Issues & Plans

The City government has a problem with finances, I have the skills to help, and no one else on City Council or running for it focuses on this issue.

One of our city's financial problems is under-funding the pension funds by $3.1 billion. That costs us $219 million per year or roughly 1/6th of the City's general fund, and the current plan is to borrow more for the next 5 years. Another problem is unwise large spending. Council chose light rail, which is twice as expensive as bus-rapid-transit per passenger-mile for only slightly faster service. Council spent $1+ billion on a new convention center based on a poorly argued financial prospectus.

I have worked in finance and studied economics. I'm well off and would rather spend my time swimming in Barton Springs and doing other enjoyable things. But I love Austin and want to see its government functioning well for my niece and nephews. Because no one else was prioritizing these financial issues, I decided to run for City Council.

• Keep making it easier to build housing. (This lowers rents, lowers homelessness, and lowers the prices of starter homes.)
• A real plan for pension underfunding. (This will keep services high and taxes low long-term.)
• Stopping wasteful spending. (This will keep services high and taxes low long-term.)

For about 8 years, I have worked to lower rents in Austin with AURA, a local non-profit. This included doing data analysis, writing economic reports, and serving on its Board for a term. My focus was on shrinking the minimum lot size and increasing the number of units-per-acre. AURA was instrumental in passing HOMES1 and HOMES2, which did just that. (And rents went down!)

For about 3 years, I've served on the Economic Prosperity Commission. I was Vice Chair and then Chair. I had the most recommendations passed as a Member in my time. I did not seek re-election as Chair so that I would have time to study Austin's pension funds. I spent 100 hours studying the issue, wrote a report on it, and got 2 recommendations passed on the subject.

For about 2 years, I served on the Board of Community Housing Expansion of Austin (CHEA). It runs 2 housing co-operatives in Austin, including some of the lowest-cost housing available. I think it was excellent preparation for City Council because it had many crises and CHEA had its own rules and each house had its own as well.

I've also written a report with economic recommendations for the Mayor, fund-raised to fight gerrymandering, built houses with Habitat, helped clean up parks, mapped city trails with GPS, donated to local causes, and more.

I think the good model to imitate is Houston's minimum lot size change. Their City Council dramatically shrank the minimum lot size for the city, but allowed residents to keep the minimum lot size on their block. Residents could apply to create "Special Minimum Lot Size Blocks" that last for 40 years. If the application was accepted, those residents kept their minimum lot size and the City government would enforce it. By allowing and protecting exceptions, Houston passed one of the most dramatic and effective housing policies in America.

I will pair strong pro-housing changes with a legal defense fund. Since many of our property rights are civil, not criminal, enforcing them is a big expense for residents in time, effort, and money. The City should establish a legal defense fund for property owners against neighbors (especially well-financed, well-motivated developers) who violate agreements and deed restrictions. I would only allow the defense fund to work on agreements and deed restrictions that [1] were adopted after the defense fund was created and [2] have a limited time span. (The deed restrictions that last forever are currently harming our city and are damned hard to get rid of. I don't want to create more of those.)

HOME Phase 1 passed in Dec. 2023 and HOME Phase 2 passed in May 2024. As an urban economist, the metric I use to evaluate housing policy is the All-Transactions House Price Index for Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX (MSA), when adjusted for inflation. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS12420Q) This metric estimates the price change for all existing houses. When adjusted for inflation, the price of an existing house in the Austin metro fell 5.7% between Dec. 2023 and Feb. 2026. That's success to me.

I don't think HOME went far enough in allowing more units-per-acre and getting rid of the minimum lot size. The minimum lot size still forces households to spend more money on land than they want to. I know this because, in Mueller, which has fewer restrictions, smaller lots are sold. The cheapest lot on Zillow in District 1 within 3 miles of downtown is for sale at $175,000 per unit. At current mortgage rates, that's $890 per month just for land. That doesn't include the house or maintenance or any other housing expense. Philadelphia allows lots of 800 sqft, which is less than half Austin's current minimum lot size. If our minimum lot size were 800 sqft, the price would fall to $444 per month for land. I think that's a more reasonable price and that's the direction Austin should go.

People choose housing with transportation in mind. Those are a single decision, not separate ones. So, we cannot ignore transportation when it comes to housing. Cars are useful, but traffic congestion already costs the metro area $807 million per year. We need to look at other transportation as well as improve car infrastructure.

The best alternative transportation infrastructure is the one already being heavily used: sidewalks. We need to encourage housing within downtown by widening sidewalks where necessary and freeing up zoning. We need to build more sidewalks - the city is horribly behind - focusing first near transit stations, dangerous areas, and where "desire paths" exist.

We should create bike lanes where they are used. I do not see many bikes in the bike lane of the 183 frontage road near me. I do see a lot of bikes downtown on 3rd Street and on the Pfluger Bike Bridge. I would need to do more research on the subject, but a social media post about Amsterdam said their bike-to-work radius was 3 miles with an e-bike. I expect the total benefit minus cost of providing protected bike lanes to exceed that of parked cars inside that radius. If so, we should quickly build protected bike lanes inside 3 miles and remove zoning restrictions nearby. Safety, especially with faster e-bikes and scooters, will be important to track and, probably, legislate on.

Regarding transit, I did a quick estimate for Project Connect back in 2020. My numbers were rough, but I found that bus rapid transit would be half the cost of light rail per passenger-mile, with only slightly worse performance. Since ATP did not lock in interest rates when they were low, that cost difference has risen. I don't know the exact state of Project Connect - I know contracts have gone out but I don't know their terms - but we should re-evaluate light rail with the expectation of having to cancel it and devote the money to bus rapid transit. Obviously, we should allow a lot more housing near transit (transit-oriented development).

As for cars, they make up most of our trips. The latest data seems to be from 2019, where cars made up 85% of commutes. Polls show that Austinites hate congestion and they should: according to the INRIX 2025 Global Traffic Scorecard, it costs the metro area $807 million per year. And congestion is expected to get worse with autonomous vehicles. No one benefits from a doctor sitting in traffic - we need to get Austin's roads moving again. Singapore solved congestion on all its highways over 25 years ago with its Electronic Road Pricing system. We have a small version of it here: MoPaC Express Lane, which keeps traffic moving at all hours by adjusting its tolls. So, solving the problem is possible! Obviously, no one likes the tolls on MoPaC Express Lane, so Austin must innovate to find a new way that is popular with voters. Maybe we only apply it to autonomous vehicles. Maybe we give every resident an equal number of tokens to use for tolls, instead of dollars. Maybe we have drivers schedule when they do their commute. There are many possible ways to do it - we just need to find one that works and that people will accept. I will propose that Austin fund research to create and evaluate these ideas. Kara Kockelman, a professor at UT, is a local expert who can help the City select the researcher. If there is a solution people accept and we build it, that infrastructure will dramatically change Austin's housing demand, as highways carry more cars during rush hour and carry them more quickly to their destination.

As for utility infrastructure, I have read a little about the subject but do not have specific plans. We should consider congestion pricing and tradable rights for pipes and wires that are near capacity limits. Since prices for electricity fluctuate, we should force companies to pay market prices and allow residential customers to switch to them. We should look at financial and physical ways to deal with the unreliability in the state's energy transmission grid, which scares both residential and commercial customers.

I would dramatically shrink the minimum lot size and increase the units-per-acre. I would eliminate limits on volume (floor-to-area ratio). I would raise height limits. I would allow housing in almost every location, except where it is dangerous (e.g., industrial zones).

I would allow manufactured housing on any lot, but preserve neighborhood appearance by allowing neighborhoods to create a menu of manufactured housing that would be welcome in their area. If they do not create a menu with sufficient choices, any manufactured house would be allowed.

One limitation to location is price. As I've measured, land prices go up exponentially as you get closer to downtown. The solution here is to allow a smaller minimum lot size and more units per acre. By paying for less land for each unit, workers can afford to live closer to all the jobs downtown.

Another limitation is deed restrictions. These contain some limits that made sense at the time (and some that never made sense!) but are unsuitable now. Many deed restrictions have a minimum lot size or units-per-acre restriction. Austin needs to work with the state to enact a time limit on deed restrictions. As part of eliminating zoning restrictions, I would offer to enforce new deed restrictions that contained a time limit and incentivize land owners to remove old deed restrictions.

Affordability is best delivered by fixing the housing shortage. That means more housing at all price levels, especially the lowest. This means removing laws that force a minimum price in an area, like the minimum lot size, which requires buying a minimum amount of expensive land.

So-called "inclusionary zoning" requires more expense, more paperwork, and more time by the builder. It is a tax on housing and increases prices. Housing vouchers are a better solution. If landlords are not accepting vouchers in an area, we should talk to landlords about the issues and fix those. At worst, the City can pay landlords to accept vouchers, by holding a reverse auction where landlords with the lowest bids to accept vouchers get paid.

We do not need to provide a bonus to keep existing housing. Existing housing is already cheaper because the owner doesn't have to pay for demolishing the existing building and building a new one.

I like the steps that the City has taken, like Site Plan Lite, that realize small infill projects are different from building a subdivision with hundreds of homes. I would push for specific clear checklists, so developers know what to expect and reviewers can quickly assess requirements. Fees should be predictable. For ADUs and some other projects, the City can keep a set of pre-approved plans that can skip some steps. The City should be able to give applicants a definitive time window. Unexpected delays will happen and we should explore whether the City can defray the applicant's costs by refunding fees or providing insurance against delays.

In a council-manager government, the City Manager has a lot of power. So, I would start by motivating the City Manager. Improving development can bring in more money without raising taxes. Speeding up development will improve the City's budget and avoid problems and difficult choices in the future.

As for accountability, I would start by setting metrics. I worked at Motorola and they taught me that the design of metrics is important: they should be clear, within the City Manager's control, gathered frequently, difficult to game, and have a clear direction (e.g., lower is better). After having good public metrics, I would set achievable targets for the metrics (e.g., 50% reduction by next year) and schedule regular public discussions of progress. This will include the City Manager's performance evaluation.

Because of my skills in data science and econometrics, I can analyze raw department data to detect manipulation or circumvention of the metrics.

My background is in finance and economics, so I've given this some thought.

First, we need good cost-benefit analysis. I did my own estimates for Project Connect in 2020 and they cast doubt on the light-rail plan back then and, depending on the state of contracts, cost-benefit analysis may conclude that the light-rail should be replaced with bus rapid transit. The financial report for the convention center was woefully inadequate and should not have been used in the decision to demolish the old one and build a new one. The City does a lot of surveys of residents, but I've never seen a question of "How much do you value this?" or "What would you do without this?". Without knowing residents' alternatives, we don't know their costs or benefits and can't make good decisions. So, part of this is asking residents the right questions.

Second, we need to fix the underfunded pensions. That cost the City $219 million per year. (Search for "Interest" in the pension reports.) There are three parts to this. (1) Shift the debt to cheaper fixed-rate bonds, when we can. The lowest rate GO bonds need to be backed by infrastructure, so it may require budget manipulations and discipline. (2) Target the budget to the low end of predicted revenue and devote any excess revenue to funding the pension. (3) Grow the population. More people means less debt-per-person.

Third, we should prioritize development that has a high revenue-to-cost ratio. Consultants, like Urban3, have done revenue modeling for other cities. Those studies showed that some development brings in more money for the city than it costs the city. We should prioritize building this. (It is often multi-family buildings near downtown.)

I have read "Regulation for Revenue", which is a book about impact fees. Its conclusion was that they are unpleasant, but they are politically viable and not the worst solution. I'd prefer for homeowners to pay for the City's costs through property taxes, not impact fees. But because impact fees are seen as falling on new people moving to Austin, I don't know whether the change will be politically possible.

I would support rent limits only in an emergency and only for a temporary amount of time. Economists have studied price limits on various necessities and they almost always end badly. When there is a housing shortage, rent control/stabilization reduces the incentive to produce new housing that will fix the shortage.

It is better to provide financial assistance directly to the people affected. This is what housing vouchers try to do. We need to have more of those for the worst off and get them accepted at more locations. That is a much better fix than rent limits.

I support a legal defense fund for renters. It is relatively low cost and would encourage landlords to keep the commitments they make.

I know windowless bedrooms are an issue, especially near UT. City Council banned new ones, but some already exist. I would allow someone renting a windowless bedroom to end the lease early with a note from a doctor confirming circadian rhythm problems. I think this will incentivize owners to rent these units to the 6% of people who work night shifts and who benefit from a windowless bedroom.

I considered becoming a realtor, in order to do house price analysis for a current realtor. Texas law requires it for the work.

No.

Being able to start your own business provides economic safety. It provides income when there are not jobs available. And having the option to create your own business provides negotiating power when discussing salary with an employer. The City of Austin should make it very easy to start your own business. We've done that with food trucks and it has benefitted both workers and customers. The City should expand the locations where businesses can be run and foster markets where micro-businesses can meet customers.

Economic mobility also comes from increasing education and skills. City should organize and buy online educational resources for residents. City should fund jobs/skills education with positive externalities, like learning English. The City should make loans available on friendly terms for jobs/skills education with positive return-on-investments.

Austin has about a million people and most of them are strangers to us. We want to feel safe and we want the power we entrust to the government to do that be used fairly. I'm a data person and we should measure safety not by using numbers generated by the police, like number of arrests, but external measures such as the cost of insurance and surveys of resident safety. We need to measure racial inequities in both the Austin's police actions and the Travis County court system and, when found, fix them. There reasons to believe they exist: Census Tract 23.19 contains the Travis County Correctional Complex and, in the 2020 Census, 29% of people identified as "Black or African American only". That was the 5th highest of the 289 tracts in Travis County.

