We submitted five questions to candidates in the Mayoral race and candidates in the Austin City Council races for Districts 3, 5, and 9. Only candidates who responded before the deadline are shown here.

Mayor: Celia Israel, Kirk Watson
District 3: Gavino Fernandez Jr., Daniela Silva, José Velásquez
District 5: Ryan Alter, Stephanie Bazan, Ken Craig, Aaron Velazquez Webman
District 9: Linda Guerrero, Ben Leffler, Kym Olson, Zohaib “Zo” Qadri, Greg Smith, Joah Spearman, Tom Wald

Mayor

Celia Israel

Teachers, nurses, social workers, and many middle class workers are struggling with Austin’s high rents and home prices. Since many of these workers don’t qualify for subsidized housing, they most likely live in market-rate housing. In order to help these Austinites stay in their homes or find new homes, what policies will you champion to reduce market-rate rents and the price of market-rate homes?

First, I will work to achieve substantially higher availability of all types of housing. I will do this by relaxing burdensome standards to create “missing middle” housing, utilize city-owned land in all parts of our city for deeply affordable housing, and provide more affordable housing on our corridors with access to transit. We can also enhance our investments in rental assistance and home repair supports to keep people in their homes. Since rent control and other stabilization tools are banned by the state legislature, we have to use market incentives to encourage more workforce-friendly supply, while also exploring every financing option to subsidize and support renters. We can also allow for greater ability to create ADUs – which is one more way to reduce the strain on our supply, calm housing costs, and allow Austinites to generate income to stay in their home. Austin should be for everyone.

Austin currently aims to significantly reduce car trips in order to curb climate change, create safe streets, and provide affordable alternatives to driving. To what extent do you support reducing car-dependency in Austin by eliminating mandatory parking minimums and converting car lanes and on-street car parking into sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes on corridors and neighborhood roads?

We should design our growing city for people, less for cars. We should reduce minimum parking requirements, which would allow for improved response to the housing market, provide flexibility in parking options to meet the unique needs of neighborhoods, and coordinate with transit access and proximity to major corridors. Decades ago, leadership in Austin declined to push for any investment in public transportation. Due to the recent courage of leadership and the overwhelming support of Project Connect, today, we’re in the midst of the largest upgrade we’ve ever seen. We need a mayor who will deliver on the vision of Project Connect. If we maximize the opportunity before us to create a robust transit system that meaningfully connects our city, this can be a game changer for a household budget – allowing a family to perhaps rely on one car and biking or transit, or allow someone to rely on no car at all.

I will move forward in partnership with our transit authority to ensure we have a first-class service that brings our city and region together. I’ve been an advocate for transit for years, most notably as chair and lead organizer for the Alliance for Public Transportation, which was the main advocacy group to encourage a financial agreement between the City and Cap Metro so the City could offset the costs of weekend Red Line service. This was a key partnership with CapMetro to begin to change expectations and culture around the Red Line and encourage weekend use. It was a key launch towards weekend destination travel – everything from Pecan Street Festival to SXSW events.

Public transportation is personal to me. Growing up, my father was a truck driver, and he was on the road for days at a time. My mom and I would get on the bus to go downtown and run our errands. Mom never had a drivers license, and that bus was freedom to us.

I believe in public transportation, and I will be a champion for light rail, expanded bus service, and a true multi-modal transportation system that serves the region. We can reduce our dependance on vehicles, ease congestion, and make our city more affordable for working families if we provide a reliable, alternative means of transportation throughout the City. In my administration, every dollar spent on transportation will be an equity dollar.

Young people, people of color, and people who can’t afford a mortgage are likely to live in multi-family housing, usually renting. However, Austin bans this type of housing from being in or near neighborhoods through the use of single-family zoning and compatibility restrictions. Do you believe multi-family housing, including rental units, should be built in these neighborhoods near good schools, parks, and amenities? If so, what policies would you push to achieve that goal?

Yes, we should have all types of housing for all types of people in all parts of Austin. The City has a responsibility to maximize opportunities to grow in a thoughtful way and in coordination with our growing transit system. I support allowing more Equitable Transit-Oriented Development with increased height and higher affordability requirements along our corridors. I also support easing the current burdens in place to create “missing middle” housing options – through solutions like the creation of abbreviated site plan requirements and the expansion of small multifamily housing to be considered “house scale” – in order to meet the housing needs of so many Austinites. We can also maximize our city’s real estate holdings, in coordination with other public partners such as AISD, ACC, and Travis County, to create deeply affordable multifamily housing all across our city.

In 2020 voters strongly approved Project Connect, which has the potential to significantly improve the quality of mass transit in Austin. The equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) component of Project Connect aims to build dense, mixed-use housing near transit while mitigating displacement of existing residents and businesses. What would you support in terms of relaxing zoning and compatibility around transit corridors in order to ensure the success of Project Connect, reduce displacement, and allow more people to live within a short distance of high-quality transit?

I was glad that city council made greater progress on VMU2 earlier this year, although we could have and should further reduce compatibility requirements in order to maximize the housing opportunities available on our corridors. I would support the greatest capacity-building priority given to corridors surrounding Project Connect rail lines. The only way Project Connect will be a success is if our land use provides the level of housing, business, health care, and educational opportunities along these major corridors.

Austin has struggled to pass housing and zoning reform in the past due to lawsuits, opposition by a vocal minority of landowners, and the fact that a one-fourth super-minority of City Council has an outsized ability to obstruct zoning changes. Do you believe significant changes are needed soon to Austin’s land use and housing policy? Given that the future Council may face the same obstacles as past Councils, what strategies should Council employ to pass significant zoning reforms and provide housing relief to Austinites in a timely manner?

Absolutely. Austin is in a housing crisis. We have stalled, obstructed, and kicked the can down the road for a generation – we must move with an urgency that meets the challenges of today. In order to move with the necessary urgency and seriousness to tackle these issues, it is first critical that we elect a pro-housing mayor and council this November.

We cannot afford to undergo another multi-year code rewrite process nor can we wait and hope to proceed on the current LDC rewrite, given this year’s court ruling. We should move ahead with changes to our development practices to have an immediate and robust impact to housing choice and supply and move on individual policies within the LDC that were overwhelmingly supported by city council.

Kirk Watson

Market-rate housing prices and rents are most fundamentally a function of supply and demand. Austin’s population has doubled about every 25 years since 1880; if the next mayor serves for six years, at the end of his or her term, our regional population will likely reach almost 3 million people. If City Hall fails to take action now to help facilitate a greatly-expanded supply of affordable housing options in every part of our city, market-rate prices will continue to rise, putting ownership out of reach for many middle-class working families, and driving renters to the suburbs, out of the area, or even into homelessness. The generational inequity of failing to meet this challenge is especially concerning. If we put home ownership – typically the basis of long-term financial stability – out of reach of young people working to build a future in Austin, we’ll be undermining our city’s promise in a way that negates every other step we may take to protect it.

