What’s Up with the Push for Density?
Pushing more and more density is wearing thin…
No Single Family Home Left Alone
I recently spoke about HOME in Austin, TX. That HOME isn’t the “house you and I would refer to as our living place” but instead stands for the big, loud and proud sounding Home Options for Mobility and Equity. Gee whiz, I’m starting to think they’ve done run out of good reasons for using acronyms. Anyone on the ground in Austin is saying what needs to be said: this is crazy stuff. You get a policy in place to encourage luxury development while giving accolades to your fellow city council members and staff for being responsible for the environment and little guy. You know, the you and me in this fantasy experiment that has caught fire across the country. Maybe the idea is by saying it often enough, it will just “become true.”
Jeepers.
Showtime: City Council Meetings
Civics was not a subject taught when I was growing up and I highly doubt much of it is taught today. This makes city council meetings a bewildering array of performance art with legalese and a goofy and often awkward feeling of “who’s on first” as so-and-so is recognized and then this-gets-moved and this gets seconded etc. Lots of formality seems to be part of this show and you the citizen get to watch and participate under strict rules including no facial movements…that might be a bit of a long shot but no clapping, no cheering, no jeering…in short, no expression.
In May, City of Austin held a city council meeting (link) that was one zinger of HOME in all its folly. I use that term because there was a Mad-Hatter Tea party type of moment in which the Lone Voice made perfect sense and then the “others” just pretended to be in another world. I’d like to hear the tick-tock added to the city’s official recording to just add to the tension of NOT wanting to debate and bring out the clear facts that the Lone Voice did.
The Lone Voice…Rep Duchen
“We need housing, we need incremental density. But what we’re seeing in cases is this expansion of luxury housing in the market that is displacing low- and mid-income Austinites," he said. "I’m uncomfortable cloaking everything we do under the cloak of ‘lowercase affordability’ when we’re seeing ... instances where that’s clearly not happening, where it’s clearly being used for a different purpose." - Rep Duchen
That’s truth talking and guess what? No one responded. Not one on the city council even offered to “second the motion” to make debate possible. Crash, Crush. Stop.
How’s that for civics? How’s that for actually working through reality - what’s getting built - relative to utopian policy making with simply, sweet sounding answers, “we just need to add supply!” And so like that, discussion went out of the barn and the imposing “supply story” got added to every corner of Austin.
Now, all neighborhoods will be under HOME, the ever-sweet sounding named rezoning of the city without having to actually call it rezoning. Why is that? That’s because as the numerous builders liked to day “Ya’ll can still build a home, just a home if that’s whatcha want.”
Folks, this is not just City of Austin…I am here to tell you that. Lip service. Telling folks you can have that dream home and find it comforting to know you helped out a luxury type by subsidizing their “dream” for yours.
Happening Over and Over
Now this May city council meeting had minimal notice, we’re talking 24 hours and yet…and yet…throngs of folks showed up and they, like Rep Duchen sounded fair-minded, sound minded and common sense practical. Their concerns focused on:
gentrification with “areas of displacement” hit hard;
demolition of single family homes to build newer, expensive homes;
families with kids not fitting the small house
Stories worth repeating: older structures being hauled off on trucks, people walking “1800 square foot lots” and recognizing just HOW SMALL that is, families turning away from the “lifestyle” of density. By far, I think my favorite rebuttal was a caller, a musician who had just had enough of the gaslighting and tactics to make those who had invested their life in living in Austin as being selfish or unwilling to go with the new way…you know high density. You can just hear it in her voice that she is more than fed up with the powers that be just shucking corn at every opportunity without really listening to the cowboys and cowgirls. She warned about upcoming elections and not voting for any of them…course, we now know about them machines and overseas influences and how our “votes” get tabulated. In short, that threat may no longer be a real threat to those seeking the love-drug called power.
Do Your City Have YOUR Back?
Gentrification is the change or cycle that happens in a neighborhood when things are on the uptick, getting “better” and more “acceptable” which leads to higher real estate prices. This here cowgirl bought her first place in a tougher part of town cuz that’s where she could afford to buy and renovate. Yep, it was not all dolled up and nice, not even close. Still my working on the place over time worked out for holding and creating value cuz the neighborhood also was improving. Did my city have my back? Probably not. As the waves grow and grow during some real estate cycles, it is often those without a label that have the most to lose. Instinctively we know that and often just “sell” to get out of the way of the big fish coming in…that’s called Displacement if you have a label the city values.
