Seems like the answer is no. A growing city needs 1) housing and 2) public transit. Unfortunately NIMBYs: "The city is trying to enact a change to its zoning code to make it easier to increase density, but residents sued; the case is still making its way through the court."
This sentence from the article seems telling as well - "Billions of dollars are being spent expanding public transit and widening a major thoroughfare." The public transit is good, but if a city continues to prioritize car infrastructure traffic will not improve.
History suggests the culprit is capitalism, not NIMBYism.
Before capitalism, peasants were unlikely to ever face homelessness, even in the span of many generations. Capitalism forced peasants off their land into cities for jobs on which they would have to depend, and this problem has never been solved. It is really incredulous to speak of it like some ornery homeowners started it.
Of course, anecdotal evidence of capitalistic societies housing its population are just that. Political economies have waxed and wained, clashing and falling, since the beginning of history. But, the problem of mass homelessness of working populations did not exist prior to capitalism, and it has become even more pronounced post-industrial revolution, and proportionally more so in the most capitalist societies.
Rent-seeking is fundamentally inhumane, but even if we were to accept the effort to blame NIMBYism, we would still be grappling with the contradiction between capitalism and the possibility of a democratic society insofar as those without a home cannot vote or reasonably be expected to make voting a priority. (even if voting were a path for political change in our society, and there is ample evidence that suggests it isn’t)
If we are in fact as modern of a society as we’d like to believe, we would have learned a thing or two about these matters by now, and it’s not clear that we have.
Huh? Peasants were extremely resistant to being forced into the factories. The history on this is consistent worldwide. And they faced a lot more detriments in factory labor, including famine and starvation.
Abuse by feudal lords who essentially owned their lives as well.
Where does this romantic idea of poor but free but noble peasants come from? That's not how it worked.
Capitalism has it's problems, no argument, but the potential freedom it provided was much better for the average peasant then what was going on before.
> Where does this romantic idea of poor but free but noble peasants come from?
It comes from people promoting socialism and communism. They need to lie to justify an oppressive system that only develops through force. That's way you have talk of communist and socialist revolutions - they don't happen on their own because they require the creation of massive bureaucracies that have a monopoly on the use of violence.
No one ever talks about a "capitalist revolution", because capitalism evolves organically, as free men and women voluntarily trade goods and services.
Sure capitalism has plenty of issues, but thus far it's the least worst system out there.
The existing rail infra was fucked over by NIMBYs before it even got started, and all future efforts related to public transit get screwed over as well.
A ton of money was dumped into Mopac/Loop 1 and so much of it ended up in walls to cut the sound down in high-value residential areas instead of improving congestion areas.
A large portion of real estate/housing is being purchased by investors tossing money way over asking prices, driving up the local cost. Housing in the area has now raised by ~2X in most parts of the city and it's outskirts. I was on my way towards being able to purchase a house in 2020 before the pandemic struck, then with the economic downturn a massive influx of outside investors took the market by storm. Between mid-2020 and now the target area I've been keeping an eye on went from a median home value of $275k to $485k. Many are now being relisted for rent and the rental market is rising fast as well.
I think we're already seeing the same gentrification/cost of living rise, and it's only the beginning.
Not good either. The city isn't putting enough effort into supporting these individuals, and their choice of shelter locations is mindbogglingly in a lot of cases, but perhaps that's more of a "which came first" thing.
There are a few great programs that I think have a lot of potential (Community First Village, The Other Ones Foundation, House the Homeless), but there's a lot of NIMBY for it.
On top of that, there's a lot of trash and messy camps in places that don't help the fight. The underpasses around here got real bad for a year or two which caused a recent vote on a camping ban that effectively made their encampments illegal. It doesn't solve the problem and only serves to keep these people in danger and without a solid place to rebuild their lives, but when using the underpasses becomes dangerous due to the trash lying around and ending up in the turn-arounds it's a hard thing to live with.
Community First Village and Other Ones Foundation does a lot to help by providing places for these individuals to rebuild their lives, but the shitty wages and rising housing costs make it hard too.
To clmp4j, the parent's response is why Austin will be SF 2.0
Austin in early 2019 was the kind of place you could walk down the street with little kids at 1st and the river at midnight and feel safe. It was beautiful and open and friendly, and started becoming much worse even prior to Covid. Since then violent crime has skyrocketed (despite actually going down in much larger metros like DFW and Houston) and homelessness is out of control because the Mayor made it illegal to enforce the existing ban on encampments.
And yet, despite everything getting worse in Austin relative to Houston or Dallas, the moneyed class in Austin will act like their boutique issues are the reason Austin isn't better. The people that move there have amazing cognitive dissonance: they're political refugees who want to install the existing regime in their new "home."
> Seems like the answer is no. A growing city needs 1) housing and 2) public transit.
