HOME initiative (Austin, Canadian: lawyers, live in, trailer)

[creepy]

Video about the business interests behind the initiative.
https://youtu.be/r2xqSuuSdns?si=EQx0R8v8j1Zt7EhU


[COLOR=var(--nd-color-fgPrimary)]California Transplant High-Tech Billionaires and Leslie Pool’s HOME Initiative:
[/color]https://theaustinindependent.org/california-transplant-high-tech-billionaires-and-leslie-pools-home-initiative/?link_id=5&can_id=6b7bd78f753d97b06397d85b7b2fe54c &source=email-watch-the-trailer-for-subdivide-and-conquer-today-2&email_referrer=email_2125624&email_subject=wat ch-subdivide-and-conquer-online-today


It has passed even though the Austin people that showed up and spoke at the big city council meeting were 70% AGAINST IT. The speakers who signed up were a variety of community members, some highly educated, some community activists, some POC, some lawyers-were against it. Some council members had already decided they were for the proposal without even hearing fully from the speakers and the people from their own communities.


I also went onto the Texas For Responsible Solutions site and noticed Grimes aka mother of 2 of Elon Musk's babies is no longer on the board. https://www.texansforreasonablesolut.../research-faqs



Thank you to the two city council members who listened to the Austin citizens and voted no. "Council Members Alison Alter and Mackenzie Kelly voted against the item".


The fight will continue.

[Trainwreck20]

How is Grimes' stance relevant, or at least more than any other persons?

[creepy]

Grimes is relevant because this is a group which purports to be "Texans" and has a Canadian superstar on the board. I think someone else saw the irony, negatives to this decision, as she is not an expert in building and government policy that I know of, nor a Texan, so she is no longer on the board.

[texan2yankee]

elections have consequences. with our current council in power, there is no stopping the HOME initiative from being implemented.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by creepy

Grimes is relevant because this is a group which purports to be "Texans" and has a Canadian superstar on the board. I think someone else saw the irony, negatives to this decision, as she is not an expert in building and government policy that I know of, nor a Texan, so she is no longer on the board.

I still don't know why her support or lack of makes any difference to me? Or anyone else? Along those lines, I don't know why being Texan or not limits your ability to have an opinion? Does she live in the voting district(s) of Austin? Is she properly registered to vote? I think those are the only relevant criteria.

[creepy]

HOME Initiative, (copied from NextDoor-wording is not mine)
Anyhow, more code changes are going to be voted on (and probably passed despite input from Austinites, the majority being against these massive code changes). For those still following, here are three links for more information; this is not "light" reading but I feel it is informative, which is a lot more than I can say for the Council:


1. Community Not Commodity:
[COLOR=var(--nd-color-fgBlue)]https://s4s1i.mjt.lu/nl3/PY4dhMRUWNVuUgKqLGZVKw?m=AUwAAD93IZkAAc4Er_oAA65jj 0cAAYKIASwAnt8pACk9-ABmM6SfrB6sNnzGSmi2vlFJkCjPcgAmNxg&b=d00c36d4&e=ae d0570f&x=tdORrkEInSMTynE9wRzIDEMI9pt6O5YkPWjtG61ak 4I[/color]
[COLOR=var(--nd-color-fgPrimary)][/color]

2. City Council agenda: https://speakupaustin.org/Customer/F...d-452a4bb093bc

3. Dr. Rich Heyman of UT, (in-depth HOME study and likely repercussions, my description):
https://utexas.app.box.com/v/heyman-home-report


This last document is long but also very thorough; I wonder if the Council saw it and if so, did they consider paying any attention to it. For those of you who are considering voting out certain Council members (as I now am!), even though unfortunately the majority of them will ramrod this "initiative" through anyhow, before their terms come to the voting public, I would like to take a moment to mention the names of the two Council members who voted against the first installation of HOME: Alison Alter and Mackenzie Kelly. I can only hope that they will continue in this vein.

[creepy]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I still don't know why her support or lack of makes any difference to me? Or anyone else? Along those lines, I don't know why being Texan or not limits your ability to have an opinion? Does she live in the voting district(s) of Austin? Is she properly registered to vote? I think those are the only relevant criteria.

