Jump to content

Fitlump fucking won a Austin City Council seat, Now on to Congress 2026!

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

RamjetFDO
RamjetFDO
RamjetFDO
RamjetFDO
RamjetFDO
RamjetFDO

I personally have no idea what you're referring to, but I did see this online.

Posted Images

Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26615

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

thats exactly what you copied and pasted and it is what was proposed.  I live in a neighborhood where it was proposed.

I'm not getting into the weeds in this topic here, but I know what was proposed. At no time was there a proposal to "eliminate single-family neighborhoods", and transition zones don't "essentially abolish" housing either. 
Sorry you bought into fearmongering about your neighborhood, but that's not how any of this works.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14457

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm not getting into the weeds in this topic here, but I know what was proposed. At no time was there a proposal to "eliminate single-family neighborhoods", and transition zones don't "essentially abolish" housing either. 
Sorry you bought into fearmongering about your neighborhood, but that's not how any of this works.

not 200 feet from my house the street would become rezoned R4 transition zone.  and that street is about 3 to 4 streets in from the major road, not even on the edge of the neighborhood.  you can build a 40 foot tall building with 4-8 "units" per lot.  I didn't buy in to any fear mongering.  Its is in black and white.  that essentially would change those from single family single house lots.  That's bullshit.

who said the transition zone would abolish housing?  there is a difference between being zoned for single home/single family lots and being zoned for "housing".  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14457

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 Zoning that permits other/more options doesn't "abolish" anything, let along whole neighborhoods.

right, no one said it abolishes a neighborhood by the code.  but it will essentially do that over time, and that's the plan.  we don't need more options for more density in existing single family home neighborhoods. and that's not even including the unintended consequences that stupid shit like this will cause with traffic, parking, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26615

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

right, no one said it abolishes a neighborhood by the code. 

Her website that I quoted (and she also said in the debate) says called it a  "proposal that seeks to eliminate single-family neighborhoods."

Come on, man. 
 

6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

but it will essentially do that over time, and that's the plan. we don't need more options for more density in existing single family home neighborhoods. and that's not even including the unintended consequences that stupid shit like this will cause with traffic, parking, etc

Allowing the city to evolve or not as the market demand changes? The horror! We should have done this sooner so that we wouldn't have destroyed all the single family neighborhoods like those on Lamar, Guadalupe, Riverside, and every other major thoroughfare, and most of what is now downtown. 
As a matter of fact, we should probably prohibit any new housing from being built at Mueller, because an essential part of its neighborhood character is empty lots. Can you imagine all the traffic and parking required when people live in those places? 
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14457

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Her website that I quoted (and she also said in the debate) says called it a  "proposal that seeks to eliminate single-family neighborhoods."

Come on, man. 
 

Allowing the city to evolve or not as the market demand changes? The horror! We should have done this sooner so that we wouldn't have destroyed all the single family neighborhoods like those on Lamar, Guadalupe, Riverside, and every other major thoroughfare, and most of what is now downtown. 
 

we are not talking about along a major thoroughfare.  we are talking 4-5 streets in from a major thoroughfare.  they are taking a good chunk of the neighborhood and basically one small street away from mine.  I am not on the edge or even close to the edge of the neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26615

Posted
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

we are not talking about along a major thoroughfare.  we are talking 4-5 streets in from a major thoroughfare.  they are taking a good chunk of the neighborhood and basically one small street away from mine.  I am not on the edge or even close to the edge of the neighborhood.

I know what you are talking about.  "They" aren't "taking" anything. The proposed change would allow property owners the option of doing something (at a physical scale very similar in scale to the current SF use allowed, mind you) in some cases, depending on multiple facts on the ground, including aspects of your existing neighborhood plan. Or not. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14457

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I know what you are talking about.  "They" aren't "taking" anything. The proposed change would allow property owners the option of doing something (at a physical scale very similar in scale to the current SF use allowed, mind you) in some cases, depending on multiple facts on the ground, including aspects of your existing neighborhood plan. Or not. 

you know that I know they aren't taking.  OK "re-zoning" happy now? similar/option/in some cases/depending - yeah you know what that means...push it to the very limit.  there are 1400-5000 sq foot single family homes in the neighborhood, depending on what you consider the neighborhood. and they give them a break on impervious cover due to multi family and especially if they make it affordable housing.  its bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tbone_

tbone_ 14215

Posted
Posted

I develop apartment complexes (not in Austin so you fuckers calm down). We always have to rezone our sites to get the entitlements we need to build. When people ask what the worst or hardest part of the job is I always say putting my $100M project in the hands of some moron like lump who is not even remotely qualified to make a smart land use decision on a city council for approval. Mind numbing.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
I know what you are talking about.  "They" aren't "taking" anything. The proposed change would allow property owners the option of doing something (at a physical scale very similar in scale to the current SF use allowed, mind you) in some cases, depending on multiple facts on the ground, including aspects of your existing neighborhood plan. Or not. 

