AURA, a grassroots organization that believes in an Austin for Everyone, got our start doing transit advocacy. In 2014, we worked to improve the previous Project Connect plan. Unfortunately, our data-driven input wasn’t accepted, which led us to oppose the overall 2014 bond because it would unsustainably increase the per-rider cost and would lead to an overall reduction in ridership. We’ve hoped that this round of Project Connect goes better, and so far it is. We appreciate the data and analysis that went into the corridor selection, that there has been more transparency in general, and particularly that the Orange Line seems like it could be a transformative high-capacity transit line.

Our approach to Project Connect this go-around is to call for strong corridor selection, careful selection of mode, and a focus on more sustainable future for Capital Metro by limiting unproductive and inequitable expenses while increasing the transit agency’s income. A key way to do this is by focusing on reducing the per-rider cost for new investments, which frees up funds to accommodate more riders. A focus on a high-quality transit network for Capital Metro will increase equity, focus the fight on climate change, and improve the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

PROJECT CONNECT CORRIDORS

In general, we support the draft corridor map released as a part of Project Connect. We’re particularly pleased at the inclusion of the Pleasant Valley corridor and that the Orange Line goes from Tech Ridge to Slaughter. A true BRT on Pleasant Valley would serve parts of Austin that are not well-served today and contribute to the overall equity of the system. The extensive Orange Line under study would provide a clear benefit to most of Austin — and we hope to see significant investment to have an Orange Line spine that serves as much of Austin as possible. If studies suggest that extending the Orange Line north of 183 would be beneficial to transit, we hope to work with Capital Metro and others to secure right-of-way from TxDOT to build such an extension as early as possible.

The major concern with the corridor map that continues to worry us as transit activists is the Green Line. We believe the Green Line has very poor performance in any fair scoring — primarily because the potential ridership is very low, making the cost per rider very high — in the range of $40+ per ride when annualized capital costs and operating costs are considered. For comparison, the cost per rider for our poorly performing Red Line is “only” $24. By contrast, the Guadalupe-Lamar corridor was estimated to cost on the order of $4-5 per rider. Because one of the most important metrics in transit planning is cost per rider, the proposed Green Line’s combination of low ridership and high operating costs is simply unsustainable. Perhaps it can be included in a future, built out system, where walkable urban communities have been developed along the proposed route, but that would require further study. Alternately, if sources of funds outside of Capital Metro’s limited revenue sources were available, it might be possible to develop a Green Line along this corridor in a way that would benefit transit riders. But any such alternative source of funds would have to include ongoing operating costs, since the Green Line has among the highest operating costs of any of the investments under consideration.

We also are concerned about the seemingly-last minute addition of several new lines, particularly Parmer and Cameron/Dessau. Added less than two weeks before the CapMetro board will vote on the plan, transit advocates have been scrambling to process this new information. A few of the lines are simply restorations of corridors that were highlighted on the early draft map and seem to be positive additions. The reconnection of Pleasant Valley is a particularly exciting prospect. However, Parmer and Cameron/Dessau are areas of great concern. Although these roads are heavily trafficked, the land use is fragmented and low-density. The roads themselves are high-speed and wide, and will be a hazard to transit users. Their highway-like nature makes them a poor choice for a major mass transit investment. Furthermore, they do not not seem to have been subjected to the same data-oriented analysis that the other corridors were. We hope that data will be provided to justify a final decision on building these lines. If there is a need for a northern east-west corridor, and it is not too late to add new corridors, we strongly suggest CapMetro consider Rundberg and/or Braker as a BRT Light corridor instead of Parmer.

