Estimated Time to Read: 10 minutes
In November 2025, voters in the City of Austin rejected Proposition Q, a ballot measure that would have imposed a 20 percent property tax increase, the largest in city history. The proposal sought to raise the city’s property tax rate from $0.4776 to $0.574017 per $100 of valuation, generating an additional $109.5 million in revenue for what city leaders described as “community priorities,” including homelessness services, housing initiatives, and public health programs.
City officials, led by Mayor Kirk Watson, claimed the increase was necessary to cover a $33 million budget shortfall and prevent cuts to frontline services. Yet Austin’s budget told another story. Over the past decade, the city’s annual spending had nearly doubled, growing from $3.3 billion in 2013 to a record $6.3 billion in 2025. Critics argued that the problem was not a lack of revenue but excessive spending and misplaced priorities.
Opponents pointed out that Austin already spent hundreds of millions on homelessness and housing without clear evidence of improvement. They contended that raising taxes without reform would expand bureaucracy rather than produce results. For many Austinites, approving a record tax increase amid an ongoing affordability crisis was untenable. The measure’s defeat made clear that residents were unwilling to pay more for policies that had failed to deliver meaningful change.
A Broad Bipartisan Coalition Opposed Proposition Q
The campaign against Proposition Q brought together an unlikely alliance of conservatives, independents, and even some Democrats who saw the measure as emblematic of fiscal irresponsibility. Leading the charge was Save Austin Now (SAN), a political action committee known for mobilizing voters around issues of public order and government accountability.
Austin-area attorney Adam Loewy, a major donor to SAN, described the election as a “blowout victory” for taxpayers. SAN raised roughly $200,000 to defeat the proposition, joined by Restore Leadership ATX and A Greater Republic PAC, bringing the total opposition spending to nearly $300,000.
Their messaging was simple and effective. Across the city, billboards read, “Stop the largest property tax increase in Austin history.” The opposition framed the election as a referendum on government trust and spending priorities. They highlighted that city leaders had been asking for more taxpayer money while cutting police overtime funding, increasing administrative costs, and spending millions on items like a $1.1 million city logo and international travel for council members.
Even typically progressive institutions such as the Austin American-Statesman editorial board opposed Proposition Q, calling it a “careless use of taxpayer dollars.” The paper cited questionable council spending practices, including donations from council office budgets, each totaling nearly $900,000, to politically aligned nonprofit and advocacy groups.
The opposition’s message resonated. When the votes were counted, Proposition Q was defeated decisively, with 63 percent of Travis County voters and 67 percent of Williamson County voters rejecting it. In total, 109,011 Austinites voted against the measure, compared to just 62,719 in favor.
A Growing Divide Between Austin City Hall and Taxpayers
The defeat of Proposition Q marked a turning point in Austin’s long-running debate over fiscal priorities. Mayor Kirk Watson acknowledged that the result reflected voters’ loss of confidence in city leadership, stating, “We need to give voters reason to trust us, to trust that we will strike the right balance between services and the funding needed to provide those services.”
Council Member Marc Duchen, the only member who had voted against placing Proposition Q on the ballot, described the outcome as “a referendum on trust,” arguing that the city must confront its structural spending issues and rebuild credibility with residents.
City Manager T.C. Broadnax had anticipated this possibility months earlier, presenting two budget options, one with the proposed tax increase and one without. Following the election, Watson said the council would return to Broadnax’s leaner proposal and “meet the voters’ mandate with a coherent, straightforward budget process that focuses on basic services and basic budgeting.”
For many taxpayers, the problem was not the size of the city’s budget shortfall but how City Hall prioritized its spending. In recent years, Austin’s council has allocated record sums to homelessness and equity programs while simultaneously cutting resources from the police department and other essential services. The city’s homelessness count reached 3,238 people in early 2025, up 36 percent since 2023, despite escalating public spending.
Critics, including Governor Greg Abbott (R), seized on the city’s lack of transparency, calling for an audit of Austin’s budget and warning that “taxpayers have had enough.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) also announced an investigation into potential campaign finance violations linked to organizations that stood to benefit financially from Proposition Q’s passage.
City Leaders React to the Defeat of Proposition Q
In the wake of Proposition Q’s defeat, Mayor Kirk Watson struck a conciliatory tone and later followed through with a plan of action. In his election-night remarks, he acknowledged that voters had “prioritized affordability” and said the election served as “a referendum on city government demonstrating discipline and a visible effort to stop or slow rising costs.” He pledged to bring forward a revised budget proposal that focused on “basic services and basic budgeting,” promising that City Hall would act in a “thoughtful, structured way” to regain public trust.
Watson soon released a detailed post-election statement titled “Message Received, Time to Act.” In it, he outlined a proposed timeline for adopting a revised city budget and called for “stable, efficient governance.” His schedule included releasing a new draft budget by November 7 and a series of council work sessions leading up to potential adoption by late November. He emphasized the need to “evaluate the performance of city services,” expand outside audits of city operations, and reform council spending practices.
Watson also called for the City Council to “be the model for best practices” and set higher standards for its own discretionary spending, saying the city “can’t be all things to all people.” His remarks directly acknowledged that voters wanted the city to live within its means and avoid adding to Austin’s affordability crisis.
