Proposition 3 - single member districts, who voted for it.... (Austin: neighborhoods, schools)

[ImOnFiya]

Originally Posted by N. Olikee

Raising my hand........think most people who voted for it are raising their hands! Maybe my area gets better representation of our area's interests.......hello?

And what area is that..since the citizen committee to decide that has not been determined by the city auditor..hello? Goodbye!

P.S.

How will the city auditor determine the commission? The census? The ballot language does state the city council and the mayor cannot directly select the commission members. However, the ballot language gave the city auditor no other guidelines. Some of the 10-1 proponents (particularly the Republican and Libertarian interests) wanted no city involvement in the commission because they feel the city council would draw the maps favorable to themselves and Democrats.

The ballot language does not state that the city auditor couldn't consult with available staff resources to make the board determinations. It also doesn't state whether candidates couldn't come from existing City of Austin boards and commissions. The vague ballot language is a major loophole to consult with the city council and mayoral staff to suggest their political allies.

Like the original board subcommittee to re-organize council with 10-1 passing by 1 vote- only to be ditched by city council for the doomed and poorly-funded 8-3-1 campaign, the 10-1 committee is sure to receive howls of corruption and city council collusion, no matter what the makeup, as Republican and Libertarian Austinites are fringe players at city hall. .

Though without the $50,000+ campaign donation from the 21-year old, newly arrived Austinite - conservative, Tea Party trust-fund - multi-millionaire
John Ramsey (who has given $2 to 3 million to other conservative causes nationally over the past 2 years - no joke!), 10-1 might have failed..

[Austinite101]

Does anyone know how they will draw districts, who will draw them, and or how often the will redraw them?

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

As long as the council stays pro-core and pro-density I'm good.

As long as they are responsive to the ENTIRE city....not just the pro-core and pro-density people.

[ImOnFiya]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

As long as they are responsive to the ENTIRE city....not just the pro-core and pro-density people.

Why would the city council be responsive to the ENTIRE city, when only the majority of 80,000 people in your district voted for you?

I grew up mostly in Cincinnati and the first questions the city council staff would ask is, "Where do you live?" Because if you don't live in their district, the council member doesn't feel compelled to answer you. You are not his or her constituent.

On November 6th, that's what Austin voted for...

[ImOnFiya]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Yeah, that was pretty much known, not really a surprise. The reason was that of the 7 'choices' that were available to vote on before, none had a platform that interested a large portion of the population.

So, it's better to have one council member responsive to vote for, because 6 council members at-large were less responsive. And how do you know this? Because none ever appealed to a large portion of the population.

I guess, council members vying for the attention of 10 separate district constituencies within Austin will increase turnout?

I'm just following your logic..tell me where I am going wrong.

Let's be honest, the only reason Republicans/Libertarians and reform activists pushed 10-1 is because under the at-large system, the money raised to be competitive is currently much higher (city-wide) vs. a district. Plus, republican and libertarian candidates would have a more difficult chance at election dealing with large, swathes of democratic voters vs. a more smaller, republican-leaning district in west or southwest Austin.

The idea of 10-1 sounds great; but the ballot language does not indicate that voters would be reduced to only voting for 1 city council member + the mayor. On its face, the ballot appears to read as 10 city council places that must reside in specific areas. Austin voting rights being reduced to 1 one place, plus the mayor sounds very akin to ward politics, which can inevitably cause a sense of neighborhood division and gridlock.

I'm assuming since, "Yeah, that was very pretty much known". You know this already. Then, I must also assume you know about the 21-year old, conservative multi-millionaire who largely bankrolled the scheme, I mean, campaign..now, why hasn't anyone (besides the Austin Chronicle) stated this reason is another issue entirely..

[Austinite101]

As I said, I will organize with my fellow Central Austinites to defeat any and every anti-core/pro-sprawl and anti-density candidate. Even if it does mean we have to pressure the city to draw more urban-friendly districts.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

As long as the council stays pro-core and pro-density I'm good.

The council is only pro density in the CBD. Everywhere else they toe the line of the ANC NIMBYs

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by ImOnFiya

The idea of 10-1 sounds great; but the ballot language does not indicate that voters would be reduced to only voting for 1 city council member + the mayor. On its face, the ballot appears to read as 10 city council places that must reside in specific areas. Austin voting rights being reduced to 1 one place, plus the mayor sounds very akin to ward politics, which can inevitably cause a sense of neighborhood division and gridlock.

Not inevitably, no. And there is a very good reason this is the prevailing system in this country, because it simply works better than the alternatives.

To give one example, take the case of people in Southeast Austin, who have complained for years that they have no real representation within the council. In the new system, candidates to represent their district will be able to conduct their campaign in that district, reducing campaign costs and focusing on the issues of import to the district.

As to what will increase voter turnout? Aligning the local election dates with state and national elections.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by ImOnFiya

Why would the city council be responsive to the ENTIRE city, when only the majority of 80,000 people in your district voted for you?

I grew up mostly in Cincinnati and the first questions the city council staff would ask is, "Where do you live?" Because if you don't live in their district, the council member doesn't feel compelled to answer you. You are not his or her constituent.

On November 6th, that's what Austin voted for...

My unclear response meant that the single member districts should have councilman responsive to their district. The at large model did not.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

As I said, I will organize with my fellow Central Austinites to defeat any and every anti-core/pro-sprawl and anti-density candidate. Even if it does mean we have to pressure the city to draw more urban-friendly districts.

Since I don't live in Austin, I can't vote on Austin's issues. But I will support causes that fight efforts to restrict the ability of people to live in the lifestyle they prefer. Density doesn't work for everyone.

And until they improve the K-12 schools in these dense areas, Austin cannot be successful forcing families to move to "the core." Let's not forget affordability too.