Beside the Point

Dollars in the details

By Wells Dunbar, Fri., May 12, 2006

On the eve of election day, what in a saner universe might have been this spring's community focus – how the city prioritizes its needs in financial terms – is little more than marginalia on Prop. 1 and 2's increasingly dog-eared pages. This Saturday, the now-tentative November bond election is noticeable only by its absence, or the threat thereof – the fear that passage of the unpriced props will put the package on indefinite hiatus. Delay or not, however, city staff has finished retooling the citizen Bond Election Advisory Committee's recommendations from earlier this year, and now's as good a time as any to consider the current result.

Revised numbers dribbled out with a slash to drainage funding, and an unexpected repurposing of bumped-up transportation bucks. Riveting as multi-objective flood-control projects undoubtedly are, the real bated breath was reserved for the final two presentations. City infrastructure may be paramount – but that's the socks under the municipal Christmas tree: the things we need, not want. That necessary business completed, the city unwrapped revised park and facility funds, along with potentially controversial changes to affordable housing and open-space funding – the urban-living equivalents of a couple of gayly wrapped, shiny Red Ryder BB guns. As the package now moves to the council itself, let's hope no one gets hurt.

There's been little surface change to new public safety projects, like a joint Police-Fire-EMS training facility, municipal courthouse, animal shelter, EMS facilities, and new police substation in Northeast Austin. Renovations, bundled with new projects in the BEAC's draft, were separated for further dissection by staff. Again, nothing too drastic was reallocated among the workmanlike collection of roof repairs, new AC and heating units, pool resurfacing, and playscape maintenance.

The staff dissection also planted a couple of new projects in the catch-all category of "citizen initiatives" – however, they're not quite the same "citizens" from the BEAC's recommendation. Money for the Mexican American Cultural Center, Zachary Scott Theatre, and skate and BMX parks hovered near their previous allocations, but funds for the Elizabet Ney Museum and Mayfield Park were mysteriously axed in favor of a proposed Asian American Cultural Center and improvements to Austin Studios. BEAC outreach Chair Mike Clark-Madison noted to In Fact Daily that the Cultural Center and Austin Studios, not having made the BEAC's cut, were instead added "at the request of Council members." (Our insider hunches point to AACC advocate Jennifer Kim, and film-booster Brewster McCracken, as prime suspects.)

Unscathed was the package's biggest freestanding target: $90 million for the new central library. The bucks for books held after advocates repeatedly hammered home the notion that $90m was the absolute lowest the library could go and still stand shoulder to shoulder with those of peer cities. Even that amount only completes a partial build-out; boosters see additional assistance coming from fundraising and from sharing infrastructure costs with co-tenants on the Green Water Treatment tract downtown where the library will likely be built.

Which left the progressive twins, open space and affordable housing – $50 million each in the staff proposal. The staff cuts don't necessarily cripple housing, but saw into land acquisition at the legs – the $42.3 million pruning would be by far the most removed from any proposal. Under the staff proposal, $20 million would go toward parks and greenways, with $30 million reserved for open-space land acquisition. The Machiavellian tactic of pitting the two interests against each other seems destined to square off environmentalists against housing advocates.

Or would, if they were paying attention – anticipating a capacity crowd at last week's council briefing, we were instead treated to a deafening silence. For the moment, the bonds appear to be a victim of Prop. 1 and 2's Emergency-That-Wasn't-a-Few-Months-Ago. That may change May 18, when council holds public hearings on the new proposals; then, post-election, we'll have a better idea whether the bonds will see light of day this year. While Clean Austin insists that Prop. 1 should cost well under $36 million, Betty Dunkerley insists that if the damn thing passes, that's the amount to be carved out of the proposed budget. Like the bond package's financial prioritization, the debate over Prop. 1's cost puts arguments encircling it in tangible, financial terms – and regardless of your hopes and intents in drafting policy, implementation is a completely different beast.