That’s why I’ve proposed a range of possible solutions to help accelerate development of more housing options all across Austin, including more publicly-subsidized affordable housing and more market-rate housing. This includes launching a top-to-bottom review of the City’s development review process, regulations and fee structure to accelerate the creation of more housing as quickly as possible – and then acting on that review. I also support reforming Austin’s land development code and zoning regulations to help increase our city’s housing stock in areas where it is most appropriate, especially around transit corridors. Among the reforms I support are creating designated hubs of density where the City requires development minimums as opposed to setting limits; reducing compatibility and parking requirements in targeted areas; and making it easier to subdivide and/or redevelop single-family lots with appropriate duplexes, ADUs, or more.

I enthusiastically support reducing car dependency and have a long history of leadership on expanding transit and alternate forms of transportation in our community. I support more investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. I’m pleased to have been endorsed by BikeTexas, a group that has known my work for over two decades. I support reducing or even eliminating parking minimums, especially around transit corridors or other designated hubs of density. I also support reducing traffic congestion and thus support conversions when and where they will demonstrably yield congestion reduction.

I believe Austin needs more housing in more places for more people. I also believe we can dramatically expand our supply of housing without dramatically impacting the character of our existing neighborhoods. As noted, I support reforming Austin’s land development code and zoning regulations to help increase our city’s housing stock in areas where it is most appropriate, especially along transit corridors. I am also ready to have a community discussion about reforming compatibility requirements to help ensure that quality multi-family housing is available in every part of Austin, including in closer proximity to good schools, parks and amenities.

I believe Project Connect is a housing plan as much as it is a transit plan. I see it as a community-endorsed blueprint that tells us where we should and in fact must expand Austin’s housing options. As noted, yes, I support reducing compatibility and parking requirements around transit corridors. I also support increasing density in targeted areas, like transit corridors, by requiring development minimums as opposed to setting limits. In terms of reducing displacement, most importantly, we must effectively utilize the $300 million that Project Connect voters approved for anti-displacement efforts, which I’ve proposed to help do by holding regular, public “accountability sessions” detailing how these funds are being spent, and the positive outcomes we are (or aren’t) achieving.

Yes, I believe significant changes are needed to Austin’s land use and housing policies. I detailed in response to Question #2 above some of the steps that I believe the City should take to help provide housing relief to Austinites; others can be found on my campaign website. In terms of passing reforms of Austin’s land development rules to help expand housing options in every part of the city, I believe we have to find approaches that help make real change while also following the law. One possible approach I’ve proposed is to explore giving Council districts and neighborhoods the opportunity to bring forward (not unilaterally adopt or reject) reforms unique to their area, and rewarding those that embrace policies that maximize housing by dedicating a portion of the resulting tax revenue to amenities or programs in their area. Whatever step we take next to adopt housing-friendly reforms across Austin must avoid recreating the last decade’s worth of conflict and inaction.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these questions.

District 3

Gavino Fernandez Jr.

create housing co-ops to develop neighborhoods with Mix housing for rents and for homeowners to reduce property taxes. Support additional housing stock to bring down market rates and rents. Assist with tax credits to developers to decrease costs. Support $300 million dollar Bond.

I strongly support policies that support the reduction of car trips, as a member of Capitol Metro Project Connect – Connectors I have recommended creating pedestrian-only access to business in or around TOD / I also support enhancing street infrastructure for redesign to Safe bike lanes, walkable lanes as we walk our Dog, safe runners lane in neighborhood infrastructure as we exercise and maintain a Healthy neighborhood Increase carpooling, increase cap metro ride share program. We need to share the road

yes, I do believe in mixing housing stock and should be built in Neighborhoods to increase our school populations’ Change zoning to allow strategically multi-family housing development. There is sf-6 or higher that allows multi-family housing

Involve all landowners and businesses within the TOD around transit corridors to discuss proposed developments, adjacent neighborhood impacts, Traffic, and noise, to ensure Quality of life experiences. Reduce parking / Create safe walking pedestrian-only developments and business. Assist the existing small mom-and-pop businesses to expand their business within the TOD so that they may remain in the Neighborhood and maintain ethnic diversity in the land scape

Yes, as Austin continues to grow we need to redesign our land use to accommodate the development of Affordable rental and Homeownership opportunities. It is important to have a discussion with all affected in areas by said development. I would advocate for more Family dwellings be added to the rental and homeownership market . We also need to involve the private sector to invest in housing for thier employees. Increase % of required affordable housing units or apartments required for project approval.

Daniela Silva

As a City Council Member, I will work to ensure that middle class Austinites are not forgotten in policy initiatives, and can have access to affordable apartments and homes in the communities they serve. By building in a more equitable and dense fashion, particularly in transit corridors, we can drive costs down. Specifically, I support programs such as the “Affordability Unlocked” Development Bonus Program that waives or modifies some restrictions in exchange not just for providing low-income housing, but moderate-income housing as well. Furthermore, we need to upzone West Austin, ease compatibility restrictions across the city, and build more homes on commercial parcels of land.

I fervently support reducing car-dependency in Austin and working together to create a more healthy, accessible city. I believe the City should eliminate single family zoning and parking minimums. I also support reducing other barriers for building houses on commercial parcels of land to create a more walkable, bikeable, mobility-aid accessible neighborhood in which people’s needs can be met within a small geographic radius. I am an advocate for developing Austin’s light rail system, and believe we should convert certain streets into boulevards only accessible to public transit, bikes, pedestrians, and micro-mobility. Lastly, I support expanding the city’s e-bike program to include docks near every public transit stop.

Yes. I believe people of all backgrounds deserve access to good schools, green space, and other city amenities, and we should remove barriers preventing that vision. Specifically, I support eliminating single family zoning at the municipal level. I believe we should incentivize SMART housing to attract builders to create low-income housing, especially around transit corridors. Austin’s current Land Development Code must be changed to allow a VMU2 – to offer a height bonus of 30 feet in exchange for greater community benefits, including affordability. As a city council member, I will also work with the Housing Authority of the City of Austin (HACA) to revitalize public housing assets, seek additional rental assistance vouchers, and advance innovative housing solutions, including legalizing more housing in these neighborhoods. All that being said, it cannot go without being mentioned that many of these same people would choose to own their home if they had the opportunity. There must be a focus on increasing the percentage of ownership opportunities in new, denser developments. This is a matter of economic equity, especially in relation to communities of color who have been historically shut out from the opportunity to build generational wealth via property ownership.

I believe housing should be densest in areas of transit-oriented development. We can achieve this by: passing VMU2 to the Land Development Code; easing Residential Design and Compatibility (AKA “McMansion” regulations); increasing incentives for developers to build dense, affordable, walkable, sustainable, mixed-use developments; and increasing funding for home repair programs.

