Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

That’s private property and has nothing to do with this ordinance. They are trespassing, unless Discount Tire gave them permission which seems unlikely.

[Armybrat 40710]

Are you sure the sidewalk is private property?

[Deej 76524]

They'll move once the old lady starts chucking tires at them.

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Are you sure the sidewalk is private property?

I am

[hayden_horn 11360]

32 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Are you sure the sidewalk is private property?

especially there. that's discount's sidewalk and garage. the public sidewalk in closer to slaughter. that's my heb parking lot.

though i imagine that many of the homeless will misinterpret the new law in many ways such as this.

[Deej 76524]

The problem is that I'm sure no one explained the details to the homeless. They probably think they are free to camp anywhere, now, and APD will be all "Nothing we can do. We need more officers."

Edited July 2, 2019 by Deej

[Armybrat 40710]

13 minutes ago, Deej said:

The problem is that I'm sure no one explained the details to the homeless. They probably think they are free to camp anywhere, now, and APD will be all "Nothing we can do. We need more officers."

Bingo!

And how slow will the “eviction” process be?

Edited July 2, 2019 by Armybrat

[atomheartbevo 89396]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

We figure this out yet?

Yes.  Force the general public to have more extensive (and unavoidable) contact with them.  That will only generate more empathy for the homeless. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

8 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Bingo!

And how slow will the “eviction” process be?

for this one, the person is already gone. discount was open for business all day long. police won't mess around with obvious stuff like this. that's an obvious "move along"

[MrBig 5281]

Once the construction on 35 south of Ben White near Stassney and William Cannon is done, I can picture a huge number of homeless headed that way if they’re forced out of downtown. The pedestrian friendly sidewalks being constructed along the access roads will make it so much easier for the homeless to head that way. 

[Deej 76524]

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

for this one, the person is already gone. discount was open for business all day long. police won't mess around with obvious stuff like this. that's an obvious "move along"

Weird, I read on this thread that we were turning into San Francisco.

[Guest Lobo]

The Texas State sex offender list...you can't live within a 1/2 mile or so from a school, is that right?  I assume that's as the crow flies, and not driving distance?

Isn't this thing pretty damn close to three different schools (2 elementary and 1 middle)?  

I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL, OR EVEN MOST, homeless folks who will be living here are sex offenders you anti-syntax morons.  But some will be and some of them will be living in this place.  Isn't it too close to some schools?  Or does it not count because it's not their permanent address?  In which case, somebody should proactively bring up the point that even though it's not encouraged, some folks waiting to move into there, or hoping to get some access there that don't necessarily know the rules, or some of the peripheral folks that prey on the homeless (all three groups have sex offenders among them)...won't some of them camp outside this Ben White facility...even closer (within the mandated range) to these schools? 

This facility, tacitly or otherwise, will bring people close to these schools...even if not living directly inside.  Some (NOT ALL OR MOST YOU FUCKING SHITHEAP APOLOGISTS) will be not allowed that close but this building and Ann Kitchen's vision will have brought them closer than they should be.  I'm not talking about the one-off rape or murder.  That's a damn shame and it's not on Ann.  But a subset of a subset will set up camp nearby and it'll be too close to schools, and that's a State violation.  Anybody gonna tell them before something shitty happens?  It's the one angle they didn't downplay at the public meeting.  I mean, they talked about children being in danger of seeing sex, drugs, and feces.  But they forgot to mention that some of these people aren't allowed that close to schools.  Anyway, looking forward to hearing the apologists excuse this concern away too.  

Edited July 2, 2019 by Lobo

[Deej 76524]

"Why do you hate sex offenders?" - Austin city council.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21781]

So in addition to measles, mumps, and polio are we going to be looking at a resurgence in cholera?

[Steel Shank 9409]

Since this is supposed to help the homeless get off the street, what is the timeline for getting the people off the street according to the CoA? Did they say?

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Driving around East Austin this evening and I saw all the same camps and people that were there two weeks ago. When does the catastrophe start? Before or after the next fearstorm?

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Yes.  Force the general public to have more extensive (and unavoidable) contact with them.  That will only generate more empathy for the homeless. 

Oh hey I followed up on your theory. When the laughing stopped the staffer I spoke with said “if we were capable of conspiracy we would have passed CodeNEXT.”

[David Dennison 18646]

So does this mean people are going to stop moving to Austin now?

Isn't that what we all wanted?

[atomheartbevo 89396]

17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh hey I followed up on your theory. When the laughing stopped the staffer I spoke with said “if we were capable of conspiracy we would have passed CodeNEXT.”

Have your staffer buddy explain why the city dropped $8.6 million on a property appraised at $3.6 million.

