Despite our efficiency and good fortune, the tax increase is nevertheless necessary. The increase goes to pay for more law enforcement and corrections personnel, additional court and prosecution services and more health and human services. These categories of county spending are reflective of the convergence of three factors – increased poverty, the economic downturn and State budget cuts.

Increased Poverty

While our population growth brings new residential and commercial construction that translates into additional property tax revenue (Travis County may not collect income or sales taxes), the additional revenue is not sufficient to cover the societal cost of an increasing percentage of residents living in poverty. The County’s population increased more than 25% over the last decade. The percentage of individuals living in poverty increased more than 50% over the same time period (from 12.4% living in poverty per Census 2000 data to 19.2% living in poverty today). Increases in poverty bring increases in crime, illness and unmet basic needs.

Economic Downturn

Our increasing poverty rates predate but are seriously compounded by the economic downturn. The poverty rate has been on the rise throughout the decade but we have seen a significant jump in just the last year (from 16% to just above 19%). Additionally, our unemployment rate has risen from just under 4% in 2008 to its current rate just above 7%. The County has seen increasing demand for emergency rent and utility assistance, water services to poverty stricken areas, adult education and workforce development opportunities, access to affordable child and elder care and access to affordable physical, mental and dental health services.

While we normally have an enviably low crime rate in comparison to other counties of our population density, we are seeing spikes in crime and neglect that drive up costs in law enforcement, adjudication and corrections. Spikes have been particularly remarkable in family violence and drug- and alcohol-related crimes. Serious juvenile criminal cases have increased sharply. Additionally, our civil child abuse and neglect docket has increased by more than 30% in the last year. While difficult to know with statistical certainty, it is at least reasonable to suspect that the economic downturn is an exacerbating factor in these increases.

State Budget Cuts

The last Legislature reduced State investment in all of the following areas in which county government has a role:

• Adult Justice and Prosecution
• Juvenile Justice
• Corrections and Jail Diversion
• Workforce Development
• Mental Health
• Adult and Child Protective Services

In addition to these cuts that directly affect county services, State cuts to education and Medicare reimbursement rates will have indirect impacts on the County’s budget as well.

In conclusion, while we face many challenges, Travis County is prepared. Through shared responsibility and robust partnership with Travis County’s 25 civil and criminal courts, 20 municipalities, 17 school districts, 15 law enforcement agencies and the amazing network of nonprofit organizations, we will continue efficient and effective efforts to reduce the grinding effects of poverty and insecurity so that more Travis County residents can enjoy the benefits of their labors in peace.

[For more on my philosophy regarding equity in property taxation, please see my 4/29/2011 blog post, “Tax Equity and Governmental Credibility.”]

In the past, the County has pushed information out to the public through various departments based on the nature of the emergency (flood, fire, drought, evacuees from Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, etc.). Departments involved could include Emergency Services, Health and Human Services and any number of divisions within Transportation and Natural Resources. Added to this cacophony of informational conduits were the Sheriff’s Office, five Constable’s Offices and 13 separate Emergency Service Districts (none of which are under the supervision of the Commissioners Court).

Our recent experience with the Labor Day wildfires makes it abundantly clear that the County and its residents need a unified voice through which the most reliable information can be streamed in the most effective and timely manner (reverse 911, social media and all other tried-and-true methods of communication).

Of course, there is a cost to staffing for these communications. The Emergency Services Department currently has money in their budget to handle this cost. I believe the cost is warranted to increase the bodily safety and decrease the property loss at risk in emergencies. If you agree, please email your support to members of the Commissioners Court.

I will not recount here all the stories of confusion and despair turned to compassion and unity. We all know, at varying levels of personal experience, the tragedies and triumphs of that day. Suffice it to say that a city of unrivaled diversity and tolerance took a massive blow and healed.

The horror of that day is not its most resounding message. The might of the United States (militarily, politically or morally) is not the message. The message is the rejuvenating powers of humanity.

On the anniversary of 9/11 I will not dwell on the horror of lives randomly ended by hatred. I will not wave a flag for the United States or a political party or a specific religion. Along with others too numerous to count, I will give thanks to my fellow human beings for their boundless courage, compassion and resilience.