Renters comprise half of the city’s population, yet currently, property owners have more control over city government than we do. As Greg Anderson, Director of Community Affairs for Habitat for Humanity noted, requiring a supermajority on council to pass a zoning change gives “housing skeptics veto power over every land use decision,” which will cause us to continue to fall behind in housing. As the court affirmed the public’s right to notification and protest, City Council must take a piecemeal approach to amending the Land Development Code. We must ease compatibility restrictions, remove parking minimums, and pass VMU2. As the State has put the City in a situation in which we don’t know what will survive legal challenges, we must act boldly and creatively to pass as many small changes as possible, as this will create a difficult environment for legal contests. Lastly, I support a forward-thinking approach in which the City studies income and housing trends for new Austin residents. These studies can guide priorities for future developments to accommodate the influx of demand while also working to protect those who have lived here for decades.

José Velásquez

We need to legalize housing in Austin. All types of housing for all types of people in all areas of Austin. This needs to be a city wide lift not just an East and South Austin lift. Housing is a complex issue and every part of town needs to buy in. We must revisit the LDC rewrite.

We need to rework mandatory parking requirements especially along density hubs and major thoroughfares and we need to find an equitable way to convert parking to bike lanes sidewalks and bus lanes. I’ll use the D3 office to ensure we have a broad coalition when we are having these conversations and leverage the trust I have in the community to bring about change. A lot of the break down and push back we get is because we [don’t] seek out proper samples of the community. Stakeholders need to be at the table. We don’t always have to all agree but we must always be willing to talk to each other.

As I stated in one of the previous questions, we need to legalize housing in Austin. All types of housing for all types of people in all areas of Austin. We need to revisit the LDC rewrite. We can no longer have exclusive zoning in Austin. As Austins affordability increases we need to get creative and use everything at our disposal that would include: Density hubs, incentivizing more affordable housing units by removing height restrictions for VMU projects, reducing compatibility, make it easier for subdividing and reduce minimum lot requirements.

Encourage and allow for subsidies/reduction in fees for our community partners with underutilized land.e.g. AISD, Travis County, CapMetro etc. Density hubs to encourage growth & public transit utilization. Incentivizing more affordable housing units by removing height restrictions for VMU projects along major thoroughfares. Retool minimum parking requirements.

Yes we need to revise the LDC. We need to build broader coalitions and ensure that the coalitions are a proper sample of Austin. D3 specifically needs bold leadership that creates space for new Austin but has the lived experience and community relationships to know that old Austin must be at the table or I fear we’ll continue down the path we’re on. One of the reasons I’m in this race is to leverage my standing in the community, lived experience and relationships to get something done on housing. My district has changed dramatically because of lack of housing options. We can do big things as a city but we have to find ways to bring more people into the process and have leadership that can stand in the gap and help facilitate those conversations. Its the reason I’d love y’alls support. Thank you.

District 5

Ryan Alter

My main housing goal is to create housing options for everyone everywhere. To achieve this, we need a land use code that doesn’t look backwards to the Austin of 40 years ago, but instead aligns our growth with what we want Austin to look like decades into the future. This means opening the door to building more of the missing middle – not just in remote areas, but throughout the city. It means more transit-oriented development along our traffic corridors, including deeper transition zones off the corridors, to make robust multi-modal transit a real option for more people. And it means making the permitting process faster, cheaper, and easier to build something other than a single-family home.

Many of these principles apply to helping renters, but there are some specific steps we can take to help ease the stress renters are currently experiencing. First is more rental stock, whether that is large multifamily or smaller condo, townhouse, or multiplex-style rentals, we need to implement changes to the land use code that allow for more housing types to be built throughout Austin. We also need to address how limited our multifamily zoning is across the city and significantly change our compatibility rules that are choking off the ability to build to the maximum allowable height under the base zoning due to a single-family home within a triggering distance.

I want to make sure no one who wants to walk, bike, or utilize transit to get around Austin faces barriers to doing so. That means we have an extensive network of sidewalks and bike lanes; buses and rail that are easily accessible, reliable, and enjoyable to use; and people are able to live where they want to live to support this infrastructure.

To make this plan a reality, we are going to need council members who will show a constant commitment to these efforts. We have to always be thinking about how decisions we are making will impact transportation. Too often we take too narrow a view when making decisions that will affect our transportation needs. If we are going to make significant investments in non-car transportation options, then that should be paired with the elimination of parking minimums that do nothing to support that infrastructure.

It is essential that we have people who understand that taking certain actions such as building new roads, approving development, or implementing building rules can either support or hurt our transportation goals. We must make decisions that are aligned with our vision for the future of Austin’s transportation and not make them in a vacuum.

Yes. It is deeply troubling that our policies continue to limit renters to the edges of our neighborhoods. We can responsibly allow for more rental options throughout neighborhoods by allowing multiplexes, townhomes, etc. that blend into a neighborhood and create more opportunities for people to live in all places.

Compatibility is also hurting our affordability goals and preventing a diversity of housing options, even in areas where everyone agrees dense multi-family housing should be located. We need to bring our compatibility rules in line with other major cities and our goals for affordability. We have walled off too many neighborhoods to too many people and that is something I will work to undo on City Council. Our goals should be inclusion and diversity, but to reach this outcome, we have to change policies that only promote more economic and racial segregation.

I am in full support of allowing greater density along the transit corridors. We need more housing opportunities everywhere across Austin, not just along the corridors. However, the corridors should be a main focus. I support both greater density immediately adjacent to the corridors as well as deeper transition zones into our neighborhoods that allow for more housing to be built within ¼ mile of these transit lines. This must also be paired with a dramatic change in our compatibility rules that are choking our ability to build along these corridors and eliminating parking minimums, at least in these areas if not on a greater scale.

When the ETOD report comes out, Council can either take the necessary action to allow for Project Connect to move forward or be a barrier that stands in the way. I plan to do what it takes to make the necessary changes to both get Project Connect delivered to Austinites and increase the housing supply along these transit lines to make the project a success.

I am also very happy the city included the $300M in anti-displacement funding in this overall package. We have a poor track record of listening to the people in certain areas of Austin, particularly East and South Austin, and giving their homes and lives the same priority as other areas so often enjoy. These funds will be a significant tool to help mitigate some of the displacement that we know will occur due to Project Connect and I am committed to working with communities to hear how they would like to see these funds used for their neighborhoods instead of assuming council or staff have all the solutions.

Significant changes to Austin’s land use code were needed a decade ago. That being said, we must take comprehensive action as a Council that creates a code built for Austin’s future, not its past.

There are a few ways we could do this. First, depending on the makeup of Council, we might have the 9 votes necessary to override any valid petition. However, even if that is not the case, I do not believe that we should let the threat of a petition act as a veto on our efforts. We should push for comprehensive changes, and if someone is able to get signatures from 20% of the entire city, which is not an easy or quick process, then we can have the discussion to figure out what steps we can take to preserve as many of the changes as possible. However, we can demonstrate to people in the meantime the benefits of these changes and show that they are not the doomsday opponents try to make them out to be.

