Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

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

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

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

 

Good one.

When they ask me why I ran for city council, I'm going to say it was out of spite to some dude I didn't know on the internet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

You know, it may be the Larry David fan in me talking here but I think I could support a "Spite" party candidate in certain elections.  Somebody you don't really like, or even support, or share policy visions...but you just vote for them to spite the other person.  

The only reason I almost ran for City Council myself was to spite a handful of people on that current dais.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26580

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Pasken said:

 

She better be careful or she's gonna get Jennifer Kim'd

1 hour 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. 

Seems like a modest proposal

1 hour 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"?

Mueller would support it. We've already got the only new market-rate affordable housing in central Austin along with the largest concentration of subsidized affordable housing in the city, literally mixed in so deeply that you have multi-millionaires living next door and across the street from people on food and housing assistance.  And we've asked for more of the same.

So I wouldn't expect T-Town or Circle C to feel this way, but I'm fine with all of the above. It makes the community safer and more resilient, and that benefits me. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

yeah, the blend at mueller is almost completely invisible unless you have specific first-hand information about specific addresses.  But that master-stroke took 20 years to pull off.  City Council wants to try the same thing in 20 months.  Which is code for, "Hold my beer, we gonna fuck this up good."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26580

Posted
Posted

To be fair, a brownfield redevelopment is relatively easy. That's why I support code reform: I don't trust the policy dept. to get things right and I think we should give the owners of residential property a few more options other than to either keep the same house or build a giant McMansion McModernFarmhouse out to the setbacks, and right now those are effectively the only thing the code allows in most places. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange&White

Orange&White 5539

Posted
Posted

 

I know you don't really believe that the people that are actively trying to help themselves to the point of qualifying for and affording subsidized housing in Mueller are even close to the same type of situation as the people that live under IH35 and 183 that the City is wanting to put into the hotel mentioned above.

While I do believe that you personally would be ok with the latter, I do not believe that the rest of Mueller would be.

 

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Mueller would support it. We've already got the only new market-rate affordable housing in central Austin along with the largest concentration of subsidized affordable housing in the city, literally mixed in so deeply that you have multi-millionaires living next door and across the street from people on food and housing assistance.  And we've asked for more of the same.

So I wouldn't expect T-Town or Circle C to feel this way, but I'm fine with all of the above. It makes the community safer and more resilient, and that benefits me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Victorious1

Victorious1 167

Posted
Posted
2 hours 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. 

It's not called the "Homeless check in, but they don't check out" hotel for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26580

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

 

I know you don't really believe that the people that are actively trying to help themselves to the point of qualifying for and affording subsidized housing in Mueller are even close to the same type of situation as the people that live under IH35 and 183 that the City is wanting to put into the hotel mentioned above.

While I do believe that you personally would be ok with the latter, I do not believe that the rest of Mueller would be.

 

 

They aren't, that's true. This homeless discourse is really about the permanent homeless population, not people who are merely housing insecure. I'm just pointing out that Mueller has leaned into support for deep housing affordability and welcomed projects that most of Austin would fight against - i.e. Foundation Communities, Rathgeber Village, etc. 

Also notable - When Rathgeber Center opened on Tannehill lane, there was no serious opposition mounted, and many if not most of the people that takes in are squarely in the category at risk of sliding into permanent homelessness. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26580

Posted
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, mchookem said:

i had no idea Mueller has had such success with affordable/low-income housing options! that's outstanding.

25% of all housing in Mueller is programmatically affordable below 80% of MFI. Thats both rentals and owned homes, across all types: condo, SF, townhome, row homes etc.

It's also got a couple of complexes worth of "workforce housing," that is, rentals that are priced to be affordable at ~60% of MFI. So, for example, there are people who work at the Mueller HEB or the Mueller Starbucks, or hourly jobs at Dell Children's who are living in Mueller without direct subsidy. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14381

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lobo said:

You know, it may be the Larry David fan in me talking here but I think I could support a "Spite" party candidate in certain elections.  Somebody you don't really like, or even support, or share policy visions...but you just vote for them to spite the other person.  

The only reason I almost ran for City Council myself was to spite a handful of people on that current dais.  

we've all "almost" ran for city council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

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

we've all "almost" ran for city council.

Which district?  We should open up a bar together.   

I think mine was pretty close to happening since the outgoing member personally asked me to run with her endorsement and arranged a press conference to make the announcement before I backed out.  Plus, I was blackballed by the chunk of Austin because certain DT posters and Rex Kramer called me part of the liberal cabal  ;)   /csb

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89844

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours 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. 

She'll come around once the grift hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

to be fair to crazy-pants Mcgee.........the camping ban began debate two years ago.  What's a few more weeks to debate it more thoroughly?  Preliminary budget outlines show that in 2021, City Council gives all of fuck zero about the root causes of homelessness.  What's the rush?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lobo said:

to be fair to crazy-pants Mcgee.........the camping ban began debate two years ago.  What's a few more weeks to debate it more thoroughly?  Preliminary budget outlines show that in 2021, City Council gives all of fuck zero about the root causes of homelessness.  What's the rush?  

