The big lesson from Austin’s City Council elections (Clarksville: tax, cost)

[Rynldsbr]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting...20the%20US.pdf

National average commute is over 18 miles and approaching (if not already hit) 30 minutes. Metro areas fare worse if the job centers are in the core. As a growing metro area with adequate land to support single family housing in the burbs, this is what Austin metropolitan area has become and will continue to be. Suburbs where average people live and a downtown where average people go to see entertainment or eat a fancier dinner than they can get in the burbs.

Hipsters and socialites want to live closer to the "action" so they will be willing to pay more to be close. Cost of living closer will be more expensive than cost of living in the burbs. Why is this a problem?

With or without a rail proposal passing, the cost of living in or near the city center will continue to rise until there are no more reasons to go there. As long as there are jobs that people need to get to, entertainment that people want to get to, and attractions for tourist to get to - we will have a higher cost and a longer commute to central city. Dealing with it will be an argument forever.

What did we learn from the elections? Nothing. Nothing at all. The cycle continues.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I would support a rail system that can solve a definable problem, for a definable population, in a measurable way at a cost that makes sense and for which there is built in cost accountability of some kind.

Steve, I'm with you. Not against rail, just against dumb rail - which this was. It was also flawed in that the full local capital costs were put on the backs of the City of Austin taxpayers alone. It was based on the idea that if the vote could be removed from the grasp of those reactionary suburbanites, and just among the kool kids, it would certainly pass. Only to go down in defeat by a larger percentage than when the hoi-polloi were included.

Besides, inside the City of Austin, we have inaugrated more rail since 2000 than we have main lane expressways. I'd put the question back on the urbanists - what expressways inside the city would YOU support? That's when you find out who the real nihilists are.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by scm53

Besides, inside the City of Austin, we have inaugrated more rail since 2000 than we have main lane expressways. I'd put the question back on the urbanists - what expressways inside the city would YOU support? That's when you find out who the real nihilists are.

Why neighborhoods are you willing to plow under, which communities are you willing to split in two, what part of the city grid are you willing to destroy for a new expressway - all for more roads to export the city's wealth to the suburbs? Urbanists are the nihilists? That's rich!!!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Nice job bending the truth, yet again.


The 800 number was for the first nine months - almost the first year - and definitely not within the six months promised in 2009, as the Chronicle reported. I don't know how that is so hard to simply read and comprehend - unless you don't want to. More obfuscation to avoid the hard truth that, as the Sunset Commission reported:



Including the Red Line.

"Never got over 800 for almost the first year. "

It was well over 800 /day in the first week. Last time I checked, the first week is within the first year. So your claim, that it never got over 800, is a complete lie.


http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-07-16/1055922/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I would support a rail system that can solve a definable problem, for a definable population, in a measurable way at a cost that makes sense and for which there is built in cost accountability of some kind.

all of which was true for this most recent proposed system.

Originally Posted by austin-steve

What exactly was I going to get for my $500/yr tax increase on my personal home, plus the extra property tax costs on the rentals I own? I don't think it should be funded by property tax. It should be funded some other way, even if a sales tax, so that the people, including foreigners in town for F1 weekend, can contribute to the operating costs through their spending while in town. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of home owners paying for something with no clear benefit in an environment which is already putting affordability pressure on housing.

Okay, let's pay for it out of the city's sales taxes cut. Of course, that means there's a big hole in the budget, so property taxes will need to increase to pay for the other essential city services. But those increases aren't paying for rail. so it's okay.

The money in the budget is fungible. Your distinction (that you're not willing to pay $500 /year in property taxes for it, but you are willing to pay $500 /year in sales taxes for it) becomes meaningless.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Why neighborhoods are you willing to plow under, which communities are you willing to split in two, what part of the city grid are you willing to destroy for a new expressway - all for more roads to export the city's wealth to the suburbs? Urbanists are the nihilists? That's rich!!!

