I know most people are focused on the national elections, but this year there will also be a local charter amendment (our city constitution) that would limit subsidies to developments with retail components (aka "stop domain subsidies amendment"). Brian Rodgers, a local strip-mall developer led the petition to get it on this November's ballot.
The proponents have a good knee-jerk kind of issue on this one because most people, including myself, generally react with disdain at the idea of subsidizing a Neiman Marcus or a Tiffany's. I can't recall, but I may have even signed the petition myself at one point.
If it was that deal that we were voting for - I would agree - we should stop it in its current form or demand modifications to their incentive based agreement. For me, it falls in the same ill-considered bucket as the Federal Courthouse / Intel Building deal.
....but that's not what this ballot initiative is really a vote on.
This is about three issues:
1.) Honoring our committment. The city executed an agreement with a developer to build this project and required certain features be built and performance measures be met. The buildings are now built and the city legal staff says the measures are met. SDS says they haven't been met or were bad from the beginning so they shouldn't be honored. To say nothing of the ethics of this action - if this passes, you can bet that there will be an injunction filed and the resulting lawsuit will cost tax payer dollars to settle.
2.) Risk to our city's credit in a senitive time. Austin currently has a AAA bond rating - in part because it keeps its commitments. AAA is not a given but it keeps our borrowing costs low. We have it also because some of those bonds are funded by dedicated sales tax revenues that would now have to be carved out and make existing bonds riskier and future borrowing and development deals more expensive for Austin. Most immedietly affected would be the Mueller re-development.
3.) Tied hands for future forward-thinking developments. Retail subsidies are rarely the best use of funds and the city council has, since the original deal was inked, moved away from them. However, the wording in this ballot initiative is way too broad. The ballot language doesn't ban subsidies to retail; it bans subsidies to developments with retail. Those aren't the same thing and the language would make it difficult to get mixed-use developments like Mueller, like the Triangle, like Seaholm, and yes....for all of its many sins it still has some virtues...the Domain. The generally accepted alternative to mixed use development is strip malls (see how it all comes around?) as opposed to the denser/walkable town-centres the city was trying to create and where transit has an opportunity.
So again...I'm not a fan of the Domain in its present form or parts of the original deal that led to its development...but after getting more info, I cannot support this ballot initiative. The message has been sent to Council on what kind of assurances voters want to see in future agreements...but this charter amendment, with all of its unintended consequences, makes no sense.
Please vote "No" on Prop 2
For more info on this, refer here:
Austin Chronicle:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase ... oid:671862
and the always informative, Austin Contrarian:
http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austinc ... omply.html
and for the dueling PACs involved:
Against:http://www.keepaustinsword.com/
For: http://www.stopdomainsubsidies.com/
Prop 2
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
Mike, you make good points (as always), but if councilmembers were really concerned about these ramifications they could have taken the time to conduct public hearings before they issued that sweetheart deal to the Domain in the first place. You can't tell me there wouldn't have been plenty of opposition to the deal if it had been discussed fully . . . which, I suspect, is why it wasn't.
I understand your argument about following through on commitments, but I also understand the technique of doing whatever the hell you want and then claiming that, well, we're already committed so we need to make the best of it. (Examples include the war in Iraq and my brother Paul, at least until he was about 17.) If the council doesn't want to suffer the consequences of reneging on deals with developers, it can start by restricting itself to deals that express the values of its constituents. There's a novel idea.
I understand your argument about following through on commitments, but I also understand the technique of doing whatever the hell you want and then claiming that, well, we're already committed so we need to make the best of it. (Examples include the war in Iraq and my brother Paul, at least until he was about 17.) If the council doesn't want to suffer the consequences of reneging on deals with developers, it can start by restricting itself to deals that express the values of its constituents. There's a novel idea.
"I'm not a real aspirational cat."
-- TJ Jagodowski
-- TJ Jagodowski
-
- arclight Offline
- Site Admin
- Posts: 528
- Joined: August 5th, 2005, 1:07 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
I have to agree with Ratliff. While I want to encourage forward-thinking development, the city has done a piss-poor job of reflecting the values of the community, soliciting feedback, and working with the community to ensure development is in tune with the wants and needs of people as well as of the developers.
I'm still seriously hacked off at Lincoln for their deceptive bullshit in getting the Northcross Wal-Mart Leviathan past the city. Lincoln lied about what they were planning and broke agreements to stop construction while their proposal was being evaluated. The city shrugged and let Lincoln shit all over Allandale, Brentwood and the other neighborhoods bearing the social costs of that dump.
