January 5th, 2009
She was a public servant who slept in a church doorway. She has earned her warm bed in heaven’s halls. Give a “Jennifer Quarter” when you pass a street person and remember,”Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
December 6th, 2008
Monday night the CAMPO Policy Board, on behalf of Williamson, Travis and Hays counties purchased less than 7 miles of highway, 12 lanes wide, stretching through the short grass prairie of eastern Travis County, containing no added benefit in reduced vehicle miles traveled (no rail, no rapid bus, no high occupancy vehicle lanes, no congestion pricing). According to a study conducted for CAMPO in 2006, this project will increase the average speed by 3 miles per hour for a commuter traveling from Elgin to Austin City Hall resulting in a decrease of up to ten minutes in average commute time. The price tag for this nominal increase in convenience for our predominantly single occupant commuter population is $630 million.
In transit terms, $630 million would pay for:
In terms of other civic expenditures, $630 million would pay for:
Our priorities as a community are not reflected in the CAMPO vote of Monday December 1 either in terms of transit or in the broader context of civic expenditures.
We can, must and will do better.
October 12th, 2008
Just over one year ago, at the height of public outcry over toll roads, the Policy Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) unanimously passed a set of covenants to govern the use of toll revenue collected from the Phase II toll roads. The covenants generally require that toll revenues stay within two miles of the road on which they were generated. The covenants allow for diversion of excess toll revenues from one toll road corridor to other projects only after specific public input and a 2/3 vote of the CAMPO Policy Board. Finally, the covenants require that tolls be reduced and eventually eliminated after the debt for the toll road has been retired and potential improvement projects within the corridor have been exhausted. On Monday, the CAMPO Policy Board will consider overturning some of these covenants, including the public meeting requirements.
The first of the toll roads formerly known as Phase II is 290E, also known as the Manor Expressway. Because the project cannot stand on its own merits from a financing perspective the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) is proposing to “backstop” the debt financing of 290E with toll revenue from 183A through the creation of a “system.” In this system comprised of 290E and 183A, toll revenue and resultant debt capacity/obligation for both roads would be commingled and belong to the system, not to the transportation shed in which the user fees were collected. This diversion of revenue is exactly the circumstance the covenants were designed to address.
Under this circumstance the public comment provisions in the covenants should kick in. But, they haven’t. The covenants require that a Statement of Purpose be developed by the CAMPO Policy Board and that public hearings be held both region-wide and within the donor corridor. Instead, the acting chair of CAMPO without consultation with the CAMPO Policy Board has declared a Statement of Purpose and an alternate public comment plan.
The covenants were passed at a time when the reputation and credibility of CAMPO were at an all time low. The public felt that CAMPO withheld information, stifled public input and that decisions were made out of the public eye or with insufficient information. The public comment provisions of the covenants were meant to turn the page on that era. While public meetings take time, money and can become contentious, there was an understanding that citizen participation leads to better government decisions. That unanimous commitment to a fair and open process has been ignored in favor of the acting chair’s alternative.
In addition to the public comment provisions, the covenants require a two-thirds vote of the CAMPO Policy Board to divert toll revenue from one toll project to another outside the transportation corridor. I will not be among that two-thirds majority. The roads in this proposed system are 14 miles apart. The commuters in these two corridors have no significant overlap. One argument made by toll road supporters is that tolls are not really taxes, they are user fees paid by those who use the specific roads. If one believes this argument (I don’t), then why should we create a system where the tolls paid by a driver in northwest Travis County are used to finance a road 14 miles away in eastern Travis County?
We need a comprehensive and integrated regional transportation system including not just roads, but also rail, rapid bus and HOV. We need a broad-based revenue stream as the primary source of funding for that system. The CTRMA has the statutory authority to build that system. But, the organization has no reliable and broad-based revenue stream to create the true “system financing” it begs for. Without that broad-based revenue stream its credit worthiness is stymied and it must continue to borrow from toll payers over here to benefit toll payers over there. To keep this carrousel of toll backed debt spinning the CTRMA concentrates on toll roads to the exclusion of any other mode of transportation even when there is excess revenue in a tolled corridor in which rail, rapid bus and HOV are lacking. The broad-based revenue stream needed by the CTRMA to create a true system has been and should continue to be the gas tax.
