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

[Bozo_Casanova 26,120]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

I agree, but that's not really CTRMA is it?  That's more Travis County/City of Austin, no?  

Yes, I'm just saying it's the best thing we could do. 

1 hour ago, Pasken said:

The problem you run into there is our insanely large fire trucks that we have due to our match stick homes. You can reduce the side of the circle for the truck but then all it does is slow down traffic. It can't handle congestion. 

I could write a novel about this, but our too-large fire trucks is a whole thing - for example, did you know that our huge fire trucks are a big part of why we require more right of way than most other cities in Texas and the rest of the world? We're outliers. Just a really ill-considered set of purchasing decisions. 

53 minutes ago, drt said:

Can’t you construct them such that emergency vehicles can drive almost straight through by reducing inner curb height?

You can - see the small traffic circle at 43rd and Marathon. They can drive right over it. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,120]

3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

yes. traffic circles are a good solution in many cases.  the problem is getting shitty Austin drivers not to freeze up.

They get used to it quickly - the one at 51st and I-35 is the most improved intersection in our city. It used to be constantly backed up in all directions and during rush hour usually took 2-3 cycles to get through. Now it's completely fixed. The circle fully solved the problem. That was the highway dept, though. Not Austin. 

[dcar00 13,966]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

First, reforming the code to allow a greater supply of units isn't "targeting" single family homes, but in answer to your other question there's massive opposition to that, too, including the greatest public testimony in the history of the City of Austin. But even so, it wouldn't be enough. 

 

that's hilarious.

yes they are targeting single family homes.  its the new Al Gore railing at the evil internal combustion engine

to your other point 

 

[dcar00 13,966]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

They get used to it quickly - the one at 51st and I-35 is the most improved intersection in our city. It used to be constantly backed up in all directions and during rush hour usually took 2-3 cycles to get through. Now it's completely fixed. The circle fully solved the problem. That was the highway dept, though. Not Austin. 

I was joking...

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,763]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

They get used to it quickly - the one at 51st and I-35 is the most improved intersection in our city. It used to be constantly backed up in all directions and during rush hour usually took 2-3 cycles to get through. Now it's completely fixed. The circle fully solved the problem. That was the highway dept, though. Not Austin. 

We have a roundabout in the entrance to my neighborhood - not much traffic.  Sometimes when there's no traffic I just drive around it four or five times yelling "Hey look kids, Big Ben, Parliament!" out the window.  Other than that I got nothing.

[dcar00 13,966]

14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

First, reforming the code to allow a greater supply of units isn't "targeting" single family homes, but in answer to your other question there's massive opposition to that, too, including the greatest public testimony in the history of the City of Austin. But even so, it wouldn't be enough. 

 

also, I am talking about building taller where there are already 3 story apartment complexes.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,120]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

yes they are targeting single family homes.  its the new Al Gore railing at the evil internal combustion engine

Sure, but changing zoning that prohibits anything but SF homes on a modest about of the city's land mass doesn't eliminate the homes. It just means other options exist. But that's not the only issue. There's also our aburdly huge minimum lot size, the disastrous McMansion Ordinance, our parking requirements, the reduction of the maximum occupancy limit, I could go on and on. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[atomheartbevo 89,281]

4 hours ago, crash_davis said:

Honest question, how could Austin, or anyone, stop the insane increase in housing prices.

3 hours ago, tbone_ said:

There are only two possible answers. Either allow more supply, or do something that changes the desirability of Austin to reduce demand.

Demand currently is outpacing supply. Fundamental economics. No way around it.

Get people to stop moving here.  Or get businesses to stop moving here, or moving jobs here.  

 

[atomheartbevo 89,281]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Reform the code to allow for more housing supply in the city. Seriously.  That's the only real bullet in the policy gun. A housing shortage got us here the only way we can get out of that is to allow the market to address the unmet demand. Everything else is immaterial. 

Because traffic is not bad enough.

The irony of all of this, is that there are more informed and educated takes on these issues, including both sides of the issues, in this thread, than you will see coming out of one or more Austin City Council members (not just FL either).

[crash_davis 23,071]

2 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

We have a roundabout in the entrance to my neighborhood - not much traffic.  Sometimes when there's no traffic I just drive around it four or five times yelling "Hey look kids, Big Ben, Parliament!" out the window.  Other than that I got nothing.

i yell the same thing when i drive around the 51st street round about.

