Category: Uncategorized

AURA has released a policy paper on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), better known as garage apartments, granny flats, or back houses. Allowing more ADUs to be built is a crucial piece of AURA’s advocacy for abundant housing in Austin. Our paper argues for a substitute ordinance that would be stronger than the one currently proposed  by City staff. Thank you to Cory Brown of our CodeNow working group for his work on the paper.  Want to help?  Join AURA today!

AURA welcomes the recent release of Austin’s 2014 Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis. The report provides valuable context into the state of the Austin housing market and a stark reminder of the depth of problems Austinites face in finding housing available. We particularly agree with the report’s recommendations for rapid reduction in regulatory barriers toward homeowners building accessory dwelling units (ADUs), a change we have led the push for.

However, we are disappointed in both the depth of analysis offered and the scope of the recommendations. The recommendations would barely begin to address the housing crisis in Austin. We offer suggestions for the improvement of this report:

Analysis Of Supply and Demand

To be comprehensive, a housing market analysis needs a discussion of the link between housing supply, demand, and prices. As the report notes, the greatest loss of affordable housing did not come from a reduction in subsidized affordable housing programs, nor the physical destruction of existing affordable, private market housing stock. The greatest loss of affordable housing came from increasing prices for existing private market affordable housing. The report therefore, must address the reasons why prices have increased so much for previously-affordable housing units.

The use of an economic model of supply, demand, prices, and price elasticity could begin to address questions such as what effect the creation of greater supply would have on prices in the city.

Estimates of costs and benefits of each recommendation

Using such a model, the report should analyze the effect size of the costs and benefits of each recommendation. For example, while AURA supports the report’s recommendations on loosening regulations regarding ADUs, the total number of new ADUs that would be created as a result of the change is modest, and their creation will have a modest effect on prices. The report should be able to estimate the effect of the ideas that it advocates.

Additionally, there should be honest accounting for the potential negative effects on affordability that come with some of the recommendations. For example, raising cash-in-lieu fees charged to new development may, perversely, encourage developers to forego additional density. This would result in reduced affordability in two ways: reduced payment into the fee-in-lieu program, and reduced supply of housing in the private market. Estimates of both effects on household affordability should accompany any recommendation. In previous studies, many programs that attempted to achieve affordability through development fees have found that the latter effect dominated the former and affordability was actually worsened.

We must be willing to adopt policies commensurate with the size of the problem we face. To do so, we must predict how big the positive and negative effects of our recommendations will be.

Consider better funding models

In addition to considering how to obtain more funds for subsidized affordable housing programs, we believe that we should think about more programs that, through their nature, incentivize greater household affordability in the private market. For example, funds for affordable housing programs could come from allowing new, dense development by right and allocating tax increments over certain density levels to fund affordable housing programs. Thus, instead of effectively taxing (and thus discouraging) density, affordable housing programs would become allies of private market housing in seeking abundant, transit-oriented development.

Household Affordability, not Affordable Housing

Imagine Austin takes special care to use the more holistic concept of household affordability, not merely housing affordability. Housing which has low rent or mortgage costs, but necessitates high spending on utilities, transportation, or other non-avoidable expenses, does not result in household affordability. Individuals make choices between housing with high rents and low transportation costs. City policy has emphasized the household affordability metric to match our goals to the lived experience of our residents, and our report should do the same.

Conclusions

Austin’s trend toward expensive sprawl is neither desirable nor inevitable. It is the direct result of policy choices made by the city to limit the types and locations of affordable housing. For any subsidized housing solutions to be effective, we must cure the dysfunction in our private housing market–excessive regulations preventing the creation of abundant housing to meet the housing needs of our growing city. Otherwise, we will always have a population that cannot find housing that meets our needs for a reasonable price.

At the November 6 Austin City Council meeting, the relationship of CodeNEXT to affordability was raised by Council Members Mike Martinez and Kathie Tovo. Council Member Martinez expressed interest in learning which of two CodeNEXT approaches, “Option 2” and “Option 3,” would make housing more affordable. AURA strongly believes that Option 3, which represents a more thorough revision to the code than does Option 2, is the approach that will yield the greatest household affordability for the city.

