most have starting prices in the $200's for a 1/1). One can certainly make the argument that development should take place in downtown (I do support that) but of all the projects listed, from what I can tell, not one project is an affordable housing project.

So I have to agree with City Manager Futrell here. She does have an "overarching vision" of Austin. Under her's and the City Council's leadership, they seek to make Austin unaffordable for most residents. They seek to transform the prime green spaces and park lands of Austin into multi-story, multi-million dollar condominiums, raising the cost of living while attempting to replace the few East Austin parks with nasty infrastructure plants needed to clean the crap out of the water from these lofty, rich residents and the eventual Dallas-like sprawl of SH 130. They seek to keep their vision of Austin planted in future city council elections by raising campaign contributions, creating slush funds and erasing term limits. Yes, Ms. Futrell, you and your Council Member friends have a vision for Austin. Unfortunately, it seeks to replace what some of us have come to believe what Austin is about and replace it with a miserably cloned vision of Dallas.

I came from Dallas after 17 years of living there to Austin for the last 10, with most of that time in the Barton Hills area so I've seen the pace of change downtown under a close lens. I can't help but think that with the most developer friendly City Council in my memory along with the unification of former Council Members and Mayors against environmental protections for Barton Springs, it won't be long before we'll see the 580-ft towers being grandfathered in overlooking Barton Springs Pool.

The Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer has been declared in the Alarm Drought stage. According to the Chronicle:

"One of the drought indicators, Barton Springs, is flowing with 31 cubic feet of water per second, much less than the average 53 CFS, said BSEACD hydrogeologist Brian Hunt. Spring flows and levels in monitor wells briefly increased after rains in early May, but they have been steadily dropping since then. Currently, groundwater users, such as the cities of Buda and Kyle for example, are required to reduce usage by 20%. That could mean lawn-watering schedules or outright bans, said Hunt. Area sprawl development isn't necessarily to blame, he said, but likely exacerbates the situation. If dry conditions continue, the aquifer could reach critical stage by late summer, triggering 30% usage reductions and even lead to crackdowns on chronic water-wasters. The district is urging people to be water-wise at all times. Find more information at their Web site,http://www.bseacd.org/."

I find the timing of this announcement personally interesting based on a conversation I had with a co-worker this week. Their main point was "Who really cares if AMD puts their development within the recharge zone? It's not like that development can block recharging the entire aquifer!" Well, here's the reason why it matters. Recharge zones are typically geographically small areas where the water from the surface starts making it's way down to the aquifer. As this generalized cross-section shows, water, for the most part, doesn't make it's way down from the contributing or artesian zones. To further complicate things, different parts of the aquifer are replenished from different recharge zones (there are usually geologic features that direct water into one zone or the other). So while the Edwards aquifer may be getting recharged down in San Antonio, that usually doesn't do Barton Springs a whole lotta good.

So enter AMD and it's 850,000+ sq. ft development planted directly on top of the recharge zone. As this map shows, the recharge area for the Barton Springs area is relatively small (bisect Hays county and go north to where the aquifer zones stop and that is basically the Barton Springs Segment of the aquifer). So now add the huge AMD complex, the impermeable cover that is associated with it (roads, parking lots) and the infrastructure that will also be needed (water pipes, underground cabling, etc). The impermeable cover will collect particulate and chemical pollution from the cars/trucks riding/parking on it. When it rains, this pollution will be picked up and accelerated into the Barton Springs recharge zone and straight into Barton Springs pool (and don't tell me about the catchments they will be putting in place. No catchment can provide 100% filtration). So we will all get to swim in the eventual gasoline/oil/diesel/chemical mixture that along with low inflows/outflows to the aquifer, we'll see a rapidly degenerative effect on the quality of the water. And, I might mention, that's only if there is a Barton Springs pool left because of the reduction of water collection within the zone that the AMD and eventual future developments will provide.

So sound the alarm, I say! We need to make sure our elected officials know that Barton Springs has entered into drought stage. I hope that the rains will come this summer and replenish the stores but outside of a stray hurricane, I think we're in for another long, hot summer.

Or at least that will be the lasting sentiment from this story. And, you know, that's fine with me. I've been *intimately* involved with this particular issue as my wife and I were affected by this personally.

Almost 2 years ago, I learned that Travis County had published our marriage license online, which included our names, addresses, social security numbers, birthplaces and driver's license numbers. For most people, the standard marriage license form doesn't include that information and so it's fit to publish online. What we did different from most people was we filled out a "Declaration of Informal Marriage," a form that legally recognizes a common-law marriage. This was required by my employer (the City of Austin) so I could extend healthcare coverage to my wife.

So when I found out this form was available online and the state required redaction of the social security numbers had not been done, being intimately familiar with this subject (I'm an Information Security Analyst at the City), I called the County Clerk's office and asked to speak to someone who would be able to pull the graphic. Over numerous phone calls to at least a half-dozen different people, I couldn't seem to get a hold of anyone that understood what I was asking for. After about a week of calling and talking to people, the "official" solution (and I'm calling that "official" as this was the highest level person that I could get a hold of even though I asked on numerous occasions to speak directly to Ms. DeBeauvoir herself) was that I would have to file a petition with the court to have the record changed from public information to private (at a cost of at least $300). This was crazy, I explained. Because I do this exact same thing at my day job (look at vendor's applications for weaknesses and re-engineer them to fit the City's security policies), I knew there was some kind of technical disconnect to the person I was talking to. As I kept explaining, I wasn't trying to change the status of the record. I had no problem with it being public. My problem was that this system was publishing records online in violation of the State of Texas' Public Information Act ( § 552.141. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION IN APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE) and that Travis County could be held liable for any security breach that could be traced to their website. After all, I wasn't asking to invalidate the record; I was asking for the stupid web application to not publish the one pdf file that contained the information.

