Was "ideology" a big factor in your move to Austin? (Houston: neighborhood, taxes)

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by love roses

I have to agree with this. Having lived in Houston, I know it's more liberal than lots of newcomers who only go to Austin and don't venture out think it is. There are lots of forested areas around Houston as well, lots of tall and very green trees But, I do think Austin does do a better job preserving trees within a developement when development does occur than Houston. does.

Actually, I would say Austinites are far more insular than Houstonites(sorry if I make them sound like aliens).....Austin sometimes feels like a hermetically sealed world, relatively removed from national goings on. That probably has much to do with the fact that it traditionally has been small, in the center of the state, and was a college town....somehow I think that won't last very long as more people from more places move to Austin....

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by inthecut

The shady grove trailer court demolishment for condos involved a lot of "leaving the original trees" thing......

Could you explain impervious cover? Honestly never heard of the term.....
sounds like pavement/concreting over, but I could be wrong......

Lastly, no growth is green/good growth ultimately, and just something to make us feel better.....its all about consumption and expropriation of resources, and even the greenest of green people are net expropriators........

If the entire world had the same standard of living as americans and europeans, the world could contain no more than 2 billion people, not much more than that living in the first world to begin with.....something to think about, when the world pop is currently 6 million plus...

Impervious cover as described by the EPA"

Land Cover Characterization and Change, US EPA | Ecosystems Research Division | US EPA
impervious surfaces--areas where infiltration of water into the underlying soil is prevented. Roadways and rooftops account for the majority of this impervious area. Research in recent years has consistently shown a strong relationship between the percentage of impervious cover in a watershed and the health of the receiving stream.

The government has limited rights regarding the "taking" of your property. This includes the right to regulate how you can use your property. This all ties back to the ancient history of law regarding "property rights". Property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A government's ability to "take" away a private property owner rights to develop their property is limited, and cannot be done without compensation, except for limited "public" purposes. Whether and to what extent the State may interfere with property

In the case of discouraging development, the City of Austin has involved itself to such an extent it has been sued more then once for "taking" property rights that exceeded its right to regulate for the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Keep in mind that any law suit the City looses, is paid by you, the Austin taxpayers. So the City has an obligation to behave in a prudent manner on these issues.

The SOS (Save Our Springs) organization tried to exert more pressure against the developer, inhibiting its development of the area beyond what the City could prudently do, and the result was this... "Save Our Springs faces renewed bankruptcy pressure"

The City development ordinances are quite extensive. I encourage you to read through the City of Austin's "brief" description of its Land Development Process. I think you will find it is far from brief, even in this brief description. Before you criticize the City's development ordinances, you really should make an effort to understand them.

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by AK123

These and other views that Austin is the only place in Texas this way, are just so funny to me. Dallas and especially Houston, are much larger, more diverse (not just in race but in religion, nationality, etc.) and international cities. Houston is on the cusp of being the largest city to elect an openly gay mayor for crying out loud. Things are much different in 2009 than just a few decades ago...

I wouldn't argue with you there. Although I didn't mention it in my post, the reason I wouldn't want to live in Houston is not an ideological one. I agree that it is more diverse than Austin. But I just don't like the city - too big, dirty, crowded for me. I have family there, so I am pretty familiar with it, and I just don't like it. Pretty much the same thing with Dallas. Its just too big for me. And most smaller towns are, for my family, ideologically difficult. Austin hasn't gotten to big city size (yet), but has more of the big city openness. That's the attraction.

[latikeriii]

No, the reason my dad moved to Austin is because his job relocated from Chicago in 85, Chicago taxed the heck out of his old company so they moved to Austin(Taylor). Sadly, the company shut down and moved its manufacturing to Mexico. I moved down with him in the early 90s from Chicago for better schools.

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

I wouldn't argue with you there. Although I didn't mention it in my post, the reason I wouldn't want to live in Houston is not an ideological one. I agree that it is more diverse than Austin. But I just don't like the city - too big, dirty, crowded for me. I have family there, so I am pretty familiar with it, and I just don't like it. Pretty much the same thing with Dallas. Its just too big for me. And most smaller towns are, for my family, ideologically difficult. Austin hasn't gotten to big city size (yet), but has more of the big city openness. That's the attraction.

It's a goldilocks thing with Austin...not too big, yet not so small to be stifling(Amarillo, Waco, Corpus, Brownsville).....but if it doubles again in 20 years, ala the last 20, I think we would be in the league of Houston/DFW lite, and not so livable OR charming/eclectic......