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Have your staffer buddy explain why the city dropped $8.6 million on a property appraised at $3.6 million.

Sorry, I was making a dismissive joke at your expense. I should have made that more clear.

[atomheartbevo 89396]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Sorry, I was making a dismissive joke at your expense. I should have made that more clear.

I got the joke, but seriously, your staffer buddy should try and explain that little purchase.  That’s the makings of a good little conspiracy theory right there.   Preferably explain it without PowerPoint, and with proof that nobody on the City Council is getting their palms greased and/or doesn’t have any friends/relatives/backers making money off of it.  

[Incredulity 11541]

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

I got the joke, but seriously, your staffer buddy should try and explain that little purchase.  That’s the makings of a good little conspiracy theory right there.   Preferably explain it without PowerPoint, and with proof that nobody on the City Council is getting their palms greased and/or doesn’t have any friends/relatives/backers making money off of it.  

I hear you, but how can anyone prove a thing is NOT happening? Isn’t the burden on people saying there’s a conspiracy to demonstrate some kind of evidence?

[atomheartbevo 89396]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I hear you, but how can anyone prove a thing is NOT happening? Isn’t the burden on people saying there’s a conspiracy to demonstrate some kind of evidence?

$5 million sure seems to point to a lot of evidence.  

Or maybe the City Council and their staffers are just a bunch of fucking morons who don’t care about wasting taxpayer money.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

The Texas State sex offender list...you can't live within a 1/2 mile or so from a school, is that right?  I assume that's as the crow flies, and not driving distance?
Isn't this thing pretty damn close to three different schools (2 elementary and 1 middle)?  
I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL, OR EVEN MOST, homeless folks who will be living here are sex offenders you anti-syntax morons.  But some will be and some of them will be living in this place.  Isn't it too close to some schools?  Or does it not count because it's not their permanent address?  In which case, somebody should proactively bring up the point that even though it's not encouraged, some folks waiting to move into there, or hoping to get some access there that don't necessarily know the rules, or some of the peripheral folks that prey on the homeless (all three groups have sex offenders among them)...won't some of them camp outside this Ben White facility...even closer (within the mandated range) to these schools? 
This facility, tacitly or otherwise, will bring people close to these schools...even if not living directly inside.  Some (NOT ALL OR MOST YOU FUCKING SHITHEAP APOLOGISTS) will be not allowed that close but this building and Ann Kitchen's vision will have brought them closer than they should be.  I'm not talking about the one-off rape or murder.  That's a damn shame and it's not on Ann.  But a subset of a subset will set up camp nearby and it'll be too close to schools, and that's a State violation.  Anybody gonna tell them before something shitty happens?  It's the one angle they didn't downplay at the public meeting.  I mean, they talked about children being in danger of seeing sex, drugs, and feces.  But they forgot to mention that some of these people aren't allowed that close to schools.  Anyway, looking forward to hearing the apologists excuse this concern away too.  

Ok, is the hypothetical homeless sex offender/drug taker/feces dropper hypothetically staying at this shelter more or less of a danger to the kids in the schools than the same person sleeping outdoors near those schools?

[Guest Lobo]

Probably less of a danger.  My point remains—-does someone staying at that shelter who is on the list, does that violate that law since they’re domiciled so close or is not considered an actual residence?   There’s people that can’t live near a school and then there’s people that can’t even get near a school and there’s people who can’t do either.  I’m sure there’s a poster who can help sort this out. 

My question is still how did this get skipped over at hearing ?

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

$5 million sure seems to point to a lot of evidence.  
Or maybe the City Council and their staffers are just a bunch of fucking morons who don’t care about wasting taxpayer money.  

Uh, it certainly seems more likely than a precisely coordinated conspiracy to bring about empathy through direct experience with panhandling.

But let’s talk about that $5mm. Are you familiar with a report called "An Analysis of TCAD's Commercial Valuations for City of Austin” by George Gau?

As you may or may not know, TCAD is effectively prevented from access to accurate commercial transaction values. Gau’s report showed that as a consequence of a lack of visibility to the market TCAD typically undervalues commercial property by about half, and unimproved property by about 90% compared to actual purchase prices. So it’s entirely possible that the city isn’t overpaying at all, and even if the city overpaid by a little, it’s quite likely that the TCAD estimate is way, way low.

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Probably less of a danger.  My point remains—-does someone staying at that shelter who is on the list, does that violate that law since they’re domiciled so close or is not considered an actual residence?   There’s people that can’t live near a school and then there’s people that can’t even get near a school and there’s people who can’t do either.  I’m sure there’s a poster who can help sort this out. 
My question is still how did this get skipped over at hearing ?

Seriously I don’t know. Did you call your council reps office about it? I would imagine the staffer who handles this beat would know.

