Jump to content

We’reTexas

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    940
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by We’reTexas

  1. 2 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

    I agree completely with what you're saying.  I think the mistake is thinking that any of these attempts to change the zoning and code regs have anything to do with actually helping with housing in Austin.  It's about lining the pockets of a handful of folks, and they make more money building 2 and 3 unit properties in central Austin that can be quickly sold to investors for use as short-term rentals than they do with an apartment/condo building (and thereby making the housing situation worse, not better).  If they actually wanted to add affordable housing, then of course apartment buildings are the answer, but that's not how the grift is set up.  Developers want to build cheaply and sell quickly, not maintain a building.  Supposedly we have a bunch of new apartments coming onto the market soon.  I have no idea where and haven't noticed significant amounts of construction, but I keep hearing that they're coming. I don't know if they'll be real apartments or those money laundering bullshit condo buildings we have downtown that no actual working humans live in. Any significant apartment development should be scattered throughout town, though, and not crammed into one area.  I agree that using existing multi-unit locations is the smart move.  The problem is the lack of interest in developing such properties.  Just like banning short-term rentals, this obvious solution isn't one the crooked assholes in charge have any interest in because it's not how their bread is buttered.

     

     

    • Haha 2
  2. 12 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    New Orleans is also the surprise to me.  I don’t know Louisiana that well, but I would have assumed Baton Rouge has at least some of the advanced degree magnets like medical centers based on being where the college and government are located.  Does New Orleans just serve the entire state for everything?

    Actually New Orleans is where all the medical centers are located and what is likely the driver for the college degree statistic (Ochsner, Tulane, LSU). There city and state have worked to build out a new medical center post-K as well. Obviously lots of these folks are temporary medical students/residents. Also, Orleans parish has gotten relatively expensive over the past decade, so naturally you’re going to see lower income (and less educated) residents displaced. 
     

    Edit: NO is also a university town (Tulane, UNO, Loyola, Xavier, Dillard, etc) so that drives the stat as well. 

    • Hook 'Em 7
  3. 3 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

    A good choice if you are willing to go with a "heads I win -- tails you lose" approach.  I think it takes away most of the upside of home ownership and wealth creation.  You may as well be renting your home, IMHO. 

     

    I don’t disagree, but capping appreciation/resale price is a fundamental element of the sustainability of these programs. They are not meant to subsidize home ownership (why not just directly do so?) but rather to provide would-be lifelong renters with the opportunity to put what would be rent money into equity, along with fixed payments and housing security. Of course the problem that arises is that these programs are intended for long term residents, and people who try to sell after a few years are often miffed they don’t get the full benefit of market ownership. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

    question: this entire thread is basically links to tweets showing good things for UKR and bad things for Russia. Are there tweets showing Russia blowing up UKR shit/people and y'all just don't post them here? Or is there not that type of content on Twitter?

    Go to r/combatfootage and scroll controversial. 

  5. 1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    LOL.  Links?

    The most recent studies in Chicago and Minneapolis (Upzone adopters) show that “rents and home prices have actually increased and developers will build to profit.  They then conclude “it is still not a reason to not upzone/not build supply”

    Density creates scarcity. A larger and larger group of people in the same size space sharing the same resources. 
     

    In Austin, the contrast between putting condos downtown, and allowing multi family in Tarrytown etc vs the gigantic apartment complexes under construction at Wells Branch/Mopac, off 290 towards manor, near 183A/Avery Ranch etc which will literally house hundreds of more families for a fraction of the price, is night and day. 
     

    All of these developments are also seeing a support economy develop around them. Restaurants, gas stations, dry cleaners and groceries, creating more jobs.

    These are simply a better use of funds and land to build sprawl than forcing multi family properties in expensive neighborhoods.
     

    Use technology, WFH and other solutions to tackle transportation issues which gives a much better ROI serving the people with their tax dollars. 
     

    Austin likes to address housing like we are NYC and there is no dirt that has not already been molested. 
     

     

    A new study of zoning changes in Chicago finds that they led to higher, not lower, local home prices, while having no discernible impact on local housing supply.”

     

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/zoning-reform-isn-t-a-silver-bullet-for-u-s-housing

    Oh hey Minneapolis. And Houston. It’s a strawman to say that people expect upzoning to decrease home prices in the short term. As I and others have said, HCOL areas are fucked for a generation, and the only hope is to build enough to alleviate price increases and hope incomes keep up. Simply upzoning itself will not generate housing overnight as there will still remain many significant obstacles to development. We upzoned California with SB9, for example, but people still use regulatory mechanisms like CEQA to block development. As @Bozo_Casanova explained, you can only rely on sprawl to a point. I live in a place where we are well past that point, and the result is dire. Faced with the choice of doing nothing or doing something that will help in the long term, I support the latter. It’s like supporting efforts to combat climate change. Oh wait. 

