News Bits!

I'm all for pro-growth, don't get me wrong. I just wish that you didn't have to have millions of dollars or at a minimum a multi 6 figure job to live downtown - obviously its not being done right. As for the comment about traffic out of downtown, you're right. It is better than them being in the burbs, but my point was that all of you think that everyone is just going to walk and ride buses if condos are built and only shop downtown. The only thing that will change is people will live on top of each other instead of next to each other. they will still keep their cars and they'll still drive all the f'ing way to the Domain or Ikea or the Galleria instead of shopping downtown. Until there's an Old Navy and all that other crap from the mall in single stores downtown (like most other metro areas) people won't shop there primarily.

Not everyone likes to shop locally like us - I would venture to say that is most of the people in this city.

And before we bring up the subject of Section 8 - I can't get it cause I know how to use birth control and the people at the office want me destitute with no job before I can get in on that scam.

Shit man, I don't even want to spend a day with myself.

"A day with tha Pap-meister."

Sorry man that movie was made already...

OR! (here's a fun thought) All us peons could just sit on our asses along Congress for week and refuse to serve your big macs and steam your lattes and pump your gas and stock your groceries and watch your children for you while you're off at the mall getting your $150 highlights. Then maybe we'd be making headway. Then maybe you'd see that lack of affordable housing affects us all And maybe folks would see just how important the little guys are to the business of the world.

I have said this 8,000 times already but here we go again...

I have never made enough money in this town to be able to afford a home. I would love a home. A tiny little home north or south or east or west or yeah, central would be nice, but as long as I can get downtown to work from wherever I live by bus, that would be fine by me.

But I have never been able to afford a home. And I think most people that work a 40 hour 9 to 5 these days aren't able to afford a home either. The economic gap between the rich and the poor is widening and there is no protection in Austin for the poor. None. The rich people drive the real estate market ever higher and the poor people are just shit outta luck.

So this is where I'm at. I will never be able to afford a house in this town unless I get another full time job. I have to rent if I want to keep a roof over my head. All of these luxury apartments and condos that are being built are making the price per square foot for rental properties soar through the roof. Just try to find a centrally located 1 bedroom on $550 a month. And that's about half my monthly wages. I'm not building up any equity. I'm not getting any returns on my investment (if you can call rent that). I'm getting shit on because some fuckers can't stop building condos and driving up the cost of floor space in this town.

I called my mom last weekend and she was telling me all about all the families out in my hometown that are buying condos in Austin so little Princess Mary or little Prince Jimmy can live in Austin while they go to UT and their parents can get a nice return when the kids move out and they sell the condo or rent it out to the next generation of spoiled little shit heads.

I just think that if the city is going to allow all these condos to be built, they need to put restrictions on them. Like double the taxes of people that are not using them as a primary residence. Something. At least enforce some sort of rent control or affordable rentals program that gives the money the developers are giving to the city to the less fortunate so that people like me that are strugging to get by don't have to live in the damn ARCH.

Nice theory, wankers. More likely at least some of those condo dwellers work out at a tech company on 183 or 360. And, yes, even if 100.0% of them drive alone, it is, in fact, better than if they lived in the suburbs and drove to work.

Me, I lived in Clarksville and worked at IBM (and later, a couple places on 183 and 360). Some days I biked, some days I bused, and some days I drove.

What I can't get about you no-growther condotrolls is this: you somehow think tech workers can buy up single-family central Austin housing, but can't afford these (expensive, but cheaper in comparison) condos?

SHUT UP PAPPY U JERK!

OK. I WILL SHUT UP NOW DUMBASS!

hoo u callin a jerk, JERK?

I'm sorry, M1EK, the answer we were going for is:

Rich people don't have to work. They just have to get to the country club by tee-time.

Yeah! Name-calling! You zinged him good!

Jerk!

...has anyone done a study to see how traffic will be affected when 10's of thousands of people move into downtown as proposed and they all take off for work up north in the morning in their cars?

Yeah. In that worst-case scenario, it's still better than having them live in the suburbs and work downtown, and MUCH better if they live in the north suburbs and work in the south suburbs, or vice-versa.

It's called a "reverse commute". And it fills up road capacity which was largely just sitting there not doing us any good that time of day anyways.

Dumbass.

...has anyone done a study to see how traffic will be affected when 10's of thousands of people move into downtown as proposed and they all take off for work up north in the morning in their cars?

Yes. Will Wynn did a study on his toilet one night after eating at the Texas Chili Parlor and decided that everyone who moves downtown will just naturally be inclined to sell their SUVs and walk everywhere and take Cap Metro to their other houses in Lakeway and Marble Falls.

So it is writ. Amen.

As for Terra Toys - they and the other local businesses in the area aren't angels here. Consider TT's case as an example: they chose to move away from a location with excellent transit, bike, and pedestrian access - one where even people who drove could park once and patronize a whole bunch of establishments in an urban setting.

They chose to move TO a strip mall where if you want to shop at a store in the next strip mall, you're supposed to move your car or get towed.

That's called being part of the problem, not the solution. These shitty strip malls, whether full of local or national businesses, are worse for traffic than what Lincoln plans to build here. Of course, RG4N's VMU plan would be even better, if it had the financial legs to stand on in the middle of a bunch of 1950s low-density crap sprawl. But they don't have the right to TELL Lincoln to build it, even if we all agree it's better.

