Jump to content

What the fuck is wrong with you, Austin?

crash_davis

By crash_davis
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3122

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Stringer said:

But for real, why do we need to shut down the city for a processional? I am obviously sorry for him and his family, but he’s not a head of state.

Agreed.  This type of ceremony has gotten out of hand.  Same for when a firefighter or EMT dies in the course of duty.  Obviously tragic and deserving of respect and recognition.

That said, why does almost every single big and even the podunk departments from all around the state have to send vehicles and personnel to participate? Even just all of the locals is a bunch of equipment and folks (which raises the question of why we have so many police departments in just the Austin Metro -- it has to be around 50 when counting APD/smaller cities/county sheriff departments/school districts/airports/parks/community colleges/hospitals, etc.), but at least those guys have some connection to the fallen that is being honored. 

It strikes me as basically a two-day paid vacation for all of the out of towners and a huge expenditure of taxpayer funded resources.  And that doesn't even address the disruption of the citizenry before, during, and after the event.

P.S. I was pretty shocked to see all of the para-military equipment that was rolling today.  Who knew that we own/need all of that stuff?  

Edited by DalTxHornFan
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

Well for starters it’s the one and only good public buidling we’ve got and it’s so popular that pretty millennial women take their instagram shots and hang out in groups on nice afternoons on the outs

Posted Images

Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8087

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Agreed.  This type of ceremony has gotten out of hand.  Same for when a firefighter or EMT dies in the course of duty.  Obviously tragic and deserving of respect and recognition.

That said, why does almost every single big and even the podunk departments from all around the state have to send vehicles and personnel to participate? Even just all of the locals is a bunch of equipment and folks (which raises the question of why we have so many police departments in just the Austin Metro -- it has to be around 50 when counting APD/smaller cities/county sheriff departments/school districts/airports/parks/community colleges/hospitals, etc.), but at least those guys have some connection to the fallen that is being honored. 

It strikes me as basically a two-day paid vacation for all of the out of towners and a huge expenditure of taxpayer funded resources.  And that doesn't even address the disruption of the citizenry before, during, and after the event.

P.S. I was pretty shocked to see all of the para-military equipment that was rolling today.  Who knew that we own/need all of that stuff?  

The subjects need to be subjected. 

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

PvilleStang 2924

Posted
Posted
On 11/17/2023 at 9:46 PM, Stringer said:

But for real, why do we need to shut down the city for a processional? I am obviously sorry for him and his family, but he’s not a head of state.

He did more for our city and state than most politicians.  He was a former fireman and EMT, then transitioned to SWAT.  Dude literally dedicated his career to his communities.  We have dipshits in city hall that dedicate their career to bike lanes.  I'm not a cop, nor have I ever been one, but the guy was a hero, and I hope his family sees how much he was appreciated.  Evil Mopac was clearly to blame on the traffic setup.  

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

Deej 77160

Posted
Posted
Quote

Alex Piquero, a criminologist and professor at the University of Miami, said he had never seen this specific formula used to calculate a conviction rate.

https://www.kxan.com/investigations/we-are-attorneys-not-statisticians-travis-county-da-reviewing-conviction-data-after-kxan-reporting/

Maybe he should just spend more effort prosecuting criminals instead of trying to aggy his stats. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3195

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Deej said:

https://www.kxan.com/investigations/we-are-attorneys-not-statisticians-travis-county-da-reviewing-conviction-data-after-kxan-reporting/

Maybe he should just spend more effort prosecuting criminals instead of trying to aggy his stats. 

‘We are attorneys, not statisticians.’ 

Garza is a loathsome creature.   Fucking hell.  DA's are just politicians, and they all suck and lie with every breath, but holy shit he takes it to another level.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Jeff

Texas Jeff 1978

Posted
Posted

The city announced a new Homeless Strategy Office to aggregate city efforts around homelessness.  After all of the time and treasure the city has sunk into homeless solutions over the past few years, homelessness in Austin doubled between April 2022 and October 2023, from about 2500 to about 5500.

Maybe people are becoming homeless because of higher rents ... maybe they are moving here because we offer more.  It's hard to tell what is going on, how money is being spent, what the plan is or what impact it is having on the problem -- which is kind of the point of the new office.  It feels like we are spending more to make the problem worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 77160

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

After all of the time and treasure the city has sunk into homeless solutions over the past few years, homelessness in Austin doubled between April 2022 and October 2023, from about 2500 to about 5500.

