University of Texas Tower
Planning Commission Welcomes Input
RECEIVED Mon., May 21, 2007
Dear Editor
I am writing in response to the column in the May 18 edition by Wells Dunbar titled “No Room at the Hutch” [News].
One reason why public officials have voted for developments that include modest amounts of housing at 80% median family income and mixes of uses is that in many neighborhoods across the city, residents in older apartment complexes and small houses have lost their leases, and their former homes have been renovated or rebuilt to create housing for folks at 300%, 400%, etc. of the MFI, without any public process at all. Also, many commercial developments along arterial roads are very hard to access on foot.
Planners have realized that by offering some incentives and setting new requirements to developers who are determined to make changes in our landscape anyway, we could preserve some below-market housing and increase the number of destinations people could reach on foot, bike, or bus. Obviously, in some areas 80% MFI is not affordable to local residents, and 50% or lower should be the target. Also, incentives should be geared to influence developments that would have occurred anyway, as opposed to prompting new development for its own sake.
Based on the rate of conversions of older central city housing to upscale units, one has to wonder: Had the city not allowed a zoning change to Stoneridge or Lamar and Manchaca, how long would the current developments hang on before converting to chain-store strip malls, fast-food pad sites, or expensive condos? If the incentives aimed at providing walkable retail and affordable housing sped up the redevelopment of these tracts, it is probably by only a short amount.
The Planning Commission welcomes input about changes to the city code to promote affordability and reduced reliance on driving. We meet the second and fourth Tuesdays each month at City Hall, 6pm, and the first item on our agenda is Citizens’ Communication.
I am writing in response to the column in the May 18 edition by Wells Dunbar titled “No Room at the Hutch” [News].
One reason why public officials have voted for developments that include modest amounts of housing at 80% median family income and mixes of uses is that in many neighborhoods across the city, residents in older apartment complexes and small houses have lost their leases, and their former homes have been renovated or rebuilt to create housing for folks at 300%, 400%, etc. of the MFI, without any public process at all. Also, many commercial developments along arterial roads are very hard to access on foot.
Planners have realized that by offering some incentives and setting new requirements to developers who are determined to make changes in our landscape anyway, we could preserve some below-market housing and increase the number of destinations people could reach on foot, bike, or bus. Obviously, in some areas 80% MFI is not affordable to local residents, and 50% or lower should be the target. Also, incentives should be geared to influence developments that would have occurred anyway, as opposed to prompting new development for its own sake.
Based on the rate of conversions of older central city housing to upscale units, one has to wonder: Had the city not allowed a zoning change to Stoneridge or Lamar and Manchaca, how long would the current developments hang on before converting to chain-store strip malls, fast-food pad sites, or expensive condos? If the incentives aimed at providing walkable retail and affordable housing sped up the redevelopment of these tracts, it is probably by only a short amount.
The Planning Commission welcomes input about changes to the city code to promote affordability and reduced reliance on driving. We meet the second and fourth Tuesdays each month at City Hall, 6pm, and the first item on our agenda is Citizens’ Communication.
Sincerely,
Dave Sullivan
CoA planning commissioner
Dave Sullivan
CoA planning commissioner
