Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
On 11/30/2023 at 8:40 AM, PvilleStang said:

Forcing AirBNB out of town isn't the answer here.  I would bet you a bulk of the AirBnB listings are owner occupied units that are rented out during major events like F1, SXSW, ACL, etc.  We have a neighbor that puts his house on AirBnB for 5K / night, and I can't tell you if it's EVER been rented, but it's one of those, if they want to pay it, why not?

 

I think the more irritating thing is seeing Chito and Vanessa tweet about how they're modeling HOME or the rail system after Portland or some other random city they've visited recently.  The QUICKEST way to piss most people off is trying to shoe-horn some bullshit from a city that's in disrepair into the City of Austin.  The longer I watch, the more I turn into Armybrat, watching all the transplants move here and try to turn Austin into the shithole they fled.

You could address the issue with occupancy requirements for home owners (200 days etc)

Just catching a 1/4 of the STR market would more than double the existing homes for sale on the market. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

You forgot Ben White. East of Interregional it was Bastrop HWY.

 

Oh yeah... wait, am I on Ben White or 71 or are we talkin' 290 here?  Or yes to all?

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 minute ago, bschoolprof said:

But I think I can safely say we're all OK with "SoCo."  No issue there at all.  

and don't forget NoBu and SoLa

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

But I think I can safely say we're all OK with "SoCo."  No issue there at all.  

 

30 minutes ago, ftf82 said:

and don't forget NoBu and SoLa

Not taking this bait. 
 

 

 

 

 

GOD DAMMIT

Posted
1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I still accidentally call it 19th sometimes. Not because I'm THAT old, but because my dad and other older relatives always called it that.

 

26th will always be 26th, however.

As will Town Lake.

 

Waterloo.

Posted
1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

But I think I can safely say we're all OK with "SoCo."  No issue there at all.  

Got my 1st speeding ticket drag racing on South Congress in front of TSD.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, South Austin said:

How fast did you get that horse and buggy up to?

Dad’s 1961 Chevy Impala sedan, straight 6 with three on the tree. 
Hit 55 in 2nd  by the time the cop bagged me.

Prior to that I had been cruising the Pig Stand at Live Oak & S. Congress.

Edited by Armybrat
Posted
2 hours ago, texasdago said:

Oh yeah... wait, am I on Ben White or 71 or are we talkin' 290 here?  Or yes to all?

183, Research Blvd, Anderson Lane, Ed Bluestein, 183.

Posted
3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I still accidentally call it 19th sometimes. Not because I'm THAT old, but because my dad and other older relatives always called it that.

 

26th will always be 26th, however.

As will Town Lake.

 

Why would Town Lake be 26th?

Posted

A few years ago y'all approved a $250 million bond for affordable housting.  As part of that bond, Austin is partnering with the Austin Housing Conservancy to buy old apartments.  The two paid $35 million for 200 apartments, of which $15 million came from you the taxpayer.  That's $175,000 per apartment ... the city part is $75k per apartment.  These are old but cheap run down places.

According to this article, the current owners raised rents up to 25% on existing residents prior to closing on the deal, as a condition of the sale.  From the article:

“The city was wanting us to raise the rents and to start charging for utilities and trash pick-up and pet fees,” said Reese, who left Central Properties a couple of months before the sale was finalized. “Which didn’t make any sense to me because they said they were (creating) affordable housing.”

One of the buildings was renamed "The Adler" in honor of our former mayor:

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2023/12/austin-helped-buy-cheap-apartments-with-the-intent-of-keeping-prices-low-instead-rents-went-up/

 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
13 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

A few years ago y'all approved a $250 million bond for affordable housting.  As part of that bond, Austin is partnering with the Austin Housing Conservancy to buy old apartments.  The two paid $35 million for 200 apartments, of which $15 million came from you the taxpayer.  That's $175,000 per apartment ... the city part is $75k per apartment.  These are old but cheap run down places.According to this article, the current owners raised rents up to 25% on existing residents prior to closing on the deal, as a condition of the sale.  From the article:


“The city was wanting us to raise the rents and to start charging for utilities and trash pick-up and pet fees,” said Reese, who left Central Properties a couple of months before the sale was finalized. “Which didn’t make any sense to me because they said they were (creating) affordable housing.”