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah,

”I’m calling for a friend who wants to know if he can live near...”

[futureman 22414]

2 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

Since this is supposed to help the homeless get off the street, what is the timeline for getting the people off the street according to the CoA? Did they say?

however long it takes them to set up camp on the sidewalk. 

[Tailgate 3018]

[SquishMitten 10397]

18 hours ago, Orange&White said:

I am suddenly craving bird and snow.

Well it’s Tuesday now so have at it

[SquishMitten 10397]

12 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Weird, I read on this thread that we were turning into San Francisco.

So you have a picture of a homeless encampment in SF where they have strewn their belongings across the bay door of a mechanic shop, effectively shutting down said shop’s ability to conduct business?

[SquishMitten 10397]

9 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But let’s talk about that $5mm. Are you familiar with a report called "An Analysis of TCAD's Commercial Valuations for City of Austin” by George Gau?

As you may or may not know, TCAD is effectively prevented from access to accurate commercial transaction values. Gau’s report showed that as a consequence of a lack of visibility to the market TCAD typically undervalues commercial property by about half, and unimproved property by about 90% compared to actual purchase prices. So it’s entirely possible that the city isn’t overpaying at all, and even if the city overpaid by a little, it’s quite likely that the TCAD estimate is way, way low.

Your premise is correct. TCAD undervalues property by quite a large margin. But your conclusion is stretching that. This purchase was nearly 3x the CAD valuation. It’s undeniable they overpaid.

Edit to add: its even more inexcusable to overpay because it isn’t like this is the “perfect location.” They could’ve found suitable property all over the place. They had negotiating power, and they did nothing with it. If they aren’t getting some benefit due to connections with the owners, I’d be absolutely shocked. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by SquishMitten

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

33 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Your premise is correct. TCAD undervalues property by quite a large margin. But your conclusion is stretching that. This purchase was nearly 3x the CAD valuation. It’s undeniable they overpaid.

Edit to add: its even more inexcusable to overpay because it isn’t like this is the “perfect location.” They could’ve found suitable property all over the place. They had negotiating power, and they did nothing with it. If they aren’t getting some benefit due to connections with the owners, I’d be absolutely shocked. 

Didn’t they purchase current MLS data from the same company that manages it for ABOR this year ?  They should know what market value is or gasp, contact a realtor or someone with access to that system like everyone else. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

2 hours ago, Tailgate said:

 

Again, that's a picture of private property and nothing to do with the repeal of the ordinance. 

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

I don't know why you've taken a position of blowing off all these legitimate concerns. Its unlike you.

I'm not blowing them off. But the concern is not greater now than it was before, and the hysterics on this thread invite derision. Very few people know it, but there's been a hobo jungle in Mueller for years, for example. I expect it will be there for years. That's very close contact with kids, without the benefit of supervision. It turns out homeless people have been sleeping outside, in public, even when we had a camping ordinance because that's what homelessness means most of the time.

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

So you have a picture of a homeless encampment in SF where they have strewn their belongings across the bay door of a mechanic shop, effectively shutting down said shop’s ability to conduct business?

I'm in San Fransisco, in the Tenderloin, a couple of times a month. That's just a different universe from Austin. It's a different kind of population, and they are there for different reasons that have nothing to do with a local camping ordinance.

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

Your premise is correct. TCAD undervalues property by quite a large margin. But your conclusion is stretching that. This purchase was nearly 3x the CAD valuation. It’s undeniable they overpaid.

Edit to add: its even more inexcusable to overpay because it isn’t like this is the “perfect location.” They could’ve found suitable property all over the place. They had negotiating power, and they did nothing with it. If they aren’t getting some benefit due to connections with the owners, I’d be absolutely shocked. 

It seems likely they overpaid, probably in the neighborhood of $1.5M according to CRE people I know, which would be in line with the Gau study. Word around the campfire is that there was supposedly a competing offer, but I have no idea. Either way, it wouldn't be the first time the city of Austin failed to use it's negotiating leverage. 

29 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Didn’t they purchase current MLS data from the same company that manages it for ABOR this year ?  They should know what market value is or gasp, contact a realtor or someone with access to that system like everyone else. 

That was actually residential data, presumably so that homeowners could carry even more of the property tax burden relative to commercial property. Go figure. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[SquishMitten 10397]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Word around the campfire is that there was supposedly a competing offer, but I have no idea. Either way, it wouldn't be the first time the city of Austin failed to use it's negotiating leverage.