Join in putting down the flags, putting divisions aside and wrapping ourselves in the love that will heal us of the hatred that motivated the events of that cruel day.

Although my father Bob Eckhardt was elected to the U.S. Congress the year after the VRA was passed, he was a veteran of the redistricting battles in the Texas Legislature where ruling Dixiecrats drew districts to exclude African-Americans, labor and all else that threatened their hegemony over the state.  In a carefully brokered deal in 1965, my father redrew state legislative districts and congressional districts in Harris County to provide representation for the full spectrum of political interests.  Through building coalitions and careful collaboration with all interests, districts were drawn that supported the election of both a liberal Democrat (my father) and a moderate Republican (George H.W. Bush) to the U.S. House.  Due to the carefully drawn lines, Bush could not succeed against his conservative Democratic opponent without the support of African-American voters in his district.  That careful collaboration also resulted in Barbara Jordan finally winning a seat in the Texas Senate.  In the 1970 redistricting, my father gave up important portions of his African-American constituency to create a new 18th Congressional District won by Barbara Jordan.  As a congressman he supported the 1970 application of the VRA to Texas in hopes that progress would continue to be made.

There is a kind of symmetry (albeit on a miniature scale) that I now redraw my own commissioner’s precinct, giving up the politically important and racially diverse constituency of Pflugerville to strengthen the proportion of African-American voters in Precinct One.  I cannot claim any heroism for this.  The promise of the VRA insists I do it.  But, I cannot let that boundary change or any of the other boundary changes we are considering go by without remarking on the profound effects the promise of the VRA has had and continues to have.

I draw a distinction between the “promise” of the VRA and the mere words of Section 5 of that Act.  The Republican-dominated Texas Legislature uses the words of VRA Section 5 to justify majority-Hispanic or “safe” districts in Central Texas as a means of damaging historic Democratic/Hispanic voting coalitions, minimizing the substantive representation of Hispanics and destroying the seniority of Texas Democrats in the U.S. House.  Whether Republicans of today or Dixiecrats of yesterday, winner-take-all politics by any name smells as foul.

Redistricting at the local level has an opportunity to be a study in contrast to the cynicism of the Texas Legislature.  The promise of the VRA can move us to redraw lines based not on maintaining one voice, but building on a chorus of voices that reflect the full spectrum of interests within the community.  Travis County has a demonstrated history of multiracial voting interests electing powerful and popular African-American and Hispanic countywide officials (e.g. County Judge Sam Biscoe and District Clerk Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza).  Given the cohesion of political interests in the community, one would think redistricting would be easy – yet we face some practical difficulties.

The principal difficulty is that Precinct Three is too large and Precinct Four is too small.  But, giving Precinct Three population to Precinct Four dilutes Precinct Four’s proportion of Hispanic voters.

Precinct One has many Hispanic voters to give to Precinct Four.  But, the Precinct One Hispanic voters on the border with Precinct Four live in neighborhoods that hold historic resonance for an African-American community that has declined in number and has largely migrated north.

Precinct Two has many of those African-American voters that have migrated north.  Including the racially diverse City of Pflugerville in Precinct One rebuilds Precinct One’s proportion of African-American voters.  But, it leaves Precinct Two underpopulated, which brings us full circle to the principal difficulty of population disparity and the holistic solution.

It is imperative that all four commissioners’ precincts be as equal in population as possible while being mindful of what interests make up those populations.  We cannot draw a “safe” African-American seat – their proportion of the population is no longer large enough in all of Travis County to constitute a majority in one of the four precincts.  But, we should consolidate African-American voting strength where we can.  Therefore, Precinct One should pick up Pflugerville from Precinct Two.  Precinct Two can offset its population loss by picking up population from the currently lopsided Precinct Three.

Whereas African-Americans represent 8.5% of Travis County’s population, Hispanics represent 33.5%.  We do and should continue to have a “safe” Hispanic seat in Precinct Four.  But, in so doing, we can best acknowledge the growing influence of the Hispanic vote on other voting coalitions in our County by growing Precinct Four to its optimal population parity with the other precincts.  Precinct Four should pick up population from both Precinct Three and Precinct One.

