Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was one of those who spoke at the most recent council meeting and no, there was about 75/80% of the Speakers from Austin who were against it. We were composed of a motley group of activists, lower income people, middle class, lawyers, average people who fear this change.
Only the majority of council members want these changes.
What I personally find interesting is that its these groups of people who hold these viewpoints that are often the same people who want more affordability while actively agreeing with policies that make it more likely for them to become permanent renters and less likely for them to become home owners by reducing SFH inventories or the likelihood of them being able to afford SFH's through policies that ultimately lead to their values increasing to a point of unobtainability for anyone not making a six figure salary.
I think I understand what you wrote but maybe not if by saying "these groups of people who hold these viewpoints" you mean me and those like me-read below.
It is because we are the type of people who "read between the lines' do our homework & have good intuition. We can see through the lies that others cannot and so we are against disingenuous code changes. Some people can be given one article with data and facts and are easily convinced by that one article, they don't have critical thinking skills.
AUSTIN residents, Alert! HOME Initiative phase 2 is going to be discussed and voted on May 16, 2024 at City Council.
The planning Commission has recommended an even more extreme version of "H.O.M.E." Phase 2 that property owners and residents need to be aware of.
I am getting actively involved in this and I recommend you do too if you have any extra time at all. I am putting my own projects to the side till after May 16th.
Please look thru the following info, write your city council and tell them to vote no!
The plan was touted as helping with the affordability problem in Austin. I WISH it was, it is a land grab for developers who do not care about the city. It will cause Heat Island Effect, it will change the character and look of the city, it will not help affordable housing, the sub divided lots will actually raise property taxes. Texas is running out of water-this won't help. It is a nightmare!
I think I understand what you wrote but maybe not if by saying "these groups of people who hold these viewpoints" you mean me and those like me-read below.
It is because we are the type of people who "read between the lines' do our homework & have good intuition. We can see through the lies that others cannot and so we are against disingenuous code changes. Some people can be given one article with data and facts and are easily convinced by that one article, they don't have critical thinking skills.
That wasn't what I was saying. I actually mostly agree with your posts in this thread.
I was one of those who spoke at the most recent council meeting and no, there was about 75/80% of the Speakers from Austin who were against it. We were composed of a motley group of activists, lower income people, middle class, lawyers, average people who fear this change.
Only the majority of council members want these changes.
Well that is hopeful at least, although the percentage is probably skewed a bit towards those who don't want it actually showing up to speak against it, especially given the hidden agendas in favor of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creepy
The plan was touted as helping with the affordability problem in Austin. I WISH it was, it is a land grab for developers who do not care about the city. It will cause Heat Island Effect, it will change the character and look of the city, it will not help affordable housing, the sub divided lots will actually raise property taxes. Texas is running out of water-this won't help. It is a nightmare!
This is a great summation. I really wish this city wasn't so dead set on growth and becoming huge, it's ruined it and this environment was never meant to have this large of a population. Barton Creek no longer runs even with good rains due to all the development out in Dripping Springs etc. Driving up Mopac the other day from far south Austin the skyling and haze looked like Los Angeles.
Edit: I just read your link about the even more extreme version of PHASE 2. Good grief, the word that keeps coming to my mind when reading it is Favela. Maybe that is too extreme, but this is at a minimum European style living, which is a radical departure from the traditional American style of living, especially in Texas. It's a hugely significant change to be rammed in by a commission of appointed bureaucrats.
Edit2: forgot to add, there is simply no way that impervious cover and runoff protections can be maintained under this level of density. So those provisions of HOME phase 1 were a lie.
Last edited by DCtoTejas; 05-09-2024 at 11:59 AM..
I agree there are people who don't have altruistic aims and stand to make a lot of money off these changes. What's new. That's how are economic model (and political one) functions. Doesn't mean it's a valid excuse to vote it down or not do anything.
I'm just seeing things for what they are. No one has right to see their neighborhood, area, or city remain the same. For decades local Austin residents have opposed growth initiatives, with the hope of "if we don't build it, they want come." Well, we see how well that worked out.
I agree there are people who don't have altruistic aims and stand to make a lot of money off these changes. What's new. That's how are economic model (and political one) functions. Doesn't mean it's a valid excuse to vote it down or not do anything.
I'm just seeing things for what they are. No one has right to see their neighborhood, area, or city remain the same. For decades local Austin residents have opposed growth initiatives, with the hope of "if we don't build it, they want come." Well, we see how well that worked out.
Admittedly I tend to agree with you on this as well, especially in terms of the mechanics of housing and how supply and demand works along with the history of Austin neglecting the necessary infrastructure and housing needs for growth, there does need to be more housing, more inventory makes housing more affordable. More housing availability for all types of housing makes housing fair for everyone, and not just certain groups or classes of people (whether it be upper or lower class).
Austin within the most recent years has approved more housing permits than any other city in the country so there is a positive to that, however; I am not clear if those housing permits were primarily targeted toward apartments / condo's and corporate owned housing, or if they were SFH's of which give buyers the most freedom and security in terms of home ownership. If SFH's were a target as well, then that is a positive...
You're right that corruption reigns in all political and corporate chambers, but what bothers me about it is, this is the party that is advocating themselves to be the party of the less privileged however they are very much backed by corporations that are buying up housing as well as building only corporate owned housing while not giving the citizens very much say in the matter and profiting off of the people they're supposed to be supporting...making it nearly impossible for anyone who is not a six figure earner and with no equity (primarily renters) to have an opportunity to become a home owner. This isn't happening just in Austin either, this is happening in a lot of places and while I agree that more inventory makes housing more affordable, if this inventory is displaced primarily into rental properties then your average joe looking to move up in the market is still going to have a very difficult time purchasing a SFH despite all the new housing projects.