You know better than most that "delaying" is just the warm up to cancel something and we see it constantly. What is there to debate? We know we have a homeless issue. What new thing will we learn? The thing that made me hate council from 14-16 was their inability to make hard and possibly unpopular decisions and delaying to avoid that. Nothing is going to change and we are only going to build momentum to shift strategies and it's happening because we are trying to put a homeless facility in fucking west Austin. This town hasn't gotten any less racist.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wally Pryor

Wally Pryor 5263

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Pasken said:

The thing that made me hate council from 14-16 was their inability to make hard and possibly unpopular decisions and delaying to avoid that. 

The thing that makes me hate council from 19-21 is their unbridled ability to make idiotic decisions, push them through without any real debate, discourse or dialogue and then ask questions later when the shit doesn't pan out.  And to do so under the assumption that there is a limitless bucket of money to make such idiotic decisions. 

It's a clown fest.  I hope we can all agree upon that.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gsoda3

gsoda3 3283

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

She better be careful or she's gonna get Jennifer Kim'd

Seems like a modest proposal

Mueller would support it. We've already got the only new market-rate affordable housing in central Austin along with the largest concentration of subsidized affordable housing in the city, literally mixed in so deeply that you have multi-millionaires living next door and across the street from people on food and housing assistance.  And we've asked for more of the same.

So I wouldn't expect T-Town or Circle C to feel this way, but I'm fine with all of the above. It makes the community safer and more resilient, and that benefits me. 

already pointed out, but subsidized housing and people living on EBT isn't the same situation as buying a motel and using it as a pseudo arch for transients.  i live within a mile of one of the proposed hotels and petty crime's already been trending upward for the past two years so this makes me wary.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SHOOTER12

SHOOTER12 8836

Posted
Posted
On 1/25/2021 at 11:40 AM, 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.

Dang OW, you're tapping that aren't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14381

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

already pointed out, but subsidized housing and people living on EBT isn't the same situation as buying a motel and using it as a pseudo arch for transients.  i live within a mile of one of the proposed hotels and petty crime's already been trending upward for the past two years so this makes me wary.  

its just stuff/things that can be replaced. not to worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14381

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Wally Pryor said:

The thing that makes me hate council from 19-21 is their unbridled ability to make idiotic decisions, push them through without any real debate, discourse or dialogue and then ask questions later when the shit doesn't pan out.  And to do so under the assumption that there is a limitless bucket of money to make such idiotic decisions. 

It's a clown fest.  I hope we can all agree upon that.

well yeah but there is a limitless bucket of money and plenty of sycophants to vote for them. see prop A.   smart assumption on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8058

Posted
Posted
On 1/25/2021 at 11:27 AM, Orange&White said:

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

Who chooses where they go in "every district"?

Wherever there are old hotels for sale.

OW, I understand your concern. I lived with that concern decades ago.

You just might be impressed at how these places operate and  it is possible you will become a supporter. Mostly, these places are for families who are homeless. 

Groups like Community Foundation (or Mobile Loaves) run a pretty tight ship.

There’s an old Hilton, off 35, near St John’s. Also the old Ramada, west of First, off William Cannon. Maybe those examples can offer you more information.

There’s newly developed apartments (presumably on donated land) on Slaughter, within an easy walk of Circle C.

Community Foundation  knows what they are facing, ie homelessness, better than most of us do. Check it out for yourself. Let me know, please, if you come to a different conclusion.

foundcom.org
 

 

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

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, woohorn said:

Tangent, but is it true that there are only 55 houses for sale under $1M?
 

First thing we should do is increase property values and property taxes.  That should help toot-sweet!  Is she really this stupid?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14381

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Deej said:

Only 55 in the neighborhoods she'd consider acceptable?

 

56 minutes ago, woohorn said:

Tangent, but is it true that there are only 55 houses for sale under $1M?
 

holy shit what a fucking idiot.  there is more stupid in this statement than you can possibly imagine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26580

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

 

holy shit what a fucking idiot.  there is more stupid in this statement than you can possibly imagine.

 Natasha Harper-Madison is no idiot. She either misspoke or (more likely) Austin Sanders got it wrong, because while there are obviously many more than 55 SF homes for sale under $1 city-wide, there appear to be only about that many in district 1, which she represents. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14381

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 Natasha Harper-Madison is no idiot. She either misspoke or (more likely) Austin Sanders got it wrong, because while there are obviously many more than 55 SF homes for sale under $1 city-wide, there appear to be only about that many in district 1, which she represents. 

the single family home supply is not the issue for mentally ill and drug addicted homeless people camping under bridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

the single family home supply is not the issue for mentally ill and drug addicted homeless people camping under bridges.

But what this City Council presupposes is..."what it if was?"  Wildcat, Wildcat.  Okay, I'm gonna go now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Jeff

Texas Jeff 1945

Posted
Posted

I am amazed that people below the poverty line can live in Austin.  If they own a million dollar house and are poor, man, take the capital gain and enjoy life somewhere else.  If they are renting a million dollar house ... yeah, they aren't renting a million dollar house.

Many people that can't afford where they are living move someplace cheaper.  Sounds crazy but it happens.  They don't just say "Well, I guess I'm homeless."  It sucks for people that can't afford Austin, but many people moving here think it's cheap compared to where they were.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
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...