Yes, there is heartburn from these changes.  Yes, it will require building new alliances.  Precinct One will represent more moderate voters with greater racial and economic diversity.  Precinct Two will be less economically and racially diverse and almost entirely within the City of Austin.  While Precinct Three will represent fewer people, they will still be mostly white with a competitive percentage of Republicans.  And, while Precinct Four will represent more people, they will still be mostly Hispanic and overwhelmingly Democrats.  The incremental adjustments are appropriate – our constituencies change and the representation must change along with it. Viva la Voting Rights Act!

In preparation for a likely property tax increase, Travis County undertook an equity examination of our current property tax policy and developed options for addressing any inequity.  In June 2010, the Commissioners Court formed a tax policy working group which met throughout the remainder of the year and brought recommendations to the Court in early 2011.  Our options are few.  The Texas Constitution requires all taxes to be “equal and uniform,” meaning counties are prohibited from considering one’s ability to pay in appraising properties or assessing taxes.  Counties are granted “one size fits all” tax relief options in broad categories of people or property:

• Homesteads;
• Agricultural Lands;
• Veterans;
• Senior Citizens and the Disabled; and
• Historic Properties

Travis County utilizes all of these options.  The two options identified where we have room to provide more equity are in exemptions for:

• Senior Citizens and the Disabled; and
• Historic Properties

Senior Citizens and the Disabled

Travis County discounts the tax appraised value of homes owned by people 65 and over or disabled by $65,000 (the City of Austin, by comparison, exempts $51,000).   These exemptions, last increased in 1994 to $65,000, were originally intended to all but eliminate the average county property tax liability for senior citizen or disabled property owners (average value of a homestead in 1994 was $81,250, minus the 20% homestead exemption, minus the senior citizen or disabled exemption).  While the Texas Constitution requires that taxes be “equal and uniform” without respect to ability to pay, limiting the exemption to a capped amount at or under the average home value increases the probability that the policy has a greater benefit for those most burdened by property taxes.

Our tax policy working group has suggested we consider increasing the exemption cap to an amount closer to the current average home value of $270,000.  The working group suggests a $10,000 increase from $65,000 to $75,000.  Although modest, each $10,000 increase in the exemption shifts $1,747,602 onto the rest of Travis County taxpayers, a shift we must not take lightly.  The working group has suggested that reductions in the historic exemptions provided to roughly 500 property owners could cover the $10,000 increase in senior or disabled exemptions provided to roughly 40,000 property owners.

Historic Properties

Travis County’s historic exemption policy was implemented in 1974 .  Unlike the senior citizen or disabled exemption, the historic exemption is not capped.  It discounts the tax appraised value of a home designated historic by 100% of the improvement value and 50% of the lot value.  The tax appraised value of a commercial property designated historic is discounted by 50% of the improvement value and 25% of the lot value.  Federal, State and City of Austin designations are recognized (the City of Austin is the only Travis County municipality that has a designation program).  The exemption is available without regard to the condition or marketability of the property.

The policy was implemented to create a market incentive for historic preservation.  Properties designated as historic may not be destroyed or their historic facade materially altered without the approval of the designating authority.   Without the designation and the subsidy that goes with it, some historic properties would be razed to make way for more marketable uses or left unused and deteriorating because of an inability to compete for residential or commercial tenants.  Tax incentives can encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of iconic structures that might otherwise be lost in changing markets.

Since implementing the Travis County policy in conjunction with the City of Austin three decades ago, more than 500 structures have been designated historic, thereby insuring that they will not be destroyed or their historic facades materially altered.  95% of these structures are in Central Austin. The policy has resulted in significant preservation but only in a small area of one city within Travis County.  The Travis County exemption is probably too large, inappropriately applied or no longer needed for certain classes and locations of property.

Moving Preservation Emphasis to Other Parts of Travis County

85% of the structures designated historic are clustered in the 78701 zip code or immediately adjacent zip codes within Central Austin.  This is not surprising since the bulk of Austin’s history prior to 1930 occurred within the 78701 zip code, which covers the original grid for Austin laid out by Judge Edwin Waller, its first mayor.  But, Travis County’s history is not confined to this area.   Given the success of preservation in Central Austin, it is time for Travis County’s policy to place emphasis on other historic locations within the County.