So I asked to speak to one of the programmers as I knew I could convey exactly what I was trying to get across to someone technical. I was told I couldn't speak to a programmer as it was an application developed by a vendor and I had no way I could talk to them directly. My concerns would be relayed to them, I was told. So, almost 2 years later and after my wife picked up the phone tag baton, putting multiple 90 day freezes on our credit knowing our information was easily available to any and all, I'm glad to see that the clerk's office is finally doing the right thing. Kudos to you and your staff Ms. DeBeauvoir. I only wish that I could have talked to you directly oh, so many years ago...

But you would think I would end the story there, but I'm not. I'm going to use this as an example of something that is very close to my heart as well as put a few warnings out there. The application that the clerk's office uses, Public Access .NET, is a proprietary application which the clerk's office probably doesn't have rights to access or change the source code. I'm assuming from all my conversations with their staff that no one at the clerk's office has access to the source code of the application much less the right to change the functionality of the application itself (remember, I don't know this for sure; I'm *assuming*).

So I'll offer up this first warning to government officials. Proprietary software and government do not mix well. As Ms. DeBeauvoir states, "I am a strong supporter of open government; however, my obligation as an elected official is to respond to legitimate public concern and to do everything within my authority to protect people now." So, if the public's best interest is the priority, by doing everything in her power, that application should be open and accessible to other programmers outside of the company that developed it. This allows the government entity the option to work on their time schedule and not the agenda of another company. So if a pressing security issue crops up (like publishing social security numbers online), the entity has the option to call a local programmer and immediately address the concern. Like I said before, from my understanding of the application and how these things are put together, this could have been as easy as changing a single field in the database and not a whole rewriting of the application itself. This concept, called open source, is the perfect fit for any government entity who espouses their belief in open government because it practices what it preaches. It allows for the open review of the code by independent 3rd parties and allows changes to the functionality on the government entity's time schedule. I can say that most of the online projects that the City uses have either been developed in-house by our talented programmers or we have access to review the code if needed. We love it from a security standpoint as we can see exactly what is going on and can tailor the app to fit within the City's strict security policies. It's a win for the people's government and a win for the developer.

My second warning goes along with the spirit of the first. The company that developed the application, Hart Intercivic, also developed and programmed the voting machines used in all elections here in Travis County. Hart Intercivic keeps the programming code of these machines as well as the tablulation software proprietary and thus secret. If I could think of any application in the world that needs to be open sourced, it's voting machine software. As shown by the last few election cycles and in numerous other instances, the software has come under scrutiny as irregularities become more prevalent. So, if we value our democracy and if Ms. DeBeauvoir really believes in open government, we need to petition to have a true independent code review of the voting machines we use here (and don't believe the results from the ITA or "Independent Testing Authority" that all these machines must subject themselves to. The ITA is actually just three companies which are paid by the voting machine manufacturers themselves. An article by probably the most prominent voting machine expert, Avi Rubin discusses this "independent" setup). So please, if you value democracy, email or call the Travis County Clerk's office and pressure them to have Hart Intercivic release the code to a true independent party for review. If Hart Intercivic was publishing all my personal information online in direct violation of state law, who knows what the *truly* secret code is doing...

Ah, a sad day has come in my blogging life. I've decided I will no longer allow a commenter to keep an entry here on any of my future blog entries. I really hate to do it. I tried to be understanding and I certainly believe in free speech for all. But unfortunately, that same concept seems to be lost for my now former blog friend, M1EK.

You see I was pretty much ok with his seemingly ill-informed and usually fact devoid rants attached to a few of my posts. I was willing to give some of my blog space to let him air his grievances and attempt to make his points. I really do enjoy seeing other people's points of view as I try to learn where they are coming from and how they formed their opinions. But there were two reasons why I decided I will no longer allow any of M1EK's comments to remain here.

The first reason was that you can't have meaningful debates with someone if they will not back up their assertions with fact. In 2 of M1EK's comments here, his condescendingly bold assertions were utterly devoid of any fact I could find. Yes, M1EK, I did *a lot* of research into your property value claim (the same lame "my Clarksville condo" rant I've now seen on no less than 2 other blogs). Over the last few weeks I've read numerous density articles, affordable housing scenarios, case studies (Portland, Seattle and New York), blogs and comment threads and even the city's development plans (like the City Auditors, I wasn't impressed). I even went so far to talk to 2 MBA's (one in real estate). I couldn't find a *single* sentence or person that supported your "trickle down" assertion (building luxury condos leads to increased supply which leads to more affordable housing citywide). The overwhelming theme I gleaned from those articles and my research is that there is no direct link between building downtown luxury condos and the lowering of property values from previously higher priced properties in outlying areas. In fact, I saw more examples of the opposite; the building of luxury condos downtown increased the housing prices nearby and displaced traditional residential neighborhoods. As shown by this article and from here:

"Gentrification usually increases the property value of an area. This is a positive development for city officials (by raising tax revenue, which is often dependent on property values), the middle class, as well as existing resident owner-occupiers. Unfortunately this same rise in property value can be devastating to those in lower income groups, when children of such residents find they can no longer afford to live in certain neighborhoods. As a result, there tend to be very strongly opposed views on gentrification, with some seeing it leading to healthier, more vibrant cities, and others seeing it as destroying poor communities. Both views would seem to be correct."

It's almost like you pulled that purely anecdotal story out of an unnamed orifice. But anyway, that's really not relevant as my blog post had little to do with property values but with livability and our city manager's quote that their development plans are aimed to make Austin the "most livable" in the country (which my post pointed to 4 indicies that showed Austin was actually accomplishing the opposite). You didn't counter the facts I linked to.

