East Austin’s voice reverberates at the City Council dais


This is part one in a three-part reporting project on the changes East Austin’s neighborhoods have experienced. Check back on Wednesday for our story on the shifting business landscape in the area, and on Thursday for our piece on neighborhood schools responding to demographic changes. You can find more information on how the story began here.  

City leaders point to shift in budget, policy priorities as representation east of I-35 grows

Today, Austin ranks as the best place to live in America and boasts a thriving job market, rapid development and continued population growth; however, the failure of that success to reach specific corners of town reflects a troubled past that remains more than peripheral for many leaders and longtime residents.

When minorities were coerced by the city government 90 years ago to move east of what is now I-35, it left a distinct seam down the center of Austin. As a result, East Austinites have endured generations of economic and racial disparities.

Amid its success, Austin continues to wrestle with equity. The east side has become a more attractive investment for developers, but gentrification increases. Property values go up, but so do taxes—longtime families are priced out and school enrollment numbers fall.

However, a new East Austin focus has impacted policy and budget priorities now that those east of the dividing interstate highway have a louder voice inside City Hall.

“Since [the city began district-based City Council representation in 2015]there has been an undeniable pivot east,” District 4 City Council Member Greg Casar said. “And an undeniable focus of the City Council away from just issues of the environment and developers toward social justice, equity and trying to create reparations for the past.”

That eastward pivot revealed itself in several major City Council decisions over the past year, Casar said. Council rejected a police union contract for the first time in its history after hearing demands from east side residents for more police oversight and transparency. Council’s vote to require all businesses to provide earned paid sick leave was aimed at the city’s lowest paid residents and service industry workers, many of whom live on the east side. The recent Freedom City policy is meant to reduce racial disparities in discretionary arrests and immigration status inquiries by police. Council also targeted gentrification with resolutions regarding tenants’ rights and rectifying the displacement of longtime residents; they then approved a workforce development strategy to ensure Austin’s economic success extended east.

This fall council will vote on a city budget that reflects priority changes in city spending. Since district representation began, funding for social programs has increased while the percentage of appropriations to the police department has dropped. Come November, taxpayers will vote on a $925 million bond proposal that includes $250 million for affordable housing projects and significant funding for east side cultural centers that have long evaded meaningful budget allocation.

City leaders, stakeholders and residents say absent a strong voice from East Austin, much of this would have been improbable—even impossible. Although struggles continue, they say the city is only in the first act of its momentum toward east side equity.

Addressing an inequitable past

Nearly all roads to Austin’s inequitable and segregated past lead back to that infamous decision 90 years ago.

“A City Plan for Austin, Texas,” the city’s 1928 comprehensive plan, addressed Austin’s racial issues by only offering city services to minority residents if they lived east of East Avenue—now I-35. Designed to squeeze the minority population into a “negro district,” the plan institutionalized racial segregation.

For decades, under an at-large system of government, Austin’s mayor and City Council seats were decided by a citywide popular vote. Central and West Austin—where voter turnout was highest—had a dominating electoral influence and thus resulted in little council diversity. Although a “gentleman’s agreement” in 1971 had the city’s major political influencers vow support to only minority candidates for the last two council seats, council members continued to primarily represent  Central and West Austin interests.

As the population in East Austin grew, so, too, did the necessity for a district representation system. By 2012, Austin was the largest city in the country without a district system, according to Austin Community College’s Center for Public Policy and Political Studies; however, attempts at change were defeated by popular vote several times.

After six failed attempts, Austinites in 2012 approved the switch to a 10-1 system of government—10 council members each elected by a district and one mayor elected by the entire city. The system delivered four council seats to East Austin and moved council elections from May to November to increase voter turnout. The inaugural 10-1 council took over in 2015.

Council Member Delia Garza, who represents the southeastern District 2, was among the loudest advocates for the district system. She said 10-1 has made a significant impact.

“It makes a difference to people when the person representing them drives the same streets they drive every day,” Garza said. “The average Austinite has a voice at City Hall, and I don’t think that was the case before.”

An eastward pivot

Before 10-1, Casar said council candidates never knocked on doors in his northeast district. Today, people have an incentive to listen to East Austinites, he said, which unearths different issues and priorities. This has resulted in a “significant disruption to the existing power system,” Casar said.

Chris Harris, a data analyst with nonprofit criminal justice organization Grassroots Leadership, said under the old system, Austin Police Association and Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce endorsements were almost necessary to win a council seat.

“Being able to campaign in a smaller area means you don’t need the nod from those kingmakers anymore,” Harris said.

If a majority of City Council members still required those endorsements, Harris and Casar said, the rejection of the police contract and passage of the paid sick leave ordinance and Freedom City policy would have been unlikely.

Garza and Casar said City Council has also taken a new strategy on public safety. Since 10-1 began, the percentage of the budget allocated to the police department has dropped and funding for social programs has increased.

The purpose, Casar said, is to address issues like mental health, drug addiction and homelessness so people need to call the police less often.

Austin Mayor Steve Adler recently attended an event where four displaced East Austin families were housed through a community affordable housing effort. He said housing and affordability are the “Achilles’ heels” for Austin, especially as property demand and development pressure push eastward and displace longtime residents.

Adler said since 10-1, conversations about affordability and housing have taken center stage in city politics, and pointed to City Council’s support for the upcoming $250 million affordable housing bond.