Realigning Incentives for Maximum Effect

The arguments for the exemption of taxes for historic structures in the commercial heart of municipalities is strong.  In many instances, commercial or residential utilization of these structures cannot compete with newer buildings in the commercial core that can provide amenities and layouts now preferred by office or residential high-rise tenants.  Preserving these treasures from the beginning of Austin’s history will likely require continued subsidy.

In contrast, many but not all of the residential structures currently enjoying historic exemptions meet the current market preferences for homes in their neighborhood and therefore do not require tax incentives for their continued preservation.  The average value for homes designated as historic in Central Austin is between $800,000 and $1.1 million, three to four times the average value of a home in Travis County.  The median values of historically designated homes in neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Austin are 65% to 122% higher than homes in the same neighborhood.  Meanwhile, homes in these neighborhoods tend to sell faster than most other parts of Travis County.  Tax incentives for already well-preserved historic homes in sought-after Central Austin neighborhoods are no longer necessary.  Appropriate zoning by the City of Austin is a better tool to maintain the historic housing stock brought back from the brink by three decades of successful tax incentives.

Conclusion

In general, tax incentives do not decrease overall revenue but rather shift it onto the remaining taxpayers.  A tax benefit that is not all it should be (the senior citizen or disabled exemption) or is more than it should be (some categories of historic exemption) exacerbates inequity in the already “one size fits all” distribution of property tax burdens.  Achieving maximum equity in countywide property tax policy requires ongoing examination and periodic adjustment.  The details and timing of any county adjustments will occur with full knowledge and input from fellow taxing entities and affected citizens.  We will do all we can to lessen uncertainty.  However, no tax policy is or should be perpetual and unchanging.  We must respond to economic forces and the changing capacity and preferences of the community.  Confined essentially to the blunt instrument of property taxes, Travis County policy must work harder to search out equity, particularly as we contemplate a higher tax rate to meet current and increasing community needs in criminal and civil justice, health and human services, parks, open spaces and transportation.  We should preserve our history, but not at the expense of our future.

Whether Conservative or Liberal, we must end our addiction to hatred. Hating those who make us angry, barricading ourselves from them and reducing our world to a postage stamp of like-minded neighbors is not the answer. Hatred in thought or deed is, at the least, unproductive and isolating, and, at worst, deadly. Be angry. Be outraged. Be honest about what you fear will happen and be disciplined in working to prevent it. Do not hate.

In this context, the Commissioners Court began a search for available property near the current justice complex, accessible by transit and appropriately sized to accommodate the needs of a growing population for the next 25 years or more. The block at 4th and Guadalupe is one of the few remaining vacant full blocks in the Central Business District that meets these requirements. Furthermore, the current slowdown in construction presented an opportunity for the public to obtain this site at an appropriate cost and attractive interest rate.

The expenditure for the court expansion — a necessary purchase at an appropriate price — is driven by the considerable growth of our community. As for the location, some have complained about this property being taken off the tax rolls as a courthouse rather than allowing it to become an office building or a residential tower. While offices and residences are certainly in demand in our downtown, civil courts are a necessity. Moving our county and district courts out of the downtown area would be impractical, inefficient and symbolically degrading. Public and private entities inextricably connected to the provision of civil justice are predominantly located in the downtown area. The long-held tradition of locating courts in the center of communities is commensurate with the importance our democracy ascribes to the judicial branch of government. We place our legislatures, our highest executive offices and our courts in the center of our communities.

While our population is certainly expanding outward, the center of our community remains clustered at the banks of the Colorado between Waller Creek and Shoal Creek as it has for more than a century. This location was identified in the Republic of Texas grant of land as the site of a county courthouse in 1839. The original county courthouse was located on this same block in 1855 in keeping with the urban plan devised by Judge Edwin Waller. This expansion is necessary, the price of the land is appropriate and the location is practically, symbolically and historically consistent.

According to the Texas State Demographer, the high probability is that Travis County’s population will increase by 50% by 2040. In 2005, Envision Central Texas (ECT) elegantly framed the challenge we face:

“The true questions are not ‘if’ and ‘when’ we will grow, but rather ‘how’ and ‘where.’”