The second reason is a bit more personal. I'm a big enough man to take criticism for taking a stand on an issue and then opening up the comments to anyone who wants to say their peace, agree or disagree. I'm not intimidated by those people whose opinions differ from mine. In fact, I applaud those that have a differing world view. It's what makes this whole whacky place worth living. But unfortunately, you don't seem to hold those same beliefs. Earlier this week, I read a blog post of yours about bicycle helmets and that you are against them and don't want to see mandatory helmet laws. As a very active commuting cyclist (and on/off competitive cyclist over the last 20 yrs so I felt I had something to add), I thought I'd leave a comment on your blog where, in a strange twist of fate, I actually agreed with your main point (there shouldn't be mandatory helmet laws for adults in which I actually bolstered your point by raising the issue that mandatory helmet laws have a detrimental effect on cycling participation; a good way to truly make cycling safer is to separate the cyclists from cars using real bike lanes and if no one is cycling, it becomes harder to gain the ears of those in positions to actually do something worthwhile about cycling safety. Your post didn't cover this angle but I see from the comments you did post, all you were looking for were cheerleaders and not informed debate). I hit submit and voila, it's off to the moderation folder. Now, I have no problem with moderated comments for limiting comment spam or for keeping offensive language and the like off the blog. But my comment contained no spam, no offensive language and actually supported your point. But you still didn't see fit to publish the comment. Its almost like you didn't publish the comment for personal reasons... Hmm...

Now, that's fine. That's your right. If you want to make it personal because we disagree on the "trickle down theory" of hi-rise luxury condos and livability in Austin, so be it. So in response, I'll no longer allow your comments to stay on any of my posts from now on (turnabout is fair play, eh?). Oh, I'm not going to be a wuss like some people I know so I won't be turning on moderated comments or turning off comments completely. I'm not going to ban your ip or do anything like that. You'll still have little windows of opportunity to blurt out your rants but the next time I log on, I'll remove them. I'm no longer willing to allow you to take up comment space and puff up your perceived blogger ego using my blog site. Unlike you, M1EK, I believe in diversity of opinion; I just don't care about yours anymore.

So fare thee well, my old friend. Can't say I was glad to know you...

Correction: I caught a misspelled word and updated it (I used "piece" when I should have used "peace.").

Over the last few weeks, the topic du jour for me lately seems to be growth in Austin and specifically the abundance of new luxury condominiums being built downtown. It seems that everyone I know has either been talking about it or have joined in the conversation at some point (well, I guess we "Southies" have never taken kindly to development...). I first got turned on to this topic from a post where I questioned a statement made by Austin's City Manager Toby Futrell in response to a City Auditor's report that was critical of her's and the City Council's development plans. To summarize, in the report, the City Auditors:

"presented an audit that found that Austin does not have an "overarching vision for growth" or anything that ties together a patchwork of smaller city-planning efforts."

To which the Ms. Futrell, who disagreed with 3 of the 4 city auditors who authored the report replied:

"In fact, the City has a vision and it is widely recognized. Our vision is for 'Austin to be the most livable city in the country.' "

I linked to a few indicies that refuted that claim and the post got a few comments, but none seemingly more vocal or condescending than M1EK, but he did put me on the path to research his claims which eventually led me here.

Now, M1EK's been making a claim that by building luxury condominiums downtown, by the mystical force of "trickle down," Austin's housing market will actually become more affordable (btw, he has never linked to anything that would support this point of view). I've seen this comment of his on mine and a few other blogs (actually highlighted here) and I still have serious problems with this assertion.

The vehicle that M1EK is using for this argument is now called supply-side economics. In his example, by adding more supply to the market, no matter what the price, it will eventually bring lower prices long-term to the whole market, not just the luxury segment where the current supply is being increased. While that may be true in general terms, I'll put forth that the supply isn't the greatest determining factor in this "affordable housing" scenario; I feel the demand in this limited market segment will be the more important quality as that will drive up the existing outlying property prices and will not, as M1EK asserts, increase affordability for the general public. Below, I hope to show that while in theory, M1EK's premise is generally correct for most things, there's not enough places (or plans) to build the sheer number of condominiums needed to make his assertion true in this case.

The Parking Lot

In M1EK's example:

"The only thing worse for affordable housing than building a bunch of high-priced condos downtown and continuing business as usual everywhere else is: NOT building high-priced condos downtown and just continuing business as usual everywhere else.

Trickle-down sucks in tax theory but it works like gangbusters in real estate. I own a moderate condo unit near (not in) downtown and I can tell you that it's fairly easy to observe a depressing influence on the rent I can get for it thanks to the indirect influence of those downtown units. Some folks who used to live in high-end housing in that neighborhood (Clarksville) now live downtown; some people who used to bid up the price for moderate housing like mine moved up to previously high-end condos in Clarksville."

So to begin, let's use a thought exercise... My premise is while I agree that we have to start building at some point, we're not going to get affordable housing only building luxury condos. Where I work, there are approximately 200 parking spaces in the parking garage and across the street from the building. If you're a manager, you get a reserved space otherwise, it's first-come, first-served. Out of the 200 total parking spaces, approximately 50 of them are reserved. There are about 300 employees (250 regular employees and 50 managers) in my department so on any given day, probably 250 or so show up for work and require a parking space (not everyone drives a car in; some bus, some ride bikes, some car pool, some are sick, etc). We already have too many people for the available spaces so demand has already outpaced the supply for the freely available spots (much like the overall housing market here in Austin).

Now, let's start adding new employees, say 5 per quarter (20 per year), 4 regular employees and 1 manager. We already have 250 people trying to snag one of the available 150 parking spaces so the demand is already at a premium. Now, when the new employees start, one of the freely available parking spaces becomes assigned for the new manager, decreasing the available supply for the regular workers while at the same time, increasing demand for those freely available spaces. Does this help the available supply for the regular workers? Of course not. The supply of parking spaces for them hasn't increased (this is like the current situation for affordable housing; there's only so much available within the city. And between rising property values and homeowners that are fixing up their current properties, more properties are moving out of "affordable" and into more exclusive markets).