“There is no question that having all parts of the city sitting at the table has changed the conversation on the council dais,” Adler said. “These conversations have been happening at breakfast tables all over the city for years, but now they are happening at council and they’re happening in ways they weren’t before.”

Longtime East Austin resident Mark Rogers, head of the Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corp.—an East Austin neighborhood group that provided the land for the four  homes—said development  pressure has priced out all of his neighbors. He recently asked students at The University of Texas what came to mind when they heard “East Austin,” and one student replied, “Lots of nice boutiques.”

“Man, I never thought I would hear the word ‘boutique’ associated with East Austin,” said Rogers, who remembers when most homes east of I-35 had burglar bars on the windows.

Rogers and Casar said the bond money will attempt to slow the rapid gentrification but agreed there is a fine line between cleaning up an area for existing residents and making it so desirable that prices increase and exacerbate displacement.

However, the answer, Casar said, cannot be to do nothing. With East Austin’s voice now amplified in City Hall and the housing and affordability crises at the center of public discourse, he said solutions appear closer in reach than they once were.

Share this story
1 comment
  1. “Nearly all roads to Austin’s inequitable and segregated past lead back to that infamous decision 90 years ago. When minorities were coerced by the city government 90 years ago to move east of what is now I-35, it left a distinct seam down the center of Austin.”

    This never happened.

    “‘A City Plan for Austin, Texas,’ the city’s 1928 comprehensive plan, addressed Austin’s racial issues by only offering city services to minority residents if they lived east of East Avenue—now I-35. Designed to squeeze the minority population into a ‘negro district,’ the plan institutionalized racial segregation.”

    Mr. Neely, you don’t know what you’re writing about. Have you researched this? That’s a rhetorical question because I know you haven’t. You are likely going on heresay not unlike many others who have been repeating this myth for quite a few years now. I’m not going to go into the details. The true history is available to anyone who takes the time to do the research. You have not, yet you expound as if you have. This is irresponsible reportage. The research takes time but if you develop efficient procedures, it’s not overwhelming. I suggest you go to the Austin History Center and read. Start at about 1915.

    Insurance and real estate companies had a lot to do with segregation in Austin. The only thing you might be able to pin on city government is NOT creating laws against discrimination. There was never any coercion. The myth is just a way to make people feel guilty. The 1928 City Plan actually intended to equalize services as segregation was recognized as an issue that needed to be addressed. True, they did not impose anti-segregation restrictions in that plan, but there were no laws imposed to enforce segregation either. It was, as it had always been, left to individuals and the private sector to decide who gets to live where.

    “After six failed attempts, Austinites in 2012 approved the switch to a 10-1 system of government…”

    You understand a little more about how this came about, but to laud this conversion as progress is off the mark again. There were very good reasons the people of Austin voted it down six times. There are also a list of bad reasons it finally passed. You are probably unaware of both. Again, I won’t go into the details here because it would be too long. Do the research. The fact is that the 10-1 system was a Trojan Horse. The concept may be good, but in practice, it’s a disaster for voters, especially those who live in South Central Austin like me.

    “’It makes a difference to people when the person representing them drives the same streets they drive every day,’ Garza said.”

    True enough, but that’s not what happened. The concept of having a representative from a community based on common interests has merit. But the vote did not include a map of the districts. The districts were to be determined at a later date, and that’s where the enemy soldiers popped out of the gift to take the people’s right to choose. Back in the day (when you weren’t around), South Austin had its own well-known identity. It was common to see the bumper stickers that read “70704, More than a zip code – It’s a way of life.” We have a lot in common in old South Austin, whether you live in Zilker or Travis Heights. Who would imagine that our common interests would be ignored when districts were drawn? But it was worse than ignoring our community. It was an all out effort to destroy it.

    Proponents of 10-1 sold newcomers on how it would be more democratic. People from other places didn’t understand the system that had been in place for over 40 years. Maybe they didn’t believe it always worked, but it worked far better than what we have now. You don’t know. You weren’t here. Those of us right across the river from downtown have far more in common with each other than we do with the communities that now totally nullify our votes. We went from getting to vote for every Councilmember to getting to vote for only one. Now, those of us in District 5 don’t get to vote for any! We have no vote! That’s more democratic?

    Plus, we don’t have the shared driving on the same streets benefit referred to by Garza. I almost never go out of old South Austin unless it’s right across the river. Our real neighbors right across the railroad tracks are not in our district while we are grouped with folks in far South Austin and Creedmore! The districts were gerrymandered like the state districts, based not on shared community interests, but on voters’ identity attributes. This is wrong in every way.

    I could go on and on about this disastrous 10-1 farce of a system. What’s really disturbing about it is seeing reporters (you are not alone) whose ignorance of local history misinforms them, while their positions permit them to perpetuate a mythic history to paint a false picture of what’s taking place today.

    No Mr. Neely, the 10-1 system is not a step in the right direction – not the way the districts are drawn today. If folks don’t see the problem with it, it’s partly because of inaccurate reportage.

Leave A Reply

Christopher Neely
Christopher Neely is Community Impact's Austin City Hall reporter. A New Jersey native, Christopher moved to Austin in 2016 following two years of community reporting along the Jersey Shore. His bylines have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun and USA Today. He is a graduate of the University of Maryland's Philip Merrill College of Journalism.
Back to top