All right, in our first installment of this series we discussed what I call the Kirk Watson Vision Test which is akin to an optometry test in which a patient is asked to look into a machine and tell the doctor when two alike objects line up with each other. The two objects in the Watson Vision Test are Watson’s perception of what is best for him politically and what is in the best interest of the City. My contention is that Watson practices something like this in his governance, sometimes choosing his own perceived political interest over the interest of the City. Readers get to be the eye doctor and make up their own minds.
In Part 1 we explored whether Watson rejected a four-year labor contract with Austin police in 2023 because he was trying to strengthen his left flank for the next election — by playing to activists vehemently opposed to the contract, and opposed to police in general. (If you missed Part 1 it can be found here. Photo at the top of this story is a screenshot from Watson’s reelection website.)
If Watson was playing politics with the police contract it didn’t work out completely well for him, at least not in the short run. His turn to the left was evidently a little too sharp and sudden, and on too basic an issue. First of all, there was considerable and vocal public support for the police contract and Watson’s opposition to it put him on the receiving end of significant criticism from people who likely voted for him.
Then, only nine days after rejection of the police contract, street racers took over several Austin intersections, including Barton Springs and Lamar. Among other things, a citizen video showed a single police car that was the first response to the situation at Barton Springs and Lamar hurriedly backing up as the car was surrounded by a taunting crowd.
Watson and a few Council Members called for prosecution of those engaged in the street takeovers. That led to the dismay of at least one key activist who Watson had sided with in opposition to the four-year police contract brought forward by the City Manager.
When some of the racers were arrested, Chris Harris, leader of Equity Action (the group that brought the police oversight initiative Prop A forward), tweeted, “What do supporters of this believe arrest & prosecution accomplishes? What evidence exists that punishment stops street takeovers while infrastructure enables them? There’s ample evidence that youth incarcerated will have their futures harmed & are more likely to recidivate.”
Harris went even further in a follow-up tweet, “The hysteria over this empowers the governor & the police he regularly deploys to target people & communities Austin elected officials claim to support & protect – women & pregnant people, LGBTQ+ people, Black people, immigrants & refugees, & so on.”
The street takeovers were followed by several, unconnected, high profile violent crimes and by reports of long waits for police response and even for operators answering 911 calls. Watson readjusted.
Without bringing the matter to the Council, Watson made a deal with Governor Greg Abbott to bring in Texas Department of Safety (DPS) troopers to help the Austin Police Department (APD). That was predictably controversial with Chris Harris, Chas Moore and the Austin Justice Coalition. But, the opposition went well beyond that. Watson ended the arrangement after a few weeks. The DPS episode, however, killed any chance Watson may have had of winning over the Austin Justice Coalition and other anti-police activists.
Harris and allies also did not approve of the Council’s hiring of former City Manager Jesus Garza as interim City Manager — a move spearheaded by Watson. For example in December 2023 Harris reposted a tweet from Watson which maintained that his efforts were “making local government work better, less chaotic, & with a focus on results.”
Harris posted, “He’s right. Now Mayor Watson’s business friends on secret high-priced contracts make all the decisions at City Hall while his hand-picked City Manager runs off anyone unwilling to further marginalize the poor, people of color & anyone vulnerable. #CrookedKirk”
So, if Watson was trying to win over the far left with his opposition to the police contract he did not succeed. The effort, however, was not a total political loss for him. That was when Watson began forging alliances with Council Members, largely by adopting their agendas and helping them work those agendas through the Council. In particular he teamed with Council Member Chito Vela in shooting down the police contract. That doubtlessly impressed the whole “progressive” Council super majority, who were all against the contract.
It’s somewhat ironic that Harris and his allies despised Jesus Garza so much and so opposed his tenure as Interim City Manager. I say it’s ironic because I think that the Garza hire was one time when the two parts of the eye test actually lined up for Watson i.e. his personal political interest and the best interest of the City. It was also consistent with Watson’s campaign theme of bringing competence back to City Hall. That was very badly needed. Garza and his team made some progress, but I think both he and Watson initially underestimated how deeply City government had collapsed. (Also, it’s ludicrous and unfounded to maintain that Jesus Garza would be trying to run off “anyone unwilling to further marginalize the poor, people of color & anyone vulnerable.”)
