Dude. Take your own damn advice.

You admit that you wouldn't be happy about a neighbor paying less than you. Sounds like you'd be pissed off in that case. How else would one interpret it?

I read your post. I didn't quite understand what you were really suggesting that. Thus the clear question about subpar housing and comment.

My statement about people getting pissed off about helping others was not directly about you. It was a general statement. I don't understand why some people have such an issue with others getting affordable housing, student loan forgiveness, etc.

To answer your question. The build out of the affordable units is likely no different than "regular" units in the same building.

Thank you and Peace .

Why did my post get deleted?

One of the mods in here is pretty active about "political" posts but they tend to cut pretty heavily one-way. Ive seen entire pages of discussion nuked from orbit before.

They still haven't posted the fully amended council ordinance. However, the transcript is posted and it sounds like the location off Lamar is actually a redevelopment/densification of the existing Mary Lee Foundation at Lamar Square (just south of Lamar Union/Alamo Drafthouse). So yeah, not at all in the "boonies" or "outskirts"

https://services.austintexas.gov/edi....cfm?id=398745

The affordable housing on Lamar Square really could be *significantly* denser than it is now. Of course, you would need a place for folks who are being dispalced to be but they are very 1980s quadplex apartments and I think it could be turned into a really nice VMU space with ground floor retail - especially if it got paired with the Tatsuya/furniture store/saxon pub space

This is where many people park who are going to Ramen Tatsu-Ya. The existing buildings look to be some of the last "affordable" housing left in that part town. Will they really permit significant densification (ie. height) at this location? How many affordable units are being considered?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ma...!4d-97.7638962

edit: nevermind

Much of the housing in the area is section 8. Adding denser section 8 housing or integrating it into denser developments should be a goal.

This recently happened further down Lamar off Bluebonnet just west of Lamar.

Again, it’s like right next to Lamar Union which is way bigger, denser and taller than what’s currently there. And LU predates affordability unlocked and the compatibility reforms they just passed (imperfect as they might be).

Zoning most likely isn’t the limiting factor, it’s funding. Which is why it works so well with funding from the statesman project.

I didn't realize they were planning to target South Lamar for it. I thought it was just a slush fund for general funding for affordable housing somewhere else like they usually do.

The Lamar Square site is incredibly large. 8.5 acres are owned by the Mary Lee Foundation when including the inner drive itself. The site has some serious potential and I'd love to see that unlocked by the funding from Statesman PUD.

Sounds like a solid win-win

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...d-in-approval/

Monitor saying new height is up to ‘725.

To be more clear, they are allowing up to '725 now, from the previous '525. That doesn't necessarily mean the developer will build it that tall.

Agreed. I'm definitely team money-for-housing-to-be-named-later. Money in the bank gives you the most flex, and the most leverage. I'd rather have that than have to finagle a handful of units per development, or per tower, or whatever.

All I want for Christmas is a 700 footer on the Statesman site.

I seriously doubt they got a 725' zoning if they aren't planning on going higher than 525

Per the article linked above, it appears there was special zoning permission just passed to allow up to 725 feet. Given the recent height increases of a lot of projects, I don't think its a stretch that there could be one on this massive project.

700' south of the river would be wild.

The Statesman PUD isn't even the whole shebang . . . all of those TXDOT lowrises and parking lots will go away eventually, too. If the Statesman beats '700, I'd bet that there's opportunity for more on that side of the river as the rest of it gets built out.

...and that is precisely what I'm hoping for, 700 footer or not.

On Texas Independence Day, hopefully it's a sign of doing some unique and excellent on the Statesman Site, and getting it started ASAP.

file this under: Should have seen this coming

suite was filed today by, among others, SOS and some local twits...including former Senator Barrientos, and Ora Houston, to stop the TIRZ use for this area.

As much as I hate to say it, the plaintiffs have a point. I wish they would just the let market handle this. Now this project will be delayed another 5-10 years.

austin is a failed city

No more than anywhere else in America. At least we actually build things, even if it takes too long and costs too much. Some cities don't check the first box.

They do? What’s their point?

They claim that a TIRZ can only be used for blight, which is flat out false under Texas law.

the NIMBYs and conservatives in this city are actively making it worse. austin would be a world class city if it was in another state and people didn't have some weird vendetta against the "liberals".

