Austin City Council Early Endorsement Questionnaire 2026

Looking back on your current term, what housing and mobility achievements are you most proud of?

Creating two new TIRZ in Montopolis and West Campus, renewing the one in 78702 and eliminating required parking at cocktail lounges.

Looking back on your current term, what housing and mobility goals fell short or did not go as planned?

I wanted to do more on displacement and affordable housing.

If reelected, what would be your top housing and mobility priorities for the next term? 

Anti – Displacement and pro-housing. Part of what has worked for our office is building broad coalitions around housing and dispelling arcane arguments that housing and zoning reform has to displace residents.

Given Austin’s historic investment in Project Connect, what types of development would you support along the East Riverside Corridor to ensure the success of the light rail, the surrounding businesses and the community over the long term? How would you support those goals as part of the City planning process?

I support transit-oriented development along East Riverside that makes light rail successful while keeping the corridor accessible, affordable, and community-centered.

That means more mixed-use and affordable housing near transit, safer walkability and bike connections, and commercial spaces that support small businesses and neighborhood-serving retail.

As part of the City planning process, I would push for strong station-area planning, anti-displacement strategies, affordability tools, and meaningful community engagement from the beginning because Project Connect should improve quality of life for the people who already call this corridor home while creating more housing for new residents.

When investing in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure reduces vehicle capacity or travel times for drivers, what should the City prioritize and why? Please use a current East Austin example to illustrate your answer.

The City should prioritize safety, accessibility, and moving people efficiently over simply maximizing vehicle speed.

As Austin grows, we cannot build transportation policy solely around faster car travel. Investments in sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit create safer streets, improve mobility, and support long-term economic growth.

A good East Austin example is the work along East 12th Street, where improvements focused on safer crossings, multimodal access, and neighborhood connectivity. While some drivers may experience slower travel times, the tradeoff is a corridor that is safer and more accessible for everyone including pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and local businesses.

District 3 contains a significant share of Austin’s affordable housing, but much of it is disconnected, fenced off, or difficult to live in without a car. What specific actions should the City take to better connect housing to jobs, transit, schools, and services?

We need to stop treating affordable housing as isolated projects and start treating it as connected community infrastructure.

That means investing in sidewalks, safe crossings, shade, bike infrastructure, frequent transit, and better first- and last-mile connections around affordable housing sites. It also means co-locating housing near jobs, schools, childcare, healthcare, grocery stores, and transit corridors not pushing affordability to disconnected areas without services.

As a city, we should prioritize transit-oriented affordable housing, stronger connectivity requirements in the development process, and infrastructure investments that make it possible to live safely and affordably without needing a car for every daily necessity.

The City of Austin is working on missing middle districts. Where in District 3 would you like to see missing middle districts mapped, and what process would you use to get them adopted?

I would prioritize missing middle housing along transit corridors, commercial corridors, and areas near jobs, schools, and services especially places like 7th street, Riverside, Oltorf and s. congress…where residents can realistically live with greater access to transit and daily necessities.

The process matters just as much as the map. I would focus on early and consistent community engagement, clear education around what missing middle housing actually is, anti-displacement protections, and close coordination with neighborhood stakeholders, renters, homeowners, and small businesses. The goal should be adding housing opportunities while preserving community stability and expanding affordability across District 3.

Looking back on your current term, what housing and mobility achievements are you most proud of?

I am most proud of the impacts our delivery of housing has lowered costs for homebuyers and renters alike. This has happened because we have attacked barriers to housing from a number of fronts. First on the code-side of things, like HOME, parking reforms, compatibility reform, and new zoning tools and secondly on the administrative side, such as the technical advisory review panel, site plan lite and improving the site plan and permitting process overall. And from a mobility perspective, we have continued to make needed investment in active transportation improvements, updated our transit oriented development rules, and continued to move Project Connect forward.

Looking back on your current term, what housing and mobility goals fell short or did not go as planned?

Despite making significant code changes, these efforts have been more piece-meal than I would like. I want to stop just adding layers to the code, but instead streamline it so that everything fits together more seamlessly. From a mobility perspective, we continue to fall short of our mode shift goals, which is essential not only to improve getting around our city, but also protecting our environment.

If reelected, what would be your top housing and mobility priorities for the next term?