So management decides to do something about it. They authorize redeveloping the small area where the dumpsters are right next to the building (for an additional 3 places) but they're all reserved for the CxOs, as they are ultra-swanky, shaded, cars-washed-by-virgins spots. The spaces are only for the CxOs and no one else. So here's M1EK's premise; the 3 reserved spots that used to be occupied by the CxOs have now been freed up for additional managers (the 1-for-1 property tradeoff) but did building the addtional spaces help the rank-and-file employees by increasing their supply? No. The old parking spaces remained reserved for management. So, in the next 3 quarters it takes to fill the old reserved spots with new managers, my department has now added 12 more people to the first-come, first-served spaces further decreasing the available supply where they can park. The only thing that will help relieve the demand for the rank-and-file employees is new spaces where they can park or new spaces in their segment.

So seeing that their available parking spaces have now shrunk to about 140, the rank-and-file employees submit a protest to the City Council who sympathize and decide to redevelop the field adjacent to the building (cutting down the landmark 300+ year old oak tree, mind you [look for "Rainey" on the page]) and put in an additional 50 parking spaces. But when completed, they decide that the spaces are only for City Council and management and, additionally, they deem that 40% of the spaces are only to be used by their families. No one else can park there which leaves most of the spaces unused most of the time (this is downtown development and the 2nd home thing which I'll get to below). Is this unfair to the rank-and-file employees who are still fighting over the ever decreasing spaces? You bet. Are they upset? Beyond belief. Can they do anything about it? Absolutely not.

So is this experiment wholly accurate? Of course not. In real life, the City Council would open up the new parking to tolling... ;) Actually, the only thing that is really left out of the experiment is some influx of "affordable" housing but it will be in the less desirable areas of Austin (in the situation above, those spaces would be located blocks away from the building) and since M1EK's assertion is that building downtown luxury condos will increase affordability for the average citizen, the model above is accurate enough to get the point across. But, model aside, let's try and determine some real numbers.

The Numbers (with links!)

Using M1EK's example that seemingly the only people looking to move into these downtown condos already live in Austin (a 1-for-1 property tradeoff and I know he's generalizing...), one can make the argument that demand for these downtown luxury condos will be limited to a very small percentage of the current Austin population (the current total Austin population is 690,252) and thus, will not have the effect of lowering the prices of the individual units downtown or the surrounding areas. A quick run of the numbers shows of those that can afford an average downtown property cost of over $300k, based on the 29% rule, the target buyer must be making at a minimum, $65k/yr and would probably have to make a bit more than that for credit card bills, recreational and living expenses, etc. The median income in Austin is $68k/yr so, working in *very* general numbers, we'll say 50% of the current residents in Austin that could afford the property and of those, another smaller percentage would actually be looking to move (even though this logic is a bit flawed -- median income does not evenly correlate to population -- but this is just for fun). I'll just pull a number out of the air here as I haven't been able to find this number anywhere so I'll be generous and say that 2% of the Austin population are looking to move of the 50% that can afford it . So, we have a maximum of 12,580 people in Austin who could currently afford the minimally priced condos and who are currently looking to move (not all of these properties downtown will be available at the $300k level).

Now, based on national statistics, 40% of all housing transactions last year were for 2nd homes. So let's remove from the equation 40% of the available downtown properties because these people already have primary residences somewhere else and generally speaking, the properties won't be available to those looking to move from the periphery (except maybe as rentals at some point but couldn't find a figure for how many 2nd homes become rental properties). The Council wants 20,000 eventual downtown residents so let's average 2.4 people per residency, we need about 8,400 individual properties minus the 40% that are second homes which leaves 3,360 total residential units available on the market. So, this year, we now have 12,580 current Austin residents looking to move into the eventual 3,360 average priced properties downtown.

And this figure does not take into account those people who don't currently live in Austin and are moving down here (based on census data, Austin's population grew 10,000 per year over the last 3, so we can add roughly another 5,000 additional home seekers per year divided by 50% who can afford it = 2,500). So until developers build at least 15,000 individual residences downtown and then add 2,500 additional units per year, the demand for those properties will not go down and the prices will remain where they are and will probably creep up over time.

So where do those people go who want to live downtown but the demand for that prime property has forced them to look elsewhere? They go into the adjoining neighborhoods, like Clarksville and Barton Hills, and drive up the price of the current properties due to the demand and not down by supply as M1EK surmises. Generally speaking, Austin is being influxed with new residents from places other than Austin. These residents, usually coming from places that have higher property prices, don't balk at a $300k downtown condo like some of us long-time Austin residents. I think we'll find that most people who are moving downtown into the luxury condos will generally fall into three groups:

• Professionals from outside of Austin who don't currently own any Austin property
• Professionals that bought the condo for a 2nd property (I would argue that this figure will probably be a bit higher than the national average in this case as we're primarily talking about condominiums in a now cosmopolitan and hip city, further increasing the demand)
• M1EK's scenario of upwardly mobile Austin residents

So while there is some merit to M1EK's premise, I feel it's not the driving factor for greater affordability throughout Austin.

Here's another example. M1EK's premise depends on the total number of available properties in Austin to gain eventual affordability. But just like with Ferraris, unless you add tens of thousands to the supply, they will have a minimal impact on the prices of the rest of the cars on the market. And this exactly what we have here. The developers are adding more Ferraris and relatively few Camrys. Sure, the price will fluctuate a bit for the Ferraris in their own luxury segment (due to demand, exclusivity, etc) but this price will be unaffected by the supply of Camrys as the target consumers are not the same. If the market was suddenly flooded with Camrys (affordable housing), there would have to be a helluva lot of them to have any impact on the Ferrari prices (luxury units) as the buyers of Camrys and Ferraris are in different market segments. People who can afford to live in a $300k condo, generally speaking, are not looking for $150k Clarksville condos or Barton Hills duplexes unless that's all the market has to offer.

