What a Stealth Dorm Is (Howe: real estate, HOA, houses)

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by Spacepup

Because they will get the students out of the 6-per-SFH market and return at least a few of those properties to families or professionals that want to rent (either one of the new MF properties or a SFH) or buy but can't currently compete with the cash thrown around by the out of area "investors" who are planning on renting it out to 6x students?

Rental prices for families and professionals are being pushed on the low end by students and singles willing to (forced to really) triple-up or more to afford a place. On the high end they are being pushed by the ability to rent out a nice house for $1k+ PER NIGHT during SXSW. I am a single professional who rents a (frankly fairly run-down) SFH. I know my competition for this house, and it isn't people like me. One of the main reasons I got this house is because my one application was processed faster than the 3- or 5-way applications of students who wanted to rent. Had I gone for a "nice" house I would have been competing against the potential for the house to able to be put on the vacation rental market.

To the contrary, as long as the stealth dorms continue, those "more affordable" properties will continue to be scooped up by investors to build even more stealth dorms and other high ROI properties when they're for sale. On the leasing side, they will continue to be in high demand by students, as they have always been. It will continue to squeeze people like you out of the market.

The VRBO situation really has nothing to do with this topic.

There is nothing new or unique about young people --- whether upwardly mobile professionals or those who don't have the capacity or interest or drive or whatever to improve their living situation --- living in multiple roommate situations in Austin, Texas in 2014. It happens all over the US in desirable cities and neighborhoods (and even not-so-desirable areas) and has since there have been young people leaving the nest.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

Seriously? So if someone is interested in protecting their substantial investment and preserving the character of their neighborhood then your solution is to move to the far flung burbs? I think it's rather easy to be flippant and pro-plow-it-down when one doesn't have that kind of long-term financial and emotional investment to protect. It could just as easily be said that if a person can't afford to buy in the central city, then they can easily build and live in MFH in the less expensive burbs.

When you buy a property you get buy the right to preserve the neighborhood. You didn't pay for that.

Now, if you pay for an entire neighborhood - you can do what you see fit.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by Komeht

When you buy a property you get buy the right to preserve the neighborhood. You didn't pay for that.

Now, if you pay for an entire neighborhood - you can do what you see fit.

But you do pay for the zoning that's specific to your area and limits what can be done.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

But you do pay for the zoning that's specific to your area and limits what can be done.

No you didn't. Zoning doesn't belong to and isn't set by neighborhoods. Zoning is decided by the municipal city government and no resident or group of residents (other than a majority of voters) has any right to dictate what zoning is and forever shall be.

Zoning changes in all kinds of ways and for all sorts of reasons. It is naive beyond belief to make a claim that someone pays for the zoning when he or she buys a lot.

[Spacepup]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

To the contrary, as long as the stealth dorms continue, those "more affordable" properties will continue to be scooped up by investors to build even more stealth dorms and other high ROI properties when they're for sale. On the leasing side, they will continue to be in high demand by students, as they have always been. It will continue to squeeze people like you out of the market.

The VRBO situation really has nothing to do with this topic.

There is nothing new or unique about young people --- whether upwardly mobile professionals or those who don't have the capacity or interest or drive or whatever to improve their living situation --- living in multiple roommate situations in Austin, Texas in 2014. It happens all over the US in desirable cities and neighborhoods (and even not-so-desirable areas) and has since there have been young people leaving the nest.

You missed my point. If you build actual higher-density MF to fill the locational housing supply demand that the "stealth dorms" are trying to satisfy, you will return many of the converted SFHs to normal occupancy and alleviate the problems being foisted on the neighbors. Living six to a house isn't fun and if given the choice (most) people wouldn't do it, while 12-16 people living in a 8 unit apartment building taking two lots is something most people are just fine with.

Also while the house-swap VRBO isn't a factor you better believe that the year round ones are. They take a unit out of the housing pool available for lease or sale to year round residents. Lower supply means higher rents and house prices, full stop. Thankfully we don't have it as bad as other seasonal vacation hotspots where it is nigh impossible to get a one-year lease because every land owner kicks out the tenants that actually live and work there to get the $$$$ of the vacationers.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

...please tell me again how cheaply constructed clapboard monoliths designed with the sole purpose of packing as many students into them like sardines will help the growth of Austin. If these places were being built in any other area, they would be decried as future blight, not "affordable multi-family housing - yay!"

Any addition of bedrooms to a street or neighborhood helps to meet the need for housing. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The added density will also make real public transit more likely. You gave some examples of new luxury developments, but even that isn't enough.

Originally Posted by Spacepup

If you build actual higher-density MF to fill the locational housing supply demand that the "stealth dorms" are trying to satisfy, you will return many of the converted SFHs to normal occupancy and alleviate the problems being foisted on the neighbors.

This person has the right idea, but the NIMBYs in these neighborhoods won't even have sensible multi-family housing near them. This creates the need for "stealth dorms."

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

It is naive beyond belief to make a claim that someone pays for the zoning when he or she buys a lot.

Of all the incredibly foolish things you have ever written this, perhaps, takes the cake.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Of all the incredibly foolish things you have ever written this, perhaps, takes the cake.

You are beyond absurd if you think you have any kind of ownership right whatsoever to your zoning. A city is not a HOA and zoning is simply not the same thing as covenants recorded in the deed records. A purchase of land is not a guarantee by anyone that your neighborhood will never change.

As a matter of fact, the city is engaged right now in a re-write of the LDC. Just about everyone in Austin will in fact experience a zoning change in one way or the other by the end of this process.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying but the character I'm talking about involves doing things building a clapboard hive next door to a restored 100 plus year old craftsman bungalow.

...and who says that you should get to restore the 100 plus year old craftsman bungalow?
Obviously you are offended by the "clapboard hive" - but who says you have a right to prohibit it? You didn't buy such a right when you bought the dilapidated bungalow. You expect to have a right to do with what you wish on your lot and the other property owner expect to do the same with theirs.

Zoning is an administrative taking via regulation - not something you as an individual are entitled ownership of. With very few exceptions, private persons can't enforce a zoning regulation. I'm not even sure what "zoning violation" you believe a "clapboard hive" or a "100 plus year old craftsman" violate but I suspect the new "clapboard hive" will meet modern building codes and safety regulations whereas the 100 plus year old craftsman will continue to experience all the problems that 100+ year old pre-electric, pre-HVAC, ancient plumbing houses suffer from.

[TexasHorseLady]

When someone buys a home in an area zoned single family, they are doing so with the understanding that the zoning will remain substantially the same as when they made the investment in the area - so, yes, they HAVE bought, at least partially, such a right, based on the assurances given by the city that established that zoning for that area. At the very least, the zoning will not be modified without significant input from the current owners of the properties in the area because they have a vested interest not only in their homes but in the neighborhood in which those homes reside. Stealth Dorms are an attempt to get around that zoning, and MF is a violation of that zoning.

For you to argue otherwise, I_C Delight, is tantamount to you arguing that if the city decided to set up the area YOUR home is in as an HOA (after establishing a form of zoning that could do that) after you had specifically purchased that home because it was NOT in an HOA, you couldn't object because you hadn't purchased that right when you bought the home.