Zoning's role in Austin's unaffordability (Houston, West: townhouse, buy, to live in)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

That is incredibly twisted logic. The two issues have no direct relationship with each other.

People have never been entitled to live anywhere they want. Homeowners are entitled to have a say on things that effect their property values and quality of life.

Zoning and land use regs take away from property owner's rights. You have this exactly wrong.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Zoning and land use regs take away from property owner's rights. You have this exactly wrong.

Especially when retroactive (reducing the rights of existing owners), like McMansion did and the 6 to 4 threatens to.
I'm actually a little surprised McMansion has never been challenged on illegal takings and equal protection grounds (it applies to Wooten, but not to NACA just accross 183 which has basically an identical housing mix).

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Especially when retroactive (reducing the rights of existing owners), like McMansion did and the 6 to 4 threatens to.
I'm actually a little surprised McMansion has never been challenged on illegal takings and equal protection grounds (it applies to Wooten, but not to NACA just accross 183 which has basically an identical housing mix).

Wouldn't know about equal protection challenge here but homeowners are not a protected class and rational basis would apply. Also, cities have incredibly broad latitude under takings to zone - basically you have to deprive home owners of all economic beneficial use - an exceedingly high bar that is almost never reached in zoning.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by M1EK

If it were not so under the thrall of people like Karen McGraw, the commercial strip on Guadalupe might look more like the one on South Congress, which I would view as a dramatic improvement despite the fact that it would make it much harder for us to park our cars.

Hope this helps.

It doesn't, because the discussion you've waded into has nothing to do with Guadalupe. I agree it is currently a travesty. Heck, I think we ought to turn the Baker School Campus into a MF zoned site. You what would also be great--density people doing just a little bit of digging and work to try and nudge the state to do what a bunch of folks want to do and either sell off or long term lease off the ASH grounds and close the facility.

But that's not what Kohmet is arguing for. He is arguing for scraping the existing SFH stock and replacing it with MF. That's ridiculous and it isn't NIMBYism to call him on it.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

If people aren't entitled to live where they want, why are homeowners entitled to determine what another property owner puts on their property? You can't have it both ways. That's hypocrisy.

Homeowners are entitled to have zoning enforced. That hasn't happened in Austin very often.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

According to who? I don't see that right enshrined in the constitution. Zoning regulations and limitations on what property owners are able to do with their land seem averse to the actual rights of property owners. Why do people who don't own land have more say about what is put on it than the people who actually own it?

In other words, people don't have the right to live wherever they want, but a property owner has more of a right to build multiple housing units on their own lot (increasing supply and decreasing price-- yes, supply and demand is real) than you have a right to dictate what they do with their land.

Where does the constitution give you the right to do anything you want with a piece of land you buy? It does not exist. All land ownership is subject to the pleasure of the king, or government. The Ultimate ownership of land belongs to the government, you use it only a its pleasure and subject to its rules and regulations. When you buy a piece of land you are given a title to it by the government, with limited rights on what you can do with it. The government can take it back any time they have a need for it by eminent domain, the government limits what you can do with that land, thru an extension of those superior rights, written into zoning regulations, building codes and other regulations.

Property owners have no ultimate right to do anything they want with the land they hold title to.

When people decide to buy land in cities that have zoning and land regulations they are agreeing to abide by those regulations. Usually because they feel the benefits of those regulations out weigh the limitations and the freedoms they might have if they buy outside of a City. A homeowner who buys a home on property that is subject to those regulations has every right to expect them to continue to be enforced. In those instances those regulations protect the homeowner and most homeowners see them that way. A landowner who buys land that he knows is subject to those regulations has lost nothing when they are enforced and has no rights to build something there that does not comply with those regulations.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

But that's not what Kohmet is arguing for. He is arguing for scraping the existing SFH stock and replacing it with MF. That's ridiculous and it isn't NIMBYism to call him on it.

I have made no such argument - you know that I have not, and this is a blatant, malicious, and unhinged claim on your part.

But no one ever accused NIMBYs of rationalism or using anything other than strident rhetoric. . .to be expected.

[mackenziep]

Originally Posted by Komeht

I have made no such argument - you know that I have not, and this is a blatant, malicious, and unhinged claim on your part.

But no one ever accused NIMBYs of rationalism or using anything other than strident rhetoric. . .to be expected.

Of course you've made that argument. You resent the fact that SFH owners should want zoning enforced, and you've made it abundantly clear that all areas adjacent to UT, ONE OF THE BIGGEST UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD!!!! should be rebuilt to accommodate affordable rentals.

So how does that work, exactly?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mackenziep

Of course you've made that argument. You resent the fact that SFH owners should want zoning enforced, and you've made it abundantly clear that all areas adjacent to UT, ONE OF THE BIGGEST UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD!!!! should be rebuilt to accommodate affordable rentals.

So how does that work, exactly?

Stop - you are embarrassing yourself.

1. I've never made the argument for, I'll quote directly here "scraping the existing SFH sock and replacing it with MF." That is a load of BS and you will not find me saying anything remotely close to it in any post I have ever made on any forum anywhere. So stop.

2. Enforcement of zoning is NOT the issue. The zoning as it exists today IS enforced. Zoning is a development and use issue.

3. The zoning most definitely should be CHANGED as it is ridiculous to preserve the city in some kind of quasi museum stuck in circa 1996. That's insane.

4. Changing the zoning allows for gradual changes to the neighborhood to evolve to meet needs - everyone still owns their home, everyone still gets to make his or her own decision as to what to do with his or her own piece of paradise.

5. Finally - the change would be to allow exactly the same kinds of development that allowed Hyde Park to evolve into the nicer-than-average neighborhood it is today - the vast majority of which is currently ILLEGAL in Austin. You can't build Hyde Park anymore. That's a mistake - we should return to allowing at least that much.

So stop with the hysterics and the nonsense and the cries of public good and the denouncement of "transient residents" and the characterization of any home that holds more than two unrelated people as a "stealth dorm" - it's all a bunch of rhetorical nonsense. gpurcell had the bad luck of running into someone who actually knew WTF they were talking about and got called on his bs.

[gpurcell]

Laugh. You have absolutely no historical knowledge of the situation and you have demonstrated it time and time again in this thread. If you did you would understand the context--that Zoning HASN'T been enforced and that's why superduplexes and now stealth dorms (which are unfortunately all too real) are being constructed. And the notion that the depradations of the 1970s and 1980s we're part of some "evolutionary" change that improved the neighborhood is completely and totally insane.

Changing the zoning from SFH is EXACTLY THE SAME as advocating for scraping it all--that's exactly what has happened in West Campus. And, of course, its exactly what you want but you are too gutless to actually advocate for it openly.

Edit: Also, you REALLY should stop using NIMBY to mean "disagrees with my quasi-authoritarian world view."