Zoning's role in Austin's unaffordability (West: universities, income, living in)

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

Agreed. We own properties in three central Austin neighborhoods with voluntary associations (and have also owned in one other in the past.) We have experienced none of what he is describing.

Why would an absentee landlord expect to have the same experience as people that actually live there?

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Why would an absentee landlord expect to have the same experience as people that actually live there?

We aren't absentee landlords. We are extremely active in and committed to the neighborhoods we invest in, including the neighborhood associations. We also live within walking distance to where we invest.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

That's quite a silly stretch you are making. Acknowledging that rising rents push people out of their neighborhoods is not being "down" with it. As someone who rents a non-renovated (last updated in the early 2000s, the horror!) apartment in a desirable part of Austin, I am not "down" with pushing out my neighbors or myself. And our accommodations are far from awful, despite being affordable for now.

And no, nobody has the right to live anywhere. That doesn't mean I can't admire neighborhoods where people of varying incomes live and get along together.

You're simply swapping one economic class with another and mistaking having two economic classes in one neighborhood for "diversity."

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

You're simply swapping one economic class with another and mistaking having two economic classes in one neighborhood for "diversity."

Two is more diverse than one. Three is even more diverse. And so on. Such is the nature of "diversity."

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

If it weren't for those apartment buildings that went in to replace houses, Hyde Park would be another Bryker Woods.

Ahistorical nonsense. Hyde Park has always had a far different mix of lot sizes, real duplexes, garage apartments, etc. Now, some of those apartment buildings were built on raw land (Hyde Park was never built out fully and many folks had two lots and one house) but many others scraped irreplaceable historic buildings in favor of shoddy construction and 100 percent impermeable cover. To say nothing, of course, of the horror of Hyde Park Baptist Church. THAT old system was real diversity.

The "diversity" you are arguing for will turn out exactly like the "diversity" of West Campus--because homeowners, particularly those with kids, won't stay in a situation where the neighborhood becomes dominated by transient students.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

Two is more diverse than one. Three is even more diverse. And so on. Such is the nature of "diversity."

No it isn't. It's two. And it's simply economic. That has nothing to do with diversity. It's just people with less money stuck in studio boxes.

[gpurcell]

Well, and they're also the same people who live in Hyde Park already, just 15 to 20 years younger!

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

To say nothing, of course, of the horror of Hyde Park Baptist Church.

Uh oh. You spoke the name of Hyde Park's Lord Voldemort.

[gpurcell]

http://www.city-data.com/zips/78751.html
http://www.city-data.com/zips/78705.html

Tell me again how the problem in Hyde Park and North University is due to too many greedy families not willing to give up their SFH?

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

No it isn't. It's two. And it's simply economic. That has nothing to do with diversity. It's just people with less money stuck in studio boxes.

Economic and socioeconomic diversity really are things.