I haven't listened to terrestrial radio in over fifteen years outside of public radio, and was never an AM radio guy outside of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell when I found myself driving late at night on road trips. Still, I appreciate your consistency in pigeonholing anyone you perceive as disagreeing with your take on this subject. As LCHorn already pointed out, the discussion was about the politics of the message, not the realities of property taxation or how to improve housing affordability. "Let the market build more housing" is simply restating the affordability message into your preferred talking point on the subject, but it ignores the blatant appeal to the "eat the rich" crowd in Austin. Perhaps I'm too cynical, or you're too naive, or most likely a bit of both. Getting elected in this town isn't complicated. The playbook hasn't changed much for a long time. It's also why not much has changed in Austin for a long time. No elected official in this city will do a damn thing to make things more affordable, because there simply isn't much they can do to make that happen. It's empty language, but it works. You hear it in political campaigns in every major city in this country, and it's as empty in every other city as it is here. You know all this, but chose to be rude because you think I fit some NIMBY boogieman mold or something. Sorry to disappoint. In principle, I agree with your "build more housing" mantra. I'm admittedly a bit skeptical about developers executing the idea in a manner that improves anything for working-class Austinites, or restated, I'm unconvinced that city leadersrhip has the means to control the developers through the process in a manner that results in a benefit to the working class, but the core concept is sound.
Agreed.