Forums
back to main | back to forum | view rules | page: 1 2
Vote Yes on Prop Two
Jacob Posted at 2008/10/01 10:29am reply to

Jacob
Posts: 2479
message
City of Austin Proposition Two is to stop giving tax payer money to the Domain.  Why should local taxes from local businesses be used to support a mall of foreign businesses that can't support itself?  Yes, the City of Austin is completely stupid, but we can fix that this November.

http://blue-dot-blues.blogspot.com/2008/09/city-of-austin-prop-2-stop-domain.html
Ross Posted at 2008/10/01 10:47am reply to

Ross
Posts: 4574
message
amen!
Jacob Posted at 2008/10/01 10:52am reply to

Jacob
Posts: 2479
message
PS: voter registration deadline is coming up within a week, so register ASAP if you need to!
Ripe Tomato Posted at 2008/10/01 3:40pm reply to

Ripe Tomato
Posts: 460
message
I'm a volunteer deputy registrar, let me know if you need to register to vote in Travis County!
chillingsworth Posted at 2008/10/02 10:39am reply to

chillingsworth
Posts: 16
message
i've been doing a little bit of reading on the issue, and i really don't like the wording of the amendment itself, especially this part:

"to prohibit the City from entering into future agreements to provide financial incentives in connection with the development or redevelopment of property that includes one or more retail uses."

wouldn't that mean that the city wouldn't be able to subsidize mixed-use development, even if it includes low-cost housing and local businesses?
jen Posted at 2008/10/02 11:08am reply to

jen
Posts: 1075
message
>>wouldn't that mean that the city wouldn't be able to subsidize mixed-use development, even if it includes low-cost housing and local businesses?

i think the domain does include low cost housing for families making less than a certain amount since it was built as a mix-use community (i remember reading that when it was first being developed), so you're probably right about that.
Gabriel Posted at 2008/10/19 2:23pm reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
As Chillingsworth said, there is another side to this.  Proposition 2 could be a really bad idea:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid:689427

Jacob Posted at 2008/10/19 3:39pm reply to

Jacob
Posts: 2479
message
I still don't see how Proposition 2 could be a bad idea.  I don't see why the City council should be giving our money away to for-profit corporations.  It would be one thing if they actually let us vote on it (ie direct democracy), but no, they vote on it for us with only a week to decide.  Just because people live there doesn't mean it is a good reason for us to be paying for their housing.  I read somewhere that the cheapest apartment at the domain is just under 1000$/month for a studio apartment.  I don't see how anyone could think that that would be target towards low-income families.
I think if they are going to use our tax money to pay for buildings, then we should own the buildings.  Taxing from the poor and giving to the rich just doesn't make sense to me.  
If they really wanted to help the poor with those subsidies, they would be spending those millions of dollars to build homeless shelters or real low-income housing.
Gabriel Posted at 2008/10/19 4:51pm reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
The writer of the article is not saying that the Domain should have been subsidized or that it included low-income housing.  On the contrary, he seems to agree that this was a bad idea.  What he is saying is that Proposition 2 is not the way to right that wrong.  It will affect some potentially good upcoming mixed use projects.  Since it is a ban that would go into the city charter, then even your suggestion of directly voting on a project would not take place.  In that case, why not make a proposition that requires a direct vote?  Proposition 2 goes too far and will have far-reaching consequences if it is passed.
Jacob Posted at 2008/10/19 5:34pm reply to

Jacob
Posts: 2479
message
I'm not sure why you think it goes to far.  I don't think it goes far enough.  They should have made it ban government subsidies for all for-profit corporations, not just retailers.  In fact, it would almost be best just to make all subsidies illegal, since that's the only way to make people fiscally responsible and self-sufficient, as well as being equal to everyone.
If people want to use their money to fund other corporations without getting a return, they should do it voluntarily instead of forcing everyone else to fund them as well.
Gabriel Posted at 2008/10/19 6:13pm reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
I'm not big on subsidies either, and I agree that we should have a say as to whether they are given.  However, I don't want to rule them out altogether, and I like the idea of mixed use development.  Your idea of a direct vote makes the most sense to me. Proposition 2 is a total ban, and I think that will ultimately be a bad idea.
DRiot Posted at 2008/10/21 6:59pm reply to