However, not all city leaders responded with the same humility. Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes issued a statement that reflected a familiar political pattern. Instead of promising to reduce wasteful spending, limit travel budgets, or eliminate questionable projects like million-dollar logos and taxpayer-funded art installations, Fuentes warned that voters’ rejection of Proposition Q would result in “fewer paramedics on shift,” “longer wait times for emergency services,” and “reductions in park maintenance and public health outreach.”
This has long been the standard playbook for politicians who want to spend more of taxpayers’ money: rather than identifying inefficiencies or cutting waste, they attempt to alarm the electorate by claiming that the only way to balance the budget is to cut basic services, the very services taxpayers expect their dollars to fund. Fuentes’s response fit that mold perfectly. Rather than signaling a commitment to fiscal restraint or efficiency, her remarks suggested that City Hall would protect bureaucracy and discretionary spending before protecting essential services.
The contrast between Watson’s acknowledgment of fiscal restraint and Fuentes’s warnings highlighted the ideological divide within Austin’s leadership. While voters clearly demanded affordability and accountability, not all elected officials appeared willing to adjust their spending priorities accordingly.
The Political and Fiscal Fallout
The immediate effect of Proposition Q’s failure was a forced recalibration of Austin’s budget priorities. City officials now had to close the $33 million shortfall without additional tax revenue. Some council members, including Mike Siegel, warned that the city might need to make “painful cuts” to maintain service levels.
Yet, from the perspective of taxpayers and fiscal conservatives, those cuts were long overdue. The election underscored that Austin’s affordability crisis was not caused by a lack of funding but by a lack of spending discipline. As Save Austin Now co-founder Matt Mackowiak said on election night, “Tomorrow, our coalition will say we will not accept anything less than an independent audit of our city budget.”
Calls for such an audit grew louder after the election, reflecting a widespread belief that the city’s financial management had become detached from the realities faced by working families and small businesses. With the defeat of Proposition Q, the council faced a mandate not just to balance its budget but to restore public trust through transparency and restraint.
Mayor Watson suggested that Austin should follow Houston’s example by studying ways to reduce spending and address structural inefficiencies. This approach could mark a rare moment of alignment between city leadership and taxpayers seeking accountability.
A Broader Message to Texas Cities
The failure of Proposition Q also carried implications beyond Austin. Under state law, cities must hold a voter-approval tax rate election if they attempt to raise property taxes by more than 3.5 percent. The fact that Austin, a deeply progressive city, resoundingly rejected its own council’s tax proposal could embolden fiscal conservatives across Texas to challenge similar tax increases at the local level.
Proposition Q’s defeat reinforced a broader truth: even in liberal cities, voters were losing patience with unchecked government growth and programs that failed to deliver measurable results. Austinites did not reject the idea of public investment; they rejected inefficiency, mismanagement, and a governing philosophy that equated compassion with spending.
The election also offered a warning to other local governments: taxpayers were paying attention. With property tax bills rising statewide, affordability had become a defining issue that cut across partisan lines. Local officials who ignored that reality did so at their political peril.
A National Undercurrent: Austin’s Tax Revolt in a Blue City
While most national headlines focused on progressive wins in states like New York, Virginia, and California, the defeat of Austin’s Proposition Q stood out as a bright spot for fiscal conservatives. In a city long dominated by progressive politics, voters overwhelmingly rejected a 20 percent property-tax hike in what opponents described as a “taxpayer revolt.”
The result caught the attention of political observers across the country. The New York Times described it as a “surprising backlash in the deep blue city,” while local organizers noted it as a turning point in Austin’s affordability debate. Matt Mackowiak of Save Austin Now called the outcome a “wake-up call” that showed even left-leaning voters had reached their limit with government excess.
The rejection of Proposition Q also carried symbolic weight beyond Texas. Across the country, voters in expensive metro areas expressed growing frustration with rising taxes and unchecked government growth. From New York to Austin, affordability, not ideology, emerged as the defining issue of the 2025 elections.
Austin’s result reminded policymakers nationwide that fiscal restraint and accountability remain popular across party lines. When governments lose sight of core priorities and treat taxpayers as a bottomless well, even voters in reliably blue cities are willing to push back.
What Proposition Q’s Defeat Means for Taxpayers Going Forward
For taxpayers, Proposition Q’s rejection represented both relief and responsibility. It prevented an immediate 20 percent property tax hike and sent a clear message that residents would not approve additional revenue without accountability and measurable outcomes. It also placed pressure on city leadership to manage existing resources more effectively.
If Austin’s elected officials heed this wake-up call, they could rebuild public trust through transparency, efficiency, and a renewed focus on essential services. But if they continue down a path of unchecked growth and symbolic spending, the affordability crisis that drove voters to reject Proposition Q will only deepen.
The outcome reflected a renewed commitment to limited government and fiscal responsibility. Voters reaffirmed the principle that affordability begins with restraint, not expansion.
In rejecting Proposition Q, Austinites defended more than their wallets; they defended the idea that government should live within its means, just like the taxpayers it serves.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