Actually its those darn old school Liberals that have kept some sense of "place" in Austin and not just let developers mow under the city. Sooooo yell at that! LOL! This project will happen. It is healthy to make sure there are checks on development. It has kept as more unique mix of textures that other cites our size have lost. "World class" is not an about size.

i've never thought the chances of this project happening were over 50%

oh yea they've done a great job! :rolleyes:

I'd be more sympathetic here if the land in question was a cherished landmark, or unsullied parkland or . . . anything of higher value. Instead, it's an empty warehouse, surrounded by underutilized state gov offices. Helluva hill to die on if you're an old school liberal. What are you protecting, specifically? It can't be "the process," because let's be honest, the City of Austin process is already a dirge.

The State statute specifically says something to the effect that the purpose of a TIRZ is to mitigate blight. The TIRZ plan needs to cite the blighting influence of an abandoned newspaper plant on the waterfront, but it does not require proof of blight. That is up to the judgement of the policy makers that approve the TIRZ plan. Blight is subjective. Some might call it 'character' or 'texture'.

No, it doesn't.

The word "blight" doesn't even appear in 311.005


https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...11.htm#311.005

I believe the city has cited reasons (B) and (C) (though they only need 1, it's an OR)

(B) the predominance of defective or inadequate sidewalk or street layout;

(C) faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;



(a-1) is also rather interesting, and it seems like the TIRZ could qualify on that basis as well, but I don't think the city cited it.

" Notwithstanding Subsection (a), if the proposed project plan for a potential zone includes the use of land in the zone in connection with the operation of an existing or proposed regional commuter or mass transit rail system, or for a structure or facility that is necessary, useful, or beneficial to such a regional rail system, the governing body of a municipality may designate an area as a reinvestment zone."

I admire you're willingness to use the word "specifically" and the term "something to the effect" so close to each other in a single sentence.

That's what I sometimes always say.

HUH. I could have sworn the statute used the actual term 'blight' because I always thought it was an antiquated and loaded term. But the conditions described do add up to blight:

(1) substantially arrest or impair the sound growth of the municipality or county designating the zone, retard the provision of housing accommodations, or constitute an economic or social liability and be a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use because of the presence of:

(A) a substantial number of substandard, slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;

ETC.

There's an ongoing homeless encampment on the lake side of the property as well.

Again, (A) is just one of the options (all of A-I is joined with the OR on H).

So yes, you can do a TIRZ for blight.
Or you can do a TIRZ for a street grid.
Or you can do a TIRZ for transit (a-1).

Blight is not a requirement.

Believe me, I'm not supporting or defending their argument, but I have learned not to try to predict the outcome of their lawsuits no matter how preposterous they often seem. They probably lose more than they win, but when they do win, it does significant damage. It all comes down to the judge and how well the city attorney defends the City's position.

Austin Monitor coverage:

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...tatesman-site/

Towers:

https://austin.towers.net/the-states...ake-it-taller/

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the Texas courts have gone out of their way to screw Austin. Just emphasizing that the law as written (and intended) certainly supports Austin's case.

Agreed. I'm an attorney, and while I don't really have expertise in this area to say whether this case favors Austin or the state, I will say that Texas state courts give much less reliable rulings in comparison to federal courts (particularly the federal courts in the Austin area, which generally have pretty good judges).

While I can expect a federal court to usually come to the right legal conclusion, it's much more difficult to say that about Travis Cty courts -- especially when there's the possibility you can be assigned someone like Madeleine Connor who is a true wild card.

Very unfortunate ruling.

Judge tosses Austin's plan to redirect property taxes to development along Lady Bird Lake

I'm not really worried about this. Nothing was going to happen on the site anytime soon due to interest rates and and financing not happening for big projects. At least the zoning for 600' towers is in place for the next boom.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...gn=abj-partner

Yay for letting people back in the Statesman shell. Boo for Beyond Van Gogh. Total waste of money and time.

The Beyond experiences are enjoyable where has moving art imagery unlike the last one at COTA which had just still images. This Statesman location is a great place to take a date to where afterwards watch the bats fly out.