When they were young, I used to give my daughters individual bags of chips. Turns out, my oldest would seize some of her sisters’ stash. This coincided with chip-makers putting fewer chips in each bag, commonly known as shrinkflation.
When I cut the number of bags I handed out, she would actually demand more from the other girls.
If this sounds too unfair to be true, that’s because it is. I made it up. The analogous situation that San Antonians are facing as the City’s budget process comes to a head, however, is real.
CoSA is staring at a projected $158 million deficit over the next two years. Back at their June 18th meeting, city staff presented the mayor and city council with a range of options: raise taxes, raise fees, cut spending, or some combination of the three.
A few on the council sounded skeptical about raising the property tax rate; whether what the city is allowed to do annually per state law, or recapturing that which it has passed on in recent years.
On August 13th, City Manager Erik Walsh answered: all three. His proposed $4.4 billion budget takes the recapture route, raising the property tax rate for the first time since 1992, which works out to roughly $35 a year on the average homestead. It raises a raft of fees. And it cuts $89.6 million over two years, more than 100 civilian positions among them. Three council members voted against setting the higher rate; it survived 8-3, and comes up for a final vote on September 17th.
The San Antonio Express-News editorial board had chimed in over the summer, recommending a “modest tax hike (and) spending cuts.” It’s “common sense” and “rational” to look at “both sides of the budget scale.”
Interesting choice of words.
Since the pandemic lockdowns, San Antonio’s population has grown 9%. The increase in its property tax take has roughly tracked the 25-30% overall inflation rate. The City’s budget, including payroll growth exceeding that of the population, has grown over 40%. The proposed budget grows the general fund another 4.1%.
Do those figures, taken together, sound “rational”? Much of what came from the dais in June was also puzzling.
District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez started by posing a thoughtful question regarding policing. Do we believe someone isn’t going to “retaliate at someone for shooting their friend or relative because the city hired 60 more officers?”
By the same token though, do we believe the “programs and social services” at risk of losing funding would prevent a crime like that?
Moreover, the new parent he sees in the mirror might object to his claim that the “root causes of crime can only be addressed” in such a way. His mere presence in his child’s life arguably does a better job.
Earlier, District 1 Councilwoman Sukh Kaur expressed a desire to shield the “minor home repair” program. It can “keep people in their homes” and prevent “them from being unhoused.” A laudable goal.
Are ever-growing property tax bills not a similar threat?
Later, Walsh suggested that some expenses could be moved to capital. As Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones astutely pointed out, that’s basically putting them on the city’s credit card.
We are the most indebted big city in Texas, by a lot. That liability is borne by citizens of what is also one of the poorest cities in the Lone Star State, also one of the poorest in the U.S.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani proclaimed in June that “we balanced the budget without asking working New Yorkers to shoulder the burden.” Do his socialist counterparts on our council share that goal?
The correlation may not be apparent, but our municipal debt is financed by property taxes. If transplants to the region continue settling beyond city limits, joined by ex-San Antonians with the means to do the same, everyone else will be left with the bill.
Surrounding counties are growing 15%-4X faster than San Antonio proper.
This is a good spot for a reminder that the council is also considering raising that portion of the property tax rate for the sole purpose of borrowing more. Earlier this month, a majority signaled they are open to doing just that down the road, to prop up a 2027 bond program whose capacity has shrunk to $450 million, the smallest in years.
Does any of this sound like “common sense” yet?
In fairness, it could lend itself to District 3 Councilwoman Phyllis Viagran’s assertion that “a city budget … is not a … household (or a) business budget.” Councilman McKee-Rodriguez seemed to concur when he said “we will not get better services with lesser resources.” By August, he was “really, really exhausted” with the “high ground” his tax-averse colleagues were taking.
Are these tacit admissions that city government is an inherently inferior organization? Sure, it’s much bigger than even the biggest household, but that excuse fritters away against large private businesses.
Unlike them, CoSA will never go out of business. Why? Because, as members of council obviously know, they can keep it afloat by simply imposing taxes on San Antonians.
Perhaps this is why many politicians barely mention “the taxpayer.” It relieves electeds of the guilt of taking more from them if they don’t explicitly acknowledge them. Rather, these involuntary benefactors exist as some abstract other.
Maybe that’s what makes it easy to force them to fund 21X more of VIA’s operations than riders do. How about “modestly” raising the baseline fare, shrink the sales tax devoted to public transportation, redirect it to the general fund, and actually cut the property tax rate?
It would be more respectable than circling “all the vendors … that line-up SW Military” like vultures, threatening them with increased permit fees, as Councilwoman Viagran implied. The proposed budget takes that approach citywide, hiking fees on everything from Alamodome parking to trash carts to overdue library books.
District 5 Councilwoman Teri Castillo put a bow on this discussion when she added that “austerity is not a realistic budget plan.” But austerity isn’t just cutting spending; by definition, it includes raising taxes.
It’s disappointing how many of them struggle to grasp reality.
It’s bad enough that they fattened up the city budget when Uncle Sam was showering dollars on municipalities. Regardless of the federal government’s penchant for regularly overspending, the lockdown flourishes were not going to last indefinitely.
But why did so few, if any, foresee the inevitable plateauing of property values? This year, the City’s taxable base is actually shrinking, down about 2.7%.
They were content, even opportunistic, to spend the spike in tax revenue. The homes I’ve owned in the Alamo City experienced anywhere from a 28% - 70% rise in values over this time. But those were effectively inflationary, unrealized ‘gains’, to use that term loosely.
Once Washington D.C. started to correct policy, poof!
After all was said and done, it seemed those bags of chips in my story were less illusory than any “common sense” and “rational”ity emanating from city leadership and establishment.
Christopher E. Baecker ran for San Antonio City Council District 6 in 2025. He is Vice President of the Bexar County Taxpayers Association, and a board member of InfuseSA. He works in financial services and teaches college economics.