Let’s consider what that means - and I know we’re all turning into quasi Constitutional scholars and k now about “equal protection under the law” yet…we also know that ain’t true because it can’t be. A city can’t have your back and everyone else - they have to pick and choose. Read this from a dataset that is in the “open data” for City of Austin and remember my favorite saying from my days of valuation: “Measure what you value. Value what you measure.”
To determine displacement risk, researchers at the University of Texas conducted a three-part analysis: the presence of vulnerable populations, residential market appreciation, and demographic change. To determine vulnerable populations, the authors used indicators to identify residents who, according to academic research, are least able to absorb housing costs, which includes: communities of color, low-income households, heads of households without a bachelor's degree or higher, families with children in poverty, and renters. In 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2024 the City of Austin Housing and Planning staff updated the data and simplified the categories below.
Kinda funny that staff hasn’t updated this data since HOME, especially given its touted success on reducing housing costs. And notice it isn’t for “families of 4 falling on hard times.” That is not a category as far as I can tell.
The following is from Community Impact’s review of the meeting (link).
Pushing back on some of those worries, council member José Velásquez noted HOME is resulting in city-backed affordable housing and should be applied to neighborhoods he said were traditionally "insulated from opportunity."
To Quote
"Exclusivity has consequences, and for decades it has helped push displacement and gentrification onto the Eastern Crescent while parts of this city have remained closed off from growth, affordability and a shared responsibility," - José Velásquez
Gee, he sure does feel strongly about sharing don’t he? Yep, some folks just like to push, push and push some more. Truth is I am seeing data on demolitions and it is looking like the single family home is topping the list time after time. Kinda sounds like what happened in Seattle a long time ago when their city council sang the tune “up the supply and you down the price” but guess that doesn’t really apply to housin…whoops! Someone is gonna find out…and soon. Here’s a link to video. You decide.
FAQs for HOME
These are a mix from a recent talk I had combined with some additional insights I’ve gained from studying the “moving target” called HOME…rules are fluid as evident from number of iterations since starting this in 2024 in City of Austin. The city’s ONE REPORT that shows the status since HOME adoption link.
Did Impervious Coverage Ratio change?
Yes for SF-1 when additional units get added, a bonus of sorts. This means it jumps from 40% to 45%.
Are Trees Still Protected?
Yes. Although I’ve heard some trees are now “getting sick” and having to be removed just before new construction. Funny timing.
What Is the Rule for Keeping A House and Building More?
If you keep it, you can build 2 more with a total of 4,350 square feet between the two new dwellings. The lot size matters. You need 5,750 square feet to pull this off.
Do yards/setback vary by type of housing use?
Yes. The more that gets built, the smaller the yard required. If you build 3 units, the rear yard is just 5 feet versus 10 feet for either a house or duplex. For Small Lots, this falls to a range of 0-5 feet.
Is on-site parking a requirement?
No.
Does the City of Infrastructure capacity for these new units?
Maybe. City will unveil new ways to learn where there is existing infrastructure. Odd that wasn’t done way back in say 2023 but better late than never. Yep, the locations vary for support of wastewater and supply of water as well as stormwater runoff. Okay check this out: “Prior to enactment of the HOME amendments, Austin Water did not collect information about the number of dwelling units in tap plans.”
The “tap plan” is what gets associated with the water related infrastucture. From permits submitted - this is not a CITYWIDE stat:
Roughly 35% are a fit with the new requirements for more units, 8 inches.
Roughly 63% are a fit with the previous requirements of 4-6 inchese.
Roughly 2% are “undersized.”
In Short
In short, when a property owner makes a purchase of property in a city with zoning regulations, I think the city has the burden to send annual reports letting the owner know their current zoning and any plans to change if for the next 12 months. Simple. They have all the information, but there is no mechanism requiring them to do anything like this. The number one concern is erosion of quality of life which connects to financial well being. Will property values be negatively impacted?
If it can happen to a homeowner, whose to say it can’t happen to a developer? What if there is excess building for instance? What if the State creates another set of rules about rent control? Will the new rules consolidate development to the largest of large companies?
It doesn’t seem that long ago that the buzz was on the “missing middle” story. It was all about 3-8 unit buildings that could be fulfilled by smaller scale developers, However, that didn’t seem to do the trick. Or maybe the objectives changed.
