Dallas City Council unanimously adds "Racial Equity" Components to Housing Policy (Austin: rent, mortgage)

[happycrow]

Originally Posted by albert648

While that is an issue, but it's not an issue that can be solved by putting low income apartments in Las Colinas. Las Colinas is simply too expensive for any housing stock there to be in "affordable" territory. I imagine City Hall is throwing every amenity it can afford at Las Colinas because Las Colinas is a cash cow.

Just like we're not going to solve the housing affordability crisis by putting low income apartments in Preston Hollow or University Park.

Which is... not a thing I've advocated.

So far as I can tell we're not building median-income housing anywhere. I'm not talking Section-8-style Class-C roach motels, but bog-standard Class B apartments and basic starter homes. Where can a starter family find a new-built 1500sf house in DFW? Families are markedly smaller than a generation ago, yet the houses are a third larger to twice the size. Add in the REIT distortions due to abysmal interest rates - lots of folks would gladly trade up to a new-built house and out of older housing stock, but unless you're upper-middle class and can compete with the cash-offers crowd, selling your house is synonymous with leaving DFW forever.

[albert648]

Originally Posted by happycrow

Which is... not a thing I've advocated.

So far as I can tell we're not building median-income housing anywhere. I'm not talking Section-8-style Class-C roach motels, but bog-standard Class B apartments and basic starter homes. Where can a starter family find a new-built 1500sf house in DFW? Families are markedly smaller than a generation ago, yet the houses are a third larger to twice the size. Add in the REIT distortions due to abysmal interest rates - lots of folks would gladly trade up to a new-built house and out of older housing stock, but unless you're upper-middle class and can compete with the cash-offers crowd, selling your house is synonymous with leaving DFW forever.

You don't see 1500sqft houses because you have to spread the overhead cost of dealing with permits and such over more than that to make the build viable, AND because the bigger 2000sqft+ houses are the ones that sell. You're not going to see such houses until the economic viability of those houses improves.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by happycrow

Which is... not a thing I've advocated.

So far as I can tell we're not building median-income housing anywhere. I'm not talking Section-8-style Class-C roach motels, but bog-standard Class B apartments and basic starter homes. Where can a starter family find a new-built 1500sf house in DFW? Families are markedly smaller than a generation ago, yet the houses are a third larger to twice the size. Add in the REIT distortions due to abysmal interest rates - lots of folks would gladly trade up to a new-built house and out of older housing stock, but unless you're upper-middle class and can compete with the cash-offers crowd, selling your house is synonymous with leaving DFW forever.

Families may not be bigger, but people certainly are.

When Stonebridge Ranch started up in McKinney, it was designed for every price point. Developers don't do that anymore, largely because the land isn't there. Buyer demographics and demand have shifted too.

The small houses are most definitely there. Look at DR Horton, Lennar, and Pulte. They are popping up in Lavon, Royce City, Forney, and other spots where land is more abundant. They also show up in the county seats, all of which are more affordable than most of the cities surrounding them.

Eventually, when people age, they are not going to want these McMansions. The style of new construction we see today is not going to stick around, but the land is dwindling, so options will become more limited.

[FreeVilley]

Originally Posted by DFWGuy422

Because a city needs a workforce/population. Do you not see how it could be an issue if a significant amount of would-be residents can’t afford to live someplace?

The policies geared towards affordable housing are well-intended, but often disastrous; the need for people to be able to afford to live somewhere seems like it should be pretty obvious

Its not obvious to me, I am asking for someone to explain the need. I can imagine someone will reply with people who work at fast food restaurants cannot afford to live in the city. I will then contend that many minimum wage places of business wont be necessary in an increasingly affluent area. Rich people don't need a McDonalds, Wendys and Burger King at every corner. Grocery stores will still need workers, but then you will find the best talent from the minimum wage crowd will be securing those jobs.

Next, where in the Texas constitution does it state that the County Seat is responsible for providing affordable housing. The County Seat owes nothing to the County. In fact, the City of Dallas and the County of Dallas are in a legal dispute right now over the county jail. The City of Dallas needs revenue not a plan to spend money to ensure it earns less money.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by FreeVilley

Its not obvious to me, I am asking for someone to explain the need. I can imagine someone will reply with people who work at fast food restaurants cannot afford to live in the city. I will then contend that many minimum wage places of business wont be necessary in an increasingly affluent area. Rich people don't need a McDonalds, Wendys and Burger King at every corner. Grocery stores will still need workers, but then you will find the best talent from the minimum wage crowd will be securing those jobs.

