Austin City Government - Circus of the Insane

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

Another waste of money independent audit.

https://www.propublica.org/article/audit-finds-austin-texas-improperly-cleared-rapes

WASHINGTON — An independent audit by Texas officials found Austin’s Police Department improperly cleared nearly a third of sexual assault cases from 2017 that auditors recently examined, indicating the city’s true rate of solving rape cases is lower than what police officially reported to the public and government officials.

But again, that’s a state audit, of a city entity, to investigate a known issue, not a fishing expedition with no specific area of concern.

Independent audits area great when we have a reason to think something is amiss. But Todd Jeffries and Mark Caesar’s feelings about the priorities of council aren’t a reason.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But again, that’s a state audit, of a city entity, to investigate a known issue, not a fishing expedition with no specific area of concern.

Independent audits area great when we have a reason to think something is amiss. But Todd Jeffries and Mark Caesar’s feelings about the priorities of council aren’t a reason.

mark caesar doesn't have any independent feelings. he is just smart enough to understand his audience and exploit them by trolling them. it's that simple.

[Orange&White 5,528]

15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But again, that’s a state audit, of a city entity, to investigate a known issue, not a fishing expedition with no specific area of concern.

Independent audits area great when we have a reason to think something is amiss. But Todd Jeffries and Mark Caesar’s feelings about the priorities of council aren’t a reason.

Just to ease your mind and so you can quit saying it, I don't listen to any local radio.

[Guest Lobo]

Is there a risk, however small, that if you declare the specific parameters of an audit at its outset---that may "tip off" the entity in question to retroactively "fix" those issues in question before you really get into the crux of it?  

An audit by definition is to verify the authenticity and operational integrity of reporting systems.  Declaring, "We are coming in 30 days to 'audit' the sources and uses of tax dollars with regard to public pools" is not actually an audit.  That's an investigation.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

31 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Just to ease your mind and so you can quit saying it, I don't listen to any local radio.

Honestly it's kind of an entertaining show

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Armybrat 40,850]

Somebody ought to audit the entire Mopac project.

[bschoolprof 6,255]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of "efficiency" audits, as proposed in prop k.  The term "audit" is misleading because they are not attesting that something (e.g., a set of financial statements) conforms with certain standards, nor are they verifying operational statistics, like sex crimes being cleared.

Instead, they are a consulting engagement designed to give recommendations on how to save money (or sometimes raise more revenue).  For most governments and even large companies, this usually involves outsourcing and firing people.  Think the two bobs from office space.  You go in a room, tell them what you do here, they evaluate the processes and procedures, benchmark them against what other entities, do and suggest ways they can be done more cheaply.  

Big government types concerned about layoffs will generally oppose this type of stuff, and fiscal conservatives will support it.  At its core, that's really the issue IMO.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

Nah. There are plenty of good reasons to do a city audit. The problem with prop K was not ideological or bureaucratic. The problem was that it proposed an independent audit to reconfirm what everyone already knows. It was purely political. There’s nothing fiscally conservative about Prop K. It was a boondoggle.

If the promoters of prop k want to deal with the issues they are concerned about, they should figure out how to win city council elections.

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

By the way - here's a good example of an independent review, the so called "Zucker Report". 

This was a study with a real purpose, resulting in a scathing top to bottom report on the entire Planning and Development Review Department that caused a huge cascade of pretty dramatic action.

 

 

[capnamerca 571]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

By the way - here's a good example of an independent review, the so called "Zucker Report". 

This was a study with a real purpose, resulting in a scathing top to bottom report on the entire Planning and Development Review Department that caused a huge cascade of pretty dramatic action.

 

 

wow. I've never seen that report. Just the executive summary is brutal.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

4 minutes ago, capnamerca said:

wow. I've never seen that report. Just the executive summary is brutal.

Yep, and richly deserved at that. 

[bschoolprof 6,255]

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Nah. There are plenty of good reasons to do a city audit. The problem with prop K was not ideological or bureaucratic. The problem was that it proposed an independent audit to reconfirm what everyone already knows.

 

 

and what is that?