Here were some ideas from the 1970s that obviously never happened.



From: TexasFreeway > Austin > Photo Gallery > East-West travel in Austin

"The freeway plan formulated around 1985 reinstated the Koening Lane Freeway (2222) from Interstate 35 to Loop 1 (Mopac). This freeway was highly contentious, and neighborhood opposition resulted in cancellation of the freeway in the great 1994 freeway cancellation event.

A few good arterial streets could also have solved much of the east-west travel problem. But nothing has been done. In 1979, a study recommended improvements to 38th Street where it is only 2 lanes. As usual, neighborhood interests objected, and local authorities were more than happy to cancel the improvements. Other proposals for improvements to 1st street (including the 3rd Steet parkway) have fallen by the wayside."

Some things never change. And here we are. I hope having an almost 100% new Council plus Mayor will bring fresh thoughts and ideas to the question of how to relieve some of the gridlock.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Here were some ideas from the 1970s that obviously never happened.



From: TexasFreeway > Austin > Photo Gallery > East-West travel in Austin


Some things never change. And here we are. I hope having an almost 100% new Council plus Mayor will bring fresh thoughts and ideas to the question of how to relieve some of the gridlock.

So you would put freeways through Allandale, Hyde Park (how many would you like there, one or two freeways?) Central/west/Clarksville, Pemperton Heights!!!!) or along our waterfront on the north and/or south side.

Fantastic - what incredible ideas!!! City builder you are!!!!!

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Why neighborhoods are you willing to plow under, which communities are you willing to split in two, what part of the city grid are you willing to destroy for a new expressway - all for more roads to export the city's wealth to the suburbs? Urbanists are the nihilists? That's rich!!!

So I guess the answer - after extensive cataclysmic caterwauling - is none? There are miles of expressways that can be built - inside the city - without any of your doomsday scenarios.

Thanks for checking in from the Nihilist Coffeehouse.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by scm53

So I guess the answer - after extensive cataclysmic caterwauling - is none? There are miles of expressways that can be built - inside the city - without any of your doomsday scenarios.

Thanks for checking in from the Nihilist Coffeehouse.

I'll do you one better, I would remove freeways (or rather, I would never have allowed them to be built in the first place - realistically, they're not going away) - travel in the city should be on city streets, boulevards and avenues. Freeways should go TO cities, not through them.

As to how to deal with deplorable existing condition:

1. One thing has been shown to work with congestion - tolls. Have to tax the congestions. I would immediately put a toll on I-35.

2. I would not toll 183 on East side or 130. Toll the congestion, use the tremendous capacity on 183/sh130 to absorb traffic.

3. Use funds to finance and cap I-35 through central Austin.

4. Liberate about 150 acres of incredibly valuable acres through central Austin - zone high density mixed use with no caps, no far, no impervious cover, no parking requirements - provide lots of housing options close in to where our major job centers are.

That's how urbanists would roll.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Novacek

all of which was true for this most recent proposed system.



Okay, let's pay for it out of the city's sales taxes cut. Of course, that means there's a big hole in the budget, so property taxes will need to increase to pay for the other essential city services. But those increases aren't paying for rail. so it's okay.

The money in the budget is fungible. Your distinction (that you're not willing to pay $500 /year in property taxes for it, but you are willing to pay $500 /year in sales taxes for it) becomes meaningless.

We just have to agree to disagree.

And I didn't say I would be willing to pay $500/year in sales tax. You are misstating what I said.

If the sales tax was INCREASED by 1% for rail, I'd have to spend $50K in taxable purchases in Austin to spend $500 per year, which is no where near my spending level, or that of most people. But it would make sense to let the hoards of visitors who come to Austin and contribute to the clogged roads, street closures, etc. chip in through their own spending.

The 1% sales tax brings in about $200M per year to Cap Metro, which is most of its revenue I think. Instead of focusing on making the bus system a world class system, it's obsessed with rail.

Steve