We strongly support CodeNEXT’s proposed elimination of “conditional overlays,” commonly called COs, as a tool for future rezones. As explained below, COs greatly complicate the City of Austin’s zoning process, significantly increase costs, and require extensive lot-by-lot rezonings that detract from the City Council’s ability to focus on broader land use planning decisions appropriate for a legislative body. They are a vestige of a highly transactional zoning culture that keeps Austin from pursuing its larger vision and goals.

WHAT ARE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS?

COs are a device that the City of Austin created in the late 1980s in order to condition individual zoning changes on site-specific requirements not generally applicable within a particular zoning district. They are negotiated as part of the zoning process, with City staff often acting as mediators between developers, neighborhood residents, and councilmembers.

While COs take many forms, they are most commonly used to: (1) reduce the number of uses allowed on a property—sometimes dramatically; (2) impose more restrictive limits on things like height, setbacks, or impervious cover; and (3) control the layout of development on a site.  The zoning map depicts properties subject to a CO with a suffix, which follows the (often quite long) base district notation. For example, a property may be zoned GR-MU-CO.

WHY ARE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS A PROBLEM?

1. INCREASED NEED FOR REZONES

When zoning is conditioned on a CO, future redevelopment often requires City Council action to change conditions imposed by the CO even though the redevelopment is allowed by-right under the zoning district regulations. This often requires hiring consultants or attorneys and adds an additional, highly unpredictable step to the development process.

It also greatly increases the number of rezone applications filed each year and, consequently, the amount of time the City Council spends processing site-specific rezones. As observed in the Land Development Code Diagnosis Report (2014), the use of COs requires the City of Austin to process far more rezoning requests than other cities:

“An indication of an inefficient and outdated regulatory system in the city is the use of conditional overlays, and the number of applications requesting a rezone. In fiscal year 2013, the City Council approved 191 rezoning applications prior to subdivision or site plan approval. This is a 10% increase from the number of rezone applications from the previous year. While the increase may be an indication of improvements in the economy, the sheer volume of rezoning cases is extraordinary.”

2. INCONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

Most major cities use some form of “conditional use” permitting and “planned unit development” zoning as a tool for tailoring requirements to particular developments or categories of development. However, we are aware of no other city that imposes site-specific conditions on standard rezones to the extent the City of Austin does. Additionally, because regulations are required to be “uniform” for each class of structure or use regulated within a zoning district, conditional overlays may not even be legally valid.

3. IMPACT ON AFFORDABILITY AND STIFLES BENEFICIAL REDEVELOPMENT

The use of COs invariably impacts affordability and increases costs by making redevelopment, even for uses allowed in the base zoning district, contingent on discretionary Council approval of a change to the CO. Additionally, because COs operate as a separate layer of regulation on top of base-district zoning regulations, they make applying the permitting process far more complex. Simply finding out what a CO requires can itself be a time-consuming endeavor, as they are uncodified documents and often drafted using confusing, non-standard language that varies from case to case.

Besides increasing development costs for projects that move forward, COs invariably stifle beneficial redevelopment that would better serve the needs and desires of Austin residents for a more walkable urban environment. How many corner stores or other popular, desirable uses have been unable to get off the ground because of use-restrictive COs? It’s impossible to say for sure, but it stands to reason that COs have prevented many older developments from converting to uses more compatible with community needs. For example, if a CO from 1988 forbids specific uses, it may be difficult to change that CO in the future to meet the changing needs of a neighborhood.

4. UNDERMINES TRUE LAND USE PLANNING

The use of COs invariably requires the City Council, as well as the City’s zoning planners, to spend a great deal of time on project-level minutiae that is not the appropriate province of zoning. This is because, rather than focusing on broader legislative questions, COs make zoning into a kind of site-plan permitting process in which the details of individual projects are locked in through ordinance conditions and restrictive covenants.

The result is a highly reactive zoning process, in which the City Council spends far more time and energy processing individual, site-specific rezoning applications than on areawide or small-area planning initiatives that have broader citywide impacts and are characteristic of legislative zoning practices in other major cities with similar goals and aspirations. The priorities necessitated by Austin’s system of complex, conditional zoning trickle down to City zoning staff, who—like the Council—spend more time negotiating individual zoning cases than on thoughtful, forward-thinking planning decisions.

