Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
I'll agree it was an op-ed. But when people respond by attacking the writer and not the message, I wonder why? Is it because the message contained in the op-ed was the truth?
We need to have an honest debate on the issues and messages, not a debate on personalities. If you disagree with them, please state why.
|
These two individuals, due to lies like this, are directly responsible for a lot of economic and environmental damage to Austin over the decades. So it might be understandable that further lies upset people.
But sure, I can directly address the simple math of their claim.
I held my nose and went to their site, reading their methodology for how they come up with their $2800 /year /property claim. I don't recommend doing so, I feel slightly dumber for having read it.
Their methodology is such: They determine the cost it would take to simultaneously borrow $9.8B dollars (in 20 year bonds). Even though Austin (actually ATP) borrowing $9B was never on the table . Even though the construction schedule doesn't require everything to be borrowed all at once. Even though certain projects were never going to borrow, and instead are being done through "pay as you go".
And especially, critically, as ATP is never in a million years, going to pay for the federal share. In the extremely unlikely, almost impossible scenario that the feds don't pay for a big chunk*, the program would be downgraded.
ATP simple doesn't have the ability to increase taxes any more.
To all of the above falsehoods, they pile on. They then take the _2040_ operating costs of the _entire_ system, and add that on to the tax bill.
Even though not all the operating costs are coming from taxes.
Even though we'll be finished paying for construction of large parts of the system before operating costs even approach that 2040 number.
Even though those are the operating costs of the 10B system, and we're not voting on the 10B system.
They then take this entire cost, and divide by the number of taxpaying properties in Austin _in Travis County_, on 2020's tax rolls.
The former (not including Austin/Williamson and such) is relatively small but adds up big. The later (assuming no growth in Austin in 20 years) is blatantly false.
Among other problems, the system will be cheaper to run if Austin (impossibly) sees no growth.
The fact that they are claiming taxpayers are paying 2040 expenses, in 2040 inflated dollars, with today's dollars is almost a trivial error alongside their other whoppers.
*Austin is the fasted growing large city in the country, the 11th largest city, and has made almost no transit investment. If the feds are paying for transit anywhere, they're paying for it here. The cost/benefit ratio is the largest for us (just because we've neglected it for so long).
The fact that CapMetro went from talking about a 40% federal share to a 45% federal share shows that they have confidence in the feds picking up their share.
Prev
Linear Mode