And it has housing and will build much more. And growing cities do not need public transit. Please see: Houston, Atlanta.
Houston makes the Bay Area look quaint. It is a legitimate megacity and has far fewer impediments to growth than the Bay Area.
But on that note, Austin will not escape the fate of San Francisco because the people whose mentality has serially ruined SF, Chicago, NY, Portland will continue to move there and inflict their failed ideas on that city. I lived in downtown Austin for 10 years and was a staple member of the startup scene back when the whole community could fit in the top of Buffalo Billiards. More fun, I was a staple member of the downtown bar scene for that period, and if you were there any appreciable time, there's about a 50/50 you met me.
I left in early 2021 after being physically assaulted on 3 occasions by homeless people (once by 4 at once). There's over 2500 homeless people downtown because of the Mayor and DA. I loved that city. It was the only city I ever really considered home, and it decided to end itself.
Long-time resident here -- right on the money. While likely not purposeful, Adler's use of the past tense 'made' (the city so attractive) speaks volumes to the negative trends in accessibility, affordability, livability, and viability that Austin has experienced over the last decade or more. This being a weird, artsy, and affordable place to live is a meme that might have been true at one time but is fading quickly into the past, and increasingly so, given the current 'Austin is cool' cultural zeitgeist. Sadly, outside public awareness of this has not caught up and the political will for meaningful change toward sustainable growth ends at someone's $1.2mil front lawn or the amount owed on their property tax bill.
I fear this place is heading more in the direction of LA than SF -- less earthquakes and beaches; yet all the inequality, homelessness, soul-crushing driving commutes, expensive rents, drought, vapid personalities, celebrity, traffic, tech/crypto bros, etc. But, hey, your income taxes will be a little lower! You can spend that win-fall on power generation to heat/cool your home and boil water when the Texas power grid inevitably fails again.
The other sentence you called out, likely refers to the I35 expansion project proposal that is under the authority of state TXDOT officials, who can, and I'd expect will, flout the wishes of the Austin community [0]. Local organizations have developed several potential alternatives which aim to increase affordability, livability, and economic opportunities within the area but these have seemly fallen on deaf ears at the State level [1].
Wouldn't property taxes go up a lot to match property price increases - I imagine that would be bad for Austin property owners, unlike SF where property owners are protected by Proposition 13.
When the thing you want to fund is infrastructure, a huge portion of the cost is the real estate, which has to be reimbursed at market rates, so the projects become more expensive as well, even if at a slightly slower rate.
However, big projects have to be justified in multiple ways: environmental impact statements and cost/ benefit analysis are two that are almost universally required throughout the US. Especially in expensive NIMBY cities, a sudden spike in costs (or any other significant change) can be a political tool for opponents to claim those justifications are no longer valid, as a way to halt or delay.
And this being government, there's a good chance that the multi-year planning, approval, and funding process assumed a lower rate of inflation, and now some projects may simply not have enough money and have to start the process over.
I think Austin has a decent chance.
1) No prop 13 which keeps locks California property taxes at purchase price. It means long-term residents pay very little tax on very expensive property, so are unwillingly to sell (better to cash out with a refi and let the property keep appreciating, which creating real estate scarcity, pushing up prices, etc...
2) Austinites are well aware of the failings of California cities such, and fearful of making the same mistakes. Even the left leaning voters that flee to Austin from deep blue cities are by and large not the same group of voters that push progressive policies. They're well-off tech bro liberals that want higher quality of life, lower crime, and lower taxes.
26 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 76.6 ms ] threadThis sentence from the article seems telling as well - "Billions of dollars are being spent expanding public transit and widening a major thoroughfare." The public transit is good, but if a city continues to prioritize car infrastructure traffic will not improve.
Before capitalism, peasants were unlikely to ever face homelessness, even in the span of many generations. Capitalism forced peasants off their land into cities for jobs on which they would have to depend, and this problem has never been solved. It is really incredulous to speak of it like some ornery homeowners started it.
Of course, anecdotal evidence of capitalistic societies housing its population are just that. Political economies have waxed and wained, clashing and falling, since the beginning of history. But, the problem of mass homelessness of working populations did not exist prior to capitalism, and it has become even more pronounced post-industrial revolution, and proportionally more so in the most capitalist societies.
Rent-seeking is fundamentally inhumane, but even if we were to accept the effort to blame NIMBYism, we would still be grappling with the contradiction between capitalism and the possibility of a democratic society insofar as those without a home cannot vote or reasonably be expected to make voting a priority. (even if voting were a path for political change in our society, and there is ample evidence that suggests it isn’t)
If we are in fact as modern of a society as we’d like to believe, we would have learned a thing or two about these matters by now, and it’s not clear that we have.
No one ever claimed that period was great, but you’re somehow arguing that the past for peasants was all roses when it wasn’t.