5. FOSTERS A HIGHLY TRANSACTIONAL ZONING CULTURE

Most rezone requests should be evaluated based on whether the uses allowed in the proposed district are compatible with development patterns in the surrounding area and with the City’s long-term planning goals. The use of COs, however, has fostered a culture in which City planners seek to please all sides by negotiating what are essentially project-level conditions, rather than focusing on these bigger picture legislative questions. “Jerry’s Guesses,” a well-known internal document circulated before most zoning meetings, epitomizes this “get to yes” culture by opining on likely vote counts and the status of negotiations between parties.

While the individuals involved in negotiating COs are generally well-intentioned, the process itself has made zoning in Austin too dependent on the needs and desires of individual interest groups surrounding a particular project, at a particular moment in time. This “horse-trading” quality benefits attorneys and consultants, who have made COs into a cottage industry, and creates an impression of insider access which in turn reduces public confidence in the integrity of the zoning process and the City’s ability to think and plan for the long-term.

WHAT ARE CODENEXT’S ALTERNATIVES TO CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS AND HOW COULD THEY BE IMPROVED?

CodeNEXT provides new tools to resolve the problems that COs were supposed to address. First and foremost, it includes a better menu of zoning districts that provide a much more varied combination of land uses. While we believe the proposed zoning districts could be significantly improved, by allowing more housing options and uses such as co-op housing, the tools available in Draft 3 are an improvement over the current Land Development Code.

The “minor use permit” process and the broader administrative authority described in Chapter 23-1 are intended to reduce the need for site-plan level conditions in zoning cases by providing greater flexibility at the administrative level. We support this objective, even if the details need further refinement or clarification. It will allow a simple administrative procedure to handle details like dumpster placement, traffic flow, and other items. If for some reason the process is controversial, it allows a minor use permit to be appealed to the appropriate citizen commission for review and reconsideration.

Finally, while we fully support the elimination of new COs, the goal of reducing applications for site-specific rezones will not be achieved without a more robust zoning map than proposed in Draft 3. This means far less (if any) reliance on “Former Title 25” zoning and greater use of R4 and the new mixed-use commercial districts, as well as options for corner stores (à la 43rd& Duval), cooperative housing, and a wider variety of housing choices. These changes are essential for CodeNEXT to meaningfully realize the goals of the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan.

Yesterday, AURA member Kaz Wojtewicz testified before the Housing and Neighborhoods committee in favor of a $300 million bond for affordable housing with an emphasis on public housing.  To address our housing crisis, we need CodeNEXT to deliver a housing market that is easy to build in, allows supply to catch up with and meet demand, and deliver new homes where people want to live.

We also need a strong housing bond to target low income Austinites.  The Strategic Housing Blueprint shows that almost 50,000 new homes are required for families that make 60% or less of the median income, and we’re doing very little to meet this need.  We need to do as much as we can to develop as much market rate housing as people want so they can live where they want, and also spend as much as we can afford to make sure that low income families can afford to live where they want too.

$300 million focused on building public housing by buying public land and awarding RFPs to build on that land to the developer who builds the most public housing there would demonstrate a good way to meet that need.  Together with existing publicly owned land, this could move Austin towards a sufficient housing supply – for everyone.  By mixing market rate and public housing together, we can also help to reduce the rental occupancy rate across the city and help every renter, not just those in public housing.  

The Austin chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, the Austin Justice Coalition, Texas Appleseed and others also joined in on the call for a $300 million investment.  The Austin American Statesman noted that Kaz identified other recent bonds in other cities that invested big in affordable housing and easily passed the bonds. “They included a $1.2 billion housing bond plan passed by Los Angeles; a $258 million proposal passed in Portland, Ore.; and a $290 million plan passed in Seattle. All were approved in 2016 with at least 62 percent of the vote. Wojtewicz recommended Austin officials reach for $300 million.”

Bond Issue	$ size	population	outcome
Los Angeles 2016	$1.2 billion	4,000,000	76% in favor
Portland 2016	$258 million	640,000	62% in favor
Santa Clara County 2016	$950 million	1,900,000	68% in favor
Alameda County 2017	$580 million	1,600,000	73% in favor
Portland 2016	$290 million	790,000	68% in favor

We won’t be able to rely on Donald Trump and Ben Carson to be able to deliver affordable housing for Austin, especially given that Austin is a welcoming community to everyone, regardless of their citizenship.  We need to do what we can on our own.  