[40acredropout 2,901]

I was curious what recent Austin growth (population / housing prices) has looked like compared to other high growth metros over time (my data only went back to 1982).  I looked over 10 year periods and limited sample to metros that began analysis period w/ population > 1M and grew by >25% over 10 years.  That left 17 metros and I selected the instance for each metro where housing prices increased the most.

Surprisingly (to me) San Francisco and San Jose metros never come close to the population growth cutoff.  

This obviously doesn't tell the entire story-   home prices across the metro aren't increasing uniformly and if you were able to slice the data to just Central Austin, it would be far more pronounced.

Don't know that I have a point but thought it was interesting to see the comparison.  

Edited January 22, 2021 by 40acredropout

[Pasken 1,309]

This will be us when Kelly is in Congress. 

 

 

[tbone_ 14,016]

There are only two possible answers. Either allow more supply, or do something that changes the desirability of Austin to reduce demand.

Demand currently is outpacing supply. Fundamental economics. No way around it.

Also, third option - rising mortgage interest rates or property taxes.

My parents had a mortgage at 14% in 1984. Do the math and see what that does to your home value lol.

[tbone_ 14,016]

In all seriousness, the issue is we have this massive long term migration of people from rural and small town areas to major metropolitan areas, the local jurisdictions in those major metropolitan areas enact policies that restrict supply of new housing (NIMBY!, Sprawl is evil!, Density is evil!, Developer are evil!), and the govt pumping money into the system to keep rates low. Perfect storm for massive increase in RE values. It’s happening everywhere not just Austin. And then those same jurisdictional policy makers complain about housing affordability, which is mind numbingly regarded but not at all surprising.

Long term effect will be that only a small percentage of people will own their domicile and the rest will rent from someone. Not sure how long that will take but we inch closer every day.

[Armybrat 40,615]

14 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Also, third option - rising mortgage interest rates or property taxes.

My parents had a mortgage at 14% in 1984. Do the math and see what that does to your home value lol.

I knew a math teacher who moved here from Maine around 1980. His mortgage was 18%.

A few years later 10% was considered “good money”.

[Eskimohorn 5,587]

I didn't want to skip by the excellent point you make here, which is that structural racism defines the built environment of this city. Very true, and it was by design. BUT - protecting and expanding white and affluent spaces makes that worse, just as it's currently driving the middle class out of town. 
I mean, I could quibble on the technicalities. For example, no, having an 8-plex next door doesn't change the assessed taxable value of a single family homestead next door. So that's a lie they tell you. But we don't need to get into those details to appreciate the big picture, which is: Austin has a housing shortage and it will get worse. That 8-plex you've succeeded at stopping is housing.
The working class and minorities lose out in a housing shortage, which is designed into our current code that you've protected. Our current code is a blueprint to protect white spaces first and create leibensraum for the constantly arriving  affluent second by colonizing working class areas, and it's working.

Again, you’re baffled. Repeat after me, there is now virtually unlimited demand for residential real estate in places like Austin. Not just from residents but from investors globally.

Upzoning and deregulation increase the profitability of new construction, which will accelerate property values. New construction impacts real estate comps. Which impacts valuations.

I could be wrong. You could be wrong. But Im not lying, nor should middle class residents property tax concerns be dismissed as fucking “death panels”. Glad you’re gone. We’re better for it.

Lets look at how I could be wrong, but not lying.

Currently, I could reno my house or raze it and sell it for $500-$600k (looking at comps).

Immediately upon being upzoned to a duplex, I have the ability to reno or raze my house and sell 2 units for a total of $800k. Maybe I get a subsidy for lower income housing. Which the residents can easily sublet to whoever they want. We barely have a neighborhood association.

Maybe my new construction is so good that I get a bid for $1million at $400/sq ft. This sets off a Zillow alert for Xi Shiang in Hong Kong. They overbid on my neighbors Brady Bunch house. All impacting comps and valuations.

With the new code, costly restrictions lapse increasing the profitability and speed for new construction. Bottom-line, valuations and comps increase and I contend exponentially.

Dont believe me. A shithole like Waco is seeing property values artificially increase because of increased tourism and remodels from Chip and Joanna Gaines. While there is utility to fixing up shitholes, stresses existing residents. It also puts pressure on school districts and county assessors.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,120]

1 minute ago, Eskimohorn said:

Again, you’re baffled. Repeat after me, there is now virtually unlimited demand for residential real estate in places like Austin. Not just from residents but from investors globally.

