The Truth About Being a Black Woman in a Liberal City (Austin) (parties, Chicago)

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by earthisle

Sorry, I should have excluded Asian females, who are very well liked by white males.

May be true, but seems to be more of a stereotype than anything else. Of all the Asian women I know, none are in a relationship with a Caucasian guy. I could be forgetting someone, though, as I sort them out in my mind. I do know an Asian guy with a Hispanic woman, and an Asian guy with a Caucasian woman (she is Irish/Lebanese, technically). I know an Asian woman married to an Indian guy, although he is about as 'Americanized' as they come and she is often mistaken for Hispanic. Quite a few Asian/Asian couples.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Austin is gentrifying. I think the long term goal for the city is to be a city for the rich. I don't think the city is intentionally trying to run minorities out of Austin as much as they are just wanting to run the low income people out of Austin and into suburbs, and it just so happens that minorities make up a large percentage of low income residents in Austin. I think what the city would like to do is to replace Austin's low income residents with high income residents who are able to easily afford a $400,000 house or condos and the highest property taxes in the state, and possibly the highest property taxes of any city in the Lower 48 thats not in the Northeast, DC, South Florida, or the West Coast.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

Austin is gentrifying. I think the long term goal for the city is to be a city for the rich. I don't think the city is intentionally trying to run minorities out of Austin as much as they are just wanting to run the low income people out of Austin and into suburbs, and it just so happens that minorities make up a large percentage of low income residents in Austin. I think what the city would like to do is to replace Austin's low income residents with high income residents who are able to easily afford a $400,000 house or condos and the highest property taxes in the state, and possibly the highest property taxes of any city in the Lower 48 thats not in the Northeast, DC, South Florida, or the West Coast.

I disagree they are purposely trying to do this. I do believe that there are conflicting priorities and the city leaders either dont know or dont believe in what is necessary.

The #1 issue is we need more affordable housing. There are two ways to do this, kill the demand or increase the supply. The only way to kill demand is to make the city unpopular. To do that we would probably need to kill the things that make it great for existing residents.

The way to accomplish increasing supply in a city that is mostly built out is to change zoning to allow more density and reduce building regulations (setbacks, parking, mcmansion, trees). Period. The conflict is the neighborhood associations continue to block it. The irony is the neighborhoods are mostly liberals who claim to want affordability, but not in their backyard.

I do think there is a great opportunity to build very dense housing with little resistance on the east side. It doesnt have to be soulless projects but can be mixed use type projects.

[earthisle]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

May be true, but seems to be more of a stereotype than anything else. Of all the Asian women I know, none are in a relationship with a Caucasian guy. I could be forgetting someone, though, as I sort them out in my mind. I do know an Asian guy with a Hispanic woman, and an Asian guy with a Caucasian woman (she is Irish/Lebanese, technically). I know an Asian woman married to an Indian guy, although he is about as 'Americanized' as they come and she is often mistaken for Hispanic. Quite a few Asian/Asian couples.

It's not a stereotype, the big dating sites have collected a lot of data and it totally reinforces the "stereotype" as Asian women are seen as especially attractive by white men. But Asian men are the least desirable group

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by earthisle

It's not a stereotype, the big dating sites have collected a lot of data and it totally reinforces the "stereotype" as Asian women are seen as especially attractive by white men. But Asian men are the least desirable group

I am not sure the dating sites reflect as much reality as they purport to, though, and whether these types of couples really end up dating - at least long-term. Walking the streets of our neighborhood or downtown Austin, there isn't an obvious reflection of it, at least. I suspect it is more of an old cultural stereotype as much as anything - i.e. the guys on the dating sites are looking for the 'submissive' Asian female. The ones that I know are anything but that .

I will add that I do recall a couple that used to be good friends of my wife - he was 'Texan' and she was Indonesian, which would fit that 'mold'. They moved to the PNW some 10 years ago or so, though, after they had a child and they were looking for a cooler climate....

[ashbeeigh]

Originally Posted by Austin97

The way to accomplish increasing supply in a city that is mostly built out is to change zoning to allow more density and reduce building regulations (setbacks, parking, mcmansion, trees). Period. The conflict is the neighborhood associations continue to block it. The irony is the neighborhoods are mostly liberals who claim to want affordability, but not in their backyard.

I do think there is a great opportunity to build very dense housing with little resistance on the east side. It doesnt have to be soulless projects but can be mixed use type projects.