Two positions mark the traditional poles of debate at CAMPO over how to meet these challenges – the “Trend” approach and the “No Build” approach. Trend asserts that the market is best suited to dictate how and where we grow. No Build asserts that our growth trend is unsustainable and we should therefore prevent any future growth. While Trend and No Build both have a certain superficial appeal, both are ultimately unrealistic, running contrary to the facts on the ground.

A third approach has emerged at CAMPO – the “Centers” approach in which we prioritize investing in roads, transit, pedestrian and bike infrastructure in already existing population centers and curtail spending on infrastructure outside those centers except for rail, rapid bus and major arterial or highway connections that include rail or rapid bus. This approach would result in population centers with:

• A richer mix of employment, housing and retail;
• Pedestrian and transit-oriented urban planning; and
• Connections to neighboring centers and the region through a range of transportation options.

All three approaches – Trend, No Build and Centers – were presented to the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board in preparation of the CAMPO 2035 Plan. While unable to completely let go of deeply held investments in both the Trend and No Build approaches, the Board did make a tentative commitment to Centers in the 2035 Plan. I support this commitment, although I recognize its success depends on an unprecedented show of discipline at CAMPO and a transformation in how the State allows us to plan our urban landscape.

Skeptics and proponents alike worry that the Centers approach cannot be applied in Texas where land-use planning and the authority to implement such plans are all but prohibited outside of cities. Trend and No Build folks opine, as ECT did in their 2005 Vision:

“How can we ensure that our growth will remain a continued source of pride, vitality, diversity and opportunity, rather than a source of congestion, stagnation, division and inequality?”

State government cannot answer this challenge. Indeed, State government is chiefly responsible for creating it by maintaining the fantasy that we are a rural state, thereby denying land-use planning and adequate transportation funding to urbanized counties. Local government can meet the challenge. But, we must show discipline and present a unified front when appealing to the State for the authority to pursue our local preferences.

If our network of local governments embrace the Centers approach, planning cooperatively and applying resources to mutually agreed upon centers within our region, we will improve our chances of accommodating the massive population growth that we expect in a manner which will efficiently use the dollars available for maintenance and construction of sufficient transportation capacity and provide access to that capacity to all within our region. The Centers approach has the additional benefits of reducing tailpipe emissions, preserving green space, improving water quality, lowering the cost of public infrastructure such as water, power, and emergency services and increasing the economic vitality of surrounding municipalities as they mature from bedroom communities into employment centers interconnected with multiple transportation options to other regional employment centers.

Success in this approach will require that CAMPO build muscle in saying “no” to the demands of the market when our projections clearly state that the current market preference cannot be sustained into the future. Similarly CAMPO will need the muscle to say “yes” to meeting the demands of growth even as some insist that future growth should be discouraged. CAMPO will need to openly and honestly weigh the effects transportation has on our natural resources and the distribution of private wealth and public services. CAMPO must become the forum at which we move beyond positions and into productive debate about mutual interests and how best to serve them. The CAMPO 2035 Plan and its tentative commitment to the Centers approach is a start. I hope to keep us moving in that direction.

Prior to Tuesday I was looking forward to the successful pursuit of additional land use authority for county government to better manage our tremendous growth, enlightened jail diversion programs to reduce our jail population and repeat offenders, and investing in a green future with rail, rapid bus and purchases of park and open space. I remain committed to these goals. But, as of Tuesday night, the prospects for achieving them in the short term have dimmed.

With the $21+ billion deficit at the state level and a commitment by the Legislature to not raise taxes to address this, the unavoidable result will be deep cuts across every service line in state and, therefore, county government. The need for the jails, courts and roads that county governments provide at the behest of the state will not go away with the state dollars. With projected population growth, that need will only grow while the state dollars shrink. This will place county government in a difficult situation. We will either be the bad guys who raise property taxes (our only real option for revenue of this scale), or we will be the bad guys for cutting essential services and jobs.

This is my silver lining – we in Central Texas have an opportunity to show how to govern efficiently, effectively and equitably, even as dollars shrink and need increases. We will find collaboration with and between school districts, municipalities, universities and the business community to stretch dollars and innovation. We will show what good governance does for our community and how penny-wise and pound-foolish policies of the state cost our community more, negatively impacting not just the prisoner, the poor, the children, the elderly and the disabled. Every one of us must rise to these challenging times. We are the government.

Be the government you seek.