Prop 1 Open Thread (Austin, Center: pools, stadium, homeowner)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine

And you seem to be forgetting that the average Austin home value is well over 200k which is the basis for that 217 figure.

Well over? It's 200k and a bit.


When the tax rate is set, it will generate revenue in two ways.

1. tax revenues on individual tax-payer owned property.

2. Tax revenues on commercial property, including apartment buildings. Those in apartments will see it contribute to their rents.

Those in category 2 will probably see a net effect of well _under_ $200, since the appraised value per-apartment overall in this city is probably under 200k.

[je4xff]

Ok, so I'm a nerd and had to make a spreadsheet to try and put some real numbers in context. Here's a screenshot.



The estimations were based on:

• http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...annual_pub.pdf
• Let'sGoAustin.org

My only intention here is cost/benefit. Please feel free to correct any bad assumptions or miscalculations.

The numbers I think most interesting are in green and red. The green numbers estimate the percentage of total area vehicles that will be removed from roads. We're looking at around a 1% overall reduction.

The red numbers show the cost per vehicle removal. This number scares me, and I do realize as a long term plan it will drop over time. But it still seems astronomically high to me.

It appears that in the beginning (2022) we're looking at a cost of $140,000 to remove each vehicle. (1.4 billion/10,000 vehicles). It drops to around $77,000 per vehicle by 2030 but still... I'm thinking I must have made a math error somewhere.

Someone please tell me it's just really late and my logic is flawed...

[scm53]

Originally Posted by je4xff

My only intention here is cost/benefit. Please feel free to correct any bad assumptions or miscalculations.

You're not wrong. But like in so many examples, the pro-Prop 1 crowd are using misleading data when they say that there will be "10,000 cars taken off the streets". The flaw is in thinking every rider is currently in a car, by themselves. There is a long, detailed study here of why the real number of cars off the street is closer to 1,800/day -- for multiple reasons (some number are current transit riders, 1.2 occupants per car is a better accepted best practice, etc.) What is worse is when you take that 1,800 number and apply it against the travel times. You then realize it is only about 100 cars/hour at peak congestion times.

So divide that 1,800 number into $1.4B if you really want a headache.

NB -- this presentation, full of good data, says the Project Connect annual cost of removing a single car is over $23,000. Each year.

[Austinite101]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily...pports-prop-1/

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily...pports-prop-1/

Would love to know how they determined "likely" voters. We've never had a city council election in an off presidential year general election. There is a HUGE turnout variation. The 2012 May city election had right at 50K voters. The 2012 Presidential had 300K in Austin. The 2010 statewide general had about half that - 163K in Austin. And there are enormous variations in the makeup of those different electorates. The most conservative of the three is the non-presidential statewide general years - like this year.

And that's before we get to the fact that outside the mayoral race, and the District 9 race, almost every council candidate running is against it. What happens if the new council has nine "no" and two "yes" votes on issuing the bonds if approved?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

almost every council candidate running is against it.

How many are "running" against it, and how many simply have a preference against it, but it isn't really an important part (or any part) of their platform?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

How many are "running" against it, and how many simply have a preference against it, but it isn't really an important part (or any part) of their platform?

The question was posed to every candidate as a part of the AAS candidate profile series. If a candidate who is on the record as opposing, wants to run the risk of being labeled untrustworthy by flopping later, then they will have to live with that.

One can take a cynical view and say they all do it. I just don't see the District 6, 8, or 10 members being for it, given the huge tax increases on the higher than average homes in those districts, with zero benefit. District 4 & 2 will oppose (100% of candidates on record as opposing) because they see the negative effect on the buses their constitutients depend on. That's five - one more and it is toast, no matter the bond vote.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

The question was posed to every candidate as a part of the AAS candidate profile series.

That wasn't what I asked. You said they were "running against it".

I could ask a candidate what they had for breakfast, it doesn't mean they're running on the "pancakes platform".

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That wasn't what I asked. You said they were "running against it".

I could ask a candidate what they had for breakfast, it doesn't mean they're running on the "pancakes platform".

If a candidate is asked if they support or oppose a particular ballot proposition -- especially one as significant as this -- to most of us, that isn't the same as asking them what they had for breakfast.

Instead of trying to make useless "win the internet" points, take a few minutes to read what they said when asked that question by the AAS and during the candidate forums, as compiled by Ann Kitchens. Pro and con. Just that reading the pro positions will take a lot less time than reading the cons.

[scm53]

Well done FAQ.