I think you missed the point of what is happening, you say "I don't know why being Texan or not limits your ability to have an opinion". The group she is part of or was a part of is not giving opinion, it is here and changing the policy for reasons of greed and lying to us. I am always for all people having the right to give an opinion. Giving opinions is a mellow activity-not what is happening here.



I can only say I & others care very much if people not from here pretend to be living here, come here and make changes which make the entire reason we live here extinct, sell our city to the highest bidder, don't respect the people who have been here a long time, place the needs of those who just moved here over Texans who have lived here for 3 or more generations. I don't have time to research if a rock-star from Canada who has not studied urban planning as far as I know, lives in Texas full-time or part time or not at all.


I just know i have to get involved because what is happening is not ethical and I cannot even believe this is legal. For you it my be just fine.

[creepy]

Originally Posted by texan2yankee

elections have consequences. with our current council in power, there is no stopping the HOME initiative from being implemented.

Never say Never.



Fight the good fight.

[DCtoTejas]

Originally Posted by creepy

Never say Never.



Fight the good fight.

creepy I'm with you but I feel this one is a done deal; there is already a massive "accessory" building going up on a SFH house/lot in my neighborhood, and it basically looks like a whole other house on the lot. I agree with the assessment that these changes will not lower the price of lots/existing SFH but in fact increase them, with the possible exception of those poor owners who will now be butted up against apartment buildings - explained below. What the SFH changes effectively do is turn a lot with 1 potential rental on it to a lot with 3, or, in phase 2, into 2 SFH lots. There is no way this does anything but enrich current owners and other real estate adjacent interests, whether they build accessory buildings to rent, subdivide, or even do nothing - the potential upside will be priced into every lot.


The other, less talked about change is in the compatibility reductions, reducing compatibility's "trigger" distance from single-family homes to just 75 feet, a more than 80% reduction from the current 540-foot limit. This one will result in large multi-family buildings being able to be put right up against current SFH neighborhoods. This is a direct boon to large, commercial developers, a group that tends to usually benefit from Austin political activity when closely examined.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/s...d-this-spring/

https://services.austintexas.gov/edi....cfm?id=425941




Unfortunately creepy, I think the majority of people in this city want these changes, and I'm not sure facts and figures based critiques of it will have any impact. There is a school of political thought out there that SFH and the nuclear family are the root of all of society's ills, and I believe a good percentage of people here believe it. An opportunity to pander to those voices while simultaneously benefiting their real constituency (developers) and increasing their personal urban density "bonafides" is simply irresistible to most of the council.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by DCtoTejas

creepy I'm with you but I feel this one is a done deal; there is already a massive "accessory" building going up on a SFH house/lot in my neighborhood, and it basically looks like a whole other house on the lot. I agree with the assessment that these changes will not lower the price of lots/existing SFH but in fact increase them, with the possible exception of those poor owners who will now be butted up against apartment buildings - explained below. What the SFH changes effectively do is turn a lot with 1 potential rental on it to a lot with 3, or, in phase 2, into 2 SFH lots. There is no way this does anything but enrich current owners and other real estate adjacent interests, whether they build accessory buildings to rent, subdivide, or even do nothing - the potential upside will be priced into every lot.


The other, less talked about change is in the compatibility reductions, reducing compatibility's "trigger" distance from single-family homes to just 75 feet, a more than 80% reduction from the current 540-foot limit. This one will result in large multi-family buildings being able to be put right up against current SFH neighborhoods. This is a direct boon to large, commercial developers, a group that tends to usually benefit from Austin political activity when closely examined.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/s...d-this-spring/

https://services.austintexas.gov/edi....cfm?id=425941




Unfortunately creepy, I think the majority of people in this city want these changes, and I'm not sure facts and figures based critiques of it will have any impact. There is a school of political thought out there that SFH and the nuclear family are the root of all of society's ills, and I believe a good percentage of people here believe it. An opportunity to pander to those voices while simultaneously benefiting their real constituency (developers) and increasing their personal urban density "bonafides" is simply irresistible to most of the council.

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.