City of Austin spends millions to buy Malibu apartments in North Austin (income, property tax)

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by jobert

We already have those. They're called "one-bedroom apartments".

They do not allow a family of 6 (at least in any lease agreement I have read).

A family of 6, that qualifies for HUD, gets a 4 bedroom apartment (or house) at tax payer expense.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by orbius

Texas politics, got to love it.

True, stuff like this never happens anywhere else And I'm sure if the govt (state or fed) was taking it over vs a private corp, then our tax dollars would be more efficiently spent.

[TedH71]

In Austin, I was told that each child is supposed to get his/her own bedroom and not shack up with another child and that they WILL enforce it in apartments that are rented out to the public. Not sure about condos or small houses. I think it's stupid. Was told that it was an effort to keep immigrants from rooming up in apts to save money.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by TedH71

In Austin, I was told that each child is supposed to get his/her own bedroom and not shack up with another child and that they WILL enforce it in apartments that are rented out to the public. Not sure about condos or small houses. I think it's stupid. Was told that it was an effort to keep immigrants from rooming up in apts to save money.

Shirley, you must be joking.

[orbius]

Originally Posted by austinnerd

True, stuff like this never happens anywhere else And I'm sure if the govt (state or fed) was taking it over vs a private corp, then our tax dollars would be more efficiently spent.

I dont know name another State where foreign owned toll roads are the norm and I'll change my tune about Texas politics.

Call me crazy but theres probably a reason that no where else on earth do private corporations run public housing. But hey to brainwashed people like you government is the devil and always incompetent and corporations are just good citizens out to make some money.

Do you expect other people to let you rule them with a thought? Not going to happen.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by orbius

I dont know name another State where foreign owned toll roads are the norm and I'll change my tune about Texas politics.
Also the article said that this project was the largest of its kind in the entire United States if you bothered to read it.

Yes if the city wants this project the city should run it. Its absurd to give a company running a one off government housing project a cash incentive to screw over the inhabitants of said project.

Chicago - Australia and Spain
Indiana - Australia and Spain (same company as above)
Virginia - Australia
Orange County (Cali) - France (this contract has since been terminated)

Like I said, Texas is hardly unique in this area. Plus how does the fact that the contract is the largest of it's kind (which, thank you, yes, I did read) have anything to do with it's non-uniqueness?

As for who runs the thing, that is obviously open for debate. It's not like our govt entities are bastions of efficiency or models of positive ethics. Though obviously there are issues with for profit private parties as well. Bottom line is that we as tax payers are hosed one way or the other, but I honestly don't believe that as a blanket rule one road is necessarily less fraught with disaster than another.

Originally Posted by orbius

If government has the will to create a project of this scope using our money it should have the will to manage and run this project. It all smacks of greased palms, laziness, and graft to me.

And you'd rather have them running the project?

[orbius]

Originally Posted by austinnerd

Chicago - Australia and Spain
Indiana - Australia and Spain (same company as above)
Virginia - Australia
Orange County (Cali) - France (this contract has since been terminated)

Like I said, Texas is hardly unique in this area. Plus how does the fact that the contract is the largest of it's kind (which, thank you, yes, I did read) have anything to do with it's non-uniqueness?

As for who runs the thing, that is obviously open for debate. It's not like our govt entities are bastions of efficiency or models of positive ethics. Though obviously there are issues with for profit private parties as well. Bottom line is that we as tax payers are hosed one way or the other, but I honestly don't believe that as a blanket rule one road is necessarily less fraught with disaster than another.



And you'd rather have them running the project?

The City government is going to have to have oversight over the project no matter who runs it. Given that truism why not just have the city run it. How on earth though is it a good idea to have a for profit company running it? Where is the profit going to come from, denying residents services? Lying to the City about their costs to get extra money?

Again just a bad idea.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by orbius

The City government is going to have to have oversight over the project no matter who runs it. Given that truism why not just have the city run it. How on earth though is it a good idea to have a for profit company running it? Where is the profit going to come from, denying residents services? Lying to the City about their costs to get extra money?

Again just a bad idea.

Oversight of a program and actually managing a property are two different things entirely. The hope is that a third party (for profit or not) that has expertise in that area would be able to provide the needed services for less than the govt could do it themselves (for any given level of effectiveness). The for profit company merely bids an amount that they think that they can still offer the service for and make a profit, it's up to the govt agency to decide if this amount is less than what they think they can perform the same task for. If it's run by a govt agency and they underestimate the budget for providing the services, how are they going to bridge that gap? Denying residents services? Lying to the budget/comptrollers office?

I'm not saying that it makes financial sense in this specific case to utilize a for profit third party (though someone(s) in the City of Austin seems to think so). I'm just saying that the fact that it's a for profit third party in and of itself doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea.

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by TedH71

In Austin, I was told that each child is supposed to get his/her own bedroom and not shack up with another child and that they WILL enforce it in apartments that are rented out to the public. Not sure about condos or small houses. I think it's stupid. Was told that it was an effort to keep immigrants from rooming up in apts to save money.

I understand that sewer systems and infrastructure is only designed to handle a certain population level.
But there is no reason why the standard, for what is considered adequate housing, can not be dropped, and then housing built (with the infrastructure in place) to handle more people per sq foot of property.

I think that any housing, receiving subsidies, should meet a standard of a lower sq footage per person, than the current standard, and then built (or remodeled) with an infrastructure to handle the increased number of occupants per sq foot.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by jobert

Sorry to disagree again, but high taxes are what have kept housing affordable in Austin. If we eliminate property taxes, then housing prices will fill the void. Throw in a state sales tax, and everyone gets nailed, while they still have to end up paying more for housing. The latter scenario will only benefit existing homeowners who bought when the tax burden had kept the cost of housing relatively low.

Absolutely. This is something that some folks just don't seem to get, that our property taxes is what kept nimnulls from running the price of housing through the roof as it was in other states that didn't have that brake. And why people from those states keep moving here because they can still afford to live here whereas they can't in their own states.