M1EK's example may have happened twice (once by his anecdotal evidence of talking to his neighbors and I'll give him another one just because) but, generally speaking, that is not what is going on. If things really did work the way M1EK thought, we'd all just start out living on the periphery of downtown and with no further increase of income, over successive moves inward, we'd have the ability to keep moving centrally until we got to dead-center of town where only the super-rich dwell (as remember, his premise is that by building properties downtown, expanding the total supply, the surrounding properties will fall in price). It's the market in reverse and I just can't see the market working this way. Generally speaking, the market works the opposite way where property values increase dramatically downtown and the property prices increasingly ripple out into the surrounding neighborhoods. In this scenario, no matter how many luxury condominiums you build, it doesn't decrease the affordability of the surrounding areas (Ferraris and Camrys).

Additional Factors

Now, in addition to what I've outlined above, there are other factors which will drive the price of these properties up and in my opinion, will do so even more than the demand. One of those factors, gentrification, would also contribute heavily to an increase in outlying property prices. As I mentioned in my post:

"Yes, M1EK, I did *a lot* of research into your property value claim (the same lame "my Clarksville condo" rant I've now seen on no less than 2 other blogs). Over the last few weeks I've read numerous density articles, affordable housing scenarios, case studies (Portland, Seattle and New York), blogs and comment threads and even the city's development plans (like the City Auditors, I wasn't impressed). I even went so far to talk to 2 MBA's (one in real estate). I couldn't find a *single* sentence or person that supported your "trickle down" assertion (building luxury condos leads to increased supply which leads to more affordable housing citywide). The overwhelming theme I gleaned from those articles and my research is that there is no direct link between building downtown luxury condos and the lowering of property values from previously higher priced properties in outlying areas. In fact, I saw more examples of the opposite; the building of luxury condos downtown increased the housing prices nearby and displaced traditional residential neighborhoods. As shown by this article and from here:

"Gentrification usually increases the property value of an area. This is a positive development for city officials (by raising tax revenue, which is often dependent on property values), the middle class, as well as existing resident owner-occupiers. Unfortunately this same rise in property value can be devastating to those in lower income groups, when children of such residents find they can no longer afford to live in certain neighborhoods. As a result, there tend to be very strongly opposed views on gentrification, with some seeing it leading to healthier, more vibrant cities, and others seeing it as destroying poor communities. Both views would seem to be correct."

What I see happening downtown is an economic segmentation of the super-haves (i.e. - Congress, 2nd street and the new high-rises), the haves (like M1EK and myself; our outlying areas) and the have-nots (the East Austinites that are soon going to be priced out of their neighborhoods through higher property taxes and moved out through infrastructure placement and building). I believe this is counter to Austin's traditional blending of cultures and income levels throughout their neighborhoods. So in the anecdotal spirit M1EK is fond of, I'll use where I live as an example of the "traditional" neighborhood. I live in a duplex in Barton Hills. The surrounding houses in this neighborhood roughly start in the $300's and go up. I couldn't afford to live in this neighborhood otherwise (I live on a city worker salary, for pete's sake!) but because there is "worker affordable" housing in this area, I can enjoy the benefits of living in this neighborhood (the key one being I can ride my mountain bike to work safely on the greenbelt :). What's key to greater affordablity is a supply of housing within the segments that people can generally afford. That's why I've been posting that we need more "affordable housing," and not just addtional inventory in the luxury segment.

While I'm at it, I guess I should define what I mean by "affordable housing." When I talk about "affordable housing," I'm not talking about the traditional political definition of the term. I'm not talking about putting government subsidized housing on 2nd street or the like. What I am talking about is "worker affordable housing," which is generally set at about 70% median income (roughly $1,400/mo rent) versus "affordable housing" which is 50% and below median income (about $700/mo and below) **. As far as my research has been able to produce, there's only one property being built downtown that could fall into that "worker affordable housing" range as their rentals will be starting at $1,400/mo: Red River Flats.

So for me, a long time (11 yrs) Austin resident, it concerns me to see the current pattern of development that excludes the types of developments which will lead to the "unblending" of what I feel is one of the defining characteristics of Austin. Economic segmentation is how places like Dallas developed and I have a bit of firsthand knowledge there as well. I lived in the McKinney Ave. area just before the big redevelopment boom and moved to Austin about 3/4 of the way through it's completed development. I saw the moderately priced area where I lived soar to unaffordable in a mere few years which benefitted the property owners (like my father who owned a few of those condos) but didn't do anything to bring middle-income families to the area (seemingly, the "rocket shot" of property prices hit just after the completion of the driving range. Go figure...). I saw the residents of the low income side (east of Central) displaced in fairly short order as the property values skyrocketed and they were left looking for affordable housing elsewhere. (But give credit where it's due... At least Dallas had the foresight to put in a good mass transit system so at least for those that can't afford to live downtown but need to work there, an inexpensive and efficient people moving system is in place.) In my opinion, Austin needs to stop this segmentation or we risk losing what makes this city so great. We can do this by building (and the City supporting) affordable housing initiatives (like inclusionary zoning) and the building of more "worker affordable" housing like Red River Flats downtown. This really will bring diversity to downtown and will speed the migration of middle-income families to the downtown and surrounding areas.

Finally, I see gentrification being the larger threat to long-term property values and see little merit to M1EK's "trickle down" scenario to stem the upward trending property values. We currently have a very developer friendly City Council and Mayor, seemingly offering tax breaks and incentives to any of their PAC supporters that come within breathing distance (see the above mentioned post for some details). I suppose time will tell if gentrification is truly going on downtown as the growth starts to spread eastward but the seeds certainly seem to have been planted. I'm all in support of development downtown and certainly support NuPro's ideas for new urbanization (I hope she'll post about the importance of bringing middle-income families to downtown) but I feel there must be greater support from our City Council to provide affordable as well as luxury housing downtown with a coherent development plan if they truly want to meet their goal of 20,000 people living downtown while preserving cultural and economic diversity that is so much a part of Austin.

