Gentrification at its finest in Austin (Georgetown: 2015, home builder, neighborhood)

[Eastcoasting]

WASHINGTON—According to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, the recent influx of exceedingly affluent powder-wigged aristocrats into the nation's gentrified urban areas is pushing out young white professionals, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods for as many as seven years.

Multibillion-dollar castles like this one have been popping up all over Brooklyn.
Maureen Kennedy, a housing policy expert and lead author of the report, said that the enormous treasure-based wealth of the aristocracy makes it impossible for those living on modest trust funds to hold onto their co-ops and converted factory loft spaces.

"When you have a bejeweled, buckle-shoed duke willing to pay 11 or 12 times the asking price for a block of renovated brownstones—and usually up front with satchels of solid gold guineas—hardworking white-collar people who only make a few hundred thousand dollars a year simply cannot compete," Kennedy said. "If this trend continues, these exclusive, vibrant communities with their sidewalk cafés and faux dive bars will soon be a thing of the past."

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

There is no incoherence since those two quotes come from myself and another poster.

For me the moral part of the landlord/tenant relationship is each party upholding their end of an agreement (rental contract) that is fashioned to be in accord with state and local laws. Once a lease is up or lawfully terminated there is no reason for either party to be bound to the other. I do not consider my former landlord immoral for kicking me out of his condo because he wanted to move his girlfriend in. That was a month-to-month lease and he gave me 30 days notice. In the end he got to decide what to do with his property.

The zoning came into the conversation because some on this thread correctly pointed out that we don't have an eviction problem so much as a supply problem caused by excessive rules that make it too hard to build. City Council can make evictions illegal, but that will not fix the real issue which is not enough housing units to meet demand.

Agreed. As a Landlord, and as someone who serves Landlords as a property manager, and serves Tenants as Agent for Landlord, I see this from both ends.

I only manage/own single family homes, except for 1 duplex I own. About half of my tenants move to buy. The other half for various reasons.

The ones who do not want to move are always upset when the owner decides to sell or move back in, because moving is an expensive hassle, even for those for whom it doesn't create a financial burden.

Landlords who want tenants to stay (because turnover is expensive) are upset when we have a turnover 4 out of 5 years.

But in the end, renting is renting, and with it comes uncertainty, and possible financial disruption, both for the landlord and tenant.

For tenants who are exposed to the possibility of non-renewal but don't have the financial resources to execute it, that's sad for them but it doesn't make the Landlord a bad person/entity. Nor should it make it taxpayers responsibility to subsidize the moving costs for poor people.

If we want taxpayers involved with that, then government should just build a bunch more housing for them and run it. The City could have bought the land at the Grove at 45th/Bull Creek and built projects. Maybe those neighbors, since they're all super liberal, would have preferred that kindliness and social good over the commercial project they are so vehemently again now and protesting with all their might.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Eastcoasting

WASHINGTON—According to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, the recent influx of exceedingly affluent powder-wigged aristocrats into the nation's gentrified urban areas is pushing out young white professionals, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods for as many as seven years.

Multibillion-dollar castles like this one have been popping up all over Brooklyn.
Maureen Kennedy, a housing policy expert and lead author of the report, said that the enormous treasure-based wealth of the aristocracy makes it impossible for those living on modest trust funds to hold onto their co-ops and converted factory loft spaces.

"When you have a bejeweled, buckle-shoed duke willing to pay 11 or 12 times the asking price for a block of renovated brownstones—and usually up front with satchels of solid gold guineas—hardworking white-collar people who only make a few hundred thousand dollars a year simply cannot compete," Kennedy said. "If this trend continues, these exclusive, vibrant communities with their sidewalk cafés and faux dive bars will soon be a thing of the past."

That's hilarious.


(sounds like the Onion?)

[Trainwreck20]

If not the Onion, you should submit it .

[Eastcoasting]

It's the onion.

If you do a search on gentrification and the onion there is at least one other article that is equally hilarious.

[petro]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

If not the Onion, you should submit it .

Report: Nation's Gentrified Neighborhoods Threatened By Aristocratization - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Agreed. As a Landlord, and as someone who serves Landlords as a property manager, and serves Tenants as Agent for Landlord, I see this from both ends.

