Affordable housing discussion thread

[nixcity]

^ True, there is certainly culture and due to it we have nice places like the Violet Crown and get an infusion of money from taxes which can go to cultural facilities. However, we get a much more diverse culture when more classes are allowed to live in an area.

[BevoLJ]

I totally agree that there is always more need for more affordable housing and that believe that we can rely on for-profit developers to build it is a bit silly. Often times affordable housing come with age. As something is older and older many times it becomes more affordable. But that will never work for Austin as Austin forever keeps just growing and growing too fast. There is a need for staff to be built or added to projects being built that includes affordable housing.

One other thing however to not is that the idea Austin will eventually push all low income, young or diverse population out of the downtown area is wrong to me. I think UT is pretty safe where it is now (unless Perry somehow get reelected again, lol).

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by DougRockstead

So do you mean that Austin currently doesn't have any culture... or any other big city in America that hasn't built "sky-rise housing" for those less fortunate? In order for a downtown to have culture we need to have people in the lower spectrum of the socio-economic demographic living within the downtown borders? Can you explain? And please give me some examples of larger cities that meet your criteria that have more culture than Austin currently does.

Educate me. I am unfamiliar with this point of view.

Thanks!

Yeah, culture is mostly the product of the middle and lower classes. The upper classes lack an incentive. Think about where all the band members from SXSW acts fall on the economic spectrum. Probably middle to lower class. If Austin wants a place for artists to live downtown, there has to be affordable housing.

But people here seem to be confused about what affordable housing is. Affordable housing isn't section 8. It isn't for the poorest of the poor. It's for regular middle class people. All it is is under market price housing. Mueller has some of this.

I think people are losing perspective. Downtown living isn't affordable to the middle class, not just the lower class, but the middle class. And considering we're all voters in this body politic, why should urban living be reserved for one economic class? It's all of our city.

This method of mixing affordable housing in with market-price housing is rather new, so I'm not sure what other places have had success with this. Right now, practically every class of Austinite lives in the suburbs, but since people are moving into downtown Austin now, there's no reason why it should be only one economic class of people, leaving the rest of us to languish.

Austin, historically, has been relatively free of class conflict, but I think this city is in for a reckoning with this new city council districts plan. So get used to it, I guess.

[verybadgnome]

Let's not get carried away with the affordable mantra. The reason it costs more to live central is b/c the land is so costly and the second reason is that the supply has not kept up with demand. The land is costly because it has been bid up in the marketplace by those with deep pockets. Is it also bid up by people like me who don't have such deep pockets, but have chosen to forgo "necessities" like garages, 2nd bathrooms, dishwashers, a new car every 4 years, cable tv, gym memberships, smart phones, etc. while the lower income families down the street drive 12 mpg Suburbans.

Also what is an "affordable home?" Is that 2,000 sq. feet minimum? 2 car garage? 2nd "living space?" Large back yard? Granite counter tops and SS appliances? Does every child have to have his/her own room? An affordable home is not the same in SF as it is in Omaha and the fact that Austin prices are starting to look more like the former has to do with the demographic changes that are underway and irreversible except in the long term.

Sorry but rent control is not going to happen in Austin and even if it did the republicans in the lege would nullify it. Property tax abatement? That just means you are reducing the property tax burden on X% of the population and transferring it to the remainder. I am in favor of programs that allow homesteader to not pay the yearly bill and instead have the amount deducted from the sale of the property in the event of death or transfer of ownership. I am in support of the Mueller program with the 75/25 (or thereabouts) ownership split. The voters did send a message the last election when it came to affordable housing and it is best if the advocates of such take a different approach to the problem.

The truth is that lower income people don't buy new cars, they buy second hand cars from the middle class and above. The way to reduce prices is to increase supply of all housing types. That way the thousands of units added in 2013 at a certain price point will be the affordable housing of the future at the same price point, but when adjusted for inflation will actually be cheaper.

It is not smart to build 135 affordable units at 11th and Trinity when with the same amount of money - assuming the land could be sold off to the highest bidder - they could have built double that number of units on East Riverside past Pleasant Valley. A location with bus routes and decent walkability. The nearest grocery store is HEB whereas the nearest grocery store to 1100 trinity is Whole Foods, not exactly the best place to shop for those on a budget.