** - Ed. note -- Argh, lost my link here. Will post it when I find it in my history file...

Addendum: Since I'm no longer allowing M1EK to comment on my entries (and I will remove them if you do comment, M1EK), I will, however, give him the space to put a complete response. I will post his entry unchanged and unedited and will leave open the comments for responses. I know I don't have to do it but someone has to be the bigger person here and I'm genuinely interested in his response. I will put no qualifiers on the post for publishing other than any points made must be backed using facts and linked to the authorative data provider (which means you can put as much bile in the post as you want).

Update: In M1EK's reply on his site, he mischaracterizes the above addendum as a "demand," which it was not meant to be. Since I was using one of his comments as the basis of my entry, I was merely offering M1EK the opportunity to post a reply in the same forum if he felt the need. I'd like to make clear that nowhere in my post did I ask for a response or at at any time thereafter was I looking for a response from M1EK. I would be just as happy if he didn't want to post about the subject. I'd also like to add that the post was not supposed to be a "hit piece" or anything of the sort on M1EK. I just thought that he said something interesting and simply used that as a basis for a post.

Now, for a quick response to his... First off, I can see that the bile started right from the title (why so defensive?). His example of a "typical comment" is misleading. What he quoted is just a portion of a comment, not the full comment and not representative of what he left on my blog. I still have the comments he left on my blog; I just didn't make them visible. I won't say that they are the worst comments I've ever seen nor is there any abusive language contained within them. But, much like many of his blog entries and comments on other sites, they are condescending to those who don't agree with his view. There were no links, citations nor quotations contained within them. Just pure opinion. And while M1EK is entitled to his opinion, because I felt he was moderating out comments on his blog that he didn't like, I did the same on mine (another person also submitted a comment to his blog post that did not get posted as well to which M1EK responded back with the same "the software ate the comment" reply (which could very well be true). In my experience with MT (I used it before CoreBlog) and leaving numerous other comments on MT-based sites (some moderated), the comment I left on his blog post seems to be the first I've seen "lost." No biggie, I'll move on..

Also, it appears that I don't have a complete misunderstanding of economics because he at least afforded me one point:

"Well, his first assertion is true - the markets are 'segmented', but individual complexes can, and do, migrate from luxury to moderate segments."

So the premise I took in my post may not be what's going on but at least it's not a "complete" misunderstanding of economics.

Finally, someone else did take the time to look into the issue and sent me a great link (h/t Jen). This link to the National Housing Council shows how much money it takes to "survive" in various cities using 63 jobs as a metric. In Austin, just to "get by," it takes $61,840 / yr with a median priced home at $195,000. Looking at the 5 pre-selected jobs (School Teacher, Nurse, Police Officer, Retail Sales Rep and Janitor), none of them make enough money to "afford" to live in Austin (which goes along with this editorial that shows that most Austin police officers and fire fighters live outside of Austin). The type of "affordable housing" I'm talking about would allow people in these jobs to live in the city where they serve. That just seems like the right thing to do.

Update II: Whilst searching my history for the lost "worker affordable housing" classification link, I found this great comment attached to this article:

[...] As someone once said, the notion that all growth is intrinsically good is the mindset of a cancer cell.

First, I'd like to say "Welcome!" to my new domain/website, PoliticalSuicide.org. It was born out of my frustration with most of the current political websites pretty much covering just one extreme side or the other of the political issues of the day. I've got some pretty good ideas that I hope to launch here for furthering the political discussion (and to keep me out of trouble... :) so please bear with me as I hope to start launching the new features as soon as I complete them (I'm teaching myself Python along the way)...

Anyway, a few weeks ago, I went out on a limb and against conventional wisdom to explain why I felt the "trickle down" theory just wasn't going to help with lowering property prices in Austin anytime soon. The background of my post in a nutshell (as I heard from more than a few people that it was a bit on the long side... Glenn Greenwald is my h-e-e-r-o... ;) would be that a commenter left a comment on my blog saying that "trickle down" worked "like gangbusters" in the real estate market, to which I felt the statement was a bit odd. After reading articles, opinions, comments and talking to friends I trusted and people in the business, I put forth the following thesis:

"The vehicle that M1EK is using for this argument is now called supply-side economics. In his example, by adding more supply to the market, no matter what the price, it will eventually bring lower prices long-term to the whole market, not just the luxury segment where the current supply is being increased. While that may be true in general terms, I'll put forth that the supply isn't the greatest determining factor in this "affordable housing" scenario; I feel the demand in this limited market segment will be the more important quality as that will drive up the existing outlying property prices and will not, as M1EK asserts, increase affordability for the general public. Below, I hope to show that while in theory, M1EK's premise is generally correct for most things, there's not enough places (or plans) to build the sheer number of condominiums needed to make his assertion true in this case."

I then followed that thesis with a few examples (a parking lot and a Ferrari / Camry metaphor) and links to authoritative sources to explain how I got there.

So, a few days ago, a reader emails me the following article from the Austin Business Journal (h/t Clayton) in which Austin's current downtown city planner, Michael Knox, makes a statement that nearly perfectly matches what I wrote in my post:

"But with so little space left, demand may end up forcing development into adjoining areas, perhaps along Shoal Creek on the west side or along Waller Creek to the east.

"That's going to cause a lot of friction when you start talking to these abutting neighborhoods," he says."