Affordable housing can refer to two different concepts. The first concept is the plain meaning of the words: low costs, rents, and taxes necessary to acquire housing, whether that housing is provided by the private market or through public programs. In its other meaning, Affordable Housing (capitalized here for distinction) refers to important government programs that directly assist some residents with housing costs. AURA believes CodeNEXT Option 3 is a superior choice for both senses of affordable housing.

Option 3 will provide more Austin residents with affordable housing than would Option 2, for many reasons:

• Increasingly, as people in the greater Austin area have looked for affordable starter homes, they have found them not in Austin, but in surrounding suburbs. There are not enough homes in the central city to accommodate all who wish to live here and those who are left behind are those who have the least money. Option 3 will apply to more of the city, allowing more people to live in more parts of the city, and reducing the vicious competition for homes that has driven prices so high.
• As land costs in central Austin have risen sharply, our outdated land development codes continue to restrict housing largely to two very expensive types: land-expensive single-family houses, and materials-expensive high-rises. CodeNEXT envisions updating our code to allow “missing middle” housing types between these two expensive poles, such as duplexes, townhomes, and small apartment buildings. These housing types may be both relatively inexpensive to build and relatively land-cheap on a per-resident basis. These “missing middle” homes have historically also been attractive options for families. Option 3, by allowing “missing middle” housing in more of the city, will allow more households to take advantage of this type of housing.
• CodeNEXT is the implementation of Imagine Austin, Austin’s comprehensive plan. Imagine Austin expanded the concept of affordable housing to address “household affordability.” Household affordability addresses all costs a household faces in their housing choice; not just rent or mortgage, but also transportation and utilities. The Imagine Austin vision correctly understands that a compact, connected city leads to greater household affordability not just by lowering housing costs, but also by lowering transportation costs. CodeNEXT looks to actualize that vision through the creation of more transit-oriented development. Option 3, by creating more options for transit-oriented development in more of the city, will create lower transportation costs.

For these and many more reasons, Option 3 is the plan for household affordability. But Option 3 will also help Austin’s government advance Affordable Housing programs:

• Affordable Housing providers have been successful recently by building innovative, cost-effective Affordable Housing projects using newly-permitted types of housing, such as the Foundation Communities’ Capital Studios, built using the zero-parking downtown model. By allowing more types of affordable options in more parts of the city, Option 3 gives Affordable Housing providers more opportunities for cost-effective Affordable Housing developments.
• Our Affordable Housing system is overwhelmed. The recently-opened voucher program saw almost 20,000 applicants for only 2,500 slots on the waiting list. This is for a combination of reasons: ongoing problems with poverty in our city, as well as a lack of affordable homes provided by the private market. By allowing more types of private market affordable homes in more of the city, Option 3 will allow the Affordable Housing system to concentrate on those who need it most.

AURA is one of many civic groups that support the selection of Option 3. Other civic groups pushing for Option 3 include HousingWorks Austin, Downtown Austin Alliance, Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, Austin Apartment Association, Austin Board of Realtors, Real Estate Council of Austin, and Congress for the New Urbanism. This coalition of groups held a press conference at City Hall on October 22 in support of Option 3.

The affordability problems in our city are acute. We need to tackle them with as much urgency as we can. Affordability is a responsibility for the whole city. Option 3 is the only option that approaches the problem with the comprehensiveness and urgency needed.

For Immediate Release

Austin’s Voters Are Pro-Transit—And Against Bad Transit Plans
AURA Vows to Keep Pushing for Expanded and Improved Transit Service for All Austinites

November 5, 2014
Austin, Texas

AURA was disappointed when Austin’s leaders decided to put a bad rail plan on the ballot, but we’re relieved that Austinites voted for better public transit by rejecting the $1 billion road-rail bond proposition. From the beginning of the Project Connect process, AURA pushed for data-driven transit planning, but when the city’s own data showed the rail plan would hurt our transit system, AURA was forced to oppose.

“AURA has spent months talking to Austinites about this plan, and it’s clear that this city is ready to invest in transit. It just needs to be a good plan,” said AURA member Marcus Denton. “That’s why AURA’s focus will now shift to pressuring Capital Metro and the City of Austin to improve transit service for the whole city.”

