It’s not a pleasant thing to think about, but there’s an Austin City
Council
election less than a year from now. Scheduled for May 4, 1996, it will
be a
rugged race for incumbents. Taxes are soaring, the sales tax surplus
has been
appropriated for baseball, some 911 calls go unanswered, while the
council
plans for a new City Hall and performing arts center. Voters could be a
little
upset with incumbents.
The only incumbents on next year’s ballot (assuming they run for
reelection)
will be Max Nofziger, Brigid Shea, and Jackie Goodman. (The other four
seats
aren’t up until 1997.) This trio, which forms three-fourths of what is
often
termed – to varying degrees of semi-accuracy – the council’s
environmental/liberal voting bloc, may be ambling down the road to
slaughter.
Imagine this scenario: Local
booster forces, led as usual by the Chamber of Commerce and suburban
developers, field a candidate slate against the liberal-enviros.
Boosters, the
crew with their snouts the deepest in the public trough, paste a “big
spender”
bullseye on the trio. This reckless spending theme plays in an endless
series
of television attack ads, bankrolled by the
developer-banker-corporate-Chamber
axis. The same themes will play as investigative journalism in the
monopoly
daily newspaper.
Then, just as May, 1996, rolls around, another set of
devastating
property tax reappraisals arrive on voters’ doorsteps. A few days
later, the
booster slate sinks the liberal-enviros like tax dollars down a
municipal
utility district (MUD). Then it’s open season on the city treasury and
the
countryside as the council’s conservative crew – Ronney Reynolds, Eric
Mitchell, and Bruce Todd – are joined by three new allies. Reynolds,
Todd, and
Mitchell will then run for reelection in 1997, arguing that they need
another
term to keep cleaning up the mess left behind by the enviromaniacs.
I came up with this little scenario on my own, but I wasn’t the first
one to
publish it. Consider the following from the March 24 Neal Spelce
Austin
Letter, an insider tip sheet put out by the former TV newsman and
veteran
local booster. Pointing out the three seats that will be on the ballot,
Spelce
writes: “Those three vote most often as a bloc, and are considered by
many to
be the most liberal, most environmentally oriented members of the
current
council.
“Political pros say this is an ideal election situation if you are
on the side
supporting a wholesale change in the council make-up. The public
perception is
that `Brigid, Max, and Jackie’ (that’s how they’re referred to) are so
closely
linked politically that an opposition effort can easily lump them all
together
– `tar them all with the same brush’ if you will.
“Animosity against the city council for any action, or inaction, in
the past
few years can be tapped by a `clean sweep’ campaign… Campaign
organizers
anywhere would lick their chops at having such a tasty morsel put on
their
political plates.”
The “animosity” to be “tapped” is plentiful. Watch for “fiscal
irresponsibility” to play against a backdrop of “declining city
services.”
Business professionals, it will be argued, are desperately needed to
come in
and get things in order. The top theme, however, will be wasteful
spending,
with those pointing the finger being some of the biggest beneficiaries
of the
largesse.
Meanwhile, in East Austin, boosters will paint the environmentalists
as
insensitive clods who care more about insects and reptiles than
disadvantaged
children. The goal will be not just to win East Austin, but to sow
seeds of
doubt about those enviros in the minds of social-policy-oriented
liberals.
While the potential for a liberal slaughter is great, the boosters
may have
some difficulty pulling it off. One problem would be compiling a
booster slate
that isn’t tied to irresponsible financial policies themselves. Another
danger
for boosters is overplaying their hand (a frequent occurrence) and
running a
nakedly developer-controlled slate. This could backfire.
Austin boosters are nothing, however, if not brash, and they will
have a
virtual bottomless pit of money from which to blare their message. Also
in
their corner will be the daily newspaper, ready to pound away at the
three
liberal-enviros and extol the virtues of the “business” slate.
It’s important here is to distinguish between the three incumbents,
something
boosters will try to avoid. They do not have identical records on
finances.
Shea, in fact, surpasses all her colleagues in fiscal sanity. She is
the only
councilmember who regularly questions spending initiatives, even though
she
frequently ends up voting with the rest, which will make it easier for
boosters
to “tar” her with the same brush as Nofziger and Goodman.
Nofziger has made some fiscal stands – against cellular phones and
corporate
tax abatements for example – but he has also voted for a long list of
spending
projects, and supported a property tax increase last year. Goodman has
rarely
if ever raised a fiscal whimper, and also voted in favor of a tax
increase last
year. She might, however, be stronger in East Austin than the other
two, in
particular for the hours she has devoted to working with social service
providers.
This brings us to a second
school of thought on next year’s election. This theory holds that the
Chamber
crowd won’t run anyone against Nofziger and Goodman because they are
harmless –
not a threat to Chamber-booster interests. Neither has caused any
serious
waves, although they did anger booster forces by voting against
February’s
Barton Creek PUD deal. In general, when Goodman or Nofziger do disagree
with
the dominant drift, neither devotes much effort to turning things their
way.