If you spend it, they will come. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3195

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

The city announced a new Homeless Strategy Office to aggregate city efforts around homelessness.  After all of the time and treasure the city has sunk into homeless solutions over the past few years, homelessness in Austin doubled between April 2022 and October 2023, from about 2500 to about 5500.

Maybe people are becoming homeless because of higher rents ... maybe they are moving here because we offer more.  It's hard to tell what is going on, how money is being spent, what the plan is or what impact it is having on the problem -- which is kind of the point of the new office.  It feels like we are spending more to make the problem worse.

Don't worry, folks, the government is here!   After shuffling some deck chairs and spending money on new government jobs that didn't exist last week, they're sure to get us out of this mess soon!  

Seriously though, I hope this leads to better outcomes for struggling people.  Throwing money at real estate deals didn't help anyone, but who could have possibly seen that coming?  Here's hoping the new department can coordinate services more effectively than we have before.  I doubt it, but here's hoping.

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

Brisketexan 105569

Posted
Posted

I'm just gonna toss out an idea here.....shouldn't you develop and have a "strategy" for dealing with a problem BEFORE you just thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at it?  I know, I'm just a pie-in-the-sky wackadoo, but I mean, WHAT IF we tried it my way: develop a strategy, THEN implement it?  Wouldn't that be CRAZY?

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105569

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Question. I got a parking ticket but the citation has my license plate wrong. Do I have to pay?

I tried looking up the ticket in the austingov site, but it couldn't find it.

I think your best bet is citing the fact that you are a sovereign citizen who does not wish to create joinder with the court, and anyway, it has no jurisdiction because it is an admiralty court because gold fringe on the flag.

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

crash_davis 23154

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I did not find any tickets under my license plate. I did find the ticket for the person who's license plate was erroneously entered by the parking nazi. 

 

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think your best bet is citing the fact that you are a sovereign citizen who does not wish to create joinder with the court, and anyway, it has no jurisdiction because it is an admiralty court because gold fringe on the flag.

My argument is that they issued a ticket against my automobile. My automobile is not a person, has no free will, and therefore cannot commit violations. 

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

stc 1467

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

Question. I got a parking ticket but the citation has my license plate wrong. Do I have to pay?

I tried looking up the ticket in the austingov site, but it couldn't find it.

had this happen to me in dallas. i ignored it and nothing ever happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Jeff

Texas Jeff 1978

Posted
Posted

BTW, to anyone thinking that the HOME initiative will provide housing for a teacher ... no way.

Teachers start just over $50k, consider a teacher that is a few years in making $60k.  A reasonable rule of thumb says you should spend no more than 30% of your income on housing.  That's $18k for our teacher.  Combine the mortgage and property tax costs, plus some money for upkeep, and consider you probably need 10% of the price of a home each year to afford it.  At the max 30%, your teacher can afford a $180k home.  Bump that up to $220k or so, because tax exemptions will help out on the lower end. 

Show me the developer that is planning to deliver a home for $220k, even at six to a lot ... no way ... it's not going to happen.

HOME is not for teachers.

The teachers that I know make ends meet either by being married to someone making a lot more money, by being independently wealthy and teaching as a 2nd career, by packing into an older home and sharing expenses, by living in a tiny apartment, or by quitting the teaching profession and getting a higher paying job.  The school district is building some housing for them that will help, and I predict that as kids leave the district they will have plenty of spare land to build more housing on, but HOME won't help.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105569

Posted
Posted
BTW, to anyone thinking that the HOME initiative will provide housing for a teacher ... no way.
Teachers start just over $50k, consider a teacher that is a few years in making $60k.  A reasonable rule of thumb says you should spend no more than 30% of your income on housing.  That's $18k for our teacher.  Combine the mortgage and property tax costs, plus some money for upkeep, and consider you probably need 10% of the price of a home each year to afford it.  At the max 30%, your teacher can afford a $180k home.  Bump that up to $220k or so, because tax exemptions will help out on the lower end. 
Show me the developer that is planning to deliver a home for $220k, even at six to a lot ... no way ... it's not going to happen.
HOME is not for teachers.
The teachers that I know make ends meet either by being married to someone making a lot more money, by being independently wealthy and teaching as a 2nd career, by packing into an older home and sharing expenses, by living in a tiny apartment, or by quitting the teaching profession and getting a higher paying job.  The school district is building some housing for them that will help, and I predict that as kids leave the district they will have plenty of spare land to build more housing on, but HOME won't help.

The omission of “and makes beaucoup extra dinero on OnlyFans” makes your entire analysis suspect.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bschoolprof

bschoolprof 6280

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

A video on Poole's "HOME" plan to rewrite the city codes on development. Interesting stuff.

