Mayor Kirk Watson was well prepared on election night, with a pre-written concession speech.
It was an unprecedented defeat for Watson and the entire Council, except for Marc Duchen who refused to go along with the crowd. Duchen voted against putting Prop Q on the ballot and campaigned against it. The proposition went down with 63% voting no.
Prop Q ran up against a prairie fire of an opposition coalition. It was an organic opposition that first popped up on social media, with several people getting involved who had not previously been active in local politics. That included Jen Robichaux, a 21-year Austin resident who explained what moved her to get involved in a July speech to Council that she also posted on X:
“I moved to Austin 21 years ago, captivated by its diverse spirit. I’ve built my life here and I’m deeply invested in Austin’s future, but the city has changed. Its culture has shifted, with policies that overshadow Austin’s core values.
This budget neglects residents’ needs and fails to address critical financial and operational issues, letting problems build to a crisis.”
Among other efforts, Robichaux organized a series of meetings in which people would gather in restaurants, bars or other public places and discuss Prop Q; and then fan back out into the community better informed, and usually ready to work against Prop Q.
Another newcomer to Austin political battles was Nate McGuire who created a website which became popular; and controversial with pro-Prop Q forces. Eventually he was one of two Prop Q opponents who faced off against Council Members Chito Vela and Ryan Alter in a CBS Austin debate.
As the campaign intensified the newcomers connected with some of the older stalwarts of Austin politics, who were opposed to Prop Q and who have previously challenged the Council on other issues; usually unsuccessfully when it comes to elections. That included former state Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, former Council Member Ora Houston, former County Judge Bill Aleshire and former County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty (a lot of formers there). And then there were veteran players in local politics like Larry Akers, Susan Spataro, Jeffery Bowen, Susana Almanza, Bill Bunch, Robin Rather and many others. Many of them were working with a PAC named Restore Leadership ATX.
What happened once these two groups of people connected was analogous to what can happen when younger people are willing to help older people with their computers. At the same time the older folks knew a lot more about winning elections. The combination was devastating for Prop Q.
What happened once these two groups of people connected was analogous to what can happen when younger people are willing to help older people with their computers.
And this was only part of the coalition that hammered Prop Q into the ground. There was also Save Austin Now. Save Austin Now’s most significant electoral victory was back in 2021 when they led a petition drive and subsequent election campaign which resulted in reinstatement of the camping ban; which the 2019 Council repealed after it had been in place for over 20 years. Since then, however, local “progressives” have succeeded in placing a figurative scarlet R on the chest of anyone associated with Save Austin Now, R standing of course for Republican.
Despite the R, Save Austin Now styles itself as bipartisan with Republican and Democratic co-chairs. The Republican co-chair is former Travis County Republican Party Chair Matt Mackowiak. The current Democratic co-chair is Steven Brown, an East Austin native who, along with Nate McGuire, adroitly handled the CBS Austin debate with Council Members Vela and Alter.
Most Democrats, however, don’t buy the bipartisan claim. They instead tend to categorize any Democrat associated with Save Austin Now as a fake Democrat. Consequently, Save Austin Now does not pull many Democratic votes, at least that’s the way it appears to me. Plus, any Democrat associating with them risks being emblazoned with the scarlet R.
Even members of the organic multi-age coalition discussed above, stressed that they were not working with Save Austin Now. For instance Robichaux, early in the campaign, posted online that Save Austin Now had yard signs available. But, she added that she herself was not working with Save Austin Now. Reflecting this dynamic, several different versions of anti-Prop Q signs sprouted up around town. The separate campaigns approach was also reflected on election night when Save Austin Now and Restore Leadership ATX hosted separate election watch parties.
Despite their shunning, Save Austin Now can pull Republicans and some independents. They might even get a few Democrats who aren’t deeply enough involved to realize they are supposed to repudiate Save Austin Now.
