I was reading this story in the Seattle Times about Starbucks' new hub in Nashville, and this caught my eye:

Quote:

---

Nashville is "a blue dot in the red sea of Tennessee," quips Vanderbilt's Geer.
To be sure, Nashville's blue dot culture and politics have often put it at odds with the state's increasingly conservative Legislature.
In recent years, state lawmakers have repeatedly "preempted" Nashville and other local governments from enacting labor laws, inclusionary zoning or other regulations that don't align with state policy.

---

Quote:

---

But, paradoxically, Tennessee's more conservative stance on issues like taxes has helped Nashville's recruitment efforts, since the blue city can bill itself as a low-tax haven.
And, Geer notes, political tensions with the state has also helped keep Nashville from the more progressive shift in many other blue cities.
The ever-present threat of state preemption "does force the city to be a little bit more moderate in some of its efforts, because they don't want to fire up the state Legislature," said Geer, who routinely polls Nashville residents on political and economic issue.

---

Is Texas trying this to help rein in the blue push in the big metro areas?

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks/whats-nashville-have-that-we-aint-got-in-seattle/

Wish we'd do the same to Austin. they need to be reminded this Texas, not Oregon.

In Texas, cities and counties exist at the behest of the state.

If the Texas legislature wanted to, they could drop the hammer on Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, etc. Same for the counties those cities inhabit. They could even dissolve the city or county government and control it directly if they so chose.

That said, it won't happen as long as the Democrats have de facto control of the Texas House.

AgNav93 said:

---

Wish we'd do the same to Austin. they need to be reminded this Texas, not Oregon.

---

Back in the 90s it was not unusual for the city of Austin to get slapped down by the state legislature. Austin went through this phase that was anti all development under various "environmental concerns." Austin even went after Municipal Utility Districts, a distinctly legislative creation designed for rural development.

Austin was b****slapped over that.

Capital cities suck the wealth off of rural, suburban and exurban areas to fund state infrastructure and institutions and schools which then hire, at public expense, progressives, salaried at public expense and who vote accordingly, turning capital cities blue.
Austin, Albuquerque, Phoenix-Tempe, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Raleigh, Lincoln, Seattle, Lexington, etc.

UTExan said:

---

Capital cities suck the wealth off of rural, suburban and exurban areas to fund state infrastructure and institutions and schools which then hire, at public expense, progressives, salaried at public expense and who vote accordingly, turning capital cities blue.
Austin, Albuquerque, Phoenix-Tempe, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Raleigh, Lincoln, Seattle, Lexington, etc.

---

So true as so much state property is not on the tax rolls. All of that land that the University owns along Lake Austin and rents out on long term leases for condos, restaurants and bars? The companies pay sales taxes, of course but the property is not properly taxed.

City of Austin also has its own ATM machine in owning the utility company. Budget shortfall? Raise electric rates, problem solved.

And the demand to live near state institutions drives high er real estate prices for homes for faculty and staff. I was fortunate enough to live in west Austin back in the early 1980s with a decent salary, but left the city due to its growth and political orientation then. It's not that I minded living with progressives; it's that their policies made me less safe and poorer.