Now I know that Mr. Knox is talking about demand for developable property and not the demand for actual completed residential units but the demand for land is complimentary to and actually bolsters my thesis by bringing yet another "X-factor" to the housing supply market that will increase prices. Currently, the Mayor and Council want to move 20,000 more people into the downtown area over the next few years. But as I mentioned in my post, there aren't currently enough places for these people to move so demand will force these people into looking for the most desirable property left on the market. If these more affluent buyers don't want to live in the "Hills" on the periphery of town or out at the lake (as they are looking for properties $300k+), they will undoubtably will be looking in the adjoining neighborhoods (Barton Hills, Clarksville, etc), which increases the demand for the available homes on the market. From the Austin Real Estate Blog (my emphasis):

Austin Residential Home Sales continue to be very strong. The number of homes sold increased 21% from 2,462 last June to 2,980 June 2006. At the same time, the number of active listings fell 2% from 8,637 to 8,477. The number of Pending Sales in June is up 31% from a year ago, from 2,506 to 3,286. This continued increase in demand along with reduced inventory is driving healthy value appreciation despite rising interest rates.

Average Sales Price is up 12% from a year ago, from $219,196 in June 2005 to $245,655 June 2006.
Median Sales Price is up 8% from a year ago from $168,500 to $182,000 (a new Austin record high)
note: the graph below has the wrong median amount on the chart, it’s $168,500 not $165,800.

Now, maybe M1EK can see the "depressing influence on the rent I can get for it [his Clarksville condo] thanks to the indirect influence of those downtown units," but I'm not seeing that "trickle down" effect from those downtown condos in these numbers... Maybe I'm not squinting hard enough...

Now add the "X-factor" of developers looking to "spill out" into the peripheral neighborhoods where they will be competing for the more affordable tracts of land (with homes or not already on them) as well as the resulting rise in property values as the downtown luxury units are completed. This scenario is much like the Turtle Creek area of Dallas (hehe, where I also lived in an 24-story condo tower for awhile. But I'll save those stories for another time [I can hear that sigh of relief from here...] :)

In Mr. Knox's statement about needing more residential space downtown, he said there wasn't going to be enough property that could be developed to house all those future residents and the demand for that property would have to spread into the outlying neighborhoods to accomodate the Mayor's goal. So, in that scenario, we now have 2 sources of demand in the adjoining neighborhoods:

• demand from developers for the limited developable land in the adjoining neighborhoods (see quote above)
• the influx of residents (both from Austin and recently arrived) that would like to live downtown but there are no units available downtown because of the high demand

  "It's clear that demand is high for units. One need only look at projects like The Shore, a 22-story residential tower that recently broke ground with 80 percent of its units already committed. And more than a dozen other projects are already in the works."

So, as M1EK would be quick to point out, basic market-driven economics states where there's demand there's... what...? Wait for it... Wait for it... Everybody now! Higher prices... *Applause* It seems someone wasn't so far off in their assessment even if they do possess a "complete misunderstanding of economics." :)

(BTW, I'm still waiting for anyone to send me an article, link, or informed opinion that shows building these downtown luxury condos will lower general housing prices across the city. I've seen a few comments that have said "I agree w/M1EK..." but no links to something that actually shows a correlation. All I've seen so far has been opinion (and I've *really* looked over the last month). I've never been one to agree with conventional wisdom just because someone says it's so; I've always needed the facts to back the contention (that's why I was such a lousy Catholic...). This "trickle down" scenario just seems too damn convenient, dumbed-down, buzz-wordy and Reagan-esque to me to explain such a complex situation. And, in what I've seen so far, just about every economic incarnation of "trickle down" seems to have failed pretty miserably as a guiding philosophy as the markets are just too complex to say "add more something = prices go down." As John Kenneth Galbraith said about this concept, "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows."

And I don't think I need to mention that all bets are off if the housing market busts or some unforeseen catastrophe hits. There certainly seems to be some interesting things happening economically (interest rates creeping up, general malaise and waivering confidence in the overall economy, etc) which might quell demand enough that could lead to more affordable housing in the near-term (next few years) but I guess we'll just have to see...)

Photograph: It's the sign facing the Town Lake Hike/Bike trail at the Milago luxury condominiums. I think the graffiti artist captured a sentiment held by many others here in Austin.

Correction: Wikipedia's John Kenneth Galbraith's quote for trickle down is incorrect so I updated it (I had "If you feed enough oats to the horse, the sparrow will survive on the highway." and replaced it with "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows."). It's the only link I can find that actually cites the book.

The design standards can be found here or I've mirrored them on the bottom of this entry.

Well, this week saw the release of the new design standards and with it our chance to see, at least in the Council Member's eyes, how Austin will try to handle it's explosive growth. I haven't gone through the document with a fine-tooth comb yet but I have read the document thoroughly (by that I mean I didn't follow any of the references to external ordinances and the like but have read the document in its entirety). But before I get into my take on the design standards, I'd like to make a quick follow-up on a few posts I've made previously.

My last few posts have centered on the "trickle down" theory of housing which was started by a fellow blogger, M1EK, when he made a few comments on my blog and then made a similar comment on another blog. I wrote up a rather lengthy couple of posts on why I felt that the "trickle down" effect was not at work in M1EK's anecdotal example he put forth. For that, I got a few guffs from M1EK as well as some generally constructive comments from others. What I attempted to show could be summed up by the following: "The markets are segmented and demand will outpace supply for the forseeable future." I then attempted to explain through metaphor and links to outside sources that, at least for the forseeable future, it wouldn't matter how much supply in any market will be added, demand will still be greater and overall affordability would not move down. Now, I also said in a follow-up comment that I didn't plan on bringing up this topic again but as fate would have it, someone in a position of authority weighed in and so I'm making this brief mention of it.

Now I've had my differences with Council Member McCracken in the past about his seemingly overzealous tilt towards pro-growth and development and to be fair, I was seriously questioning his motives behind the Prop 1 & 2 voting run-up. But one thing that can be said about Council Member McCracken is that he is always at the forefront when it comes to development within Austin and is very clear about his vision. Which is what surprised me when I ran across this quote (my emphasis):

Rather than exasperating chic development and steep prices, McCracken contends the ordinance strives to balance density goals with affordability. By focusing growth along major corridors and away from neighborhoods, the hope is to keep taxes affordable on single-family homes. But, "affordability doesn't happen organically," McCracken says. "It is untrue that the market produces affordability due to supply." Therefore, 10% of VMU rental properties must be set at 80% median family income. Ten percent might not sound like much, but McCracken says the neighbors can set lower MFI if they wish, and the 10% reserve can double with city assistance, if the developer desires. "As density comes," he says, "we don't want to turn into San Francisco – a great urban environment for rich people."