[Wally Pryor 5,261]

I don't know what the Director of Deployment and Operation of Shared Small Vehicle Mobility Systems is drawing per year.   

I bet the over at $105K.

[Guest Lobo]

I enjoyed them eliminating one lane of Eastbound 5th street from MoPac to Lamar for bikes and buses.  It was getting really annoying having the main ingress of downtown Austin functioning almost properly.  Brilliant CBD design too to have it go from 3 lanes to 4 lanes for just two blocks and then back down to 3 lanes again and then to 2 lanes in the Congress Ave. zone.  I don't blame the engineers, I blame the "Commission" that "just knows about this kinda stuff"  

[skittlebrau 474]

On 1/4/2019 at 9:06 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

By the way - here's a good example of an independent review, the so called "Zucker Report". 

This was a study with a real purpose, resulting in a scathing top to bottom report on the entire Planning and Development Review Department that caused a huge cascade of pretty dramatic action.

 

 

That’s a great report. And good changes. Yet, somehow Greg Guernsey remains employed.

[Orange&White 5,528]

When was the last time a poor performer was let go by the COA?

A lot of them eventually leave, but I honestly never hear about anyone being fired.

[Orange&White 5,528]

It was just an oversight. Nothing to see here.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190610/city-council-might-repeal-lake-austin-mansion-tax-exemption

Quote

They’re calling it the “mistake on the lake.”

Hundreds of homes along the shores of Lake Austin have remained off city tax rolls for decades. But City Council members Greg Casar and Jimmy Flannigan are hoping to change that.

“When we found out about this earlier this year ... at first, it felt impossible,” Flannigan said during a news briefing at City Hall.

They unveiled their efforts Monday to repeal a 33-year-old ordinance that exempted hundreds of idyllic homes on Lake Austin from city property taxes. Those homes would have generated about $3 million in tax revenue in 2018, but have been left off the city’s tax rolls since the city annexed the shorelines of the Colorado River in the late 19th 

 

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1,084]

1 hour ago, Orange&White said:

It was just an oversight. Nothing to see here.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190610/city-council-might-repeal-lake-austin-mansion-tax-exemption

 

How is that legal?

[crash_davis 23,113]

will be interesting to see if the city pursues back taxes.  you know if this were just any neighborhood, they sure as shit would.

[Guest Lobo]

Because the didn't offer those people any city services for about a century.  So kinda thought it wasn't cool to tax them for services they never got/could get.  ETJ is curious because it almost exclusively involves only City taxation entities.  I'd like to see what would happen if Austin I.S.D. or Eanes I.S.D. or Lake Travis I.S.D. or whoever else out there just suddenly said, we are going to tax you at full freight but your children can't come to our schools.  What would happen?  

But yeah, the only interesting part of this story is what happens when the Waste Management executive butts heads with the local taxation board.  

[Orange&White 5,528]

They weren't in the ETJ. They were in the full purpose city limits. They benefited from City services. Maybe not ALL City services, but some.

Your analogy of a school district taxing and not providing service does not apply to this.

If you want to make a school district analogy it would be that the ISD granted someone an exemption to the ISD tax but still let their kids go to the school.

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Orange&White

[ChickenSandwich 9,836]

As for water, I know a few on lake Austin with illegal water pumps sucking from lake Austin to handle their massive landscaping and fountain needs....

 

These kinds souls vote in our city elections, and I'm sure they will have no issue with paying their fair share.

[Guest Lobo]

50 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

They weren't in the ETJ. They were in the full purpose city limits. They benefited from City services. Maybe not ALL City services, but some.

Your analogy of a school district taxing and not providing service does not apply to this.

If you want to make a school district analogy it would be that the ISD granted someone an exemption to the ISD tax but still let their kids go to the school.

 

I'm literally looking at the original Statesman article stating that the city offered those concessions because they would never be able to provide those basic city services.  This was the City's idea to structure it like this way back when, i'm just repeating the Statesman/CofA story.  They agreed to not take as much money in exchange for almost no basic services.  I don't give a shit, raise their taxes.  We'll blow through it on the ARCH center in 20 minutes anyway.  Hell, that's even a client of mine's home in the stock photo they're using.  