They are not political horse traders or voting bloc builders. They
either don’t
have much understanding of such concepts, or don’t care to engage in
such
activity.
Backing up this scenario, the Chamber crowd has a long history of
supporting
incumbents, no matter their alleged political persuasion, as long as
they don’t
threaten the dominant orthodoxy. Nofziger hasn’t had a Chamber-backed
opponent
since he took office in 1987. And, to seasoned observers, Goodman’s
mysterious
meanderings on the Barton Creek issue, and some other matters, look
like
maneuvering to head off a Chamber-backed opponent.
Shea, however, will not get a free pass under any circumstances. She
not only
questions fiscal policies, but is also the only councilmember who ever
questions the overall direction of city government. Also, her tough
scrutiny of
the Barton Creek PUD deal kept a council majority from voting in favor
of it in
both 1993 and this year. For these reasons and more, Shea will get a
Chamber/booster opponent if she runs again.
And as for Goodman and Nofziger, even if the Chamber ignores them,
that
doesn’t mean the two will automatically win reelection. Challengers
will likely
emerge from the ranks of what is generally termed the fiscal
conservatives – in
this case meaning mainly old-school, self-made business people who
question
both the city’s spending policies and competence. There might also be
challenges from religiously driven elements, with some potential for
overlap
between the two conservative coalitions. Such overlap could win voters
for the
conservatives of both colors, but ultimately risks painting the old
schoolers
as fringe candidates.
If the old schoolers avoid those associations and instead pull off
a
common-folks image, both Goodman and Nofziger could be vulnerable. In
this way,
a de facto slate against the liberal-enviros could emerge, without
there being
official or direct alignment with the Chamber. A “toss ’em all out”
mentality,
as described by Spelce, could take hold from these roots, and in such
an
atmosphere, Austin’s fiscal conservative voters are much more likely to
support
Chamber candidates than any of the liberal trio. The big bucks of the
boosters,
combined with grass roots organization of the fiscal conservatives,
could be
extremely formidable.
This brings us to what is probably the biggest tragedy of Austin politics, if not American politics:
the
failure of those bearing the labels “environmentalists” and “fiscal
conservatives” to unite or cooperate. Both groups are getting gored,
and this
alliance cries out to be forged. Look, the city treasury and this
region’s
natural beauty have been plundered for at least 20 years, often by the
same
boosters. This reality is recognized by many local citizens who grieve
at the
destruction of our natural resources while their cost of living soars
to
finance the booster-driven policies of local government.
Many citizens understand this duality, but the political players just
don’t
seem to get it. The fundamental problem seems to be that the
politically active
fiscal conservatives generally oppose government regulation, and
question the
results, if not the intent, of much social spending. On the other hand,
politically active environmentalists constantly want more government
regulation
to protect our resources. Also, liberals are often repelled by the
conservative
views held by some fiscal conservatives on social issues, while some
fiscal
conservatives just can’t see environmentalists as real Americans.
Despite the gap, most fiscal conservatives favor some form of
regulation and
believe in a government safety net. And many of the projects opposed by
environmentalists have also been incredible financial boondoggles.
Environmentalists, after all, were the first opponents of Austin’s
worst
boondoggle of all, the South Texas Nuclear Project. Nonetheless, the
two groups
can’t seem to find common ground. If they ever do, the alliance could
be a
powerful force in Austin politics, one that’s long overdue.
I might discuss this dilemma at more length in the future, but for
now let’s
return to the potential fate of the three enviro-liberals up for
reelection
next year. What can they do to save themselves, as well as the city’s
treasury
and its remaining natural beauty? The obvious course of action would be
for the
three to issue a call to fiscal sanity. They could demand a halt to all
big
spending projects until the fiscal house is in order. They could then
promote
some drastic changes in fiscal direction during the upcoming budget
season. All
this would distance them from their wild-spending colleagues, as well
as throw
a life raft to taxpayers. Their spending brethren might even fall into
line. If
not, the three could argue that their reelection is imperative to keep
the
others from gutting the treasury.
There are at least a couple of problems with this approach. First,
it may be
too late already, politically speaking. As Spelce points out, anything
from
“the past few years” can be turned into a campaign theme. No matter how
dramatic a conversion might occur on council policy, the ammunition is
already
there for some extremely tough negative campaigning. If the threesome
did
something dramatic, however, the scene could be so different by next
May that
the attacks might fall flat.
The second, and more serious, problem with the call to fiscal sanity
approach
is that at least two of the incumbents, Goodman and Nofziger, don’t
seem to
think that there’s a problem. Look at the warnings on the budget: Major
funding
increases are needed just to keep enough police, fire, and emergency
vehicles
on the roads; city buildings and our streets are crying out for basic
maintenance; and calls to 911 sometimes go unanswered. Yet the council
continues to focus on spending and new projects rather than on basic
city
services. Shea could pursue such a strategy on her own, but doesn’t
seem
willing to distance herself that much from her colleagues.
So on they go, down the road to the slaughterhouse. And the city is
going with
them.
This article appears in May 12 • 1995 and May 12 • 1995 (Cover).