Let's hope it stays pretty much as it is now(metro 1.5 million and change)

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Impervious cover as described by the EPA"



The government has limited rights regarding the "taking" of your property. This includes the right to regulate how you can use your property. This all ties back to the ancient history of law regarding "property rights". Property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A government's ability to "take" away a private property owner rights to develop their property is limited, and cannot be done without compensation, except for limited "public" purposes. Whether and to what extent the State may interfere with property

In the case of discouraging development, the City of Austin has involved itself to such an extent it has been sued more then once for "taking" property rights that exceeded its right to regulate for the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Keep in mind that any law suit the City looses, is paid by you, the Austin taxpayers. So the City has an obligation to behave in a prudent manner on these issues.

The SOS (Save Our Springs) organization tried to exert more pressure against the developer, inhibiting its development of the area beyond what the City could prudently do, and the result was this... "Save Our Springs faces renewed bankruptcy pressure"

The City development ordinances are quite extensive. I encourage you to read through the City of Austin's "brief" description of its Land Development Process. I think you will find it is far from brief, even in this brief description. Before you criticize the City's development ordinances, you really should make an effort to understand them.

Thank you, cap, for the info....lots of stuff to check out here....and I saw that movie per the save our springs coalition...one of the best documentaries I' ve ever seen, actually...

[JERiv]

One quick note. The best way to tell if a place is 'liberal' or 'conservative', from what I have seen, is how folks vote. And if you use that measure, Austin is by far the most liberal of the 4 major cities in Austin (65% vote for Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008). So even though one's personal experience can vary, I don't really think there's a very good argument to make that it is not 'liberal' when compared to the rest of Texas.

On the green and progressive side, I've seen the SUVs everywhere (as well as the Priuses!), but that in itself is not a measure of whether a place is environmentally friendly. It's more in the initiatives you see coming out of City Hall that you see it as a very progressive place. Solar Energy arrays, bicycling paths, enforcement of impervious cover, Pecan Street project, and many others. I haven't seem many places that are that - is aggressive the right word? - in pushing a progressive and green agenda.

So the original question was mostly in the sense that, considering how the city is viewed from the outside, is the huge migration (of which I am a part of) to the state and this city in particular impacted by this view? Or did it not even factor into the equation.?

Anyway, thanks for the replies.

[imaterry78259]

I got to give it to Austin, it has sold this BS to the nation and they eat it up like crazy. Every big city in Texas have liberal spots, even conservative Dallas. I would look at Galveston, there is a city with charm, liberal/conservative nature and close to a big city

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by JERiv

One quick note. The best way to tell if a place is 'liberal' or 'conservative', from what I have seen, is how folks vote. And if you use that measure, Austin is by far the most liberal of the 4 major cities in Austin (65% vote for Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008). So even though one's personal experience can vary, I don't really think there's a very good argument to make that it is not 'liberal' when compared to the rest of Texas.

On the green and progressive side, I've seen the SUVs everywhere (as well as the Priuses!), but that in itself is not a measure of whether a place is environmentally friendly. It's more in the initiatives you see coming out of City Hall that you see it as a very progressive place. Solar Energy arrays, bicycling paths, enforcement of impervious cover, Pecan Street project, and many others. I haven't seem many places that are that - is aggressive the right word? - in pushing a progressive and green agenda.

So the original question was mostly in the sense that, considering how the city is viewed from the outside, is the huge migration (of which I am a part of) to the state and this city in particular impacted by this view? Or did it not even factor into the equation.?

Anyway, thanks for the replies.

I disagree with your initial premise here. How you tell how "liberal" or "conservative" a place is has more to do with the day to day and less to do with the political (because only for a very small subset of the population is politics the be all end all of life - most other folks actually have lives and live them and could care less about the politics of their neighbors or, for that matter, about knowing about the politics of their neighbors. What's more important is, are they good neighbors no matter how they vote?).

[austin-steve]

I wouldn't pick my friends based on ideology and I therefore wouldn't pick where to move to because of it. But I would pick where to avoid. I'll never live in California again because I like to keep the money I earn and I don't want to be pushing a wagon loaded up with freeloaders.

I think most people, at least the ones I encounter, move to Austin for lifestyle reasons and economic reasons, not because they like our government. Nobody ever mentions ideology except in the context of escaping from an undesirable one elsewhere, as xLady mentioned.

Austin is a big tent. Room for all types. Neighborhoods for all stages of life and economic position. Things to do, etc. for all tastes. I think that's the beauty of Austin and it's surrounding areas.

Steve