They are destroying the suburbs! First they bring the multi-family housing. Next thing you know you've got a project next door and barbecues in the street! 

Lmao at living in a neighborhood 3-4 streets off a major thoroughfare and being a NIMBY Karen about your 1500sqft house in the middle of a huge city.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26615

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

you know that I know they aren't taking.  OK "re-zoning" happy now? similar/option/in some cases/depending - yeah you know what that means...push it to the very limit.  there are 1400-5000 sq foot single family homes in the neighborhood, depending on what you consider the neighborhood. and they give them a break on impervious cover due to multi family and especially if they make it affordable housing.  its bullshit.

Yeah, it turns out that a zoning change is not the same thing as a taking or even a major tangible immediate or imminent or complete change, but that doesn’t stop her and others from presenting it as the same.
 

Yeah, R4- 3 feet shorter and 5% more impervious cover. That sounds SUPER HIGH DENSITY. And in any even pushing to the physical limit is what the current code  encourages. The only real difference with the revision would be that somebody wouldn’t be incentivized to build the largest and most expensive single unit of housing possible. So sorry that more neighbors, particularly those who protect and serve and teach in your town,  are so terrifying to you. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange&White

Orange&White 5539

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So sorry that more neighbors, particularly those who protect and serve and teach in your town,  are so terrifying to you. 

This was a very nice touch. Subtle, backhanded, passive aggressive, adds a touch of humanity with just a tinge of self righteousness. Very well done.

Edited by Orange&White
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
G650

G650 14294

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

It's a little known fact that there are in fact three constants in life. Death, taxes, and every suburbanite in history is utterly convinced their house is the last one that should ever be built in their area.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 4
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tbone_

tbone_ 14215

Posted
Posted
It's a little known fact that there are in fact three constants in life. Death, taxes, and every suburbanite in history is utterly convinced their house is the last one that should ever be built in their area.

Welcome to my world. It’s fun here.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

I really don't mind when housing gets built around me, traffic already sucks---maybe the new homes will bring a jogging group of hot moms in yoga pants. We had a pretty dense development get put in a few blocks from us last year.  About 200 apartments, 100 single-family homes, and a little office building.  Everybody was pissed off because of what it would do to traffic and kids getting to school and shit.  I was fine with it, it was an affordable way for younger families to get into our school which is good for us as parents of younger kids.  

The only real negative is that intersection went from being real quiet to now having multiple homeless people working it at all hours of the day because of the increased vehicular traffic.  And they used to walk back to the camps under Ben White, but I think they got tired of that.  so now of course, there's an encampment back there between this new development.  By the looks of it, probably 10+ adults and growing bigger every time I check it out.  Thanks to Adler and Councilwoman Kitchen's progressive visions, these homeless are now in a much better school district which I know is an important factor when trying to get the voices out of your head or kick that annoying meth addiction.  Every now and again, I do agree with Take Back Austin on something.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89900

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Mackenzie, if you're reading this thread: Walk into any Walmart in Austin.  Visit any gay nightclub.  Visit some bar on Dirty 6th.  Head over to some little taco joint in East Austin where where little to no English is spoken.  Hang out around the entrance to one of the towers downtown, then head over to some trendy little restaurant in Tarrytown.   Find the most feminist bookstore in Austin that you can.  Go hang out around your opponents' offices.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

In every one of those places, you will be among people who agree that Austin can change for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Didn't hear much about this until this weekend, but another candidate has entered the District 6 race against Fitlump and Flannigan.  Somebody running on a campaign of no hiking trail fees in NW Austin.  I dunno.  Seems like that'd be her jam, but the race is now officially more complex and likely heading to a 'runoff' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Godzillatron

Godzillatron 292

Posted
Posted
I was in D6 today and saw a lot of Kelly! signs. What a dumb district. 

I live in D6. Don’t forget that Zimmerman won this district 4 years ago. A lot of people out here pissed about “defunding” the police and the idiocy of Austin’s homeless policy. And while I support Jimmy they’re not wrong.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89900

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Westwood HS area is CoA.

Cedar Park is a separate charted city with its own set of dumbasses just like Austin.

I was thinking D6 was more a state of mind, that transcends city boundaries.

But, given that Mr. "No fees on hiking trails" Whoever injected himself into the race and has a little traction, it's pretty Austin-ish after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...