 

1 minute ago, Eskimohorn said:

Upzoning and deregulation increase the profitability of new construction, which will accelerate property values. New construction impacts real estate comps. Which impacts valuations.

 

1 minute ago, Eskimohorn said:

I could be wrong. You could be wrong. But Im not lying, nor should middle class residents property tax concerns be dismissed as fucking “death panels”. Glad you’re gone. We’re better for it.

I don't think you are lying. I'm saying that you are routinely lied to, including by people who know they are lying, but either way I'm not going to argue with what amounts to a quasi-religious belief. Suffice it to say that no, housing is not the exception to the whole supply/demand thing. Yes, some price growth is a function of macroeconomic tailwinds and globalization, but the only, repeat, the only policy tool available to begin to to address the problem of market rate affordability from 80-150ish% of MFI is by allowing the housing supply to increase. 

[drt 637]

I’m honestly confused what you’re arguing for. You say that there is “unlimited demand”, which agrees with Bozo’s assertion that altering the supply side of the equation is the only real tool that city planners have to tackle all of the problems listed. You’re obviously against the rise of COL but I really don’t follow how you think rising costs should be slowed. You outline how you think upzoning will increase COL but what is the alternative? Do nothing?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,120]

I've said it for years. The voters of Austin have always wanted the one thing they can't have: a trip back in time back to the day before they moved here.

[RDCanecutter 26,157]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I've said it for years. The voters of Austin have always wanted the one thing they can't have: a trip back in time back to the day before they moved here.

I met a lady who left Austin because it had changed too much. I think she left in the late 40s.

[Eskimohorn 5,587]

I’m honestly confused what you’re arguing for. You say that there is “unlimited demand”, which agrees with Bozo’s assertion that altering the supply side of the equation is the only real tool that city planners have to tackle all of the problems listed. You’re obviously against the rise of COL but I really don’t follow how you think rising costs should be slowed. You outline how you think upzoning will increase COL but what is the alternative? Do nothing?

The laws of supply and demand still apply in the global market, and has superseded the Austin residential market. Tourists, vacant 2nd homes, vacant investment properties, office space now are part of the Austin residential real estate market, which welcomes with relish an increase in supply to a point no one knows.

Here are the new rules:

Upzoning will exponentially increase property values, as explained above.

New construction and facade renos in neighborhoods increases comps, increasing neighboring appraisals.

Deregulation will increase property values by making new construction more profitable, easier, and more enticing. Thats because the costs of construction no longer drive valuations in this market. It’s driven by global demand. And this feeds the new construction stressors on valuations.

Subsidies will increase values, helping prop investments.

Im as baffled as the city planners. CodeNext, in my opinion, will exponentially make things worse for existing residents than status quo.

[dcar00 13,966]

44 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

I don't think you are lying. I'm saying that you are routinely lied to, including by people who know they are lying, but either way I'm not going to argue with what amounts to a quasi-religious belief. Suffice it to say that no, housing is not the exception to the whole supply/demand thing. Yes, some price growth is a function of macroeconomic tailwinds and globalization, but the only, repeat, the only policy tool available to begin to to address the problem of market rate affordability from 80-150ish% of MFI is by allowing the housing supply to increase. 

and they can do that by tearing down, completely inefficient, 3 story apartment complexes and building 10 story(or more) apartment complexes.

[drt 637]

14 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

Im as baffled as the city planners. CodeNext, in my opinion, will exponentially make things worse for existing residents than status quo.

Got it. So the status quo we’ve had with the decade plus of arguing over codes has led to positive changes? It seems like half the board that lived in austin has left the city limits

 

18 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

and they can do that by tearing down, completely inefficient, 3 story apartment complexes and building 10 story(or more) apartment complexes.

I agree, but I also don’t think it’s a great indicator for a city if all of the increase in housing supply comes from rentals. You need both. 

[Armybrat 40,615]

2 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

I met a lady who left Austin because it had changed too much. I think she left in the late 40s.

Pics?

[RDCanecutter 26,157]

16 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Pics?

No way was I gonna lech on your granddaughter, Brat.

