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

[mackenziep]

I'm still trying to get over the ridiculous notion that all 50,000 UT students are entitled to live a hop, skip, and a jump from campus because WALKING and PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

Also - why is no one questioning UT's responsibility in all of this? Having the sports venues and a track smack in the middle of the city is preposterous.

UT should be required to build high-rise dorms for students - they have plenty of property. It wouldn't be popular, but neither is allowing private investors to scrape viable single-family homes to build student housing in historic neighborhoods.

Just as an aside, when Mueller was a blank canvas, why were the needs of students not considered there? It seems an ideal location.

[Komeht]

Let's tackle these one at a time, shall we?

"The provision of even more student housing near UT, on the other hand, isn't even close to a "needed service" or a public good."

I could not disagree more strongly with this. Putting students next to where they study/work/play in reasonably cost housing is a benefit not only to the students, but to us all. It takes cars off the road, reduces air pollution and CO2 emissions and reduces the incidents of traffic accidents saving lives. It is an absolute public good in every sense of the words.


"It is actually pernicious to support the desires of this transient population in opposition to the actual taxpayers and long term residents--and guess what, major cities all around the world recognize this."

I don't even know what this means. The desires of this transient population? You mean - the need to live in close proximity to where people conduct their daily lives? Golly - that's pernicious?

"Beyond this, UT has plenty of land to house many more students--instead it has chosen to build track fields and the like over half of the campus."

NIMBY alert! See Also SOBBY (put them in some other buggers back yard)

"It isn't "NIMBYism" to say, "Hey, *I* lived on Cameron Road and Riverside when I went to UT and it was fine--why is today any different?""

No, this is just horrible policy. Bussing students across town and IH 35 is not only a tremendous waste of public resources, it harms all of us by drastically and completely unnecessarily increasing congestion.

"Beyond that, the notion that your transient-year claim of expertise is anything more than a staggeringly un-self aware declaration of your lack of understanding of the situation in the neighborhood is laughable. When you were "living" for a whole year *I* was buying a house and have watched the micro-levels of changes occur over the last decade."

I addressed this above - I lived over 10 years as a professional and student in NUNA and Hyde Park.

"And, clearly, you missed that there is a TON of MF in the area--all up and down Speedway, for example."

Not a single one was built in last 20 or 25 years. The neighborhood put Speedway on LOCKDOWN.

"TO say nothing of the "SFH" like 35th and Duval that are actually MF properties. Again, the demographic data is staggeringly, completely clear--students are already MORE than enough of the population in this area.

I don't know what this means? How do you define more than enough of the population? Can you point to an objective standard for what student population in a neighborhood next to a major university should be?

"Since your year tenure seems to have left you bereft of historical knowledge we--the city and the neighborhoods--made a deal in 2003. West Campus was given up in its entirety for students. In return, North University and Hyde Park would retain their SFH character."

A bad idea then, a worse idea today.

"I expect that deal to be kept"

see - NIMBY.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by mackenziep

I'm still trying to get over the ridiculous notion that all 50,000 UT students are entitled to live a hop, skip, and a jump from campus because WALKING and PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

Also - why is no one questioning UT's responsibility in all of this? Having the sports venues and a track smack in the middle of the city is preposterous.

UT should be required to build high-rise dorms for students - they have plenty of property. It wouldn't be popular, but neither is allowing private investors to scrape viable single-family homes to build student housing in historic neighborhoods.

Just as an aside, when Mueller was a blank canvas, why were the needs of students not considered there? It seems an ideal location.

This. When I and all my friends were students at UT, we either lived in older houses near campus or in apartments near campus or (gasp!) in dormitories or in houses or apartments on the numerous UT bus lines, or lived in less expensive parts of town and drove or rode a motorcycle or bicycle (you didn't think that was NEW did you?) to campus. Heck, when my daughter was attending UT five or six years ago she lived in Apache Shores and drove or rode a motorcycle to campus.

[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.

[M1EK]

I own a home in NUNA which we are now renting out to a family; a condo in OWANA which we are now renting out to a young couple; and a home in Hyde Park which we are now living in (we used to live in the previous two).

I lived in the condo in OWANA from 1997-2003 and the house in NUNA from 2003-2013.

So I've invested a lot more time and money than gpurcell has.

Despite that, I agree completely with KomeHT. Hyde Park is still capable of supporting the local businesses like the cluster at Duval and 43rd because it replaced some single-family homes with apartments. Similar neighborhoods that did NOT add apartments to replace the gradual drop in local population in single-family homes lost most of their corresponding local businesses.

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.

[ImOnFiya]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I own a home in NUNA which we are now renting out to a family; a condo in OWANA which we are now renting out to a young couple; and a home in Hyde Park which we are now living in (we used to live in the previous two).

I lived in the condo in OWANA from 1997-2003 and the house in NUNA from 2003-2013.

So I've invested a lot more time and money than gpurcell has.

Despite that, I agree completely with KomeHT. Hyde Park is still capable of supporting the local businesses like the cluster at Duval and 43rd because it replaced some single-family homes with apartments. Similar neighborhoods that did NOT add apartments to replace the gradual drop in local population in single-family homes lost most of their corresponding local businesses.

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.

I agree. There is no excuse why the Hyde Park commercial strip between W. 38th St and W. 45th St is a largely bereft of businesses. Because of Hyde Park NA's political influence on the Zoning and Platting and Planning Commissions, Karen has been able to single-handedly negotiate modified zoning agreements, which seem to break down, resulting in prospective developers backing away. However, neighbors seem happy because the NA makes sure no new apartments and condos get built, while their own housing values go thru the roof. Go figure!

[brattpowered]

It seems like the only option left for pretty much every Austin renter who doesn't want skyrocketing costs of living and massive displacement is to field and support anti-ANC council members. Spread the word.

[CptnRn]

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.

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.

[mayfair44]

According to plan, UT will add more on-campus housing, mostly east of San Jacinto. Additional dorms would add 2500 beds.

Map of preliminary housing proposals: Page 185: http://www.utexas.edu/operations/mas...an20130509.pdf

Campus Master Plan | VP for University Operations | The University of Texas at Austin

"President William Powers addressed Student Government about concerns over affordable housing for students on Tuesday evening. He believes students who live on campus for their first two years are more likely to have successful academic careers. More beds have been added in West Campus than ever before, but one unanticipated consequence of that is that it’s almost all high-end housing,” Powers said."

SG discusses affordable housing | The Daily Texan

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

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.

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.