We can also tweak certain rules and thresholds within the current zoning regulations that don’t actually result in a zoning change. For instance, if we raised the MFI level to qualify for affordability unlocked, you are able to access greater density without having to change the zoning of a single lot. There are other instances where we can increase housing opportunities without triggering the supermajority requirement, and I plan to push for those immediately.

Stephanie Bazan

Austin’s urban planning was deliberately founded in exclusionary zoning. We need land use rules that everyone can understand so we can construct with certainty and build the city we want for our future. I don’t want to get rid of what people love about their neighborhoods, I want to purposefully enhance our neighborhoods, ensure we are welcoming, and make sure that people who live here can afford to stay.

We still need Affordable housing, but we also need to encourage development that makes missing middle housing practical and naturally affordable. These housing products could be multi-family or for seniors aging in place etc. We need to be able to build more than a single family house (the most expensive type of housing). It’s about what works in the context, but context can’t be an excuse to do nothing. We cannot get stuck in process and stay inactive, we need to move forward. Stick builds are least expensive to construct with economies of scale and unit pricing. We can also look at reducing parking requirements in transit-oriented corridors.

We should certainly look at eliminating mandatory parking minimums. Particularly where transit options are available, we must reduce parking minimums. It is not in a developer’s best interest to build with no parking, so it then becomes a question of calibration.

When we talk about the use of our streets we should come at it with how is the area accomplishing its task – are we trying to move the greatest number of people, allow for a diversity of mobility? And then we can answer more strategically.

Everyone should have access to quality public transportation that is reliable, comprehensive and sustainable. Our truth is that currently Austin does not have a sufficient enough public transit system to meet the needs of our workforce, many of whom not only travel to work, but also travel around the city for work during the day. We should work at reducing car dependency, but we need to understand that Austin will continue to need car access as we build out our transit infrastructure. Where it makes sense, we should certainly create shared streets.

We need a diversity of housing, including multi-family, for all income levels and we need it all over Austin, not just on the edges or in certain districts. What we know in Austin is it’s not a question about if growth is coming, it’s where. I would support climate friendly urban infill projects and equitable transit-oriented development for working people. We must stop making perfect the enemy of good and we must take action. Austinites get more opportunities if we prioritize housing.

It should not be controversial that most of Austin’s growth should be transit accessible. Our goal should be to ensure that the majority of housing is built where people can get to public
transportation easily. Safe bus shelters, shaded walkways and other measures should also be considered so we take advantage of transit.

To make public transit sustainable, we need a lot of people to live in transit hubs. I believe that allowing for greater density and lessening parking requirements along transit corridors is an essential part of addressing our housing crisis. We could benefit from also enhancing density bonus programs to encourage the construction of desirable and affordable housing.

While we invest into transit oriented communities it will be essential to help the most vulnerable benefit from this change. I believe that the anti-displacement funds managed by the city will play a critical part in ensuring that all who call our transit corridors home may continue to afford to live in their community and reap the benefits. The funds need to be used quickly to make the greatest impact and they are most useful in communities facing earlier stages of displacement.

Yes, we need change. We cannot accept continuing patterns. Every day we are losing more socioeconomic diversity in the city of Austin. Working families are being forced out of the city as well as public servants who must drive in to serve our city.

So many of the issues we face as a community come from the systemic issue of a lack of affordable housing. The plans exist and the studies have been made, it is now necessary for us to create and use the political willpower necessary to execute these plans. I think the makeup of the incoming council is critical in Austin having the greatest chance for positive change. I have relationships with many of the council members and feel that my experience combined with leadership can help push policy through.

Ken Craig

First, to reduce market rate rents and home prices I would address housing supply and cost of building housing. Three examples:

Preserve older multi-family in neighborhoods – like 4, 6, 8-plexes and older condos we see in places like Barton Hills, Zilker and Southwood
Provide for ADUs and duplexes on larger lots – instead of only large single family homes
Streamline permitting with teams across departments – as I did to help Esperanza Community

Second, we cannot forget middle class workers in affordable housing. Two examples:

Work with developers to offer units for workers and residents when they demolish or renovate residences. The D5 office arranged for units at higher, more middle income levels (up to 130% MFI) in a property on Toomey Rd as part of the affordable housing they offered to existing tenants so they could return.
Use Housing Bond dollars to purchase land – and provide a mix of incomes

I support reaching the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan goal of a 50/50 mode share by 2039 – with 50% using transit, carpooling, biking, walking or teleworking to get to work. Three examples:

I support using car lanes for dedicated bus and/or rail lanes where there is room. I would like to see a contraflow lane on South Lamar, for example, to help the Rapid Bus 803 move faster during peak traffic.
Shop the Block is now permanent (which CM Pool initiated and the D5 office co-sponsored). That included a new code section on Private Parking Patios – allowing seating areas on private lots without limiting by parking requirements, which helps businesses and restaurants.
Reducing parking minimums in affordable housing density bonus programs like VMU and Affordability Unlocked – especially along transit corridors like South Lamar so people don’t have to be auto-dependent.
I support eliminating mandatory parking where it is safe. We must be careful about a couple of issues, though. People need places to park in some older neighborhoods that don’t have sidewalks – so people aren’t forced to walk or ride their bikes in the middle of the street because of everyone parking on the curb until sidewalks are built. Also, we need to be aware that people who need ADA access also need places to park.

Multi-family housing is good for neighborhoods. Three examples of policies:

As I mentioned before – we must preserve older multi-family in neighborhoods (including mobile home parks) – like 4, 6, 8-plexes and older condos we see in places like Barton Hills and Zilker.
Tenant protections like relocation assistance and right to return are critical, and need to be funded.
Continue to move implement council-passed resolutions to reduce compatibility along corridors, create eTODs, and district level planning – all of which will help build the kind of density on corridors with commercial (grocery, other retail, services, restaurants), parks and green spaces, as well as educational and cultural opportunities.

Project Connect is necessary and long overdue. When I was at the city, I helped support placing Project Connect on the ballot, including creation of the $300 million anti-displacement fund. TWO EXAMPLES:

As mentioned above, Council passed resolutions to reduce compatibility along corridors, create eTODs, and district level planning – these will help plan for the kind of density on corridors with commercial (grocery, other retail, services, restaurants), parks and green spaces, as well as educational and cultural opportunities.
VMU 2 reduced compatibility and parking requirements along the light rail lines in exchange for increased height.

First, the Land Development Code is old and outdated. The current Council has recently initiated changes for ADUs, compatibility, parking requirement, and VMU2, as well as other parts of the Code (Water Forward and creative spaces) which I support.
Second, I support continued changes to the Code in a collaborative manner with the community, which includes conversations with neighborhoods about how to:

preserve existing affordable, multi-family housing
provide for more housing types
provide for affordable housing across the whole city to meet housing goals by districts.