Let’s get a strong affordable housing bond and invest at least $300 million in affordable housing.

Fifty years ago, Austinites against integrating neighborhoods worked to put up a petition on the ballot to fight housing integration. They called Austin’s Fair Housing Initiative “Forced Housing.” IndyAustin and its allies are fighting the same fight—they want to freeze Austin’s neighborhoods in amber and forbid more homes west of I-35 in Central Austin, thus accelerating the rapid change and displacement happening in the East. In their attempt to block adoption of CodeNEXT, Austin’s new land development code, they hope to maintain our unaffordable, segregated status quo.

By taking money from Big Billboard to fight against a future for Austin, IndyAustin has shown their true nature: opposition to economic integration. AURA continues its call for an Austin for Everyone, and that means planning our city so that as many people as want to live in a neighborhood can afford to.

IndyAustin’s petition isn’t just bad for Austin, though: It’s a fraud. The fraudulent petition is illegal under state law, which doesn’t allow for ballot initiatives on this type of zoning matter. Any lawyer worth his salt would know what the Texas Local Government Code § 211.015 says on the matter, or at least do some research.  

AURA looks forward to the rejection of this invalid, illegal, and fraudulent petition by the City Council. If for some reason a ballot initiative gets to voters anyway, we hope Austinites embrace the future, continue to be a welcoming city, and bury this effort in our exclusionary past. Their fraudulent petition misled Austinites and was an intentional distraction from the real issues of sustainable and affordable growth.

Capital Metro has bids out for 16 infill stations on the MetroRapid 801 and 803 lines. We’re excited! The stop spacing on the MetroRapid lines has been too far apart. In AURA’s Connections 2025 position statement we called for standard stop spacing every quarter mile. We were encouraged to see additional stops proposed.

However, also in that response, we asked that the stations be brought online as quickly as possible. Riders should not have to wait on construction of expensive “branded” stations. The current stations are difficult to implement due to the need for electrical connections to power their countdown clocks and wireless internet. While these are great amenities, we would rather have the infill stops implemented quickly.

Unfortunately, on and off the MetroRapid lines, Capital Metro has a poor track record of building bus stations that do not protect riders from the elements. The MetroRapid stations were created out of a special design process, but are particularly bad when it comes to shielding from sun or rain—worse than the stations on the regular bus lines.

In 2016, we published our Transit City report, which outlined AURA’s vision for transit in Austin. One of Transit City’s calls for immediate in the action was improved bus stations:

Build generous stations similar to those at Houston’s MetroRail and Dallas’s DART rail platforms at Austin’s busiest bus hubs like the 4th Street/Republic Square and West Mall stops by 2017. They should be sufficiently long and wide to comfortably provide shelter to all riders at peak times. Substantially increase the number of stops with basic shelters throughout the city. The design of these shelters must prioritize effectively shielding riders from sun and rain at a reasonable cost so that as many as possible can be built.

Last year, when we evaluated Capital Metro’s progress toward the Transit City goals, we found that bus shelters were an area that could still use improvement:

Capital Metro has a new, cheaper design for bus shelters, which will enable the agency to deploy them at many more stops. Unfortunately, these new shelters still do not consistently provide shade or protection for the elements. AURA calls for CapMetro to find a shelter design that can be widely implemented and actually provide basic shelter.

Unfortunately, the bid documents for the MetroRapid infill stations demonstrate that Capital Metro will be using the same “branded” MetroRapid station design for the new stations. These stations are expensive and difficult to construct, meaning riders will have to wait longer for badly needed additional stations. Furthermore, they provide little to no protections from the elements. Riders would be better served if Capital Metro could move to a simpler station design that could be implemented quickly, while providing better shelter.

Do you like this post?

2018 NEED: $300 MILLION IN NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND FUNDS

AURA advocates for an Austin for Everyone. That means an Austin where everyone can afford housing that works for their families. While we believe that market rate construction is a key component of ensuring people can have a place to live that does not leave them cost-burdened, we are realistic. We know that no matter how much private development we allow, not everyone can afford market rate for their home, and “capital A” Affordable housing is critical to providing a city that welcomes all. With the 2018 bond, we have the opportunity to live our values as a city. To truly be an inclusive city, we need to make sure we build enough housing so that longtime residents and newcomers alike have a place to live. The market won’t build enough on its own; we need public investment to ensure homes for people from all income levels.

