I think this seems reasonable. Certainly worth putting it forward for a vote.
2 Likes
It is a good approach and important message.
Before putting to a vote, I ask you consider deleting âall ofâ from the end of the last sentence. It was not in the prior draft. For three reasons:
(1) âOur neighborhoodsâ is the wording in the FAN vision statement. That wording does not preclude an âall ofâ interpretation, but by inserting those words it becomes the only interpretation.
(2) We are not a uniform, one-size-fitâs-all City. âAll ofâ and ânot inâ are at the end of the two extremes, some things work here, others there. It is when we try to force one on the other that we get a tilt - as shown by example on occupancy limits and yard parking.
(3) The ADU resolution shows the current political winds do not support âall ofâ, and a group that tries to find the middle common ground will be seen as more reasonable + realistic. Personally I do not think quadplexes in River Place are required to be compact and connected, their residents and their Council representative probably agree.
I voted against a resolution last time as the word âinsistâ was included, and do not think FAN has the right to insist public officials do anything. I understand and respect the passion that led to that choice of words and those here, and will not do the same here, but may abstain.
Perhaps there could be some language that refers to âbaseâ or âdefaultâ zoning allowing for this full diversity of housing types?
@Phil_Wiley, Iâm ok with your suggestion. So that leaves us with:
The City of Austin should allow a broader mix of housing types within our neighborhoods to increase the economic and demographic diversity of those who are able to live in our city. This mix of housing types would include smaller lots, row-houses, triplexes, and quadplexes. This doesnât remove the option of detached single family homes; rather it increases the opportunities for more efficient use of very limited land resources. These additional types of housing will be less expensive than new large detached single family homes. As part of CodeNEXT, the city should decrease the minimum lot size for single family housing and provide opportunities for the construction of row-houses, triplexes, and quadplexes in our neighborhoods.
1 Like
Thank you @rickyhennessy, @swren, Now that it is not âallâ can we consider adding Co-opâs? An argument can be made it is more of a use than a form, but it goes beyond form, it may be one of our strongest economic diversity options, and would be a supportive statement for many in our base.
In the Mayorâs State of the City address he applauded the groundbreaking of the Independent, which is another point tower planned for downtown. With a strategic focus on affordability and mobility it may have been more related to the later, but not exclusively, so another day we should think about how to support that message across the downtown grid, and perhaps beyond. I think there may be room for them in select locations in my neighborhood (there are already several nearby), and perhaps it is a way to reach area density goals without immediately affecting most blocks in the neighborhood. The Mayor asked us to think BIG!, and in an iterative way that all work together to reach common goals.
How about saying:
- "would provide more opportunities for the construction ofâŚ
- âthis mix of housing types should include options such as row-houses, triplexes, and quadplexes.â
And bonus:
- Any efforts to diversify the housing stock should be made equitably across all of Austin.
1 Like
Great suggestions @NatalieGauldin! I will post your proposals as edits to the draft text which has been proposed for our member group to vote on, attached below.
@rickyhennessy, as you can see from our local proposition, there is plenty of room for me as delegate voting for JHCC to approve whatever you decide on, if my member group supports a broader approach. Thank you for your leadership!
Affordability
Ballot item (3)
Support or oppose increased affordable housing options within JHCC boundaries, including: co-opâs, apartments, condominiums, quadplexes, triplexes, row-houses, decreased minimum lot size, and increased maximum occupancy limits.
Support <-> Oppose <-> Abstain
Alright, updated resolution w/ Natalieâs suggestions. Unless anybody has any suggestions, Iâd like to propose this for a vote.
The City of Austin should allow a broader mix of housing types within our neighborhoods to increase the economic and demographic diversity of those who are able to live in our city. This mix of housing types should include options such as row-houses, triplexes, and quadplexes. This doesnât remove the option of detached single family homes; rather it increases the opportunities for more efficient use of very limited land resources. These additional types of housing will be less expensive than new large detached single family homes. As part of CodeNEXT, the city should decrease the minimum lot size for single family housing and provide more opportunities for the construction of row-houses, triplexes, and quadplexes in our neighborhoods.
