Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the increased valuation of their homes, you COULD take out a home equity loan to pay your taxes, or if you are over 65 you can defer your taxes. You are not really forced out of your home, you are forced to decide between your home and the equity in your home. It is up to the owner. You can't really have both unless you can pay the taxes out of pocket.
I think what this department is trying to go is to help with that situation; when someone wants to stay but the taxes are too high. If you read the different types of displacement it may become a bit more clear.
Direct displacement is when residents can no longer afford to remain in their homes because of rising rent or property taxes, or are forced out to make way for new development.
Indirect displacement happens when there is a change in who is moving into the neighborhood as low-income residents move out, which can be tied to discrimination against low-income residents or city polices that change the character of the neighborhood.
Cultural displacement is when longtime residents no longer feel a sense of belonging, which includes, racial, ethnic, and economic connections.
I am pretty much on-board with addressing No. 1, but I think that there are largely mechanisms in place to help deal with those. Out-reach and education will go a long way and the city can fill that role. Lord knows buyers/investors/developers are not going to assist someone in retaining their home.
No. 2 is more of a person-to-person variable and I am not sure the city needs to really be involved with - other than indirectly, as well . Enforce the existing regulations. The fact that many (most?) of those areas are non-HOA is actually awesome - their new neighbors can't force them to do anything, really.
No. 3 is (to me) closely affiliated with No. 2, but more specific. Personally, I do not want the city or any other regulatory entity to try and 'enforce' a cultural identify of an area. No one is guaranteed that their area won't change nor are they guaranteed that there won't be a cultural shift. Such is life. I do not think the goal of the city should involve culturally controlling an area.
I think what this department is trying to go is to help with that situation; when someone wants to stay but the taxes are too high. If you read the different types of displacement it may become a bit more clear.
I'm going to go ahead and state my full opinion at the expense of coming off as coddled...This isn't intended in any way to be offensive either but it is mainly food for thought.
I have mixed thoughts on it.
I think it's good that these areas are getting attention and that minorities in Austin specifically are receiving recognition as that particularly is something that Austin is weak at and it is good that Austin is recognizing this as a problem and willing to address it
At the same token though, talking generally about principals of life and not specifically minorities or ethnicities, I'm not sure I can completely agree with it either.. My personal and honest opinion is, and this is based on personal experience and how I particularly have lived, not me persee trying to dictate how others live or trying to ignore the racial issues that have plagued east Austin...those are definitely real issues and I'm not undermining them ... but in general principalities that applies to everyone, is that a person who cannot afford to live where they are, needs to be willing move to someplace where they can afford to be. I personally have done this many times and have no issues doing it again if things don't go my way financially. There is no entitlement to live in a certain area just because one is a minority or a certain ethnicity / race / income level or desire. In fact if any thing this will probably just keep the East Side stale as this will not defeat any social issues, it will only prolong them and may even hurt their chances of accruing equity as well as the values of the property may not increase.
I am black and have had instability with my mother / father with a fatherly figure who was never there for us, it dragged us into the pits financially and we were never able to anchor a place to live in my childhood, never had a grammar school that I stayed at for more than 2 years until High School but that was largely because I was determined enough to commute out of district. Yes I was mad at life but.. ..what really helped me was when I stopped blaming my problems on the rest of society and focused on doing everything I could to improve my situation.. I got so fed up with my situation, saw no future in my personal life that I just couldn't take anymore and I stopped at nothing to invest in myself ..Do I think minorities face unfair situations? Yes... But at the same time, I don't think government can solve everything. I feel largely as a whole, society wants to point fingers and make someone else solve their problems... I do agree many of these social issues are unjust and unfair, but I also feel we are spinning our wheels attacking it in these methods. Life in general is unfair. I have just learned to accept that and I face racial issues too, difference is; I just refuse to let them stand in my way from achieving my goals.
It may be less convenient yes I will agree but they would also stand a much greater chance of accruing equity that they may need on a rainy day or to move upward in mobility if they desire to. I just feel this plan will largely leave that area stale and stagnate which, while it will remain stable, isn't always a good thing...Yes, they do keep their houses, this is good - but it will still largely leave social and cultural issues unsolved.
In terms of history, I agree these people on the east side have been very misfortunate in the laws that were handed to them that essentially prevented them from obtaining home finance options, equity, and have been dealt a much heavier hand than much of Austin has especially in terms of gentrification, investor predation, ect but I'm pretty sure many of these properties are sitting on a fair amount of equity right now. I don't particularly feel that alone is forcing them out, the property taxes may be doing so though.
Idealistically the thing Austin (as well as many major cities) should strive for is cultural integration, with all races mixed within communities rather than having cultural districts catered to certain ethnicities, cultures, incomes, ect.. ..Cultural districts like this will seemingly design won't ever change their situation, it only prolongs it IMO.
I am pretty much on-board with addressing No. 1, but I think that there are largely mechanisms in place to help deal with those. Out-reach and education will go a long way and the city can fill that role. Lord knows buyers/investors/developers are not going to assist someone in retaining their home.
No. 2 is more of a person-to-person variable and I am not sure the city needs to really be involved with - other than indirectly, as well . Enforce the existing regulations. The fact that many (most?) of those areas are non-HOA is actually awesome - their new neighbors can't force them to do anything, really.
No. 3 is (to me) closely affiliated with No. 2, but more specific. Personally, I do not want the city or any other regulatory entity to try and 'enforce' a cultural identify of an area. No one is guaranteed that their area won't change nor are they guaranteed that there won't be a cultural shift. Such is life. I do not think the goal of the city should involve culturally controlling an area.
