The Truth About Being a Black Woman in a Liberal City (Austin) (illegal, premium)

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by DCtoTejas

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.

I agree. It sucks. There is a homestead exemption for those over 65, and homeowners can challenge what they owe. (The Travis Central Appraisal District reported that 88,000 residential property owners filed a protest against their appraisal rates last year--65,000 were able to lower their taxes.)

Originally Posted by DCtoTejas

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.

Yes, but is it racism?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Austin97

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

As soon as you said this, I have to discount all the rest of your argument. If your solution is for us to become more like Houston, you can have it. The solution is more parking lot to residential and light industrial to residential conversions. There are a lot. Basically they could build another 50,000 apartment units I've estimated and that would just be vacant land. They could build another 100,000 units with light industrial to dense apartment conversions. If you don't believe me I can start posting all the places where this conversion can occur. We could speculate on how many units would be built on each lot but it is debatable as each lot would require a lot of council meetings and the final project may be different than what the developer wants. This has happened many times. But let me know and I'll start showing you lots.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by Austin97

Houston is *much* more affordable than Austin.

An apples to apples comparison between a condo in central Houston and a condo in central Austin is fairly close.

Houston is much bigger and there's a lot more housing that is a lot farther out, so that skews things quite a bit. There are hundreds of giant ugly apartment complexes everywhere, even way out in the middle of nowhere. Nobody wants to turn Austin into Houston.

Originally Posted by Austin97

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

Originally Posted by Austin97

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.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Semantics? More units available theoretically means prices go down. I get it. East Austin, though the the number of units has increased dramatically, your point is that it is not dramatically enough. And the reason being is that the City of Austin has zoning in place to prevent it from happening fast enough.

Care to tie this into institutional racism?

Are you saying that the people of East Austin lack diversity and want to keep it that way?

[ashbeeigh]

Originally Posted by m1a1mg

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

Capitalism is not inherently racist. It's the barriers that are put up to achieve the "American Dream" or to be successful through a capitalistic society for minorities that make it tough.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

Capitalism is not inherently racist. It's the barriers that are put up to achieve the "American Dream" or to be successful through a capitalistic society for minorities that make it tough.

What barriers?

[cBach]

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.

Let's assume that $20k home is paid for. You now have a home that has $400k equity and let's say $8k a year property taxes.

Let's assume you want to stay. You could simply take out a home equity line of credit worth up to 80% of your home. So let's say in 1970 you were 20 years old when you bought the home, let's say you have a decent job and can keep up property taxes until you retire at age 62. So you retired in 2012. You took a home equity loan on the property, let's say the propert was worth $350k then. You could get a $280k loan. That will pay for property taxes of $8000 for 35 years, let's say 30 years in case the property taxes rise further. You could live until 92 with no problems. Also when your kids sell the home in 30 years, it will be worth even more and probably enough to cover the home equity loan.

Is this ideal? No, but it's certainly doable. The extra equity in your home allows you to stay if you want. Or, when you retire you can move out to Pflugerville. Even driving to your church it will be cheaper out there. There are options.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

I agree. It sucks. There is a homestead exemption for those over 65, and homeowners can challenge what they owe. (The Travis Central Appraisal District reported that 88,000 residential property owners filed a protest against their appraisal rates last year--65,000 were able to lower their taxes.)

One thing the city (or TCAD?) could do would be to lower this age. The downside could be less equity for heirs, but the upside would be that less people would be taxed out of their homes.

Other factors contributing to the problem:

• one of the worst permitting departments in the U.S. (see Zilker report)
• neighborhood opposition to reasonable projects
• unnecessary/expensive regulations: solar-ready home requirement, historic landmarks, etc.
• growth of city budget and bond approvals plus school recapture
• the downturn of the great recession and lack of building for 4-5 years
• the speed at which the market changes (increased demand) versus what developers can supply at a relative trickle

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

One thing the city (or TCAD?) could do would be to lower this age. The downside could be less equity for heirs, but the upside would be that less people would be taxed out of their homes.

Other factors contributing to the problem:

• one of the worst permitting departments in the U.S. (see Zilker report)
• neighborhood opposition to reasonable projects
• unnecessary/expensive regulations: solar-ready home requirement, historic landmarks, etc.
• growth of city budget and bond approvals plus school recapture
• the downturn of the great recession and lack of building for 4-5 years
• the speed at which the market changes (increased demand) versus what developers can supply at a relative trickle

All very good points, but I would like to corral this thread back to the original topic.

Affordability came into play when discussing ways that Austin is allegedly still plagued with institutional racism.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

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.

'Has to deal with that' - no, they don't have to do anything, don't worry. The tax people will get their money. You can't have your cake (live in an expensive piece of property) and eat it to (not pay taxes). So it gets bulldozed, that happens. My house will one day be bulldozed. There are houses in Tarrytown getting bulldozed. It is sold, it is someone else's now.

I am actually okay with capitalism, even though one day it might mean I have to sell my home and live elsewhere. There is no constitutional guarantee that you will never have to move due to the cost-of-living (which includes property tax). And the over-65 exemptions/freezes can keep a place pretty dang 'cheap' (relative to the under-65 crowd). The tax deferment lets you stay put even if you have no money at all to pay taxes. There is also no law allowing you to forgo taxes so you can bequeath all those 'savings' to your kids.

Heaven forbid we have to 'deal with that [i.e deal with life]'

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

I agree. It sucks. There is a homestead exemption for those over 65, and homeowners can challenge what they owe. (The Travis Central Appraisal District reported that 88,000 residential property owners filed a protest against their appraisal rates last year--65,000 were able to lower their taxes.)



Yes, but is it racism?

Yes it is. The entire purpose of SFH zoning was to keep minorities out. The high prices are a direct result of exclusionary zoning. The FHA contributed to this by prohibiting the few blacks that could afford to, from buying into those communities. Allandale and shoal creek neighbors are very upset that a goodwill is replacing the steinmart. They believe it will bring poor people and more crime. It is also why they tried to stop the walmart. Neighborhood character is essentially code for keep minorities out. The response is a predictable "we arent keeping them out, they just cant afford to live here".

Exclusionary zoning is the use of zoning ordinances to exclude certain types of land uses from a given community.[1] As of the 2010s, exclusionary zoning ordinances are standard in almost all communities. Exclusionary zoning was introduced in the early 1900s, typically to prevent racial and ethnic minorities from moving into middle- and upper-class neighborhoods. Municipalities use zoning to limit the supply of available housing units, such as by prohibiting multi-family residential dwellings or setting minimum lot size requirements. These ordinances raise costs, making it less likely that lower-income groups will move in. Development fees for variance (land use), a building permit, a certificate of occupancy, a filing (legal) cost, special permits and planned-unit development applications for new housing also raise prices to levels inaccessible for lower income people.

Exclusionary zoning is done to safeguard the individual's property value, reduce traffic congestion, and exclude unalike groups. Exclusionary land-use policies exacerbate social segregation by deterring any racial and economic integration, decrease the total housing supply of a region and raise housing prices. As well, regions with much economic segregation channel lower income students into lower performing schools thereby prompting educational achievement differences. A comprehensive survey in 2008 found that over 80% of United States jurisdictions imposed minimum lot size requirements of some kind on their inhabitants.[2] These ordinances continue to reinforce discriminatory housing practices throughout the United States.[3]