The Truth About Being a Black Woman in a Liberal City (Austin) (downturn, solution)

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

And in the process make the city they claim to have moved to because they want to live in it over in their own image. At which point they will want to move to the next "In" place, having destroyed this one, rinse and repeat.

No, they will hang around and complain about the new people in town making it over in their own image.

Places change and always have, there never is or was a 'real' Austin for the population at large, just everyone's favorite period of time in the transition from one generation to the next. There are downsides and upsides to property tax, but it does prevent the stagnation of the city. At least this way, the business and people that get 'priced out' also get compensated, usually quite generously. Much better than some eminent domain approach or whatnot.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by cBach

Well if you own a home in the East Side, you don't have to sell it. However, money generally talks. If you bought a shack for $20k back in 1970 and now it's worth $400k you are probably going to sell it if you have any business sense. Then you can use the profits to build a brand new home for $300k in Pflugerville, much nicer than you had before in a better school district. What's wrong about that?

The issue is that the tax on that $400k house is now $8000/yr instead of $1000 or whatever. You may be forced to sell if you can't pay the taxes.

However, you can defer your taxes if you are over 65; of course, the taxes accrue and will be due upon your demise, but that is your choice if you want to stay in the house.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

No, they will hang around and complain about the new people in town making it over in their own image.

Places change and always have, there never is or was a 'real' Austin for the population at large, just everyone's favorite period of time in the transition from one generation to the next. There are downsides and upsides to property tax, but it does prevent the stagnation of the city. At least this way, the business and people that get 'priced out' also get compensated, usually quite generously. Much better than some eminent domain approach or whatnot.

When I moved to Austin in the summer of 1984 people were already saying, "Man, it used to be so much cooler!" and "You should have seen the Armadillo!" and "Raul's, man, that place was totally punk rock--now Austin sucks!" etc.

[DCtoTejas]

Originally Posted by cBach

Well if you own a home in the East Side, you don't have to sell it. However, money generally talks. If you bought a shack for $20k back in 1970 and now it's worth $400k you are probably going to sell it if you have any business sense. Then you can use the profits to build a brand new home for $300k in Pflugerville, much nicer than you had before in a better school district. What's wrong about that?

What about the property taxes? Not everyone can afford the skyrocketing property taxes, especially if they are lower income. If I was in that situation, having to choose between paying super high property taxes, selling and moving an hour away and having to commute etc, or just saying I will never move and let the tax liens accumulate until I die I'm not sure what I would do, but I don't think I would feel like I had any good choices.



This is a really difficult issue, in the cities I have lived in there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground between low income communities feeling under served, avoided, and looked down on and being gentrified out and the transition happens at such a speed that there isn't much time to react.

[ashbeeigh]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

The prices are as high as the market will bear. It's called capitalism. Austin is riding a wave of unprecedented mind-boggling popularity. People with big money are moving there. They want to own property.

So are you still saying that its not institutionalized racism?

Originally Posted by cBach

Well if you own a home in the East Side, you don't have to sell it. However, money generally talks. If you bought a shack for $20k back in 1970 and now it's worth $400k you are probably going to sell it if you have any business sense. Then you can use the profits to build a brand new home for $300k in Pflugerville, much nicer than you had before in a better school district. What's wrong about that?

But your home is in this community. Not Pflugerville. This may be a lil old at this point but it's stuck with me a great deal - https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/iupra...eft-austin.pdf People driving from Pflugerville to east Austin to go to church, because that's home, not Pflugerville. Some people don't want to move.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

The issue is that the tax on that $400k house is now $8000/yr instead of $1000 or whatever. You may be forced to sell if you can't pay the taxes.

However, you can defer your taxes if you are over 65; of course, the taxes accrue and will be due upon your demise, but that is your choice if you want to stay in the house.

And then family has to deal with that and then they sell and the home gets bulldozed and 5 duplexes get put on the property.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

The prices are as high as the market will bear. It's called capitalism. Austin is riding a wave of unprecedented mind-boggling popularity. People with big money are moving there. They want to own property.

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

So are you still saying that its not institutionalized racism?

Yes. I am still saying that.

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

I may have them a bit confused, but either way. Let's run through this again. African-American communities were forced to move to the East side and they established their own communities and now due to price increases they are being thrown money to get them out.