So screw Simon and the city. If they want their word to be any good with developers, they need to stop being water-carriers and start doing their goddamn jobs representing the electorate. We count on those jackasses to preserve the livability of our city in the face of rapid growth. IMO, they dropped the ball and given the state of the economy, it's more than a little offensive to subsidize luxury bullshit, especially when the public was only given a week to comment.
I'm still seriously hacked off at Lincoln for their deceptive bullshit in getting the Northcross Wal-Mart Leviathan past the city. Lincoln lied about what they were planning and broke agreements to stop construction while their proposal was being evaluated. The city shrugged and let Lincoln shit all over Allandale, Brentwood and the other neighborhoods bearing the social costs of that dump.
So screw Simon and the city. If they want their word to be any good with developers, they need to stop being water-carriers and start doing their goddamn jobs representing the electorate. We count on those jackasses to preserve the livability of our city in the face of rapid growth. IMO, they dropped the ball and given the state of the economy, it's more than a little offensive to subsidize luxury bullshit, especially when the public was only given a week to comment.
The Goon
Improv For Evil - http://www.improvforevil.com/
Improv For Evil - http://www.improvforevil.com/
Here is a short documentary my friend's production company was hired to make which has interviews with many local business owners. Keep it in mind it is made by people for Prop 2.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DomainBusters
http://www.youtube.com/user/DomainBusters
For me the big issue has been the third on Mike's list. I will be voting No on Prop 2.
http://getup.austinimprov.com
"She fascinated me 'cause I like to run my fingers through her money."--Abner Jaymadeline wrote:i average 40, and like, a billion grains?
Hi Kerri, thanks for posting the video. It's also on their web-site and while it's very professionally done, I do take issue with some of the mis-representations and omissions in that film...as you might expect with any political ad.
Bob & John, I respect your opinions always….and in this case your goals are my goals….and I believe that voting “Noâ€
Bob & John, I respect your opinions always….and in this case your goals are my goals….and I believe that voting “Noâ€
Last edited by Miggy on December 16th, 2008, 4:08 pm, edited 15 times in total.
-
- bradisntclever Offline
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1747
- Joined: February 27th, 2007, 1:25 am
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
Yeah, Ratliff. Geez. Stop electing those city council members. Austin would appreciate it.Miggy wrote:If you don’t think those council members also represent your values – stop electing them.
As much as I enjoy learning about the minutiae of city politics, this argument is A) ridiculous and B) petty. Ratliff isn't responsible for the fact Cid Galindo isn't on city council. Nor am I. You tried, he put up a good fight. Sometimes the "wrong" candidate wins.
Oh gosh - oops! Sorry. It wasn't intended to sound snide like that. My point is just that 6 out of 7 (yes with Ms. Morrison being the exception) are voting "No". They are all democratically elected and whether I like all of their decisions or not - they do represent a cross section of our city. If you consistently don't like their decisions - the best solution is probably to work to get them off the dais during the next election.bradisntclever wrote:Yeah, Ratliff. Geez. Stop electing those city council members. Austin would appreciate it.Miggy wrote:If you don’t think those council members also represent your values – stop electing them.
As much as I enjoy learning about the minutiae of city politics, this argument is A) ridiculous and B) petty. Ratliff isn't responsible for the fact Cid Galindo isn't on city council. Nor am I. You tried, he put up a good fight. Sometimes the "wrong" candidate wins.
Sorry - no invective intended.
from today's chronicle, an article: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase ... d%3A689427
and an endorsement: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase ... oid=689835
News: October 17, 2008
City of Austin, Proposition 2: NO
Shall the City Charter be amended to prohibit the City from entering into future agreements to provide financial incentives in connection with the development or redevelopment of property that includes one or more retail uses, and to stop the City from providing financial incentives under certain existing agreements in connection with the development or redevelopment of property that includes one or more retail uses?
An amendment to the City Charter – the municipal equivalent of the federal Constitution – is a serious decision that requires all the reflection and due diligence voters can muster. While we were not unanimous in our opposition, as an editorial board we're recommending a "no" vote on this broad amendment that rejects any and all retail development incentives. We're doing so because punishing the Domain – the North Austin mixed-use development that Proposition 2 targets – is not worthy of a charter amendment of unknown general consequences. Equally important, the potential damage to the city's reputation and the murky amendment language itself will likely generate negative consequences. This amendment is a risk we don't need to take.
Certainly we sympathize with the impulse to protect local businesses by forbidding the kind of subsidies provided to the Domain and reining in city largesse to commercial developers and national chain stores. In hindsight, the 2003 deal the city of Austin made with the Domain's original developer, Endeavor, gave away too much (up to $25 million in subsidies, in 2003 dollars) while asking for too little in return. But the city did get the benefits that council contractually demanded in exchange: a redesign as a mixed-use, New Urbanist project planned for mass transit, with some affordable housing and a complement of local businesses.
