AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by futures

Lol..helps push development on the east side? What help is needed? That has to be one of the hottest redevelopment areas in the country.

Depends on which part of the East Side we're talking about. As far as I know, this parcel and the surrounding area isn't quite burning up the charts yet. In the Statesman article the developer makes a good point -- the city's definitely moving in that direction but not there yet, and it's a good time to start planting amenities

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

the city's definitely moving in that direction but not there yet, and it's a good time to start planting amenities

Except the city will no longer be moving in that direction.

If you look at a map, Decker Lake itself is part of the city, but most of the land around it is unincorporated.

Land which now, thanks to the legislature, will never be part of the city.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/Austi...7Juris-map.pdf

How much should the city contribute to a large development there, if it will never realize any tax benefits from it (and in fact, it may siphon off hotel, sales, and alcohol taxes from the city).

[drummer]

Originally Posted by starboy92

Lady Bird Johnson would be rolling in her grave if a stadium were to be built next to the river. the traffic would be a nightmare

Look at the Sports in Austin thread for that discussion. This area handles significantly more people for ACL and other major events. MLS games are fewer and mostly on weekends, etc., etc. It's not going to be as bad as the opposition is saying... It won't be a walk in the park (though it could be), but hey, another reason for better mass transit. "Traffic" is a really bad reason to not have legitimate developments in our downtown area. The downtown area *should* be *the* place to go.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Land which now, thanks to the legislature, will never be part of the city.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/Austi...7Juris-map.pdf

You’ll have to explain that part. Not sure I’m picking it up from your map.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

You’ll have to explain that part. Not sure I’m picking it up from your map.

The legislature changed the annexation rules. All that blue area would eventually become Austin before. Now it will only become part of Austin when people decide they don't want a free ride.

[starboy92]

Originally Posted by drummer

Look at the Sports in Austin thread for that discussion. This area handles significantly more people for ACL and other major events. MLS games are fewer and mostly on weekends, etc., etc. It's not going to be as bad as the opposition is saying... It won't be a walk in the park (though it could be), but hey, another reason for better mass transit. "Traffic" is a really bad reason to not have legitimate developments in our downtown area. The downtown area *should* be *the* place to go.

I dont know the Idea just sounds like urbanism 20 years ago. I prefer the Unique rout and design. I mean it looks like Enchanted Rock cant do something like that downtown.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by starboy92

I dont know the Idea just sounds like urbanism 20 years ago. I prefer the Unique rout and design. I mean it looks like Enchanted Rock cant do something like that downtown.

Oh, I think you're looking at the design that planned for the Expo center site. That proposal is not at all being considered for downtown, but rather by Decker Lake.

[corvairkeith]

Originally Posted by futures

Lol..helps push development on the east side? What help is needed? That has to be one of the hottest redevelopment areas in the country.

Maybe something will finally happen with this deserted stripmall at the Northeast corner of 969 and 183.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The legislature changed the annexation rules. All that blue area would eventually become Austin before. Now it will only become part of Austin when people decide they don't want a free ride.

That new anti-annexation law isn't getting the attention it deserves for some reason. But yeah, Texas cities can no longer grow and capture tax base by using annexation as in the past. The chance of cities getting choked off by suburbs is a real threat now.

[KevinFromTexas]

The flip side of that is that the suburbs can't expand either. They'll have to densify right along with the cities if they want to grow their tax base and support their population growth.

[drummer]

Can someone explain briefly the new annexation laws of which you guys speak? Pretend that I haven't read up on any of it at all.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by drummer

Can someone explain briefly the new annexation laws of which you guys speak? Pretend that I haven't read up on any of it at all.

Basically the city cannot annex an area unless a majority of the residents vote for it. Which residents won't ever do, because it means higher taxes, water rates, and trash collection rates. Passed in the special session.

Here is an article about it -
http://www.statesman.com/news/state-...GHhGMgihjgOWL/

And the full text if you want to try to decipher it -
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB6/2017/X1

A couple of things about it.

First, if there was an existing annexation agreement (such as with Riverplace), that area can still be annexed without a vote. Typically these agreements happened years before "full" annexation -- the city would conduct the necessary hearings and annex the commercial properties immediately, and put off full annexation for X number of years in exchange for the agreements. So there may be a few more of those agreements already in place but not fully executed.

Second, I'm not sure if the limited-purpose annexation of commercial properties is subject to the vote. So I think the city might be able to continue annexing commercial properties. That's not where the big money is, of course -- it's all the single family homes. And it's not just the property tax revenue, the water and trash are also a big part of the money the city makes of annexing areas.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hookem

Basically the city cannot annex an area unless a majority of the residents vote for it. Which residents won't ever do, because it means higher taxes, water rates, and trash collection rates. Passed in the special session.