AUSTIN’S STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT

The Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (ASHB), adopted by city council in 2017, identifies the following needs to be paid for in part by local funds:

• 45,000 new homes affordable to people making below 60% of median income—20,000 for those making up to 30% median income and 25,000 for those between 30 and 60% median income. In 2017, that covered the range of people making effectively no income up to a family of four making $48,850.
• The ASHB found that there was a gap of 48,000 homes affordable to those making below $25,000 per year.
• Over $6 billion in need for affordable housing funding was identified. Not all of this amount can or should come from bonds, but the demand for affordable housing funds is enormous, and will likely grow as Austin grows.

PAST BOND PERFORMANCE

• Austin voters approved a $65 Million affordable housing bond in 2013. It is expected to be entirely spent before the end of 2019.
• Midway through the bond cycle, each unit of affordable housing developed with the help of local bond funds cost an average of $38,000. These funds were matched 7:1 by a mix of federal and other funds.
• Housing was provided for a wide range of populations—from people transitioning out of homelessness with very little income, to families of four making closer to 60% of median income.

FUTURE NEED

• The recent US tax “reform” efforts are expected to cause a 14% decline in funds for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which helps finance 90% of affordable housing developments nationwide.
• Proposed budgets from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development gut other affordable housing programs.
• Over the next 4 years, prospects for continued federal funding of affordable housing are dim. Austinites must be willing to help make up the difference if we want to continue ensuring that low-income people can stay in the city. 

Austin should “go big” and ensure that the 2018 City of Austin bond program this year has a sizeable component for Affordable Housing to ensure that we remain a welcoming place for people of all income levels. We call on City Council to present a bond to voters including $300 million in new affordable housing funds.

We call on Austin City Council to amend the Draft Corridor Construction Plan to dedicate transit priority lanes along the Guadalupe Corridor.

Guadalupe Street by The University of Texas, also known as “The Drag,” is Austin’s primary transit spine. AURA first recommended extending the downtown transit priority lanes on Guadalupe north of MLK through the Drag in 2015, when we released our Guadalupe Corridor Study, based on AURA members’ on-the-ground research. We further elaborated on this call in our 2016 Transit City report, which called for the extension of transit priority lanes on Guadalupe from MLK to 38th Street.

This past November, we were pleased to see that the City’s Guadalupe Corridor Plan seconded that recommendation to prioritize transit through our most productive transit spine. What’s more, in November, Project Connect, our current high capacity transit planning process, released a case study for a transit line on Lamar-Guadalupe-South Congress; all of the possible scenarios along the Drag include designating right-of-way for transit. We are expecting to see the debut of Project Connect’s system recommendations later this month and fully expect to see transit priority along the Drag as a central part of that plan. Also this year, a new city transportation plan, the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan, will go before Council, and is expected to provide performance metrics to determine when a street should begin to offer transit priority lanes.

With so much data and so many plans calling for extended transit priority on Guadalupe, AURA was deeply disappointed to see that the Draft Corridor Construction Plan, which which will determine how the funds from the 2016 Mobility Bond are spent, does not include transit priority lanes through the Drag, other than a small contraflow section between 18th Street and MLK. At a meeting on February 6, AURA’s representative on the Corridor Mobility Focus Group was told that the transit priority lanes did not score high enough for inclusion, but that if other planning processes called for them or provided funding, the plans could be re-aligned.

The exclusion of transit priority lanes on Guadalupe in the Corridor Construction Plan is inexplicable. Transit riders represent about half the people traveling through the Drag during rush hour, but take up only 10% of the space that cars do. Transit lanes would speed up tens of thousands of transit trips each day without adding delay for cars. We understand that pending the recommendations of Project Connect, it may be premature to say what configuration of transit lanes is appropriate on the Drag. Capital Metro and Project Connect should help determine the location and design of the priority lanes. Yet, it seems clear that regardless of the mode of transit recommended for Guadalupe, the need for dedicated right-of-way for transit is crystal clear.215 SIGNATURES500 SIGNATURES

WILL YOU SIGN?

First NameLast NameEmail Send me email updatesAddress (Street, City, State, Postal code)CountryAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, the Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicCôte d’IvoireDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine, State ofPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaRéunionSaint BarthélemySaint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet NamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.S.Wallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweÅland IslandsComments (optional) Don’t publish this on the website

AURA—an all-volunteer, member-driven grassroots organization—responded to the fundraising report for the pro-Proposition 1 PAC ‘Let’s Go Austin’.

