Let's push for a big housing bond in 2018

What about the following instead then? Putting that all criteria needs to be included otherwise we’d oppose wouldn’t leave any flexibility if something minor wasn’t included but everything else achieved. But maybe the sentence below would work since it doesn’t leave flexibility for this one goal of increasing supply?

“For bond money to be the most effective Friends of Austin Neighborhoods only supports the bond if there is also a substantial increase in market rate housing legalized in central Austin neighborhoods, especially in high-opportunity areas, before or at the same time as the bond approval process.”

No contingencies. This isn’t a bargaining table – we’re saying what we want, which is more housing of all kinds in all places any and every way we can get it. We can add something like “while FAN believes the most effective and efficient way to achieve housing affordability in Austin is to add as much market-rate housing as possible, we also support using public money to build housing” at the beginning.

I would support a version that had Pete’s language but not otherwise.

Josiah’s statement “more housing no matter how it comes” doesn’t match some outcomes I see as likely from the current version of the language. When the language is (paraphrased), “we prefer you only take non-MF-zoned-or-zoneable land”, you leave open the likely outcome that they’ll do it, and all you said was that you PREFERRED they not.

In fact, the path of least resistance is obviously to grab MF-zoned or MF-zoneable land on the outskirts of the city. It’s VERY likely that if you dump $300M in a bond, most of it would be used in that way. And that doesn’t lead to an increase in supply (if you presume the market could/would build on that land otherwise).

The system would declare Pete’s ‘legalized’ market rate housing condition was achieved if CodeNEXT is approved.

This string is in Hercules Hydra territory. I question whether many are still chasing the same thing, which is probably part of why it’s so hard. Another part is detailed ‘splits’ are not at all binding, so maybe a $300 blank check is a more accurate portrayal?

To be clear, we are unlikely to align around one vision of what should be spent where, but appear to have a lot of monentum for wanting to help those in Austin struggling to secure affordable (or any) housing. I am fine supporting a $300M+ bond to try and right this ship, and hope for the chance to support a well thought out multi $B transit bond in 2020. It would be nice for all if school funding was fixed in the interim…

Updated Language:

FAN Calls for $300m Housing Bond in 2018

Austin is in a housing crisis. To truly be an inclusive city, we need to make sure we build enough housing so that longtime residents and newcomers alike have a place to live. That means changing the zoning to allow as much housing as possible to be built. But the market won’t build enough on its own; in addition to upzoning, we need public investment to ensure homes for people from all income levels. In particular, we call for $300m in bond money in 2018 for building new public multifamily housing in Central Austin locations not otherwise entitled for multifamily housing

Should be sending out ballots tonight

“locations not otherwise entitled for multifamily housing”

What does this mean? Bond money should only be used on sites that aren’t currently zoned for MF?

That’s the intent, yes: focus the money on places where it directly adds supply and is least likely to crowd out supply that private builders could realistically provide.

So would this put the onus on affordable housing providers to get the property rezoned?

It seems overly perscriptive to say the money should only be used on property that is currently not MF zoned.

Sorry to come late to the table, but I’m a little puzzled why we are limiting the $ to NOT repairs. Many in my neighborhood could stay in their current homes with some help for repairs, but otherwise may have to sell out.
Is the idea that new “affordable” housing will be cheaper in the long run because it adds new housing and increases supply? If others have to sell their old houses/units it seems to me that the new houses/units are not really increasing supply, just moving people around (and possibly away from their neighbors/community.) What am I missing?