Why I'm not grinching out on the affordable housing bonds

M1EK has come out against the affordable housing bonds, as have others with whom I normally agree.  They argue that the city and neighborhood groups have created the affordability crisis through absurdly restrictive zoning; it's wrong to saddle innocent property owners with the cost of that policy, particularly when the problem could be cheaply fixed with an amendment or two to the land development code. 

Anyone who's read this blog knows that I fervently agree that Austin's zoning policies are the root of our "affordability crisis."  Still, I support the affordable bond proposition for a couple of reasons.

First, it will do some good.  The bond money will go for rental assistance, down payment assistance, and other badly needed programs.

Second, and more importantly, the affordable bond program will give the City Council the cover it needs to do the right thing on housing. 

Council will be asked to approve a lot of dense infill projects over the next few years.  Infill development means something's got to be torn down, and that something will often be cheap housing.  To the knee-jerk "progressives" out there, this is bad redevelopment.  You'll never convince them that the only way to keep prices down in the long run is to let supply keep up with demand.  Council members will be under enormous pressure to do something about affordability.  You can count on the neighborhood groups, who hijack the affordability cause whenever it suits their purpose, to keep affordability front and center.  (To my knowledge, ANC has not endorsed Proposition 5, which is significant considering its public handwringing over affordable housing.) 

Proposition 5 will allow Council members to say they support both dense redevelopment and affordable housing.  It will be easier for them to approve infill projects without being accused of hurting the low-income.  It will be particularly useful in turning back challenges by neighborhood groups to dense redevelopments.  It won't affect the outcome in every case, but I think we'll be a lot better off with it than without it.

Comments

[M1EK]

Seeing as how the effect of the McMansion ordinance is obviously going to be a net reduction in housing units, it's going to take an awfully high number of single-family lots rezoned to multi-family to even bring things back to where they were before, and I'm unfamiliar with any more than a handful of such cases which ever worked.

So they might be seeking cover to do Good Action Z, but that action can't possibly be of magnitude big enough to make up for Bad Actions X And Y.

[AC]

There are other types of rezoning at stake. See my latest post for an example.

Neither the affordable bond proposition nor anything else can fix McMansion. But I think we'll eventually have a larger number of dense developments if prop 5 passes than if it doesn't.

[M1EK]

One could just as easily predict that the existence of the affordable housing fund would give the bad actors further protection against arguments that they're eliminating affordable housing - when they go after additional secondary dwelling units, too many unrelated adults living in the same dwelling, etc.