POSSIBLE MAP AMENDMENTS

It would be helpful to hear detailed public consideration of the “wishbone alignment” proposed by Dan Keshet, where the blue and orange lines intersect and cross the same bridge and haves “six golden miles” of overlap from Crestview to Auditorium Shores between the Orange and rerouted Blue Lines. As discussed on Keshet’s blog (refer to link above), this stretch would have very high frequency and would greatly simplify transfers. In this map, the northern segment of the proposed Blue Line would be the Keshet Gold Line instead and have only a medium priority. We hope that this configuration will get more careful study. However, even without this specific proposal, we need early planning on how connections between the proposed Blue and Orange Lines will happen across downtown. We are glad that the late-breaking “Central Austin V3” map seems to give consideration to these ideas. Transit advocates have been confused by the U-shaped Gold Line on the V3 map and we need clarification about what the V3 map shows. Will we have the option to run a service from East Riverside to North Lamar Transit Center? For now, we need to preserve all our options and make sure that we are able to minimize transfers and create the most flexible services possible. Downtown is such an essential part of Austin — we need to make sure we get transit right.

In regards to the connecting to the airport, It may also be worth considering using airport and/or Hotel Tax revenue to connect from the last eastern stop on the Blue Line to ABIA — many people see themselves as taking the train to the airport, and often look for this feature in the map. While ridership alone may not justify the connection, if revenue outside CapMetro’s core budget were available, it would probably increase the public support for the level of transit investments being considered.

TRADEOFFS IN TRANSIT MODES

We support a mode-neutral study of the various corridors — but we hope close scrutiny is applied to the newly proposed mode called autonomous rapid transit (ART). ART is an unproven technology deployed in only a few circumstances. It promises to have “robot buses” that can queue behind a lead bus and act like a train without the need for investing in installing rail or a train maintenance facility. ART could be very cheap and effective compared to other modes. It might let us get many more miles of “train like” service than we could with other investments. But we have questions that we’d like to see answered before we go “all in” on a bet on ART. Those questions include data about the cost per mile, operating costs, successful deployments, and any risk analyses that have been performed on the technology. Even information like the length of ART vehicles, which is crucial to a federally-required environmental study, is not yet available. If Capital Metro can’t answer these questions effectively, we will be skeptical of a large deployment of ART. Rail has been an effective investment for hundreds of years. When it comes to big investments that we know can help hundreds of thousands of people, fight climate change, and deliver on past-due changes to help mitigate traffic, we need to be sure it will work.

For corridors where our transit need is the greatest, even gold standard Bus Rapid Transit, (BRT), which dedicates lanes and stations to buses, may not be enough. High capacity transit is a way to accommodate more riders on the most productive and important routes in a city. For these lines, such as the 1/801, even the gold-standard BRT may not be sufficient for ridership. Dwell times for buses will still cause backup and “traffic” in dedicated right-of-way after several years of use, and BRT vehicles generally carry fewer riders than LRT vehicles. This makes the decision around ART or trains especially important. If ART looks high risk or infeasible in the timeframe proposed, then the default for our best transit corridors should be rail, not BRT, and any preliminary design and engineering needs to be able to be quickly repurposed for rail.

A good mix of corridors will inevitably have different preferred modes for different corridors. We hope that this network of corridors will have well-planned transfers and be designed from the beginning with the rider experience in mind. Off board fare collection, well-sheltered stops, and a safe network of dedicated lanes for transit, bike lanes and sidewalks will all be essential to effective transit options. As we called for in our Transit Vision report, amenity-filled stops at Republic Square and West Mall will benefit many riders — today.

The most important transit mode consideration is that regardless of mode, our transit must be in dedicated right-of-way and be generally center-running. Dedicated right-of-way will simplify transit massively and AURA calls for the dedication of the largest-possible amount of right-of-way for buses and trains. We must be a city that fights climate change, so this isn’t a choice — it’s an imperative. Center-running, dedicated right-of-way will also make every transit decision easier for each person in Austin for decades to come.

FUNDING

Besides funding a network that is a mix of high-capacity modes, we also believe it’s essential to work on the experience getting to and from the transit stop. For AURA, that means significant new spending for sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and affordable housing, most of which will have to be City of Austin investments. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes will help thousands of Austinites get to and from the station without a car and affordable housing in transit-rich areas will allow people of all incomes to live a short distance from the station. Fully funding the Bicycle Master Plan and all high priority sidewalks is an imperative. From an equity perspective, it’s important to use the recommendations in the Sidewalk Master Plan, which specifically considers equity. Spending “equally” in each district sounds fair but ignores the reality of equitable investment needs that staff and the council have recognized are important when writing and approving the plan. If Austin wants a “transit future” where a car is a option instead of a necessity, we must make it easy for hundreds of thousands of people to easily access our transit network without one.