But, Harris and the crew were having none of that.
Watson wins over YIMBYs with HOME Initiative performance
Watson got better political results teaming up with the Council super majority on the HOME initiative. We have covered that issue extensively here. This is an issue that affected literally everyone in the City, especially homeowners. Many people believe that HOME will, among other things, considerably ramp up displacement pressure on East Austin neighborhoods and on working and middle class neighborhoods all over Austin; and a lot of folks expressed those sentiments at Council hearings over which Watson presided.
At the same time many others supported the changes or felt like some sort of major action had to take place in regard to housing affordability. It was another situation tailor made for those legendary peace making and negotiating skills that Watson displayed — to widespread and lasting acclaim — in his first tenure as Mayor.
As most readers know by now, Watson did not take that approach. He didn’t even participate in Council discussions on the dais. Instead Watson simply chaired the meetings and voted with the super majority. He never even explained his vote from the dais. He did lead the Council in providing official notice to homeowners, making the Watson Council effort much more likely to pass legal muster; rather than being rejected by Courts, as happened with the efforts of the Councils when Steve Adler was Mayor.
Politically, the HOME initiative appears to have worked much better for Watson than the police contract. Self proclaimed YIMBYs (Yes In My Backyard), who supported Watson’s 2022 opponent Celia Israel en masse, are now enthusiastically backing Watson.
By the way, YIMBYs are not always of the left persuasion. Many of their ideas are more libertarian than left. Nonetheless, they have been a key part of forging a coalition in Austin between themselves, developers and the Council supermajority. Some leading YIMBYs have also often supported the Council super majority’s positions on the police.
Another part of Watson siding with the YIMBYs was that it allowed him to line up with some key California transplant high tech billionaires, specifically Nicole and Luke Nosek. Luke Nosek is a PayPal founder. Nicole is the head of Texans for Reasonable Solutions, a YIMBY affiliated group. Nosek first tried to pass a number of bills at the Capitol, but fell slightly short. She then brought her act to City Hall just in time for the HOME initiative. Watson and Austin’s “progressive” Council supermajority embraced the chance to pass legislation similar to what the far right Texas Legislature (whom they usually despise) didn’t quite get across the finish line (as exemplified by the tweet at the time, below, from a top staffer in Council Member Zo Qadri’s office).
During the election Nicole Nosek contributed $25,000 to a PAC that supported Watson. The PAC’s endeavors included running negative ads in the runoff against Celia Israel.
The Noseks allied closely with Greg Anderson, a member of the Planning Commission and one of Austin’s most aggressive YIMBYs. Anderson hung out with them at Watson’s inauguration and texted one of Watson’s staff, “The Noseks are out in the lobby. They worked hard on your boss’ campaign.”
Text from Greg Anderson to a staffer in Kirk Watson’s office; provided to the Austin Independent after a Public Information Request to the City of Austin. The time on the text matches when Watson finished his inaugural remarks.
Watson’s silence at the meetings on HOME seems to have had a method to it. He didn’t go on record there with any detailed explanation of his actions. That included not giving any explanation of why he thought the HOME policies would bring housing affordability. Now, his campaign theme is “affordability first” and on the campaign trail he repeats the phrase like a mantra. For instance at the PBS forum I attended he noted that his operating principle is “affordability first.” That prompted opponent Carmen Llanes to retort, “Affordability first is a simple lie.”
Whether or not affordability actually ensues from the policies Watson has supported, you can bet that Watson’s well funded campaign has polled extensively on the subject — both before and after HOME. So, the view here is that Watson’s plan all along was to go with the Council supermajority — who had long been trying to pass initiatives similar to HOME. He wouldn’t bother to explain his stance and why he thought it would bring affordability. But, on the campaign trail he would say he did it all for “affordability,” which he knows is a key issue with voters.
