if you vote

[beardedlamb]

vote yes on proposition 4.

it gives lots of money to the arts. i don't know where it's coming from. i haven't researched it at all. but it will do alot to help bolster the austin arts economy. and don't worry about me being an uninformed, irresponsible voter cuz i ain't registered in austin right now.

but if you DO vote, vote to help austin arts in a major way.

[mcnichol]

i'm actually having a hard time with this one and it's partially why i didn't vote early this past week.

i'm really not hoping to start any sort of debate here (as i'm not really for or against it at this point), i just want to hear the good stuff that i'm likely missing that this bond will support.

[shando]

In response to Jeremy's initial statement, I'm not sure about how the bond submission process works, but these bonds don't really "come from" anywhere; they are things that city would like to do/think are good investments for the city and then they ask we citizens who own houses if we'd like to pony up a little more money in property taxes (all 7 bounds come out to something like $50 more per annum).

I'll be voting yes on all of them, but I like 4 the most. Of all the things 4 gives money to, I think the most exciting is the money for the Austin Studios. Austin has a great film industry, but Texas doesn't dole out the perqs like other states. Having a better studio facility means more things made in Austin, means more activity for local actors, exposure, etc. I think it's a really good idea (and the other things it funds:

Zachary Scott Theatre Center
$10 million to help construct new theatre complex and children's classrooms
Mexic-Arte Museum
$5 million to help build new museum building and expand education services
Asian-American Resource Center
$5 million to help construct new cultural center, classrooms and display hall
African American Heritage & Cultural Society
$1.5 million to help build new cultural center, live arts and music facilities
Mexican-American Cultural Center
$5 million to help construct new arts facility and lakeside performance space

are all worthwhile as well.

Bob, I'd be interested to hear what's giving you pause.

[ChrisTrew.Com]

It seems that most people who would benefit from this are young, college-aged production-actor-creative types. And most of those don't own property because they are poor so it doesn't affect them.
I will be voting yes.

[mcnichol]

Bob, I'd be interested to hear what's giving you pause.

This is a vote and so it's not so much "pause" but more that I'd like to be enthused to vote one way or the other.

As this is a public board (and we live in a relatively small town that can read this in perpetuity) I'm reluctant to put this out there in an unfinished, unformed fashion. I will PM them to you in a few minutes and I'd like to hear your thoughts on them.

[arthursimone]

it is very very very rare to be able to vote on the arts.

we elect representatives and hope that they'll continue to fund the National Endowment for the Arts, but it's so low on the priority list for campaigns that we never hear about it. we only hear about it when Jesse Helms gets pissy about gay cockphotos getting federal funding, and then it becomes a matter of saving it.

But this is a chance to support it, not just save it. And I like that.

Lowering property taxes helps on occasion to encourage people to move here. More people here helps the economy, that tax hit is worth it in the long run. Same thing with the arts, if people like it here, if they love the cultural access, they stay here. and that helps.

help and vote and provisions and bonds.

[kaci_beeler]

That's only in Travis county, isn't it?
I'm registered in Williamson.

[Miggy]

These are city of Austin, so yes, I believe it's only on the ballot in Travis County.

For those concerned with government excess, etc..., these proposals went though a pretty thorough vetting process that trimmed down the initial package proposals. The central library in particular is going to have to go begging for private funds in order to actually get completed. It also notably leaves out money for Waller Creek restoration which has been the sick man of Austin for 30+ years (it's the disgusting creek closer to I-35 that was supposed to be turned into a San Antonio style riverwalk). And in case anyone is opposed, the transportation portion does not include light rail which is being done on the cheap by torturing other Cap Metro's funding sources per last year's election.

here are the seven proposals:

Number Proposition Amount
1 Transportation $ 103,100,000
2 Drainage & Water Quality Protection $ 145,000,000
3 Parks Facilities & Parkland $ 84,700,000
4 Community & Cultural Facilities $ 31,500,000
5 Affordable Housing $ 55,000,000
6 Central Library $ 90,000,000
7 Public Safety Facilities $ 58,100,000

TOTAL $ 567,400,000

For more details:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/budget/beac/ ... ummary.pdf

As a final note, whether you pay property taxes into these or not should not really play into their merit or lack thereof. Whether you're for or against, I hope people vote based on the desirablity of the proposals themselves.

Respectfully,
Mike

[Wesley]

The central library in particular is going to have to go begging for private funds in order to actually get completed.
...Central Library $ 90,000,000

See, this I don't understand. Ninety million dollars for a library that will still have to continue to beg for private funds to get completed? The Frost Bank Tower is 44 stories in prime downtown land and clocked in at roughly the same to build. This had better be one HELL of a library.

I don't doubt that a lot of these things would be city improvements, but so would a billion dollar UT stadium or a giant ice cream fountain on Congress that is free for residents (or more free parking. There's the initative I want to see, the city spending just $1 million to buy spaces they won't put meters on).
And, as the Chronicle pointed out, these bonds just pay for the initial investments, the building of facilities, not the ongoing staffing, maintenance, etc, etc, etc. The city had to cut hours and staff to the libraries, park sevices, and many other facilities it already had in the last economic downturn just a few years ago, so now we want to build and acquire more and larger ones? Heck, the ENTIRE Austin Public Library system's budget was 19.5 million in 2005, and that covers 20 locations.

