• newsletters • best of austin • find a paper • submit an event • advertise with us • contact • jobs •
Chronolog: Habitually Updated Buzz
Chronolog is home to all Chronicle Blogs. Check back here for a complete overview of our our blog content!
Austin Chronicle on Facebook


More Funny Numbers From Strayhorn 

 Thu Apr 30, 7:45pm

Have you seen Carole Keeton Rylander McLellan Strayhorn's new TV ad? The one that claims her mayoral opponents, City Council Members Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken, just “sat while millions intended for traffic improvement vanished” from Capital Metro?

As is so often the case in political ads – especially those from Strayhorn – it would be shocking if it weren’t completely untrue. View it below – commentary follows.

With this ad, Strayhorn shows she’s either a liar or completely ignorant of city politics and Capital Metro affairs. She claims in the ad that $85 million to $110 million of Capital Metro money is “gone.” Um, no it’s not.

If she had read my Capital Metro feature last week – or even the Austin American-Statesman feature whose headline she flashes across the screen – she would know that money is owed by Capital Metro to the city of Austin and other local governmental entities … and Capital Metro has every intention of paying it.

Granted, she may have been a bit confused by the slant of Statesman reporter Ben Wear’s reporting, which said that Capital Metro wiped out its savings on a “spending blitz” (um … on things that its customers need, including commuter rail) while owing this debt. As I note in my feature – and as Cap Metro has admitted – although controls on spending needed to be better, the transit agency is still solvent, still current on its obligations, and still on a payment schedule for the money owed. And as stipulated in its interlocal agreement with Austin, the payment can occur “as funds are available.”

Be glad Carole’s not running your credit card company. If you didn’t have every cent of your $1,000 debt already in your bank account, waiting to be paid out right this second, she’d start screaming that the money is “gone.”

As for the $137 million in “deficit spending” mentioned in the ad, Wells Dunbar addressed that some time ago in City Hall Hustle.

Seriously, do we want someone whose understanding of financing is this impaired running our city?

 

Share Digg Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us LinkedLn Email Print article
COMMENTS
5
 
Cap Met spin m1ek Apr 30, 2009 - 10:44 pm
Lee, the money was supposed to be in reserves - it was old sales tax money that was collected in anticipation of 2000's LRT plan, and should have been in the bank ready to repay Austin.

While Strayhorn is a loathsome politician in general, in this instance she's actually right - this money is gone, and it was spent on commuter rail (as I've said, on a combination of overruns and to replace the promised-but-then-never-sought Federal contributions).

Said commuter rail doesn't help Austin at all - it arguably helps Leander some, and Cedar Park a bit.



CapMetroErica May 01, 2009 - 10:47 am
M1ek is confusing his own opinion with fact.

The fact is, Capital Metro's agreement with the city included payments over time, not a lump sum payment. The bottom line is that Capital Metro has made all the payments as they have come due, and we intend to continue to pay these obligations. Capital Metro has already paid back to the city $176 million (of $258 million committed).

Regarding Capital Metro spending, all of that money was used for legitimate transportation projects that benefited customers. Capital Metro did invest some of the money in MetroRail, but the greatest percentage of the money was spent on bus stop facilities, including two major park & rides. Additionally, the agency bought new buses and completed some technology projects that improved customer service.

--Erica McKewen



Nonsense m1ek May 01, 2009 - 11:11 am
Erica, to insist that Cap Metro will be able to make those future payments when sales tax revenue is crashing and reserves are essentially gone is either placing you firmly in denial or disingenuousness. You don't have the reserves to spend, and the upcoming revenue picture leaves nothing extra to make those payments with without making service cuts.

Basically, you don't have the money in the bank; you clearly aren't going to be able to afford to make payments anytime soon; but you insist you have the money. Where, exactly? It's inherently obvious to any reasonable observer that the intention of Cap Metro was to try to wait until the situation was dire enough to place the city in the uncomfortable position of either being seen as the cause of cuts in service or foregoing funds that were promised and already planned for worthwhile transit-supportive city projects.

Again, $45M EXTRA went to the Red Line after CM broke a promise to voters to obtain 50% federal funding for the project (in my OPINION, because they knew the Feds wouldn't be interested in this dog). Combine that with a few tens of millions of dollars in rail overruns, and you've accounted for Austin's missing money quite well without needing to argue at all about the projects that straddle the line between bus and rail or freight rail and commuter rail.



Blast from the past m1ek May 01, 2009 - 02:04 pm
Just found this chestnut from '06:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000265.html

Even Ben Wear was pretty credulous with Cap Metro's numbers back then. But it was dang clear to me at least that the missing Federal dollars were going to be causing us some grief down the road, and guess what: here we are.

Also see comment #2 in this thread at the austinist, in case you don't trust me:

http://austinist.com/2006/01/24/bus_woes_could_be_returning_for_city_residents.php



Gotta agree w/ M1EK el_longhorn May 01, 2009 - 03:26 pm
What does it mean that Cap Metro "intends" to pay the money back or has paid most of the money back? Bottom line, CapMetro and Austin have a payment schedule, Austin has budgeted those payments in for certain capital improvements (like the Pfluger bridge extension to the north), but it looks like CapMetro will not be able to keep up the payment schedule because its reserves have dwindled to nothing. We can argue about why CapMetro doesn't have the money (although I agree with M1EK that lack of federal support for commuter rail and its cost overruns are the cause) and we can argue about who is to blame, but I don't see how anybody can claim that the payments will be made. It seems absolutely clear that important transportation infrastructure will NOT be built because Austin was expecting CapMetro to pay and CapMetro will not be able to pay.

Also, I think the Ben Wear articles have been very accurate while Lee Nichols seems to be giving CapMetro the benefit of the doubt here, which they just do not deserve.





POST A COMMENT

(optional):
:

Permission to Print. Letter to the editor.
 

 

 


Short Story Contest
Online Contests
Chrontourage
Chronicle Merch

 
Arts & Entertainment (108)
Services (108)
Civic (20)
Retail (48)
Food & Drink (67)
Coupons (8)
Jobs (9)

Ads of the Day


FEATURED POSTS
John Anderson
Austin Film Festival: Awkwardness, Onscreen and Off
Kimberley Jones, Sat Oct 24
Technical issues and an understandably irate filmmaker mar what should have been a triumphant hometown premiere of 'Harmony and Me'
Photo by Jana Birchum
Judge Dismisses Yogurt Shop Charges
Richard Whittaker, Jordan Smith, Wed Oct 28
Lynch grants state's request UPDATE: Travis Co. DA responds
What the Streets Feel
Chase Hoffberger, Thu Oct 29
SouthBound gets right
Photo by Richard Whittaker
No Trail of Lights
Richard Whittaker, Thu Nov 12
City announces Zilker Tree Holiday Festival instead of traditional illuminated promenade
John Anderson
California Love
Chase Hoffberger, Thu Nov 5
Bavu Blakes takes off