Intentionally allowing growth near existing and future potential high capacity transit areas will make every transit decision easier in the future. More people seeing direct benefits from investments in transit will build support for future transit investments in a virtuous circle. More people using transit will reduce our community’s carbon footprint. A higher tax base inside of Austin instead of in the sprawling suburbs will make bonds for future transit investments much easier. Market rate and affordable housing co-located a short walk from our transit system must be a part of Austin’s plans for transit — the tax base benefits alone will pay dividends for our transit bonds.

The long-term financial viability of Capital Metro is essential in this vision. That’s why all funding options should be on the table for Capital Metro’s financial future. The City and Capital Metro should explore whether Capital Metro has options for additional tax authority and whether operating and maintenance cost could be reduced for Capital Metro if the City owns the lines and equipment instead of the agency. The City could also invest annually in ongoing expenses, or pay for specific projects, like bus stops or placemaking around train stations. There has also been talk of asking the state legislature to authorize a local option tax to fund transit. While AURA would be supportive of a local option, we recognize the inherent challenges with relying on the Texas legislature to support transit. If a local option is not forthcoming, we should be laser-focused with allocating our bonding capacity on transportation options that fight climate change: transit, sidewalks, and bike infrastructure.

The 2020 transit bonds have the opportunity to alter our trajectory as a city, address our traffic problems, fight climate change, and improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Or, the bonds could go down in ignominy or have only mild improvements in transit for just a few more people, stalling future investment while we figure out “what went wrong.” Let’s get this right and resolve the technical details quickly, so we can all unify in our call for the best future for Austin — together.

AURA has joined with Bike Austin, CNU Central Texas, Environment Texas, Vision Zero ATX, Walk Austin, and TexPIRG to send the following letter to the Austin City Council urging the city to increase protected bike/scooter lanes to meet the high demand, and decrease conflicts between street users:

Mayor and Council,

We are pleased to praise your efforts and those of the Austin Transportation Department to manage the introduction of dockless vehicles to Austin’s transportation landscape. A recent survey by Populus found a 76% approval rating for scooters in Austin, the second-highest rating of any of the surveyed cities. More than 128,000 rides were taken using dockless vehicles in July, the equivalent of adding a brand-new top ten bus route to the Capital Metro system. This popularity and ridership success is a testament to your approach and the nimbleness with which Austin has adapted our rules to new events and new experiences. As time passes by and even more information is gathered, we have confidence that these vehicles can provide even greater benefits to the city.

Small, electric-powered, emissions-free vehicles such as e-bikes and scooters are part of Austin’s path forward to a more climate-friendly transportation system and can dramatically extend the range where car-free trips are an attractive and realistic option. In light of the IPCC’s recent special report Global Warming of 1.5°C on the dire need and difficult path forward to achieving the climate goals agreed to at the Paris convention, the time for solutions like this is now.

We are aware that the introduction of these vehicles has also introduced new challenges in Right of Way management, including blocked sidewalks as well as challenges in navigating the interaction between dockless users and other users of the streets and sidewalks. We are heartened at the efforts that ATD has taken to address these problems but more must be done, especially in the realm of adopting safer street designs. We urge you to:

1) Encourage the Transportation Department to focus their resources on increasing protected bike/scooter lanes to meet the high demand, and decrease conflicts between street users.

2) Empower the transportation department to add another tool to their toolbox: the power to make innovative, low-cost interventions in street design to improve safety and comfort for all. Examples of these kinds of street interventions could include new, low-cost protected bike lanes, on-street parking boxes, parklets with room for scooter parking and more.