Voters need to clearly understand that this amendment will not affect only the Domain. With some exemptions, it would eliminate incentives – including, for example, affordable housing buy-down grants – for any project that includes a retail component. Used well, incentives of various kinds have been a valuable tool for positively shaping developer behavior and mixed-use projects. Yet the full amendment (not visible on the ballot) would broadly "restrict the use or expenditure of tax revenues or other resources of the city to provide subsidies, financial benefits or advantages for development of real property that includes one or more Retail Uses" (emphasis added) – whatever the extent or kind of those uses and regardless of the community goals the subsidy might achieve.
In particular, the amendment would affect the Mueller neighborhood, another project subsidized in part by its own sales taxes. The inability to make grants from the city's AffordÂable Housing Fund could also negatively affect the Green Water Treatment Plant redevelopment, as well as mixed-use projects too small for tax-increment financing (exempted from the amendment) yet crucial to the redevelopment of inner-city neighborhoods.
The current council has already enacted a new policy that forbids future Domain-style subsidies. Unlike a charter amendment, that policy can be changed at will without waiting on another charter election. While we understand and respect the frustration of proponents who want to end large-scale retail subsidies and who don't trust City Hall to hold the line of its own accord, most of us believe this charter amendment is not the right solution.
and an endorsement: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase ... oid=689835
News: October 17, 2008
City of Austin, Proposition 2: NO
Shall the City Charter be amended to prohibit the City from entering into future agreements to provide financial incentives in connection with the development or redevelopment of property that includes one or more retail uses, and to stop the City from providing financial incentives under certain existing agreements in connection with the development or redevelopment of property that includes one or more retail uses?
An amendment to the City Charter – the municipal equivalent of the federal Constitution – is a serious decision that requires all the reflection and due diligence voters can muster. While we were not unanimous in our opposition, as an editorial board we're recommending a "no" vote on this broad amendment that rejects any and all retail development incentives. We're doing so because punishing the Domain – the North Austin mixed-use development that Proposition 2 targets – is not worthy of a charter amendment of unknown general consequences. Equally important, the potential damage to the city's reputation and the murky amendment language itself will likely generate negative consequences. This amendment is a risk we don't need to take.
Certainly we sympathize with the impulse to protect local businesses by forbidding the kind of subsidies provided to the Domain and reining in city largesse to commercial developers and national chain stores. In hindsight, the 2003 deal the city of Austin made with the Domain's original developer, Endeavor, gave away too much (up to $25 million in subsidies, in 2003 dollars) while asking for too little in return. But the city did get the benefits that council contractually demanded in exchange: a redesign as a mixed-use, New Urbanist project planned for mass transit, with some affordable housing and a complement of local businesses.
Voters need to clearly understand that this amendment will not affect only the Domain. With some exemptions, it would eliminate incentives – including, for example, affordable housing buy-down grants – for any project that includes a retail component. Used well, incentives of various kinds have been a valuable tool for positively shaping developer behavior and mixed-use projects. Yet the full amendment (not visible on the ballot) would broadly "restrict the use or expenditure of tax revenues or other resources of the city to provide subsidies, financial benefits or advantages for development of real property that includes one or more Retail Uses" (emphasis added) – whatever the extent or kind of those uses and regardless of the community goals the subsidy might achieve.
In particular, the amendment would affect the Mueller neighborhood, another project subsidized in part by its own sales taxes. The inability to make grants from the city's AffordÂable Housing Fund could also negatively affect the Green Water Treatment Plant redevelopment, as well as mixed-use projects too small for tax-increment financing (exempted from the amendment) yet crucial to the redevelopment of inner-city neighborhoods.
The current council has already enacted a new policy that forbids future Domain-style subsidies. Unlike a charter amendment, that policy can be changed at will without waiting on another charter election. While we understand and respect the frustration of proponents who want to end large-scale retail subsidies and who don't trust City Hall to hold the line of its own accord, most of us believe this charter amendment is not the right solution.
Bump, since Early Voting began today. I'm voting No on Prop 2, mostly because it damages our top credit rating for municipal bonds, and because in some sense Prop 2 kinda makes Austin look like lying jerks.shando wrote:For me the big issue has been the third on Mike's list. I will be voting No on Prop 2.
I didn't see that, but it was an interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
In an effort to wash my hands of this filthy, mud-ridden election as soon as possible, I went and voted yesterday in the first hour of early voting.