I used to believe as you do, however I have come to agree that a city govts role can be to create a brand around the city so the identity and values of the city are clear.
So for example the city mandated that the airport only have local restaurants (mostly). This has turned out to be strong branding for austin as a city vs airports in other cities are all the same.
Having cultural areas vs a monoculture actually creates branding for a city.
I think most SJW stuff is BS, but Im getting on board with some of it.
So bike lanes are not about utility they are essentially parks that feed into the brand of austin as an active city.
Trains arent about economic efficiency, they provide a particular service that services and will attract a particular kind of person.
etc etc
I can accept that this is the branding of austin and stay. Or I can sell, make a lot of $$ and move to a place that is a better fit. I personally enjoy a lot of the amenities, I just dont enjoy the costs.
someday hopefully we can get national level art, science etc museums. If I can ever make $100M I will totally start them.
I used to believe as you do, however I have come to agree that a city govts role can be to create a brand around the city so the identity and values of the city are clear.
So for example the city mandated that the airport only have local restaurants (mostly). This has turned out to be strong branding for austin as a city vs airports in other cities are all the same.
Having cultural areas vs a monoculture actually creates branding for a city.
I think most SJW stuff is BS, but Im getting on board with some of it.
So bike lanes are not about utility they are essentially parks that feed into the brand of austin as an active city.
Trains arent about economic efficiency, they provide a particular service that services and will attract a particular kind of person.
etc etc
I can accept that this is the branding of austin and stay. Or I can sell, make a lot of $$ and move to a place that is a better fit. I personally enjoy a lot of the amenities, I just dont enjoy the costs.
I can agree with that concept - but I think it is a stretch to try and create 'cultural enclaves' as a branding item when they have never been one in the past. I don't know of anyone anywhere ever that said 'lets go to Austin to check out the Hispanic part of town' or whatever culture is being sought.
I suppose it could be a brand of 'we care about all progressive things!' (even when it makes no sense and fails). That would somewhat fall into the existing Austin brand.
I can agree with that concept - but I think it is a stretch to try and create 'cultural enclaves' as a branding item when they have never been one in the past. I don't know of anyone anywhere ever that said 'lets go to Austin to check out the Hispanic part of town' or whatever culture is being sought.
I suppose it could be a brand of 'we care about all progressive things!' (even when it makes no sense and fails). That would somewhat fall into the existing Austin brand.
liberals love to give the appearance of being progressive. So enclaves provide an area that is affordable where liberals can go to get ethnic food and get the experience of diversity before going back to their million dollar homes
chinatown new york is really a tourist destination. The real chinese food is in flushing.
White people move into predominantly minority neighborhood = gentrification = racist
White people leave predominantly minority neighborhood = white flight = racist
You hit the nail on the head though. My dad has this issue. Blames gentrification for his property taxes saying he's getting priced out of his home. In the same breathe talks about how great it is that his house is appreciating so much and how he will cash out one day. Point is, cognitive dissonance.
This position is a bit of waste. Without socialism where we can all be equally poor, there is no scenario where a person gets to keep their home if they cannot afford to cover the associated costs. Additionally, whoever is selling in East Austin, is getting a whole lot of money for a property that would sell from a fraction of the price in another area with less demand. Those properties are probably between $400-$500k now, if not more? That can buy you a mac mansion in many parts of the country. The problem, as it is with my family (parents), is ego. People want the status of living in Austin, the expensive amenities; at the expense of quality of life with stressful financial issues.
When my parents (immigrants) moved here in the 80's, the realtor told them they could only afford the east side. They refused and finally hunted down a foreclosure/fixer-upper in a different part of town. Back then poor people were forced to live in the East side, and it was slanted towards minorities. Now you're telling me that we have to fight to keep people in the East side instead of allowing them to cash in with the option to start new in a nicer home with cash left over? At the expense of our tax dollars?
If you ask me, what you need is someone to help folks negotiate a fair sales price, and market areas where they can live like Kings/Queens in other parts of the state/country with the money they make off the house. That with a little personal finance class will go a long way towards generational improvement for each family. Why work backwards? Show them options on how they can improve their lives instead perpetuating generational poverty and victimhood. On a side note I'll concede that this applies more towards home owners than renters.
Maybe your father talks about 'cashing out' as a passing thought but would prefer to stay where he's at due to cultural ties, amenities, what have you. That has nothing to do with ego. Before the east side became the darling of town, it was, as you stated shamefully neglected. There was no prestige at all.
Maybe your parents doesn't want to move to a suburb that they have no connection to or to a state where there is no family. Maybe their love of their modest home goes beyond just the windows and walls? There are many who don't want to leave their lifelong homes and there's nothing wrong with that.
And let's be for real here...are there any 'affordable' places these days? You have cheaply built new homes asking for 500k, which would consume a lot of the equity and the taxes may be just as brutal.
Change is constant and you don't necessarily want to stop it.
Harlem is no longer majority Black, but before it was an AA neighborhood it was an Italian/Jewish one. Before that it was a Dutch neighborhood named after the city Haarlem in the Netherlands. And before that at least one if not many Native American groups inhabited the area.
Also no one wants to mention it but crime is half of what it was 12 years ago in 78702.
If there is a goal to keep poorer residents in place when prices increase, why not give 'long term resident' exemption for property tax. After 3 years 3% and add one percent yearly afterwards if showing that AGI is -30% of average.
Do not understand why skin tone of residents have anything to do with housing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to hear from the Democrats
. Enforce the existing regulations. The fact that many (most?) of those areas are non-HOA is actually awesome - their new neighbors can't force them to do anything, really.