     

  6. 3 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:


    The past rules of supply and demand do not apply any more. Housing is now a global commodity sought after by entities who have no intention of moving here or leasing to residents.

    Some facts:

    > A significant portion of home sales are bid by investors (like the ones described above). Or, like my cliched neighbors from California, they are spare homes.
    > New construction and renovated construction increase neighborhood property values.

    Some opinions and assumptions:

    > A combination of higher interest rates and the crypto crash stabilized Austin housing prices
    > Decreasing property tax rates stimulates the housing market, leading to higher valuations.
    > Texas cities are largely inept in doing anything about except making things worse by accelerating gentrification. The state has and would strike down any remedies that would conflict with special interests or “free market” rhetoric.
    > Maybe COA’s codenext scheme, with incentives for subsidized housing, is the best bad solution.

    Housing is now a commodity in America because there is not enough supply for demand. There are investors in the housing market because they have identified this problem and see an investment opportunity. Invitation Homes spelled this out in their S-1. But the fact is that institutional investors are something like 1% of the housing market (though they certainly have had an increased presence in certain housing markets in recent years). But they are not the cause of the housing supply crisis. Lack of supply is.

     

    3 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

     

    I wish it wasn't the case, but any desirable city has an issue with affordability and no one has been able to solve it.

     

    You keep stating this, but virtually every study done on the topic finds that building more housing, and in particularly increasing density, puts downward pressure on housing prices. But to the extent your ideal case study is a city that has decreased housing prices in a reasonably short period of time to allow middle class affordability, well, we live in a country where housing zoning and regulations have largely been established by local control (ie, NIMBYs). Do you expect that to have ever happened? Have you followed California’s and New York’s efforts to address this at the state level?

  7. 16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Yeah....I gotta tell ya....when we have a housing cost problem that is driven in large part by limited supply (this isn't a controversial take, most everyone who has looked at the issue agrees), I find it hard to understanding a take that "yeah....but ADDING supply won't help."

    It won't SOLVE the crisis in and of itself.  But geez.  We need more housing to that supply isn't so tight.  Adding housing in Waco or some shit doesn't help us here.  So, change the rules to allow more housing to be built right here in River City.

    Yeah, we need to accept that the ship has sailed on affordability and this is a generational issue, at best.  NIMBY’s spent decades getting us here and we won’t alleviate it overnight, but that doesn’t we shouldn’t do anything at all. “A developer might get rich! Working class folks couldn’t afford those new townhouses! And what about the parking?!”. Straight off the greatest hits list of Nextdoor boomer NIMBY pearl clutching, as they amass wealth gatekeeping their neighborhoods increasingly accessible only to, well, the wealthy. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  8. On 10/4/2023 at 5:38 AM, South Austin said:

    Looks like UC Santa Cruz is creeping up in my daughter's rankings.  Anyone have experience with that school? 

    I've been to Santa Cruz twice and I love that area, but from what I'm reading the student body is experiencing a bit of a housing crisis because there's not enough on-campus housing, and very little available off-campus housing that isn't priced beyond a student's means.

    I still think she likely winds up at UDub or Oregon, but still gathering as much information I can on the other candidates.  

    Yes, the housing situation is insane in UCSC (and several other UCs). From what I hear from colleagues, pretty common for kids to live in nearby towns like Watsonville, which sounds like it would suck. But again, very common experience for UC students who aren’t affluent - not like most UCSD kids live in La Jolla for four years either. 

  9. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

    And this.

    UC San Diego is a kickass school, period.  Is it a "satellite?"  By the definition used here, sure...but it's an excellent degree, stand-alone.  The UT system should aspire to be close to that level.

    It took me a while to shake my way of thinking as a UT grad, but it’s not “Cal and then everyone else”, it’s “Cal/UCLA=best public’s in the US and the rest are simply excellent”. It’s becoming more so as competition increases. No reason why Texas can’t aspire for that. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. 1 hour ago, Texas Jeff said:

    So, someone could in theory buy an existing home on a 50x100 lot, tear it down, subdivide it, and build six homes, IMHO apartments, on the site.  The could also build less density, like one house per 2500 sq ft lot, or just rebuild on the lot like today.  

    The council did not pass these rules, but directed the city to come back with proposals for change.  Unlike CodeNext, these proposals would affect every single family lot in the city by changing the definition of single family zoning.  This is not "missing middle", where some lots near transit were considered for up-zoning while inner neighborhood house were spared.  This would be the rules for any single family lot in the city.

    😍

×
×
  • Create New...