Thank you for your continued efforts,

AURA

Bike Austin

CNU Central Texas

Environment Texas

Vision Zero ATX

Walk Austin

TexPIRG

AURA is a grassroots, all-volunteer organization that advocates for an Austin that is inclusive, open to change, and welcoming to everyone. Our members worked hard for candidates and ballot propositions in the City of Austin that share this vision.

• We hosted two candidate forums
• We knocked on thousands of doors, including three days of action for endorsed candidates
• We handed out thousands of fliers at the polls
• We participated in advocating for a huge affordable housing investment from the very beginning, including letter writing with Habitat Young Professionals.

This hard work paid off, and we are very pleased about the results of this election. More than 60% of voters in Austin endorsed a pro-housing mayor.  Prop J, which would have tied our city’s hands in addressing everything from our housing crisis to climate change to gentrification, failed despite its proponents’ fearmongering and dishonesty. And last but very much not least, Austin’s largest affordable housing bond ever just passed. Austin is for everyone.

AURA also endorsed the other bonds, and we are excited that the city will be able to move forward with much needed investments in safer transportation systems, improvements in health infrastructure, flood prevention, and more.

Several other AURA-endorsed candidates made it to the runoffs in their city council elections.

Natasha Harper-Madison’s strong showing in District 1 is a credit to her vision of an affordable and accessible Austin. AURA members stand ready to support her in the runoff, and we’re ready to work with her after she wins to address the transit needs and housing crisis facing all of Austin and District 1 residents in particular.  

Councilmember Pio Renteria has been an advocate for the inclusive Austin that we believe in.  

We believe his accomplishments in fighting for affordable housing and transit are incredibly important, and AURA members are ready to support him in his runoff so he can continue those fights for the city and for the residents of District 3.   

In District 8, we’re disappointed that our endorsed candidate, Rich DePalma, did not make the runoff. However, we are excited by the possibilities of new leadership, and we stand ready to support the eventual winner in working for an Austin for Everyone.

In District 9, we congratulate our endorsed candidate Danielle Skidmore for her hard work during her historic candidacy, and we also congratulate Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo on her re-election. We hope to continue to work with the Mayor Pro Tem where we find common ground.  

“The success of AURA’s elections efforts demonstrates a real desire for change in Austin. No matter who shows up to Thursday afternoon council meetings, residents and voters want an Austin that’s more walkable, bikeable, and busable with affordable and diverse types of housing everywhere. AURA is proud to have endorsed and worked for these candidates and the passage of these propositions, and to demonstrate that urbanism is an electoral force that is here to stay”

Contact:

Kevin McLaughlin, Board Member of AURA, kevin.mclaughlin70@gmail.com, 817-312-6800

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 5, 2018

Austin, Texas — AURA released the following statement today about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s recently-filed lawsuit against eight individual volunteer members of Austin’s Planning Commission:

AURA is appalled that Fred Lewis and Austin’s anti-housing groups have succeeded in enlisting Attorney General Ken Paxton to target Austin’s all-volunteer Planning Commission. The slap in the face to hundreds of hours of work by dedicated volunteers is intolerable.

Fred Lewis and Austin’s anti-housing groups will work with seemingly anyone to put shelter further out of reach for hardworking Austinites. His Faustian bargain with Tea-Party demagogue Ken Paxton is a new low. It comes on the heels of an anti-CodeNEXT petition campaign spearheaded by these same groups and financed by corporate billboard lobbyists intent on dismantling Austin regulations, aimed at subverting the political representation granted to working-class Austinites by the new 10-1 City Council system.

Austin City Council must stand up to Ken Paxton: it should defend the Planning Commission and the work they’ve done on CodeNEXT. AG Paxton is intent on dismantling local regulations that seek to uphold environmental protections and community health. Paxton’s suit against the Planning Commission is but the latest example among the litany of state-level attempts to erode local control. He has fought to overpower Austin for years, on issues such as paid sick leave, tree ordinances, and plastic bag bans. Austin’s anti-housing groups would make our city vulnerable to Paxton’s right-wing vendetta in order to stymie hundreds of hours of volunteer work to increase affordability and address displacement.

