Zoning's role in Austin's unaffordability (West: construction, landlords, incomes)

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

IC_deLight, I've actually lived in neighborhood with voluntary neighborhood associations and have friends who currently do, and none of us have ever felt pressured to join, or, for that matter, to hand our proxies over to anyone. In some cases, we've joined, in others, not, depending on life pressures at the time. Doesn't mean we didn't express our opinions or feel perfectly welcome to do so even when they didn't (as often happens) agree with those of some others. That's why I was thinking that perhaps you were confusing one thing with another. Might there be neighborhood associations like you describe? There definitely could, human nature being what it is, but human nature also sometimes tends towards, if all you have is a hammer, everything you see is a nail.

You have confused "proxies" within your organization with "proxy for representation" before governmental bodies. Representatives of these organizations show up before local government bodies and claim to represent all the people in the subdivision or "neighborhood" - which is simply false. At best the organization is just another "resident" of the neighborhood and it represents only the controlling interests of its board.

I'm certainly not confused about the nature of collectivists or the NIMBYs who feel entitled to exert control over the property of others. Keep the hammer handy. Everywhere you turn is a collectivist that suggests mob rule or the appearance of mob rule is somehow justification for taking property from others.

[Spacepup]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

One does wonder, when an area is desirable because of certain features, people want to live there, and some people want to destroy the very things that make it desirable in order for more people to live there. There seems to be a continual desire to kill the goose that lays the golden egg and not even realize you're doing it; of course, there's likely a reason that's a long-lived story, human nature doesn't change all that much.

Ah but the real argument to be had is... what features?

Some in Hyde Park would say the houses are what they love, others couldn't care less about those houses and love the walkable shops nearby more than anything else, still others like the university access, etc etc etc. Ask everyone in a neighborhood to list out their ten top reasons for living there and I'd be shocked if you got more than a couple duplicate lists.

I mean you're in RE; you know everyone has different priorities, needs, and wants in their housing decisions.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

IC_deLight, I've actually lived in neighborhood with voluntary neighborhood associations and have friends who currently do, and none of us have ever felt pressured to join, or, for that matter, to hand our proxies over to anyone. In some cases, we've joined, in others, not, depending on life pressures at the time. Doesn't mean we didn't express our opinions or feel perfectly welcome to do so even when they didn't (as often happens) agree with those of some others. That's why I was thinking that perhaps you were confusing one thing with another. Might there be neighborhood associations like you describe? There definitely could, human nature being what it is, but human nature also sometimes tends towards, if all you have is a hammer, everything you see is a nail.

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.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

It depends on what you consider damage. As far as affordability and diversity are concerned, it did a lot of good. If uniformity and aesthetics are most important to you, I see your point.

Or historic preservation. Or upkeep. Or stability. Or a million other reasons.

And those 1960s and 70s slapped up firetraps you value for their affordability and diversity? They're all being "renovated" with cheap Ikea fixtures and garish paint --- all with the end goal of jacking up the rent to attract more upscale Austin newcomers who desire a central location while displacing those diverse and lower income residents you champion.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

Or historic preservation. Or upkeep. Or stability. Or a million other reasons.

And those 1960s and 70s slapped up firetraps you value for their affordability and diversity? They're all being "renovated" with cheap Ikea fixtures and garish paint --- all with the end goal of jacking up the rent to attract more upscale Austin newcomers who desire a central location while displacing those diverse and lower income residents you champion.

It will take years to renovate all of them. And even if they are renovated, they are still cheaper options than buying or renting a whole house in Hyde Park. They will still play a role in fostering a well rounded culture for the neighborhood.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

It will take years to renovate all of them. And even if they are renovated, they are still cheaper options than buying or renting a whole house in Hyde Park. They will still play a role in fostering a well rounded culture for the neighborhood.

It's happening much faster than you seem to think. And there is a vast divide between those who can afford the rundown slumlord buildings and those who are willing and able to pay the new rents. Your utopian vision of Hyde Park will soon be gone and we will still be left with garish gashes in what once was a beautiful historic neighborhood.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

It's happening much faster than you seem to think. And there is a vast divide between those who can afford the rundown slumlord buildings and those who are willing and able to pay the new rents. Your utopian vision of Hyde Park will soon be gone and we will still be left with garish gashes in what once was a beautiful historic neighborhood.

Exactly. I've been in some of them in the course of business, seen the work actually in progress, and they are exactly as you say. And it's happening FAST.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

It's happening much faster than you seem to think. And there is a vast divide between those who can afford the rundown slumlord buildings and those who are willing and able to pay the new rents. Your utopian vision of Hyde Park will soon be gone and we will still be left with garish gashes in what once was a beautiful historic neighborhood.

Still, 30 renovated studio apartments renting for $900/month to people making $36k a year or a little more (who would qualify) do more to diversify the neighborhood's culture than 4 homeowner-occupied single family homes that someone would have to make 6 figures to live in. Hyde Park is already filled with that. I don't know how you can disagree with that objectively. There is still a vast divide between the people who can afford renovated apartments and people who can afford houses, and I think a little heterogeneity is good for a neighborhood.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

Still, 30 renovated studio apartments renting for $900/month to people making $36k a year or a little more (who would qualify) do more to diversify the neighborhood's culture than 4 homeowner-occupied single family homes that someone would have to make 6 figures to live in. Hyde Park is already filled with that. I don't know how you can disagree with that objectively. There is still a vast divide between the people who can afford renovated apartments and people who can afford houses, and I think a little heterogeneity is good for a neighborhood.

So basically you're down for pushing out the poor you currently champion for the "less poor." As long as there are people who can't afford half million dollar plus bungalows living in an area --- no matter how awful their accommodations are --- you are ok with that.

Not everyone can afford to live in every area --- no one has that right. Places change. It's what's happening to Austin, and Hyde Park is hardly alone in that.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

So basically you're down for pushing out the poor you currently champion for the "less poor." As long as there are people who can't afford half million dollar plus bungalows living in an area --- no matter how awful their accommodations are --- you are ok with that.

Not everyone can afford to live in every area --- no one has that right. Places change. It's what's happening to Austin, and Hyde Park is hardly alone in that.

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.