In the case of Sam's, for example, he is being offered 100 times what he paid for the property because someone wants to own it. How is that institutional racism?

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

The white guy wants to be there now so they're doing all they can to get them out?

You contemptuously assume that the developer is a "white guy." That is racist.

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

And Cisco's, no matter who owns it, has that designation to avoid being thrown money to move.

Cisco’s owners, Matt Cisneros and Will Bridges, are smart businessmen. They understand the value of keeping Cisco's as is, but updating it to keep up with the changing times. It's a brilliant strategy and it is working. How is that institutional racism? Did you even read the article?

.

[m1a1mg]

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

So are you still saying that its not institutionalized racism?

I guess I'm just old, but I still don't see how capitalism is inherently "racist"?

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

cBach post bolsters my point:



Austin97:
. . . Zoning was originally created as a tool to enforce segregation. Zoning restricted affordable housing since day 1. That same zoning in Austin prevents density and directly causes our skyrocketing prices that keep minorities out of west side neighborhoods. That same zoning is causing prices to rise on the east side driving minorities out of the east side.



Thoughts?

everything he posted was light industrial/land being converted. That takes a developer with deep pockets who can afford to go through the zoning change. Those conversions are a drop in the bucket to the demand.

You wrote that the east side allows sfh to become multifamily. Not without a zoning change.

The answer is for individual property owners (all the flippers etc) who can take a single property and easily change it to multifamily. Or even a developer putting an apartment on a SFH lot.

If they can take a 500K SFH and convert it to 3 or 4 townhomes at 300K each, then they are now at 1.2M total value and the price per unit drops. Win win except for the people that want the neighborhood character to be large yards.

Houston is growing a lot. The reason they are more affordable is they have almost no restrictions on development.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by Austin97

everything he posted was light industrial/land being converted. That takes a developer with deep pockets who can afford to go through the zoning change. Those conversions are a drop in the bucket to the demand.

You wrote that the east side allows sfh to become multifamily. Not without a zoning change.

The answer is for individual property owners (all the flippers etc) who can take a single property and easily change it to multifamily. Or even a developer putting an apartment on a SFH lot.

If they can take a 500K SFH and convert it to 3 or 4 townhomes at 300K each, then they are now at 1.2M total value and the price per unit drops. Win win except for the people that want the neighborhood character to be large yards.

Houston is growing a lot. The reason they are more affordable is they have almost no restrictions on development.

Compare the number of multifamily units in East Austin in 2008 versus 2018--and it's more expensive than ever.

Density does not necessarily bring affordability.

Houston is not that much more affordable than Austin.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

Compare the number of multifamily units in East Austin in 2008 versus 2018--and it's more expensive than ever.

Density does not necessarily bring affordability.

Houston is not that much more affordable than Austin.

Density has nothing to do with affordability. Total supply of units vs total demand has 100% to do with affordability.

In austin, density is the only way to increase the total supply of units. However if the total supply of units built is still too low, then prices will still go up. If the city eliminated SFH zoning and guaranteed approval of all projects within 24 hours, then I guarantee you would see an immediate and huge building boom that would instantly resolve affordability. However we don't want that kind of uncontrolled construction, so we do want regulations. But we cant have the level of regulation we have now and also have affordability. So we have to decide which is more important.


And Houston is *much* more affordable than austin.

Cost of Living Indexes Austin, TX Houston, TX
Median Home Cost $346,500 $175,700

Minneapolis just removed all SFH zoning to relieve their affordability crisis, so they will be a good city to watch.

In a bold move to address its affordable-housing crisis and confront a history of racist housing practices, Minneapolis has decided to eliminate single-family zoning, a classification that has long perpetuated segregation.

The Minneapolis City Council voted last Friday to get rid of the category and instead allow residential structures with up to three dwelling units — like duplexes and triplexes — in every neighborhood. Minneapolis is believed to be the first major city in the United States to approve such a change citywide.

Peggy Reinhardt, 75, an advocate who supported the decision, hopes the change will mean more housing options around her Uptown Minneapolis neighborhood. She sees young couples in apartments who cannot afford to scale up to $400,000 houses, while elderly residents nearby are “house rich and cash poor” and have few options to downsize in their neighborhood.