It is a fact that paying for road construction through the use of tolls is more expensive than paying for that construction through a gas tax. It is a fact that tolls place a heavier burden on a fraction of those who use our road system while gas taxes spread the burden of our road system among all who use it. CAMPO, the CTRMA and the good folks of Central Texas should tell the Legislature to brace up and stop diversion of the state gas tax; to index the state gas tax; to borrow on the state gas tax and establish a “backstop fund” available to entities like the CTRMA for road projects and transit projects; to allow a local option regional gas tax. Broad-based gas taxes augmented by local tolls and other user fees will build a multi-modal and equitable system. Heavy reliance on local toll revenue will not.
I have pledged to address transportation planning and funding in a comprehensive manner. The CTRMA proposal seeks to work around the failures of our state Department of Transportation and Legislature rewarding their fiscal irresponsibility. We are asked to do more but the Legislature refuses to give local entities optional tools which they can employ. If we continue this band-aid approach, we will never achieve a comprehensive solution and we will continue to be stuck with a one dimensional system financed on the backs of a small portion of the population. I can’t support that approach.
December 5th, 2007
The NIMBY Death of an East Side Drug Treatment Program
I believe that the first line of representative democracy occurs at the neighborhood level. Neighborhood associations, churches, and local interest groups provide the vital links in the chain of representation between the individual and his or her government be it local, state or federal government. This chain of representation is oiled by communication and reasoned dialogue. I believe that communication and reason produce action in the public interest and prevent the policy paralysis of personal interest. Today however, that belief was tested.
Today was the culmination of three months of communication and reason for the location of a drug treatment center located on East 11th street just east of I-35. The center was to provide individual and group therapy for those convicted of felony drug and alcohol related crimes. No individuals with additional mental health or violent records were to be served. The center was to be located within a building owned by the Ebenezer Baptist Church. The congregation was an enthusiastic supporter of the program. One neighborhood association, however, was adamantly opposed. They feared increased drug crime and eroding safety for their children due to the center. When presented with data showing the probability of reduced crime due to the center, they turned to fears of increased traffic and parking problems. When presented with commitments for upper limits on the daily numbers of clients to be served and adequate parking arrangements for staff and clients, they turned to accusations that the public input process had been inadequate despite nearly three months of meetings, phone calls, e-mails, surveys and Q&A. They did not argue that the service was not needed by our community. They simply did not want this service provided in their neighborhood.
One tactic used in their argument against the location was particularly disturbing – the tactic of “villainizing.” Not all but most of the residents used this tactic to varying degrees. One target was the government itself through accusations that the process had not been adequate or that commitments would not be kept. But more troubling was the villainizing of the clients expected to be served. Implied in the fears expressed was that people with drug and alcohol addictions are evil. In my personal and professional experience, drug and alcohol addiction is an equal opportunity affliction. Those who are addicted to drink or drugs are not by definition violent, pedophilic or homeless. In fact, just as we are all sinners, I suggest that most of us are drug or alcohol felons. Who among us has not driven while “buzzed”? Who among us has not “experimented” with illegal drugs? Who among us has not “borrowed” a prescription pain killer? And, who among us does not know and love someone who has?
Compassion. Reason. Action. This holiday season let’s spread those gifts around.
November 9th, 2007
Married Student Housing in UT’s Brackenridge Tract along Lake Austin Blvd.
Married student housing deserves our support. This is affordable, family friendly housing at its best - mixed race, multi-cultural, multi-generational, close to good schools, groceries, recreation and transit. This is just the kind of mixed-income inner city development we claim to crave. Additionally, the married student housing attracts the best graduate students from around the world to our university, to our city, to our public schools and to our neighborhood.