An important addendum to this. The expectation is that therefore all the unincorporated area of the counties will now continue to get many services from the counties. Roads. Parks. Public safety (sheriff). In the future, potentially transit.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...-transit-game/

Services which _city_ residents pay for (in their county taxes). There's no special taxing district for roads. Or Parks. Or the county sheriff (unlike the emergency services districts that provide fire protection).

Originally Posted by hookem

Second, I'm not sure if the limited-purpose annexation of commercial properties is subject to the vote. So I think the city might be able to continue annexing commercial properties. That's not where the big money is, of course -- it's all the single family homes. And it's not just the property tax revenue, the water and trash are also a big part of the money the city makes of annexing areas.

I think you're confusing limited purpose annexation with annexation of commercial property. They're orthogonal. You can limited-purposes annex residential, or full-purpose annex commercial properties.


My understanding is that annexation a commercial tract would fall under the section of a population of less than 200, which requires a petition of the _owners_ of the land.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hookem

And the full text if you want to try to decipher it -
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB6/2017/X1

It's even worse than I realized. Check out the Austin-bashing, the special call out of the Travis County MUDs.

As I read it, annexing any area of any Travis County MUDs requires approval from the residents of _all_ MUDs. Not just those residents being annexed.


So much for "the will of the voters". 100% of those being annexed could vote in favor of it, and be vetoed.

[ATXboom]

IF annexation is much much harder... do we think this policy will drive increased density?? If so, I can't imagine that was the intent of the policy creators.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

IF annexation is much much harder... do we think this policy will drive increased density?? If so, I can't imagine that was the intent of the policy creators.

No, it will lead to safety outside the city from taxes while reaping the benefits of the cities infrastructure and spending. It's clearly designed to put pressure on cities to keep taxes low so as not to encourage a flight to "safety" just outside the city limits as the cities will be completely powerless to tax subdivisions outside of it's limits even when unincorporated, and even when city residents are the sole payers of taxes that benefit county programs.

It effectively allows unincorporated areas to remain unincorporated permanently even when they are effectively part of a city.

The "nightmare" scenario for a city is Detroit. I don't want to get into too much politics here, but Detroit got squeezed by cheaper lower-tax suburbs and lots of their companies and citizens moved just outside of the city effectively destroying the cities tax base while the general population of the area continued to grow. I don't think Austin has nearly the incentive tax wise for people to move out of the city to avoid what are relatively low taxes, but it does effectively blunt a cities ability to opt into higher taxes for benefits without considering a flight of high income residents to unincorporated areas to avoid paying for services they may benefit from.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

IF annexation is much much harder... do we think this policy will drive increased density?? If so, I can't imagine that was the intent of the policy creators.

If anything, I think it will do the reverse, drive development to unincorporated areas.

Given an equivalent house in two locations, why would you buy a house in the city instead of in the county?

The later guarantees that your bills will be subsidized "forever".

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by Novacek

If anything, I think it will do the reverse, drive development to unincorporated areas.

Given an equivalent house in two locations, why would you buy a house in the city instead of in the county?

The later guarantees that your bills will be subsidized "forever".

The upside to my above doomsday scenario is that Austin has horrendous traffic and if anything the traffic is working to make living central more and more desirable and we (luckily) have high paying jobs to support people paying more and more money for them.

So, the risk to Austin is much more that middle-income earners will flee increasingly to the burbs *and* lead to the development of unincorporated areas. Unincorporated parts of counties have long been where lower-income housing like trailers have popped up in central texas, but pressure to avoid taxes may wind up squeezing lower-income people out of a drive-able distance from Austin and we may wind up with an issue where Urban poor, suburban poor and rural-poor citizens around major cities get squeezed in all directions and don't have anywhere to go but elsewhere.

Which will make urban planning for low-income earners all the more important, because obviously there will be *no* planning for those harmed by economic growth in unincorporated areas because there is no local government beyond the county.

[hookem]

It may also have the effect of driving up county taxes, as the unincorporated areas grow and get built out, but the city doesn't take over the roads and public safety... leaving it to the county forever. Which is a double whammy for those of us living in the city, who have to pay the county taxes too...

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...nnexation-law/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hookem

It may also have the effect of driving up county taxes, as the unincorporated areas grow and get built out, but the city doesn't take over the roads and public safety... leaving it to the county forever. Which is a double whammy for those of us living in the city, who have to pay the county taxes too...

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...nnexation-law/

unless of course we get the _triple_ whammy, of the county doesn't raise taxes, but wants transfer payments directly from the city to pay for services to county residents (Eckhardt in that article).