One of the buildings was renamed "The Adler" in honor of our former mayor:

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2023/12/austin-helped-buy-cheap-apartments-with-the-intent-of-keeping-prices-low-instead-rents-went-up/

 

I thought "The Adler" was when you pay a homeless person to shit in your mouth?

  • Haha 3
Posted
On 12/1/2023 at 3:45 PM, Armybrat said:

Dad’s 1961 Chevy Impala sedan, straight 6 with three on the tree. 
Hit 55 in 2nd  by the time the cop bagged me.

Prior to that I had been cruising the Pig Stand at Live Oak & S. Congress.

We’re still talking about chasing tail, right?

Posted

The HOME council meeting is going on today. Council is getting raked by the public comments.

Posted

Lol. It's call after call against HOME. And everyone on the phone starts with "Can you hear me?" Watson lets out the most irritated, tired "Yes." you've ever heard. 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, swraith said:

Fingers crossed but I am assuming by statements put out earlier this week that the Council will still pass this phase 1.

Oh, I have no doubt it will pass.

I watched about an hour of phone calls, and it was all against HOME. I then watched about 30 minutes later and they were to the in-person testimony, which was much more in favor of HOME. That includes one ass who said "When I see the people against HOME, I don't see the people that are the future of Austin." That got the crowd howling at him.

Edited by FirstTimeCaller
Posted
35 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

That includes one ass who said "When I see the people against HOME, I don't see the people that are the future of Austin." That got the crowd howling at him.

To be fair, old people are technically not the future of anything. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

To be fair, old people are technically not the future of anything. 

Neither was this guy. Had all the signs of a 20-something that moved here in 2019 and calls it SoCo.

Posted
23 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

To be fair, old people are technically not the future of anything. 

They are the future of worms and fertilizer. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
Oh, I have no doubt it will pass.
I watched about an hour of phone calls, and it was all against HOME. I then watched about 30 minutes later and they were to the in-person testimony, which was much more in favor of HOME. That includes one ass who said "When I see the people against HOME, I don't see the people that are the future of Austin." That got the crowd howling at him.

You will not replace us.
Posted
26 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Phase 1 passed, does that mean investors are now able to approach Leslie Pool’s neighbors with offers of rental home construction for their back yards?

Leslie pre-purchased a second home in Mueller, where these rules do not apply.  She's good.  When her term ends she can sell her current home for top dollar and move to the protected house, which is not subject to the new rules.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

Leslie pre-purchased a second home in Mueller, where these rules do not apply.  She's good.  When her term ends she can sell her current home for top dollar and move to the protected house, which is not subject to the new rules.

Ummm. You do realize Mueller already has duplexes and quadplexes, right? I'm assuming triplexes too but not certain. The HOME initiative is trying to replicate what's been legal in Mueller since its inception.

Posted
7 minutes ago, UrbanAchiever said:

Ummm. You do realize Mueller already has duplexes and quadplexes, right? I'm assuming triplexes too but not certain. The HOME initiative is trying to replicate what's been legal in Mueller since its inception.

Yep.  But her house is a single family dwelling on 6100 sq ft of land, at a corner lot, with no neighbors across the street.  It's not even legal to park in front of her house.

In other parts of Austin, it will soon be legal to divide that parcel into two (with HOME phase 2) and put three homes on each of those smaller lots.

Leslie will never have to worry about someone buying the property next to her and redeveloping it, because the HOME rules do not apply to Mueller.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Ah yes, Mueller, where density has led to affordable middle-class homes.

I actually love making it easier (faster permitting and being less crazy about the rules) to build an ADU in the backyard. It allows another person or two to live in a space. I abhor the idea of redeveloping a SFH into three houses on one lot.

If you want to do that with a new development, that's great -- everyone knows the game going in. I think Mueller seems like a great spot and it is possible because that's what was planned from the start. To change the rules after a neighborhood is established is trash.

And the "middle income" and idea this will reduce housing prices is ridiculous. 

Edited by FirstTimeCaller
Posted
4 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Ah yes, Mueller, where density has led to affordable middle-class homes.

25% of the Mueller housing stock is for low to middle-income households. There are at least three low-income communities (Wildflower, Aldrich 51, the Jordan) and a couple more in the works for households up to 60% median family income, and 10% of the for sale stock is set aside for households earning up to 80% median family income.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, UrbanAchiever said:

25% of the Mueller housing stock is for low to middle-income households. There are at least three low-income communities (Wildflower, Aldrich 51, the Jordan) and a couple more in the works for households up to 60% median family income, and 10% of the for sale stock is set aside for households earning up to 80% median family income.  