The support that is coalescing around the married student housing is a beautiful example of people with a voice rallying around people with little voice. The graduate students’ need our voices because:
One example of the remarkable effects the married student housing has had on our community can be seen in the success of Mathews Elementary School.
Mathews’ school slogan is “We Educate the World.” By retaining and expanding the married student housing, University of Texas can continue to boast the same.
November 2nd, 2007
A quick word on the CAMPO vote (but by no means the only or last):
The toll roads as proposed by TxDOT warrant and have my continued opposition. Monday night we heard eloquent statements from four other board members regarding the serious inefficiencies and inequities presented by the plan as proposed. Knowing that TxDOT will not give us the funding necessary to build the road infrastructure we need unless tolls are used as leverage, it is imperative that we as a board face these inequities head-on and do everything we can to blunt their effects. That’s what the amendments that I offered are designed to do. In the face of a 14 to 5 loss, I lent my vote to the toll road plan Monday night to get those amendments passed. The margin by which they passed was the result of months of negotiation in which my vote was my only bargaining chip. Implementation of those amendments will take years of continued negotiation and our constant push for tax equity, local control and transportation policies that move people rather than money. I am gambling that a 15 to 4 loss with a heavily amended toll plan is better policy and better politics than a 14 to 5 loss with the TxDOT plan as proposed. Here are the differences:TxDOT Plan as proposed:
• TxDOT is in control of the toll road operations
• No guarantee that toll roads wouldn’t be sold to private interests
• Toll revenue intended to be used anywhere in the CAMPO region for any transportation project
• No plan for free access to toll roads by high occupancy vehicles
• No guarantee of maintenance and improvement of the non-tolled options around the toll way
• Toll tax to continue irrespective of whether or when the construction debt is retired
• No provision for removing the toll tax should gas tax revenue be increasedToll Plan as amended:
• CTRMA is in control of the toll road operations
• Prohibition on selling toll roads to private interests
• Toll revenue can only be used in the corridor from which it was generated except under rare circumstances requiring a 2/3 vote of the CAMPO Policy Board
• Guaranteed and immediate free access to toll roads by high occupancy vehicles
• Guaranteed maintenance and improvement of the non-tolled options around the toll way
• Toll tax to be removed when the debt from building the road is retired
• Toll tax to be removed if gas tax revenue or any other revenue preferable to toll tax becomes available
August 23rd, 2007
Critics say RGK Ranch will bring more traffic to already dangerous highway.
By Marty Toohey
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
“I do not believe the county commissioners made a decision today that is in the best interests of their constituency,” said Karen Huber, who lives near the project and is one of its most vocal critics.
Gerald Daugherty, the county commissioner whose precinct includes RGK Ranch, said Huber’s line of thinking is illegal and would not get Texas 71 fixed any faster.
“Our goal should be fixing the road,” Daugherty said.
Critics raised other concerns about RGK Ranch. The Hill Country Alliance, a coalition of neighbors who are upset about the pace of Hill Country development, said the subdivision should be rejected because it was not required to follow some of the county’s current environmental rules.
It did not have to because plans for RGK Ranch were submitted before those rules came into effect two years ago.
But Greg Kozmetsky, whose family owns the RGK property, wrote in a letter Friday to the county commissioners that the project should satisfy everyone’s concerns and would voluntarily meet or exceed most of the county’s rules, such as covering no more than 20 percent of the property with roads, houses or other substances that block water from soaking into the ground.
“I believe critics of the plan haven’t really criticized the plan,” Kozmetsky wrote, “but the fact we have one.”
During the final weeks of discussion, Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt persuaded the Kozmetsky family to sign a contract requiring RGK Ranch to follow most of the county’s requirements.
Eckhardt said the county could not require more of the Kozmetskys, especially when they were willing to compromise.