My top housing priorities are (1) creating more deeply affordable housing (30-50% MFI), (2) implementing the mixed use zoning currently under development in a way that makes it easy to use and attractive, and (3) building more supportive housing to continue our progress in addressing homelessness. On the mobility front, (1) I would like to see us build more of the community-level infrastructure necessary to encourage more walking/biking, (2) get more of our corridor projects delivered, and (3) create more local businesses (like neighborhood coffee shops, restaurants, or other entertainment) that people can walk/bike to rather than having to drive across the city.

Would you support increasing allowable impervious cover to enable more infill housing? Please describe under what scenarios this should be allowable.

Any changes to impervious cover requirements should be comprehensive and calibrated to consider the environmental impacts such changes can have on the area. Such a change needs to mitigate the negative effects associated with it. For instance, in areas where there is likely to be increased localized flooding, improving the regional stormwater infrastructure or requiring rainwater capture/reuse (also an environmental benefit) could be effective tools.

The City of Austin is working on missing middle districts. Where in District 5 would you like to see missing middle districts mapped, and what process would you use to get them adopted?

There is no one or two areas that should have missing middle. It is missing from nearly all our neighborhoods. Ideally, we would map these areas comprehensively so that all parts of Austin allow for more housing to exist. If that is not feasible for one reason or another, seeing how we can allow for this type of housing by right through regional or neighborhood plans would be another approach. As mentioned previously, I want our reforms to not just be another layer within the code, but to be part of an overall streamlining of making housing easier to access and more affordable.

When investing in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure reduces vehicle capacity or travel times for drivers, what should the City prioritize and why? Please use a current South Austin example to illustrate your answer.

We should prioritize creating safe routes for bike/ped traffic that will reduce people’s vehicle dependence. A great historical example is what was done on Barton Springs Road. We knew people wanted to be able to walk or bike to Zilker Park and through this change we have not only greatly improved bike/ped safety, but had a minimal impact on vehicle traffic. Looking forward, South Lamar is a key example of where we can and should build the necessary infrastructure for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. People have to see those as viable options, and if there is a bus or bike traveling much faster in a protected lane, that can motivate someone to try it out.

Looking back on your current term, what housing and mobility achievements are you most proud of?

I ran for office in 2022 because Austin’s affordability crisis was no longer something people in power could continue to ignore — and because for too long, our city made deliberate policy choices that restricted housing, pushed people out, and made it harder to live here. I’m proud that this Council finally started changing that. Over the last few years, we passed some of the most meaningful pro-housing reforms Austin has seen in decades, and set standards nationally for affordability measures that produced real results in rent decreases citywide. I was proud to support and help move forward policies like HOME, compatibility reform, eliminating parking minimums, and broader land use changes that legalize more homes in more places and start bringing our city into alignment with our climate and affordability goals.

I’m also proud that we’ve continued moving Austin toward being a more connected, multimodal city. That means fighting for Project Connect, safer streets, better pedestrian infrastructure, expanded bike infrastructure, and pushing back against the idea that our city should continue being designed almost exclusively around cars. And honestly, I’m proud that we’ve helped shift the broader conversation. A few years ago, acknowledging that Austin had a housing shortage was controversial in local politics. Today, there’s a much broader understanding that if we want Austin to stay welcoming, diverse, creative, and affordable, we have to build more housing.

Looking back on your current term, what housing and mobility goals fell short or did not go as planned?

I think implementation has often moved slower than the urgency of the moment demands. Austin is still in a housing crisis. We’re making progress, but we still have too many procedural barriers, too many outdated land use rules, and too much political hesitation around allowing more homes in high-opportunity areas. We cannot continue operating under a housing framework built for a much smaller Austin from decades ago.

On mobility, I think we still have work to do in fully building out a connected, protected bike network and creating streets that genuinely prioritize safety and accessibility for everyone. Too often, projects get watered down or delayed even when there’s clear public support. I also think we need to continue doing a better job connecting our housing, transportation, and climate goals together instead of treating them as separate conversations. Transportation policy is climate policy. Housing policy is climate policy. These issues are deeply connected and I hope to continue working with advocates like AURA to pursue meaningful reforms.

If reelected, what would be your top housing and mobility priorities for the next term?