[Updawg 2,266]

In the original article they focused on the waste dispoasl guy and no one else. He didn't comment or have any reason to be singled out of the 400 people. I thought it was pretty uncool to put his shit on blast but no one else. I'm all for them paying their fair share but that was shitty to single that guy out

[CDAK 216]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

will be interesting to see if the city pursues back taxes.  you know if this were just any neighborhood, they sure as shit would.

I don't know what the COA's claim to back taxes would be.  There was an ordinance exempting the houses from COA property taxes.  The City Council is now trying to overturn that ordinance.  

[Brisketexan 105,151]

1 minute ago, CDAK said:

I don't know what the COA's claim to back taxes would be.  There was an ordinance exempting the houses from COA property taxes.  The City Council is now trying to overturn that ordinance.  

Yeah, there are no back taxes owed -- the law was and remains that they are not taxed.  Any change to the law would be going forward.

[Orange&White 5,528]

48 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I'm literally looking at the original Statesman article stating that the city offered those concessions because they would never be able to provide those basic city services.  This was the City's idea to structure it like this way back when, i'm just repeating the Statesman/CofA story.  They agreed to not take as much money in exchange for almost no basic services.  I don't give a shit, raise their taxes.  We'll blow through it on the ARCH center in 20 minutes anyway.  Hell, that's even a client of mine's home in the stock photo they're using.  

So your words "never be able to provide those basic services" and "almost no basic services" are two completely different things. The residents did, in fact, receive services and the actual article actually lists some of the ones that they did receive. 

Was it ALL services? NO. No one ever said it was. Your analogy was wrong. No matter how many ways you try to spin the article, this is absolutely nothing like your school district analogy.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

Bob Gregory will be fine.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

I’m not defending the original 1986 ordinance, but it’s difficult to imagine how you’d ever get the opportunity cost of the ordinance back. The city passed it and eventually most people forgot about it, and the owners certainly weren’t begging for repeal.

 

The truly delicious part of this is that the 32 year old carve out probably wouldn’t have gotten Cesar and Flannigan’s attention if a neighbor who was not exempted had not sued because they thought it was unfair that they were being made to pay city property taxes.

 

[CDAK 216]

Rather than sue, the neighbor should have asked for hush money from the other homeowners.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

Rather than sue, the neighbor should have asked for hush money from the other homeowners.

Probably could have gotten it too. My understanding is that they are not pleased.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

59 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bob Gregory will be fine.

I went to a party at that house about 30 years ago, if it's the same one.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

I'm not on his invite list, but I bet it's pretty sweet. 

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Orange&White said:

So your words "never be able to provide those basic services" and "almost no basic services" are two completely different things. The residents did, in fact, receive services and the actual article actually lists some of the ones that they did receive. 

Was it ALL services? NO. No one ever said it was. Your analogy was wrong. No matter how many ways you try to spin the article, this is absolutely nothing like your school district analogy.

Okay, shouldn’t have tried to summarize the article.  My bad.  I’ll delete my post.  You need this one more than I do, slugger.  

 

[Armybrat 40,850]

Yet the city has been handing out tax abatements worth millions to attract businesses.

[Deej 76,797]

Those homeowners can just do what everyone in Pemberton did and file for bullshit historical status on their properties. 

[Pasken 1,309]

7 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Yet the city has been handing out tax abatements worth millions to attract businesses.

These are not the same thing at all.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm not on his invite list, but I bet it's pretty sweet. 

It was nice back then in the late 80s, but I'd bet it was torn down and rebuilt since then.  My wife was working at the capitol when we were in college and knew either one of his daughters or nieces and they had a keg party there.  Didn't seem like a big deal back then during the crash, but we had no idea what it would be worth now.

[Armybrat 40,850]

20 minutes ago, Pasken said:

These are not the same thing at all.

I know, but it is still welfare.

[phdhorn 6,224]

Tax 'em for the services they receive (which I think is fire + cops).  Don't tax 'em for services they don't receive (trash, whatever else).   It ain't hard.