She added, however, that because the county’s rules are not strict enough, she was left “to make another decision that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.”
mtoohey@statesman.com; 445-3673
August 14th, 2007
Re: My Position on (and Frustration with) County Land Use Authority
Published in AAS on Tuesday, August 14, 2007
With its coverage of the Sun Coast Resources’ planned tank facility in East Austin, the American-Statesman has highlighted the pitfalls of limited local authority to manage growth. The first shot across the commissioners court’s bow was in an Aug. 7 editorial, which stated, “What we get … is a group of five people who draw down nice salaries and whose authority to make a difference in these cases is severely limited.” The next day, a story quoted local resident Barbara Scott saying, “Basically, what we need to do is get with Dawnna Dukes, our state representative, and discuss why our county commissioners have no teeth and why we’re paying their salary.”
Though the “mini-tank farm” issue sparked these remarks, this issue is by no means the first to elicit such comments. In the short time I have been in office, commissioners have wrestled with landfill expansion on U.S. 290, increased collisions and fatalities on Texas 71, “grandfathered” development, the fouling of Hamilton Pool, the demand for increased mobility, the rapid disappearance of open space and the specter of becoming an air quality “non-attainment zone.”
Many days since I took office, I have felt like a dentist whose patient is having a massive coronary — I am a doctor and I have the will to help. But I am neither licensed nor equipped to treat my patient. The options at my disposal are only nominally better than my fellow citizens. So I call the ambulance (be it the Texas Legislature, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Texas Department of Transportation or some other agency) and pray that it responds in time.
Time is of the essence and passing the buck is a waste of breath. I want to be part of a fully licensed and equipped county authority. We need local land use authority to address tank farms, landfills, roadway safety, water quality, air quality and exploding residential growth.
County government will either wrestle appropriate land use authority from the Legislature to deal with these issues or it will willingly draw lawsuits for reaching beyond commissioners’ authority in efforts to protect the health and safety of county residents.
Here is what I see happening: The county will need to write better ordinances to address these kinds of issues in a more comprehensive manner. Some, whose personal interests are at risk, will charge that these rules go beyond our authority and will sue us. The county will defend these suits with tax dollars.
Win or lose, these suits will make a record of commissioners’ attempts to serve the public interest and protect the health and safety of county residents. We will use this record in our continued argument with the Legislature over the necessity of local land use authority in managing our growth.
There is a strong case to be made for more authority being placed in the hands of Texas counties. We are the boots on the ground. Counties have a strong understanding of regional challenges and are best able to respond to issues in a timely fashion.
Certainly the Legislature must provide oversight, but as it is only in session every other year for five months, many issues that could be resolved quickly are forced to wait for the next legislative session.
Many in the Legislature will argue that market forces should continue as the only regulatory force in the urban as well as rural unincorporated areas of our state and they will be richly rewarded for making that argument.
However, I have faith that our political system will correct this imbalance between personal interests and public interests. That’s what democracy is all about.
Hon. Sarah Eckhardt represents Travis County Commissioners Court, Precinct 2.
October 14th, 2006
Re: My Beef with “System Financing” Toll Roads
First, I make a distinction between “traditional” toll roads and what some have termed “System Financing” toll roads like those in the Phase II toll road plan that were initially approved and then delayed by CAMPO. Traditional toll roads use the collected toll tax only for the building, maintenance and operation of that road. System Financing toll roads are expected to generate toll taxes in excess of building, maintenance and operation of the specific roads and to re-allocate that revenue to other transportation projects in the region.
I am not in opposition to traditional toll roads. It’s fair to charge the users of a road for its construction, maintenance and operation. I am in opposition to System Financing toll roads because the premise on which they are based creates greater inequity in the way we pay for our transportation needs. Re-allocating the excess revenue from toll roads to other transportation projects means that those of us who use the toll roads will be subsidizing the rest of us and our increasing transportation needs. Is this fair? Consider:
Keep the ideas flowing!
- SE