We can build more affordable housing in neighborhoods citywide – and improve neighborhood amenities.
We can listen to and encourage participation by all people in neighborhoods. Welcome and support ideas for neighborhood level improvements to quality of life such as park improvements, neighborhood partnering programs, community gardens, sidewalks and bike lanes

Aaron Velazquez Webman

Unfortunately, Austin’s affordability crisis can’t be solved with a single policy or lofty promise of “updating the code”. The code does need to be updated but these issues are complicated and take time. Some of my general views are: (1) To increase supply, we have to work with neighborhood groups around the city to allow for more density (especially along transit corridors). If we don’t learn to empathize with residents who don’t want the character of their neighborhoods to radically change, we won’t be able to increase density anywhere. (2) Simply mandating that developers make a certain percentage of their properties “affordable” does not lead to affordability. It may sound good in theory, but this approach is failing in reality. We should do more to encourage developers to work with groups like Foundation Communities to develop entire affordable buildings instead of the convoluted percentage based approach.

I would love Austin to have a stronger biking and public transit culture. However, Austin wasn’t built with public transit or biking in mind. Additionally, a lot of people are very attached to driving their cars. You can’t change cultures overnight.

Five minutes ago, my Dutch wife biked to go to work downtown. She plans on biking with the kids to daycare every morning starting next week. This is a major issue for me since I’d like the roads to be safer but I think we have to be realistic about how to actually bring this to fruition over time rather than make lofty and false promises about what can be done in the imminent future.

So what can be done? We have to conduct intense studies about city’s that have successfully built bike lanes and public transit in cities that were developed after cars became mainstream. We can’t just start spending money and building before we are firmly confident that our plans will have the results we want. Typically, politicians push plans forward to show action and spin their failures into successes to win votes in future elections. We can never make Austin like Amsterdam but maybe Rotterdam, a city that was destroyed by bombing during WWII, could serve as a model about how to incentivize biking and public transit in a city that was developed in a more modern world.

I’m extremely worried about Austin’s lack of socioeconomic diversity. I believe, over time, we can work with neighborhoods to change zoning to allow more density in areas where apartments aren’t currently allowed. A candidate that simply says that they can quickly achieve density is overstating what is possible for votes. This cannot be done without more support from residents that live in the single-family neighborhoods. Media campaigns that demonstrate how socioeconomic diversity leads to a much more vibrant and healthy life for everyone and respectful discussions with neighborhood councils are paramount if we actually want to achieve more density over time.

A lot of voters are having voter’s remorse about Project Connect now that the project has doubled ($10 billion) and, in the event that it actually gets done, will serve only a small percentage of Austinites. I’m generally for increasing density near transit and would love to avoid displacing residents and businesses. I realize that Project Connect has the ability to be dynamic and will keep an open mind. However, as it stands, the project is riddled with flaws that are deeply concerning and I have very little confidence that it will ultimately benefit the city.

Every candidate in this race understands that significant changes to the code are necessary. But which candidate, in conjunction with the rest of the city council, has the ability to actually reform the code over time? Most candidates in this race are politically oriented insiders who don’t have as much experience with the private sector. I would be a unique voice and perspective on the city council and have the ability to negotiate differently than everyone else due to my unique experience and network. To the extent that more traditional government types of negotiations are needed, the nine other city council members (and the mayor) will still be political insiders.

If you think traditional approaches have been historically successful, then I am not the candidate for you. I believe a different and less orthodox voice in city council is needed to get us closer to tackling issues like zoning reform.

District 9

Linda Guerrero

One way Austin can impact this will be to provide housing supply for those at the lowest end. The best opportunities for this housing supply are obtained by developing City owned properties. Mueller is an excellent example. I will foster additional housing for middle class workers by exploring more unused city property that could be available for new homes.

I have been researching evidence and data that shows that up zoning is an answer for reducing market rate rents and the price of homes. According to research, the market drives home prices and rents up for profit. The market’s goal is not to supply affordable housing, but make maximum profit. The arrival of high-income households into a community is the largest driver for higher home and rental prices according to Freddie Mac. Again, the belief of relaxing zoning is pivotal to increasing housing supply resulting in a decrease in housing price can be questioned.

I will support eliminating parking requirements provided that data demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach. My concerns center around two articles that are inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of eliminating parking requirements.
I am well aware that bicycling is a challenge for families, for the elderly, and for people with disabilities. I am concerned about the heat factor and the challenges it brings for this type of mobility. At this time, I cannot support converting car lanes to bicycle lanes until data proves it is being used by transit users. I would be interested to know the data that gives percentages that indicate the use of existing bicycling lanes. I support maintaining and improving Austin’s sidewalk network as sidewalks can be used by everyone, particularly when they are ADA compliant. I support additional bus lanes that will improve mobility and reduce car trips.

Neighborhoods in District 9 have varied housing types, from single family homes, apartment complexes, and so-called “missing” middle properties. Our neighborhoods have encouraged rezoning to allow housing in different places, including at the Triangle, Waller Creekside apartments, and mixed use zoning on Guadalupe and other corridors to allow new housing above ground floor commercial uses. I worked with Central Austin neighborhoods to craft the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) district which allowed construction of thousands of new apartments near the University of Texas in a way that is compatible with nearby neighborhoods. Compatibility restrictions do not prohibit multifamily housing near single family homes; these restrictions only limit heights to maintain the quality of life for all.

While Project Connect and transit-oriented developments will generate significant benefits for Austin, I’m concerned about any potential factors that will exacerbate current displacement trends. Data indicates that rent growth displaces residents that would benefit most from transit. Another consideration will be any property impacts and construction zones that will displace local businesses. Currently, Capital Metro is looking at tools for equitable Transit Oriented Development (eTOD) that avoid displacing existing residents and businesses. The eTODS must be sensitive to their location; eTOD recommendations must be inclusive and holistic with each stop. Particular care must be taken at stops in lower and middle income areas, so the communities are not replaced with higher-income residents. I look forward to seeing the eTOD recommendations before “relaxing zoning and compatibility” around transit corridors.

Let’s recall that since 1984, Austin has updated its Land Development Code many times including the development of CBD zoning, the UNO overlay, Urban Core parking reductions, reduction of required lot sizes, changes to ADU rules, and infill tools adopted in neighborhood plans. These changes were widely supported and did not result in lawsuits.
Several elements of the Land Development Code rewrite can be adopted with a simple majority. For example, as Chair of the Environmental Commission, I supported moving forward with a package of environmentally focused code amendments, including those recommended by Water Forward and those addressing localized flooding.

My focus will be on working with the community on code improvements that can help enhance our neighborhoods, resolve long-standing issues like localized flooding, and increase the availability of income-restricted housing, while also achieving the density and housing goals that have been envisioned in Imagine Austin. Broadening this conversation, with more community participation, and focusing on the positive benefits that can be achieved through modifications to our code will help the City Council reach consensus.

Ben Leffler

If we want an Austin that works for everyone, we must build all types of housing in all areas of the city, including subsidized Affordable housing and market-rate housing. Austin’s 38-year-old Land Development Code is outdated, and it’s a significant contributor to our city’s housing and affordability issues. It limits housing stock, subsidizes car dependence, and incentivizes sprawl. It is the primary reason why working-class Austinites are being priced out of the city.