Next, where in the Texas constitution does it state that the County Seat is responsible for providing affordable housing. The County Seat owes nothing to the County. In fact, the City of Dallas and the County of Dallas are in a legal dispute right now over the county jail. The City of Dallas needs revenue not a plan to spend money to ensure it earns less money.

I brought up the county seat only as a note that it is something that is happening, not that it should happen. It makes even less sense because the county seats already have affordable housing. It burns me up to see that McKinney is just as bad as Dallas and evidently just as far to the political left. Their economic goals appear to be identical as well. Their zoning policy and stated goal is to turn every square inch of land left into a tenement.

Of course they could follow the lead Austin and give everyone a "guaranteed income."

[FreeVilley]

Originally Posted by Leonard123

I brought up the county seat only as a note that it is something that is happening, not that it should happen. It makes even less sense because the county seats already have affordable housing. It burns me up to see that McKinney is just as bad as Dallas and evidently just as far to the political left. Their economic goals appear to be identical as well. Their zoning policy and stated goal is to turn every square inch of land left into a tenement.

Of course they could follow the lead Austin and give everyone a "guaranteed income."

LOL, I saw that in the news this morning. We are all doomed.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by FreeVilley

Its not obvious to me, I am asking for someone to explain the need. I can imagine someone will reply with people who work at fast food restaurants cannot afford to live in the city. I will then contend that many minimum wage places of business wont be necessary in an increasingly affluent area. Rich people don't need a McDonalds, Wendys and Burger King at every corner. Grocery stores will still need workers, but then you will find the best talent from the minimum wage crowd will be securing those jobs.

Affluent areas often have higher concentrations of restaurants and services, not lower. It creates significant issues when people who would supply those services can't live anywhere close to the place in which they work.

I'll give two examples, one personal and one an observation:

Observation: Crested Butte, CO has one of the worst affordable housing crises in the US. It is a very affluent ski town where a significant portion of houses are second houses/vacation properties. A 1700 sq. ft. 3/2 goes for around $1.2MM. But what do people expect to do after they ski? Go drink, eat, etc. And the people who would work in those restaurants and bars have nowhere to live. They are currently "living" by permanently camping in the national forest. This is clearly not sustainable. The town of Crested Butte obviously has a need to find an affordable housing solution so the town can remain an attractive ski destination. This is an existential issue for the town as it is currently known. And that's not even getting into services that every town needs, like the trash man, construction crews, teachers, etc.

Personal: I run a tutoring company that operates in many affluent markets around the US. Our typical locations are the Planos and Friscos of various metro areas. In some spots, we have an abundance of demand but can't hire tutors because the cost of living has pushed young people (our typical tutor is in their 20s) out of the area. This affects our ability to provide our services, and more relevantly, the ability of residents to secure our services.

Edit to add: Also, cities may not want the demographic shifts that inevitably come with a lack of affordable housing. A city that has historically been made up of 15% African Americans, for example, may not want to see that population diminish because they can no longer afford to live there.

[happycrow]

Originally Posted by albert648

You don't see 1500sqft houses because you have to spread the overhead cost of dealing with permits and such over more than that to make the build viable, AND because the bigger 2000sqft+ houses are the ones that sell. You're not going to see such houses until the economic viability of those houses improves.

That is correct, and one might think a city might have a vested interest in ameliorating that and enact policies to do so. I may be incorrect and there is some opaque inside baseball going on where it actually is, but from where I sit and poke around it's not visible.

It's clear that between inflation-induced REIT madness (which is not their fault, they've got to seek stability and returns) and vast in-migration, it's obvious that residential inflation is going to continue to be a problem. Unless we want to devolve into CA-style real-estate politics with local family formation falling through bedrock, we need to get on this.

[happycrow]

(I re-read the City-of-Dallas data and realized there's some talking-past going on based on terms, and that while I tried to make a distinction, I don't think I did it well. When I talk about affordable median-income housing, I'm talking about the "not becoming house-poor" goal of keeping housing costs below 30% of budget so your school-teachers, admins, auto guys, and other folks earning in the 40s-60s can afford to remain within the city, not section-8-style housing for folks earning half or less of the median income. Apologies if I sowed any confusion.)

[tewest86]

I don't have a dog in this race but isn't America great. You work hard and buy a house for you and your family in a nice area and the government says that's not fair to the people who can't afford to also live where you live. So they come in and build "affordable" housing and rent it out for $400 per month all while you're three doors down with a $500,000 mortgage paying full price. That seems fair huh?