We should continue to expand using specialists for responses to emergency calls, such as for mental health emergencies. For EMS, we need to make sure EMS can be hired and make a living in Austin. For Firefighters, we need to keep an eye on response times. Traffic congestion plays a part, which is an issue that I consider important for all Austinites.

The first step will be to make sure a goal of City government is to lengthen average life span. That seems obvious, but the number is not tracked on Austin's ePerformance website. With a goal of longer average life span, District 1 benefits because lower-income and Black residents have shorter expected life spans and it is easier to lengthen a short expected life span than a longer one.

Public Health is always multi-pronged. The usual methods are health tracking, preventive healthcare (at the forthcoming Colony Park Health & Wellness Center), exercise, weight control, nutrition, and stopping smoking. We should vigorously pursue Vision Zero to lower traffic deaths. And work to prevent suicides and overdose deaths, which also cut lives short. We should explore buying GLP-1s in bulk at a low price for the 50% of our population that is overweight. We should explore social programs to fight loneliness. Also, better healthcare for 0-4 year olds has a high return on investment, because their whole lives are in front of them.

I want to foster youth sports, such as Ismael Guzman's East Austin Soccer Club and, if possible, restarting Austin Midnight Basketball. These provide teens with exercise, connection, learning to work as a group, and opportunities for leadership and to excel.

A large research study showed 2 big govt policies that gave great returns on investment: education of 0-4 year olds and helping young high school graduates, who wouldn't normally go to college, get there. Where I can, I'll encourage policies in these areas.

I've worked since 2017 to lower the rents in Austin. I and other economists supported laws that encouraged more housing and decreased the minimum lot size. City Council passed these laws and the Pew Foundation has credited them with lowering the rents by $250 per month since the peak during covid. That's $3,000 per year for poor Austinites. I will continue to pursue laws that encourage lower rents and cheaper starter homes. A smaller minimum lot size will put homeownership in reach of more people and allow more Black families to afford to live closer to cultural institutions, like Carver Library and Downs Field.

We should encourage families to get SNAP, which will both feed the poor and bring Federal money into our local economy.

Weather is the most likely kind of emergency in Austin: heat, ice, flood, wind, hail, hurricanes and tornadoes. The first line of defense is neighbors, who are close by to provide support. We need supplies stashed at libraries and rec centers nearby, people who know they're there, and how to get to them in an emergency without power or communication. (City of Austin has the "Austin Resilience Network", which could be this, but online documentation is lacking.) Top priorities are water, power, and communication. Given ERCOT's ability to take Austin's power and send it elsewhere in an emergency, we need to continue pursuing dynamic rates with commercial customers so during a shortage residential power can be preserved. We also need to innovate: during the last freeze, I and a colleague sent mass texts to residents of apartment complexes to identify where the water wasn't working and get water delivered by the Austin Firefighters Association.

First, Austin Police Oversight should be under the City Auditor, not under the City Manager. The City Manager negotiates the contract with the Austin Police Association and we do not want oversight to be even potentially part of that negotiation. The City Auditor is the correct place for all oversight.

Otherwise, accountability is difficult. The existing police contract gives the police rights that most defendants do not get and a lengthy appeals process, with many off-ramps in their favor. And the police can reject any new contract until 2029. I have ideas for future contracts, including that the police must be responsible for settlements caused by their mistakes, such as $35 million to the 4 wrongly accused of the yogurt shop murders. The union can buy insurance for it and, when they do, the insurance company will tell them that the premium or deductible is higher because of certain riskier members of the force. They will have the incentive to see riskier members in less powerful positions and hold their own accountable.

I spent 100 hours last year looking in the City's pension systems. The City has borrowed $3.1 billion from the pension funds at a high interest rate. The interest is $219 million, equal to 1/7 of the General Fund! A top priority will be reducing that waste through (1) moving debt to lower interest rates, (2) prioritizing development with high tax revenue relative to cost, (3) moderate population growth, and (4) devoting any higher-than-expected income to pay down the debt.

Our planning department still needs dramatic improvement. The 2023 McKinsey report said site plans took 345 days and people requesting them gave the City a 2.8 out of 10. Recently, I talked to a religious organization that wanted to build a gym and they have been at it for over 3 years! High interest rates have slowed new projects, so we should work on training, clarity, consistency, simplification, and making common requests fast.

The City of Austin should continue to be an example employer, such as for those with criminal histories. As I mentioned in a previous answer, the City should provide online materials, fund education with positive externalities (like teaching English), and provide loans for education with positive return-on-investments. From an equity perspective, funding should prioritize the largest percentage increase in salary, which will send most resources to people with lower incomes (which are easier to increase by a large percentage).

I serve on Austin's Economic Prosperity Commission with 2 Muslims. They talk a little about their religion sometimes.
I met with a local Muslim activist, Imad Ahmed.
I took a tour of Imad Ahmed's mosque, ICGA Mosque, and its attached school, center, etc..

By listening to my fellow commissioners, Imad Ahmed and Saad Haytham, who I met on the tour. As well as other Muslims I meet.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

NOTE: Government in the United States should not support any religion over another. Thus I don't support recognition of Muslim holy days, like Eid and Ramadan.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

NOTE: Anyone is free to have their own beliefs about Islam. Given the rest of the sentence, I interpret "Islamophobia" here to be people who commit hate crimes and illegal discrimination.

Yes.

NOTE: Law enforcement should be fair.

No.

NOTE: I am against predictive policing. Facial recognition and biometric surveillance are technologies that may be useful in certain circumstances. I use facial recognition to unlock my cellphone. Police have used fingerprints, a biometric surveillance, for ages. These technologies are not inherently bad. I am against using them for mass surveillance and building large databases of unsuspected people.

No.

NOTE: ICE can deport illegal immigrants who are felons. The City of Austin should cooperate with ICE on that task. On other activities, they should not.

Yes.

NOTE: BDS= Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, usually against Israel

Yes.

By using my voice and vote to support our Constitution which protects free speech, freedom to assembly, free exercise of your religion, and freedom from a state religion. Austin should have hate crime laws covering when a criminal tries to intimidate a minority group. The police should understand the residents and have resources to protect those in danger. The City should examine a legal defense fund to protect residents civil liberties in civil courts.

I think the biggest environmental concern in District 1 and the city is pollution. As an economist, I try to focus on people's incentives and one of the biggest problems is externalities, where a person's actions affect other people but they never pay the cost of it. Pollution can be an awful externality, affecting air quality, water quality, and soil quality. As a society, we've tried to internalize pollution, which means making polluters pay the cost. They must pay to clean their waste or pay fines for violating the law. But that requires constant wide-ranging monitoring and strict enforcement to deter cheaters. It also requires precise crafting of laws so that we keep the environment pure without overly disincentivizing business and innovation.

Relative to other cities, Austin has mostly done well with pollution. We never used our rivers for shipping and our major early industries (state government and UT-Austin) were clean. But land contamination and dirty power plants did happen, often on the east side.

The City should internalize the cost of carbon ("carbon tax") for itself and its suppliers. And promote that idea to major industries in Austin. The City needs to monitor new industries, like manufacturing, which use toxic substances. It should monitor existing industries that have pollution risks, such as the Decker Creek Power Station and the dump at 9900 Giles Ln.. It should monitor air quality, both outdoors and indoors, especially east of the wider I-35. The City should work with the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District and other local governments to monitor pollution with the extended and expanded MoPac and preserve Barton Springs. It should track health outcomes that might be tied to pollution, like asthma or poisoning.

I am disgusted by the City Council Members' actions. It was a grave violation of democracy. We need to know our representatives' actions so that we can vote appropriately.

I would never do what they did and hide how I voted.

We should examine modifying the City Charter to prevent it in the future. State law may supersede our Charter. I agree with the goal of the state law that some specific values, like prices, need to remain hidden during negotiations. But that needs to be temporary and kept to an absolute minimum. I would need to talk to a lawyer to see if Austin's Charter could be modified to prevent this in the future. If it can, I would heartily support that change.

I would have voted against Dog's Head for economic reasons: it is far from the city's center and, in the long term, unlikely to have tax revenue that exceeds its costs. The modified approval process appalled me because many employees of the developer, Endeavor Real Estate Group, made donations to City Council Members in a short period of time (see below). Laws should apply the same to everyone and that propriety is even more important to maintain when political donations are involved. (NOTE: I have not accepted donations from anyone. I am running this campaign on my own funds.)

My priorities are the same as any development. Dog's Head is low and close to the river, so, in this case, flooding and pollution are especially important. Transportation is also a special issue, since the river surrounds the property and bridges are expensive to build.

Estimated donations to City Council Members where donor's employer contains the word "endeavor".
Based on data downloaded on Aug 19, 2026 from:
https://data.austintexas.gov/City-Government/Campaign-Finance-Contributions/3kfv-biw6/about_data

("Estimated" is because campaigns issued corrections and, while I attempted to correct for them, it may contain errors.)

Cities are for people. Data centers do not need many people to run them. People do not benefit (much) from data centers being closer. Data centers should not be in cities.

For new outsized users of power, Austin Energy will need to make a large investment. Solar cells and power plants are costly up-front and pay for themselves over the long haul. There is a big risk that a customer with high demand today will disappear and not pay off the investment. For risky high-demand customers, in which I would include everything AI-related, they should provide their own power or sign a long-term contract with Austin Energy that is co-signed by a more secure company.

Water is different than power: we can create more power but our water is limited. This will be a judgment call based on whether the other benefits of the company (jobs, services, etc.) outweigh less water for our residents. The City could "create" more water by fixing its pipes, which leak over 9 billion gallons per year, if a company is willing to pay the expense.

Pollution, also, would be a judgment call based on the pollutants, company's reputation, and difficulty of monitoring and enforcement.

Yes, the City should prioritize climate solutions. And the Climate Equity Plan does that poorly.

The City should adopt a social cost of carbon (SCC), essentially an internal carbon tax. The City should then pursue any policy where the cost of reducing the carbon is less than the SCC. The Climate Equity Plan, instead, lists specific goals in 17 different areas and it is not clear how to make trade-offs between them. The plan also sets a "net-zero by 2040" goal. That might have been believable in 2021, but, now, achieving this goal would be more costly than almost all Austinites want to pay and keeping that goal undermines the City government's credibility. By adopting a social cost of carbon, the City can pursue any policy that achieves a realistic goal.

The City should also select policies based on their expected effectiveness. Many things on the Climate Equity Plan are outside the City's control. It should be no surprise that we are not meeting some of those goals.

By keeping an eye on the goal of carbon reduction and emphasizing things the City can actually do, we will make more progress. Without doing a detailed analysis, my priorities for the City would likely include: denser housing near downtown, more bike lanes where they are used (near downtown), transitioning the City to electric vehicles, subsidizing innovation with new green building materials (low-carbon concrete, cross-laminated timber, etc.), promoting electric appliances (heat pumps, induction stoves, etc.), and helping renters get access to EV charging.

The Barton Springs salamander. If it has good water to live in, we have a good water source.

I would work with the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District and other local governments to monitor pollution in the Edwards Aquifer and Trinity Aquifer recharge zones. This is especially important with the extended and expanded MoPac which brings development to that area.

Austin Energy's rate structure has gotten less progressive! I wish that was more widely known. Since 2000, City Council has borrowed $3.1 billion from the pension funds, with the interest amounting to $219 million per year. The City Council wants to raise taxes, but the state's 3.5% cap is limiting that. So, they raise money by forcing Austin Energy to make a larger transfer. Austin Energy needs to produce more money consistently and one way it can do that is by raising the base rate. That acts as an equal tax on all residents of Austin and is one of the least progressive forms of tax there is.

I'm running to fix Austin's finances. The City can do that by: (1) where possible, shift borrowing to lower fixed-rate GO bonds, (2) prioritize development with more revenue than costs, (3) grow the population, and (4) pay off the debt when revenue is high. Over time, this will help alleviate the non-progressive structure of Austin Energy's rates. In the meantime, we need to make sure residents are signed up for the Customer Assistance Program. This should be easy and automatic, where possible.

I have other priorities for Austin Energy. Solar and wind don't produce energy consistently, so we need to adjust prices dynamically so supply matches demand, especially for large customers. Users of batteries, like EV owners, will naturally shift charging to low-price hours. This dynamic pricing approach will provide substantial benefits during storms and emergencies, when supply is very limited. Austin Energy currently subsidizes low-income households and this will become even more important under dynamic prices. Austin Energy should limit carbon and keep pushing to shut down Fayette Power Project. The City should explore a bond vote to purchase the other two-thirds of Fayette from LCRA and shut down the whole plant (if ERCOT will let us).

I'm a huge fan of solar because of its low cost. The solar cells are cheap relative to installation, so the economics push it towards large installs, like solar farms. In a city, that might mean solar over parking lots or on the roofs of large buildings. If regulations impede that, I'd be glad to work to fix them.

I would achieve this through Council's rate-setting powers, tracking metrics (like CAP enrollment as well as losses and volatility of market prices vs. rates paid), talking to Austin Energy leadership, and by appointing commission members who understand my goals and can communicate well with both the community and Austin Energy employees.

I used many technologies - 4 different devices, DuckDuckGo search, many websites, etc. - to research these responses, including a large language model (LLM). I used it to widen the topics I considered and describe background and context for all topics. I used it to proofread the final answers and simulate feedback from perspectives I might not have considered. It informed me, but I did the writing. The choice of content and all text from the initial draft to the final wording is my own.

In addition to my Masters of Arts in Economics, I have a Masters of Computer Science. Using new technology, like LLMs, is important to my career outside of politics.

