Point Austin: Unpropped

Prop. 2 is about much more than a vote against the Domain

By Michael King, Fri., Oct. 17, 2008

It's not a "no-brainer."

That slogan, adopted by the Proposition 2-supporting Stop Domain Subsidies campaign, is both misleading on its face and an insult to Austin voters. However you choose to vote on Prop. 2, please take the time to consider both the intended and unintended but likely consequences of an attempt to ban any and all "financial incentives [for any development] that includes one or more retail uses." If you've read this week's editorial board endorsements, you're aware that, we've come down (although not unanimously) against Prop. 2 as an inappropriate attempt to reject one particular city agreement by amending the charter and also as what one of us called "using a sledgehammer where a scalpel would be appropriate." We're not happy to be on the opposite side of an argument embraced by many activists we respect, as well as by numerous local businesses and political groups. But after reviewing the amendment in full (not possible on the ballot itself) and talking with people on both sides, most of us concluded that Prop. 2 is a well-intentioned but bad amendment that will likely backfire in its principal goal (ending subsidies to the Domain) and, even more likely, cause municipal headaches and unnecessary expense over other projects, while eliminating a useful city tool that can and has worked well when used judiciously.

I'm tempted to write "a pox on both their houses," since either way the vote goes, bad results are possible. A yes vote will invite lawsuits, require the city to violate a legal contract, damage the city's credibility, and undermine good projects; a no vote will be interpreted in some quarters as authorizing retail subsidies without conditions. But as the public consensus remains highly skeptical and the current council is on record as opposing such subsidies, I'm less worried about the latter outcome. We elect public officials to make decisions, and sometimes they make poor ones; but this proposition campaign is yet another Austin demonstration of the folly of government by petition.

In brief, voters are being asked to amend the City Charter – the fundamental structural document of city government – to punish a single developer and a previous City Council and then to wait two years (until the next available charter election) while the unintended effects are sorted out (some likely by courts) and other quite worthy and progressive city projects are derailed or delayed. That doesn't strike me as a good deal nor a rational way to make city policy. Supporters insist that the proposition targets only the Domain. If it's that simple, then why rewrite the City Charter for a policy obstreperously aimed at a single property and project?

Playing Community Dominoes

We don't even have to go far to discover already unintended consequences. The ban on all subsidies for any project that includes any retail use will certainly affect the Mueller neighborhood development – generally acclaimed as a local and national model – for which sales taxes from the commercial sector subsidize the project's infrastructure. Jim Walker of the Mueller Neighborhood Coalition, who has heroically devoted years of volunteer time to make Mueller successful, is understandably trying to keep Mueller out of the campaign argument. He insists that if Prop. 2 passes, people on all sides – city, neighborhood, and developers – should be able to work out solutions for Mueller. "There are plenty of creative people and creative lawyers associated with the project," he told me, "who should be able to find a solution." But in fact a solution isn't readily apparent – the amendment would also prohibit not only tax rebates but using "other resources of the city" to replace the sales taxes.

Walker isn't rude enough to ask, but I am: Why should a well-functioning project at Mueller have to be renegotiated and restructured because some people want to thumb their hipster noses at Neiman Marcus? Said Walker of the possible effects on Mueller, "We don't want to unravel the thing, and nobody's trying to do that, but it's going to take an ongoing community conversation to keep the project going."

That's one major project already placed in jeopardy. What of the planned Green Water Treatment Plant redevelopment, which will certainly contain retail uses and in theory also affordable housing, transit access, and other features that will likely require city subsidies to make economically viable? Unknown – perhaps Green will be large enough to use tax-increment financing, mysteriously exempted in the amendment as somehow purer than a sales-tax rebate. In a similar hypocrisy, the amendment would exempt subsidies underwriting renewable energy or more efficient water use – if we're going to ban all retail subsidies, why should an environmental exemption rank above all other city priorities and community values?

Enter the Sledgehammer

I certainly admire the sheer doggedness of the Prop. 2 supporters, especially that of Brian Rodgers of SDS, who has sunk years of his time and much of his own money into this single-minded campaign against the city's 2003 decision to subsidize the Domain, a deal that in retrospect was too sweet for the developers, too sour for the city (although in fairness, the full good or bad results will not be known for years). But I think the whole argument has become entirely too personal, style-based, and shortsighted. Several prominent Prop. 2 supporters – a couple even featured in SDS campaign videos – have privately told me that while they won't go on the record, they believe that amending the charter is the wrong way to change this city policy.

That's just great – I get to be the party pooper. So be it – voting "against the Domain" is so much easier than understanding what's more broadly at stake in community initiatives. I understand the frustration of proponents who want to end large-scale retail subsidies, and I fully respect their intentions. But good intentions won't enable the next progressive mixed-use, mixed-housing, transit-based development from being hamstrung or prevented by the inability of the city to participate directly, as it sometimes should.

Walker noted that while the Prop. 2 campaign clearly reflects "an erosion of trust between the citizens of Austin and city officials," it shouldn't just become a personal argument about people's attitudes toward the Domain. "I don't think the charter's the right place for that kind of thing," he concluded.

Amen.