 

I don't really have a dog in this fight given where I live, but I watched 15 minutes of that video and didn't hear a single cogent argument as to why changing government regulation to allow for the building of more housing is bad when there is a strong demand for more housing.  Perhaps there are good arguments to be made in that regard, but there were none in that 15 minutes.  Just a bunch of bloviating and nonsense. Colonizing? Really?  The activists in this town are batshit.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26670

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

BTW, to anyone thinking that the HOME initiative will provide housing for a teacher ... no way.

Teachers start just over $50k, consider a teacher that is a few years in making $60k.  A reasonable rule of thumb says you should spend no more than 30% of your income on housing.  That's $18k for our teacher.  Combine the mortgage and property tax costs, plus some money for upkeep, and consider you probably need 10% of the price of a home each year to afford it.  At the max 30%, your teacher can afford a $180k home.  Bump that up to $220k or so, because tax exemptions will help out on the lower end. 

Show me the developer that is planning to deliver a home for $220k, even at six to a lot ... no way ... it's not going to happen.

HOME is not for teachers.

The teachers that I know make ends meet either by being married to someone making a lot more money, by being independently wealthy and teaching as a 2nd career, by packing into an older home and sharing expenses, by living in a tiny apartment, or by quitting the teaching profession and getting a higher paying job.  The school district is building some housing for them that will help, and I predict that as kids leave the district they will have plenty of spare land to build more housing on, but HOME won't help.


Your last point first- “kids” aren’t leaving the “district”. Families with young children are leaving the central city and being replaced by older dual income households with no kids, because we have a housing shortage in central Austin and young families are priced out of home ownership. Selling off district land as schools are closed as a solution to house teachers in dorms is “modest proposal” level irony. 

Of course HOME isn’t a panacea and won’t fix much overnight because the overhang of unmet demand is enormous - it will take decades for housing in Central Austin to catch up, particularly since the cost of financing construction is so much higher than it has been over the last two decades, when we should have been rushing to build housing.
We should have been building more housing in Central Austin all along, in the period in between the current zoning being put in place 1984 and today. But it’s a start. 

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

ChickenSandwich 9856

Posted
Posted (edited)

Severely reducing Air BnB would double or even triple housing supply overnight according to that video.* 
 

Can anyone verify the 3500(sale) vs 16k airbnb?

HOME will fix nothing in central Austin. Not one sub $300k property will be produced organically

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Mueller_Austin_TX/pnd-hide

Edited by ChickenSandwich
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26670

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Severely reducing Air BnB would double or even triple housing supply overnight according to that video.* 
 

Can anyone verify the 3500(sale) vs 16k airbnb?

HOME will fix nothing in central Austin. Not one sub $300k property will be produced organically

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Mueller_Austin_TX/pnd-hide

That's the wrong way to look at the problem.

Not one sub-300K property will be produced organically until the demand for 700K units is met, then $600k, then $500k, then $400, then $350k....

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bschoolprof

bschoolprof 6280

Posted
Posted

Central Austin will always be expensive, as demand will far outstrip supply. There is no govt "fix" for this issue, in the same way that there is no way for us all to have affordable beach houses. Govt policy can make things worse, however, via land use restrictions that prevent more housing.  The policy described above might facilitate, say, 3 fairly well off buyers/renters residing on one current lot instead of one really wealthy one.  That certainly won't allow teachers to buy in tarrytown, but it will create slightly less expensive housing than before.  There will never be decent sub-300K housing close in though.  That's silliness.  

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

PvilleStang 2924

Posted
Posted

I mean, the infrastructure alone is going to cause a huge problem.  Water and sewer weren't designed for 2x to 3x the number of units in the area.  I know there's already plans to redo most of the main lines in Austin due to deteriorating pipes, but this will put a huge stress on the water treatment facilities going forward if it's implemented in any drastic way.

I think I watched maybe 2 minutes of it the other day, but the argument that I keep hearing is HOME will lead to more affordable housing.  Says who?!  It's a grift backed by developers and realtors, and until you find a way to keep people from building luxurious tiny houses on their property and charging a premium, it's going to be the same problem but at a different scale.  Scarce inventory, high demand, priced well above the market.

 

BUT, to refute the teacher argument up-thread, yeah, 220K might be high, but a lot of teachers are part of a dual income household, and can afford it.  Plus, a down payment doesn't seem to be factored into this.  They could be selling a house in the burbs and rolling the equity into a new place, which could drastically reduce the mortgage payments.  Only downside is they're paying for 500MM of homeless funding and a train to nowhere in their taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26670

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

There will never be decent sub-300K housing close in though.  That's silliness.  