AI is similar to the transistor and the web - it is a technology that will affect many aspects of Austin and in many ways we cannot yet predict. There is both hype and fear. Hype is probably causing a stock bubble. Fear is causing panic about data centers, which have serious issues but shouldn't be banned. AI is mostly a national issue and, unfortunately, Congress has not worked well for 30 years. The state government doesn't do much for the poor. Austin needs to prepare on its own for the parts of AI that we can predict. This includes roads packed with self-driving cars, thousands of drones delivering food nightly, etc..

Austin also needs to hedge for the unpredictable future. AI may bring benefits, like more free time, but it may bring real calamity. Large-scale job losses may wreck our tax base as well as cause direct harm to our residents. The City may lose its tax base another way, if self-driving cars or human-carrying drones allow rich workers to live outside the city limits. We should fix our finances, be conservative in our investments, and stay nimble to adapt to what happens.

Michael Nahas is an economist running to fix Austin's finances. On the City's Economic Prosperity Commission, he found Austin has borrowed $3.1 billion from its pension funds. The interest - $219 million a year - is a third of Austin's property taxes. No one was acting, so Mike acted: he put his name on the ballot. A former AURA board member, he helped win zoning reforms that Pew credits with cutting rents $250/month. He will bring data-driven problem solving to City Council, District 1.

The City has borrowed $3.1 billion from the pension funds and plans on borrowing more for the next 5 years. No one was talking about it. I needed to do something.

My background is in finance and economics and my top issues reflect that:

• Affordability (especially lower rent)
• Lower taxes long-term (fixing the $3.1 billion borrowed from the pension funds)
• Spending money sensibly (we're wasting billions building light rail instead of BRT, building a new convention center, ...)

I like the Forward Party. They're trying to fix a broken system. Also, I like Ed Graham and Brandon David here in Austin.

I've sought the Forward Party out early. I'm living your values: I'm a data-driven work-the-problem person.

AURA, the YIMBY organization in Austin. Member for 9 years and former Board Member.

I'm an economist and have worked in finance. The biggest budget challenge has been caused by the City's mismanagement of the pension system. If we make changes soon, we might be able to avoid tax increases and layoffs. I'm running for City Council because I have the skills to fix it.

The largest budget challenge for the City is underfunded pensions. The pensions are underfunded by $3.1 billion. Because the pensions are missing assets, we miss out on the returns on that investment, which amounts to $219 million per year. That's 1/7 of the General Fund. If you want to find it in the pension reports, it is labeled "interest". It is called that because the underfunding acts like debt.

There are 4 things we need to do to fix the problem. First, the interest on the pensions' "debt" is a variable 6.9% rate, so we should shift as much borrowing as we are allowed to GO bonds at a fixed 4.3% rate. Second, Austin should increase its revenue-to-cost ratio by prioritizing development on properties where tax revenue exceeds the cost of city services. This means tall buildings in or near downtown. Third, growing the city's population will reduce the pension underfunding per person. Fourth, the City's income each year is variable but expenses are mostly fixed, so we should dedicate any excess income above expenses to pay off the pension underfunding.

We also need to spend our money better. For example, when Project Connect was voted on, I estimated that bus rapid transit (BRT) had half the cost per-passenger-mile of light rail, with only a slight loss in speed. Now, with higher interest rates, the cost savings are probably higher.

If we do these things, we might avoid layoffs. Tax increases are not currently an option - voters' mood has gotten even worse since voting down Prop Q. I'm running to make Austin's finances work properly and that would be good for both its taxpayers and its employees.

Merit pay - good employees should be rewarded and retained. The average rate of compensation for all employees should track the local inflation rate. I support pay increases for all workers in a job when it is difficult to hire qualified people for that job or we have high turnover. If we have an abundance of qualified candidates for a specific job, average wages in that area should not increase.

I support the existing pensions for current employees. For new employees, Austin must explore other retirement systems so that it can keep its promises to current employees and retirees while still providing services to its residents.

In the proposed budget, the City's contributions to the police retirement system in 2027 are 33.2% of wages. That is huge and that doesn't even cover the full cost. Page 95 of the APRS 2025 Annual Report has "Remaining Legacy Liability" rising by $4.09 million in 2027. So, even paying 33.2% of wages is not enough to fund the pension!

In order to fund pensions for existing employees and keep City services for residents, Austin needs to explore other retirement plans, including defined contribution plans, for new employees. Implementing them would require changes to state laws, but I believe that is achievable.

I want Austin's employees to feel they are treated fairly, will not be fired for whistleblowing, and can operate insulated from politics. There should be a formal grievance procedure and discipline process. To be fair, there must be an appeal to an impartial party with binding authority over the City and its elected representatives.

I haven't looked in detail at the Municipal Civil Service Commission and its operation. The thing that stands out about it is that it appears to be run by volunteers. In most other situations, like an arbitrator or judge, the impartial party is paid in order to have them be motivated, qualified, and impartial. It concerns me because many boards and commissions have difficulty with attendance and finding good applicants. I want employees to feel they get a proper hearing for all appeals.

No. I don't like the City being involved in a transaction between two private parties.

There are good arguments on both sides of this. To me, it's a small matter. I wouldn't spend Council time on it.

No, I do not want to limit City employees to talking to City management through a single organization. I believe groups of employees should have a way to talk to City management about working conditions and report problems while keeping anonymity. But I would not limit City employees to a system where only a single group could speak on their behalf.

My answer to outsourcing depends on what is most important to the residents. I support using any means for providing cost-effective, high-quality City services to our residents. The public sector is good at fairness and predictability. Private companies are better at low cost and meeting temporary demands. So, it depends on what residents care about most.

Union laws need to be tuned to the situation in the market. Where there is a monopsony - a single company hiring a particular skill - that company has total control. Unions are 100% appropriate in dealing with a monopsony, because that's the only way the workers will be treated fairly. If you only have a few companies hiring ("oligopsony"), you have a similar situation. And, unfortunately, in modern America, there are a lot of concentrated industries. (See my blog post on oligopoly, where only a few companies sell an item: https://michaeldnahas.com/blog/numbers_that_matter/2020-6-23_oligopoly.html) In competitive markets, laws can let industry-wide unions drive up prices for customers and distort supply-and-demand.

We need to explore laws that foster organizations that fight for all workers' rights, not those of a single employer or single industry. We need to support organizations that sue and advocate for good working conditions across all industries. Ones that fight to protect all workers against discrimination. Ones that break up employer collusion against workers. These kinds of organizations are "public goods", which many people benefit from, but often don't get the funding they deserve. I'd like Austin to explore funding public goods, like these, with a technique called "quadratic funding".

For contracts and the like, any higher costs will be passed to taxpayers. I cannot justify having taxpayers pay more for work than private companies do.

For tax abatements, I would only consider these when the people of Austin clearly benefit. A higher wage, health insurance, and pension might be ways I would ensure Austinites benefit.

I am against price controls, which distort supply-and-demand and cause higher costs to be passed to taxpayers. I cannot justify having taxpayers pay more for work than private companies do.

Yes.

Wage theft is a gigantic problem. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division got $259 million repaid to 176,957 workers in 2025. And that's certainly only a fraction of all theft. Austin should fund organizations that fight wage theft and help employees get what they are owed. For employers showing flagrant or repeated violations, we should arrest them and request the DA prosecute them criminally - like any other thief, they should go to jail.

Misclassification is similar. It is employers denying employees' rights.

I support strong enforcement against improper use of independent contractors on City-funded projects. The benefits there are twofold: both employees getting treated correctly and making our contract bidding process more fair. We don't want cheating companies to win our business.

In general, I would not require them. I would focus on the benefits provided by those projects to Austin's residents.

Concerning subsidized projects, I would only consider these when the people of Austin clearly benefit. A higher wage and better conditions might be ways I ensure that Austinites benefit.

I would like local Austinites to earn more. Local government should identify education and training programs and measure their outcomes: do participants earn more after and are they happy with the work? For programs that financially benefit participants, the City should promote them and offer financial support.

I've served on the Economic Prosperity Commission and, while I've heard lots of requests for financial support, I've not seen much data on the financial and happiness benefits to participants. Registered Apprenticeship Programs have a good financial track record nationally. I expect the Austin Infrastructure Academy to produce qualified candidates for high-demand jobs that pay well. (We're building I-35, expanding the airport, and planning light rail.) But I will insist on tracking those outcomes and adjusting as necessary.

I understand the desire for many high-paying construction jobs close to home, but cities are not the place for data centers. After construction finishes, they don't have many jobs. And they take up lots of land and make lots of noise.

Technically, I am not in favor of a ban on data centers. I want government to police AI companies, but banning data centers is the wrong way to do it. Data centers are just buildings. But the requirements that I would place on the data centers would be strict: They will need to have their own green power or to provide bankruptcy guarantees for any Austin Energy investment. They cannot use wasteful evaporative cooling. They will have strong noise pollution restrictions.

Given the high price of land near Austin and these restrictions, I doubt that any will be built.

I will support cost-effective projects. When Project Connect was voted on, I estimated that bus rapid transit (BRT) had half the cost per-passenger-mile of light rail, with only a slight loss in speed. Project Connect's management did not lock in the low interest rates after it was passed. Interest rates shot up and the project shrank. I expect the cost per-passenger-mile has increased substantially.

Project Connect recently signed large contracts. Depending on the terms for getting out of those, I would support stopping light rail development and pursuing bus rapid transit.

I support subsidized housing that helps the poor. I support permanent supportive housing (PSH) and housing vouchers for those earning less than 30% MFI (Median Family Income).

Publicly supported developments should pay market rates. Any higher costs will be passed to taxpayers. I cannot justify having taxpayers pay more for work than is paid by private companies.

I support assisting parents with children age 0 to 4 years old. During those years, childcare costs may be the largest item in their budget, often exceeding transportation and sometimes exceeding housing. Government can help smooth or alleviate that cost.

Childcare is a complex topic, because it is not just done at childcare centers. It may be done by grandparents or other relatives. Parents may decide to not work and do it themselves, as part of a complex decision with many consequences. Subsidizing only childcare centers pushes children into the care of people outside their family.

My preferred program is direct financial assistance. Low-income households would receive cash equal to the cost of childcare. Middle and high-income households would be able to borrow that amount at low interest rates. The parents could then decide to spend it at a childcare center, support a grandparent caretaker, or support a parent staying home.

If the government wants to support childcare centers, I believe the best arm of government to do it is the public school system. It has expertise with child education, parents' issues, child healthcare, etc..

I support maximal transparency. The public, including City employees, should know how the City operates and what it is doing.

I support using any method for providing cost-effective, high-quality City services to our residents. If a City worker's job is eliminated, we should provide them opportunities for another position in the City. If that's not immediately possible, we should offer a severance package that includes an option for workforce retraining and reapplying. I want to retain our City employees and keep them happy, so losing them would be the last resort.

Yes. I studied this issue in 2018 as an economic advisor for a congressional candidate. It is difficult to pick "the correct" cap on fees and interest rates. I would suggest two possible local ordinances.

One is to restrict the location of payday lenders to a single location in town. Most customers do not shop around and choose the closest payday lender. This means that lenders have little competition and charge high rates. By forcing all payday lenders to a single location, it would encourage competition and better terms for customers.

Another approach - and I'm not sure this is possible - is to have a limited number of licenses for payday lenders in Austin. Payday lenders would bid for the license by declaring the maximum rate they would charge. The lowest bidders would win.

Either approach would make payday lenders still accessible, but less predatory. Strangely, the 2011 Austin ordinance prevents payday lenders from being near each other, preventing competition. The current law's restriction on refinancing at most three times is a great feature.

Other recommendations came from my research. Texas should keep a database of all payday loans, like Florida does, to have clear records of when loans are made and paid. And we should fine payday lenders when a client goes bankrupt, to prevent bad loans.

A non-governmental option is creating non-profit competition for payday lenders. In 1894, rich philanthropists created the Provident Loan Society of New York to fight loan sharks. It offered better loan terms, because it cared for customers and didn't need to make a profit. It still exists today.

I would like to make it easier for those with criminal backgrounds to find jobs. I know Austin tried to introduce a form of "Ban the Box" before the "Death Star" law ended it. Economic research has called into question the effectiveness of the "Ban the Box" policies. See https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/133/1/191/4060073 Under "Ban the Box", some employers may assume Black applicants are likely to be felons and, without the box to determine which are felons, they act defensively and do not hire any Black applicants.

Thus, I think Austin should do what I call "Build a Better Box": help employers design questions for applicants that elicit the information they care about. The EEOC has a process called "Individualized Assessment", which takes a lot of time for each job and each applicant. If we can simplify it, employers might use it more often. For example, if an employer is worried about violence, we know most violence is committed by men between the ages of 15 and 35. If it has been 20 years since the felony assault conviction, the applicant is unlikely to be violent. By giving employers more information, we can make it easier for those with criminal histories to find jobs.

If a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime, I think it is good for local police to use federal immigration laws to remove them from the country.

If they are not dangerous - which is the vast majority - I would not require local police to enforce current federal immigration laws. If there is major immigration reform (for example, Dreamers became citizens, amnesty for long-time law-abiding residents, etc.), my mind might change.

I’m an economist. I led Austin’s economic commission. I pushed for new housing laws that lowered rents $250/month. I found Austin’s pension borrowing is wasting 1/7 of the General Fund on interest.

To see the problem clearly, we need data not from the police. I’ll collect resident opinions, anonymous injury reports from hospitals, and insurance claims. Then, work with residents to prioritize problems and incentivize officers. I’ll start by moving Police Oversight under the City Auditor, ban mass surveillance, and only cooperate with ICE on dangerous criminals.

I will steer development in a way that fixes our budget and minimizes impact to current residents. I’ll prioritize tall apartment/condos near downtown, which bring in more tax revenue than they cost the city in services. Their residents will use more sidewalks, buses, and bike/ebike/scooter. These have zero or low pollution and minimize the impact on our congested roads.