I just think that there is something fishy going on when someone tells me they trimmed and trimmed and still cannot build a library for less than $90 million.

I voted yes on some, but no to most. But this is Austin, so I have no doubt they all will pass.

[kbadr]

There you have it.
Wes Bain: Not For Kids

[Miggy]

A lot of the cost of the new central library is the relocation of the existing utility services on the site and making it ready for construction. It's not a simple matter like tearing down the intel building shell and letting the federal government build on top of the land. Currently the Tom Green Water treatment plant occupies that prime piece of downtown land overlooking town lake and just west of Shoal creek sits an Austin Energy distribution center (the correct term is escaping me at this late hour). The idea is to return that valuable land to the city street grid and extend the 2nd Street retail district west to the new planned Seaholm redevelopment area which is mixed use residential/commercial/ hotel, etc... Anyway, that's a big part as well as the general desire (perhaps to be curbed if funds are not raised) to get a big name architect in to do the design for the building. It was referenced several times during the planning, what a positive civic model the Seattle public library was. It was designed by my single favourite living architect, Rem Koolhaas. I'm not sure what people of his caliber cost, but I'm sure that no Pritzker prize winner comes cheap. Even if we don't get something quite that grand, IMHO we should be happy that our local officials have a committment to aesthetics in civic buildings.

[shando]

Even if we don't get something quite that grand, IMHO we should be happy that our local officials have a committment to aesthetics in civic buildings.

Word.

[Wesley]

A lot of the cost of the new central library is the relocation of the existing utility services on the site and making it ready for construction.

Then why not relocate the proposed library site to somewhere more ready and save all that cost? I'm sure there are some nice lots on South Congress that are still fairly central and bypass many of these issues. Or hell, I bet a building of this calibur would really help in East Austin, which is also revitalizing and a lot cheaper.
I know, I know. The city wants all that land down by the lake. (For what it's worth: so do I, I just don't have the power to force others to pay for it.)
Besides which, if we built it anywhere else it might be near the poor people and what good would a $90 mil library full of poor people do for our community?


the general desire (perhaps to be curbed if funds are not raised) to get a big name architect in to do the design for the building...I'm not sure what people of his caliber cost, but I'm sure that no Pritzker prize winner comes cheap.

A Pritzker prize winner? Thank God.
And here I was just about to start worrying about all that government excess, too.
I'm sorry, but pronouncing 'excess' as 'aesthetics' fails to soften the blow. There is a difference in an aesthetic building and an excessive one. We don't need a Pritzker winner. Does a library need form over function? Besides, why bring in an outsider at increased cost? This is an Austin landmark, use a local talent. You save money and keep the flavor of Austin.


People can vote any way they want. After all, the beauty inherent in a democracy is just how easy it is to vote money out of the pockets of others.
But, personally, I can't help but find most of these proposals grossly excessive. And while I find most of the proposals undesireable in-and-of themselves, I find it downright impossible to divorce issues of taxation and cost when considering them.
For me, I NEVER vote based on desirablity. I vote on what is the function, role, and intent of government. I desire a lot, but that doesn't mean the government should pay for it. And once people begin to vote on what they desire and want over what the government should be limited and allowed to do by its very role and definition, that's when we start getting into legislating morality and other whims of the people, too.

For me, it comes down to this: Austin already has 20 libraries and a robust online site. Do we even need another one? (Not want, but need.) If so, do we need it to be there? Are there better locations for the public? If it does need to be there, do we need it to cost $90 million+? And even if we do need another library, and it does need to be there, and it does need to cost $90 million+, does the government need to raise my taxes and pay for it or should it come from private funds or cuts elsewhere in the budget?

[Miggy]

I respect your opinion Wes, but I disagree.

A couple of points of clarification:
- South Congress and East Austin are not central and the goals of this city, like most, is to develop a dense urban core with the majority of civic services available to the most people in that core. Locating a public use building downtown in what should eventually be a high traffic area instead of a utility facility is good land management.

- While the Seattle central public library was referenced, it does not by any means obligate the city to hire a Pritzker prize winner. While there is a generally held belief that our downtown lacks in world class architecture, the city council has looked to talented but lesser known architects before for its buildings (see also: City Hall and the convention center expansion). I imagine it'll be the same for this building.

- I would also say that considering civic desirability is not a slippery slope into legislating morality and nor are aesthetics equivelant to excess. I'm really surprised to hear you say that, actually. I could give you a rebuttal on a dozen different well-worn arguments, but I will refrain because I really don't want to fight. Since joining these forums, I have admired your independance even if I didn't always agree with your conclusions. Keep up the critical thought, but be mindful not to argue against your own ontology, which is how I see your argument playing out in this case.

I really must stop contributing to only this side of the forums. Improv people! Improv. That's why we're here....

All the best,
Mike

[arthursimone]

I vote on what is the function, role, and intent of government.

let's have a hard talk about the function, role, and intent of Wes' scenework...