Just to get at a number, in 2024 Donald Trump won 29% of the vote in Travis County. That figure includes suburbs outside the city limits which have more Republicans than within the City. So the Austin figure for Republicans is undoubtedly at least a few points lower. But, let’s say that Save Austin Now can be part of pulling between 20% and 25%. That’s a decent sized chunk when the core goal in any election is to get 50% + 1. Plus municipal government is not officially partisan and not set up in the City Charter to be partisan.
So like them or not Save Austin Now can be crucial in delivering a key bloc of votes, but they face serious obstacles in winning a majority by themselves.
The Business Community
A third wing of the anti-Prop Q coalition was a sub-coalition of major business organizations: Opportunity Austin, the Austin Chamber, the Austin Regional Manufacturers Association, the Austin Technology Council, the Central Texas Public Safety Commission — formerly known as the Greater Austin Crime Commission, the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA), the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and the Austin Apartment Association. These groups hammered at the cost Prop Q would pose for homeowners, renters and business owners; and also argued that higher property taxes would lead to newcomer businesses locating in the suburbs instead of Austin; and current Austin businesses moving to the ‘burbs.
There were also small business owners like Juan Meza who hosted an opposition press conference at his Juan in a Million restaurant.
One key takeaway, and potentially important for the future, is that all these members of the coalition called out Council Members for reckless spending and serious over reaching with the proposed tax hike.
Statesman is making a comeback
As a newspaper, the Austin American-Statesman should not be considered a member of the coalition, but they were definitely a force in the election. Their investigative financial coverage got started well before Prop Q with a series exposing small, but irresponsible City spending on lunches and travel, particularly by City Manager T. C. Broadnax and Council Member Ryan Alter. As the election approached the Statesman editorial board, now headed by former columnist Bridget Grumet, held their own Prop Q forum — with representatives of both sides assembled. They then wrote an editorial which dismantled Prop Q piece by piece; and they aimed significant criticism at the Mayor and Council.
Back on the news side of the operation, reporters continued their muckraking, and with an attitude. For instance the Sunday before the election the Statesman ran a story headlined, “A tax hike for you, perks for them: Inside Austin City Council’s spending habits.”
Finally, on election day, they ran a story on how during this year’s budget deliberations Council Member Zo Qadri — not previously known as a leading financial authority — broke a budget deadlock by proposing to move a number of obviously annual expenses to a category for one-time expenditures. This allowed the Council to avoid letting reserve funds officially sink to a level that would violate national standards.
In that article, the daily quoted “a professor emeritus in accounting at the University of Texas” who is also a ” and “former Governmental Accounting Standards Board member.” In relation to Qadri’s maneuver, he said, ‘“There are all sorts of ways to make the budget look better, or make it look like it’s carrying out your goals, and this is one way. . . Those judgments can conceivably rise to the point where they are clearly deceptive.”’
And that wrapped up the Statesman’s pre-election coverage.
Back to the Mayor
Prop Q was a bizarre saga for His Honor. First, as Council Members began maneuvering to bring forward a tax rate election (TRE) in late July, Watson sent out a “Watson Wire” entry about affordability. Therein he pointed out that the Council was considering a TRE and acknowledged that affordability would be a legitimate election issue if a TRE were called. The Mayor then laid out a slew of financial data, including: overlapping tax rates among local jurisdictions; the amount that each taxing entity has hiked taxes in recent years; and statistics on the large number of Austinites who are ‘“rent burdened”’ or ‘“cost burdened”’ in meeting their monthly house payment.
Austin Mayor Kirk Watson
It was a valuable trove of substantial and important information. Council Members didn’t seem to pay much attention to it, but a wide array of Prop Q opponents, and the media, mined the Watson Wire for facts that they used to argue against Prop Q. In other words, Watson’s post turned out to be a roadmap for how to defeat Prop Q.