AI companies need to be policed, but banning data centers feels like a rash action taken in panic. Data centers have problems, so let’s tackle them: Big energy users need to get their own green power or give strong financial guarantees so Austin Energy doesn’t raise prices. We should ban wasteful evaporative cooling, have strong noise pollution standards, and ban those NDAs.

Austin needs to put the correct focus on its subsidized housing: those who need it. I would redirect all efforts to create 65% MFI (and even 80% MFI!) to PSH and vouchers for those earning less than 30% MFI. The MFI is calculated from the median income of a 4-person household and the median there is a 2-income household. Thus, 100% MFI means 2 average incomes. Our 65% MFI housing means that more than half of single-income households qualify. I believe we need to focus on the poorest - those earning less than 30% MFI.

We also need to make market-rate housing that is affordable to those with extremely-low income. This will serve those temporarily without a home, those distrustful of government help, and those waiting for government assistance to start. Historically, cities have had single-room occupancies (SROs) that were affordable. This is possible with a large number of units on a small piece of land, but our building code often prevents it. We need to legalize it again. Texas's hotel occupancy tax has an exception for rooms costing less than $15-per-day; the state needs to raise that exception to above $20, which is where I think the price would settle.

We would need landlords to accept vouchers. (It is legal to discriminate on "source of income" in Texas.) The primary policy will be to insure landlords against damage and legal expenses caused by formerly homeless residents. Mayor Adler created a program outside of City government that did this for homeless veterans. It got them housed and he said no claims were made against the insurance. If that policy does not get enough landlords to accept vouchers, the secondary policy would be to incentivize them. Incentives would be targeted at units near public transit or within walking or bike distance of downtown.

I've worked since 2017 to lower the rents in Austin. I'm an economist and advocated for more housing, which lowers rents. It's simple supply and demand. City Council passed the laws I recommended and rents went down. Pew put the number at $250 less per month since the peak. This is how I've already helped the working poor. I plan to continue it.

The formerly incarcerated and people who use drugs are both helped by more housing - landlords will accept less sought-after residents.

Another thing we can do for the formerly incarcerated is "Build a Better Box". Landlords want to be safe, their buildings undamaged, and be paid on time. Many landlords use a standard application. We can work with landlords to put questions on their standard application that identify applicants who match the landlord's real desires. For example, most violence is done by men between the age of 15 and 35, so, if the applicant has more than 20 years since their conviction, the landlord should feel safe. This "Better Box" will get more formerly incarcerated people housed.

Ideally, congregate shelters would only be used for emergencies, such as when there is extreme weather. I will vote to improve conditions if another Council Member proposed good solutions, but my efforts will be devoted towards other solutions: SROs, vouchers for those earning less than 30% MFI, permanent supportive housing, etc..

My answer here is the same as above: Ideally, congregate shelters would only be used for emergencies, such as when there is extreme weather. I will vote to improve conditions if another Council Member proposed good solutions, but my efforts will be devoted towards other solutions: SROs, vouchers for those earning less than 30% MFI, etc..

I understand that sweeps are awful for the Austinites living in the encampments.

I've worked mostly on the solving of homelessness through creating more housing and lowering rents. Low rent has the strongest correlation with homelessness of any variable I know:

https://michaeldnahas.com/HousingCrisis/big_spreadsheet.html#rent_homeless

I believe sweeps are an unfortunate but necessary part of enforcing the law. Law enforcement is expensive and often has unfortunate consequences.

I believe that people do lose vital documents, medications, and other possessions. And I know that it is even harder for unhoused persons to replace documents and medications after their loss.

If it is not already happening, I would have social workers arrive a few hours before the sweeps. They would help the unhoused people collect their most important items. I'd provide them with bags to help carry them. The social workers could also connect the unhoused persons with resources.

For items of people not present, the social workers could bag the most important items once the police arrive. But getting the right items to the right person is very difficult.

I want fewer people unhoused, so that fewer people are affected by sweeps. The long-term solution means increasing the supply of vouchers for those earning less than 30% MFI, permanent supportive housing, and SROs. I would also talk to unhoused persons to understand their desires and find strategies that work.

Furthermore, I believe Austin should pilot a personal approach, where a specific organization is assigned responsibility for a specific unhoused person. For example, a non-profit that specializes in veteran homelessness might be assigned responsibility for a homeless vet. Austin could then track outcomes on an individual basis and compensate organizations based on successful outcomes. The City and other organizations are starting a program in that vein called "No Wrong Door". It is targeted at 937 individuals whose jail, ER, and EMS use costs government an average of $144,000 per year. I look forward to tracking how this program does and, if successful, expanding it. With a personalized approach, during a sweep, the assigned organization could be called to help each person affected. The assigned organization may bring additional resources to help.

No. At this time, I have not accepted money from anyone.

Yes, I commit to not taking money from billionaires, corporations, and PACs in this election.

Billionaires should pay their fair share. I am against most uses of Chapter 380 to exempt companies from taxes. My exception would be where it clearly and significantly helps Austin. For example, NXP needed a Chapter 380 agreement to access millions of federal funding from the CHIPS for America Act.

Most of the City's income comes from property tax, sales tax, and fees. I will keep an eye on these from both an equity and income-equality perspective. I would like to see fair taxes and I'm angry that the state forces cities to raise most money through property tax. As an economist, I can assert that billionaires hold less of their wealth in real estate property, compared to most people. A billionaire's interest income would be about 1000 times the income of the average Austin worker but they'd pay property tax on a home worth only 41 times the median house.

The numbers:
Billionaire income: $1,000,000,000 * 7% interest per year = $70,000,000 per year
Mean Austinite wage: $35.85 per hour * 40 hours per week * 50 work weeks per year = $71,700 per year
Most expensive house for sale in Austin is $20,000,000
Median house price in FY2026-27 budget is $484,907

https://www.redfin.com/city/30818/TX/Austin/most-expensive-homes

Most importantly, the rich should not be determining Austin's elections. I am strongly in favor of public funding of campaigns.

I think addictive substances are possibly the worst things on earth. It doesn't matter if it's nicotine, which contributed to my aunt and uncle's early death, or fentanyl, which wrecked the life of a housemate in my old housing cooperative.

I love fentanyl testing strips because they help people avoid taking that awful substance accidentally.

I want to dissuade people from using addictive substances. I do harbor worries that harm reduction may make it more likely that they might try them. But death is irreversible and needs to be prevented. Also, communicable disease represents a public health danger to other people and needs to be prevented as well.

Stopping overdose deaths is important to me because I have 3 big metrics for measuring Austin's government: the money in people's pockets (called "disposable income" by economists), the value people get from City services, and life spans. It sounds trivial, almost naive to say, but I want Austinites to live longer. So I will keep a constant eye on Austin's deaths and look for the best ways to improve that. And one of the best ways is to prevent overdose deaths.

What will I do? For me, the first step is always getting good data. Austin Public Health has a dashboard called "Opioid Overdose Dashboard", but it actually measures all overdoses. We need that data broken down by the substance. Synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, are still the biggest killer but methamphetamine and cocaine together may kill more. The right policy response depends on what's doing the killing.

Estimated 2025 US deaths:

• 38,084 Synthetic Opioids (fentanyl)
• 26,181 Psychostimulants (incl. methamphetamine)
• 19,581 Cocaine
• 7,065 Natural/semi-synthetic

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/releases/20260513.html

For fentanyl, I know some of the ways to prevent deaths. Narcan is good for immediate treatment and opioid blockers for longer term treatments. I'm less familiar with the approaches to treat addiction for methamphetamines, cocaine, and other substances. I'd work with experts and pursue the set of policies that are most cost-effective. That is, maximize expected lifespan increase per dollar spent. And, to be clear, I would fund policies to prevent drug overdoses at the same rate as other ways to prevent deaths, such as suicide or car accidents.

I was unable to find much information on this issue quickly, beyond a single presentation from Austin Municipal Court. I've read the book "The Price of Mercy" by Emily Galvin Almanza, which mentions very similar issues in other jurisdictions. (The author thinks the best way to prevent "failure to appear" is text messages and free bus passes.) I would need more information about clearing these warrants, but I'm open to the idea of clearing some/all of them.

https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=473095

This is just one part of the bigger issue of "How do we humanely deal with the people who have a difficult time navigating this complex world?" We need a consistent way to identify and classify people who, temporarily or permanently, need help beyond what's available to them from their network of friends, family, and community organizations. One method for identifying these people is repeated criminal offenses of certain kinds, like camping on public property.

Once someone has been classified as needing permanent or temporary assistance, we need to decide what to do going forward. If they recognize the need for help and accept the help, we should forgive those criminal offenses and erase them from their record. And, of course, provide that help: permanent supportive housing, housing vouchers, assistance with SNAP enrollment, assistance treating their mental illness, etc.. This may include, as I mentioned before, assigning an organization to a specific individual to help them.

I think having the criminal offenses is important for three reasons. First, it shows a clear sign that they've violated society's rules. Second, the offer of erasure provides leverage to encourage them to accept help. Lastly, the risk of enforcement provides a deterrent for people who might try to game the system.

But for the people we're hoping to treat, we can use the criminal offenses to identify them and, for people who really need help, we can forgive and erase those.

My first priority is to put the budget on solid ground. This is why I am running. Since 2000, the City has "underfunded the pensions" - essentially borrowed money from the pensions - to the tune of $100 million per year. We owe $3.1 billion. And the interest on that debt is $219 million per year, equal to 1/7 of the General Fund. That's bad.

And it gets worse. The City's plan is to keep borrowing for the next 4 years. That's really bad. I want to stop the borrowing and put the City on a realistic path to paying it off.

Beyond that, it gets tight. The police budget is the largest part of the General Fund and the police contract is for 6 years. (There is an option to renegotiate it after 4, but the Austin Police Association could hold out for 2 more years.) The state prevents us from lowering the pay to the police.

My three priorities are more money in people's pockets (called "disposable income" by economists), people getting more value from City services, and longer life spans. I am reluctant to raise taxes, but I will if residents get something for it. I will do surveys of residents to find out what they value from City services and what new services they want. I believe most housed people value City services for homeless people and the homeless people will certainly value it for themselves. For longer life spans, the best spending is usually public health: reduce drug overdoses, reduce suicides, reduce car crash deaths, and treat medical disparities in the poor and disadvantaged.

For all City jobs, wages need to be high enough to fill the positions with qualified people. If we have difficulty recruiting, I will vote to raise wages. If we have difficulty keeping good people, I will vote to raise wages. Because having jobs filled by qualified people produces the value that residents get from City services. In all other cases, I'd rather have that money in people's pockets for them to spend.

The Mayor and the City Manager are two very different positions.

On City Council, the Mayor is my colleague. We have the same voting power. He is elevated in title, notoriety, and a little more in government resources, but we have the same voting power. If what matters is the vote, I can work with my other colleagues on the Council to out vote him.

The City Manager is an employee who can be fired if 6 City Council Members agree. As an employee, he must follow the law and if "standing up" can be done with a new law, that is easily done by Council. If "standing up" means getting the City Manager to interpret a law a different way, that is difficult. The position of City Manager is very similar to a CEO, which needs the support of the company's board. Just as CEOs are powerful, so are City Managers. Getting them to interpret a law a different way usually means passing a law that they want or threatening them with removal, which requires a solid majority of Council. And threats to fire are something to be done very rarely - we want the City Manager focused on his current job and not constantly looking for another one. Because of this difficult relationship, the most important job of City Council is hiring the right City Manager.

I'm an economist. We use the term "monopsony" to refer to a market where there is a single buyer, such as a single company hiring for a particular skill. (It is similar to a "monopoly", which is a market with a single seller.) The City is a monopsony hirer of certain skills, like firefighting. Monopsonies have extreme negotiating power, so, for fairness, we need to restrict that power. Given that we don't want strikes in public safety, if the two parties can't agree on their own, it is best to have disputes settled by a judge or arbitrator, rather than let the city go without public safety services.

Prop A, passed in 2021, matches my philosophy.

The City Manager will do the bargaining for when the current contract ends in Sept. 2029. Before it occurs, I would talk to the City Manager about what I would like to see from the contract and any terms that would ensure I vote against it.

Regarding compensation, my default is to increase compensation at the rate of local inflation.

If the City has a hard time hiring and/or retaining qualified employees, this is a sign that we need to raise compensation.

If disposable incomes are higher in Austin than other cities, that is a sign our compensation is high. (Disposable income is compensation adjusted for the cost of living.) If this is clearly the case, I would keep compensation the same.

I want to get the most for our taxpayers' money and the tool I prefer is cost-benefit analysis. Obviously, 4-person crews cost more than 3-person. But they also have clear benefits. For residential fires, a NIST staffing study found that 4-person crews completed tasks 25% faster than a 3-person crew. For high-rise fires, another NIST study found that 4-person crews were about 19% faster. In fact, for high-rise fires, groups larger than 4 were beneficial: a 5-person crew was about 18% faster than a 4-person crew.

When it came time to negotiate a new contract, I would do a detailed analysis to get an exact benefit for the trade-off between 3- and 4-person crews. It would require quantifying the decrease in the financial damage and lives lost that are attributable to the faster times of a 4-person crew. Or, near high rises, crews with 5 or more persons. Without that detailed analysis, I cannot say for certain which side I would support.

I can say that if there is uncertainty, I would lean towards larger crews. I'd prefer to err on the side of less damage, fewer lives lost, and safer working conditions for our firefighters.

https://www.nist.gov/el/fire-research-division-73300/firegov-fire-service/staffing-studies

A contract is a contract.