“Capital Metro should immediately move forward with the Riverside MetroRapid line they’ve had in their plans for years,” AURA co-founder Jace Deloney said. “This can be a quick, inexpensive way to improve transit service in an area that needs it, and can show our city the advantages of true bus rapid transit that isn’t stuck in traffic.”

AURA was founded to improve mobility for all Austinites, and that battle won’t be easy or short. Austin’s streets are full, so we have to move more people on transit if we want to waste less time getting around. If you agree with us, we need your help. Join our announcements mailing list, or if you’re ready to commit, become an AURA member to grow Austin’s voice for better transit.

AURA member Niran Babalola calls on all transit advocates to unite for a better transit future. “Mayor Leffingwell was right to put the city in the driver’s seat so our elected officials are in charge instead of Cap Metro, but it’s going to take the voice of every Austinite who cares about transit to make sure the next City Council finishes the job. It’s been tough to argue against other folks who are fighting for better transit for Austin, and I hope we all seize the opportunity to be on the same team again.”

We call on all current and future City Council members to join the list of Austin leaders who have taken AURA’s transit-oriented pledge at AustinNeedsTransit.com. This city needs elected officials who are committed to improving transportation options for all Austinites at all income levels all over the city.

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:

• Niran Babalola, Project Connect Central Corridor Committee member: niran@niran.org, 775-576-4726
• Brad Absalom, Project Connect Central Corridor Committee Chair: bradabsalom@gmail.com, 214-236-3293

There are several points of view on the City of Austin ballot proposition, but other than the property owners and construction companies who hope to benefit directly, it doesn’t feel like anybody is actually excited about this roads-and-rail bond plan. The anti-tax and anti-growth forces predictably don’t like it. And a large number of pro-transit Austinites, like the members of AURA, believe that when given the choice between no rail and badrail, voting against rail is the right choice to save our transit system. We are concerned this plan will have long-term negative repercussions that could reduce overall transit ridership and hurt the credibility of transit with the larger public, like the low-ridership Red Line has.

We don’t seem to hear genuine excitement about the plan from those proposition supporters who are pro-transit, either. We hear ‘don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,’ as if this is an argument in favor of a bad plan. We hear ‘we have to start somewhere,’ as though we didn’t already flub one ‘start’ with the Red Line.

We also hear ‘we can’t afford to wait another 14 years.’ But why has it been 14 years since the closely contested 2000 rail bond election? Is 2014 really the first time it was possible to bring another rail bond up for a vote? Is rail on the ballot now because it takes that long to get a plan, or because the business community and the public haven’t been ready? No. We think the history shows that poor political leadership is to blame: leaders who dropped the ball and simply didn’t bother to develop, present, and sell a credible plan to improve mobility in Austin.

It is vital to realize that Austin is about to get different political leadership—and there is every reason to believe our next City Council will be strongly committed to good transit. We can reject the city proposition and feel comfortable that we are not ‘rejecting rail’—we are simply making the mature decision to reject bad rail, and simultaneously we are moving on from failed leadership. Voting NO on this city proposition, while electing a new Council, can be a win-win for transit in Austin.

For Immediate Release

AURA Endorses Candidates in Austin Mayoral and City Council Elections

October 27, 2014
Austin, Texas

AURA is a relatively new organization on the Austin civic scene, but it is already having a strong impact representing popular support for our vision of a welcoming city with abundant housing and alternative transportation options. With Austin moving its municipal elections to November and instituting a geographically representative City Council, next Tuesday offers a major opportunity to elect leaders that can help continue to make that vision a reality.

The membership of AURA offers these endorsements in Austin’s City Council elections:

Delia Garza, for District 2
Jose Valera, for District 3
Gregorio Casar, for District 4
Jimmy Flannigan, for District 6
Jeb Boyt, for District 7
Chris Riley, for District 9

In the election for mayor, AURA’s membership offers its endorsement to Mike Martinez. It should be noted thatSheryl Cole also has substantial support among AURA members.

