Potential move to Austin - how progressive IS it? (Dallas: live, vs.)

[Aquitaine]

Ha! To me, 'Latin' refers to the Latin Kingdom in 12th century Jerusalem. Guess I can't win :/

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by RaphRod

Oh dear, I am already having issues. Latin people prefer to be called Latin; Hispanic is actually only used by government (some) entities anymore. Hispanic, Mexican, you name it - all out the door. Acceptable is Latin, Latina, Latinos. I grew up in CA, and although white, I respect whatever it is they would like to group themselves as. If I said Hispanic in the Bay Area, I'd get a dirty look and someone would correct me.

Well I think you just showed a California centric view of things. I think Hispanic is widely used here and it is not considered derogatory. Maybe Latin people in California prefer to be called Latin. But I am not aware of such a preference here.

We aren't nearly so sensitive around here.

[Trainwreck20]

houses in the aquifer area are now over 400k for anything decent and have turned into Ashley factories.

Fairly insulting, really, on several levels, but I suspect that you actually just missed that as opposed to intending to take a shot at anyone.

Anyway, to the OP, there are quite a few threads on the liberalism (or non-liberalism) and you will often see a lot of back and forth. If you do look back at any of those, I would recommend paying more attention to the in-depth answers rather than the one-liner 'sound bites' that sum things up in an all inclusive sentence.

There are several references to Austin as more libertarian than democratic or republican, and that is both true and a bit misleading. A common issue on the forum seems to me to be a different interpretation or understanding of the definition of various words, which is fair enough and I think from your original post that you are probably aware that that can be the case. My assessment of Austin has always been that it is fairly liberal socially while being fairly conservative fiscally. I think of this as more of the Austin 'libertarianism' than the Ron Paul version, and it is obviously not stated specifically in any political platform document anywhere.

Anecdotally, I will say that I have met more people locally that own guns but vote democratically than I would have expected if I just read the national media. I also know people that can vote for people in different parties in the same election. I have a good friend in the republican party locally that is part of a group just trying to hold out long enough for the 'white haired preachers' to die so that they can move the party away from the religious right and toward a fiscal right - neither of which seems to apply to the current party platform. The fact that they (the potential 'usurpers') exist and even seem to have a plan for getting there is, too me, an 'Austin' thing.

The aquifer referred to above (the Edwards Aquifer) is a large aquifer that supplies water to much of the rural areas SW of Austin and until recently was the only real supply of water for San Antonio. Approximately 10-15% of Travis County (where Austin is located) is over the aquifers recharge, contributing, or transition zone. The portion in Travis County accounts for probably <5% of the total aquifer. Some years back, as development was just really picking up in that area, there was a long and very interesting battle between the developers, the City of Austin, and an independent environmental group (Save our Springs, or SOS). The result was a compromise that allowed development but required significant amounts of green space on a development-wide basis, and also restricted total impervious ground cover on both an individual lot and in the development. State laws have since increase significantly and all land over the aquifer are subject to the Edwards Aquifer Authority.

Interestingly (or perhaps predictably), the increased regulation led to some areas with nice balances between development and green space, and subsequently led to increased values in land that was available. 400k exaggerates, since my House is around 250k and in the aquifer transition zone. There are also many low density developments in the aquifer areas (such as Wimberley) that have attracted a higher number of the environmental minded population. You can find some interesting green-house experiments, rain-water collection, and home farming without being really too far outside the city.

[Trainwreck20]

I don't think I have every heard anyone that I know refer to themselves locally as 'latino', but maybe I have and don't recall. Many 'latinos' refer to themselves as Mexican, even if they do not hold Mexican citizenship but descended from parents from Mexico. Hispanic, yes, is defined by the U. S. Government and is a made-up word, but ultimately, someone else made up 'Latino', as well. In ten years or whatever, that will be politically incorrect and we will probably have a new word for 'Latino/Hispanic'.

Not to get on your case, I am not, but I doubt you will get any dirty looks. The animosity between Hispanic and non-Hispanic in the area is almost non-existent. There are politicians that would love to keep certain cultural blocks voting uniformly, but it seems the 'fear' of being a minority and sticking together has been diminished to the point that is not a valid assumption. Having traveled widely in the SE U.S., I can tell you that Austin is nothing like what I saw in Birmingham, Atlanta, Tallahassee, Mobile, or a dozen other minor and major metro areas I have spent time in.