First and foremost, I want to continue building on the momentum of the last few years and make sure Austin keeps moving toward being a city people can actually afford to live in. That means continuing to expand housing opportunities across the city, especially near transit, jobs, and major corridors. It means streamlining permitting, reducing barriers to infill housing, continuing compatibility reform, and making sure our land use policies actually reflect the reality that Austin is growing. I also strongly believe we need to continue expanding transit-oriented development and pairing our Project Connect investments with enough transit-oriented housing density to make those investments successful long-term. On mobility, my priorities are safer streets, better transit reliability and frequency, more protected bike infrastructure, expanded pedestrian connectivity, and accelerating Project Connect implementation. I want Austin to continue evolving into a city where people genuinely have options for how they move around — not one where car dependency is treated as inevitable. I hope to stay in office to keep pushing for Cap-and-Stitch implementation, and using my position on CAMPO to expand regional transit options.

What is your plan to approve and implement an expansion of the University Neighborhood Overlay? What specific areas should be included, what heights should be allowed, and what timeline would you like to see for adoption and implementation?

I strongly support expanding UNO. The existing overlay has been one of the clearest examples in Austin of how allowing more housing near transit and jobs can create a more walkable, affordable urban environment. UT is one of the largest universities in the country, and Austin should be planning accordingly. We should be making it easier for students, workers, and faculty to live near campus rather than forcing people into long commutes because we artificially constrained housing supply around the university. I support expanding UNO west toward Lamar, north toward at least 51st Street, east toward Airport and Manor, and south into areas with strong transit connectivity into downtown and campus. Near major transit corridors and activity centers, I support significantly more height and density than Austin has historically allowed because we need policies that actually produce enough housing to meet demand. I’d like to see Council move quickly on this. In my view, this should begin during the next term with adoption targeted within roughly 12 to 18 months. Austin cannot continue delaying housing production in one of the most transit-rich and job-rich parts of the city while affordability pressures continue getting worse.

Recently City Council passed the HOME Improvements item, which directed staff to clarify the rules governing Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts (NCCDs). What next steps would you support to better manage the conflict between NCCDs and the ability to create infill housing in Central Austin?

I supported the HOME Improvements item because we need greater clarity and consistency around how NCCDs interact with broader citywide housing policy. I think it’s important to say plainly that neighborhood conservation cannot become a mechanism for permanently excluding new neighbors from high-opportunity areas or blocking modest infill housing indefinitely. Austin’s affordability crisis is, in many ways, the result of decades of policy choices that limited housing production in central neighborhoods while the city continued to grow. Moving forward, I support reviewing NCCDs that substantially undermine adopted housing and climate goals, particularly in transit-accessible parts of Central Austin. I also support establishing clearer citywide standards so that future NCCDs cannot completely override baseline housing entitlements intended to address affordability and sustainability goals. We should absolutely preserve the things people love about Austin neighborhoods — and I authored the amendment that facilitated an option to preserve and protect designated historic buildings – but we also have to recognize that exclusionary land use policies have real consequences for affordability, displacement, and climate resilience.

Do you support converting downtown Austin’s remaining one-way streets to two-way operation, and what would you do as a council member to make it happen?

Yes, generally I do support converting downtown Austin’s remaining one-way streets to two-way operation where feasible and have advised the City’s departments to revert back to this when possible. One-way streets often prioritize vehicle throughput over creating safe, welcoming urban spaces for people. Two-way conversions can improve safety, support small businesses, improve walkability, calm traffic, and create a downtown that feels more connected and human-scaled. As a council member, I have directed staff to study phased implementation strategies and align those conversions with broader mobility investments including transit improvements, streetscape upgrades, pedestrian safety projects, and protected bike infrastructure. These conversations shouldn’t happen in silos — they should be part of a broader vision for a more accessible and people-oriented downtown.

During the Austin Core Transportation Plan public engagement process, a majority of public comments supported a protected bike lane on 6th Street, yet that lane was removed from the final plan. Would you support directing staff to include a protected bike lane on 6th Street?

Yes. Sixth Street is one of the most important east-west corridors in the urban core, and right now it does not adequately prioritize safety for cyclists or reflect the multimodal future Austin says it wants to build. Protected bike infrastructure is especially important in high-activity areas where pedestrians, cyclists, scooters, transit riders, and vehicles are all competing for space. Public feedback clearly demonstrated strong support for a protected lane, and I think the city should continue pursuing a design that improves safety and connectivity while supporting the long-term vision for a more walkable and accessible downtown. If we’re serious about climate goals, safer streets, and giving people real transportation options, we have to build infrastructure that makes biking feel safe and practical for everyday Austinites — not just confident cyclists. That’s what I want to emphasize in my next term.