Local organizations fighting new housing and resisting a future for the next generation of Austinites have aligned with an Attorney General who openly despises our city and our shared principles of equality, sustainability, and inclusion. We hope and believe that the Paxton-Lewis alliance will open our city’s eyes to the moral bankruptcy underlying the relentless attempts to deny housing to current and future Austinites. 

AURA remains committed to the CodeNEXT process and the hard work completed by our Planning Commission. We will continue to work towards a land development code that is fair and equitable for all Austinites.

AURA is an all-volunteer grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Contacts:

• Josiah Stevenson, 832-466-2785, josiahstevenson@gmail.com

We strongly support CodeNEXT’s proposed elimination of “conditional overlays,” commonly called COs, as a tool for future rezones. As explained below, COs greatly complicate the City of Austin’s zoning process, significantly increase costs, and require extensive lot-by-lot rezonings that detract from the City Council’s ability to focus on broader land use planning decisions appropriate for a legislative body. They are a vestige of a highly transactional zoning culture that keeps Austin from pursuing its larger vision and goals.

WHAT ARE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS?

COs are a device that the City of Austin created in the late 1980s in order to condition individual zoning changes on site-specific requirements not generally applicable within a particular zoning district. They are negotiated as part of the zoning process, with City staff often acting as mediators between developers, neighborhood residents, and councilmembers.

While COs take many forms, they are most commonly used to: (1) reduce the number of uses allowed on a property—sometimes dramatically; (2) impose more restrictive limits on things like height, setbacks, or impervious cover; and (3) control the layout of development on a site.  The zoning map depicts properties subject to a CO with a suffix, which follows the (often quite long) base district notation. For example, a property may be zoned GR-MU-CO.

WHY ARE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS A PROBLEM?

1. INCREASED NEED FOR REZONES

When zoning is conditioned on a CO, future redevelopment often requires City Council action to change conditions imposed by the CO even though the redevelopment is allowed by-right under the zoning district regulations. This often requires hiring consultants or attorneys and adds an additional, highly unpredictable step to the development process.

It also greatly increases the number of rezone applications filed each year and, consequently, the amount of time the City Council spends processing site-specific rezones. As observed in the Land Development Code Diagnosis Report (2014), the use of COs requires the City of Austin to process far more rezoning requests than other cities:

“An indication of an inefficient and outdated regulatory system in the city is the use of conditional overlays, and the number of applications requesting a rezone. In fiscal year 2013, the City Council approved 191 rezoning applications prior to subdivision or site plan approval. This is a 10% increase from the number of rezone applications from the previous year. While the increase may be an indication of improvements in the economy, the sheer volume of rezoning cases is extraordinary.”

2. INCONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

Most major cities use some form of “conditional use” permitting and “planned unit development” zoning as a tool for tailoring requirements to particular developments or categories of development. However, we are aware of no other city that imposes site-specific conditions on standard rezones to the extent the City of Austin does. Additionally, because regulations are required to be “uniform” for each class of structure or use regulated within a zoning district, conditional overlays may not even be legally valid.

3. IMPACT ON AFFORDABILITY AND STIFLES BENEFICIAL REDEVELOPMENT

The use of COs invariably impacts affordability and increases costs by making redevelopment, even for uses allowed in the base zoning district, contingent on discretionary Council approval of a change to the CO. Additionally, because COs operate as a separate layer of regulation on top of base-district zoning regulations, they make applying the permitting process far more complex. Simply finding out what a CO requires can itself be a time-consuming endeavor, as they are uncodified documents and often drafted using confusing, non-standard language that varies from case to case.

Besides increasing development costs for projects that move forward, COs invariably stifle beneficial redevelopment that would better serve the needs and desires of Austin residents for a more walkable urban environment. How many corner stores or other popular, desirable uses have been unable to get off the ground because of use-restrictive COs? It’s impossible to say for sure, but it stands to reason that COs have prevented many older developments from converting to uses more compatible with community needs. For example, if a CO from 1988 forbids specific uses, it may be difficult to change that CO in the future to meet the changing needs of a neighborhood.

