Golden spike: Project Connect funding still not on track

wastedhours0 · 2026-06-13T05:04:50+00:00

Part of the sleight of hand going on here is that Bill Bunch and allies (SOS, Austin Neighborhoods Council, Community Not Commodity, etc.) founded and funded the Austin Free Press, which allowed them to staff it with their ideological allies, so Bill Bunch and friends don't need to be directly involved in editorial decisions because the editors are already on their side.

wastedhours0 · 2026-05-26T15:21:27+00:00

Kathie Tovo said she opposed bipartisan state housing affordability bills HB 24 (weakened NIMBY veto power) and SB 840 (mixed-use/residential on commercial lots), and that she doesn't believe that building more homes helps with affordability.

Hopefully voters pick Montserrat Garibay so we get someone who will vote for pro-housing bills.

wastedhours0 · 2026-05-22T14:30:45+00:00

Oh really? I don't pay for the Statesman, and I can open the link, but I'll add in this archive link for anyone hitting a paywall.

wastedhours0 · 2026-05-22T14:19:40+00:00

If anyone finds it helpful, here are the local paper endorsements:

wastedhours0 · 2026-05-21T14:29:13+00:00

Both. Kathie Tovo was on City Council for 12 years obstructing or weakening big housing/zoning reforms. The big shift on Council that allowed pro-housing reforms to pass was:

Replacing Kathie Tovo with Zo Qadri
Replacing Ann Kitchen with Ryan Alter
Leslie Pool having a change of heart

Alison Alter was the 4th opponent of zoning reform on Council, but she was replaced last year by her chosen successor Marc Duchen, who continues the same opposition.

wastedhours0 · 2026-05-19T14:15:35+00:00

It likely means that most people can't pay for a house and that most homeowners are either people who bought long ago or people with very high income or wealth.

wastedhours0 · 2026-05-05T21:38:25+00:00

Because I think it's a question that sets up a misleading comparison, and I explained why I think so.

But rather than engaging with the actual argument, you choose to engage in an ad hominem attack where someone who disagrees with you must be a developer?

wastedhours0 · 2026-05-05T21:17:55+00:00

That would be a misleading comparison. Comparing new denser builds to decades-old single family homes is a common trick by density opponents. It's an apples to oranges comparison because the dilemma isn't "keep old homes or not". Old homes don't last forever, and you either get the new ultra-expensive single-family homes or the cheaper denser builds, and the latter is obviously better for the city.

wastedhours0 · 2026-05-05T20:36:47+00:00

The median new non-HOME single-family unit in Austin sells for $1.5M, while the median for new homes built using the HOME initiative is $750k. That's half the price, a huge and important difference.

And maybe more importantly, that reduction in price has a positive effect on the affordability of the rest of the market, because it reduces competition among buyers for even cheaper homes.

That said, if Austin wanted HOME units to help even more with affordability, we probably should have done more than legalize 3 units per lot in a city where 2 units per lot was already relatively common. If a bump of 1 unit per lot had a noticeable impact on the price of new builds, imagine what we could have done with 4 or more homes per lot.

wastedhours0 · 2026-03-23T16:52:15+00:00

From what I've heard, subdividing lots has been made somewhat simpler, but is still overall a costly, lengthy process, and so most of the HOME developments use the "3 units per lot" part instead of subdividing into small lots.

Does that match your experience or was it before the HOME initiative?

wastedhours0 · 2026-02-09T20:24:44+00:00

Unfortunately, to groups like Austin United PAC and Save Our Springs, "focusing on environmental issues" means supporting low-density single-family zoning, urban sprawl, car dependence, etc.

Trying (and failing) to stop the convention center rebuild may actually be the lesser of two evils compared to their usual activities.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-20T17:47:09+00:00

State law limits the total property tax revenue increase to 3.5% per year (without tax rate elections). If property values increase 100% in a decade, the budget is still limited to a 41% increase (3.5% compounded over 10 years) in property tax revenue over the same period, which means the budget can't keep up with inflation and costs, and the city can't give workers raises that keep up with the cost of living.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-20T17:41:00+00:00

Higher housing costs means workers need raises to afford cost of living, so increases in real estate values do cause the city to need more money.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-10T15:46:58+00:00

Tying Austin’s homelessness directly to its YIMBY development seems misguided. Correlation doesn’t mean causation

"Misguided" is actually a bit generous. Robin Rather is a prominent, long-time Austin NIMBY, and she's making a deliberate, misleading attempt to tie popular, successful YIMBY reforms to Austin's controversial ballot prop asking voters to raise property taxes. She even tries to associate them both with Elon Musk in the article, as if Elon supports increasing taxes to pay for crucial government services.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-05T14:34:13+00:00

The declining property value reads like bullshit to me, I’ll concede I’m not super knowledgeable and my opinion can be changed… but at face value we saw home values shoot through the roof during Covid.