The City should not violate the contract and require the union to sue. That's horrible for everyone. The City does have freedom within a contract and should use that freedom to get the best result for our residents. "The best result for our residents" includes thinking of the happiness of the City of Austin's employees. Happy employees are more productive and more helpful to our residents than unhappy ones.

A contract is a contract, so I'm assuming this question is about an agreement ratified by the union, but not yet passed by City Council. I would not pass it unless I thought it was the best reasonable deal for the residents of Austin.

The City Manager is responsible for negotiating with the union. While City Council can advise on what kinds of deals they might approve, they are not in control of the negotiations. The City Council makes its decision after negotiation. While it is unfortunate that that step takes place after ratification by the union, I don't see how it could be any other way.

I am not familiar enough with the details of workers' compensation disputes to recommend specific policies.

I've read about the case of Suzanne La Follette. A news report says "At the federal level, female reproductive cancers were added to the list just last year.". As proven by the final decision, the City should have covered her condition right away. (And the state should update its law!) We want City lawyers to zealously defend the City against bad lawsuits. But this seems like a case where the City lawyer should have known to use their best judgment, not fight for every City dollar.

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/suzanne-la-follette-austin-firefighter-battling-cancer
https://www.fox7austin.com/news/austin-firefighter-wins-legal-battle-over-cancer-treatment

In a different situation, courts with important cases will endeavor to issue an initial judgment, like a temporary restraining order, and prioritize a quick final decision. It makes sense to do the same here. If an employee is sick, we should be doing what we can to help them.

Yes, for some cancers. 1 in 5 Americans dies of cancer. I don't think it is appropriate to assume that all cancer is caused by being a firefighter. Certainly, some types of cancer are more common among firefighters. If firefighters' rates are more than a fixed percentage higher than background, the default should be to cover the disease. Of course, the City needs to use the latest science when determining that, so that situations like those of Lt. La Follette do not recur.

I'll repeat part of my earlier answer:

My default is to increase compensation at the rate of local inflation.

If the City has a hard time hiring and/or retaining qualified employees, this is a sign that we need to raise compensation.

If disposable incomes are higher in Austin than other cities, that is a sign our compensation is high. (Disposable income is compensation adjusted for the cost of living.) If this is clearly the case, I would keep compensation the same.

As I answered before:

A contract is a contract, so I'm assuming this question is about an agreement ratified by the union, but not yet passed by City Council. I would not pass it unless I thought it was the best reasonable deal for the residents of Austin.

The City Manager is responsible for negotiating with the union. While City Council can advise on what kinds of deals they might approve, they are not in control of the negotiations. The City Council makes its decision after negotiation. While it is unfortunate that that step takes place after ratification by the union, I don't see how it could be any other way.

If the City has a hard time hiring and/or retaining qualified employees, this is a sign that we need to raise compensation. For both recruitment and retention, further actions would depend on surveys of potential, current, and departing firefighters. If there are cost-effective actions that the City can take that improve the appeal of working for us, we should do them.

I support the existing pensions for current employees. For new employees, Austin must explore other retirement systems so that it can keep its promises to current employees and retirees while still providing services to its residents.

I'm an economist and have worked in finance. The biggest budget challenge has been caused by the City's mismanagement of the pension system. This is mismanagement by the City Council and city management, not by the pension officers. If we make changes soon, we might be able to avoid tax increases and layoffs. I'm running for City Council because I have the skills to fix it.

The largest budget challenge for the City is underfunded pensions. The City has underfunded the pensions by $3.1 billion. Because the pensions are missing assets, we miss out on the returns on that investment, which amounts to $219 million per year. That's 1/7 of the general fund. If you want to find it in the pension reports, it is labeled "interest". It is called "interest" because underfunding acts like debt.

In the proposed budget, the City's contributions to the Austin Firefighters Retirement Fund in 2027 are 25.6% of wages. That is huge and that doesn't even cover the full cost. Page 120 of the AFRF 2025 Annual Report has "Remaining Legacy Liability" rising by $6.75 million in 2027. So, even paying 25.6% of wages on top of the employee contribution of 18.7% is not enough to fund the pension!

There are four things we need to do to fix the problem. First, the interest on the pensions' "debt" is a variable 6.9% rate, so we should shift as much borrowing as we are allowed to GO bonds at a fixed 4.3% rate. Second, Austin should increase its revenue-to-cost ratio by prioritizing development on properties where tax revenue exceeds the cost of city services. This means tall buildings in or near downtown. Third, growing the city's population will reduce the pension underfunding per person. Fourth, the City's income each year is variable but expenses are mostly fixed, so we should dedicate any excess income above expenses to pay off the pension underfunding.

We also need to spend our money better. For example, when Project Connect was voted on, I estimated that bus rapid transit (BRT) had half the cost per-passenger-mile of light rail, with only a slight loss in speed. Now, with higher interest rates, the cost savings are probably higher. Austin also needs to explore other retirement plans, including defined contribution plans, for new employees. Implementing them would require changes to state laws.

If we do these things, we can fix our budget without unpopular tax increases. We'll be able to afford the pensions for existing employees and provide city services for residents.

For all budgets, I take a cost-benefit approach. I want to maximize the residents' benefits for the lowest cost. In terms of benefits, I will be looking at the residents' value of city services and longer lifespans.

The costs of the AFD are pretty obvious: salaries, buildings and equipment, and land used. Some of the benefits are also obvious: preventing the loss of possessions, buildings, and lives to fire. Also, the emergency services provided when there are no fires. Less obvious will be fire prevention: programs to check fire detectors and fire extinguishers, as well as programs to educate residents about fire. Those may be the biggest benefits and the hardest to measure.

First, for bond elections, City Council needs to write better bond statements. Often, such as for the housing bond, they are so open-ended that the Council could do anything.

For tax-rate increases, like Prop Q, City Council doesn't bind itself. That's a benefit, because of the flexibility to adapt to changing situations, but it's also a problem. City Council claimed Prop Q would make the difference on certain programs in the next fiscal year, but then changed the proposed budget after. That action hurt City Council's credibility and I have no doubt that political groups in Austin will remind voters about it next time.

How could City Council solidify its credibility next time they propose a tax-rate increase? I would suggest Council add a separate ballot measure on the same ballot that also restricts the income for the next year, so that voters know where the money must go.

No, my preference is for an end-result cost-benefit approach.

The NFPA response benchmarks appear to break the problem into appropriate pieces and the measurement methods seem reasonable. It will be useful to compare those measurements across cities, so we might identify places where improvement is possible.

One specific complaint I have with the NFPA is that it measures at a fixed percentile, like 90%. There may be benefits to the City by improving the median time, even if the 90th percentile doesn't change. And, likewise, it might benefit the city to improve the worst-case time, even if the 90th percentile doesn't change.

The NFPA response benchmarks are a good rule-of-thumb and may be useful for comparisons with other cities, but I'd prefer an end-result cost-benefit approach.

I am not informed enough about the details here to make a list of priorities.

I will take a cost-benefit approach. For example, with station construction, a station has a particular cost and it provides the benefits associated with a faster response time to all locations near it. We should estimate the fire risk at each location in the city and the expected cost of a fire there in dollars and lives, given a particular response time. Then, if the benefits in saved money and saved lives exceed the cost of the station, we should build it.

As I answered before:

I will take a cost-benefit approach. For example, with station construction, a station has a particular cost and it provides the benefits associated with a faster response time to all locations near it. We should estimate the fire risk at each location in the city and the expected cost of a fire there in dollars and lives, given a particular response time. Then, if the benefits in saved money and saved lives exceed the cost of the station, we should build it.

I gave up the Chair of the Economic Prosperity Commission so that I'd have the time to do a deep dive on the City's pensions. When I found out the City was underfunding the pensions by billions, I knew it needed to be fixed. I wrote a Recommendation and got it passed by the commission. Shortly after, a powerful member of the commission changed their mind.

They sought to undercut the recommendation. I delayed a vote by using my allies, my knowledge of the commission's history, and my knowledge of Robert's Rules of Order to my advantage. With patience and arguments, I reduced their worries and they reduced their opposition to a few issues.

Eventually, a compromise was reached. A new Recommendation was written. The opponent and I got to offer amendments to it, with a vote by the commission. I got what I thought was important from it. I also got to clarify items from the first recommendation. The opponent supported the new Recommendation.

Not only was the recommendation not undercut, but the second Recommendation meant more publicity for an important issue.

The second part of this question is easier to answer: contracts are contracts. They don't change under pressure.

As for firefighter safety, that is a tough question. Contracted salaries often tie up a lot of the money in the budget. What remains is a difficult balance between different needs, along with pressure to keep taxes low. I can say that I'll prioritize equipment maintenance, because keeping what we have working well is usually a good return on our investment. As for acquiring new equipment and services to keep firefighters safe, that will be a trade-off. I'll use cost-benefit analysis to guide my choices and, when uncertain, err on the side of spending more money to save lives.

Perhaps the best assurance I can give you is that no City Council Member wants to get singled out in a news story about a fire as the one who cut the funding for needed safety equipment.

• Master's Degree Economics (UT)
• Chair, Economic Prosperity Commission
• Board, CHEA non-profit housing co-operative

I uncovered that Austin is borrowing $3.1 billion from the pensions. The interest costs $450 per year for each family. I have a Master's in Economics and worked in finance. I'm running to fix this. My top priority is residents' wallets, especially lower rent and taxes.

The City plans on borrowing more from the pensions. I'll stop that. I'll move as much pension debt as we're allowed to a lower interest rate GO bond. I will prioritize construction that brings the City in more money in property tax than it costs in services.

The City's survey confirms that the top transportation problem is congestion, on I-35, MLK, and elsewhere. New housing must be built in or near downtown, to keep people off the roads. That housing needs wide sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and fast reliable buses.

A-. The best economic measure of housing is rent. It's the largest thing in most Austinites' budgets. A higher rent indicates a housing shortage, which causes homelessness. Zillow says metro Austin's rent has fallen 11% in 4 years, the best in the country. I'll keep that going.

No, not unconditionally. I am in favor of public transit when it is cost-effective. Project Connect has many parts and the cost-effectiveness differs by project.

One part is an expansion of Metro Rapid. High-speed buses are usually cost effective. I am in favor of this part.

Another part is the Green Line commuter rail. The existing Red Line has a high cost per passenger. In 2010, it had a subsidy of $36.69 per passenger. I know that Project Connect has built doubled tracks at more locations on the Red Line so I expected that cost to drop. If I read the Federal Transit Administration's report on CapMetro correctly, the Red Line is "Hybrid Rail" and in 2024 had an operating cost of $62.74 per trip. Minus the $3.50 ticket price, that's a subsidy of $59.24 per passenger. Commuter rail, in general, is difficult to do cost-effectively because you must pay employees in the morning and evening and there are few passengers using it during the day. Thus, I am against the Green Line.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/metrorail-in-search-of-riders-11748617/
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2024/60048.1.pdf

The most expensive part of Project Connect is the light rail. In 2020, I did a rough cost-benefit analysis of light rail vs bus rapid transit (BRT) vs. car. For street-level light rail and BRT, I computed the net-present-cost for rides on then-planned Orange and Blue Lines through 2040. Light rail investments were depreciated on a 50-year time-frame. For comparison, I looked at cars carrying 1.1 passengers, using VTPI's full cost model in a city at rush-hour. VTPI's model accounts for the costs of depreciation, gas, repairs, travel time, congestion, roads, parking, accidents, pollution, greenhouse gases, noise, and more.

Light rail: $1.25
BRT: $0.63
car: $1.84

Light rail was cheaper than a car. But it was also twice the cost per-passenger-mile of BRT (with a slight increase in speed and a large upside in capacity). These were rough estimates and, at the time, I didn't know all the details of Project Connect so I decided not to oppose the project. After all, it was still cheaper than a car.

But, in 2020, interest rates were low. From 2012 to 2020, the 10-year U. S. Treasury bond hovered around 2%. Now, it trades 4.77%. High interest rates are a sign from the market to not invest now. I have not heard that Austin Transit Partnership hedged or issued bonds early to lock in the low interest rate. Their actions indicate the opposite: they shrank the service area and removed the underground section.

Given higher interest rates and a smaller service area, the cost per passenger mile has increased. Probably substantially. I suspect it is higher than the total cost of a car.

But we are not at the start of Project Connect. We are in the middle. There are already sunk costs and assets, like the environmental review. Contracts have also been signed. I have not read those contracts and do not know the penalties for backing out of them. If I believe that, given the current state, the expected future costs and benefits are better than the total cost for a car, I will work to preserve the light rail portion of Project Connect. If they are not, I will work to divert the funding to bus rapid transit and ask voters what to do with the excess.

Yes.

I am particularly a fan of townhomes. They take up little land and are affordable where land is expensive. They are often owned, which comes with freedom, tax benefits, and equity. According to the book "Regulation for Revenue", by Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez, they are cheaper for the City to provide utility connections to than other houses. They are popular in Houston and I'd like to see them offered here.

I would like Austin to have a form-based zoning code, which restricts the outside of the building and prevents specific features that may bother neighbors. Our residents should have the freedom to arrange the inside of their homes however they want. Be it townhomes, triplexes, duplexes, or single-family homes.

Yes, I would have voted for HOME phase 1 and 2 as passed. They were a dramatic improvement on previous laws.

I would change HOME to eliminate the minimum lot size and maximum units-per-lot. Especially within 3 miles of downtown, the Capitol, and UT, where residents could walk, bike/ebike/scooter, and ride transit. The minimum lot size and maximum units-per-lot force buyers to purchase more expensive land than they want and drive up the cost of owning or renting a house.