There isn’t a silver bullet to fix our housing crisis, but we could accomplish a lot by updating the LDC to reduce minimum lot sizes, eliminate parking requirements, address compatibility along our corridors, and raise the site plan threshold. We must also streamline the permitting process, offer no/low interest construction loans to low-income people, and increase density bonus programs to better incentivize workforce housing development in all parts of Austin.

The city should also explore working with UT, ACC, AISD to build housing for students, faculty, and staff, and partnering with the private sector to build employee housing.

I greatly support reducing car-dependency in Austin. In addition to eliminating parking minimums, the city should explore capping parking maximums for shopping centers and big box stores, especially those with access to transit.

The city should also incentivize denser, more walkable, transit-oriented development, which will reduce car dependency and increase utility efficiency. Development along Project Connect lines and other transit corridors presents an incredible opportunity to sustainably house our growing community.

Dedicating right-of-way for buses on corridors will greatly improve transit, and completing the sidewalk system and the urban trail network, adding protected bike lanes, and increasing e-bike subsidies will make it safer and easier for pedestrians and bikers to safely traverse the city.

Yes. If we want diverse neighborhoods and schools, we need diverse housing options across Austin. The Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan envisions a compact, connected community with diverse housing and transportation options available to all. While there are certainly areas that hint at these characteristics, we have largely failed to achieve the vision set forth by Imagine Austin. This is because we haven’t updated the code to incentivize the right types of development (see proposed updates above), and we have failed to implement an updated citywide (or sub-citywide) plan(s). The result is patchwork, disconnected regional development that is failing our community.

In addition to the LDC updates, we also need planning that enables complete, diverse communities with access to affordable housing, good schools, parks, amenities, and opportunities.

Project Connect will reduce car dependence and congestion, incentivize housing development, and help us achieve our environmental goals. Project Connect is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make Austin a more accessible, inclusive and sustainable city.

To get the full benefit of Project Connect, we must prioritize building significant equitable Transit Oriented Development along Project Connect lines and other transit corridors. This includes expanding VMU incentives, reducing compatibility constraints, eliminating parking requirements, and enhancing density bonus programs.

It was great to see $300M of anti-displacement funds included in the project. However, as we’ve seen projected costs rise, we must also consider whether the original amount is sufficient or should be increased. Additionally, I have heard concerns about construction impacting local businesses operations. As for residents, we should take measures to ensure that local businesses are minimally impacted by construction.

Yes. Austin’s housing policies are failing homeowners, renters, and those trying to get into the market. There is a broad consensus in the community that the status quo isn’t working, even if this isn’t always represented on the dias. The self-inflicted affordability crisis is an opportunity to rethink our approach to housing, and build a city that works for all. This starts with electing pro-housing candidates in November, sending them to City Hall with a mandate to get things done, and pushing them to take the right votes.

As a council member, I will work to make sure all voices are included in the housing discussion, not just those who can attend every council meeting. This will require leaving City Hall, meeting people where they are, and not taking anyone for granted or leaving anyone behind. By engaging the larger community and not allowing ourselves to be filibustered by a vocal minority, I am confident that we can build the consensus to create a more equitable housing policy.

Kym Olson

I think we have to start with the city permit process. It isn’t just residents impacted, it includes our ma/pa, small businesses, local favs, etc. The increasing burden of permits without enough staff to process in timely manner is hurting us all. It doesn’t just stop with housing, our city is expensive period. The increasing burdens of other issues like adding parking meters on RDD agreement spots in front of our homes that we can barely afford to stay in. Why? What’s the point other than double taxation? All while surrounded by constant construction and moving scooters out of driveways on regular basis. Are we pricing people out to put others back in? I think a full audit of where this money is going and why the permits aren’t funding their purpose or projects should be immediate. I think we need to bring all of the people in the different areas to determine biggest problems in what location (size and scope) to find a common thread among a smaller group. From there, maybe a small pilot project or 2 in the targeted areas. Trying to come up with a one size fits all is not going to work. Bring back community and bring back groups that can better determine what works best for them in their neighborhood.

In a perfect world, that would be ideal. Forcing a change of mind set for entire city is unlikely. Many perceive a car as a right – right, wrong, indifferent, isn’t for me to say. Another consideration is the large aging population of baby boomers. While fine to drive, biking to work isn’t a reality for all so, would they’d be forced to public transportation as their only option? With the skyrocketing crime, I’m not sure that’s a safe idea. Our walkability has already been greatly hampered. I would love to have that back. I know this is in an attempt to curve climate change, it’s the increasing climate change issues are a major hinderance in making this possible. For example, many people have auto-immune issues that prevent them from getting too hot or spending too much time (minutes) in the heat like waiting for a bus or biking, like my sister with MS, her quality of life as far as getting to the store, etc would be totally impacted. More people than you know would have some serious transportation issues. I don’t think this would work out as fairly as everyone hoped. Another issue is where do people shower if they bike 5 – 10 miles to work in 100+ degree weather? Would restaurants and/or businesses need to install locker room type facilities? That’s a couple of just heat issues. Taking out car lanes for bike lanes (like during COVID when no one was looking) has been tried for way too long with no success. It creates more traffic. Not to mention adding to the traffic more cars due to neighborhood pools being closed, lack of school bus drivers, dangerous rec areas, etc. Eliminating cars on the Drag (an alarming amount / day) would just move these cars to Lamar, Burnet, etc. The city’s constant problems with staffing keep adding cars to fewer lanes. I feel the ripple effect isn’t always taken into consideration. Encourage people to do good and bring community back to all want to pitch in likely yield better results than the infighting already. In addition, here are several smaller ideas that could have a more immediate impact while larger plans are being thoroughly vetted that wouldn’t displace thousands and upheaving ways of life starting with working on partnerships with various subdivisions or neighboring communities on commuting programs. Then it’s a community encouraging their respective communities which will also yield better results and assist with cost. Most importantly let’s make sure its safe for the public to do so or people won’t give any kind of public transportation a second thought.

I think this should be on a case by case basis / neighborhood by neighborhood. I can’t imagine any 2 would ever have all the same considerations. For example, environmental impact among a list of other things that should be considered. A blanket city-wide mandates creates big concerns of unintended consequences and creating loopholes for bad actors. This can all be worked out but on a neighborhood by site location and all considerations and / or stakeholders.

There are other problems being caused by Project Connect. The city taxes residents on the property it acquires. The individuals I have spoken with didn’t expect to be taxed on property acquired for the easement so it was a surprise and a burden to say the least. The cost and the lack of milestone successes should raise concerns with everyone. Also the environmental concerns from the density thus far need to be further researched and resolved before moving forward. Notably, the town lake issues. In addition, the lack of consideration to the business and what impact it will have to them, not to mention taking some of the best known local favs. We are a tourist city and people idolize football heroes and university “spots”. Most import concern that was pointed out after last big project report, the inequity of the proposed displacement. This needs to be looked at in further detail.

