AUSTIN (Talk1370.com) -- A new lawsuit seeks to slam the brakes on the Project Connect mass transit plan, alleging local leaders need explicit voter authorization to move forward with a scaled down version of the original plan.
The suit, filed by attorney and former Travis County Judge Bill Aleshire, names the Austin City Council and members of the Austin Transit Partnership board as defendants.
"The city and ATP are collecting and spending tax dollars approved by voters in 2020 for a dramatically different Project Connect than was recently approved by the City.” Aleshire said in a statement. "The law does not allow property tax revenue approved by voters for one project to then be used for an inferior replacement project. Nor can Austin just ignore statutory and constitutional restrictions on use of property taxes."
Among the plaintiffs in the suit are the owners of Dirty Martin's Place, one of the businesses set to be displaced by Project Connect. Also named as plaintiffs are four other Austin taxpayers, including former State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, current Travis County Precinct 4 Commissioner Margaret Gomez, former Austin City Council member Ora Houston, and Susana Almanza.
Voters approved Project Connect in November 2020 with just under 58% of ballots cast in favor. The package called for an 8.75 cent increase in the city's property tax rate - raising the city's property tax rate by almost 20 percent. The "Initial Investment Plan", as distributed in 2020, called for a $7.1 billion investment and would be completed in 13 years.
Earlier this year, City Council and ATP both approved a reduced blueprint for Project Connect, in response to rising construction costs. "This [replacement plan] has 10.4 less miles of light rail, no investment in the Green Line (6.8 mile commuter rail, no downtown transit tunnel, 11 less rail stations, 64% less projected ridership, 257% increase in cost per rider, no sequence plan or timeline for completion, and the inferior rail portion will cost taxpayers more," the plaintiff's statement continues.
“I voted for the original proposal because it would have served all of Austin. But the plan the voters approved has been thrown out the window, and I would never have supported the replacement piecemeal plan that leaves out most of Austin yet will still cost billions in property taxes,” said Rick Fine, co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
