The Affordable Housing Debate in Austin

AustinBadger

AustinBadger

250+ Posts
The Link

This article is about a gentlemen running for City Council who is being critcized for building condos / remodeling homes that re not "affordable."

The broader issue is you have a group of leftist activist in this town (and I am sure Dallas and Houston) are constantly bitching about the lack of "affordable" housing for people in areas like downtown where expensive condos are being built.

My question to these people is why should the government - or really anyone - require a specific price range of housing in one of the best locations in the city (downtown)?

I am not opposed to building affordable housing in other areas of town (or even having the Gov't subsidize it) but what is the rationale for demanding that this affordable housing be in the downtown area?

I am sorry if lower income people cannot afford to live in a downtown condo but that's the free market. I am not trying to sound harsh about this but I just don't see why we need affordable housing in a high priced area. Can't these people live other places?.......like they have been doing for decades.

I really think this issue reeks of class resentment and socialistic thought - ergo, "so you wanna build $500K condos in downtown? Well, you need to let poor people also live there b/c that's only fair and we don't want all rich people living downtown."

I just don't understand this issue. Again, not saying Gov't/society shouldn't build affordable housing......but just saying why do we need to allocate in the downtown area? Aren't we doing ok building the houses in East and SE Austin?

Does anyone have a rational explanation for the 'affordable housing' position? I am not trying to start a fight.....I honestly don't understand the logic of these folks' position.
 
well, actually, from a city planning aspect it makes a lot of sense. not everyone who works downtown puts on a white shirt and tie.

but i understand your point.
 
Interesting and you mentioned Dallas which is experiencing a downtown revitalization also

The Dallas City council announced 2 weeks ago a severe budget shortfall resulting in cutbacks and lay offs

Then Monday announced a plan to subsidize people who want to buy condos or lofts in downtown but who can't afford them.
so they are
firing people, cutting services and programs BUT giving money to people to buy condos in downtown.

Money is available for low and moderate income people to buy condos that sell up to 200k.

Seeems completely upside down to me and Austin is even weirder Oh Wait
 
If you think affordable housing is a goal (and certainly, people debate that) then you should strive to have the affordable housing, in some form, in all neighborhoods.

One of the worst things we've done for poverty in this country is creating "the projects." It's much better to have 1,000 affordable housing units spread out throughout the city than 1,000 units in 1 development on the east side.

As to the article specifically, the gripe of the article is the lack of consistency. Galindo campaigns advocating affordable housing, but in his practice, he does something different. That ought to be important.
 
Then Monday announced a plan to subsidize people who want to buy condos or lofts in downtown but who can't afford them.
so they are
firing people, cutting services and programs BUT giving money to people to buy condos in downtown.
_________________________________________________

If this is true, it is bs and why municipalities have no money and keep raising property and other taxes...if u cant afford something, move out to the airport.
 
I do not have my notes infront of me but I heard a speaker on Monday night who works for the Fed in their housing department. He had a ton of very interesting information but the two things I found most interesting were this:

1) Housing prices across the country are still 15-20% overvalued. Meaning we need 5 years of flat housing prices before we will be back to normal.

2) In Austin/Houston/Dallas the median income earners can afford between 48-54% of the housing. In LA the median income earners can afford 4% of the housing. Unfuckingbelievable.
 
First off - you're absolutely correct. The government has no duty or obligation to provide housing in the downtown area. Nor do I believe it should be required to provide housing for anyone regardless of location.


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I think you're missing the point with that story. Activists are criticizing Galindo for hypocrisy - he's supposedly run on the policy of supporting affordable housing in East Austin, yet he is attempting to sell expensive new condos in East Austin. He can't have it both ways. It's not about the government regulating the market. It's about one dude saying he believes in supporting affordable housing in a particular community and then undermining that effort by his actions.

Also, this isn't about affordable housing downtown, as you've framed it. It's about affordable housing in East Austin, a traditionally working class, minority community. It isn't as simple as "well, if you can't afford to live in a place, tough ****." People have long standing attachments to their communities. It's pretty damn sad when folks are priced out of communities that they've built and enriched for generations, just because a bunch of California yuppies suddenly decide that the neighborhood is no longer too black or Mexican anymore. You can't just put a price tag on cultural history and say, "Well, tough ****, you're too poor now, and your neighborhood is suddenly desirable. Go build a new ghetto further east or north. We'll come take that, too, when we feel like gentrifying it."
 
airport
so if i understand the Austin situation correctly People are moving into East Austin and improving their houses which increases the property values ?
But before they started moving in this was a low end ethnic neighborhood?
Who sold the houses to the new owners?
 
A lot of people in the community sold out and moved away. But of course, it's not as simple as that. Many people rented from landlords who lived across town. Many other landlords got hit with the stick and carrot of suddenly high property taxes and high land values.
 
so hypothetical here...

if concentrating the lower class in particular areas creates more crime than spreading them out throughout the city, so there isn't a "ghetto", would that be beneficial for a city?

If so, then we can get into the specifics about whether that's possible in a free market economy, etc. but if that doesn't matter to you at all, well, then there's really not much to argue about here.
 
Oh No. Are we to see a return of the famous Austin riots that forced all the evil white people to move to the suburbs? Are those evil white people coming back again to steal babies and houses from the poor?
pukey.gif
 
If there was suddenly "affordable" housing for sale in and around downtown, what's to stop wealthy speculators from snapping it up and flipping it at market value?

Is there some propsed criteria for selection? "Since you make $30,000 per year, we'll set you up in a 2 bed condo at the Nokonah."
 
Most affordable housing comes with provisions that the people to whom the house is sold have to be within a certain income range and that relationship would have to be true for some number of years before the house can be sold at market rate.
 
Airport:

I didn't miss the point of the article. I was using the article as a springboard to a larger social issue.

But to your point, answer me this:

Do you think the Austin community as a whole will be better if East Side is gentrified into an upper middle class area.....or remains as a run-down, low income area with communal settings like 15th and Comal?

Personally, I think the former is much better for society as a whole. I don't really think there is a valid counterpoint, other than some Leftist, socialistic rhetoric.
 
First of all, I'm not advocating that the government do anything. I'm simply saying:1) Cid Galindo appears to be behaving like a hypocrite; and 2) gentrification can be a destructive force for individuals and the community, and gentrifiers should take personal moral stock of the potential for harm and not hide behind excuses like "this is simply what the market dictates." I just want to see personal responsibility for the moral consequences of decisions.

Now, whether I think one hypothetical city is "better" than another b/c one city's inner loop is diverse while another's is 100% yuppie, then yes, I would prefer to live in the first city.

However, the greater point is that I wish people would have some respect for the people and communities that they are displacing. It's isn't always a "ghetto" getting eviscerated. Look at neighborhoods like Bouldin, Clarksville, Our Lady of Guadalupe, or Travis Heights. They used to be diverse and affordable to people from all walks of life. No longer. Austin seems shittier for the change.
 
That is a very well constructed rebuttal 7-Iron. And your use of the word "synergy" really works well with the rest of your argument. Thanks for that intellectual contribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

Back
Top