As for the recent decline in real estate prices, many things have contributed to that nationally speaking. The increase of interest rates acted as a valve to a spraying faucet to the real estate feeding frenzy and stagnated middle class buyers who were primarily looking for financing without any other assets (equity, savings, reserves) backing them. The market adjusted for the lower RE demand reducing values as buyers were reduced, definitely more inventory helped along with that as well (which is a good thing.) Then along side with that, the massive layoffs in tech have made more buyers uneasy about making housing adjustments (unless it was to relocate for another job).
If I were just entering the housing market today in the same fashion that I moved here, (no savings, starting off fresh, progressing in my career) It would be very difficult for me to become a home owner at this stage in the game.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 05-12-2024 at 11:23 AM..
Articles discuss the decline in rental rates. Who would have thought, increasing the supply of available units had the effect of decreasing prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro
Admittedly I tend to agree with you on this as well, especially in terms of the mechanics of housing and how supply and demand works along with the history of Austin neglecting the necessary infrastructure and housing needs for growth, there does need to be more housing, more inventory makes housing more affordable. More housing availability for all types of housing makes housing fair for everyone, and not just certain groups or classes of people (whether it be upper or lower class).
It's a little premature to give credit to this change when there is so many macro-economic real estate factors in play right now, and I notice you both don't refute anything in the academic paper and studies presented about this but simply hand wave it as "how supply and demand works". That assumes many things - that zoning restrictions are what are skewing the supply/demand curve, that these accessory buildings and tiny lot homes are actually what are in demand, that they won't simply be used as STRs, and more importantly, that the pricing of these units will be affordable, points directly addressed in the paper - https://utexas.app.box.com/v/heyman-...o8R9Os7B9ijCqa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major
I agree there are people who don't have altruistic aims and stand to make a lot of money off these changes. What's new. That's how are economic model (and political one) functions. Doesn't mean it's a valid excuse to vote it down or not do anything.
I'm just seeing things for what they are. No one has right to see their neighborhood, area, or city remain the same. For decades local Austin residents have opposed growth initiatives, with the hope of "if we don't build it, they want come." Well, we see how well that worked out.
"Something" is not always better than the status quo, and this line of thinking is how we ended up with tents and human faeces and needles all over the streets, because something "had" to be done about homeless situation. The cure can be worse than the disease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro
this is the party that is advocating themselves to be the party of the less privileged however they are very much backed by corporations that are buying up housing as well as building only corporate owned housing while not giving the citizens very much say in the matter and profiting off of the people they're supposed to be supporting
They're also the party of open borders which directly suppresses labor wages despite claiming to be the party of the working man, so at least they are consistent I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the other party either, they're two heads of the same snake.
The ultimate cause of the housing affordability crisis is the insane 15 year ZIRP policy that was used to paper over the previous crisis, itself a bubble to paper over the dotcom blowup. Until and unless we the people start holding those in positions of power accountable, they will continue to privatize their gains while spreading their losses to the public causing these economic distortions and misallocations. Trying to band aid the problems or worse accepting their solutions at best kicks the can down the road. I can't wait to see what "solution" is proffered for the latest round of this, the massive inflation in essential goods and services.
Note that I have no faith in we the people actually stopping them so am personally preparing to cash out and retire off in the woods somewhere because I clearly am in the minority both in number and in power when it comes to this vision for the future of this city. That's life I suppose.
It's a little premature to give credit to this change when there is so many macro-economic real estate factors in play right now, and I notice you both don't refute anything in the academic paper and studies presented about this but simply hand wave it as "how supply and demand works". That assumes many things - that zoning restrictions are what are skewing the supply/demand curve, that these accessory buildings and tiny lot homes are actually what are in demand, that they won't simply be used as STRs, and more importantly, that the pricing of these units will be affordable, points directly addressed in the paper - https://utexas.app.box.com/v/heyman-...o8R9Os7B9ijCqa
"Something" is not always better than the status quo, and this line of thinking is how we ended up with tents and human faeces and needles all over the streets, because something "had" to be done about homeless situation. The cure can be worse than the disease.
They're also the party of open borders which directly suppresses labor wages despite claiming to be the party of the working man, so at least they are consistent I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the other party either, they're two heads of the same snake.
The ultimate cause of the housing affordability crisis is the insane 15 year ZIRP policy that was used to paper over the previous crisis, itself a bubble to paper over the dotcom blowup. Until and unless we the people start holding those in positions of power accountable, they will continue to privatize their gains while spreading their losses to the public causing these economic distortions and misallocations. Trying to band aid the problems or worse accepting their solutions at best kicks the can down the road. I can't wait to see what "solution" is proffered for the latest round of this, the massive inflation in essential goods and services.
Note that I have no faith in we the people actually stopping them so am personally preparing to cash out and retire off in the woods somewhere because I clearly am in the minority both in number and in power when it comes to this vision for the future of this city. That's life I suppose.
I was more so agreeing with Ice Major's concepts of supply vs demand as that specific concept is a thing that Austinites seem to not grasp very well when it comes to housing values and growth. than the actual plan as my post later outlines that the plan does not address home ownership for SFH buyers which means you will have plenty of places to rent, but someone looking to get out of the rental market will have a steep climb to home ownership. To me, the plan reeks of grift and they're doing it for personal benefit, it has nothing to do with addressing actual housing issues. I am in agreement with creepy's assertion of the plan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please at least try to stop it