This strategy doubtlessly cost Watson some votes he got in the 2022 runoff, most notably in Austin’s neighborhood organizations and among neighborhood advocates. Many neighborhood advocates, especially members of the Austin Neighborhoods Council (ANC), supported Watson at a critical juncture in his 2022 campaign. During the December 2022 runoff many members of ANC wrote old fashioned neighborhood letters urging their neighbors to vote for Watson, often pointing out that Israel was aligned with developers and YIMBYs. The Austin Independent documented at the time that the letters changed the minds of at least some people who voted for Israel the first time and thought of Watson more as a developer vote, dating back to his first time as Mayor. People who wrote the letters also reported hearing from recipients that the letters changed their votes.
The neighborhood leaders circulating these letters were wisened and experienced enough to know that Watson did not totally share their view of things and also remembered him as often siding with developers over neighborhoods. Their hope, however, was that Watson would listen to their side of issues and try to forge compromises. As we have documented that did not happen in any shape or form.
Watson almost certainly figures he gained politically even though he lost neighborhood votes. This is a complicated situation politically. For one thing there are still multitudes of Austinites out there who aren’t aware of the neighborhood altering changes made with HOME and other Watson-backed initiatives. How they would break were they to find out is not a certainty. Opponents of HOME tend to think that as more people learn about HOME the percentages against it will increase. That has not necessarily proven to be the case so far. Most importantly from a political perspective, YIMBYs are on a political winning streak in the last several Council elections, leading to the Council supermajority that passed HOME. Watson sided with them and now they are siding with him.
If Austin neighborhoods are never the same, and his actions negatively affect the home investments of thousands of Austin residents, well perhaps that’s just the price of Kirk Watson getting reelected. By the way Watson has been routinely skipping neighborhood sponsored campaign forums during his current run for reelection?
Watson’s Opponents and HOME
Watson’s four opponents line up on different sides of HOME. Doug Greco, former lead organizer with Central Texas Interfaith says he would have supported HOME.
Watson’s other three opponents are all HOME opponents. Former Council Member Kathie Tovo, who had only left office recently, was not vocal during the HOME process. On the campaign trail Tovo says she would have voted no if she were on the dais. While on the Council Tovo was a well informed and leading opponent of the Casar-Adler Councils’ efforts to dramatically upzone large swaths of central city neighborhoods; in a way similar to HOME, but not near as sweeping. She was always considered a solid vote for neighborhood, environmental and social justice causes.
Carmen Llanes and Jeff Bowen were both vocal opponents of the HOME initiative. Bowen has long been a leader in the Austin Neighborhoods Council. There he opposed HOME and spoke against it at Council; and he also opposed the same initiatives of the Casar-Adler Councils that Tovo fought while on the Council.
Carmen Llanes has an active history, both against the HOME initiative and a series of like minded initiatives dating back at least to the Councils when Steve Adler was Mayor. As the head of the nonprofit advocacy group GAVA (Go Austin Vamos Austin) she has led the way in developing detailed policy analyses and policy proposals. For example during the long-running Land Development Code battles GAVA presented a number of clearly well researched alternatives to a series of Councils. Llanes’ proposals were usually built around protecting and preserving neighborhoods in Austin’s Eastern Crescent. All her proposals were ignored by a series of Councils.
Next: Part 3 of our three-part series will examine Watson’s role in the new, pending, police contract and the major part that contract is playing in the Mayor’s race.
* As a small publication with only one writer, who has been out of town a lot during election season, the Austin Independent’s election coverage is necessarily limited. For readers who want to follow the election in more detail I recommend the reporting of the Austin Bulldog and the Austin Monitor. Both have profiles on the candidates and report on their fundraising.
______________________
Folks: Local, independent journalism is very poorly funded. That is definitely the case with The Austin Independent. So please consider subscribing and/or donating. Click here. Funds we receive will be used primarily to try to increase our readership base.
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