Where does this romantic idea of poor but free but noble peasants come from? That's not how it worked.
Capitalism has it's problems, no argument, but the potential freedom it provided was much better for the average peasant then what was going on before.
It comes from people promoting socialism and communism. They need to lie to justify an oppressive system that only develops through force. That's way you have talk of communist and socialist revolutions - they don't happen on their own because they require the creation of massive bureaucracies that have a monopoly on the use of violence.
No one ever talks about a "capitalist revolution", because capitalism evolves organically, as free men and women voluntarily trade goods and services.
Sure capitalism has plenty of issues, but thus far it's the least worst system out there.
The existing rail infra was fucked over by NIMBYs before it even got started, and all future efforts related to public transit get screwed over as well.
A ton of money was dumped into Mopac/Loop 1 and so much of it ended up in walls to cut the sound down in high-value residential areas instead of improving congestion areas.
A large portion of real estate/housing is being purchased by investors tossing money way over asking prices, driving up the local cost. Housing in the area has now raised by ~2X in most parts of the city and it's outskirts. I was on my way towards being able to purchase a house in 2020 before the pandemic struck, then with the economic downturn a massive influx of outside investors took the market by storm. Between mid-2020 and now the target area I've been keeping an eye on went from a median home value of $275k to $485k. Many are now being relisted for rent and the rental market is rising fast as well.
I think we're already seeing the same gentrification/cost of living rise, and it's only the beginning.
There are a few great programs that I think have a lot of potential (Community First Village, The Other Ones Foundation, House the Homeless), but there's a lot of NIMBY for it.
On top of that, there's a lot of trash and messy camps in places that don't help the fight. The underpasses around here got real bad for a year or two which caused a recent vote on a camping ban that effectively made their encampments illegal. It doesn't solve the problem and only serves to keep these people in danger and without a solid place to rebuild their lives, but when using the underpasses becomes dangerous due to the trash lying around and ending up in the turn-arounds it's a hard thing to live with.
Community First Village and Other Ones Foundation does a lot to help by providing places for these individuals to rebuild their lives, but the shitty wages and rising housing costs make it hard too.
Austin in early 2019 was the kind of place you could walk down the street with little kids at 1st and the river at midnight and feel safe. It was beautiful and open and friendly, and started becoming much worse even prior to Covid. Since then violent crime has skyrocketed (despite actually going down in much larger metros like DFW and Houston) and homelessness is out of control because the Mayor made it illegal to enforce the existing ban on encampments.
And yet, despite everything getting worse in Austin relative to Houston or Dallas, the moneyed class in Austin will act like their boutique issues are the reason Austin isn't better. The people that move there have amazing cognitive dissonance: they're political refugees who want to install the existing regime in their new "home."
And it has housing and will build much more. And growing cities do not need public transit. Please see: Houston, Atlanta.
Houston makes the Bay Area look quaint. It is a legitimate megacity and has far fewer impediments to growth than the Bay Area.
But on that note, Austin will not escape the fate of San Francisco because the people whose mentality has serially ruined SF, Chicago, NY, Portland will continue to move there and inflict their failed ideas on that city. I lived in downtown Austin for 10 years and was a staple member of the startup scene back when the whole community could fit in the top of Buffalo Billiards. More fun, I was a staple member of the downtown bar scene for that period, and if you were there any appreciable time, there's about a 50/50 you met me.
I left in early 2021 after being physically assaulted on 3 occasions by homeless people (once by 4 at once). There's over 2500 homeless people downtown because of the Mayor and DA. I loved that city. It was the only city I ever really considered home, and it decided to end itself.
I fear this place is heading more in the direction of LA than SF -- less earthquakes and beaches; yet all the inequality, homelessness, soul-crushing driving commutes, expensive rents, drought, vapid personalities, celebrity, traffic, tech/crypto bros, etc. But, hey, your income taxes will be a little lower! You can spend that win-fall on power generation to heat/cool your home and boil water when the Texas power grid inevitably fails again.
The other sentence you called out, likely refers to the I35 expansion project proposal that is under the authority of state TXDOT officials, who can, and I'd expect will, flout the wishes of the Austin community [0]. Local organizations have developed several potential alternatives which aim to increase affordability, livability, and economic opportunities within the area but these have seemly fallen on deaf ears at the State level [1].
[0] http://www.my35.org/capital-project-capital-express-central.... [1] https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-08-12/txdot-slams-br...
However, big projects have to be justified in multiple ways: environmental impact statements and cost/ benefit analysis are two that are almost universally required throughout the US. Especially in expensive NIMBY cities, a sudden spike in costs (or any other significant change) can be a political tool for opponents to claim those justifications are no longer valid, as a way to halt or delay.
And this being government, there's a good chance that the multi-year planning, approval, and funding process assumed a lower rate of inflation, and now some projects may simply not have enough money and have to start the process over.