4. UNDERMINES TRUE LAND USE PLANNING

The use of COs invariably requires the City Council, as well as the City’s zoning planners, to spend a great deal of time on project-level minutiae that is not the appropriate province of zoning. This is because, rather than focusing on broader legislative questions, COs make zoning into a kind of site-plan permitting process in which the details of individual projects are locked in through ordinance conditions and restrictive covenants.

The result is a highly reactive zoning process, in which the City Council spends far more time and energy processing individual, site-specific rezoning applications than on areawide or small-area planning initiatives that have broader citywide impacts and are characteristic of legislative zoning practices in other major cities with similar goals and aspirations. The priorities necessitated by Austin’s system of complex, conditional zoning trickle down to City zoning staff, who—like the Council—spend more time negotiating individual zoning cases than on thoughtful, forward-thinking planning decisions.

5. FOSTERS A HIGHLY TRANSACTIONAL ZONING CULTURE

Most rezone requests should be evaluated based on whether the uses allowed in the proposed district are compatible with development patterns in the surrounding area and with the City’s long-term planning goals. The use of COs, however, has fostered a culture in which City planners seek to please all sides by negotiating what are essentially project-level conditions, rather than focusing on these bigger picture legislative questions. “Jerry’s Guesses,” a well-known internal document circulated before most zoning meetings, epitomizes this “get to yes” culture by opining on likely vote counts and the status of negotiations between parties.

While the individuals involved in negotiating COs are generally well-intentioned, the process itself has made zoning in Austin too dependent on the needs and desires of individual interest groups surrounding a particular project, at a particular moment in time. This “horse-trading” quality benefits attorneys and consultants, who have made COs into a cottage industry, and creates an impression of insider access which in turn reduces public confidence in the integrity of the zoning process and the City’s ability to think and plan for the long-term.

WHAT ARE CODENEXT’S ALTERNATIVES TO CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS AND HOW COULD THEY BE IMPROVED?

CodeNEXT provides new tools to resolve the problems that COs were supposed to address. First and foremost, it includes a better menu of zoning districts that provide a much more varied combination of land uses. While we believe the proposed zoning districts could be significantly improved, by allowing more housing options and uses such as co-op housing, the tools available in Draft 3 are an improvement over the current Land Development Code.

The “minor use permit” process and the broader administrative authority described in Chapter 23-1 are intended to reduce the need for site-plan level conditions in zoning cases by providing greater flexibility at the administrative level. We support this objective, even if the details need further refinement or clarification. It will allow a simple administrative procedure to handle details like dumpster placement, traffic flow, and other items. If for some reason the process is controversial, it allows a minor use permit to be appealed to the appropriate citizen commission for review and reconsideration.

Finally, while we fully support the elimination of new COs, the goal of reducing applications for site-specific rezones will not be achieved without a more robust zoning map than proposed in Draft 3. This means far less (if any) reliance on “Former Title 25” zoning and greater use of R4 and the new mixed-use commercial districts, as well as options for corner stores (à la 43rd& Duval), cooperative housing, and a wider variety of housing choices. These changes are essential for CodeNEXT to meaningfully realize the goals of the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan.

Yesterday, AURA member Kaz Wojtewicz testified before the Housing and Neighborhoods committee in favor of a $300 million bond for affordable housing with an emphasis on public housing.  To address our housing crisis, we need CodeNEXT to deliver a housing market that is easy to build in, allows supply to catch up with and meet demand, and deliver new homes where people want to live.

We also need a strong housing bond to target low income Austinites.  The Strategic Housing Blueprint shows that almost 50,000 new homes are required for families that make 60% or less of the median income, and we’re doing very little to meet this need.  We need to do as much as we can to develop as much market rate housing as people want so they can live where they want, and also spend as much as we can afford to make sure that low income families can afford to live where they want too.