Yeah, I know, I know 1) ain't nobody gonna/wanna figure an equitable tax like that, when they could bleed 'em dry, and 2) this recouped money is going to get through the Council Shit Filter to actually apply to affordable housing?  (insert Idi Amin laughing gif here).

[Bozo_Casanova 26,472]

Tax 'em for the services they receive (which I think is fire + cops).  Don't tax 'em for services they don't receive (trash, whatever else).   It ain't hard.

 

Yeah, I know, I know 1) ain't nobody gonna/wanna figure an equitable tax like that, when they could bleed 'em dry, and 2) this recouped money is going to get through the Council Shit Filter to actually apply to affordable housing?  (insert Idi Amin laughing gif here).

“Trash, whatever else” are generally enterprise departments paid for by customer fees.

[SquishMitten 10,408]

38 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Tax 'em for the services they receive (which I think is fire + cops).  Don't tax 'em for services they don't receive (trash, whatever else).   It ain't hard.

Yeah, I know, I know 1) ain't nobody gonna/wanna figure an equitable tax like that, when they could bleed 'em dry 

There are several places in Austin (well, un-annexed areas at least) already taxed like that. This is kinda the whole purpose of the CAD

[phdhorn 6,224]

24 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

There are several places in Austin (well, un-annexed areas at least) already taxed like that. This is kinda the whole purpose of the CAD

True, but this is a little different since they're already City residents.  I'm not sure if there is an actuarial table or formula for this kind of thing.

I can't get back in through the pay wall but I believe the city is not giving them water, wastewater or trash at this point. Most of those are fee driven, but in '86 but homeowners successfully protested thatvery thing and the council reneged since they couldn't apparently work out something. It will be interesting to see if they can now.

 

[CooterBrown 18,014]

Rather than sue, the neighbor should have asked for hush money from the other homeowners.

Talk about becoming a pariah in your little 0.1%er social circle overnight. They’ll
probably be on the receiving end of some lawsuits from the neighbors for fucking up their good thing.

[Updawg 2,266]

Definitely won't be invited to the Xmas party

[troph 24,810]

Statesman digs this up about once a decade. Not new news.

[Armybrat 40,850]

The families who have owned those little 30’ “fishing camp” waterfront lots way up Lake Austin since the 1950s are gonna get taxed out of their shacks.

My nephew’s inlaws have a 2 acre waterfront lot with a sizable mid-century modern vacation house on the west side of the lake near Mansfield Dam. Bet they are getting a rope ready for that lawsuit rat.

 

[Pasken 1,309]

I just can’t wait until the council meeting to hear the justifications from the people who live there on why they shouldn't pay taxes.

 

it’ll be like when Patrick Ewing defended nba players in the lockout by saying, “yea we make a lot of money but we spend a lot of money too.”

Edited June 12, 2019 by Pasken

[TexasBeta 1,261]

18 minutes ago, Pasken said:

I just can’t wait until the council meeting to hear the justifications from the people who live there on why they shouldn't pay taxes.

 

it’ll be like when Patrick Ewing defended nba players in the lockout by saying, “yea we make a lot of money but we spend a lot of money too.”

My mother in law's house is one of those on the list. It's a modest ranch house they have lived in for over 40 years. She pays an astronomical amount of taxes to EISD on the property value and has no city services beyond county sheriff and Westlake fire. She cannot vote in city elections. So why should she pay city property taxes? Personally, I think property taxes based on some 'valuation' determined by a political body with a self interest in escalating values is immoral. But.. that is for another day.

[Orange&White 5,528]

8 minutes ago, TexasBeta said:

My mother in law's house is one of those on the list. It's a modest ranch house they have lived in for over 40 years. She pays an astronomical amount of taxes to EISD on the property value and has no city services beyond county sheriff and Westlake fire. She cannot vote in city elections. So why should she pay city property taxes? Personally, I think property taxes based on some 'valuation' determined by a political body with a self interest in escalating values is immoral. But.. that is for another day.

If she lived in the area in question, she would definitely be able to vote in all city elections.