Jessica,

Why would a single store create more traffic to it than a mall that was of a larger size and had many more stores at one time? I've yet to see a coherent argument against this point - people can point to studies, but who pays for studies? Do you really think that a study paid for by RG4N will actually say "Wal-Mart will not create any additional traffic problems?" - I don't think so.

As for my view on condos, I'm siding with Pappy on this one. There are places worthy of a fight, this is not one of them. As for comparing this to condos it's not really comparable seeing Wal-Mart isn't building 10 of them in Allendale and charging $1M to be able to use it. Also, has anyone done a study to see how traffic will be affected when 10's of thousands of people move into downtown as proposed and they all take off for work up north in the morning in their cars?

Jessica, as noted a bit before, when you give Lincoln Properties the right to tell you when you can and can't put a second floor on your bungalow (assuming you're well within current development law by doing so), you can tell Lincoln what to build on their property.

What the RG4N folks and their supporters don't get is this very simple difference between this case and other cases where communities kept out Wal-Marts: This time, they have the zoning they need to do what they want. In all the other cases, they were pushing city councils to approve zoning changes to allow them to build.

This case then becomes about supporting the Rule of Law over the Rule of Men. Brewster seems to be creaking towards the latter, but I still think it's just an attempt to look good in front of the voters for the next mayoral election - he can't possibly be this dumb.

Just because you agree with me this once doesn't mean I ain't right all the time.

How do you define a neighborhood, Jessica? Cause to me, Burnet and Anderson are more of a retail district than a neighborhood. And if everyone is so damn concerned about the quality of their neighborhoods, then why don't those same residents turn their attention east and do something about the seediness of Lamar from Denson to Justin since that's all Crestview / Brentwood too?

Pappy, I think May 15, 2007 2:15 PM was your most coherent moment on Austinist.com so far.

And no, jd, it doesn't sound threatening. It sounds like they're laying out their plan with the Northcross Nuts and the Northcross Nuts are having a baby-fit about it because they have never been told "no" in their lives and don't know what to do when they don't get their way.

But that's just what it sounds like to me.

Pappy- what about the neighborhood wanting to preserve their neighborhood? What about the vehicular traffic that Wal-Mart will undoubtedly bring with it? What about the reatil future of the area? Look at all the developments that include a Wa-Mart- other retailers will see this area as more appealing because of all the consumer traffic that Wal-Mart brings in? Smaller places like Terra Toys will be forced to relocate again becuase of Wal-Mart's cheap plastic crap. In my mind, the neighborhood is trying to preserve what they have because having a Wal-Mart there will surely turn it to shit.

It's more of a question of use to me. If you rip down an affordable little crappy old house with a lot of character to build a gigantic condo development that nobody can afford but the super-rich (or their parents) then that's not right to me. It's going into a place that you like the vibe of, the feel of, the spirit of, destroying everything that made it cool, and replacing that with something decidedly uncool.

With Northcross, I don't ice skate an the theater has been out of business for quite a few years now, so for me there's nothing worth saving. If they were gonna tear down the Mini-Max and put up a Wal Mart, I'd be in hysterics, chaining myself to the building. But Northcross? Who is seriously that attached to Bells? Nobody. So why don't they want the Wal Mart? I have no idea but I think it's got something more to do with poor people invading a neighborhood that has seen an insane increase in property value over the past few years than anything to do with big boxes and labor policies.

Pappy and Grape Ape, you guys are funny. When it is a Wal-Mart getting built, you say "private property" and "that's the way business works." When it is a condo project, you say "it's a total sell out, make as much money as possible" and condos are "launching home prices into outer space." Funny.

Okay, what if we rephrase the Wal-Mart letter. Like, say, translate it from Corporate Legalese to the good ol' King's English. It would sound a bit like this:

Look, we've made these concessions, and we intend to stick by them, but if these assholes insist on suing us anyway, we're just gonna have to show 'em who's boss and go back to the original, fuck-off, monster-box. Just to make our point, see? In other words, get those hippies under control, or you're gonna regret it.

Now does it sound threatening?

If the RG4N people are so in love with their abandoned mall, why don't they all just sell their houses, chip in, buy it, and set up a giant hippy commune where they can all sit around focusing their negative vibes on the downfall of their capitalist master Wal Mart?

I went back and read it again and I still fail to see the threat. The nutty RG4N people act like they want Wal Mart to bow down and suck their toes or something. Wal Mart's just saying what's going on. That seems fair and even nice to me. "Y'all can take what we're giving you or you can all go fuck yourselves". That's the way business works, right?

*yawn*

grape ape, try actually reading the letter...it was a threat plain and simple.

as for you second paragraph, it's all been said here before..

AA meetings: http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/US_CtrOffice/tx.html

I don't know where the good ones are.

I saw no threat in that Wal Mart letter or even anything negative. I'm not in love with Wal Mart but those RG4N people are making me hate them. What kind of sissy-baby thinks that letter is threatening?

Why does it have to be a threat from Wal-Mart? What if their reason for saying that is that the legal costs for court actions off set the extra money they are spending to try and apease the RG4N folks. At any rate - I wish they'd just build the damn thing already so the people at RG4N could start shopping already.

I also wish they would write in that they're willing to do what RG4N wants as long as they get to send representatives through the neighborhoods to decide what houses need to be painted different colors and what landscaping they can have. Sounds fair to me. Why should one group be able to ask of one, what another can not ask of them? Especially when it regards private property.

Anybody know where I can find a good AA meeting?