HOME made it easier to put more units on a lot, but didn't make it easier to split a lot. Even with later ordinances, it is still cheaper and easier for developers to create "horizontal condos" rather than split lots. I would make it easier to split a lot and incentivize undoing of horizontal condo agreements. The condo agreements are an unnecessary complication that affects insurance, inheritance, lawsuits, tax filing, and future development. These agreements are not as bad as deed restrictions, but I expect they will last just as long. The City of Austin needs to make lot splitting the default and incentivize owners of horizontal condos to convert them to split lots. We should do it now, when there are few, rather than later.

More market-rate housing has played a big part in lowering rents. Zillow says metro Austin's rent has fallen 11% in 4 years, the best in the country. Pew agrees.

https://www.zillow.com/research/data/
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2026/03/18/austins-surge-of-new-housing-construction-drove-down-rents

More market-rate housing has lowered the cost of existing houses. This graph shows the nominal price staying stable, which means the inflation-adjusted price has fallen about 5.7% since HOME passed.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS12420Q

Thus, the effect of more market-rate housing on affordability is clear.

The effect on displacement is more complicated. When discussing displacement, it is important to keep in mind that it happens to a community, not an individual. Members of the community will always be leaving their homes. Some will move to different cities or pass away. It is important to check if younger members of the same community are moving into the neighborhood. If that stops, displacement is sure to happen.

Let's consider displacement for renters and owners, when market restrictions have been removed. That is, redevelopment is more profitable and older buildings are more likely to be sold, torn down, and replaced by more new housing.

If the residents of the older building rented, they may look to rent nearby. Because many buildings in a neighborhood were built at the same time, they will get redeveloped at the same time. The neighborhood will have fewer and fewer old buildings and more and more new buildings. The new buildings are more expensive because they are new and have nicer features (new appliances, modern styling, new technology, etc.). If they remain renters, they will usually choose to find a new place in a different neighborhood. This is because there are usually older units for rent elsewhere in the city that are similar to their previous unit in price, size, and amenities. The market could create new units with the same rent in the same neighborhood, but they will be smaller and/or have fewer features. Other members of their community are unlikely to move into the neighborhood, for the same reasons. Thus, increased market-rate housing is likely to accelerate displacement of people who remain renters in the area.

If the residents of the older building owned it, then they chose to sell it at that time. Let's focus on those that had a life event that required moving elsewhere, such as to be near grandchildren or into a retirement community. So, they will not want to live in one of the new buildings; will a younger member of their community want to? Possibly. It will depend on the price. The communities suffering displacement have fewer individuals with wealth and/or credit to buy expensive houses. So, the determining factor for owner displacement is the price of the new units.

The lower bound for house price is determined by the minimum lot size. Land in historic east Austin costs over $50 per square foot. So, requiring 5,750 sqft meant the price for the land to build a house is over $287,500. What can a Black household afford? The median Black household income in the US is $55,000. If they spent the maximum recommended on a mortgage, taxes, and insurance (28%) at current mortgage rates (6.71%), they might afford a house with a total cost of $191,000. Since the land is at least $287,500, the median Black household cannot even afford the land with a 5,750 sqft minimum lot size.

Our new minimum lot size of 1,800 sqft makes the land cost at least $90,000. If we assume it is exactly $90,000, the median Black household can afford $101,000 for the building, which is possible with a manufactured home. So, the smaller minimum lot size means the median Black household can afford to buy in their historic community. But more than just the median should live there and it is likely that demand will bid up the price of those small lots. I would get rid of the minimum lot size entirely. There should not be a minimum wealth necessary to own land in historic east Austin.

Thus, removing market restrictions for a neighborhood with a low-income community is likely to increase displacement among people who remain renters and decrease displacement among new homeowners. That sounds bad for renters, but consider what those restrictions also did: they kept older buildings around. They delayed the construction of new buildings that have new appliances, modern styling, and new technology, including energy efficient insulation and heat pumps. Those laws didn't stop redevelopment - new buildings would get built eventually. The laws kept residents in older, crappier buildings longer than necessary. The members of the community that remain renters benefit from "filtering": with fewer old buildings, their new home is likely to be newer built than their old one and have more amenities. I know this does not compensate for the negative effects of displacement on the communities, such as being farther from cultural institutions and making it more difficult to organize to protect their communities. But I don't see how those are avoidable, without extreme subsidies or condemning Austin's residents to live in older and older buildings. The best of the realistic options is more market-rate housing with the opportunity that more of the community can afford to buy homes in their historic parts of Austin.

Yes.

For walkers, we need wide sidewalks downtown and, elsewhere, we need sidewalks where they walk. I've seen a blind kid walking in the street because there were no sidewalks! We especially need sidewalks near transit infrastructure. On City Council, I will devote more money to sidewalks.

For cyclists, we need bike lanes in the right places. I've seen good bike lanes, like on 3rd and 4th streets downtown, which have bikes on them at all hours. And I've seen bad bike lanes, like on 183 Frontage Rd near my house. The speed limit is 55 mph! And the bike lane isn't protected - it is just a line on the ground.

As a rule of thumb for "good bike lanes", I think they are within 3 miles of our major destinations: downtown, the Capitol, and UT. The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management data indicates that shorter trips are more likely to be taken by bike or e-bike. For distances between .5 kilometers and 5 kilometers, more than a third of all trips are by bike. For distances larger than 5 kilometers, it drops off. 5 kilometers is 3.11 miles, which I round to 3. Within 3 miles of downtown, the Capitol, or UT, I will work to get a protected bike lane on every 3rd street.

https://english.kimnet.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2024/01/10/cycling-facts-2023/KiM+brochure+Cycling+facts+2023_def.pdf

For transit riders, it will depend on housing. Transit works best with dense housing near downtown. When I talked to voters, I got requests for bus service far from downtown, because that is where lower-income households are. But it would not be cost effective, because the housing is not dense and it is far from downtown. I will work for transit-oriented development that creates the density that supports transit. I will work to expand high-speed bus lines. I will push for shorter times between bus arrivals, so that wait time is minimized. And I will push for short times to board transit.

My priorities for City Council are to [1] increase the disposable income (income adjusted for cost of living) of Austinites, [2] increase Austinites' value of City services, and [3] increase Austinites' life spans. I will estimate Austinites' value of City services based on surveys and whether or not that service reaches them. That will guide my investment in sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails.

For sidewalks and bike lanes, they improve lifespans when they are less dangerous. Cars are dangerous. You're less likely to get hit by a car walking on a sidewalk than in the street. And, for cyclists, they're safer on a protected bike lane. I'll use estimates based on car traffic, pedestrian or cyclist traffic, and the cost of the improvement to keep the most Austinites safe.

For sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails, they can increase Austinites' value of City services. Sidewalks and protected bike lanes are not only safer but more pleasant to travel on. I will use surveys to determine how Austinites value these paths in general and the distance from each property to each destination to figure out specific values. My goal is to both improve Austinites' average value of City services and equalize them. (If you don't have a sidewalk to your home, you really should get a tax rebate.)

I'll use value-of-City-services estimates along with the lifespan numbers to guide the number and placement of projects. Sidewalks and bike lanes used primarily for commutes will be included with transportation funding, because that's where they belong. For pure pleasure projects, like park trails used for exercise and not general transportation, those will be put on bonds that voters may choose to fund.

Funding should come directly from taxes. Density bonuses make it harder to build housing than just allowing the zoning by right. And "harder to build housing" is the opposite of what Austin needs.

We should limit subsidies to housing for the poor. That includes Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for those unable to run their own lives and vouchers for households under 30% MFI.

Current Austin housing policy can subsidize housing at the 65% or even 80% MFI level. MFI is called "Median Family Income" but the formula derives from the median 4-person family. The median 4-person family has 2 incomes. So, 100% MFI is roughly equal to twice the median individual income. Thus, with 65% MFI, more than half of single-income families qualify and at 80%, I expect, more than half of all families qualify. While I sympathize with their need, I believe those families are best served by lowering the cost of market-rate housing. I will redirect subsidies to those whose need is highest at the 30% MFI level.

There are a number of barriers: zoning, deed restrictions, transportation, political discretion, and market inertia.

Zoning restricts housing by banning it. First, I'll make our zones hierarchical like in Europe and Japan: allowing residential buildings in every zone except industrial. Second, I'll loosen the limits on height, on volume (floor-area ratio or FAR), setbacks, and units-per-acre (including the minimum lot size). The units-per-acre is the most important because it forces families to buy a minimum amount of expensive land, driving up the minimum cost to own a home. There shouldn't be a minimum cost to own in Austin.

Deed restrictions are contracts attached to land that can restrict anything: number of units, setbacks, and, when courts enforced them, the race of the owner. The biggest current problem with deed restrictions is that they can last forever. We limit most contracts to 99 years - there should be a limit for deed restrictions. I will ask the state to put a time limit on deed restrictions, unless renewed by all parties. I will offer City enforcement of deed restrictions that have a 10-year limit, as long as there are no other deed restrictions on the property. I hope this will encourage owners to organize to remove old deed restrictions, especially those with the disgusting racial clauses. No buyer should have to agree to a racist clause, even depowered, to complete the purchase of a home.

Transportation is important because residents include transportation in their decision of where to live. We cannot just have affordable housing - it needs to be paired with affordable transportation. That means walking, bike/ebike/scooter, and transit. I will push for wider sidewalks downtown. I will push for a protected bike lane on every 3rd street within 3 miles of downtown, the Capitol, and UT. I will push for expanding high-speed buses and buses having rapid arrivals. If it is still cost-effective, I will support light rail.

Political discretion is requiring a political vote to build housing or, more usually, change the zoning to allow housing to be built. It restricts housing by making the process uncertain and making it harder to build unpopular housing, even if it is needed. My favorite example of unpopular housing is Community First Village, which is a wonderful development for the formerly unhoused, but was unable to be built in Austin because of political discretion. If something is unfit for Austin, we should have a clear law about it and let judges decide, not politicians. This is best solved by expanding zoning, to avoid the discretionary zoning changes, and making the laws by-right not by-City-Council-vote.

Lastly, market inertia is when new builders do not enter the market and the builders in the market don't try new buildings. We can encourage new builders to enter the market by simplifying and standardizing our laws. This will let builders from other areas in Texas more easily build in Austin and that competition will lower prices for our residents. As for new building types, we should encourage the building of Single Room Occupancies (SROs). These are dorms for adults: small rooms where residents share bathrooms and share kitchens. These have the chance to be extremely affordable market-rate housing that would be available to our residents who are currently temporarily homeless. Austin has not built many SROs and, even if zoning allows them, we may need to offer grants to builders to take the risk to build a new type of building and start the business to operate it.

Going from City Council Resolution 20260423-064, I agree with some aspects of the City's position and disagree with some.

I agree with its emphasis on the environment and fighting sprawl.

I agree with its recommendations to "provide continuous, safe pedestrian and bicycle trails and crossings" and "support express transit service". Austin should promote green high-capacity transportation.

I agree with the purpose but disagree with the wording of their recommendation to "reduce or not increase vehicle miles traveled". Cities are for people to meet with other people. More traveling means meeting more people - it literally fulfills the purpose of a city. Yes, there are negative consequences for travel by car: collision deaths, collision costs, pollution, noise, land use, time, etc.. But there are negative consequences for every form of travel. Austin should make sure residents pay for the negative consequences of their choices - this is known in economics as a Pigouvian tax - but not try to limit their choice of travel in any way. I'd prefer this recommendation be worded to prevent the negative consequences associated with car travel rather than limit vehicle miles traveled.

I also disagree in part with the recommendation to "add no more than one lane in each direction". I am not in favor of widening the entire highway, but I am in favor of expanding the bridge dramatically. The Colorado River cuts through Austin, separating downtown from nearby land south of the river. As the City grows, we need more connections across the river. I'd prefer high-capacity green ones, with bus lanes and bike lanes, but I accept that many residents use cars. I know that expanding the bridge will not dramatically reduce congestion - within 3 years, induced demand will kick in. People who drive more often will move south of the river or people already there will drive more often. But a wider bridge will increase the number of trips taken, which is a benefit in itself. Cities are for people to meet with other people and a wider bridge will increase meetings.

Lastly, I agree with the recommendation that the project "incorporates targeted modifications designed to alleviate known problem areas and improve overall traffic flow". This is just common sense.

I'm a computer programmer and economist. I have a Master's in Computer Science from University of Virginia and a Master's in Economics from UT-Austin. I worked in finance. First, as a programmer for traders and later as a trader myself. I made good money and saved it.

12 years ago, my brother fractured his thigh bone and I returned home to Austin to help him. I have always volunteered and joined a group, AURA, working to lower the rents in Austin. I used my knowledge of economics to identify and fight laws that drove up the cost of housing. In 2023 and 2024, City Council passed laws I backed and, since then, rents have fallen. I was appointed to Austin's Economic Prosperity Commission and my fellow commissioners elected me Chair.

While serving on Austin's Economic Prosperity Commission, I found that Austin borrowed $3.1 billion from the pensions. The interest costs each family in Austin $450 per year. I'm running to fix the City's finances before they cost us even more.

I have needed knowledge and skills: a Master's in Economics and experience in finance. I've volunteered with the local YIMBY organization, AURA, and was elected to its board. We were successful getting housing laws passed that lowered rent. I was elected by my fellow commissioners to lead the Economic Prosperity Commission. I was elected to the Board of CHEA, a non-profit that runs 2 housing co-ops, which have their own rules and judicial system.

I have not accepted any donations for this campaign. I could have accepted donations and spent other people's money rather than my own. I have not and spending less than most of my opponents. I've actually turned down offers of donations. I will be beholden to voters, not donors.

Another major difference is my knowledge of economics and finance. Those skills have been missing from City Council and the result has been high rents and $3.1 billion in borrowing from the pensions.