Please also note that the newly elected City Council will be taking office after the roads-and-rail city bond proposition is already decided—and, hopefully, rejected. AURA’s membership continues to urge Austinites to voteNO on this City of Austin ballot proposition.

AURA’s membership encourages Austin residents to learn more about these candidates. Please give them your support and your vote if you agree that they are the best candidates to lead Austin’s city government.

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:

• Amy Hartman, AURA board member: amylizhartman@gmail.com, 512-983-0718
• Steven Yarak, AURA board member: steven@yarak.org, 512-423-1024

This is part of a two-part series on the supposed ideological aspects of the city of Austin bond proposition (“Prop 1”). Today’s topic is opposition to Prop 1 among liberal candidates for City Council.

The Let’s Go Austin PAC has tried to convince liberal and progressive Austin voters that the city roads-and-rail bond proposition (often referred to as “Prop 1”) is an ideological or partisan question. “Know whose side you are on,” the PAC says in a series of recent mailers that try to portray opposition to Prop 1 as a conservative cause.

That message has failed to resonate with a vital audience: the leading liberal and progressive candidates for Austin City Council, a majority of whom are openly opposed to Prop 1.

Below are listed the positions taken on Proposition 1 held by those candidates for City Council endorsed by at least one of four solidly liberal publications or organizations: the Austin Chronicle (AC), Burnt Orange Report(BOR), Workers’ Defense Action Fund (WDF), and Austin Environmental Democrats (AED).

Candidate for Office	Position on Prop 1	Endorsed by AC/BOR/WDF/AED
Sheryl Cole, Mayor	Supports	BOR
Mike Martinez, Mayor	Supports	AC, BOR, WDF
Ora Houston, D1	Opposes	AC, WDF
DeWayne Lofton, D1	Supports	BOR
Delia Garza, D2	Opposes	AC, BOR, WDF, AED
Sabino “Pio” Renteria, D3	Supports	AC, BOR
Gregorio Casar, D4	Opposes	AC, BOR, WDF, AED
Ann Kitchen, D5	Opposes	AC, BOR, WDF, AED
Jimmy Flannigan, D6	Opposes	AC, WDF, AED
Matt Stillwell, D6	Opposes	BOR, AED
Jeb Boyt, D7	Supports	AC, BOR, AED
Leslie Pool, D7	Opposes	AC
Melissa Zone, D7	Opposes	WDF
Ed Scruggs, D8	Opposes	AC, BOR, AED
Chris Riley, D9	Supports	BOR, AED
Kathie Tovo, D9	Supports	AC, WDF, AED
Mandy Dealey, D10	Supports	AC, BOR, WDF, AED

As the table shows: Of the 17 candidates receiving at least one endorsement from these four liberal publications and organizations, nine are opposed to Prop 1 and eight support it. Of the 43 total endorsements by the four publications and organizations, 24 went to the opposed candidates.

What do the liberal publications say about the nine leading candidates who oppose Prop 1? And how do these leading liberal and progressive candidates explain their reasons for opposing Prop 1? Let’s give them the mic to make the case in their own words:Engaged in civic activism on neighborhood, citywide, and social justice issues… An experienced hand at city politics who will understand the relationship between district needs and whole community issues.”

 —Austin Chronicle, on Ora Houston“Unable to support a rail plan that does not address the core issue about congestion and transportation: alleviate traffic coming into the city from the edges of the district and beyond. We need transit options that allow people to leave their cars at home or at a park and ride and use public transit to get into and around town. This route will not do that.”

—Ora Houston, on Prop 1“A well-prepared, consensus choice… A born public servant, Garza is also already a role model to young Hispanic girls in Austin, and as the first council member from the new District 2 will be an even bolder and brighter example of what determination can accomplish when progressive government offers everyone an equal chance to succeed.”

—Burnt Orange Report, on Delia Garza“While I support more multi modal transportation options and understand that we need to address our traffic crisis, I oppose the rail proposal. I have concerns that the proposed plan will further aggravate our affordability crisis while leaving some folks out of the process that are the most dependent on using public transportation.”

—Delia Garza, on Prop 1“Casar has been a rising star at City Hall with his successful advocacy at Workers Defense Project, with the other leaders there even generating national support and engagement – improving city contracting standards and citizens’ lives simultaneously. He should be particularly successful in representing the rising demographic of District 4, the many working-class immigrants and young families who are making Austin home and transforming the central city.”