If you want to help the poor fight the ANC and their efforts to preseve obsolete zoning. Also streamline the development process at the city so that units can hit the market sooner.

[Austin_Expert]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Let's not get carried away with the affordable mantra. The reason it costs more to live central is b/c the land is so costly and the second reason is that the supply has not kept up with demand. The land is costly because it has been bid up in the marketplace by those with deep pockets. Is it also bid up by people like me who don't have such deep pockets, but have chosen to forgo "necessities" like garages, 2nd bathrooms, dishwashers, a new car every 4 years, cable tv, gym memberships, smart phones, etc. while the lower income down the street drive 12 mpg Suburbans.

Also what is an "affordable home?" Is that 2,000 sq. feet minimum? 2 car garage? 2nd "living space?" Large back yard? Granite counter tops and SS appliances? Does every child have to have his/her own room? An affordable home is not the same in SF as it is in Omaha and the fact that Austin prices are starting to look more like the former has to do with the demographic changes that are underway and irreversible except in the long term.

Sorry but rent control is not going to happen in Austin and even if it did the republicans in the lege would nullify it. Property tax abatement? That just means you are reducing the property tax burden on X% of the population and transferring it to the remainder. I am in favor of programs that allow homesteader to not pay the yearly bill and instead have the amount deducted from the sale of the property in the event of death or transfer of ownership. I am in support of the Mueller program with the 75/25 (or thereabouts) ownership split. The voters did send a message the last election when it came to affordable housing and it is best if the advocates of such take a different approach to the problem.

The truth is that lower income people don't buy new cars, they buy second hand cars from the middle class and above. The way to reduce prices is to increase supply of all housing types. That way the thousands of units added in 2013 at a certain price point will be the affordable housing of the future at the same price point, but when adjusted for inflation will actually be cheaper.

It is not smart to build 135 affordable units at 11th and Trinity when with the same amount of money - assuming the land could be sold off to the highest bidder - they could have built double that number of units on East Riverside past Pleasant Valley. A location with bus routes and decent walkability. The nearest grocery store is HEB whereas the nearest grocery store to 1100 trinity is Whole Foods, not exactly the best place to shop for those on a budget.

If you want to help the poor fight the ANC and their efforts to preseve obsolete zoning. Also streamline the development process at the city so that units can hit the market sooner.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Let's not get carried away with the affordable mantra. The reason it costs more to live central is b/c the land is so costly and the second reason is that the supply has not kept up with demand. The land is costly because it has been bid up in the marketplace by those with deep pockets. Is it also bid up by people like me who don't have such deep pockets, but have chosen to forgo "necessities" like garages, 2nd bathrooms, dishwashers, a new car every 4 years, cable tv, gym memberships, smart phones, etc. while the lower income families down the street drive 12 mpg Suburbans.

Also what is an "affordable home?" Is that 2,000 sq. feet minimum? 2 car garage? 2nd "living space?" Large back yard? Granite counter tops and SS appliances? Does every child have to have his/her own room? An affordable home is not the same in SF as it is in Omaha and the fact that Austin prices are starting to look more like the former has to do with the demographic changes that are underway and irreversible except in the long term.

Sorry but rent control is not going to happen in Austin and even if it did the republicans in the lege would nullify it. Property tax abatement? That just means you are reducing the property tax burden on X% of the population and transferring it to the remainder. I am in favor of programs that allow homesteader to not pay the yearly bill and instead have the amount deducted from the sale of the property in the event of death or transfer of ownership. I am in support of the Mueller program with the 75/25 (or thereabouts) ownership split. The voters did send a message the last election when it came to affordable housing and it is best if the advocates of such take a different approach to the problem.

The truth is that lower income people don't buy new cars, they buy second hand cars from the middle class and above. The way to reduce prices is to increase supply of all housing types. That way the thousands of units added in 2013 at a certain price point will be the affordable housing of the future at the same price point, but when adjusted for inflation will actually be cheaper.

It is not smart to build 135 affordable units at 11th and Trinity when with the same amount of money - assuming the land could be sold off to the highest bidder - they could have built double that number of units on East Riverside past Pleasant Valley. A location with bus routes and decent walkability. The nearest grocery store is HEB whereas the nearest grocery store to 1100 trinity is Whole Foods, not exactly the best place to shop for those on a budget.