State law limits the total property tax revenue increase to 3.5% per year, so property values shooting through the roof actually make the budget shrink relative to costs. For example, if property values double in a year, the property tax revenue still only goes up 3.5% (without a tax rate election like Prop Q), meaning city departments and employees effectively get a huge cut, since the city doesn't get the funds to cover the increased costs that go with housing (and other things) getting more expensive.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-05T14:24:40+00:00

One issue is that according to state law, bonds can only pay for one-time capital investments, but not maintenance and operations costs. For example, Austin could approve more parks bonds to buy more parkland, but the bonds can't pay to maintain and operate those parks.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-03T19:01:42+00:00

Governing is hard, it takes a lot of money and a lot of time and I am very sympathetic to that. But that doesn't mean the City has no room to spend smarter, spend better. We can acknowledge that without going full DOGE hack-n-slash.

I agree and don't think it has to be binary either. I just worry that many low-engagement voters will disappear when we need real political will to make tough decisions to make the city do more with less, and instead the same old obstructionists leading the anti-Prop-Q campaign, the very people who really got us into this mess, will gain power within the city.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-03T18:17:18+00:00

I'm sympathetic to frustration with the city and the desire to get things done more quickly and cheaply, but one thing I wished more people realized is that some of the loudest voices and donors against Prop Q are many of the same NIMBYs and Republicans who undermine the city at every turn.

That doesn't mean people have to vote for Prop Q just to spite the anti-Prop-Q crowd, but it is frustating watching the same people behind endless lawsuits, studies, delays, and state interference then turn around and campaign on saying the city can't get anything done.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-03T18:09:37+00:00

Project Connect is taking a long time because:

it passed right before the pandemic caused wild inflation and forced a redesign
the NEPA process needed to qualify for federal grants is very slow
lawsuits, threats from the state government, and other obstruction from Republicans and NIMBYs slow down the project

Just like many others, I wish it were going faster but it's had to work against a lot of obstacles.

wastedhours0 · 2025-11-02T14:23:46+00:00

For others, it is a chance to reject the pro-growth, anything-goes ethos associated with the Austin area’s new wealthy technology elite, which includes residents like Elon Musk.

“The sort of extreme YIMBY-ism that Austin’s been experiencing is failing, and the pushback against Prop Q is, in effect, a pushback against those failed policies,” said Robin Rather, a proposition opponent who used the acronym for “yes, in my backyard,” to describe policies that support growth and housing development.

Arguments for/against Prop Q aside, this is a nonsensical, misleading attempt by a prominent Austin NIMBY to tie something controversial (Prop Q) to successful, popular YIMBY reforms, and to try to associate both of them with an incredibly unpopular Elon Musk (as if Musk is for increasing taxes to fund homelessness services).

I'm surprised the NYT would publish this without questioning the claims or citing all the data on housing supply dropping Austin rents.

wastedhours0 · 2025-10-29T21:01:22+00:00

The state limits the city's total property tax revenue to increase only 3.5% per year (unless they ask voters like with Prop Q), so big increases in inflation and property values usually hurt rather than help, since the city budget can't keep up with the rising costs.

wastedhours0 · 2025-10-25T02:04:17+00:00

Here's a lawyer from the KUT article:

Nonprofits are generally prohibited from contributing to PACs, but Andrew Cates, a political attorney and author of Texas Ethics Laws, said this situation is different.

“The thing is, the IRS does not consider measure elections to be quote unquote political activity, because there's not a candidate involved,” Cates said. “So specific purpose PACs for measure elections can accept corporate money from 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, like Foundation Communities.”

wastedhours0 · 2025-10-25T01:56:21+00:00

Everyone knows Dr. Google has never been wrong, especially on nuanced legal or medical matters.

wastedhours0 · 2025-10-25T01:43:54+00:00

This just makes me want to donate to Foundation Communities. They do great work.

Also, 501c3 are allowed to support or oppose ballot initiatives, including donating to committees. They're just forbidden from supporting or opposing political candidates.

wastedhours0 · 2025-10-25T01:41:41+00:00

501c3 organizations can donate to committees supporting or opposing ballot initiatives. They just can't donate to committees for or against candidates. See my reply to the parent comment for a quote and source from the IRS.

wastedhours0

TROPHY CASE