—Austin Chronicle, on Gregorio Casar“I have chosen not to vote for the bond in November. Once we have a more comprehensive affordability plan that will ensure everyday Austinites are not overburdened by the cost of rail, we should support a fiscally responsible and equitable rail plan. Although I am not voting for this bond, I believe we will eventually need heavier transit investments in Austin. We can serve East Riverside, Downtown Austin, and Highland sooner by investing in improving our bus service along the proposed route. I am dedicated to making sure our future transit investments are paired with affordability solutions.”

—Gregorio Casar, on Prop 1“Kitchen served as a former assistant attorney general, co-founded Annie’s List, and has devoted more than two decades to health care policy and advocacy. On the strictly municipal side, she’s served on city commissions, chairs Liveable City, and was a founding member of the Save Our Springs Alliance. Unsurprisingly, she’s garnered broad support from key local environmental, labor, public safety, neighborhood, and Dem political groups.”

—Austin Chronicle, on Ann Kitchen“While I believe rail transit is needed to address Austin’s transportation future, I cannot support the $1 billion rail/road bond proposal as it has been conceived. In a time of deep concern about affordability, the proposal does little to serve existing residents of South Austin. Additionally, I also believe that the $400 million road package should have been presented as a separate measure so it could have addressed critical transportation needs in South Austin, as well as across the city, from redesigning congestion chokepoints to building more complete streets by building sidewalks and bike lanes.”

—Ann Kitchen, on Prop 1“He explains that paying all city of Austin employees a living wage would ultimately reduce the need for other social services to supplement low wages… Flannigan reflects an impressive understanding of the granular details of city government. … There’s some debate about whether District 6 will turn out to be a ‘conservative opportunity’ district. Flannigan is no conservative.”

—Austin Chronicle, on Jimmy Flannigan“While I have been present for the conception, planning, and vetting of this project, I cannot support it. The long-term plan duplicates the first project’s route (the parallel line north of MLK). That is no way to start building a rail system. I also cannot support the idea that Austin taxpayers will spend $250mil improving roads (I-35) that the state is responsible for supporting.”

—Jimmy Flannigan, on Prop 1“A longtime Democratic activist… Stillwell has the strongest progressive credentials of all the candidates running in District 6… We were impressed by Stillwell’s overall vision for the city.”

—Burnt Orange Report, on Matt Stillwell“I’m against it because I haven’t been given a clear answer on what the expected cost might be to build out the entire urban rail system – because if Austin won’t get on board with that and what will undoubtedly be a $6B-$10B plan, there’s no way we should build the first line. Building the Highland to Riverside route and not completing the system would be a disaster. This was rushed to the ballot before it was ready.”

—Matt Stillwell, on Prop 1“Spearheaded the push for the city to buy the state’s Bull Creek property – still an unresolved question – and advocating for sustainable development there. … The district will be in good hands.”

—Austin Chronicle, on Leslie Pool“I support rail, want it for Austin, and ride light rail and subways in many cities, but I can’t support this very expensive proposition. Austin’s current proposal costs too much and residents don’t feel it will take them where they want to go.”

—Leslie Pool, on Prop 1“Melissa Zone’s urban planning experience has made her a powerful advocate for future-thinking.”

—Austin Chronicle, on Melissa Zone“No, I support and want urban rail, but the current alignment will not help the people who need rail today. I would prefer to see an alignment developed to serve existing demand. We need to think about everyone, not just the people who will be moving here in ten years. Also, I would prefer to have the package of highway improvements proposed as a separate bond measure rather than as an addendum to the urban rail proposal.”

—Melissa Zone, on Prop 1“Scruggs has long been an activist in southwest Austin, most notably founding the Circle C Area Democrats… But his Democratic bonafides are not the only reason he’s the best choice in this race. … He can speak at length about the issues facing area schools, the need for more parks, and the infrastructural challenges in this rapidly growing area of Austin. Scruggs has also demonstrated an awareness of a larger vision for the city, addressing conservation and affordability as part of his campaign.”