[dcar00 13,966]

1 hour ago, drt said:

 

I agree, but I also don’t think it’s a great indicator for a city if all of the increase in housing supply comes from rentals. You need both. 

sure, just call some of them condos and allow people to buy them.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,120]

2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

and they can do that by tearing down, completely inefficient, 3 story apartment complexes and building 10 story(or more) apartment complexes.

One housing type does not and cannot address the problem because housing units are not substitutional and won't meet demand. Depending on the context you need a mix of small Big SF homes with big yards, small SF homes with tiny hards, garden courts, row houses, townhouses, 4-6 unit buildings, stacked triplexes, stacked duplexes, side by sides, and so on. 

Basically you need the kind of housing diversity that every city in America, including Austin, had before WW2, and allowed by right until the mid-70s when zoning was restructured to take the place of unconstitutional deed restrictions in the wake of integration. 

2 hours ago, drt said:

I also don’t think it’s a great indicator for a city if all of the increase in housing supply comes from rentals. You need both. 

Correct, you need both tacos. Roman for Mayor. Naoch!

 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[TexasEd 8,054]

The upzoning is like a stock split of a hot stock.  

You are cutting the pie into smaller pieces that more people can afford but the pie does not get any bigger (If you go up it gets a little bigger) So now the multi-family units are smaller and the price of those will climb as well.  It's a multiplier.  More people potentially can get a smaller piece of the pie.  You would think it would benefit the little guys but in practice the investors will own the units and rent them out. The little guys get a place closer in that is much smaller and more expensive and they are not likely to be owners.

This policy of a dense downtown may be counterproductive to the affordable housing issue.

We likely need a combined strategy of multiple higher density zones like the Domain throughout the city with a better public transportation options.

[F250 28,597]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I've said it for years. The voters of Austin have always wanted the one thing they can't have: a trip back in time back to the day before they moved here.

I just want Austin to go back to the Austin seen in the movie Slacker. I'd also like my teenage virility returned too. Not really asking for much.

I'm not asking for a return to the days of Comanche raids like Army Brat grew up with in his youth.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,120]

8 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

We likely need a combined strategy of multiple higher density zones like the Domain throughout the city with a better public transportation options.

I tend to agree with you, but that's a key area of disagreement between actual urbanists and normie pro-housers like me. The urbanists believe that you should have, essentially, as much concentration as people and services as you can to maximize the efficiency of people movement and opportunities. 
The counter argument that I make to that is that the market doesn't seem to want that either, and some people would just rather live in a classic inner loop car suburb, and that's probably fine as long as we create enough diversity of options and fill the missing middle.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[bolverk 29,170]

9 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

We likely need a combined strategy of multiple higher density zones like the Domain throughout the city with a better public transportation options.

Wasn't that essentially what the vision was for the old Imagine Austin plan: multiple "downtowns" or "urban villages" connected by denser corridors and improved mass transit?

In one manner, that seems to be where the market is taking things regardless with the proposed redevelopment of Brodie Oaks and The Domain on Riverside, while both South Lamar and East Riverside continue to fill in with new mixed-use developments.

I also tend to agree that high-rises and Texas donut apartment complexes won't fill all the new for new housing and that we should be looking for increased "missing middle" options as mentioned by Bozo.

[jimmyjazz 45,324]

On 1/21/2021 at 7:34 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

You haven’t seen anything yet. Take Austin as you know it today, but make it a primary rather than secondary hub for two of the most well paid and specialized industries, and grow the population by 50-75%, but only increase the housing supply by 10%. What do you suppose it’s like then. Who lives in that Austin. And who works there, and where do they live?

Well don't stop now, finish me off.  I'm torn between massive home equity and massive property taxes.  Which way to I lean?  (And what was that cap gains minimum on resale?)

[Pasken 1,309]

 

[ZB'Tejas 593]

On 1/22/2021 at 3:55 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Well don't stop now, finish me off.  I'm torn between massive home equity and massive property taxes.  Which way to I lean?  (And what was that cap gains minimum on resale?)

Right, just make sure you sell and move to another once you had just under 500K in appreciation. So roughly every 5 years in Austin

[Armybrat 40,615]

1 hour ago, Pasken said:

 

She actually showed up?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

How much money does she make serving on the council?

[BradInATX 9,208]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How much money does she make serving on the council?