$300 million focused on building public housing by buying public land and awarding RFPs to build on that land to the developer who builds the most public housing there would demonstrate a good way to meet that need.  Together with existing publicly owned land, this could move Austin towards a sufficient housing supply – for everyone.  By mixing market rate and public housing together, we can also help to reduce the rental occupancy rate across the city and help every renter, not just those in public housing.  

The Austin chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, the Austin Justice Coalition, Texas Appleseed and others also joined in on the call for a $300 million investment.  The Austin American Statesman noted that Kaz identified other recent bonds in other cities that invested big in affordable housing and easily passed the bonds. “They included a $1.2 billion housing bond plan passed by Los Angeles; a $258 million proposal passed in Portland, Ore.; and a $290 million plan passed in Seattle. All were approved in 2016 with at least 62 percent of the vote. Wojtewicz recommended Austin officials reach for $300 million.”

Bond Issue	$ size	population	outcome
Los Angeles 2016	$1.2 billion	4,000,000	76% in favor
Portland 2016	$258 million	640,000	62% in favor
Santa Clara County 2016	$950 million	1,900,000	68% in favor
Alameda County 2017	$580 million	1,600,000	73% in favor
Portland 2016	$290 million	790,000	68% in favor

We won’t be able to rely on Donald Trump and Ben Carson to be able to deliver affordable housing for Austin, especially given that Austin is a welcoming community to everyone, regardless of their citizenship.  We need to do what we can on our own.  

Let’s get a strong affordable housing bond and invest at least $300 million in affordable housing.

Fifty years ago, Austinites against integrating neighborhoods worked to put up a petition on the ballot to fight housing integration. They called Austin’s Fair Housing Initiative “Forced Housing.” IndyAustin and its allies are fighting the same fight—they want to freeze Austin’s neighborhoods in amber and forbid more homes west of I-35 in Central Austin, thus accelerating the rapid change and displacement happening in the East. In their attempt to block adoption of CodeNEXT, Austin’s new land development code, they hope to maintain our unaffordable, segregated status quo.

By taking money from Big Billboard to fight against a future for Austin, IndyAustin has shown their true nature: opposition to economic integration. AURA continues its call for an Austin for Everyone, and that means planning our city so that as many people as want to live in a neighborhood can afford to.

IndyAustin’s petition isn’t just bad for Austin, though: It’s a fraud. The fraudulent petition is illegal under state law, which doesn’t allow for ballot initiatives on this type of zoning matter. Any lawyer worth his salt would know what the Texas Local Government Code § 211.015 says on the matter, or at least do some research.  

AURA looks forward to the rejection of this invalid, illegal, and fraudulent petition by the City Council. If for some reason a ballot initiative gets to voters anyway, we hope Austinites embrace the future, continue to be a welcoming city, and bury this effort in our exclusionary past. Their fraudulent petition misled Austinites and was an intentional distraction from the real issues of sustainable and affordable growth.

Capital Metro has bids out for 16 infill stations on the MetroRapid 801 and 803 lines. We’re excited! The stop spacing on the MetroRapid lines has been too far apart. In AURA’s Connections 2025 position statement we called for standard stop spacing every quarter mile. We were encouraged to see additional stops proposed.

However, also in that response, we asked that the stations be brought online as quickly as possible. Riders should not have to wait on construction of expensive “branded” stations. The current stations are difficult to implement due to the need for electrical connections to power their countdown clocks and wireless internet. While these are great amenities, we would rather have the infill stops implemented quickly.

Unfortunately, on and off the MetroRapid lines, Capital Metro has a poor track record of building bus stations that do not protect riders from the elements. The MetroRapid stations were created out of a special design process, but are particularly bad when it comes to shielding from sun or rain—worse than the stations on the regular bus lines.

In 2016, we published our Transit City report, which outlined AURA’s vision for transit in Austin. One of Transit City’s calls for immediate in the action was improved bus stations:

Build generous stations similar to those at Houston’s MetroRail and Dallas’s DART rail platforms at Austin’s busiest bus hubs like the 4th Street/Republic Square and West Mall stops by 2017. They should be sufficiently long and wide to comfortably provide shelter to all riders at peak times. Substantially increase the number of stops with basic shelters throughout the city. The design of these shelters must prioritize effectively shielding riders from sun and rain at a reasonable cost so that as many as possible can be built.