—Burnt Orange Report, on Ed Scruggs“While a supporter of transit in concept this plan is currently not affordable. The Project Connect process is incomplete—failing to meaningfully address commuter transit issues in most of the outlying districts.”

—Ed Scruggs, on Prop 1

With several progressive future members of Austin City Council opposing Prop 1, the ideological narrative offered by the Let’s Go Austin PAC has fallen flat. It is now time for this bond question to be settled on its merits.

AURA has spent two years studying this urban rail plan—first, participating in the Project Connect process in good faith, and then, sadly, having to report that the process had badly misfired, seemingly in part because of capture by vested interests. It is AURA’s conclusion that Prop 1 may be a good deal for those interest groups, but it is a bad deal for public transit in Austin.

The progressive candidates opposing Prop 1 clearly agree with AURA’s analysis: This is a route that will serve too few and cost too much, which will dash hopes for building a bigger rail system and drain transit dollars away from vital bus services. And AURA agrees with the progressive candidates: After this election is over, Austin’s new City Council can and will build a system-starting rail route that will have high ridership and will not break the budget of Capital Metro.

But first, the crucial and wise move is to vote NO on the city bond proposition.

This is the first post in a two-part series on the supposed partisan or ideological aspects of the city of Austin bond proposition (“Prop 1”). Today’s topic is funding sources behind the Let’s Go Austin PAC. The second post will cover the widespread opposition to Prop 1 among progressive candidates for City Council.

If you’re a registered voter in Austin, you’ve probably received a mailer from the Let’s Go Austin (LGA) PAC telling you to vote for the city’s $1 billion roads-and-rail bond proposition, informally known as Prop 1. As our readers probably know, we oppose Prop 1, and have spent the past two years showing why this rail plan is worse than nothing. Unfortunately, the LGA PAC has favored ideological attacks over a campaign on the merits of the plan. Therefore, we think it is now relevant to examine the funding sources behind the LGA PAC and its expensive campaign. As it turns out, a look at the relevant filings reveals that the LGA PAC is largely funded by deep-pocketed Republican donors.

The LGA PAC’s campaign has attempted to portray voting for the bond as a “progressive” or partisan choice: their latest mailer (pictured below) asks readers to “know whose side you are on,” and past ads have even attempted to tar AURA by grouping it in a list with the Austin Tea Party.

If partisanship is relevant to Prop 1, then this is an important finding: a review of the LGA PAC’s latest campaign finance report reveals that much of its funding comes from major donors to Republican Party candidates and causes. The LGA PAC’s portrayal of Prop 1 as a progressive choice thus appears to be another in its series of deliberate efforts to distract and mislead Austin voters. Frankly, it would be fairer to describe Prop 1 as a plan for “Republican Rail.”

According to its September 25th report, the LGA PAC had raised $485,876 from 78 donors, an average donation of $6,229. (A grassroots campaign this is not.) By far the largest ‘donation’ came from the Downtown Austin Alliance (DAA), which contributed $253,000, though it would be more accurate to call that money ‘an investment.’ The DAA is a Public Improvement District funded by property owners in the eastern and central portions of downtown Austin whose property is worth more than $500,000. If the proposed rail line were built, the members of the DAA would gain millions in localized benefits while the billion-dollar costs would be diffused to all Austinites. And these ‘socialize the risk, privatize the profit’ incentives aren’t the only problem with the DAA’s money. DAA’s treasurer, Carol Polumbo—also an individual donor to the LGA PAC—is managing partner of McCall, Parkhurst & Horton, L.L.P., a law firm with an extensive history of large donations to statewide Republicans, including more than $75,000 to Greg Abbott.

The next largest donation to the LGA PAC is $75,000 from the Greater Austin Economic Development Corporation (EDC), an arm of the Chamber of Commerce which receives funding from the City of Austin and other local governments. Public money is arguably being laundered through the EDC to spend on the bond campaign. Moreover, the Chamber itself is not exactly a champion of progressive causes: recall its opposition to the new generation plan for Austin Energy, which would make Austin’s power some of the cleanest in the nation.

