Prop 1 Open Thread (Austin: rent, crime, schools)

[Rynldsbr]

I love the many personalities of Austin. "We are a quaint little city that is losing it's personality with all the outsiders moving in" competes with comparisons to Brooklyn and Manhattan. It seems like people of Austin want to be small enough to have no traffic but large enough to have world class everything else.

Perhaps everyone should take a look at two things:
1) What is the success of light rail in cities of approximately the same population AND land size as Austin? This would be called population density, and is a significant factor in the usefulness of rail.
2) What are the total tax rates (combined real estate, sales, income, and gas/transportation taxes) of the metro areas with rail systems? A quick survey seems that the cities attempting to utilize rail have the highest tax burdens in the country. Are you/we really prepared to pay the cost of a rail system that will benefit a small percentage of the population?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Rynldsbr

It seems like people of Austin want to be small enough to have no traffic but large enough to have world class everything else.

Nothing in life is this manichean. How about a modern mobility solution, including roads, that was scaled to match the growth - vice being blocked for decades by an ideologically focused political class?

Go to any metro in the state - having been in FW, Dallas, and SA in the last month, it is striking. Every one of them has under construction, or has recently completed, major road construction projects that usually include some type of managed lanes or rail. They access TxDOT money at the same time Austin works as hard as they can to turn up their noses if their sensibilities are offended.

What you see is two+ decades of "if we don't build it, they won't come." How has that worked so far?

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by scm53

"if we don't build it, they won't come."

At any point, CoA could have denied building permits, but chose not to do so.

It's more of a "have your cake and eat it, too" situation. We want a gentrified tax base, but then the city bends the taxpayers over to pay for low-income housing.

[Rynldsbr]

SCM53 - I didn't say it was simple, just that the two sides seem to be so incredibly and diabolically opposed in this metro area. In fact, your comment supports my observation. While Austin is growing, you make a comparison to Dallas and Fort Worth metroplex which now has 6.7 million people - 3x the population of Austin metro area. Not a fair comparison based on demographics, economics, or any other basis except that they are in the same state.

I don't really care what DFW does, I don't live there or in a metro area that can be compared to them.

Perhaps everyone should take a look at two things:
1) What is the success of light rail in cities of approximately the same population AND land size as Austin? This would be called population density, and is a significant factor in the usefulness of rail.
2) What are the total tax rates (combined real estate, sales, income, and gas/transportation taxes) of the metro areas with rail systems? A quick survey seems that the cities attempting to utilize rail have the highest tax burdens in the country. Are you/we really prepared to pay the cost of a rail system that will benefit a small percentage of the population?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

At any point, CoA could have denied building permits, but chose not to do so.

That just makes it worse, then it just shifts the growth to the suburbs. So you have even more commuters going even longer distances, with less tax base for dealing with it.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

At any point, CoA could have denied building permits, but chose not to do so.

Well, they kinda did when they put huge swaths of undeveloped land off the table starting in '92. Which then just put the housing for all the job growth further away, outside the city's control.

Which then exacerbated the mobility problem.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Rynldsbr

While Austin is growing, you make a comparison to Dallas and Fort Worth metroplex which now has 6.7 million people - 3x the population of Austin metro area. Not a fair comparison based on demographics, economics, or any other basis except that they are in the same state.

What size both the areas started from is a pointless distraction. What matters is what they have done to cope with growth. You're right. They are in the same state - the state that provides funds for highway construction. FW has taken advantage of it - Austin has thumbed their noses at it.

With the demonstrable results we have today.

[scm53]

OBTW - "No Rail" yard signs are available at all Planet K stores - the noted centers of the Austin Tea Party that they are.

[mayfair44]

As early voting begins, Austin voters face $1B transportation bond | KXAN.com

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Yes, it does. Transportation is one of the main factors of affordability.

On average, a car costs (purchase, upkeep, fuel, insurance) $10k per year. Anyone who is enabled to go car-free, or a couple that can go from 2 cars to 1, sees that savings. That's a _huge_ increase in affordability.

No it makes it more unaffordable for the 99.9% of the folks paying the tax. They get no benefit from the rail tax. You could give out 70,000 cars @ $20K each for what this rail costs.

What's your next excuse - people need to move next to the rail and to find a job downtown in order to achieve this alleged savings? How much more in rent/mortgage are they supposed to pay in order (and less desirable living environment to endure) to achieve this "savings". Yeah, I don't think so.