Last year, when we evaluated Capital Metro’s progress toward the Transit City goals, we found that bus shelters were an area that could still use improvement:

Capital Metro has a new, cheaper design for bus shelters, which will enable the agency to deploy them at many more stops. Unfortunately, these new shelters still do not consistently provide shade or protection for the elements. AURA calls for CapMetro to find a shelter design that can be widely implemented and actually provide basic shelter.

Unfortunately, the bid documents for the MetroRapid infill stations demonstrate that Capital Metro will be using the same “branded” MetroRapid station design for the new stations. These stations are expensive and difficult to construct, meaning riders will have to wait longer for badly needed additional stations. Furthermore, they provide little to no protections from the elements. Riders would be better served if Capital Metro could move to a simpler station design that could be implemented quickly, while providing better shelter.

Do you like this post?

2018 NEED: $300 MILLION IN NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND FUNDS

AURA advocates for an Austin for Everyone. That means an Austin where everyone can afford housing that works for their families. While we believe that market rate construction is a key component of ensuring people can have a place to live that does not leave them cost-burdened, we are realistic. We know that no matter how much private development we allow, not everyone can afford market rate for their home, and “capital A” Affordable housing is critical to providing a city that welcomes all. With the 2018 bond, we have the opportunity to live our values as a city. To truly be an inclusive city, we need to make sure we build enough housing so that longtime residents and newcomers alike have a place to live. The market won’t build enough on its own; we need public investment to ensure homes for people from all income levels.

AUSTIN’S STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT

The Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (ASHB), adopted by city council in 2017, identifies the following needs to be paid for in part by local funds:

• 45,000 new homes affordable to people making below 60% of median income—20,000 for those making up to 30% median income and 25,000 for those between 30 and 60% median income. In 2017, that covered the range of people making effectively no income up to a family of four making $48,850.
• The ASHB found that there was a gap of 48,000 homes affordable to those making below $25,000 per year.
• Over $6 billion in need for affordable housing funding was identified. Not all of this amount can or should come from bonds, but the demand for affordable housing funds is enormous, and will likely grow as Austin grows.

PAST BOND PERFORMANCE

• Austin voters approved a $65 Million affordable housing bond in 2013. It is expected to be entirely spent before the end of 2019.
• Midway through the bond cycle, each unit of affordable housing developed with the help of local bond funds cost an average of $38,000. These funds were matched 7:1 by a mix of federal and other funds.
• Housing was provided for a wide range of populations—from people transitioning out of homelessness with very little income, to families of four making closer to 60% of median income.

FUTURE NEED

• The recent US tax “reform” efforts are expected to cause a 14% decline in funds for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which helps finance 90% of affordable housing developments nationwide.
• Proposed budgets from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development gut other affordable housing programs.
• Over the next 4 years, prospects for continued federal funding of affordable housing are dim. Austinites must be willing to help make up the difference if we want to continue ensuring that low-income people can stay in the city. 

Austin should “go big” and ensure that the 2018 City of Austin bond program this year has a sizeable component for Affordable Housing to ensure that we remain a welcoming place for people of all income levels. We call on City Council to present a bond to voters including $300 million in new affordable housing funds.

Following a vote of its members last week, AURA has taken positions on each of the November 2017 Travis County bonds.

AURA opposes Proposition A: Roadway, Draining, Bridge, Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects.

AURA supports Proposition B: Parks and Conservation Easements.

As seen in the bond project list, too much funding in Proposition A goes to expand sprawl-serving roads and travel infrastructure. Despite the inclusion of some bicycle projects, Proposition A mostly subsidizes sprawl. In contrast, Proposition B includes parkland dedication and conservation easements outside the city limits as a way to preserve green space and make sprawl that much more difficult.

More information on the bonds is available at the Travis County bond website. 

AURA is a grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.