If you want to help the poor fight the ANC and their efforts to preseve obsolete zoning. Also streamline the development process at the city so that units can hit the market sooner.

What he said.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Let's not get carried away with the affordable mantra. The reason it costs more to live central is b/c the land is so costly and the second reason is that the supply has not kept up with demand. The land is costly because it has been bid up in the marketplace by those with deep pockets. Is it also bid up by people like me who don't have such deep pockets, but have chosen to forgo "necessities" like garages, 2nd bathrooms, dishwashers, a new car every 4 years, cable tv, gym memberships, smart phones, etc. while the lower income families down the street drive 12 mpg Suburbans.

Also what is an "affordable home?" Is that 2,000 sq. feet minimum? 2 car garage? 2nd "living space?" Large back yard? Granite counter tops and SS appliances? Does every child have to have his/her own room? An affordable home is not the same in SF as it is in Omaha and the fact that Austin prices are starting to look more like the former has to do with the demographic changes that are underway and irreversible except in the long term.

Sorry but rent control is not going to happen in Austin and even if it did the republicans in the lege would nullify it. Property tax abatement? That just means you are reducing the property tax burden on X% of the population and transferring it to the remainder. I am in favor of programs that allow homesteader to not pay the yearly bill and instead have the amount deducted from the sale of the property in the event of death or transfer of ownership. I am in support of the Mueller program with the 75/25 (or thereabouts) ownership split. The voters did send a message the last election when it came to affordable housing and it is best if the advocates of such take a different approach to the problem.

The truth is that lower income people don't buy new cars, they buy second hand cars from the middle class and above. The way to reduce prices is to increase supply of all housing types. That way the thousands of units added in 2013 at a certain price point will be the affordable housing of the future at the same price point, but when adjusted for inflation will actually be cheaper.

It is not smart to build 135 affordable units at 11th and Trinity when with the same amount of money - assuming the land could be sold off to the highest bidder - they could have built double that number of units on East Riverside past Pleasant Valley. A location with bus routes and decent walkability. The nearest grocery store is HEB whereas the nearest grocery store to 1100 trinity is Whole Foods, not exactly the best place to shop for those on a budget.

If you want to help the poor fight the ANC and their efforts to preseve obsolete zoning. Also streamline the development process at the city so that units can hit the market sooner.

Could not agree more - see also this:

http://www.bigreddog.com/guest-colum...affordability/

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Let's not get carried away with the affordable mantra. The reason it costs more to live central is b/c the land is so costly and the second reason is that the supply has not kept up with demand. The land is costly because it has been bid up in the marketplace by those with deep pockets. Is it also bid up by people like me who don't have such deep pockets, but have chosen to forgo "necessities" like garages, 2nd bathrooms, dishwashers, a new car every 4 years, cable tv, gym memberships, smart phones, etc. while the lower income families down the street drive 12 mpg Suburbans.

Also what is an "affordable home?" Is that 2,000 sq. feet minimum? 2 car garage? 2nd "living space?" Large back yard? Granite counter tops and SS appliances? Does every child have to have his/her own room? An affordable home is not the same in SF as it is in Omaha and the fact that Austin prices are starting to look more like the former has to do with the demographic changes that are underway and irreversible except in the long term.

Sorry but rent control is not going to happen in Austin and even if it did the republicans in the lege would nullify it. Property tax abatement? That just means you are reducing the property tax burden on X% of the population and transferring it to the remainder. I am in favor of programs that allow homesteader to not pay the yearly bill and instead have the amount deducted from the sale of the property in the event of death or transfer of ownership. I am in support of the Mueller program with the 75/25 (or thereabouts) ownership split. The voters did send a message the last election when it came to affordable housing and it is best if the advocates of such take a different approach to the problem.

The truth is that lower income people don't buy new cars, they buy second hand cars from the middle class and above. The way to reduce prices is to increase supply of all housing types. That way the thousands of units added in 2013 at a certain price point will be the affordable housing of the future at the same price point, but when adjusted for inflation will actually be cheaper.