Meanwhile, in mid-August Watson voted with the Council supermajority to call a tax election. Then, a PAC he controls contributed $20,000 to the campaign. His public campaigning, however, was sparse, if it happened at all. Then in the final days of the campaign Watson refused to talk to the New York Times for an article they were doing on the Prop Q election, saying he wouldn’t have anything to say until after the election. (Perhaps he was busy writing his concession speech.)
I don’t know exactly what was going on here, but it fits a pattern. That is Watson not standing up to members of the Council supermajority. Part of that is confining his talking during Council meetings almost exclusively to running the meetings. He usually then votes with the Council supermajority or, in rare instances, quietly votes no.
This is the case even, or especially, on very controversial issues with historic impact. For instance he never gave a speech from the dais explaining his position on the HOME initiative, which upzoned every single family zoned lot in Austin to allow three units per lot. Hundreds of speakers turned out on both sides, with many opponents pleading with the Council to protect their neighborhoods and homes. Watson remained silent.
The same pattern occurred in June with the designation of the naturally affordable (unsubsidized) Acacia Cliffs apartment complex in northwest Austin as a Density Bonus 90 property. That means the owners have City approval, whenever they are ready, to knock down the existing complex and build up to 90-feet with less affordable housing than currently exists there. Once again Watson remained mute on the dais. To many, including your correspondent, this silent treatment has the effect of showing contempt for people who come down to Council and appeal to him on issues that affect their lives, and their biggest investments, their homes.
The view here is that Watson needs to share more of what he’s thinking. He also needs to lead and he needs to challenge Council Members when they propose reckless and wasteful policies. One of the reasons people voted for him, especially in 2022, was because they saw him as having common sense. But, once he almost got beat by Celia Israel and her “progressive” cadres he clearly determined never to get out progressived again. And, that has evidently meant keeping quiet on the dais and seldom, if ever, challenging members of the Council.
Now, maybe, just maybe, the Mayor might be beginning to take more of a leadership role, and challenge reckless Council policies. This brings us back to his well honed concession statement.
The mayor began: “When the Council put Proposition Q on the ballot, I said, ‘It’s time to trust the voters.’ Tonight, the voters spoke by rejecting Prop Q. Austin voters made their decision, and they did so clearly. I trust their decision. And I hear them.”
He also spoke to trying to win trust, “Voters prioritized affordability. They’re worried about their finances, their grocery and utility bills, their property taxes, and more. They’re concerned about the stability of all levels of government, including city government. We need to give voters reason to trust us—to trust that we will strike the right balance between services and the funding needed to provide those services.”
While these statements seem appropriate for a concession speech in a tax election, it was something the Mayor said further down in his statement that might possibly herald that he will be willing to be more forceful with the Council going forward: “The next step is for the Manager to bring Council a budget proposal. This should be done soon. To demonstrate an orderly, disciplined process, the Manager and, subsequently, the Council should adjust the original proposed (City Manager’s) budget, if at all, modestly. This is not the time to engage in or relitigate significant, drawn out, divisive policy fights in the budget.”
Here Watson is talking directly to Council Members, several of whom are likely inclined to try to redo the City Manager’s original budget to get more of their priorities and their key backers priorities inserted. That could turn into a circus. Watson instead wants “an orderly, disciplined process.”
Time will tell if this heralds a new, braver, approach by the Mayor or will just mark a moment, like his Watson Wire affordability post, where he steps out there a bit, then fades back into the crowd of Council Members.
____________________
Folks: If we’re going to keep publishing stories, like our Prop Q coverage and much more, we need some more paid subscribers. Local, independent journalism is very poorly funded. That is definitely the case with the Austin Independent. Please consider subscribing and/or donating. It will help us, for example, to expand our readership base and to pay for important public information requests To subscribe or donate, click here.
To receive notification when the Austin Independent posts stories, to subscribe, or to write to the editor please send us an email under Contact on the home page,or click here.
The Austin Independent, a publication of The Austin Independent, LLC
All Rights Reserved