Maybe instead of “significant” changes, start smaller in specific target areas. Prove success and determine what works and what could be better. This way you have tangible proof of plan and not just a very wide reaching significant overhaul. It just seems it would be a more effective approach then, yet again, another massive all or nothing policy. While that’s ideal for you to quickly hit your goal, there are many ways to accomplish the same end.

Zohaib “Zo” Qadri

As the next District 9 council member, I will champion policies that make it easier to build all types of housing, both subsidized and market-rate. We’re facing an acute shortage of homes for all incomes levels, brought on by our 1984 land development code and other policy decisions to sprawl our growth outwards and protect luxury single-family-only zoning in our urban core. Some of the policies we must address to tackle the shortage of market-rate homes are a matter of zoning- we must revise our compatibility rules, eliminate minimum parking mandates in the urban core, and lift the prohibition on the “missing middle” density that gives neighborhoods like Hyde Park their character. Another place where this process can be helped along is by shifting our incentive structure. Currently, we make it easy to tear down older single-family homes and replace them with luxury single-family McMansions, which contributes to land values and rents without increasing the overall supply of homes. This is partly caused by the fact that we make even modest multifamily projects go through the same type of reviews and meetings as large apartment complexes, which is time-intensive and costly enough that developers are incentivized to stick to building single-family homes, even when the market can sustain greater densities. We must allow more missing middle homes to be built “by-right” (permitted by city and not subject to same processes as large developments). If we don’t, we will continue to incentivize the harmful sprawling development patterns that are displacing Austinites and causing rents and property taxes to rise.

When it comes to transportation policy, Austin is at a crucial turning point. In 2020, Austin voters overwhelmingly delivered a mandate for public transit. At the same time, we are battling TxDOT’s reckless I-35 widening plan that will tear our communities apart. We must demand an I-35 plan from TxDOT that goes no wider and no higher, as well as explore proposals to cap the freeway through downtown Austin and even potentially create a surface boulevard. I will fight to ensure that Project Connect is delivered as close to on-time and on-budget as is possible. But we can also use Project Connect as an opportunity to right many of our historic wrongs, and pursue policies to advance climate action, environmental justice, and safe streets. 2021 brought a record-high number of traffic deaths on Austin’s streets. Tragically, these deaths follow a nationwide pattern; in the neighborhoods with the lowest incomes, car-ownership rates, and safe car-alternatives, people are most susceptible to traffic violence. As we look ahead to the construction of Project Connect, we must rethink our relationship with our city streets. That means continuing our work to increase sidewalk coverage and ADA accessibility. investing in protected bike lanes, reducing car-first infrastructure like slip lanes, adding regular protected crosswalks on major corridors, adding safety features like leading pedestrian intervals to more intersections, and building out traffic-calming infrastructure to reduce driving speed. We also mustn’t forget that Project Connect is much more than just light rail- it is vital that our new and upgraded bus routes succeed, and that means making our bus service the best way to get around in our city. The protected bus lanes in downtown Austin already give transit the upper hand in getting through the gauntlet of downtown, and extrapolating that success to other frequent bus corridors like South Congress is crucial to meeting our climate goals. We also must invest in better bus stops, with shelters for all types of weather and good street lighting. It’s no coincidence that the parts of Austin where we have the best transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure are those in which we have eliminated minimum parking mandates and invested in infrastructure like protected bike lanes, crosswalks, and bus lanes. The experiences of other cities teaches us that building this infrastructure creates a natural coalition to protect and expand it, as it has a similar “induced demand” effect to freeway expansions where building the infrastructure causes people to use it. The hurdle is having a leader willing to get past the initial hurdles to implement those policies. I will be that leader.

We must push for policies that make our neighborhoods welcoming for all. Increasing the amount of homes near good schools, parks, and other amenities such as transit and retail is key to becoming an inclusive city. Our 2014 ADU ordinance was a major improvement on the status quo, but it can go further. By reducing the obstacles to ADU construction and permitting double ADUs on suitable sites, we can help more people afford to rent in our neighborhoods. In addition, while duplexes are legal on paper in many of our neighborhoods, reforms to minimum parking mandates and minimum lot size requirements can help turn that policy into real gains without the political difficulties a prolonged neighborhood zoning fight can bring. Nobody should be paying to build and maintain parking they’re not using, and the historic character of neighborhoods like Travis Heights and Hyde Park reflects that truth. But many of the older homes in those neighborhoods would be illegal to build under our code today. We must also allow more missing-middle homes in our neighborhoods, similar to many parts of Hyde Park and Bouldin today. In addition, our housing shortage is even more acute for Austinites with disabilities, as federal accessibility requirements for new housing only kick in for projects four units or larger. Additionally, we need to add teeth to the UNO overlay in west campus and student neighborhoods, keeping young people as a priority when approaching our housing policy. Ending exclusionary zoning is a civil rights issue for many reasons, but it’s a particular injustice that we relegate our disabled neighbors exclusively to major corridors and out of the heart of our neighborhoods.

Healthy cities rely on strong transit networks and integrated communities. Decades of inequitable housing policy has put many Austinites of color at an ongoing risk of displacement. While our acute housing shortage is the root cause of this plight, and new construction a mere symptom, it’s important that we work proactively to integrate our neighbors and keep people in their homes as our transit corridors are developed. I will fight to ensure that our anti-displacement funding gets spent on housing and rent relief, not task forces and commissions. We must build on the successes of the Affordability Unlocked (2019) and VMU2 (2022) programs to make sure our affordable housing money is spent with maximum efficiency. Austin voters approved a mandate to invest in housing our neighbors at risk of displacement; it’s our duty to ensure that money gets spent properly, instead of being siphoned away by lawsuits, task forces, and endless meetings. The single biggest obstacle to new housing in this city is our uniquely restrictive compatibility rules, which choke off the supply of transit-oriented homes worst of all. By relaxing compatibility rules and minimum parking mandates in favor of homes, we can get a long way towards meeting the goal of equitable transit-oriented development along our Project Connect corridors. Austinites deserve the freedom of being able to live in walkable neighborhoods with reliable transit. Car dependency is expensive and restricts the economic freedoms of Austinites. By giving people more transportation choices, we can expand the opportunities available to Austinites and lower the cost of living, while starting to curb the harmful externalities that car dependency creates. Good transit, mixed-use neighborhoods, and safe bike and pedestrian infrastructure can help turn two-car households into one-car households. It can help ease the burden on parents of kids, when school and work are safely accessible by a variety of modes. And it can help foster shared community and a sense of group identity, allowing us to escape from our bubbles and share our beautiful city with all of our neighbors.