Great, that's not in HOME at all. Yet it wants to argue that HOME is going to lead to affordability. Without the income caps, it's insanely cheaper to buy a home outside of Mueller.

image.png.52465bc4186cbb6cfc785eb853fb0b2b.png

Posted

Now look at central city neighborhoods without PUDs like Mueller, and see which homes are most affordable. What you'll see is that the housing inventory on shared lots is the cheapest in the neighborhood, housing that was largely illegal to build until now. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, UrbanAchiever said:

Now look at central city neighborhoods without PUDs like Mueller, and see which homes are most affordable. What you'll see is that the housing inventory on shared lots is the cheapest in the neighborhood, housing that was largely illegal to build until now. 

It looks the same to me:

image.png.0936e1f99109715a22c7adba54db6ab2.png

image.png.52465bc4186cbb6cfc785eb853fb0b2b.png

Posted

I will say that housing prices have dropped like a stone. With interest rates affordability is still a major issue, but the value of my massive McMansion '80s build 3/2 on less than a fifth acre has gone from about $680K at the peak of the Covid bubble to about $515K -- 25% drop.

Posted

These young transplants and true believers will be sorely disappointed when this does nothing to improve housing affordability in Austin for any of them.  I don't think that's really the goal for even the pie-eyed, however.  It's more of an us vs. them jerkoff session. 

Those who stand to make money off this are laughing their asses off at how stupid we all are.  Now, I'm off to purchase a home in central San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, New York, Boston ,Toronto, or somewhere similar. You know, the cities where multiunit development in historic single-family neighborhoods has been in place for decades, and therefore they have no issues with housing affordability.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

These young transplants and true believers will be sorely disappointed when this does nothing to improve housing affordability in Austin for any of them.  I don't think that's really the goal for even the pie-eyed, however.  It's more of an us vs. them jerkoff session. 

Those who stand to make money off this are laughing their asses off at how stupid we all are.  Now, I'm off to purchase a home in central San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, New York, Boston ,Toronto, or somewhere similar. You know, the cities where multiunit development in historic single-family neighborhoods has been in place for decades, and therefore they have no issues with housing affordability.

You realize most of those places are bastions of NIMBYism that have had very little development for decades and the motivating force for initiatives like HOME, right?

Posted
2 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

You realize most of those places are bastions of NIMBYism that have had very little development for decades and the motivating force for initiatives like HOME, right?


Those places are stacked to the gills with multi-unit per-lot developments.   I'm not talking about the suburbs.

Posted

Yeah, and San Francisco is still 75% plus zoned single-family, and Portland largely was predominantly single-family zoning up until recently. These cities have practiced what we've been practicing which are exclusionary housing practices that protect existing homeowners at the expense of future ones through constriction of supply. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

The Federal Reserve and job market have more to do with affordability than anything Austin city council could ever do. 

Posted

Having owned property in three of those cities, and having lived (rented) in the rest at one point or another, I respectfully disagree.  Comparing them to Austin is beyond disingenuous, with perhaps the exception of Portland, but even there the rules regarding parking, lot size, impervious cover, etc. are so drastically different it's not comparing apples to apples at all.  All of those cities cram in significantly more dwelling units per acre and are more expensive to purchase or rent a home in than Austin.    NIMBYism is real and a problem because it goes overboard.  It is also the only thing stopping 1960/s/70's style destruction of American cities.  That era left a nasty stain on the face of this country that we still haven' recovered from, and we're trying to do it all over again.  An equally ridiculous problem is using NIMBYism as a boogie man to justify for ramming through rules that benefit a small handful of people and do absolutely nothing to make housing affordable.  The name calling, the blaming, all of it - it's just political bullshit preventing people from even sitting down an thinking about what we want to achieve and whether what we're doing has any chance of accomplishing it.  People love to blame NIMBYism for Austin while refusing to blame decade after decade of crony capitalism from our local government.  They're both to blame for the current situation, but one is significantly more at fault (hint, it isn't old people worried about property values).  Austin needs more developments like Mueller, on the edge of town, combined with transportation to carry these folks to work.   Revamping established neighborhoods while doing absolutely nothing else about infrastructure, transportation, etc. if so blindingly stupid it's hardly worth discussing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...