In what could be described as a rather scathing editorial against Mayoral candidate Lee Leffingwell and Councilmember Mike Martinez, is this statement which is somewhat central to the editorial's argument.
Leffingwell strongly supported a proposition last fall that would have forced the city to not honor its contract with the Domain for tax rebates. Those rebates are based on a certain number of jobs and tax revenue. Voters rejected that proposition; now Leffingwell is trying to undo that contract another way - this time to get the votes of those who supported the anti-Domain proposition.
This of course is referring to Austin Proposition 2 that was put to a public vote by last year's council and failed narrowly.
The problem is, Lee Leffingwell did not support Proposition 2 as it appeared on the ballot last fall. At least that's what the Austin American-Statesman's news department wrote the day before the Austin American-Statesman's editorial.
Leffingwell and Martinez were among those who opposed the referendum.
That is verified by Leffingwell's website record...
- I opposed Proposition 2 last year, not because I thought the Domain deal was a very good one (I actually testified against it as a private citizen, before I was on the City Council), but because I believe we should honor our word with people if they have honored their word with us.
Oops.
In reading the editorial, it appears the Statesman was eager to draw the conclusion they wanted driven by a desire to tie everything back to the two candidates support of the public safety unions. Just read the leading paragraphs.
Their suggestion that companies that receive tax breaks and rebates give up the money can't be separated from political aspirations. Leffingwell is in a heated three-way race for mayor, and Martinez is running for re-election to the City Council.
Nor can it be disconnected from their pandering to the public safety unions that support their candidacies. Leffingwell is a longtime union leader; Martinez is former president of Austin's firefighters union. Both have been endorsed by the city's police, fire and emergency medical services unions.
Sigh.
While the issue of renegotiating business tax breaks is a valid one that separates the leading candidates (Leffingwell in favor of putting union contracts and business tax incentives both on the table, with Brester McCracken and Carole Strayhorn both agreeing to oppose renegotiating the business deals).
The city's management cannot unilaterally change the pay of its police and EMS employees because they are working under contracts, and any agreement to delay pay raises would have to come through negotiations with the unions.
The firefighters union rejected a new contract with the city last year, and the city has not renewed formal negotiations.
Likewise, Leffingwell and Martinez say, the city cannot alter its tax-incentive agreements without the consent of the businesses involved. Those agreements, which include sales and property tax reductions, could be worth as much as $4.7 million combined this year, depending on whether the businesses fulfill their obligations to the city.
Here's how I see it. The voters of Austin have had a chance to weigh in on both fronts.
- If they didn't like the public safety unions having the ability to negotiate their contract with the city in good times and bad they shouldn't have allowed them to do so- but there was an election and the people voted in favor of giving them that power.
- If they didn't want the city to pay out tax incentives to businesses they had the opportunity to take that away and keep more money in the city coffers- but there was an election and the people voted in favor of honoring that contract.
Now, one can argue the finer point of how either of those campaigns was waged and won (or lost) but if there is to be a debate about how to plug the budget gap, it appears that the Austin electorate has expressed this value- "the city should negotiate with all affected parties to close the budget shortfall and we feel those affected parties should have some protections from unilateral budgetary decisions by the City of Austin".
Update: Thank God, I'm not crazy. Leffingwell responds forcefully in today's Statesman. Seriously, read this. |