In this one quote, Council Member McCracken has addressed the core issues I've been posting about over the last few months. First off, he upholds my view that affordability will not come through supply alone; there must be other ways to that goal and it appears, from the design standards, they want to mandate a way through ordinance. He also seems to be echoing my fears of losing the economic and hence, the cultural diversity of Austin through gentrification and thus, has tried to promote some sort of control mechanism through the new standards (using mandated median income levels and neighborhood association input). As an example, the design standards, starting on page 72 under Section E. Affordability Requirements for the new VMUs (Vertical Mixed Use), states the following (I'm quoting the full section in its entirety):

5. Affordability Requirements
   To be eligible for the dimensional standards exemptions in subsection D.2. above, the residential units in a VMU building shall meet the following requirements.
   1. Affordability Requirements for Owner-Occupied Units
      1. Five percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved in perpetuity for ownership and occupancy by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      2. In addition, five percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved in perpetuity for ownership and occupancy by residents earning 100 percent of the median family income.
      3. The homeowner association fees for the owner- occupied affordable units shall be subsidized by the entire membership of the homeowner association, pursuant to procedures and criteria established by the Director.
   2. Affordability Requirements for Rental Units
      1. Ten percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved for a minimum of 40 years for rental by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      2. As part of the one-time opt-in/opt-out process described in Section 4.3.5. below, a neighborhood association may request that some or all of the affordable rental units be available for renters earning a lower percentage of the median family income, to as low as 60 percent of the median family income. VMU projects that file zoning or site plan applications prior to August 9, 2006, will not be subject to this neighborhood affordability customization; and instead ten percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved for a minimum of 40 years for rental by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      3. The city may elect to subsidize an additional ten percent of the residential units in the building for rental purposes for residents at any level of affordability pursuant to criteria and procedures established by the Director.
   3. Fee for Upper-Level Nonresidential Space The developers of VMU buildings that contain non- residential uses above the ground-floor shall pay a fee as set by the City Council for all climate- controlled nonresidential space above the ground floor.
   4. Parkland Dedication Fee VMU buildings not located on greenfield sites that meet the affordability standards of this Section 4.3.3.E. are exempt from the parkland dedication requirements in Chapter 25-4, Article 3, Division 5.

My only problem with this part of the standards is I would like to see a greater percentage of units offered at a lower percentage of median income. Currently for homeowners, the standard sets 5% of units at 80% of median income and another 5% of units at 100% median income. I would like to see Austin follow some other cities suggestions and offer 10% at 70% and maybe an additional 5% at 80-100% median income. Anything we can do to offer incentives to middle-class ownership will only benefit Austin's cultural diversity otherwise we really do run the risk of becoming what Council Member McCracken states -- "a great urban environment for rich people." I don't think that's what most Austinites want. Well, I should clarify. That's not what most of us Southies want... :-)

The only other thing that really stuck out at me came from section 2.7 Private Common Space and Pedestrian Amenities. I won't quote the entire section (I've linked to the document below) but here's the section I found interesting:

2.7. PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES²²

[...]

2.7.2. Applicability
The following table summarizes the applicability of this section:

Standard	Applies if the Principal Street is:	Applies to the Following:
2.7: Private Common Open Space and Pedestrian Amenities	All roadway types	All site plans five acres in size or larger

2.7.3. Standards

1. Amenity Required
   All development subject to this section shall devote a minimum of two percent of the net site area to one of the following types of private common open space or pedestrian amenities:
   1. A natural and undisturbed private common open space, for use of the residents, employees, and visitors to the development.
   2. A landscape area other than one required by Subchapter C, Article 9 (Landscaping), provided such landscaped area has a minimum depth and width of 10 feet and a minimum total area of 650 square feet. The area shall include pedestrian amenities to support these places as gathering areas.
   3. A playground, patio, or plaza with outdoor seating areas, provided the playground, patio, or plaza has a minimum depth and width of ten feet and a minimum total area of 300 square feet. The area shall include pedestrian amenities to support these places as gathering areas.
   4. A combination of the above-listed amenities. (See Figure 42.)

[...]

F. Fee In Lieu
Instead of providing private common open space or pedestrian amenities as required in this section, the developer of a property located within the urban roadways boundary (as defined in Article 5 of this Subchapter) may request approval to deposit with the city a nonrefundable cash payment, based on a formula established by the council. The Director shall review the request and accept or deny the request no later than 15 days following its receipt.

Personally, I would like to see that final section dropped as I would rather see public amenities instead of a payment to a slush fund to the City. This exemption only applies to the "urban roadways boundary" (which is pretty much all of the urban core of Austin) so I don't know how many 5 acre sites are still left down here but I would much rather see places where people can gather then have the space devoted to a few extra sq. ft. of building or parking. Maybe the "exemption" should be a smaller percentage of the site (maybe 1% instead of 2% devoted) but I really like the idea of the city promoting open, green spaces rather than a pavement exemption. I'll be honest, there could be reasons for this payment that I'm not aware of but based on this document, I don't see how making a payment to the City helps with livability. It just seems to be a convenient loophole for developers to not add that enhancing green space to their development.

But overall, the document reads sensible and I feel this is a plan that most of the Austin residents can settle on. To be completely honest, I was *really* looking for the developer loopholes in this document and I was quite surprised by the relative lack of them. I need to go back over the document with that fine-tooth comb I mentioned earlier but in the meantime, I say "Well Done!" to those involved on trying to give Austin a coherent development direction.