05 Nov Green Case for Prop 4

Dear Austin Environmental Friends and Allies,

If you haven’t been to the polls yet, please consider very carefully two important local ballot items that would change the way we elect our Austin city council.

·        Proposition 3 would split Austin into ten districts (“single-member”) and a Mayor (10-1).

·        Proposition 4, is a ‘hybrid’ or mixed plan—eight districts along with two additional council members and the Mayor elected citywide (8-2-1).

For 40 years, Austin progressives favored single-member districts as a step forward.  Now we must re-evaluate based on changing demographic facts.  Today, it is impossible to draw a majority black district with only ten council seats.  African Americans are a shrinking proportion of population (now 7.7%), and scattered across the city.  Housing is less racially segregated than it was.  Black population in East Austin is disappearing because of gentrification.  So this rationale for districts has largely vanished.

If either measure passes, there will be a concerted effort by real estate developers and the right wing to “pack” environmentally inclined voters into just a couple of districts.  This is not speculating—there are on-record statements to prove this.  Districts could convert our nominal majority on council to a minority.

To illustrate what’s at stake for Greens with these competing district plans, I looked at the voting pattern established by the Save Our Springs referendum election in 1992.

Overall, SOS won by 64% but especially high margins—as much as 96 percent!—were achieved in central city boxes.  This is key to evaluating present proposals for council districts. Separating out boxes where SOS won more than its 64% citywide average, we see the ‘pro’-votes were concentrated in boxes that held nearly half of the then-registered voters.

Now let’s update this picture with 2010 figures.  With explosive growth since 1992, the original SOS ‘base’ boxes now hold only one quarter of the voting age population, rather than one-half. [154,523 people out of 619,939, or 24.9% of Voting Age Population]  The center city—in an often-lamented pattern—still dominates the low turnout city elections held in May.  But in 10-1 terms, the SOS inclined voters could shrink to only holding two out of ten districts.

Some heavy pro-SOS boxes would necessarily have to be placed in east or southeast districts in order to maximize the voting strength for Hispanic and black voters.  With districts it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid diluting or eliminating the current strength of the pro-environment voting bloc.

Opponents of aquifer protection know this.  This is why the Homebuilders PAC, other developers, as well as ideologically right-wing interests like libertarians and the tea party wing of the Republicans are all backing Proposition 3 with large campaign contributions.

 [However, infamous developer Stratus Properties also gave money to the Prop 4 campaign.  Why did Stratus take this side?  First, Stratus’ controversial suburban projects (Barton Creek, Circle C) already have their entitlements.  And since 1992, they’ve diversified into downtown development –the W Hotel, Crestview, Seaholm.  Support for commercial downtown development would probably erode under a single-member council.  So those factors probably account for their contribution]

10-1 proponents claim Proposition 3 supplies an “independent redistricting commission” that will prevent gerrymandering of district lines. But their particular scheme likely won’t work to accomplish this.

Under Prop 3, sixty people must volunteer for the commission. They must have voted in 3 of the last 5 city elections—yet have no financial or political ties to council candidates; plus they must not have been a city employee nor employed by a city contractor for the prior three years.  Then, fourteen out of this group that represent a racial, ethnic, geographic, and gender mixture would get picked to serve on this commission.  The task of drawing lines itself would be an open-ended time commitment.

Since qualified volunteers for this duty will necessarily be scarce, interest groups can therefore disproportionately load up the applicant pool with those who share their agenda.  Wealthier, more organized interests will inevitably ‘stack’ and dominate the commission selection process.

Then, there is nothing to prevent lobbyists from ‘swarming’ public hearings with paid testimony.  The commission volunteers, who will just want to finish up and go home, could find themselves pressured to draw lines for the benefit of the loudest, most persistent pressure groups financed by business interests.

Finally, there is another dynamic that is consistently noted in ‘ward’ or district systems across the nation.  Each council member is regarded as being “in charge” of their district’s zoning matters.  Operating under reciprocity, each council member goes along in voting with the others on matters internal to their district.

So in a purely district system, a developer bloc can target one or two districts for takeover to flip the zoning cases in those districts to their advantage, thereby undermining aquifer protection. They don’t need to control a majority of council seats to substantially eviscerate aquifer protection.

Besides putting a bad project into an environmentally sensitive district over the aquifer, there is also the reverse scenario, where a disadvantaged district suffers an inability to keep a bad project out.  Impoverished minority neighborhoods historically have been unable to exclude facilities like sewage plants, landfills, airports, gasoline tank farms, and polluting factories.

In Austin, those facilities are disproportionately located east of I-35.  While this happened under the at-large system, there’s no reason to think the situation would improve under an all single-member system.  There is even some reason to think it could be worse.  At least with at-large members, a minority group can operate as a voting bloc in a close election. That gives them at least some bargaining leverage with the council, if they are able to sufficiently organize their voting power.

The danger here is that, with only districts, no council member is charged to take into account the bigger picture.  No one citizen has to be listened to—outside “their” council member’s office.  The voter cannot select the majority of decision makers that determine her/his fate, which is an attack on self-governance.

Districts can indeed give a voice to underrepresented minorities.  They can improve constituent services.  Yet districts can also frustrate minority rights and majority rule alike.  The Tom Delay gerrymandering fiasco with Austin’s congressional districts proves this.

Meanwhile, eighteen of the largest fifty cities in the US are under ‘mixed’ representation systems, with both at-large and districts. Proposition 4 offers us this option—neighborhood representation from eight districts, but balancing geographic representation with two citywide council members and the Mayor.

Environmentalists should know that ‘hybrids’ are good for city councils—as well as cars.  Please consider voting for Proposition 4.  Of the two reform propositions, it is the best choice.

Thank you,

Steve Beers

PS: Regardless of how this election turns out, I hope all who favor Proposition 3 will join together with the Prop 4 supporters to draw city council lines that can defend progressive voting strength and policies.