On an election night that was pretty lousy for Republicans across the country, an unexpected ray of light shown out from a very unexpected spot.
The People’s Republic of Austin, against all odds, defeated Proposition Q.
The rubber match between the progressive Austin City Council and the collection of opposition organizations headlined by Save Austin Now (SAN) has gone the latter’s way.
Proposition Q is a voter-approval tax rate election (VATRE) worth $110 million, intended to close the $33 million deficit gap in the City of Austin’s budget.
The ballot language states the item is “for the purpose of funding or expanding programs intended to increase housing affordability and reduce homelessness; improve parks and recreation facilities and services; enhance public health services and public safety; ensure financial stability; and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025-2026 budget as approved or amended by City Council.”
Though it was not the only spending item within the proposition, the headliner was the homelessness response appropriation.
This is the third time the two sides — the city’s dominant political establishment and the insurgent opposition made up of Austin’s few Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats — have grappled over a ballot proposition.
The first was the May 2021 reinstatement of the public camping and lying ban, a rebuke of the progressive city council headlined by then-Mayor Steve Adler and then-Councilman Greg Casar; 57 percent of voters, including 40 percent of Democrats, voted to reinstate the camping ban.
Playing into SAN’s favor at that time was the visceral nature of the council’s policy. Overnight, encampments cropped up on Austin’s boulevards, under its overpasses, and within its creekbeds.
The next bout between the factions came on a November 2021 proposition from SAN that would have established a minimum staffing threshold for the city’s police department; a year earlier, the city council had cut and redirected $150 million from the Austin Police Department budget that included nixing financial authorization for 150 patrol positions.
SAN’s progressive opponents came out on top in that instance, with nearly 70 percent of voters rejecting the proposition.
It was a heavy blow to the group trying to build a bipartisan oppositional coalition in the city, but it set the table — along with other electoral skirmishes in the years since — for what came this year.
When it came to reinstating the camping ban, the message for SAN, led by Matt Mackowiak, was provided for them in the form of unsightly encampments on many street corners and increased confrontations between homeless individuals and pedestrians. That didn’t take much creativity.
But for the police staffing proposition, it was harder to fashion a winning message out of crime statistics that, while higher than the city’s historical levels, remained less tangible in what is still a historically low-crime city. The messaging cut the other way, too.
Opponents of the minimum staffing item framed it as a mandatory spending increase — which it was — and it worked to a prolific degree.
This November, the “spendthrift” theme fell squarely on the city council; SAN and its allies ran with it to a great effect.
SAN, with donations from donors like attorney Adam Loewy, purchased billboards across the city that read, “Stop the largest property tax increase in Austin history.”
Countermessaging by Proposition Q supporters focused heavily on President Donald Trump, including a mailer quote from City Councilwoman Vanessa Fuentes that read, “Passing Proposition Q tells Donald Trump and Greg Abbott they don’t call the shots in Austin. Our Community takes care of its own, and Proposition Q shows it.”
In short, the messaging dynamic was one of bipartisan opposition to more increased spending, versus a partisan rebuke of the GOP and its faces at the federal and state levels; the former won out, a remarkable feat in a city that has generally approved ramping up spending levels.
SAN’s $300,000, together with $120,000 from Ellen Wood’s Restore Leadership ATX, lapped the pro-Proposition Q Love Austin PAC’s $94,000 spent in the closing weeks of the campaign.
Snip.
With multiple elections of voter data to reference, SAN identified 70,000 likely supportive voters across both major parties and unaffiliated voters — and through early voting, that voter universe turned out at a rate of 2.3 times more than the rest of the voter universe.
SAN’s money paid for mail to 140,000 households, 300,000 text messages to voters, radio ads on five stations, a digital ad blitz, and billboards and small-scale signs across the city, per data shared with The Texan. Get-out-the-vote robocalls and digital ads continued along with the radio spots through the close of polls on Tuesday.
I didn’t cover Proposition Q because I live just outside the Austin city limits, I’ve had plenty of other stuff to blog about these past few months, and 40 years of experience has led me to believe that Austin voters will vote for pretty much any cockamamie spending increasing that comes down the line. So I didn’t have much hope they’d defeat Proposition Q, but I did see signs against it just about everywhere I went.
Through early voting, SAN’s internal modeling put “No on Prop Q” ahead 57 percent to 43 percent, basically the final breakdown of the camping ban reinstatement election. SAN reached that conclusion by extrapolating their polling from a couple of weeks ago that put “No on Prop Q” at 40 percent among Democrats, the largest voter universe in bright blue Austin.
More than 30 percent of the early vote turnout was modeled to be from SAN’s universe or a universe of strong Republican voters, all likely to be “Nos” on the proposition.
After initial results, Proposition Q went down in flames with over 60 percent of votes against it.
Maybe the lesson here is that bond issues are one thing, but tax increases are quite another. While the former almost inevitably leads to tax increases down the road, maybe even Austin’s notoriously left-wing voters have had enough of being taxed to death. Forcing governments to seek voter approval for tax increases means a whole lot less tax increases get enacted.
Finally, Austin voters may simply be sick and tired of their hard-earned money keeping drug-addicted transients shuffling down their streets. There’s evidently no homeless scheme the Austin City Council won’t throw money at, but actual voters seem tired of shoveling taxpayer money into the insatiable maw of the homeless industrial complex.