It is not smart to build 135 affordable units at 11th and Trinity when with the same amount of money - assuming the land could be sold off to the highest bidder - they could have built double that number of units on East Riverside past Pleasant Valley. A location with bus routes and decent walkability. The nearest grocery store is HEB whereas the nearest grocery store to 1100 trinity is Whole Foods, not exactly the best place to shop for those on a budget.

If you want to help the poor fight the ANC and their efforts to preseve obsolete zoning. Also streamline the development process at the city so that units can hit the market sooner.

Just because the land is so costly doesn't mean that low and middle-income people shouldn't be able to live there. We all pay taxes and some of us might expect that money to help subsidize these kinds of living environments. In public-private partnerships, affordable housing can be made a requirement. If the city government owns the land, they can make stipulations in regards to the development, which I favor. The legislature is not going to get involved with that.

Just because property tax is reduced on one demographic doesn't mean it's increased on another demographic. Ultimately, I favor a progressive tax, so I do support lower taxes on lower income people. It helps them climb into a higher economic strata, thus paying more taxes eventually, so it's in the city's interest.

The voters in Austin are largely the upper to upper-middle class. That's why they voted against affordable housing. It was the result of class privilege and maybe a little bit of class resentment, both of which are present on this forum and in this discussion. So I don't care about the vote. It's wrong and we have to push forward on this initiative despite it.

This "lower income people don't buy new cars, they buy second hand cars from the middle class and above" mantra is just more trickle-down economics, which we should be beyond by now. You're confusing how things are with how things should be. Middle and lower income people should be able to afford new cars and they could if their economic/living/tax circumstances were right.

This downtown vs. East Riverside thing is a false dichotomy. The city is requiring developers to include affordable housing, not building affordable housing themselves. And, quite typically, you're advocating a sprawl mentality; "build on the edge, where it's cheaper". When people don't have an affordable place in the city to live, that's what happens; suburban sprawl. This is all very basic stuff that Andres Duany talks about in Suburban Nation. I guess it's just getting over the class mentality that's hard; privileged people not wanting to live amongst people of different economic classes; wanting to quarantine them in some far-off place, out of an irrational, wealthist fear.

It's sad. Austin has a long way to go, politically. We have all of the social politics down, but when it comes to economics, we're still pretty right-wing.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Just because property tax is reduced on one demographic doesn't mean it's increased on another demographic.

Do you understand how math works? With the assumption that the total spent by the government doesn't go down (because it never does here in Austin) making one group pay less of that total requires the rest to pay more to pick up the slack.

That may or may not be desirable, but don't try to claim things that are fundamentally impossible.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Do you understand how math works? With the assumption that the total spent by the government doesn't go down (because it never does here in Austin) making one group pay less of that total requires the rest to pay more to pick up the slack.

That may or may not be desirable, but don't try to claim things that are fundamentally impossible.

Maybe you shouldn't make so many assumptions. Obviously, the government would have to adjust the budget to account for the changes or find revenue in new places. It's not that difficult.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Do you understand how math works? With the assumption that the total spent by the government doesn't go down (because it never does here in Austin) making one group pay less of that total requires the rest to pay more to pick up the slack.

That may or may not be desirable, but don't try to claim things that are fundamentally impossible.

This is not really true. The government could run a deficit. The government could borrow. The government could cut services. The government could finance through bonds or other taxes.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Yeah, culture is mostly the product of the middle and lower classes. The upper classes lack an incentive. Think about where all the band members from SXSW acts fall on the economic spectrum. Probably middle to lower class. If Austin wants a place for artists to live downtown, there has to be affordable housing.

Why does the affordable housing argument always have to bring "artists" into the discussion? Where the heck did this ever come from. There are lots of cool professions that don't pay well (or those who are just starting out) or are just plain simply are not skilled in their chosen field.

There is plenty affordable housing just outside of downtown. I don't know why the city hasn't jumped on it before it becomes unaffordable, as the downtown area already obviously has.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Syndic

or find revenue in new places. It's not that difficult.

And those new places it finds revenue are the other demographic (that you claimed wouldn't see increased taxes).

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by Novacek

And those new places it finds revenue are the other demographic (that you claimed wouldn't see increased taxes).

Not necessarily. They could raise new revenue from new parking meters or from tolled lanes on the highways or raise taxes on hotels. You're thinking pretty shallowly about this.