When I considered running, I surveyed registered voters in District 1. The top 3 results were lower rents, lower property tax, and homelessness.

To lower rent, I will continue to push for evidence-based policies that create housing. In my first year, I will allow housing in more locations, specifically in downtown towers left empty by remote work. I will reduce or eliminate the minimum lot size to make starter homes cheaper.

To lower property taxes, I'll fix the pension issue, which will lower taxes long-term. I will use cost-benefits analysis to make sure we get the most for our money. I will prioritize construction that brings in more money from property tax than it costs to provide City services.

For homelessness, I will create a program based on Housing Heroes, a successful program that encouraged landlords to put veterans in vacant apartments by insuring them against damage and other risks.

I have three measurable goals for Austin: higher disposable income, more value from City services, and longer life spans.

My first goal is higher disposable income. "Disposable income" is an economic term for income after you pay for necessities. More disposable income means you can buy more of what you want. This is why I have worked to lower rents in Austin. It increased disposable income for 200,000+ renters, who are usually lower income.

Second, I want Austin to get more value from City services. I will do surveys to find out what residents want and give it to them. This includes getting more value from parks, pools, and libraries. And getting these services closer to residents.

Lastly, I want Austinites to live longer. This means fewer deaths from car collisions, drug overdoses, and suicides. It also means improving healthcare, especially in communities that are poorly served now.

Just as the previous question wants to measure my performance, Council should measure the City Manager and staff's performance. I will expand the City Auditor's role to do that.

The City Manager runs City government. The Mayor leads City Council and does ceremonial duties, but the City Manager is the top boss, over the Police Chief, Fire Chief, and all operations. The City Auditor is not under the City Manager - it was intended to check the City Manager's finances. We should expand it to measure how the whole City is doing.

The City Auditor should collect the measures I said previously: disposable income, the value of City service, and lifespans. It should do surveys of residents every month.

The City Auditor's office should also collect crime information independent of the police. This includes anonymous assault injury reports from hospitals and property claims from insurers. The City Auditor should oversee the Office of Police Oversight, not the City Manager.

The best way to make Austin more affordable is to lower the cost of housing. It is the largest item in most families' budgets and local laws have a big effect on it. That's why I've worked on it since 2017.

We can lower the rent by creating more housing. I will allow housing in more locations. I'll start with the downtown towers left empty by remote work.

We can lower the cost of starter homes by reducing or eliminating the minimum lot size. If land is $2 million per acre, our minimum lot size of 1,800 sqft forces land to cost more than $82,644. That's too much for many families that want to live near their churches and cultural centers in east Austin. Houston, Philadelphia, and even the Mueller neighborhood allow smaller lots. We should too.

You can read more about me and volunteer at https://mike4austin.org.

I disapprove of the existence of the density bonus program. The City should give the higher limit by right and fund housing subsidies another way.

I'm an economist and studied housing in Austin since 2017. I've been trying to lower the rents in Austin, because of the direct effect of improving poor families' budgets and the indirect effect of less homelessness. Rents are lowered by having more housing - that is simple supply and demand. The density bonus program raises rents. The density bonus acts like a tax on housing. Moreover, it adds delays and complications to an already slow and complicated process. These result in less housing and higher rents.

Austin should help the poor, but does this program do that? As the City's presentation says "Density bonuses tend to be more effective for units affordable between 50%-80% MFI." MFI is so confusing a unit that I've written a blog post about it. (https://michaeldnahas.com/blog/city_econ/MFI_is_a_Deception.html) I don't doubt that the people at 50% to 80% MFI helped by the density bonus program are struggling, but I believe the way to help all of them is to lower the rent. We should reserve subsidies for those in real trouble, which I put at 30% MFI and below. And the City's own material says that density bonus programs are bad at that.

I would like to help those below 30% MFI with Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and housing vouchers. Those should be funded by taxes - it is the duty of all of us to pay, not just those involved in new construction. And we certainly shouldn't try to fund it by a complicated tedious process that drives up rent.

If forced to debate the terms of a density bonus program, I will try to keep it simple. I would push for a fee-in-lieu option that acts like a simple tax without additional complication. I would push to simplify the rules for where density bonuses apply. In terms of height and other factors, I believe Austin needs to substantially increase units-per-acre and heights within 3 miles of downtown, the Capitol, and UT. These are areas where additional transportation can be added to prevent clogging roads: sidewalks, bike lanes and transit. These are also areas where the City should prioritize construction of high-value buildings, since the City usually receives more revenue in property tax than the cost of City services. That will help heal the City's budget problems.

As for the cornerstones of economic development, successful cities attract both large employers and the workers to work at them. Large employers are attracted by lower costs, especially labor costs. There are two ways to attract workers. The first way is a lower cost of living. With that, residents still have higher disposable incomes even with lower wages. Houston grows faster than Austin (in absolute numbers) for this very reason. The other way to entice workers to take jobs is to make the city attractive, especially to the age group that moves: 25 to 40 year olds. Many young people accept a lower wage in New York City because it is "the place to be". Austin has grown in tech by doing both: having a lower cost-of-living than the Bay Area and staying attractive to the young people that tech companies want to hire.

So, the cornerstones of a successful City of Austin economic development policy rest around pleasing residents: keeping cost-of-living low and making the city attractive. I'd especially focus on making it attractive to 25 to 40-year olds in high-wage areas, like STEM. Higher wage young people are attractive to other young people directly and pay for music, arts, and other things that both employ other young people and attract more young people.

Beyond that, the City also needs to help businesses that want to come or expand here. That means marketing to businesses, helping them overcome hurdles associated with new locations, and matching other cities' incentive offers.

Once here, the City needs to run City services well, so businesses can operate and grow. This includes simple, predictable laws. It also means fast easy-to-use services, especially for ones vital to business. It means well-run and efficient transportation and utility networks. These are all obvious to me, but some have been lacking in Austin. Our zoning is overly complicated and unpredictable. The development review process has been slow for years.

There are also things to avoid doing. Cities can definitely control their future in a negative direction. Cities can fail when the city government borrows too much (like Detroit) or has deep corruption. So, financial discipline and investigative journalism are vital to foster. Cities can also scare employers into moving outside the city limits by not matching tax incentives or passing restrictive laws.

It is important to keep in mind that some things are out of Austin's control. A recent event is the rise of remote work. Strangely, it is not mentioned in the City's presentation (https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=469232). If you only have to come to the office occasionally, it makes sense to move to farther suburbs where land is cheaper. And if your job is full remote, why stay permanently in Austin when you can travel?

Much of economic development is organic: like plants in a garden, it is hard to predict what companies or industries will grow next. The major driver is low costs for employers and low cost of living for residents, with a little bit of making it attractive to young high-wage workers who want to move here. Beyond that, we need to make moving here easy and run the City well. Bad transportation, bad utilities, and bad government processes are like plaque on the arteries: they slowly but perceptibly make life worse for employers and residents. Lastly, keep an eye on City government to limit borrowing and misdealing.

NOTE: In 2023, I talked to the Mayor about the lack of long-term planning for Austin and wrote a document for him. https://michaeldnahas.com/doc/Economic_Recommendations_for_Austin.pdf

I probably would have voted against. The contract is costly, both in wages and the effect on the pensions. Also, I would like to expand data collection on police operations and that might require changes to the contract. Lastly, the City Council can act to improve the situation for police employees without passing a contract.

I have studied the issue, but have not formed a complete opinion. I have read the contract, but not talked to the Austin Police Association yet. I have not gone into it more deeply because it will be a fact-of-life for most of my term (at least Sept. 2029).

I want Austin's employees to be happy to work here and productive. I'm fine paying them well, if we get enough benefit from them. But this contract is very expensive both for its wage increases and its effect on the pensions.

I'm running because I found that the City has underfunded the pensions by $3.1 billion. Underfunding acts like debt and the interest on Austin's is $219 million per year. If you want to find it in the budget, look at the percentages of wages being paid to fund pensions. For the police, it is 33.2% of wages. And that isn't even paying the full interest - if you check the pension report, the Legacy Liability is increasing. We continue to borrow more from the pensions.

The contract contained large increases which not only strain the budget this year, but will increase the payout of the pensions, driving up the underfunding. It costs the City two ways.

I want to expand data collection on the police so that we know the City's employees are acting fairly to all races and solving our problems. I'm not sure at this time how much would need to be written into a police contract and how much could be passed by law. I plan on reading Chris Patten's report on the reforms to policing in Northern Ireland, which helped bring peace there. I also plan on researching how other departments do data tracking. I want to measure from first interaction to the end of sentence served, so that we identify the source of any problem. I also want to collect crime statistics independent of the police, which will include surveys, anonymous assault injury reports from hospitals, and asking insurers for totals of property claims. Data collection and police oversight should be done under the City Auditor's office, not the City Manager's.

Lastly, without a contract, City Council can still act. We can increase starting wages or offer bonuses to attract more recruits. We can pass policies preferred by the police employees. The contract provides longer term guarantees, which I can understand the officers wanting after the "defund the police" movement, but City Council can still act without a contract.

I welcome input and education from everyone. I think the RECA covers an important industry in Austin and, as an economist, I would especially welcome data on real estate, growth, new businesses, city performance, etc.. I'd like Austin to run well for residents and businesses and that requires constant feedback and improvement.

One of my 3 goals for Austin is longer lifespans of residents, so health will get a special focus when I'm a City Council member. (My 2 other goals are more money in people's wallets and more value from City services.) Austin Public Health publishes health data in its "Chronic Disease Report". In most areas, it only does demographic breakdown by White/Hispanic/Black/Asian-or-Pacific-Islander and the last category does well in many health categories. But, as an economist, I can tell you that can be misleading. The category of "Asian or Pacific Islander" is broad, containing people from many origins and cultures. Some have higher incomes than others and are probably pulling up health outcomes for the whole category. I will have Austin Public Health work with the City Demographer to estimate health outcomes on a finer granularity and target programs at the communities with worst health outcomes. I will deal with social services in a similar fashion.

As for language access, I've encountered this issue on the Economic Prosperity Commission. The City can translate certain popular documents into languages that are more often spoken, but the fallback has to be a translation service. Austin has "iSpeak Austin". I am eager to hear how it is working for the various languages spoken and, if there are problems, will work to improve it.

On this topic, there is a new idea in politics that I would like to try in Austin. It is called "quadratic funding". The City, working with residents, would identify multiple programs that could be funded. Residents would then get to choose which programs get funded. Residents would get multiple votes, so they can choose to fund multiple programs. These programs could be cultural events, legal defense funds, or any other "public good" that serves the entire community equally.

Quadratic funding is a way to help smaller, tailored public goods get funded, without relying on rich donors. It is especially well suited for smaller communities that might not get political recognition in a City Council with only 11 members. Quadratic funding is a new idea, so I would start it with a smaller pilot project in the first half of my term. But, if that goes well, it would expand in the second half.

Austin's individual police officers are allowed to cooperate with ICE because state law says so. It is Senate Bill 4 passed in 2017. Austin's police leadership, including the Chief, can respond to actions taken by specific officers, but cannot prevent them.

I have multiple relatives married to immigrants and have heard about how messed up the system is and how much it needs changes. In general, Austin should not cooperate with ICE unless there is immigration reform and the laws match what people want. By that, I am talking about reform approved by the 85% of people who think Dreamers should have a chance to be citizens and the 78% of people that think immigrants living here illegally should have a chance to be citizens. https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx

There is one spot where Austin should cooperate with ICE: to remove dangerous convicted felons who are in the country illegally. This is the only cooperation with ICE that we should have until there is popular immigration reform.

As for what Austin can do until then, Austin's Police Chief Lisa Davis says she will identify individual police officers who cooperate with ICE and limit their ability, by restricting duty, and disincentivize it by leadership decisions for that officer. I will support her in this. We can also avoid helping ICE by not collecting mass surveillance on our residents, where ICE can get their data. I support the removal of Flock's license plate readers. I support the TRUST Act which requires any surveillance technology to get approval by City Council.

The state of Texas has become intrusive in everyone's lives, especially pregnant women's. For example, a Sheriff checked 83,000 Flock cameras without a warrant to find a woman suspected of having an abortion. That should disturb everyone. The best way Austin can fight the intrusiveness is to not participate in mass surveillance. People should feel free in their communications, mail, and travel without every movement being tracked by the government. As I said before, I support the removal of Flock's license plate readers and the passing of the TRUST Act.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-texas-cop-used-83000-cameras-track-her-down

Maternal and infant mortality are two other big issues in Texas. One of my goals is longer lifespans for Austinites and we should prevent as many of these deaths as possible. Also, healthy infants have much better outcomes for themselves and their effect on government spending. Healthy kids require less spending on healthcare, disabilities, income support, etc.. I will invest in infant health because it pays dividends for their entire lifetime.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

I will need to think more about "ghost guns". I chose the least restrictive answer for now.

I support training and permitting for all guns, not just concealed carry ones. I would not require a permit for concealed carry specifically and said "no".

I answered the question about "stand your ground"/"shoot first laws" based on public spaces, not someone's home.

I oppose guns at K-12 schools. College is different.

When I replied to your questionnaire, I addressed both of these points in the "additional background" section:

I support training and permitting for all guns, not just concealed carry ones. I would not require a permit for concealed carry specifically and said "no".

I oppose guns at K-12 schools. College is different.

So, my first answer might be a "yes", depending on how you interpret the question.

My second answer is informed by attending the University of Virginia, which had a ROTC program and a shooting range on campus. I would not force those future soldiers to move their range. Also, most of the attendees of college are adults and should be treated as such. Thus, college is different than K-12, where students are not adults.

