Austin is the only city in the nation with..... (Houston: middle-class, 2013)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

Condos have something working against them-- They are an utter waste of money. You will always be paying rent, even when it's paid off, because the "fees" are many hundreds of dollars, sometimes even thousands.

TONS of people pay HOA fees and live in SF housing - if I had to venture a guess I'd say many many times the number of people pay an HOA to live in a SF home than to live in a Condo in Austin. The vast majority of condos in Austin are NOT high amenity buildings and where the HOA fees are very low. And when people do pay high fees - well they're getting the amenities - everything from towel service at the pool to on-site gym, to concierge services - so it isn't exactly something for nothing. If people don't want those services then they generally don't opt to live in a building that provides them.

As it so happens, there's actually quite a bit of demand for it. And if you say what the increase in value of a high amenity condo in this town over the last ten years relative to a traditional suburban tract home you'd understand how wrong your declaration that they are an "utter wast of money" is.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by Komeht

TONS of people pay HOA fees and live in SF housing - if I had to venture a guess I'd say many many times the number of people pay an HOA to live in a SF home than to live in a Condo in Austin. The vast majority of condos in Austin are NOT high amenity buildings and where the HOA fees are very low. And when people do pay high fees - well they're getting the amenities - everything from towel service at the pool to on-site gym, to concierge services - so it isn't exactly something for nothing. If people don't want those services then they generally don't opt to live in a building that provides them.

As it so happens, there's actually quite a bit of demand for it. And if you say what the increase in value of a high amenity condo in this town over the last ten years relative to a traditional suburban tract home you'd understand how wrong your declaration that they are an "utter wast of money" is.

HOA fees are usually far below $100/month.

$200 is reasonable... But back in 2008 I looked at condos in Montrose in Houston and they were much higher than that. This one crummy old building with tiny units charged $275/month. I'm sure a nice condo in urban Austin would have a higher fee than that.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

HOA fees are usually far below $100/month.

$200 is reasonable... But back in 2008 I looked at condos in Montrose in Houston and they were much higher than that. This one crummy old building with tiny units charged $275/month. I'm sure a nice condo in urban Austin would have a higher fee than that.

Lots of different price ranges. Some buildings have small HOA fees - others have very expensive ones. It depends.

Also remember, HOA fees cover insurance on exterior (really expensive stuff like roofs and HVAC systems) of unit and shared spaces in a condo. That's insurance you don't have to be paying for as a condo owner. And again, where the condo fees are high, it's because the services are high. But there are lots and lots of low-amenity/low fee condos - that's just a question of choice.

[scm53]

NY Times is on the story.

[petro]

I love it when 20-somethng-year-old white girls from Westlake teach us about inequality and racism.

[Rynldsbr]

The article (originally in the Texas Tribune, reprinted in the NY Times) referenced an actual net loss of AA population in Austin. It is not simply a slower growth rate, an actual net loss. It also states that the overall metro area is seeing a (marginally) increasing AA population.

Someone please explain to me why it is bad that the African American population is moving to the suburbs? Please explain to me what is racist about one demographic moving to a different geographical subsection within a cultural setting? My experience over a number of metropolitan areas has been that suburbs are typically blasted for being racist when they don't have minority populations moving in at a high enough rate to appease the social watchdogs. Why is Austin recieving the opposite?

We can all sit around and discuss gentrification, segregation, racism, class warfare, and all social ills until we are blue. Perhaps we should ask the African American population why they are moving? Here's a wild thought, maybe they are taking advantage of the same appreciation of their homes equity, the same new schools being built in the burbs, the same variety of reasons that drives thousands of people to the suburbs annually. Maybe the school ratings in Leander, Round Rock, and Georgetown are drawing them to those neighborhoods.

Maybe it isn't an issue at all?

[Tim_Barton]

Originally Posted by Rynldsbr

The article (originally in the Texas Tribune, reprinted in the NY Times) referenced an actual net loss of AA population in Austin. It is not simply a slower growth rate, an actual net loss. It also states that the overall metro area is seeing a (marginally) increasing AA population.

Someone please explain to me why it is bad that the African American population is moving to the suburbs? Please explain to me what is racist about one demographic moving to a different geographical subsection within a cultural setting? My experience over a number of metropolitan areas has been that suburbs are typically blasted for being racist when they don't have minority populations moving in at a high enough rate to appease the social watchdogs. Why is Austin recieving the opposite?