DRiot
Posts: 201
message
I'm not sure if anyone here has actually been over to the Domain, but that's the closest Apple (and Betsey  Johnson) store for me. Anyways, about 3 weeks ago nearly EVERY clothing retailer at the domain had fur in the window. REAL fur.  So yeah, FTD (Eff The Domain). Betsey Johnson, of course, had all faux fur in her store happy
chillingsworth Posted at 2008/10/22 10:42am reply to

chillingsworth
Posts: 16
message
John Posted at 2008/10/22 12:29pm reply to

John
Posts: 496
message
i'm voting yes on prop 2. the city shouldn't be subsidizing anything as far as i'm concerned.
Jacob Posted at 2008/10/22 1:27pm reply to

Jacob
Posts: 2479
message
Prop 2 doesn't prevent mixed-development.  If you like mixed-development, you have a choice as a consumer to use it.  The government shouldn't step in and play favorites by saying one company doesn't have to pay taxes, while the local company next to it does.  If people want to build a neighborhood/mall where the old airport was, they still will be able to do it.  They don't need the government to give them money in order to build their new buildings.  

Also, the Austin Chronicle is always biased against consumer rights and always for the corporatization of Austin.  They won't be happy until Austin becomes the next Dallas or Houston.
erick Posted at 2008/10/22 5:23pm reply to

erick
Posts: 208
message
Though I find this thread interesting and I don't mean to be antagonistic, but I have to ask, this relates to veganism how? I'm sure there are sites devoted to Austin politics where you could discuss you views of our two party system and capitalist market.

I see posts like this from time to time and have to wonder what impression discussions of various member's political views has on vegans who are thinking of joining our loose knit group.

My $0.02
Gabriel Posted at 2008/10/22 5:47pm reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
This group and discussion board are not just for vegan issues.  We formed it so that we could hang with other vegans and do different things that are not necessarily directly related to our being vegan.  Sometimes that includes discussions about this sort of thing.  If you look at the description for this part of the discussion board, you will see "Chat about veganism, animal rights, austin, or whatever is on your mind."

A lot of what we talk about around here is vegan-related, but we don't live in a vacuum.  We all have a lot to talk about that doesn't have to do with being vegan.  And, as you can see, our points-of-view are divergent.  I think that's healthy.
Craig? Posted at 2008/10/22 5:50pm reply to

Craig?
Posts: 1796
message
since many of us are friends on "the outside", it's pretty common for us to discuss things having nothing at all to do with veganism.  as long as we keep the political discussions somewhat civil, I see no problem with them.  it's interesting to hear different political ideas from other vegans, proving that fact that we don't all agree on everything.

of course, a thread like this wouldn't be the first place for a newbie to start chiming in - probably.  but if they are scared away from healthy discussions that can get passionate on both sides, VRA probably ain't the best place for them anyhoo.  not that I decide these things, but there's my two cents as well.
Gabriel Posted at 2008/10/22 5:51pm reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
BTW, to respond to Jacob, banning this type of funding will probably discourage mixed-use development altogether.  It's not something where you see results overnight.  
Jacob Posted at 2008/10/22 6:06pm reply to

Jacob
Posts: 2479
message
It's somewhat related to veganism.....
veganism-> animal rights-> civil rights-> property rights
or
veganism-> equality-> prop2

And I completely disagree that it will discourage mixed-use development altogether.  Just because you won't see results overnight doesn't mean entrepreneur's will be scared of it.  Most businesses take a few years before they become profitable.  If someone wants to build a mix-use building on their property, they can use investors and bank loans like a normal developer would.

It might discourage foreign developers from coming into town,  destroying what used to be a nice park, building a shopping mall filled with foreign shops, and giving nothing back to the community, while taking what should be OUR tax money.  Though I see that as a good discouragement ;-)
Gabriel Posted at 2008/10/22 6:22pm reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
Well, since neither of us knows for sure what will happen, we'll have to wait and see.  Honestly I'd prefer for you to be right because I really like the idea of mixed-use development.  However, I still suspect that Proposition 2 is going to have some pretty bad consequences.  So, I will still vote NO. happy
Post a comment
page: 1 2
0 users logged in: