So uh..Austin Subway*, Light Rail Expansions and $3.2 - $10.2 Billion

[Guest Lobo]

Yes, the Red Line came in very well ahead of schedule and dramatically under budget, so no federal funds were needed.  

[Orange&White 5521]

25 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yes, the Red Line came in very well ahead of schedule and dramatically under budget, so no federal funds were needed.  

Not really, actually. Maybe on schedule but not under budget. 
 

They had more expenditures on that project that were hidden As other types of types of expenditures. They also could not account for several hundred million when they got completely de-pantsed by the Sunset Review committee and nearly all of it was funneled to the red line.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Orange&White

[Orange&White 5521]

Quote

‒ The MetroRail project, originally projected to cost $60 million plus about $30 million for the lease-purchase of six rail cars, instead cost $140 million , the report says. And that doesn’t include $8 million interest cost on the rail cars. The cause, the report says: poor planning. The agency underestimated the cost of the cars by almost $7 million , spent an additional $12.7 million on a signal system it did not originally plan to install and had to spend another $30.4 million to make it safe to run passenger rail on a freight railroad.

 

https://www.statesman.com/article/20120901/NEWS/309008065
 

And none of that takes into account the money they spent on land acquisition and construction of “Park and Ride” lots that were actually just train station parking lots but not shown as Red Line expenses.

Hell, they bought the entire track system that had been for freight use only and never even bothered to consider that as part of the cost of the project.

 

But don’t worry, this time it would be completely different.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Orange&White

[Somnio 751]

Seeking federal transit funds for a $140 million dollar project would have been ridiculous.  That's about the cost of adding some flyovers at a single highway interchange.

I'm not sure why they initially said they would seek federal money, but why go through the process if they can fund it without?

That's the reason Capital Metro was created by Austin voters, and funded with the 1% sales tax.  To build mass transit including passenger trains.

[Somnio 751]

I'm going to speculate the reason is that they knew that the federal government would've kicked in some money for the Red Line.  The Red Line Capital Metro did not need federal dollars to build. 

I will further speculate that there was concern that if the federal government funded the Red Line, when Capital Metro came back a few years later for more federal funds for an expansion they could not fund themselves, it could harm the chances of the feds approving more dollars for more rail in Austin again.

The plan was always to expand further.  The Red Line's cost was miniscule for a transit line of 30+ miles and 9 or so stations.  Get the first line built on the cheap, and then build off of it.

[Orange&White 5521]

Let me save you from speculating. They damn well knew they weren’t getting federal funds. But they sure as fuck told everyone before they put it in a ballot that they were planning on getting funds.

[Somnio 751]

Also of note is the cost comparison to just a few under construction and upcoming highway projects in Austin, not even trying to fathom the discrepancy over the last 70 years...

I-35 - $7.5 billion

183 South - $750 million

183 North - $600 million

290 West - $700 million

And there are others I don't feel like looking up the cost right now like the 71 East projects, Loop 360, 183A expansion, 130 expansion, etc.

But the horror of investing in other forms of transportation is just too much for some I guess.

[Somnio 751]

1 minute ago, Orange&White said:

Let me save you from speculating. They damn well knew they weren’t getting federal funds. But they sure as fuck told everyone before they put it in a ballot that they were planning on getting funds.

Well then.

[Orange&White 5521]

Now show the vehicle miles travelled on those and tell me what is the cost per user per mile.
 

Because I can tell you that the taxpayers of Austin subsidize every single rider of the red line to the tune of $20+ dollars every time they ride.

[Somnio 751]

3 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Now show the vehicle miles travelled on those and tell me what is the cost per user per mile.
 

Because I can tell you that the taxpayers of Austin subsidize every single rider of the red line to the tune of $20+ dollars every time they ride.

Naw, I'm good.  But I don't believe you. 

Sounds a lot like the claims of 24% tax increase by the same group of scumbag liars that come out of the woodwork every time we have a transit election.

[MrBig 5367]

28 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Now show the vehicle miles travelled on those and tell me what is the cost per user per mile.
 

Because I can tell you that the taxpayers of Austin subsidize every single rider of the red line to the tune of $20+ dollars every time they ride.

 

20 minutes ago, Somnio said:

Naw, I'm good.  But I don't believe you. 

Sounds a lot like the claims of 24% tax increase by the same group of scumbag liars that come out of the woodwork every time we have a transit election.

“Each trip taken on the rail costs taxpayers dearly, according to data provided by Capitol Metro. In 2014, the rail line had an operating deficit of $12.6 million. The upfront capital costs of $140 million, when amortized at 2% over 30 years, creates an additional $6.2 million annual cost to taxpayers. Add these two sums up, and then divide them by the line’s number of annual unlinked trips—763,551—and the per-trip subsidy works out to $24.62.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/07/29/austins-commuter-rail-is-a-monument-to-government-waste/

[Godzillatron 292]

Randy Clark is someone you want leading the agency with funding. He runs a tight ship. If Austin screws up Prop A then we are so royally fucked.

Except his ego got in the way of an economical prop A. He could have supported BRT and a starter system instead he insisted on LRT and a downtown tunnel that doubled the cost.

[Godzillatron 292]

Interesting. I'm not a train guy, but what do you think those people who take the train will be doing if they aren't on the train? Also, walk me through what's in this "bus enhancement project". You realize that the street grid is inherently broken and unfixable, right?

Cap Metro could have offered the same proposal for BRT with dedicated lanes and job downtown tunnel for half the cost of the current proposal.

[Somnio 751]

Seems like a deceptive way calculate a "subsidy".  Capital Metro used the money the voters of this city authorized to make an investment in passenger rail. 

Dividing that upfront cost associated with upgrading tracks, building stations, buying trains, etc. as if it's an ongoing cost  by the number of passengers in a single year is misleading.  

Capital Metro didn't go into debt to build the Red Line.  There's no more cost except the operating expenses and maintenance.  The number of passengers continued to increase since that article was written in 2014 which would further lower the "subsidy".

Also, transportation projects are not intended to be profitable whether you're talking highways, buses, or trains.  They are public works for the betterment of society.

Imagine calculating a "subsidy" for public schools, parkland, or libraries with such a formula.

But with that said, I do know the history of how that election was forced upon Capital Metro with threat of it's funding being pulled.

You're not going to have huge ridership on an old single track freight line taking a roundabout path missing many of the employment and population centers of the city.

This whole argument is really a straw man because Project Connect does everything right whereas Capital Metro was forced to put a half-baked plan to a vote at risk of the Texas Legislature pulling it's funding.

We have guys like Gerald Daugherty and Mike Krusee to thank for that, two whom I'm sure certain posters in this thread think highly of...

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by Somnio

[Bozo_Casanova 26429]

4 minutes ago, Godzillatron said:

Cap Metro could have offered the same proposal for BRT with dedicated lanes and job downtown tunnel for half the cost of the current proposal.

Maybe*, but they didn’t. Want to want 10 years for another go at BRT? What will the cost of capital be in 2028?

 

*not really but I’ll indulge your hypothesis 

Edited October 31, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[MrBig 5367]

3 hours ago, Somnio said:

Seems like a deceptive way calculate a "subsidy".  Capital Metro used the money the voters of this city authorized to make an investment in passenger rail. 

Dividing that upfront cost associated with upgrading tracks, building stations, buying trains, etc. as if it's an ongoing cost  by the number of passengers in a single year is misleading.  

Capital Metro didn't go into debt to build the Red Line.  There's no more cost except the operating expenses and maintenance.  The number of passengers continued to increase since that article was written in 2014 which would further lower the "subsidy".

Also, transportation projects are not intended to be profitable whether you're talking highways, buses, or trains.  They are public works for the betterment of society.

Imagine calculating a "subsidy" for public schools, parkland, or libraries with such a formula.

But with that said, I do know the history of how that election was forced upon Capital Metro with threat of it's funding being pulled.

You're not going to have huge ridership on an old single track freight line taking a roundabout path missing many of the employment and population centers of the city.

This whole argument is really a straw man because Project Connect does everything right whereas Capital Metro was forced to put a half-baked plan to a vote at risk of the Texas Legislature pulling it's funding.

We have guys like Gerald Daugherty and Mike Krusee to thank for that, two whom I'm sure certain posters in this thread think highly of...

 

How is this deceptive? You need to account for the sticker price of the $140M in addition to the operating expenses to calculate cost per ride. In what way would you calculate this to make it not deceptive?

And the last figures for ridership in Jan 2020 had MetroRail at close to 61,000 monthly riders. That’s an average of 2,000+ riders a day. That’s terrible. This project was sold to voters in 2004 as costing $90M with 17,000 projected daily riders by 2025. It’s not even close to that now.

[Somnio 751]

35 minutes ago, MrBig said:

How is this deceptive? You need to account for the sticker price of the $140M in addition to the operating expenses to calculate cost per ride. In what way would you calculate this to make it not deceptive?

And the last figures for ridership in Jan 2020 had MetroRail at close to 61,000 monthly riders. That’s an average of 2,000+ riders a day. That’s terrible. This project was sold to voters in 2004 as costing $90M with 17,000 projected daily riders by 2025. It’s not even close to that now.

If you're going to include the one time capital costs, plus operating and maintainance, to calculate the so called subsidy it seems every ride from the day it opened until today should be counted into the equation.  With every single passing year the "subsidy" should be decreasing as the number of trips taken continues to grow every single day, year after year.   Do the math with 6 or 7 million trips taken on the Red Line and look at the "subsidy" then.

Also, it's s a commuter train, not light rail.  It's single tracked most of the way.  During weekday morning and afternoon peak hours the trains were full of suburbanites commuting downtown.

The line can grow as more improvements to the line occur, and more development occurs around the stations.

But again, the big money being spent on Project Connect is on light rail in the heart of the city where there's already density of population and employment.  The areas already have high transit usage, and that can and will continue to grow.  Having trains gets these transit users out of buses which are contributing to, and getting stuck in traffic.

This is not about today, though it would be fantastic and well utilized even now.  This is for 10, 20, 30, 100 years from now.  Imagine the Austin area twice the size it is today, pushing 5 million people trying to get around only by car.  Lamar isn't getting widened.  Neither is Burnet or Congress.  The Express Lanes on Mopac are it.  Mopac north of the river is done, no more lanes.  I-35 is about to be widened for the first and last time.  2 more lanes in each direction.  Do you think it won't still be a parking lot much of the time?

People are going to need a way to get around besides the gridlocked roadways.  This is the plan that gets us there.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Somnio

[MrBig 5367]

29 minutes ago, Somnio said:

If you're going to include the one time capital costs, plus operating and maintainance, to calculate the so called subsidy it seems every ride from the day it opened until today should be counted into the equation.  With every single passing year the "subsidy" should be decreasing as the number of trips taken continues to grow every single day, year after year.   Do the math with 6 or 7 million trips taken on the Red Line and look at the "subsidy" then.

Also, it's s a commuter train, not light rail.  It's single tracked most of the way.  During weekday morning and afternoon peak hours the trains were full of suburbanites commuting downtown.

The line can grow as more improvements to the line occur, and more development occurs around the stations.

But again, the big money being spent on Project Connect is on light rail in the heart of the city where there's already density of population and employment.  The areas already have high transit usage, and that can and will continue to grow.  Having trains gets these transit users out of buses which are contributing to, and getting stuck in traffic.

This is not about today, though it would be fantastic and well utilized even now.  This is for 10, 20, 30, 100 years from now.  Imagine the Austin area twice the size it is today, pushing 5 million people trying to get around only by car.  Lamar isn't getting widened.  Neither is Burnet or Congress.  The Express Lanes on Mopac are it.  Mopac north of the river is done, no more lanes.  I-35 is about to be widened for the first and last time.  2 more lanes in each direction.  Do you think it won't still be a parking lot much of the time?

People are going to need a way to get around besides the gridlocked roadways.  This is the plan that gets us there.

The equation has the $140M capital expenditures spread out over 30 years and counted as $6.2M yearly.

So ($6.2M + annual operating costs) / annual riders = cost per ride. How is this deceptive? The higher the number of annual riders, the lower cost per ride.

Even without the $6.2M, the cost per rider is still high because of operating expenses.

And while we are doing math, Project Connect means the City of Austin property tax rate is nearly going up by 20%.

Current COA property tax rate is 44 cents per $100 valuation. Project Connect adds 8.75 cents to this. This is nearly 20%.

So while your entire bill will only go up 4%, COA property tax rate goes up 20% from 44 cents to 52 cents.

 

[TKthunder2 4985]

I hope it passes.  The Blue and Orange line are/were needed most.  I get cutting the Gold and that the Green was a cheap way to make the project look more impressive.  That being said, if this fails it’s because they chose not to include anything Wear of Mopac.

Hell an easy add on would be to add light rail to the 183 North project and connect Burnet to Lakeline.  While it wouldn’t have helped the Circle C, Lost Creek, 2222/620 crowds it still would have bought some goodwill and made it look like they would expand West.  Getting more support from the people living near Anderson Mill, Spicewood/McNeil, Oak Knoll/Duval, and the Arboretum would have gone a long way, plus there is a bunch of employers along that corridor that would drive ridership.  

As of now everyone knows that the Goldline is the next priority, so even if they pass this it’ll be 20 years before anything connects to the West while South/East/Central all clearly get early favored status.

[Chet Steadman 940]

Three days out and I still can’t get a feel of whether or not Prop A is going to win in a landslide or get the usual mass-transit West Austin beatdown. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26429]

14 minutes ago, Chet Steadman said:

Three days out and I still can’t get a feel of whether or not Prop A is going to win in a landslide or get the usual mass-transit West Austin beatdown. 

The only sure way to win a city election in Austin is to promise to make things like they used to be. The prop A campaign can’t do that, so I think it’s losing.

[Bozo_Casanova 26429]

On 10/31/2020 at 12:19 AM, MrBig said:

The equation has the $140M capital expenditures spread out over 30 years and counted as $6.2M yearly.

So ($6.2M + annual operating costs) / annual riders = cost per ride. How is this deceptive? The higher the number of annual riders, the lower cost per ride.

Even without the $6.2M, the cost per rider is still high because of operating expenses.

And while we are doing math, Project Connect means the City of Austin property tax rate is nearly going up by 20%.

Current COA property tax rate is 44 cents per $100 valuation. Project Connect adds 8.75 cents to this. This is nearly 20%.

So while your entire bill will only go up 4%, COA property tax rate goes up 20% from 44 cents to 52 cents.

 

4%=20%. Got it. 

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, to echo that I can usually tell within a few points how a ballot prop in Austin is gonna break, part of my volunteer work.  

But this one has me stumped.  I would have comfortably put it at 60-65% before Covid-19 even with the shitty maths and Mike Levy and his crew working against it.  

And most reasonable people realize by the time we're packed on these trains, Covid will be distant memory.  But I do think we've had a few months to just kind of stew on the simple idea, "A lot is going to be different after this, maybe wouldn't hurt to wait 2 years to see how commuting patters change or don't change."  We're all cool with the fact that this is going to take 15-20 years to completely build out, what's two years inside of that massive chunk of time?  I really don't think it's West Austinites (I am not one) that are fighting this tooth and nail (there are some obviously).  I think it's just a general apprehension around town of shit just physically feels different when you leave your house.  We want to be forward thinking so why not see just a small slice of the future holds for us until 2022 and then pull the trigger on this more responsibly.  Make it the focal point of the Mayoral race.  

Plus, hidden bonus feature.  Districts 8 & 9, the two parts of town that most typically vote against this kinda stuff are up for election in 2022.  You could make this rail package the fundamental referendum on those two seats.  The money that could pour into defeating any candidate against this would be overwhelming.  

Anyway, the maths speak for themselves and nobody wants to listen.  So I'll leave it at, this is still an incredibly obfuscated package.  And the institutional investors that buy our paper agree with me.  I think that's more of a question mark than the federal grant match.  I still like the proposed lines/design/etc.  Even the construction timeline isn't that insane to me.  I'd vote for it any other year but 2020.  Yeah, I know, I know.  We have to think about the future, this is our only shot, go big or go home, be bold, be visionary, etc.  I know all the fucking cliches, I watched council write them despite wiping their ass with my finance proposal.  This thing would just be better served on a 2022 ballot which is gonna be record mid-term turnout in Texas after how close we see this state really is in terms of R v. D.  Nevermind the Mayor's race could actually be about something besides 3,000 homeless people.  Wouldn't it be novel to address other city-wide concerns like transportation?  

tl; dr:   I think this is thing is literally a toss-up but ultimately tilts towards passage.  But it woulda been so much better served with a 65-35 passing had it be done properly.  Now it's gonna be haunted by a shitty 1-2% margin done under cloaked circumstances   

Edited November 1, 2020 by Lobo

[UTexasFight 9425]

I voted “yes” because the anti-prop A’ers cant spell “maintanence” on the fliers they keep mailing me.

sorry, can’t take your “prop A is bad” arguments seriously when you can’t find someone to proofread your shit 

 

[Guest Lobo]

Proofreading guy missed his bus, give ‘em a break.  

[MrBig 5367]

Follow the money. Mobility for All is for Prop A and Project Connect. They received $1M in donations. 

Most of these donations are from real estate developers, engineering firms, construction companies, architects, lawyers and PR firms who all have a financial interest in getting Prop A passed. 

Some of these donors also have existing contracts with Cap Metro on a number of projects.

These real estate developers are also concentrated in the Rainey area on 4-5 highrises & downtown projects like the Google building. The big donors who contributed to Mobility for All are concentrated on the same projects downtown.

If you look closely, developers, architects, and construction companies are working on the same projects and donating to Mobility for All in favor of Prop A.

[Somnio 751]

What's surprising about landowners in the central city wanting to improve mobility near their properties?

It's no more surprising than car dealerships contributing big money to defeat the proposition.  Can't go and let people have the choice to live car free!  Oh hell no, cars for everybody!  16 year olds operating 2 ton machines is a great idea!  4 cars per household if you want to keep up with the Joneses!

 

[MrBig 5367]

32 minutes ago, Somnio said:

What's surprising about landowners in the central city wanting to improve mobility near their properties?

It's no more surprising than car dealerships contributing big money to defeat the proposition.  Can't go and let people have the choice to live car free!  Oh hell no, cars for everybody!  16 year olds operating 2 ton machines is a great idea!  4 cars per household if you want to keep up with the Joneses!

 

Land owners and property developers are very different groups of people. 

Brandywine donated to $100K of the $1M to Mobility for All in support of Prop A. Bradywine is currently contracted with Cap Metro to build the $24M Redline Station at the Domain. Bradywine also developed the downtown 405 Colorado St high rise which is using JE Dunn Construction (who also donated to Mobility for All) as the general contractor for the 405 Colorado project.

Endeavor Real Estate Group also donated $100K. They along with Pearlstone Partners, Presidium Group, McWhinney, Hunt Construction (AECOM), are doing business developing and constructing several Rainey high rise towers. They are all major contributors to Mobility for All in support of Prop A and Project Connect.

Look at the companies involved in all the downtown projects listed here. The Mobility for All campaign finance report shows how they are tied together to support Project Connect.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2020/03/03/37-towers-in-the-works-for-downtown-austin.html

 

[Somnio 751]

Oh, the developers who have and continue to develop tens of billions of dollars worth of needed housing and office space in our city adding untold millions of dollars year after year in perpetuity to the city's tax base?  The ones who's property taxes subsidize the disposable auto oriented sprawl that pollutes and destroys our quality of life which guys like you cherish?  Those guys?

[Guest Lobo]

46 minutes ago, MrBig said:

Land owners and property developers are very different groups of people. 

Brandywine donated to $100K of the $1M to Mobility for All in support of Prop A. Bradywine is currently contracted with Cap Metro to build the $24M Redline Station at the Domain. Bradywine also developed the downtown 405 Colorado St high rise which is using JE Dunn Construction (who also donated to Mobility for All) as the general contractor for the 405 Colorado project.

Endeavor Real Estate Group also donated $100K. They along with Pearlstone Partners, Presidium Group, McWhinney, Hunt Construction (AECOM), are doing business developing and constructing several Rainey high rise towers. They are all major contributors to Mobility for All in support of Prop A and Project Connect.

Look at the companies involved in all the downtown projects listed here. The Mobility for All campaign finance report shows how they are tied together to support Project Connect.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2020/03/03/37-towers-in-the-works-for-downtown-austin.html

 

Bookmark McWhinney Development from Denver here in Central Texas.  More to come, and not in a good way. 

[MrBig 5367]

14 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Bookmark McWhinney Development from Denver here in Central Texas.  More to come, and not in a good way. 

I’ve been researching the companies listed in Mobility for All’s campaign finance report. 

McWhinney is developing the Hyatt Centric Hotel Downtown on 8th & Congress. McWhinney donated $15K to Mobility for All in Support of Prop A.

Jay-Reese Contractors also donated $25K to Mobility for all. They have a contract with Capital Metro for the Downtown Redline station for up to $38M.

HNTB Corp donated $155K of the $1M to support Prop A. HNTB currently has 4 separate contracts with Capital Metro regarding Red line operations. 

Perry Lorenz also donated $5K. He owns the lot near Rainey where a massive potential 600K square foot hotel + market+ 30k sq ft of restaurant space high rise is being planned as a 40 story tower. 

[MrBig 5367]

One more thing. Why is TCAD already showing the 2020 COA Tax Rate as .5335?? This is what the rate would be if Prop A passed. 

 

[Guest Lobo]

Well that's kinda fucked up.  

[ZB'Tejas 593]

Do you know how many Uber Pool subsidies could be created with 6.1B?

In reality though I'm on board with a proper transit system. However, Prop A will have very little to no benefit to me yet I'll be paying a substantial amount toward it. I cringe at all the crap loaded into this thing and I really wish there was a way to separate out various pieces so the good ideas could go through and bad ones die.

 

 

[MrBig 5367]

8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Well that's kinda fucked up.  

What the fuck? Am I going crazy? Why does it say .5335? 

[ZB'Tejas 593]

53 minutes ago, MrBig said:

What the fuck? Am I going crazy? Why does it say .5335? 

I've heard we are going to be paying this due in Dec regardless... maybe the vote today is just a formality? Anyone with more details on this?

[MrBig 5367]

12 minutes ago, ZB'Tejas said:

I've heard we are going to be paying this due in Dec regardless... maybe the vote today is just a formality? Anyone with more details on this?

If Prop A fails, the property tax rate will be $0.4460 per $100

If Prop A passes, the property tax rate will be $0.5335 per $100

 

[Guest Lobo]

When did you first see that new rate online?  I assume it was online?  Okay, let me start again.  Where did you first see it and when?  I'm asking for a good reason. 

[MrBig 5367]

9 minutes ago, Lobo said:

When did you first see that new rate online?  I assume it was online?  Okay, let me start again.  Where did you first see it and when?  I'm asking for a good reason. 

I first saw the $0.5335 rate yesterday on the TCAD website under the Taxing Jurisdiction section.

For clarity, when you click notice of appraisal, the 2020 taxes are estimated based on the 2019 tax rate of $0.4431.

I am just wondering if this higher rate is already showing $0.5335 because that is what COA proposed for 2020.

[ChickenSandwich 9824]

16 hours ago, Somnio said:

Oh, the developers who have and continue to develop tens of billions of dollars worth of needed housing and office space in our city adding untold millions of dollars year after year in perpetuity to the city's tax base?  The ones who's property taxes subsidize the disposable auto oriented sprawl that pollutes and destroys our quality of life which guys like you cherish?  Those guys?

We are lacking million dollar condos or actual affordable housing?

Forcing density has nothing to do with affordable housing. No city has ever “upzoned” high rise etc their way to affordable housing. 
 

We have tons of land, creating artificial scarcity through the guise of density is a misplaced idea. 

Edited November 3, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[MrBig 5367]

On 10/30/2020 at 6:30 PM, Somnio said:

Naw, I'm good.  But I don't believe you. 

Sounds a lot like the claims of 24% tax increase by the same group of scumbag liars that come out of the woodwork every time we have a transit election.

These numbers are directly from the City of Austin website.

20.4% increase in the COA Tax Rate

24.6% total tax increase with 3.5% appreciation

 

[Somnio 751]

1 hour ago, MrBig said:

These numbers are directly from the City of Austin website.

20.4% increase in the COA Tax Rate

24.6% total tax increase with 3.5% appreciation

 

You know damn well it's misleading.  It's intended to make people believe their property taxes will rise 20 plus percent if they vote yes.

[Guest Lobo]

I think most homeowners, considering the size of the massive check they have to stroke each January understand it's just 20% on the COA portion.  It's renters that and SBO folks who NNN lease, that are totally kept in the dark about this shit.  It's getting fucking tiresome that our Council acts like our population needs its hand held through every bit of math and shielded from the misleading math of the anti-prop folks when they purposely write the ballot language to sound like something an AI bot would write on absynthe.  

Edited November 3, 2020 by Lobo

[Somnio 751]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

We are lacking million dollar condos or actual affordable housing?

Forcing density has nothing to do with affordable housing. No city has ever “upzoned” high rise etc their way to affordable housing. 
 

We have tons of land, creating artificial scarcity through the guise of density is a misplaced idea. 

Supply and Demand.  Also read this about filtering.  There's also a lot more about the subject on this blog.

https://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2008/06/filtering.html

Also, no one's going to stop Austin and it's suburbs from sprawling.  Building a healthy core, and expanding further out are not mutually exclusive.

[ChickenSandwich 9824]

https://www.livablecalifornia.org/statewide-upzoning-is-a-fail-in-california-heres-why/
 

A game-changing study has found that California’s urban areas are fast-approving too much luxury housing, under rules set by the legislature, and most urban areas will hit or far surpass the state’s overall housing targets for 2025. Yet this month, and again this summer, we expect state Sen. Scott Wiener to try to upzone California’s cities and towns — to produce even more luxury housing.

There are HUGE surprises in the study, compiled from the state’s own figures: Embarcadero Institute found that, amidst calls for “upzoning” and doing away with single-family zoning statewide by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other media, California’s affordability crisis is not fueled by resistance to housing. Instead, among the 14 populous counties targeted by nearly every controversial bill authored by Wiener and his allies, 10 counties will hit or significantly outpace the state housing targets (known as RHNA). Just 4 of the 14 counties are lagging, as shown in the heart of the study, a detailed chart and spreadsheet found here. 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9824]

Also another interesting perspective

These two professors challenge the accepted benefits of “filtering” and its opposite of intended consequences  

 

https://www.planningreport.com/2019/03/15/blanket-upzoning-blunt-instrument-wont-solve-affordable-housing-crisis

 

“The idea that upzoning will cause housing affordability to trickle down within our metropolis, while also setting up Los Angeles and San Francisco as the new golden land for people in less prosperous regions, is just a lot to promise—and it’s based on a narrative of housing as opportunity that is deeply flawed. We have to be very cautious when we use a storyline like that to justify public policy." 

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/398490105/Upzoning-Chicago-Impacts-of-a-Zoning-Reform-on-Property-Values-and-Housing-Construction

and another study with great info

Edited November 3, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[Somnio 751]

I just don't understand how it's not simply a supply and demand issue.  If you build too much housing, the prices will drop.  If you don't build enough the prices will rise.

The reason Central Austin is so expensive is because the number of housing units is hundreds of thousands less than the number of people whom wish to live there.

This has an effect on the whole market, and is an issue that's been ongoing for decades.  The solution is much more housing.  I say let them overbuild!  I guarantee you when there's a glut of housing on the market prices will stagnate if not begin to drop.

[Somnio 751]

Early voting numbers look very promising that both Prop. A and Prop. B will pass!

https://countyclerk.traviscountytx.gov/elections/election-results-1/results-for-november-03-2020-joint-general-and-special-election.html

Austin, you fucking rock!

[Somnio 751]

Screenshots from link if someone doesn't wish to click....

[Michael Knight 12976]