“I’m not surprised they think it’s a good idea to spend half a million dollars on mailers that are going straight to the trash can. After all, they are supporting an inefficient plan that will waste limited transportation dollars and reduce system ridership”, said Brad Absalom, chair of AURA’s transit working group.

“It’s simple: light rail should save money, not waste it. By following a route through low-density areas, the Proposition 1 rail line will siphon money away from Capital Metro’s bread-and-butter bus service. This will reduce ridership and make congestion worse,” argued AURA member Kevin Miller.

Miller is the author and maintainer of WorseThanNothing.org, a website that details the pro-transit argument against the road and rail package on this November’s ballot.

Members of AURA — just named ”Best Grassroots Group” for 2014 by Austin Chronicle readers— were highly involved in promoting a better transit system for the past two years as part of the Project Connect process. Due to the proposed project’s harmful effects on transit, AURA members are overwhelmingly opposed to the urban rail proposal.

AURA is a grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Contacts:

• Brad Absalom, AURA Project Connect Central Corridor Working Group Chair: bradabsalom@gmail.com, 214-236-3293
• Kevin Miller, AURA Project Connect Central Corridor Working Group: aura@happywaffle.com, 512-560-5208

For Immediate Release

AURA will host a press conference Tuesday, November 17 at 8:30 am at City Hall

November 17, 2015

Austin, Texas

AURA, an urbanist grassroots non-profit that works toward an Austin for Everyone, along with a diverse coalition of organizations strongly urge Austin City Council to adopt the draft ordinance on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)—known colloquially as granny flats, garage apartments, or backyard cottages.

This draft ordinance is the result of a lengthy, thorough process with numerous opportunities for public input from a wide variety of Austin citizens. Since June 6, 2014, when City Council passed the resolution directing the City Manager to produce a draft ordinance, the public input process has included:

• Two public meetings to collect input, on September 18, 2014 and October 20, 2014
• Three public hearings before the Planning and Neighborhoods Committee, on June 9, 2015; August 17, 2015; and September 21, 2015.
• Public hearing before Planning Commission, on April 28, 2014.
• Two public hearings before the Codes and Ordinances Subcommittee of the Planning Commission on February 5, 2015 and March 17, 2015.

“The data shows that backyard cottages are affordable, so we should build more of them,” says Eric Goff, an AURA Board member. “Austin’s Fair Housing Action Plan identifies limits on ADUs as a barrier to affirmatively furthering Fair Housing.”

In addition to the substantial public comment in favor of the changes, more than 1,000 Austinites have signed AURA’s petition urging Austin’s City Council to allow granny flats and other small houses everywhere in Austin.

“All eleven council members campaigned heavily on alleviating rapidly rising housing costs in Austin,” says Cory Brown, AURA member. “The proposed changes to allow more backyard cottages is a win across the board: renters and people with modest incomes get more housing options, while homeowners get another tool to offset their tax burden.”

Join us at City Hall on Tuesday, November 17 at 8:30 am as we show Austinites the broad coalition of support for backyard cottages as a tool to provide more housing options that benefit renters and homeowners citywide.

AURA is a grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Contacts:
Eric Goff, AURA Board Member, eric.goff@gmail.com, 512-632-7013
Cory Brown, AURA Missing Middle Working Group, tcory.brown@gmail.com, 512-850-8467

Should you and I, as residents of Austin, have a say on CodeNext, the first major rewrite of Austin’s Land Development Code in 30 years?

Yes.

Should you and I, as registered voters of Austin, get to vote on CodeNext, the most important policy question facing our city in at least 5 years?

No.

Despite what the political groups Community not Commodity and IndyAustin say, you and I should not vote on CodeNext in a referendum. These groups claim that such a referendum would be more democratic and would lead to a more robust debate. But, as Austin’s own dark history with the Fair Housing ordinance of 1968 shows, a CodeNext referendum, far from guaranteeing democracy or debate, will subvert our representative democracy and disenfranchise the most of vulnerable of our citizens.

Let’s start with the claim that the proposed CodeNext referendum is “about democracy” as Fred Lewis, from Community not Commodity stated in a recent Austin Monitor article.