We can all sit around and discuss gentrification, segregation, racism, class warfare, and all social ills until we are blue. Perhaps we should ask the African American population why they are moving? Here's a wild thought, maybe they are taking advantage of the same appreciation of their homes equity, the same new schools being built in the burbs, the same variety of reasons that drives thousands of people to the suburbs annually. Maybe the school ratings in Leander, Round Rock, and Georgetown are drawing them to those neighborhoods.

Maybe it isn't an issue at all?

Simple answer.... they are being pushed out in Austin proper, but AA or Hispanics know they are getting nice profit from it and coming to the burbs of Austin area is a no-brainer and I applause them for doing it by putting their kids into better school system and high hopes of not accepting welfare from the government and basically giving their whole family a better way of life.
You ever seen a dart-board? What color is the inside and what is the color of the outside?

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Rynldsbr

The article (originally in the Texas Tribune, reprinted in the NY Times) referenced an actual net loss of AA population in Austin. It is not simply a slower growth rate, an actual net loss. It also states that the overall metro area is seeing a (marginally) increasing AA population.

Someone please explain to me why it is bad that the African American population is moving to the suburbs? Please explain to me what is racist about one demographic moving to a different geographical subsection within a cultural setting? My experience over a number of metropolitan areas has been that suburbs are typically blasted for being racist when they don't have minority populations moving in at a high enough rate to appease the social watchdogs. Why is Austin recieving the opposite?

We can all sit around and discuss gentrification, segregation, racism, class warfare, and all social ills until we are blue. Perhaps we should ask the African American population why they are moving? Here's a wild thought, maybe they are taking advantage of the same appreciation of their homes equity, the same new schools being built in the burbs, the same variety of reasons that drives thousands of people to the suburbs annually. Maybe the school ratings in Leander, Round Rock, and Georgetown are drawing them to those neighborhoods.

Maybe it isn't an issue at all?

The study claims there are structural barriers for blacks to work in tech. Just like the articles recently complaining about lack of diversity at Google - I just want to laugh. Anyone who has been in tech for more than a few years knows that the rarest candidate for a software or hardware job is a black female. Anyone who has recruited in a college campus for these types of skills is unlikely to see a single black person with a computer science or electrical engineering degree. Go to UT or A&M and you will see whites and various Asians in these programs. Whatever barriers exist for blacks to compete for these jobs exists far earlier in their lives - probably starting with family and emphasis on K-12 education.

The impact of gentrification is not unique to Austin. White people in 78704 are impacted by rising property values - perhaps even more strongly. The answer is not government interference in property values. The answer is to take the money and run. Sell these properties for the huge gains and move. No one has some imagined right for life to always remain the way it was.

I think it is good news that the suburbs are gaining blacks. These areas, including the schools, have historically been white dominated. I applaud families moving to access better schools in areas they can afford to live.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

Condos have something working against them-- They are an utter waste of money. You will always be paying rent, even when it's paid off, because the "fees" are many hundreds of dollars, sometimes even thousands.

It is not rent, you are paying for maintenance and insurance on the exterior and site amenities, just as you would in a single family home. You are just paying the association to do that work for you rather then having to do it or contract it out yourself. I'm looking at needing to replace the HVAC system and put a new roof on my single family home. Its not going to be cheap, things wear out and have to be repaired and replaced, this is true for both single family homes, condos and townhouses.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Rynldsbr

The article (originally in the Texas Tribune, reprinted in the NY Times) referenced an actual net loss of AA population in Austin. It is not simply a slower growth rate, an actual net loss. It also states that the overall metro area is seeing a (marginally) increasing AA population.

Someone please explain to me why it is bad that the African American population is moving to the suburbs? Please explain to me what is racist about one demographic moving to a different geographical subsection within a cultural setting? My experience over a number of metropolitan areas has been that suburbs are typically blasted for being racist when they don't have minority populations moving in at a high enough rate to appease the social watchdogs. Why is Austin recieving the opposite?

We can all sit around and discuss gentrification, segregation, racism, class warfare, and all social ills until we are blue. Perhaps we should ask the African American population why they are moving? Here's a wild thought, maybe they are taking advantage of the same appreciation of their homes equity, the same new schools being built in the burbs, the same variety of reasons that drives thousands of people to the suburbs annually. Maybe the school ratings in Leander, Round Rock, and Georgetown are drawing them to those neighborhoods.

Maybe it isn't an issue at all?

Rynldsbr (along with hoffdano & tim barton) nailed it.

All families want the same thing (good schools, nice/safe neighborhood & decent home). It's not racial. CoA's loss is RR, Hutto, Pville & Leander's (& a dozen other suburban areas) gain.