austin propositions (apartments, renter, credit)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by EzPeterson

Well, it may cost nothing directly, but the costs incurred by property owners do filter down. The bigger problem that I see is just a horribly uneducated constituency, where the best-funded win everything since they can shape the message. I can't even count the number of Prop 1 ads I saw on TV in the past week, all of them making it seem like pennies to create "better" medical care so poor, sick, people didn't have to go to Houston for cancer treatments. All of which is TOTALLY misleading.

I'd be willing to wager that 40-50% of the voters that cast their ballot on these honestly had ZERO clue what they were voting for.

And I'm willing to be that the people who had zero clue were far more likely to be renters because, hey, whats it to them?

[Idlewile]

Originally Posted by EzPeterson

Well, it may cost nothing directly, but the costs incurred by property owners do filter down. The bigger problem that I see is just a horribly uneducated constituency, where the best-funded win everything since they can shape the message. I can't even count the number of Prop 1 ads I saw on TV in the past week, all of them making it seem like pennies to create "better" medical care so poor, sick, people didn't have to go to Houston for cancer treatments. All of which is TOTALLY misleading.

I'd be willing to wager that 40-50% of the voters that cast their ballot on these honestly had ZERO clue what they were voting for.

Actually, I'm afraid this is quite true. On another very popular Austin forum board, someone with credible internal knowledge and specific experience with Central Health, yet with no skin in the game, took the time to explain every detail of the prop and categorically demonstrated, with sources, how no part of the prop was sound. It was remarkable. And this individual is a liberal, generally in favor of public health offerings. After that post, MANY other forum participants came forward to share they had already voted for Prop 1 (early voting) because it certainly seemed wise in how it was positioned to the public, but knowing the full story and every detail of the prop, they would have, of course, voted against it.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Idlewile

Actually, I'm afraid this is quite true. On another very popular Austin forum board, someone with credible internal knowledge and specific experience with Central Health, yet with no skin in the game, took the time to explain every detail of the prop and categorically demonstrated, with sources, how no part of the prop was sound. It was remarkable. And this individual is a liberal, generally in favor of public health offerings. After that post, MANY other forum participants came forward to share they had already voted for Prop 1 (early voting) because it certainly seemed wise in how it was positioned to the public, but knowing the full story and every detail of the prop, they would have, of course, voted against it.

Well, like a lot of issues, listening to one side at a time, both can make sense. I was present at a presentation last year by Kirk Watson about Prop 1, before it was even a Proposition. Just an idea he was working on as a 10 year plan of his. The rationale was cogent, made sense and didn't seem like BS to me. I've listened to presentations by him going all the way back to when he was Austin's Mayor, and, even though I'm not a Democrat, he is, I think, an example of what a good politician can be and I respect his intentions.

I'm sure if I read whatever you read against it, I might feel the same way about the opposing view, and respect those points as well. There are good, valid arguments on both sides.

That said, I think, like any idea, good or bad, the execution of the plan will ultimately determine success. Even the best laid plans can be botched horribly, and sometimes bad ideas eventually evolve into really good things because of how the process was managed and changes made along the way. I think Watson is a good advocate to have at the helm, so I supported him by voting for this (and as I did, not believing that I was actually voting a tax increase for myself).

I think having a teaching hospital will ultimately be good for our city and region. It's one of the few missing pieces to our puzzle that is mentioned by economists and chamber of commerce presenters when discussing Austin's future and what draws people and businesses here. And I won't tell anyone who disagrees that they're "wrong", because it's a complicated and expensive endeavor fraught with potential problems.

Steve

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Austin97

it is funny, it makes westlake look even more attractive. you get all the benefits of living close in without all the taxes.

Property tax rates are low in West Lake Hills, but property taxes are not. Unless you somehow find an inexpensive home.

[Trainwreck20]

What is sort of amazing to me is that either of the single-member districts passed at all, due to the way they were on the ballot. The few people I know personally that were voting for one or the other, voted Yes on one and No on the other. If 1,000 people wanted single member districts, but 500 wanted Prop 3 and 500 wanted Prop 4 and each voted Yes/No accordingly, then each would be at 50% for/against and a single opponent could vote no on both and neither would pass.

That is a bit of an extreme example, but the principal is still the same. The fact that one passed overwhelmingly and the other still passed narrowly means to me that a huge majority of the city was in favor of a change from at-large to single-member - much more than the margins of the individual propositions would indicate.

[Trainwreck20]

Property tax rates are low in West Lake Hills, but property taxes are not. Unless you somehow find an inexpensive home.

So the while the rate won't go up in Westlake, the value will go up due to more people wanted to move there to avoid the high tax rate. In the end, Westlake taxes will go up the same amount, but will end up in Westlakes pocket instead of the COA .

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

So the while the rate won't go up in Westlake, the value will go up due to more people wanted to move there to avoid the high tax rate. In the end, Westlake taxes will go up the same amount, but will end up in Westlakes pocket instead of the COA .

How true. The law of unintended consequences.
Had that happen to me. Decided to live outside the city limits and all was well and good until more and more people decided to live in the county as well and services got strained and taxes went up along with valuations.

If you live close enough to a city, you will end up being effected indirectly in the long run.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by EzPeterson

You know, I expected one or two of the bonds to possibly pass... but all of them? That's a lot of new taxes coming right there!

During my 41 years in Austin I have observed that the city almost always approves all of the bonds. I can't even remember a bond issue that wasn't approved. The city has always been pretty responsible about not proposing so many bonds that they require an increase in property taxes to pay for them. They budget a certain amount for bond repayments each year and stick with that pretty consistently. I think most of the voters feel that they city has been pretty responsible about how it has managed its bond programs.

[Trainwreck20]

To be fair, only bonds that are determined to have a good chance of passing are put on the ballot. There is a lot of polling, etc., done ahead of time to see if the public is going to support it before they put it on the ballot. It is 'embarrassing' for a city council to have a bunch of bond issues shot down on election day. I am pretty sure there were lots of other ways of spending money that have been thought up, but never saw the light of day....

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

Well, I don't know why we are arguing because the chances of either of the proposals passing is extremely slim. History isn't kind to the proposals either. The fact that there are two competing plans nails the coffin shut. I'm not worried in the slightest because I'm betting that at the end of tomorrow night, Austin will have shut both plans out for the 7th time.

Looks like you pretty much blew it on those predictions. Both proposals were approved.