Public Notice: The Housing Game

I truly believe that City Council members share a genuine concern about housing and want to help produce more of it. It would be really helpful if they weren't so belligerent about it, and if the entire Council could stop fighting for political coup and start concentrating on making a difference. Because it is well within their power to do so.

And this is not a zero-sum game. There are plenty of win-win scenarios. But this political battle has been going on so long, with battle lines so firmly set between "neighborhoods" and "urbanists," that many on both sides would rather sit on their hands and complain than admit to compromises that actually achieve their goals but don't punish their "enemies." Amazingly, at this point some on Council don't want win-win solutions; they'd rather have everyone lose, just so their "enemies" don't get to share in the win.

Most immediately, I'm talking about two development proposals Council will discuss today, June 9: one to enhance vertical mixed-use zoning, and another to reduce parking requirements and compatibility limitations on building on transit corridors. But also, there's a long list of fairly simple fixes that Council could make, more or less with the stroke of a pen, that would have an immediate and sizable impact on housing, but which have languished untouched for years now – perhaps only because enacting them wouldn't punish anyone. And on this Council, nothing is worth doing if it doesn't punish your political enemies.

Today's Agenda

• V2 is a proposed ordinance to create that zoning category, intended to fix some of the limitations in the current VMU zoning. The product of several months' work by staff and Council Member Ann Kitchen's office, it makes it easier to build larger buildings in properties with that zoning, and with a couple of uncontroversial amendments from CM Chito Vela to further reduce parking requirements and compatibility restrictions, it's ready to put into law today. But it's admittedly only an incremental step, and clearly doesn't go as far as Vela and some others on Council would like, so they indicated in Tuesday's work session that they'll seek a variety of amendments to broaden the ordinance's scope and extent. And of course, there's enough pushback on these from the other side that it's even money at press time whether this supposedly consensus proposal will in fact pass at all today. In the latest twist, attorney Doug Becker, whose lawsuit killed the recent Land Development Code rewrite attempt, sent a memo to Council Wednesday as we went to press, noting that allowing a zoning change to V2 "by right," without the normal process of hearings and notifications, would violate the same state law that the city lost on in the previous case.

• The compatibility and parking resolution was drafted by centrist members of Coun­cil, led by Mayor Steve Adler and mayoral hopeful Alison Alter, that applies to all properties rather than just those zoned VMU. And again, there's a lot of consensus on a lot of it, but the many things that all 11 CMs agree on seem likely to be outweighed by the few that they very much don't agree on, so we may again fail to collect the low-hanging fruit.

Meanwhile …

Here are a few other fixes that Coun­cil and staff have neglected or back-burnered. If we're really in a housing crisis, why doesn't Council:

• Ban Type 2 and 3 short-term rentals. These commercial, non-owner-occupied units are removed from our housing stock for the benefit of private businesses, with no real benefit to citizens outside the real estate industry. Especially in multifamily housing (Type 3), which are almost unlimited. Why do we allow these?

• Simplify ADU/duplex rules. Our code currently has at least six different building uses to describe a second housing unit on a lot – duplex, accessory dwelling unit, caretaker cottage, etc. – each with its own regulations. But if other requirements such as setbacks and impervious cover are maintained, why should it matter how the units are configured? When the Plan­ning Com­mis­sion first proposed collapsing them, says former PCer Karen McGraw, "staff said there wasn't time" at that point to fold it into CodeNext. It's been three years since then. Is that enough time?

• Allow two units on every SF-2 and SF-3 residential lot. This almost got done six years ago but for some political horse-trading over votes. Again, it's time.

• Initiate a process for small area planning, including neighborhood planning. Another project staff never seems to have time for; today's Item 69 would ask the city manager to initiate a "district level planning process," which is a start; expect much angst and skepticism.

• Speed up development review. Also not a quick fix, but if the city really wants to help with construction costs and delays, it'll get its own house in order. Council has devoted extra money to this department in recent budgets, but the workload continues to grow, and long-recognized systemic problems have never been addressed.

---

The Project Connect working group meeting schedule continues next week with The Drag With Traffic Analysis – presumably detailing staff's preferred plan to remove vehicular traffic from Guadalupe through the UT area, leaving it pedestrian- and light-rail-only. That's Tuesday, June 14, 5:30pm on Zoom; go to projectconnect.com/get-involved to register and see the library of presentations from past meetings.

---

Banned Camp: Two of my favorite local institutions, Austin Public Library and BookPeople, present a series of free events for people to "engage with books that have been banned or challenged, and be part of the conversation around the freedom to read." It starts Thursday, June 16, with LGBTQIA+ activist George M. Johnson discussing his young adult novel All Boys Aren't Blue, at 6pm at the Carver Branch Library, 1161 Angelina. More info at bookpeople.com/banned-camp.