What I can relay is the Texas Comptroller's office issued a report citing 320,000 needed housing units in time for the 89th State of Texas Legislative session. Lobbyists were available with the reports and stories to support the need to add new laws. The report used to fuel State of Texas Legislators is Home Policy (link) and it was produced by Up For Growth.
Up For Growth is not a grassroots organization. It has the real estate industry’s biggest institutional players involved such as:
John Prete, CCO Asset Management Americas Blackstone Real Estate Blackstone is the largest owner of units in the country.
Chuck Leitner, ran CBRE Global Investors as its Global Chief Executive Officer and is now with Up For Growth which is a lobbying group in effect.
Started early and connected at the federal level
Five years ago, Up For Growth used its lobbying efforts at the federal level which I think set the stage for what we’re seeing now in Texas as well as Florida, Arizona and California where states are taking over local control for zoning in the name of “housing.”
Here’s a 2020 press release about their aim to solve the housing crisis (link). The following is an excerpt:
Up for Growth Action supports policies focused on tearing down systemic barriers to housing development, such as exclusionary zoning, and increasing access to capital for affordable housing development. Advancing solutions that address these challenges creates what Up for Growth Action terms “accessible growth” – prioritizing housing production in areas of high economic opportunity, areas that leverage investments in transportation and infrastructure, and in areas where jobs already exist.
The group “Yes In My Back Yard” has a seat on the board as well and a tie in to US Congress. I learned "Yes In My Back Yard" is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, while its partner organization, YIMBY Action, is a 501(c)(4). The two organizations operate in tandem to promote housing supply and affordability.
I’ve heard from neighborhood groups (outside of Texas) of meetings well attended by “Yes In My Backyard” supporters. Please note, there is no formal 501c(3) for “Not In My Backyards” or NIMBY as is often touted as the reason for the country’s expensive housing and rental prices. In an age where we are now learning that protesters may be paid, it begs the question as to the influences being made (or paid?) on local zoning decisions and pre-zoning, i.e. comprehensive plans and/or general plans.
The point is elected officials took an oath to serve the People. However, money talks doesn’t it? As you read the following from the press release 2020, I ask you to think about the legislation that has been written to support and defend single family homes. Are you aware of any?
Though a relatively new organization, Up for Growth Action already boasts progress in enacting its legislative agenda. Earlier in 2020, the Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) Act passed the U.S. House without opposition. The Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, the Build More Housing Near Transit Act, and the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act – all endorsed and advanced by Up for Growth Action - were included in the House-passed Moving Forward Act. Though primarily focused on federal policy, earlier this year in California, Up for Growth Action led the effort to pass AB 2345, which expands the state’s density bonus law and is projected to add nearly 200,000 new homes to the state over the next five years, many of which will be affordable.
“Of the many national organizations, Up for Growth Action is well positioned to help lead the charge as communities around America seek to reimagine their entire landscape,” said Roderick Hall. “And given that housing is a civil rights issue, the work by Up for Growth Action to advance pro-housing policy matters now more than ever. We must ensure that all Americans have access to opportunity, especially our BIPOC and low-income communities.”
The incoming Biden-Harris Administration has already outlined a comprehensive housing plan well-aligned with Up for Growth Action, including a focus on reducing exclusionary zoning to increase housing stock, direct investment in housing, and recognizing the relationship between where people live and their overall wellbeing.
“We laid the groundwork for pro-housing policy through our work in the 116th Congress,” continued Kingsella. “In the 117th Congress, we will push these policies across the finish line.”
By now I think you can see the scope of the Texas State Bills - these are the breadcrumbs set up by massively well connected and funded entities. What has happened in Texas is now going on in other states like Arizona, California and elsewhere. While SB840 and SB2477 do not mandate an affordable housing program, I think this will develop over time.
In conclusion, what is just starting to sink in for Texas is now a hot topic in California with SB79, a similar concept to allow by-right multifamily. Funding and connections help create the ability to “blueprint” bills across the US which will start a major change in investment strategy. This includes how to view buying a home.
Although a home may not be the largest investment for some, it is for many. It is used to provide shelter, place of identify and security as well as to fund dreams and pursuits. The notion of apartment living or residential condominiums is very different. Tiny homes are something to think about. Not luxury townhouse style developments like what we’re seeing in Austin. This video has new content, I respect the creator’s views on obstacles in the way of getting small product built, the notion of AI as a teacher being “unpopular” for most humans (like me!) and too much recycled information that isn’t relevant. All fair points. Link to Video “The Real Reasons Tiny Homes Are So Expensive”.