I only manage/own single family homes, except for 1 duplex I own. About half of my tenants move to buy. The other half for various reasons.

The ones who do not want to move are always upset when the owner decides to sell or move back in, because moving is an expensive hassle, even for those for whom it doesn't create a financial burden.

Landlords who want tenants to stay (because turnover is expensive) are upset when we have a turnover 4 out of 5 years.

But in the end, renting is renting, and with it comes uncertainty, and possible financial disruption, both for the landlord and tenant.

For tenants who are exposed to the possibility of non-renewal but don't have the financial resources to execute it, that's sad for them but it doesn't make the Landlord a bad person/entity. Nor should it make it taxpayers responsibility to subsidize the moving costs for poor people.

If we want taxpayers involved with that, then government should just build a bunch more housing for them and run it. The City could have bought the land at the Grove at 45th/Bull Creek and built projects. Maybe those neighbors, since they're all super liberal, would have preferred that kindliness and social good over the commercial project they are so vehemently again now and protesting with all their might.

This is hilarious and spot on. Liberals are just as hypocritical as the rest of us. San francisco is where we are headed. Can't change anything because people like texas horselady worship the past. Then they complain about the affordable housing crisis with their anti multifamily unit policies.

The *only* way to create affordable housing in austin (or anywhere) is to have more units. The only way to have more units is multifamily housing.

We can debate what they look like etc. But if the city doesnt speed up approval of multifamily, the problem will only get worse.


I recently was talking to one of the original developers in northwest hills and he said there were massive protests when he wanted to build out a section of northwest hills. The complaints were the same, too much traffic, cutting down trees etc. Today that area is very much sought after.

Frankly the city is wrong for allowing the precedent of neighbors to dictate what goes up. In northwest hills they are protesting the austin oaks PUD. Once it is built it will be a jewel in the area, but people dont like change.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Austin97

...

The *only* way to create affordable housing in austin (or anywhere) is to have more units. The only way to have more units is multifamily housing.
...

And the only way to have affordable multi-family housing, well situated in close proximity to good public transportation and/or where the people who need it work, is to make it cheaper to build.

Austin regulations make that impossible. And I do mean the dictionary definition of impossible (def: not able to occur, exist, or be done.). Period.

So the entire conversation, as it occurs in Austin amongst those who claim to care, is nothing but a big circle jerk.

Steve

[Aquitaine]

Steve, do you have any hope for Code NEXT to relieve any of the pressure on the red tape or the more hilarious residential requirements (like full ADA accessibility for every...single...residential...home)

I haven't really followed NEXT and it doesn't strike me as something in which one places much confidence, but isn't exactly this kind of thing something they're supposedly addressing?

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

Steve, do you have any hope for Code NEXT to relieve any of the pressure on the red tape or the more hilarious residential requirements (like full ADA accessibility for every...single...residential...home)

I haven't really followed NEXT and it doesn't strike me as something in which one places much confidence, but isn't exactly this kind of thing something they're supposedly addressing?

No, I have no hope at all. In fact, even following that scathing report that identified Austin as "the worst ever seen" permitting process, it continues to get worse.

A good friend/client of mine creates affordable infill by aquiring large lots, subdividing, then moving existing small houses onto them and making them up to current code. So, an old rundown house on .5 acre can become 3 small cottages on fee simple lots (but usually with a shared driveway easement).

We were talking yesterday and he says his current project will probably be the last. Turnover at the permitting department is so high that every time he goes in it's "back to scratch" with another newbie because his projects never fit into a neat template. The City of Austin makes it very difficult to solve affordability problems, and the system itself is too unintelligent and inflexible to accommodate good, smart, creative solutions.

I now have one foot out the door of this city. I'm sorry to say I'm about to give up and just call it quits. It's as bad as watching an alcoholic drink himself to death, or a loved one whither away with Alzheimers (I've watched both). Austin is regulating itself to death, and I'm about done watching. Maybe I have 3 to 5 year left, max, then it's out to the Hill Country and Austin will just become a place I visit or come to do business when needed.