What actually makes Austin "progressive"? (Houston, Dallas: insurance, unemployment)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by cBach

However, socioeconomically, Austin is conservative. They just rejected a public transportation proposal. They don't want to see rail especially if it means higher taxes.

Think the Temptations said it best:

Politicians say more taxes will solve everything.
And the band played on.
So, round and around and around we go.

Austinites only said that they want EFFICIENT public transportation, and Prop 1 was anything but that. What the voters were saying is that Cap Metro gets $200,000,000 in tax money right now. Figure it out with that quite sufficient pot of money. Because as the Temps said, more taxes WON'T solve everything.

The rest of your observations are pretty spot on. Big raging ball of inconsistency.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hound 109

Also fixed the primary reason that the choo choo was voted down.)

So you agree that Austin isn't progressive when it comes to transportation.

Because no initial transportation line, in any city, anywhere has ever served more than a single-digit percentage of the population.

But progressive cities have put them in.

[gpurcell]

I fail to see how rejecting a trolley from a dead mall to UT makes Austin not "progressive"

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

I fail to see how rejecting a trolley from a dead mall to UT makes Austin not "progressive"

It's not a "dead mall", it's an actively developed urban infill, with huge ridership sources (ACC, Rackspace) already moving in, and more to come.

But you already knew that, you're just trolling.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So you agree that Austin isn't progressive when it comes to transportation.

Because no initial transportation line, in any city, anywhere has ever served more than a single-digit percentage of the population.

But progressive cities have put them in.

I said that Austinites love BBQ, Tex Mex, Music, Parks, Schools & Trails. I said that they won't vote for higher taxes for a choo choo that serves less than 2% of the population.

I'll let you define if that is or isn't being progressive when it comes to Transportation. I'll let others define the term progressive. Once I read that definition, if those data points don't cost me $$ (say gay marriage or legalizing weed), then I'll have no problem with it. (& I doubt many Austinites would).

But if it costs me money for progressive initiatives or public toys (for example: forced health insurance that resulted in my premium going up $600 a month for my family and delivers weaker customer service....or a billion dollar choo choo that would serve less than 2% Austinites and that I'd never ride), then I'm definitely NOT progressive & I hope other voters aren't either.

Now let me go read that article on how we're going to spend City tax money on a statue for Barry (or for the homeless) and I'll report back.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

I fail to see how rejecting a trolley from a dead mall to UT makes Austin not "progressive"

THIS.

+1

In all of these train debates, what gets lost is that most of the people who voted, actually are in favor of trains in Austin... Just not the stupid idiotic plan they came up with.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov

most of the people who voted, actually are in favor of trains in Austin... Just not the stupid idiotic plan they came up with.

Where's your evidence for that?

1. The majority of the anti-rail propaganda was "no rail tax" and "doesn't reduce congestion", which apply equally to any route.

2. The major funding of the anti-rail campaign was Skagg's organization which is completely ant-rail anywhere.

Edit: plus, as already noted, gpurcell's characterization of the line as "dead mall to UT" is false.

[Mkr14]

Austin isn't progressive.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Where's your evidence for that?

1. The majority of the anti-rail propaganda was "no rail tax" and "doesn't reduce congestion", which apply equally to any route.

2. The major funding of the anti-rail campaign was Skagg's organization which is completely ant-rail anywhere.

Edit: plus, as already noted, gpurcell's characterization of the line as "dead mall to UT" is false.

I know people who were involved in the anti-rail campaign who are major liberals! And, have big money ties with the Democratic Party. The pathetic 'it's all the Koch brothers' anti-anti-rail campaign actually backfired, because people could clearly see that voting against rail does not equal carrying water for the tea party.

Actually, looking at overcrowded bus routes would have been a decent place to start for deciding where to build rail. Also, building rail from the airport into downtown would have been a good first step.

Or how about looking at where people LIVE, and then where they TRAVEL to WORK. Like Chicago. (i.e. the north and south suburbs, on the western/ central side.. All the way into major downtown areas)

Instead, it was literally a rail from UT to a dead mall, with a stop at the new medical school along the way, and all in areas that currently have renters and young people, rather than people with families who have to commute to jobs.

Which is typical of Austin. I think people who cannot afford to live with the 'haves' in downtown, or who have kids and can't afford to be urbanist pioneers, are sick of being asked to fund the lifestyle of people in a different situation with them, who want to live downtown. It all backfired this time.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

For all the talk about Austin being a liberal, progressive town, I've always wondered just what laws, regulations or programs make it so? Most of what I've read has been about environmental stuff, but what makes Austin different in terms of socioeconomic policy that differs from Houston or Dallas? I am really asking because I haven't researched this aspect of Austin and was wondering if anyone knew?

Do they have the level of programs, assistance, health care coverage and what not to low income families that you might see in places like Seattle, San Fransisco or Los Angeles?

I think Austin used to be progressive in the best sense of the word. The people here largely wanted to be left alone, had a live-and-let-live attitude, weren't judgmental, and didn't demonize people who weren't the same class/ skin color/ belief system as you. It truly was laid back and open-minded. People were generally suspicious of big business and big government intrusion.

Flash forward to 2014. Austin is progressive in the worse sense of the word. For the most part, it's a city of haves and have-nots, the haves living as urbanist hipsters, wearing super expensive hipster boutique clothes, shopping at the most expensive organic grocery stores, building custom green built-homes, riding 2000 bikes, getting 200 dollar haircuts, etc. And generally, are very judgmental against people different from them. Also, there are very few African-Americans in Austin anymore, because most of the progressive hipsters have pushed them out of East Austin, which the hipsters have remade in their own image, alienating the original population.

It would be too easy to blame this on the incoming Californians. It's just shallowness that has crept into everything. I do think that some can be blamed on the ascendency of the Democratic party as the ruling elite, and how rich people have gotten. It's just any other city now. It's still prettier than Dallas, and friendlier than an East or West Coast city, but that's about it. And we have good beer and BBQ and Tex Mex.