And, as much as I wanted to encourage greater public involvement and discussion on future such moves by the city council by agreeing to the first part of Prop 2, I am at heart a libertarian and as such have an unending love of the sanctity of the contract between parties.
I voted against Proposition 2 because, as much as I think a lot of aspects of this deal sucked, I found nothing actually illegal or unethical in it. I thought that there was much greater moral harm in the public wielding its power to undo a valid, legal contract between parties, even if I disagreed with what the contract was about.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but at least now I don't have to listen to another damn thing about this election. Vote Early!
In an effort to wash my hands of this filthy, mud-ridden election as soon as possible, I went and voted yesterday in the first hour of early voting.
And, as much as I wanted to encourage greater public involvement and discussion on future such moves by the city council by agreeing to the first part of Prop 2, I am at heart a libertarian and as such have an unending love of the sanctity of the contract between parties.
I voted against Proposition 2 because, as much as I think a lot of aspects of this deal sucked, I found nothing actually illegal or unethical in it. I thought that there was much greater moral harm in the public wielding its power to undo a valid, legal contract between parties, even if I disagreed with what the contract was about.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but at least now I don't have to listen to another damn thing about this election. Vote Early!
-
- kbadr Offline
- Posts: 3614
- Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX (Kareem Badr)
- Contact:
While I hate The Domain and its ilk, I cannot understand the mentality behind passing a law that prohibits pretty ambiguous future action. If I'm going to believe that voting on this thing will undo something the city has already agreed to, why would I expect that the city wouldn't just undo this prop when it's convenient in the future?
(A separate discussion, similar to one I had when the Borders was going to go in the old Whole Foods downtown, is why my elitist "I hate big box stores" attitude should be thrust upon the masses of Austin who, sadly, don't give a shit about the individuality of a city. It's democracy and will of the majority at work, even if I don't like the way their wallets cast their ballots on a daily basis.)
(A separate discussion, similar to one I had when the Borders was going to go in the old Whole Foods downtown, is why my elitist "I hate big box stores" attitude should be thrust upon the masses of Austin who, sadly, don't give a shit about the individuality of a city. It's democracy and will of the majority at work, even if I don't like the way their wallets cast their ballots on a daily basis.)
You work your life away and what do they give?
You're only killing yourself to live
I definitely support local business, and feel ambivalent about the domain. But the domain houses Neiman Marcus, and Neiman Marcus sells Shaesby Jewelry (our biggest client in fact) and Shaesby pays me to make jewelry. And while I also feel ambivalent about working to make something that neither I nor anyone I know can afford to buy at retail, I feel good about working for a local designer in a small company who cares about me and my coworkers and has taught me from the ground up and lets me take care of the succulent garden.
Just a reminder that there are local businesses and there are national chains, but the two often work in concert and are not necessarily enemies.
Just a reminder that there are local businesses and there are national chains, but the two often work in concert and are not necessarily enemies.
Parallelogramophonographpargonohpomargolellarap: It's a palindrome!
Travis County Libertarian voter's guideWesley wrote:And, as much as I wanted to encourage greater public involvement and discussion on future such moves by the city council by agreeing to the first part of Prop 2, I am at heart a libertarian and as such have an unending love of the sanctity of the contract between parties.
Early voting starts Monday, October 20. Election Day is Tuesday, November 4. You may want to write down these endorsements and bring them with you to the polling place.
- Vote FOR City of Austin prop. 2.
- Vote AGAINST Austin ISD prop. 1. (AISD wants a property tax increase.)
Sigh...
Small "l" libertarian.
Unlike the masses of party-blind straight-ticketers who follow marching orders without question, I don't do everything my big "L" Libertarian party wishes me to. I know, it is the ultimate taboo in this time and climate not to toe one's party line on every issue, but I examined the issue individually and disagree with many of my own on this one - such is my shame to bear.
My personal libertarianism ranks the value of contract above the other ramifications of the proposition's passing. A legal agreement was made. A legal agreement shall stand.
Besides, it won't be me who puts Valerie out of a job!
(Wes Bain...he's for jobs!)
Unlike the masses of party-blind straight-ticketers who follow marching orders without question, I don't do everything my big "L" Libertarian party wishes me to. I know, it is the ultimate taboo in this time and climate not to toe one's party line on every issue, but I examined the issue individually and disagree with many of my own on this one - such is my shame to bear.
My personal libertarianism ranks the value of contract above the other ramifications of the proposition's passing. A legal agreement was made. A legal agreement shall stand.
Besides, it won't be me who puts Valerie out of a job!
(Wes Bain...he's for jobs!)