Very well thought out & written. Ready to open the polling station whenever you all are.
All (and particulaly @rickyhennessy), itâs my fault that no action has taken place on this proposed resolution. I had promised Ricky that Iâd tweak the language a bit. Better late than never, as the issue in the resolution is still core to the FAN vision. Here is a proposed elaboration:
FAN stands for an inclusive Austin that welcomes people of all socioeconomic backgrounds throughout the city. When our policies limit the amount and diversity of housing, we effectively segregate our communities, preventing all but the privileged few from living in the highest-demand neighborhoods. We strive for diversity to be a defining character common to all our neighborhoods.
We support a broader mix of housing types, throughout the city, to increase the socioeconomic diversity of our neighborhoods. In addition to detached single family homes, the mix of housing types should include options such as row-houses, triplexes, quadplexes, and âtiny homesâ,
Permitting these housing types would increase opportunities for more efficient use of very limited land resources, help to address supply-demand imbalances, enable more people to live in close proximity to jobs, shopping, and services, and reduce combined housing, transportation, and utility costs, bringing us closer to fulfilling the Imagine Austin planâs vision of complete communities, as reflected in the indicators listed on pages 225-226 of the plan.
We call upon city leaders to allow for this housing diversity by decreasing minimum lot sizes and providing more opportunities for the construction of row-houses, triplexes, quadplexes, and âtiny homesâ in our neighborhoods.
Thoughts?
1 Like
I think thatâs great and includes everything that Iâd like to see - smaller lots, row houses, triplexes, and 4-plexes. Should we include something about how itâs permitted for zoning or is that too much into the weeds and that would change anyways depending on what the new land development code looks like?
1 Like
Thanks to the team for further refinements on the wording. JHCC has already approved in principle, by vote, and will enthusiastically support this draft!
1 Like
Hi All,
Sorry I havenât been involved the past two months. The new job has kept me busy and involved a lot of traveling. Also, Iâm getting married in just under two weeks, so all of the planning has taken up any free time Iâve had.
@roger, thanks for helping out with the wording. It looks great to me and itâs something Iâd love to support. Iâll go ahead and sponsor this resolution for a vote.
1 Like
All, this resolution is scheduled for a vote next week. Voting will begin Wednesday, May 4th. Please see the updated Vote page for the final resolution language and details. Members will receive an email next week with instructions on how to vote securely.
Congrats on the upcoming nuptials, @rickyhennessy!
According to Census data for Austin, 90% of missing middle housing and 95% of larger units are rentals. This compares to single family homes â over 80 % of those are owner occupied. Only owner occupied properties build wealth for the people living in them. Our goal should be to help more people in Austin become homeowners. The purpose of the land development code rewrite is not to put wealth into the pockets of the development and real estate industry, but that is exactly what new missing middle housing will do. A variety of housing types is a good idea in new subdivisions, but changing development standards in established neighborhoods will simply encourage demolitions, redevelopment, and higher housing prices.
Why should we help more people become homeowners? I think we should focus on providing affordable housing for everyone who wants it.
I know plenty of people who have lost money on housing. My parents bought a house in Dallas and ended up paying it off. It was worth less than when they purchased it so it essentially was a savings account with a negative interest rate.
Restricting the amount of housing in Austin so that existing homes increase in value, does build wealth. But Iâm not interested in advocating for policies that build wealth on the backs of renters.
Wow. Itâs hard to imagine something I disagree with more intensely than your entire post.
I believe you meant May 4th!
2 Likes
Doh! Thanks, Alysha. Corrected.
Apologies if this has been addressed⌠Iâve looked over this discussion but there is much to it.
Iâm in favor of density and inclusiveness, but are there any supporters of âstealth dormsâ who actually live near one?