In 1968, the Austin City Council courageously passed Austin’s own Fair Housing ordinance to prohibit all forms of discrimination in housing. But a certain group of Austin property owners, who said they wanted to “give democracy a chance”, petitioned to put the ordinance to a vote. The referendum that followed rejected Fair Housing with 57% voting against and 43% voting in favor. Only 27% of registered voters and 10% of the total population voted in the election. That’s hardly representative of the will of the people. Worse still, as the map below attests, the overwhelming 59% of east Austinites that voted for Fair Housing were crushed by the 61% of West and South Austin that voted against.

1968 Austin Fair Housing Referendum Results by Precinct

Some things have changed since 1968. Austin no longer has legal segregation and is now seen as a progressive haven in an otherwise conservative state. But some things have not changed. We still face the same turnout challenges: less than 17% of registered voters cast a ballot in the last referendum. Worse still, while 30% of Austinites live east of I35, they only make up 24% of the registered voters. In fact, the map below showing registration percentage from 2017 looks strikingly similar to the map above showing percentage AGAINST the referendum from 1968.

2017 Voter Registration by Precinct

Under the 10-1 council system, East Austinites have a fair say in CodeNext through the representatives they elected. In a referendum, they do not.

After the 1968 referendum, then-mayor Harry Akin said, “if there had been half as much interest in the election as there has been in the football game, we would have had a fairer measure of the will of the people”. A CodeNext referendum risks the same. That doesn’t sound like democracy to me.

Next, let us consider the claim from Indy Austin‘s Linda Curtis that “if you put it on the ballot it will cause a big debate such that you might have a chance of informing a lot more people”.

Here is what the property owners of 1968 provided as “information”:

And my personal favorite

We should not expect a more informative debate on CodeNext. The fact is most people don’t have the time to brush up on Land Use Regulation in their spare time. As Curtis herself said “find a regular Austinite who is just trying to pay their mortgage or rent, they’ll go: ‘Code what?’”

When the people voted for their representatives to sit on the city council dais under the 10-1 system, they placed their faith in those representatives. We should not lose our faith in those representatives or the 10-1 system that Curtis herself campaigned for.

This proposed referendum is not about democracy or debate. It is about delay. Because of the property owner’s referendum in 1968, minorities of Austin had to wait decades for another fair housing ordinance. Half a century later, we cannot afford to make the same mistake. We cannot afford the same decades of delay with our land development code.

We absolutely should have a say on CodeNext. And we do – by talking to our council members, who we elected, and encouraging them to develop the best CodeNext they can. We count on our representatives to pass a code that helps erase the vestiges of our city’s dark past and create an Austin for Everyone. If they don’t, it is our duty to hold them accountable at the ballot box.

Code and Data

Source Code for Maps, Precinct Data for 1968 Referendum and 2017 Voter Registration*

Original Sources

1968 Results by Precinct*, 1960 Precincts, 1969 Precincts, 2017 Precinct Data, 2017 Voter Registration by Precinct

Notes

*The tax office does not have a map of the 1968 Austin voting precincts. I have approximated the positions by combining the 1960 

Dear CMTA Board members:

I am President of the Board of Directors of AURA and write to you today to support Connections 2025 in the strongest possible terms. I know you have been hearing many different things about the Connections 2025 service changes. I urge you to approve these changes tomorrow and implement them in summer 2018, as planned.

I’m not afraid to criticize CapMetro when I think they make mistakes, but Connections 2025 is not one of those mistakes. It is an important first step toward getting bus ridership growing again and making Austin a transit-friendly city. In our Transit City report, AURA called for a high frequency bus network and with Connections 2025, CapMetro has delivered on that in a big way. AURA recently gave CapMetro a grade of A- on our Transit City report card, due in large part to the promise of Connections 2025.

It is necessary that to remake Austin for transit, we must make some tough decisions. Some of those decisions may involve sharing neighborhoods with more neighbors, or making it slightly more difficult to use your car, so that more people can benefit from transit. Another tough decision is cutting a few—a very few—bus routes, so that literally thousands more riders can use transit effectively. For some, this may allow them to perhaps make the decision to live car-free or car-light lifestyles. For others, it may be the cost savings that allows them to access their jobs and continue to afford rent in the city by reducing their transportation costs. High frequency networks unlock the city by allowing people the confidence to ride without the fear of missing the next bus.

I was highly encouraged by ADAPT’s endorsement of the new service plan as well.

I am unable to come speak to you in person tomorrow, but I urge you to please, please approve Connections 2025.

Best,

Susan Somers