This is all easier said then done. Code Next is a great example. I see both sides and am actually completely unsure of how I feel about it. I feel the need for affordable housing in the core of the city, but I also completely understand not wanting to pile on houses in a quiet area that is known for larger single family homes. It's like you said before, you'd have to kill the charm to build more.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

This is all easier said then done. Code Next is a great example. I see both sides and am actually completely unsure of how I feel about it. I feel the need for affordable housing in the core of the city, but I also completely understand not wanting to pile on houses in a quiet area that is known for larger single family homes. It's like you said before, you'd have to kill the charm to build more.

I have a cousin that lives in an expensive area of Austin, and has lived there since the late 80s. She owns a triple lot (they have never been owned separately) with her quaint old house on it. One 'lots' is likely un-improvable due to a creek. She grows a ton of her own food in her gardens and rents out a garage-top apartment to mitigate taxes, although she is well over 65 years old now and has the school-tax freeze. The property is valued now right around 1 million dollars. If I understand it correctly, CN would have taxed her for the potential for having 12 units on that property (the plan called for a minimum of 4 'units' per lot). That would have almost instantly taxed her out of the property .

Now, I am next to clueless on CN, but that doesn't seem like a good plan. Sure, rezone it for 4 unit per lot, but taxing it at the preemptively seems wrong.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I have a cousin that lives in an expensive area of Austin, and has lived there since the late 80s. She owns a triple lot (they have never been owned separately) with her quaint old house on it. One 'lots' is likely un-improvable due to a creek. She grows a ton of her own food in her gardens and rents out a garage-top apartment to mitigate taxes, although she is well over 65 years old now and has the school-tax freeze. The property is valued now right around 1 million dollars. If I understand it correctly, CN would have taxed her for the potential for having 12 units on that property (the plan called for a minimum of 4 'units' per lot). That would have almost instantly taxed her out of the property .

Now, I am next to clueless on CN, but that doesn't seem like a good plan. Sure, rezone it for 4 unit per lot, but taxing it at the preemptively seems wrong.

I dont think code next had anything to do with property tax valuations.

I have seen cases where multiple lots were bundled as a single lot in tcad and were valued as such. As soon as they got separate entries all of a sudden the value essentially doubled.

She should be thankful that she got a huge tax break all these years, as opposed to being mad that taxes went up. Regardless I doubt code next addressed this.

If her property is valued at 1m, each lot is prob 400-500K so she is saving about 800K in value. The rest of us are bearing that burden.

Im skeptical that code next mandated minimum densities on formerly SFH lots. What it did do was allow higher densities.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Austin97

I dont think code next had anything to do with property tax valuations.

I have seen cases where multiple lots were bundled as a single lot in tcad and were valued as such. As soon as they got separate entries all of a sudden the value essentially doubled.

She should be thankful that she got a huge tax break all these years, as opposed to being mad that taxes went up. Regardless I doubt code next addressed this.

If her property is valued at 1m, each lot is prob 400-500K so she is saving about 800K in value. The rest of us are bearing that burden.

Im skeptical that code next mandated minimum densities on formerly SFH lots. What it did do was allow higher densities.

I have very little knowledge on CN, I admit. But as I understand it, it mandated that the land be appraised as having the capability to have four units (or more?) on each. So that apparently would greatly increase the property value from where it is now - maybe 1 million per lot? Who knows? (well, some developer knows... ).

I don't worry too much about her 'burden' on the rest of us - never married, no kids, walks everywhere, etc. But yes, there is more potential but it would force her to leave almost immediately, or at least that is her expectation.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I have very little knowledge on CN, I admit. But as I understand it, it mandated that the land be appraised as having the capability to have four units (or more?) on each. So that apparently would greatly increase the property value from where it is now - maybe 1 million per lot? Who knows? (well, some developer knows... ).

I don't worry too much about her 'burden' on the rest of us - never married, no kids, walks everywhere, etc. But yes, there is more potential but it would force her to leave almost immediately, or at least that is her expectation.

she could sell one lot and use that to pay the taxes on the others for the rest of her life. While she may not feel wealthy. She *is* wealthy.

I dont see how the above is possible. code next was city ordinance. Appraisals are a county function. Ultimately appraisals are done by looking at comps. How you could use the property is not really relevant and I dont see how the city could do anything to tell the county as to how to value a property.

I have a lake property valued at 170K. I have been trying to sell it for a year for 150K. I protested and they insisted it was worth 170K.

I just went under contract today for 130K. It is just frustrating that people out there have multi million dollar lots that are paying 1/2 of the property tax they should be because tcad allows combining of lots. Tcad also undervalues many high end pproperties (especially land)

Where I live now was a house + a lot. The house was valued at X. When we sold the lot the house without the lot was still X and the lot is about 50% of X. The original owner saved .015*X of property taxes for the last 20 years.