[passionatearts]

Originally Posted by RaphRod

Hi - I am looking to relocate and Austin is in my top three list of cities to move. I did research on most educated and "liberal" (loosely) cities in the US and it consistently ranked on the top. But I have also heard that for transplants who grew up truly liberal cities, like me (San Francisco), the liberal label is sort of a facade. So if we drop the term liberal and conservative, is Austin considered progressive? I will die a slow death if I encounter any more drunk young girls named Ashley when I am out on a Friday night, shallow as can be. I am a single female in my late 30s who is looking for other single friends (and in a city where there is little pressure to become a family unit), as well as for intelligent, non-metrosexual guys. I am not materialistic, and I enjoy simple things and appreciate the environment, eating well and naturally, and always learning. I am also very open religion-wise. I love interacting with people from different cultures and meeting interesting, accomplished individuals. How would Austin rate with those ideas in mind? I appreciate all positive comments, even if the response is not what I am looking for. Please don't respond if you have nasty or sarcastic or empty responses. Thanks again.

Like others have said in this thread, the liberalism you encounter in Austin is not the same as the liberalism you find in the big cities in California. Honestly, if you're looking for the kind of super-PC, environmentalist, hippy-dippy liberalism you find in San Francisco, you'd be better off moving to somewhere like Portland, Eugene, or Seattle. Austin has some of that brand of liberalism, but not really.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by RaphRod

Oh dear, I am already having issues. Latin people prefer to be called Latin; Hispanic is actually only used by government (some) entities anymore. Hispanic, Mexican, you name it - all out the door. Acceptable is Latin, Latina, Latinos. I grew up in CA, and although white, I respect whatever it is they would like to group themselves as. If I said Hispanic in the Bay Area, I'd get a dirty look and someone would correct me.

Seriously? What kind of issues are you having because someone on this board used the term Hispanic? That is the term used here, by people from Hispanic backgrounds. Are deciding that the use of the term Hispanic in Texas means it's not progressive enough for you? By all means, if that's got you upset, then you are probably not going to be happy here. Texans are far more laid back than that.

[Aquitaine]

Agreed. It also wasn't ever an issue in Brooklyn...sort of like if I insisted on being called Anglo-Norman instead of Caucasian or white!

[J1ndo]

Originally Posted by RaphRod

Oh dear, I am already having issues. Latin people prefer to be called Latin; Hispanic is actually only used by government (some) entities anymore. Hispanic, Mexican, you name it - all out the door. Acceptable is Latin, Latina, Latinos. I grew up in CA, and although white, I respect whatever it is they would like to group themselves as. If I said Hispanic in the Bay Area, I'd get a dirty look and someone would correct me.

Hispanic is kind of dated, but Mexican is "only out the door" if it's being used as a blanket term for the entire latino population. For Mexicans, Mexican is quite all right and a term of pride, especially in Texas, whose former status as Mexican state is so much more visible and close to the surface than in the other treaty states.

[MtnLion512]

Originally Posted by Austin97

I would say this is not a good place for you. Austin is liberal by texas standards but still very conservative. People get married very young here, probably in their early twenties. You may not feel pressure, but everyone around you will be getting married and having kids.

Most people are white, from texas so you wont get very much in the way of varied cultures or people.

Since this is tough to measure, here are some demographic numbers from different cities (per the US Census) to give you an idea:

Households with kids <18:
San Francisco: 18.4%
Seattle: 19.5%
Boston: 22.7%
Austin: 26.8%

Married couples:
San Francisco: 34.6%
Seattle: 32.8%
Boston: 27.4%
Austin: 38.1%

So yeah, there will be a higher percentage of married folks and people with kids compared to other cities with reputations as 'liberal'. For me, I know wayyy more single people in their 20s than married (I'm married, I'm still in 20s but my wife is in her 30s) and few have plans to get married. When it comes to the 30s though, I know more people married or at least living together with a partner than single. Personally, I think there is a good mix of both. We don't really plan to have kids, but we have great friends who do and great friends who are single. YMMV.

[homeinatx]

Originally Posted by RaphRod

Oh dear, I am already having issues. Latin people prefer to be called Latin; Hispanic is actually only used by government (some) entities anymore. Hispanic, Mexican, you name it - all out the door. Acceptable is Latin, Latina, Latinos. I grew up in CA, and although white, I respect whatever it is they would like to group themselves as. If I said Hispanic in the Bay Area, I'd get a dirty look and someone would correct me.

Latina/o has almost no currency in Texas or most of the Southwest for that matter. Chicana/o or Tejana/o would be the preferred terms of self-identification. I personally find "Latin people" as dumb a nomenclature as Dan Quayle saying he needed to brush up on his Latin because he was going to Latin America.