Think it's $70k annually for council members. But that's not accounting for the grift she's inevitably running.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Think it's $70k annually for council members. But that's not accounting for the grift she's inevitably running.

That $70k is probably double any W2 income she's ever earned.

[Wally Fairway 5,500]

On 1/22/2021 at 1:31 PM, RDCanecutter said:

I met a lady who left Austin because it had changed too much. I think she left in the late 40s.

 

On 1/22/2021 at 3:57 PM, Armybrat said:

Pics?

 

On 1/22/2021 at 4:14 PM, RDCanecutter said:

No way was I gonna lech on your granddaughter, Brat.

So 1840's?

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

That $70k is probably double any W2 income she's ever earned.

Yeah, I thought the same thing when I saw that number. She's coming up!

[Pasken 1,309]

 

I'm sure there will be many posters who agree with her but I think it's pretty stupid for the anti homeless city council canidate to be fighting purchasing a dense housing complex to get homeless off the streets.  I mean, just come out and say you think we should shoot them and be done with it. 

[Orange&White 5,510]

8 minutes ago, Pasken said:

 

I'm sure there will be many posters who agree with her but I think it's pretty stupid for the anti homeless city council canidate to be fighting purchasing a dense housing complex to get homeless off the streets.  I mean, just come out and say you think we should shoot them and be done with it. 

Where do you live? Since you are so agreeable, why don't we just put right next to your house?

[Pasken 1,309]

3 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Where do you live? Since you are so agreeable, why don't we just put right next to your house?

The plan is to put shit like this in every district. Who wants to get it’s only going to be in east side districts.

[Guest Lobo]

40 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Think it's $70k annually for council members. But that's not accounting for the grift she's inevitably running.

They’re also fully allowed to have outside jobs.  Some don’t to appear more “devoted” to the job.  Ellen had a very successful real estate business while serving.  Probably why she didn’t go along with so many of the scams and cons of Adler and the bunch.  Which of course is a big part of the reason they vilified her at every opportunity.  That’s the way dirty cops treat the ones who don’t partake in the skim before the cash is turned into the evidence room. 

[Orange&White 5,510]

3 minutes ago, Pasken said:

The plan is to put shit like this in every district. Who wants to get it’s only going to be in east side districts.

Really? Will there be one in Mueller? Or Tarrytown? Or Pemberton? Circle C?

Who chooses where they go in "every district"?

[davidg 4,016]

20 minutes ago, Pasken said:

.  I mean, just come out and say you think we should shoot them and be done with it. 

Have you priced ammo recently?  Might be cheaper just to buy the hotel.

Edited January 25, 2021 by davidg

[Pasken 1,309]

6 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Really? Will there be one in Mueller? Or Tarrytown? Or Pemberton? Circle C?

Who chooses where they go in "every district"?

Who the fuck do you think chooses? 

[Orange&White 5,510]

1 minute ago, Pasken said:

Who the fuck do you think chooses? 

Are you saying that fucking council people choose?

So you are upset because the FUCKING COUNCIL PERSON FROM THAT DISTRICT wants a fucking say in where it goes in their district? Or should she just sit back and do whatever the fuck the other council people tell her? Heaven forbid that someone work for the constituents of their district.

As terrible as she is, she is actually just doing her fucking job here, but since it goes against your belief you are trying to make it look bad.

[Pasken 1,309]

1 minute ago, Orange&White said:

Are you saying that fucking council people choose?

So you are upset because the FUCKING COUNCIL PERSON FROM THAT DISTRICT wants a fucking say in where it goes in their district? Or should she just sit back and do whatever the fuck the other council people tell her? Heaven forbid that someone work for the constituents of their district.

As terrible as she is, she is actually just doing her fucking job here, but since it goes against your belief you are trying to make it look bad.

City staff makes recommendations, city council approves just like every other fucking thing. You are full of shit if you think the issue is Kelly or Alter care about WHERE in their district it goes. THEY DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE. That's why council decided every district would have to suck it up and accept a homeless facility so it doesn't fall upon the districts with the poorest and least civilly engaged electorate.

 

Also, like I said there will be posters here who fall in line with all of Kelly's votes. As much as you bash her the truth is you are no different. Maybe volunteer on her campaign next time. 

[Orange&White 5,510]

Right. Me calling you out for a shitty, partisan, lazy take means I should join her campaign.

 

Good one.