[jngreenlee]

The whole progressive/non progressive policy (taxes, land use, etc) debate gets old to me. Some people prefer redistribution methods, some are opposed. You might find that those whose own pockets are impacted are the most vocal, on either side.

But here's the thing for me. I just don't want to be dictated to about what to develop. If I'm an extremely artistic architect/developer, and I want to focus a beautiful building around the needs of a particular clientele, I'm really afraid I wouldn't be allowed to in this society. And when that happens, we all loose out on something beautiful as a result.

Customers of buildings come in all shapes, sizes, and wallet widths. I can't understanding forcing in something that's not part of the property-owner's vision. Some will serve 'high-end' clientele. Some will serve 'low-end' clientele. These ends of the same spectrum might be in different densities in different parts of town. It's just not for us to hold a gun to their heads over.

We're all just people. Can we let the people who love to build buildings make the best choices possible, and let some of us use that piece of art, and let some enjoy looking at it? Either way, we're all enjoying Austin.

It hurts to think, in my city, about all the wasted time and dollars, destroying grand visions. If it wasn't so painful each time something gets proposed, we'd have more buildings, more jobs, and more housing at all price points.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

And those new places it finds revenue are the other demographic (that you claimed wouldn't see increased taxes).

The government, again, could decide to enact fee for service, the government could enact a higher sales tax (which is highly regressive and hits everyone, the poor disproportionately), the government could enact a VAT (which is functionally different from a sales tax, just fyi), the government could do alot of different things.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by JAM

Why does the affordable housing argument always have to bring "artists" into the discussion? Where the heck did this ever come from. There are lots of cool professions that don't pay well (or those who are just starting out) or are just plain simply are not skilled in their chosen field.

There is plenty affordable housing just outside of downtown. I don't know why the city hasn't jumped on it before it becomes unaffordable, as the downtown area already obviously has.

I agree that it shouldn't just be about artists, even though I am one. It's just that those are the middle and lower economic class people that the upper class values (especially in Austin) because they get something out of them (entertainment), so people use them as an example to make them more amenable to the idea of affordable housing.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I agree that it shouldn't just be about artists, even though I am one. It's just that those are the middle and lower economic class people that the upper class values (especially in Austin) because they get something out of them (entertainment), so people use them as an example to make them more amenable to the idea of affordable housing.

....Great point an I agree but I need to take it farther..., ( and I am a self employed artist and I live downtown). It is important to talk about the artist becuase they/we were the vangard that made downtown interesting and desirable! Downtown: It's where the "Music Capitol" use to be..... and a ton of studio spaces as well. What do you think were in most of those "warehouses" that were torn down in what was the "warehouse " district? And please no "anti-devlopment" BS if you havn't been around a while, 'cause I am not. I live downtown and for the most part I like what is happeing downtown. But I think it is wise to keep the cultural/economic mix diverse and understand what made the city unique and attractive in the first place.

First of all: I personally know developers who look to serve a community, build within it and propell the qualities that they understand they profit from all while providing jobs and additional tax revenue. They put there money where thier mouth is in the community.!

BUT just as many only want to profit from Austin. So... I am totally fine with forcing those who have no real interest in "community" other than profit, to play better with the locals. You wanna profit from the "vibe" that others created in Austin? Pony up bitch.... and if I have to force you... ok, no problem. THis city was re-born of a creative impluse that trickled into many creative fields, and needs to pay attention to what made it interesting in the first place, lest that be "developed out"....( or "ordinanced" out! LOL! ) .

We still have a unique city and I am happy to help make sure it stays that way.... even if people who are new to here don't quite understand what is it that got them here! At the end of the day , all the "development" in the world doesn't matter to me if all I end up with is a generic ctiy. If I wanted that, I'd move to...... ( I'll get you fill that in)

"Keep Austin Loud"

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The government, again, could decide to enact fee for service, the government could enact a higher sales tax (which is highly regressive and hits everyone, the poor disproportionately), the government could enact a VAT (which is functionally different from a sales tax, just fyi), the government could do alot of different things.

Austin cannot raise it's sales tax (it's at the limit) or enact a VAT.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Austin cannot raise it's sales tax (it's at the limit) or enact a VAT.

You're right, but you phrased your comment generally so my response was also general. Austin is hemmed in on what it can do, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have some options.