3 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

For all City jobs, I will raise wages if we have trouble recruiting or retaining well-qualified people. I believe we currently have trouble attracting new police recruits.

2 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

I believe there is data both ways on this, particularly with theft. That said, I would not support any changes to policy regarding criminalization without a detailed study of what went right in Portugal and what went wrong in Oregon. By declaring something a crime, we say something is unwelcome in society. I consider dealing fentanyl to be repulsive and harmful to humanity and it should not be welcome anywhere.

2 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

The only case where APD should cooperate with ICE is in deporting convicted felons. I may change this opinion if the US Congress enacts popular immigration reform. By "popular" reform, I mean laws that match the 85% of people who agree with "Allowing immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time". And the 78% of people who agree with "Allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time".

https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx

1 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

I am against all mass surveillance.

3 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

I believe Dreamers who have no memory of another country and grew up in America are Americans and should be treated as such. For others, they are here and human and some may become US citizens someday. We should treat them humanely and help them in ways that make Austin better.

2 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

I have limited knowledge on this subject. I know there were negative aspects to the Houston takeover. I have not studied others.

4 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

Our percentage of roads in fair or better condition has fallen to 69%. We should have passed a transportation bond this year. That is at least one piece of infrastructure that needs more bond funding in 2028.

https://services.austintexas.gov/budget/eperf/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PerfMeasure&DEPT_CD=PW&MEASURE_ID=3160

3 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

Budget cuts will be necessary if voters do not vote for an increase in taxes. Austin's budget is not currently balanced. Austin has underfunded the pensions by $3.1 billion. Underfunding acts like debt and the interest on it is $219 million per year. Austin's current budget doesn't even cover the interest - we expect to borrow over $32 million more in 2026. I believe in a balanced budget and large portions of the General Fund are already determined by contracts, especially the police contract. If voters do not vote for an increase in taxes, that will, unfortunately, likely result in cuts to social services.

2 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

I believe homelessness is caused by a housing shortage. We need more housing. During a housing shortage, there are things that decide which people become homeless. Addiction takes your money and interferes with your life and, thus, addicted persons are more likely to be one of the homeless. I do not think that substance use treatment will end a housing shortage.

2 (on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree)

Whether or not it reduces crime, we need to enforce Prop B as passed by voters in 2021.

There are dozens of policies that reduce crime. Two are fixing street lights and having a rapid 911 response.

The change I would make is to bring back Midnight Basketball. Most crime is done by men aged 15 to 35. Giving young men something to do and a goal to achieve prevents crime.

I am against mass surveillance. City Council did the right thing to pass the TRUST Act, which requires changes in mass surveillance technologies to be approved by City Council.

For extraordinary surveillance, like using a drone or thermal camera, the APD should get a warrant.

As I said earlier: The only case where APD should cooperate with ICE is in deporting convicted felons. I may change this opinion if the US Congress enacts popular immigration reform. By "popular" reform, I mean laws that match the 85% of people who agree with "Allowing immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time". And the 78% of people who agree with "Allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time".

State law forbids the City from stopping individual police officers from cooperating with ICE. The Police Chief said she is identifying those cases and doing what she can. I support her in this.

The City should lobby the state to end the over $800 million taken by recapture. The City needs to do what it can to provide safe transit to school. We should enable activities for students after school, like building soccer fields.

I will help parents gather to discuss the issue. If accusations of violations of students' rights become common, I will push the City to create a legal defense fund to fight for them. I will make sure the members of the state Lege know of the complaints from parents, because the legislators are the people most likely to end state control.

We should protect our residents' right to free movement, free communication, and right to be innocent until proven guilty. One way to help is to not participate in mass surveillance. A Texas sheriff searched 83,000 Flock cameras in an attempt to track a woman he believed was trying to have an abortion. City Council did the right thing by removing Flock's license plate readers and passing the TRUST Act.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it

I liked Austin's abortion logistics fund, but the state blocked it. The City passed the GRACE Act, which makes abortion a low priority for enforcement. But that only applies to APD, not the state's DPS. And, residents have to contend with the state's civil "bounty" law.

First, a balanced budget. This means halting the $32 million increase in underfunding of the pensions and making a plan for OPEB ("Other Post-Employment Benefits").

Second, maintenance. The biggest asset of the City is our roads and proper maintenance of them means both a more comfortable ride and lower costs over the long haul. Maintenance is unsexy and often overlooked. But, if we want to have more funds to spend on social services over the long haul, it is good to think of it now.

I am focused on getting Austin in financial shape in order to afford the social safety net. My plan has 4 steps. First, move as much pension "debt" as we can to low-interest fixed-rate GO Bonds. Second, prioritize construction where the City's revenue from property tax exceeds the cost to provide city services to the property. Third, grow the city, which reduces the pension-debt per person. And, fourth, when sales tax revenue exceeds expectations, use the excess to pay down the pension debt. These will make Austin financially stronger and better able to afford a strong social safety net.

The measure for homelessness should be the average time between when someone is identified by the system and the time when they have at least 1 month and 1 day in a new home outside the system. If this is low, homeless people are finding new homes outside the system quickly. Obviously, some people are unable to run their own lives and will need permanent homes inside the system, so those will need to be excluded from the count.

No. I have not accepted any donations this election. I am self-funded.

Yes, I am "loaning" money to my campaign. I do this when I transfer money to my campaign account so that, if I don't spend it, I can "pay back the loan" and return unspent funds to my personal account. It is currently less than $10,000.

I commit to not soliciting contributions while in office for the purpose of reimbursement.

My random survey of District 1 in Oct 2025 found the top issues were affordability, taxes, and homelessness. An important lower issue was gunshots near a home. Managing growth is also important.

My top priority: stop the hidden borrowing from the pension. Next: maintenance, such as fast pothole repair, because it saves money long-term. Then, reducing homelessness by filling vacant units.

Affordability is my top priority, which requires new denser housing. I support funding to preserve historic buildings & museums. I will push for voter-directed funding to cultural institutions.

It means police officers who talk to the neighbors and work on crimes they think are important. It means housing for the homeless and transportation to jobs for the young. It means fewer car crashes.

Protected bike lanes, sidewalks (where missing), fast pothole repair, incentives for trees shading sidewalks. I'd use my data skills to map spending-per-person and push Council to equalize it.

I will attend neighborhood meetings and randomly survey voters. I will use my technical skills to keep all requests online, show my office's priorities, and show progress on each one.

I am running because I think Austin is not spending money well. On the Economic Prosperity Commission, I did a deep dive into Austin's retirement funds. The City underfunded the pensions by about $100 million per year for 24 years. Underfunding acts like debt and the interest on that "debt" is $219 million per year, which can't be spent improving Austin.

Since 2018, I've worked to lower rents in Austin. I've been a member of the YIMBY organization, AURA, and served on its board. We succeeded in electing pro-housing Council Members who passed laws that I backed. Since 2018, rents have fallen by $150 (adjusted for inflation) and that decrease is the largest of the 100 most populous cities in the USA. Part of this work lowered the minimum lot size and allowed more multi-unit housing, which decreases sprawl and lowers energy use.

I served on the board of a housing co-op, Community Housing Expansion of Austin. I was Chair of the Economic Prosperity Commission. I have volunteered with many organizations, including Austin Habitat for Humanity, the food bank, and cleaning up Austin's parks.

Since its founding, Austin's biggest catastrophes have been floods. Climate change has changed rainfall patterns and we need to anticipate, not react, to those changes. That means reinforcing dams, planning for larger floodplains, changing building locations, and protecting existing buildings in new flood-prone areas.

We also need to anticipate weather events with a high dewpoint. That's a mix of heat and humidity that causes overheating in people. We need to make public cooling available. And plan for failures from a stressed power grid.

Austin's participation in a coal power plant is revolting to me. Even before carbon emissions became an issue, coal was deadly for its mining and pollution. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Closing Fayette Power Project is complex, because roughly 2/3 is owned by LCRA. The state organization does not want to buy Austin's 1/3. Thus, I'd get a quote from LCRA for buying their 2/3 and then put a ballot proposition to Austin's voters to buy and shut down Fayette Power Project. It would be expensive, but would cut Austin's carbon emissions significantly.

I will fund grants for Austin's construction industry to build using low-carbon materials, like low-carbon concrete and more wood, such as cross-laminated timber. The grants are to get workers familiar with the materials and cover the initial learning costs. If it goes well, businesses will be willing to offer the materials to new customers in the future.

I will prioritize construction within 3 miles of downtown, the state Capitol, and UT. There are 3 reasons for this. It is good financially for the City, because those locations tend to have higher property tax revenue than the cost of city services. Those close-in locations provide transportation options - walking, biking/scootering, and transit - that won't create congestion on our roads. And it makes environmental sense: low-carbon transportation options, more efficient heating/cooling, and less land use at the edge of the city ("sprawl").

As an economist, I believe Austin should adopt a "social cost of carbon". That is the price of damage of emitting more carbon. Then, when considering projects, we should pick the option with the lowest total cost, including the social cost of carbon. In short, apply a "carbon tax" to ourselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cost_of_carbon

I would approve new natural gas power plants, if they are expected to be the lowest-cost solution assuming a social cost of carbon. And, if only used a few times a year, it is possible that they are. Natural gas plants are cheap, have lower carbon emissions than other hydro-carbon based power, and are available when wind and solar are not. The alternative - buying lots of batteries that are only discharged a few times a year - might be more environmentally damaging.

If the peaker plants are built, I will push for Austin Energy not to sell power from its gas power plants to the ERCOT grid unless the price accounts for the social cost of carbon. I will also seek to move high-demand Austin Energy customers on to dynamically priced power, so that they will be encouraged to use more power when cheap solar and wind are available.

I would have voted against Dog's Head for economic reasons: it is far from the city's center and, in the long term, unlikely to have tax revenue that exceeds its costs.

Dog's Head's modified approval process appalled me because many employees of the developer, Endeavor Real Estate Group, made donations to City Council Members in a short period of time (see below). Laws should apply the same to everyone and that propriety is even more important to maintain when political donations are involved. (NOTE: I have not accepted donations from anyone. I am running this campaign on my own funds.)

Estimated donations to City Council Members where donor's employer contains the word "endeavor".
Based on data downloaded on Aug 19, 2026 from:
https://data.austintexas.gov/City-Government/Campaign-Finance-Contributions/3kfv-biw6/about_data

Since 2018, I have worked to lower rents in Austin. I am an economist and, in that time, have specialized in housing. City Council passed laws, such as HOME phase 1 and HOME phase 2, that I backed. Since 2018, data from Zillow shows rents have fallen $150 (inflation adjusted).

Austin's minimum lot size requires homebuyers to buy more expensive land than they want. It is smaller in Houston, Philadelphia, and even the Mueller neighborhood. I will push to lower the minimum lot size, towards Philadelphia's minimum lot size of 800 sqft.

I will allow taller buildings with more units within 3 miles of downtown, the state Capitol, and UT. More supply will lower the cost of housing. Also, those units will have more affordable transportation options: walking, bikes, and scooters.

For households with income below 30% MFI, Austin should provide vouchers, which limit the household's share of rent to 30% of their income.

A city must change and adapt over time. If "protect" means that members of a community can stay in the same location forever, if they choose, then I don't think a city has an obligation. Growth has caused problems in Austin, but I grew up in a shrinking city, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and I can attest that the unemployment and decay of a shrinking city are worse.

The city is a democracy and a democracy should serve its citizens' desires, such as wanting to live near their community. One way to slow displacement is to encourage ownership, because renters are more easily displaced. A smaller minimum lot size lowers the minimum cost for a property and allows more people to own in an area. Allowing manufactured housing in an area allows more people to own. Allowing more housing in an area will lower prices and rents, which makes it more affordable to stay in an area. When subsidizing housing for low-income families, we should make sure there are opportunities to live near their community.

No

Yes

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes. People should get the housing they want. My top priority will be more of all types of housing within 3 miles of downtown, the state capitol, and UT. One reason is transportation: that area offers greener transportation options (walk, bike, transit) and will not add as much to road congestion. The other is financial: the property tax revenue there tends to exceed the City's cost to provide roads and utilities, so development there will improve the budget.

The interests of existing and potential new residents are equally important, and welcoming a greater abundance of neighbors often enriches the lives of existing residents.

Yes, zoning and land use affect the City's finances. I will push for a revenue modeling study, which will tell us what development brings in more revenue for property tax than it costs the City to connect roads and utilities. I will prioritize development with the highest revenue-to-cost. Other cities have done these studies and the highest revenue-to-cost housing was taller buildings near downtown. If that holds here, I would remove (or raise) height limits, FAR limits, and units-per-acre limits. I would remove (or decrease) minimum lot sizes.

When light rail was proposed, I did a rough cost-benefit analysis. I found that light rail was better than the (total, unsubsidized) cost of a car, but bus-rapid-transit (BRT) was better than both. The cost-per-passenger-mile for BRT was about half that of light rail. Since light rail was better than a car, I did not oppose it. But, when Project Connect was proposed, there were low interest rates. Interest rates have risen and ATP did not lock in the lower rates. I know this, because the plans have shrunk. I now suspect that cost-per-passenger-mile for rail is higher than the (total, unsubsidized) cost of a car. Depending on the state of the contracts, we should change from light rail to bus rapid transit.

We should start by providing personalized help, such as with the new No Wrong Door initiative. This is both helpful and can control costs. For substance abuse, our help should include medications that reduce cravings and withdrawal for addictive drugs. For the worst affected, who have difficulty running their lives, we need permanent supportive housing (PSH), which puts care staff nearby. For untreated mental health, we also need to expand involuntary commitment authority to doctors and fund step-down care. Lastly, we need to expand public safety staffing with responders trained for mental health and substance abuse events.