Honestly there’s no reason for that to be true if we don’t want it to be, but I’m also not sure that’s the target we want.

Either way, y’all crack me up. No, this is not the only market in the world that is totally unresponsive to the demand signal because of evil developers. Gravity exists. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cap33

Cap33 403

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

We should have been building more housing in Central Austin all along, in the period in between the current zoning being put in place 1984 and today. But it’s a start.

I agree that we could have done a better job in Central Austin for the last 20+ years, but I disagree that it's a start. It's a panic-button. There are several posts up thread with sensible proposals for generating more housing in Central Austin while avoiding a blanket rule that creates the prospect of getting haphazard density at the whims of buyers/developers with zero understanding of or regard for the neighborhood as a whole. 

I attended my Central Austin neighborhood association meeting a few weeks ago for the first time ever, and this was the only real topic for discussion. There was overwhelming support for thoughtful, targeted zoning changes that align with transit corridors. The neighborhoods have pleaded with the City for a seat at the table to show them where allowing 3-9 townhomes or other multi-family zoning on one lot with no off-street parking will cause the most problems (e.g., across the street from the nearby elementary school), but we've been shut out of the process. Why? So the only option the City has left us with is total opposition to try and force a compromise.

I haven't watched the YouTube thing, but I've read enough about it, and I think making some of the HOME proponents out to be the boogey man (or woman) is counterproductive. Most of us just want to have some input and be part of the solution rather than be told that someone with a computer program for citywide zoning and a theory about affordable housing knows better than we do about how to make this work in our own backyards. (Not to say that I know better than they do about city planning generally, but I can tell you that a fucking school bus can't get down certain streets with cars parked on both sides.)

Edited by Cap33
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bschoolprof

bschoolprof 6280

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Honestly there’s no reason for that to be true if we don’t want it to be, but I’m also not sure that’s the target we want.

Either way, y’all crack me up. No, this is not the only market in the world that is totally unresponsive to the demand signal because of evil developers. Gravity exists. 

Don't lump me in with those commie nutbags.  I don't oppose developer profits (obviously).  

I'm just saying that even in a real estate market with no land use restrictions at all, desirable housing (close to downtown where everyone wants to live, on the beach, etc) will always be expensive.  There's no way to build enough housing close in to get relatively "cheap" prices. This is self evident.   

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

crash_davis 23154

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Houses inside the city center has always been and is expensive for almost every major city not named Detroit. When I was younger, I wanted to live inside the loop in Houston. That shit was hella expensive. We I lived in Dallas, I wanted to live in the M streets and Lakewood areas. That shit was hella expensive. No one bitched about affordable housing back then. Affordable housing was in the burbs. I just moved to the burbs and dreamed of living in the city.

That's exactly the same shit today. The closer you get to downtown and Westlake, the more expensive it's going to be. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steel Shank

Steel Shank 9439

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

I don't really have a dog in this fight given where I live, but I watched 15 minutes of that video and didn't hear a single cogent argument as to why changing government regulation to allow for the building of more housing is bad when there is a strong demand for more housing.  Perhaps there are good arguments to be made in that regard, but there were none in that 15 minutes.  Just a bunch of bloviating and nonsense. Colonizing? Really?  The activists in this town are batshit.  

I watched the whole thing.

We'd lose trees.

we'd lose impervious cover

We'd have more cars in a limited area (people aint giving up their cars).

Ant farm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steel Shank

Steel Shank 9439

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

A horseshit video made by and featuring some of the worst and most dishonest people in Austin.

Maybe. Maybe not. HOME will not have a negative affect on impervious cover? No trees going down? 

Again - shit ain't black and white. I'm not saying these people are right on al things, but are things we should consider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 77160

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Maybe. Maybe not. HOME will not have a negative affect on impervious cover? No trees going down? 

Again - shit ain't black and white. I'm not saying these people are right on al things, but are things we should consider?

Yeah, but those folks don't really give a fuck about impervious cover and trees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steel Shank

Steel Shank 9439

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

Don't lump me in with those commie nutbags.  I don't oppose developer profits (obviously).  

I'm just saying that even in a real estate market with no land use restrictions at all, desirable housing (close to downtown where everyone wants to live, on the beach, etc) will always be expensive.  There's no way to build enough housing close in to get relatively "cheap" prices. This is self evident.   

I think that what the folks in the video are saying.

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...