Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

texasmonthly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 502 posts

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#481

Post by nate_meurer »

hindsightbias wrote: post #367
adjkant wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where I say anything about those, you might be assuming things here. The whole point is to maintain many of those houses affordability and current residents. If done right, property taxes should not increase significantly, and the local government has the levers to ensure that if they make it a priority. > Those luxury buildings are going exclusively into poor neighborhoods because they have the cheapest…

For many in SF, they should imagine a Fillmore district with ~3000 more Victorians. Because that's what got bulldozed by enlightenment. https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the...

This is a really good point. Urban redevelopment can go awry and lead to reduced density if not planned well.

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#482

Post by adjkant »

brundolf wrote: post #376
adjkant wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd answer, but go to the megacities that show resilience and are building housing. In the US, so far that may only be NYC. I know that's not amazing to hear if you have other reservations about NYC, but I think it's the reality until mid-sized cities catch on and get their shit together. The other answer IMO is to pick a city no one in tech is even thinking about, and the growth rate is expected to be slow. Not to j…

Yeah, I have casually looked towards San Antonio and even Waco. The problem with the "look where nobody's looking yet" angle is that you're potentially just kicking the can down the road. In 10 years when "the market catches up" it'll be back to square one. Perhaps you'll have equity by that point, but that'll be the only difference.

There's an implicit assumption there that this problem will continue until it consumes most every small city, which I don't think is true. At a certain point, it will either stop at a larger/more popular city level or will spread itself so thin that the original set of cities becomes affordable again full circle. I suspect the first case as the cumulative growth rate of tech slows, but of course that guess is just as good as yours likely.

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#483

Post by masonic »

quantified wrote: post #351
masonic wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have there been any natural experiments where less-wealthy white folk were priced out by more-wealthy non-white? Cupertino and Saratoga CA are exactly such experiments.

Is the word “gentrification” used in describing the shift?

No, because gentrification involves conversion/upgrade of the properties. The properties themselves are largely unchanged; only the owner demographics have changed.

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#484

Post by luckylion »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #321
luckylion wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd end up with megacities who'd continuously expand and grow denser, swallowing their surroundings in that case, wouldn't we?

Those two things are the opposite of one another. If a city grows denser, the size of its footprint is smaller. Suppose you create a lot of high density housing in the city. Housing costs decline. People who used to have to live with their parents get their own place. People have shorter commutes. The population of the city hasn't changed. Maybe if you're the only city doing this then it's a competitive advantage and…

> Those two things are the opposite of one another. If a city grows denser, the size of its footprint is smaller.

I believe they're mostly complementary. You can't rebuild the city every other year because you have more demand for housing, it's a slow process. The city expands outwards if possible, and at the same time will be made denser when convenient.

I'd love for the whole thing to be Sim City-style "we'll just remove those 12 single-story homes and add a sky scraper", but it's really not. It takes years and years, and it's really impacting the quality of life during those years. I used to live in a part of the city that got more dense housing, and it wasn't fun at all, construction sites everywhere, traffic jams everywhere, and housing prices rising sharply. It might turn out nice in 20 years when they've doubled the density, but it's absolutely not during those 20 years.

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#485

Post by imtringued »

nemothekid wrote: post #401
lotsofpulp wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The surprising thing to me is that in previous eras the plebes didn’t have access to data or education or literacy to maybe realize this, but what is the plebe’s excuse nowadays? Only one I can come up with is many of the plebe’s think they’re eventually going to not be plebes.

I think "plebes" back then had a tool to balance the dynamic: unions. I previously wasn't a union guy, but the more I read into it the more I realized two things about the union as an organization: 1. Unions provide negotiating power against elites. 2. Unions were the last remaining non-religious, working-class, political action organizations. I think the second point is important and a underrated when it comes to un…

The obvious reason why the wealthy "win" in politics is that they organize. In principle, lobbyism is just the act of telling politicians what you want. There is nothing wrong with it but if only one side is communicating then the politicians are going to fulfill the demands of that side.

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#486

Post by jbroson »

toolz wrote: post #463
jbroson wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The world isn't angry, nor is it racist, nor is it violent" ...we clearly don't live in the same world.

look at any objective statistical trends worldwide and you'd likely come to the same conclusions I've come to. violence trends down life expectancy trends up poverty and hunger trends down child labor is in decline leisure time is increasing nuclear weaponry is on the decline migration is trending up I'm not sure which objective metrics I could look at would imply anything other than what I've concluded.

So because something is declining...that means it doesn't exist.

What a WONDERFUL world you live in!

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#487

Post by jbroson »

oliwarner wrote: post #468
jbroson wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sounds to me like those legitimate criticisms are exactly what the "insane Weaver residents" are complaining about." Really, the white dude who complained to the cops to do something about the black and latino car club because they are "scary" is just genuinely concerned about law and order and the imperative that all minor violations of local codes must always be enforced? Color me skeptical. Calling the cops on sc…

Calling the cops for a sustained and recurrent noise, environmental and traffic disturbance that means you can't reasonably enjoy your home or its immediate environment at the weekend... Seems fair, not racist or even bizarrely NIMBY. "This is a tradition" isn't good enough. It has to remain a tradition that people want in their back yards. If they don't, find somewhere else to do your noisy car things. Clearly the p…

The article literally has people saying they complained to the police because the black and brown men are "scary"

And here you are claiming there's NOTHING AT ALL wrong with that.

Sure let's just ignore decades of selective enforcement of law to discriminate against black and brown people, I guess "racism is over" because it makes you uncomfortable

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#488

Post by sjg007 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #266
ryandrake wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is: Why is there an ordinance against this? What is morally wrong with having vehicles on one's own property? How does it affect the neighbors? If the only answer is "well it reduces property values," well, there are tons of things that also reduce property values that are not illegal. That is not a good reason to have a city ordinance against something.

>Why is there an ordinance? Even ignoring money and property values, the answers (for most ordinances, not just this one) are gonna all be various ways to put lipstick on the "behavior not befitting the people who can afford to live here" pig.

Ordinances restrict meth labs too.

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#489

Post by castis »

wayneftw wrote: post #296
castis wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing some research on the place you're about to sign a lease on seems like an important step. I've done this for every place I've ever chosen to live and it usually works out great. "We were here first" is plenty of justification of a whole lot of things.

> "We were here first" is plenty of justification of a whole lot of things. No it's not, not according to the law. If I move into town and I want to change things that's my right as a citizen.

Thats great and all, but exercising ones rights as a citizen does not explicitly exclude them from being an asshole.

Re: They Just Moved to Austin. Now They Want to End One of Its Traditions

#490

Post by wayneftw »

castis wrote: post #489
wayneftw wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We were here first" is plenty of justification of a whole lot of things. No it's not, not according to the law. If I move into town and I want to change things that's my right as a citizen.

Thats great and all, but exercising ones rights as a citizen does not explicitly exclude them from being an asshole.

Neither does “being there first”.
Post reply on HN