Oh I’m sure there was. Made by someone in cahoots with the council so they could justify a higher purchase price. But there was nothing uniquely special about this spot, and they would’ve just moved on if they were acting above board

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

5 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Oh I’m sure there was. Made by someone in cahoots with the council so they could justify a higher purchase price. But there was nothing uniquely special about this spot, and they would’ve just moved on if they were acting above board

Y'all crack me up with this shit. In Austin  taking any action that any person doesn't like is generally considered evidence of a criminal conspiracy. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Deej 76524]

And the city will have the balls to jack up taxes on nearby homes after they herd the homeless into the neighborhood. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

ThE cItY Is RaiSinG TaXeS aGaiN!!
(city of Austin tax rates have gone down from $.50/$100 to $.44/$100 over the last six years. )

Edited July 2, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Sgt Hulk 13642]

Looks like here I. Los Angeles. I guess. Californians really did take off to Texas 

[sidis 9731]

18 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:

Looks like here I. Los Angeles. I guess. Californians really did take off to Texas 

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

I'm just glad our elite overlords know what is best for us and continue to shove their pet projects and agendas down the public's throat with no feedback, input or god forbid a vote.

The bottom line is this SOLVES NOTHING.  It serves .03% of the sheltered homeless population for 10 million dollars and angering the local population is just a bonus.  It is entirely feasible that after this outpouring of cash we will have more than 100 new homeless join the city for our altruism.  It is a damn Bat Signal for the homeless in Texas to head to Austin. 

If it were about truly helping, we would have bought a large piece of cheap land (not near downtown or neighborhoods) and put as many fema tents and beds there as we could.  Locate families and children to a halfway house, church or salvation army.  The needed service providers can go to them instead of hoping the opposite happens.  The majority we are told suffer from some combination of mental health and substance abuse, and rarely just down on their luck.  Pull them away from temptation of downtown, don't let panhandling be a career and force them to get the help they are incapable of providing themselves.

These policies will only increase the homeless population, not solve the problem. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

11 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm pretty disappointed in your nothing to see here move along head in the sand routine.

Normally you and I are pretty close together on items like this but something, agenda, team yadda or otherwise, that I can't figure out has you on full tilt here.

I am honestly sorry to disappoint on this one. For my part I guess I just don't see what people are so bent out of shape about and a lot of the pushback (not from you) seems to be inhumane. The homeless in Austin are many things, but they aren't really anything to be afraid of IMO, and I really don't think the repeal of the ordinance or the addition shelter are going to matter much either way, except to make the lives of really vulnerable people a tiny bit less fearful and miserable. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Take this, for example. The Governor of Texas, making political hay by spreading nonsense about "horror stories piling up". It's mean and it's bullshit. 

Except it didn't happen. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

Doesn’t look like “last night” to me. 

 

Tin Foil time....

Austin’s First Family made its fortune from Mayor Adler’s real-estate law firm (to which he retains major financial ties) and his wife’s commercial property-management firm: DT Land Group, Inc. Mayor Adler’s personal financial disclosures covering 2017 and early 2018 reveal that he and his wife, Diane Land, had financial interests in at least 71 properties in Travis, Williamson and Hays Counties. Those properties are currently assessed at $319 million. These extensive property interests pose ethical challenges to conducting such city business as deciding where to increase zoning densities or where to spend transportation bonds, to name just a few issues.

Hotel W

Mayor Adler’s family owns three local properties worth $7 million, led by their $4 million dual-condo homestead in the W Austin Hotel (personal properties shown in green). The family has business interests in companies that own 12 local properties assessed at $151 million (shown in blue). Finally, the mayor reported his wife’s top property clients, who own 56 local properties assessed at $161 million (shown in red). The map of local Adler-related properties, allows users to zoom in and out of a neighborhood and click on a property to find such details as its address, owner and value. Take the map for a test drive and let us know if you find anything interesting!

https://indyaustin.org/sale/

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Fico 1743]

7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

It seems likely they overpaid, probably in the neighborhood of $1.5M according to CRE people I know, which would be in line with the Gau study. Word around the campfire is that there was supposedly a competing offer, but I have no idea. Either way, it wouldn't be the first time the city of Austin failed to use it's negotiating leverage. 

 

I can confirm, there was another offer. The city did overpay - essentially asking price from the seller, which was...steep.  The price was not otherworldly for a user-buy, but it was by no means, anything close to a "good deal".  

Nobody on the council is getting rich off this deal, the only person making out like a bandit is the Seller.

If you haven't been paying attention the City of Austin is not good at real estate, among other things.  You can see it with your eyes, and I believe the Austin monitor had a story on it recently.

No conspiracy, just stupidity. 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Fico

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Fico do you think that other offer was legit or a stalking horse like the “competing offer” for McKalla place?

[VirginiaLonghorn 4750]

AOC introduced a bill to buy water fountains for the streets of Austin ...