The third largest donor to the LGA PAC is the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA), which contributed $25,000. RECA also has a long history of contributing to Republicans, including $50,000 to Rick Perry and more than $63,000 to David Dewhurst. A quick search of RECA’s history in the Texas Tribune’s campaign finance databasefinds at least $180,000 in contributions to major Republicans.

The Republican donor trend continues with individuals, corporations, and PACs that donated to the LGA PAC in the $1,000–$5,000 range. A set of eight donors who gave $36,500 to the LGA PAC (almost 30% of the funds we have not yet detailed here) also contributed more than $700,000 to a veritable Who’s Who of the Texas Republican Party.

All told, the LGA PAC’s donors and DAA board members have contributed more than a million dollars to Republican campaigns. If you were to apply the Let’s Go Austin PAC’s preferred campaign strategy, you’d say that a vote for Prop 1 is a vote for Dan Patrick!

Given this funding base, perhaps it’s no wonder Prop 1 sacrifices the rest of Austin’s transit system to benefit a handful of private business owners and real estate developers. Funneling taxpayer money into private hands is the very essence of the Texas Republican Party’s ‘business friendly’ agenda, and a similar agenda is at the center of the Let’s Go Austin PAC’s campaign. Just follow the money.

To ensure we don’t damage our already inadequate transit system and to retain the opportunity to invest a billion dollars in other progressive projects—libraries, parks, housing the homeless, investing in clean energy, and many, many others—Austin voters should join transit activists in making the truly progressive choice: Vote NO on Prop 1.

AURA’s urban rail working group has completed an analysis of the impact that the Austin roads-and-rail bond proposition would have on the city’s transit system.

Their report, titled “System Crash: The High Costs of Low Ridership Rail,” estimates that the urban rail plan contained in city Proposition 1 would reduce Capital Metro’s system-wide transit ridership by 28 to 30 million boardings over the rail line’s first decade of operation. This is roughly equal to a  permanent annual cut of 10 percent of present-day MetroBus service.

Good morning. My name is Niran Babalola, and I’m a member of AURA, a grassroots organization that fights for abundant housing and abundant transit for all Austinites.

Proposition 1’s urban rail plan is the most controversial issue of this election. AURA urges you to vote “No” on this bad urban rail plan, because the city’s data shows that it will hurt our transit system.

Rail is a tool for saving money. Cities around the country save money by switching from buses to rail, and they use those savings to expand their transit systems. However, Austinites will be voting on a rail plan that has higher costs per rider than the buses it will replace, which will shrink our transit system.

This city desperately needs better public transit. Our roads are full. The only way we can move more people is by making transit work. Failing to improve our transit system will end our economic winning streak. So will voting for this bad rail plan that will shrink our transit system.

Voting against this rail plan doesn’t mean progress will stop on transit in Austin. Austinites need to elect a City Council that has pledged to make our transit system a top priority. We need to start working on a plan for transit that makes our system move more people, not fewer. We need a City Council that’s going to act on transit immediately.

Over a dozen candidates across the city have pledged to do just that, at AustinNeedsTransit.com. They’ve pledged that when they plan rail, they’ll make sure it saves money like in other cities. They’ve pledged to improve our bus routes as well, because they recognize that most of the city is going to be served by buses for the foreseeable future, and that all Austinites deserve transit improvements.

Most importantly, they’ve pledged to support the urban density that’s necessary for a great transit system. Our transit system isn’t bad because Cap Metro is incompetent. It’s bad because Austin is way too spread out to make transit work well. We’re less dense than San Antonio. Less dense than Dallas. Less dense than Houston, by 24%! These candidates have pledged to make sure people who want to live near great transit can afford to, which is a huge step for Austin—where adding more people to central neighborhoods is often against the law.

Most of the candidates who have taken this pledge join AURA in urging you to vote against this bad rail plan. Some of the candidates support Proposition 1, but they agree that our next plan for investing in transit shouldn’t be controversial, and the principles in the pledge will make that happen.

Austinites who want this city to be a transit-oriented city should visit AustinNeedsTransit.com to see the list of candidates who have pledged to make that happen. They should vote for those candidates, and vote “No” on Proposition 1’s bad urban rail plan.