In an ideal world, our next council will help bring a comprehensive code rewrite over the finish line. I will fight for the changes we need to ensure we can build an Austin that works for everyone, as previously discussed above. But it’s also important to plan and get ahead of whatever tactics housing opponents will use. While a minority of landowners maintains an effective filibuster over zoning changes, a simple majority of council can still pass non-zoning changes to land use, as well as zoning changes not adjacent to significant opposing interests. This can include utilizing vacant city-owned property for dense housing, especially the properties near transit corridors. Parking mandates, compatibility, site plan review, and many other land use policies can be reformed by simple majority. We can also get creative with our policies, and pursue potential backdoor routes to changing zoning, similar to those that were used to enact our 2014 ADU ordinance.

Greg Smith

The most important thing I believe that I can do as a candidate is clear the way for a greater supply of all housing types. That would start with establishing a culture of customer service within DSD and the other departments that touch a building permit or application. We must change the mindset of City staff from obstruction to support. I would also enforce the rules we have for review times and hold accountable our City Manager and Assistant City Managers for meeting our housing goals. Outside of changing culture, we must create and be accountable towards a permit process that is predictable and clearly defined. We will treat exceptions as just that, exceptions, and normalize the permitting process to eliminate wasted time and dollars that are getting passed along to the consumers. In addition, it cannot be overstated the importance of executing project connect, the ability for these same workers to get access to reliable and readily available transit and thereby their jobs, will provide the option to eliminate the second most expensive line item in a home budget, a vehicle. This is low hanging fruit, let’s start there.

I absolutely support eliminating mandatory parking minimums. I understand the potential concerns of neighbors and neighborhoods, but also recognize that in order for us to get out of this affordability and housing crisis, we are all going to have to accept some things that we may not like. I don’t think we should eliminate any existing lanes of traffic. In fact, I think we can do a better job making these car lanes easier to navigate while building the infrastructure necessary for bikes, peds, busses and trains to have the same ability as cars to clearly and safely navigate their way around the city. This does not have to be a zero sum decision. We have enough bright minds in this city to be able to create systems that support our goals of compact and connected without eliminating choices that may be absolutely necessary for some.

I believe the way this question is written is part of the reason we are in the situation we are with regards to affordability. Of course renters should be in proximity to good schools, parks and amenities. I don’t know anyone who would disagree with that, but the insinuation is that if you don’t want an apartment building next to your single family home, then you must not believe those things are important to renters too. The reason that zoning should exist isn’t to exclude, but to ensure that all types of housing, business and civic uses are woven into the fabric of a community. I support all types of density but am also aware that not all density is created equal. Should we put a 500 foot tower in the middle of an existing neighborhood, absolutely not, but can a duplex, 4 plex, or even a detached condominium regime in that same neighborhood meet the housing needs of our community, absolutely. A crisis requires actions that will require sacrifices, but those sacrifices have to be well defined by the experts that understand the intended and unintended consequences. If there are decisions that I make that people disagree with, my door will always be open, but I will never mislead or lie about the reasons they were made. I will also make this promise, if we make a wrong decision, I will be the first to stand up and admit our mistake and change course to do better the next time.

The will of the voters and the goals of project connect will not be met if we cannot deliver density around these transit corridors. We may as well stop now and give people back their 8.75 cents. Right now, the biggest obstacle to delivering this density is compatibility. I would support the elimination of compatibility along the corridors as they have been studied, dissected, and studied again throughout the CodeNext process.

I agree with that statement and wouldn’t be running for office if I didn’t believe that significant changes were needed to not only our land use policies, but also the elected officials that have skirted the accountability they all share for putting us in the position we currently find ourselves. The questions and responses in this survey should not be taken lightly. I do not believe that I am the first nor the last to share these beliefs, but the difference between me and my competitors in district 9 is the ability to lead. You didn’t ask about our experience, but I believe my experience is an important part of this answer – I have not been part of the “system”. I have not been on any of the boards and commissions that are equally responsible for the crisis we are in by using their unelected positions to advance their own personal objectives. My career has been spent managing, supporting, teaching, people of all ages, races, economic status and religions. I have successfully navigated and balanced the needs and wants of employees making $7/hr and those individuals that are independently wealthy. It is not an impossible task to make hard decisions. The hard decision is choosing a leader that will do the right thing even when it doesn’t benefit you

Joah Spearman

Workplace housing for City employees, public safety professionals, teachers and nurses. Similar to how the City is securing and building PSH for our unhoused population, we should be dedicating resources – and securing collaborations from the private market – that would enable us to build more workplace housing, including on underutilized City-owned land.
Missing middle housing. We don’t have enough it, period, and our next land development code rewrite attempt needs to start with a clear focus on affordability for middle class earners rather than the high focus we’ve seen the private market place on building for luxury rentals and high-rises and multi-million-dollar single-family homes where the unit economics have been made more attractive both by outdated compatibility standards and a cumbersome planning and review process.

I am the only candidate running for District 9 who is not car-dependent. I have not owned a car in Austin in five years this month. I know first-hand what it’s like to bike and walk City streets and what types of investments and improvements are needed to ensure that this is a safe, equitable and accessible alternative for thousands more Austinites.
Reducing and removing parking requirements is a great starting point for minimizing the overall car dependency in Austin, but I also believe my background in tech and business would enable me to work collaboratively with the Chamber of Commerce and business community to champion policies both by the City and large employers to reduce daily commuting into the office, develop partnerships with CapMetro to incentive public transit utilization and get more office/commercial projects built without the high focus on parking.

Yes, it is imperative that we build more housing types for renters and families whom have been historically and systemically denied the privileges of access to homeownership in Austin. Black families, for example, have nowhere near the generational wealth nor household wealth of white families, so it is not only good housing policy but more equitable to ensure Austin has policies that offers the housing options to families of all backgrounds.

Specifically, while things like the Affordable Housing bonds and the anti-displacement funds are great contributions to affordable housing, we need to prioritize more scale for development centered on housing affordability. This would enable more duplexes, fourplexes, and complexes akin to those in neighborhoods like Old West Austin and Hyde Park that were built before the strict compatibility standards were put in place hindering our ability to accommodate the needs of renters and families unable to purchase homes.

Every neighborhood must play a role in addressing our issues both with affordability and equity, and no amount of privilege should deny the City’s focus on these issues.

Building around the transit corridors is nearly a consensus issue for candidates for District 9, and similarly seems to have growing consensus for the current members of the Council. This is a good thing. We need to accommodate for greater density around the transit corridors both to reach better affordability levels and to best position Project Connect for the kind of density that would unlock real success for the public transit system for years to come. The anti-displacement fund is a phenomenal win for Austin and, if elected, I know one of my core priorities will be ensuring these funds – and Project Connect – are stewarded with focus on efficiency, efficacy (of affordability, equity and sustainability) and educating voters about the benefits Project Connect brings to ALL Austinites whether they think they’ll ride it every day or they (falsely) believe self-driving cars will negate the need for public transit. Austin has some of, if not, the most stringent compatibility standards in the country and this must end. We are a fast-growing metro area, and will continue to accommodate sprawl, push out our essential workers, and not foster affordability with the policies we’ve deployed dating back to the ’80s, and it is time for a renewed focus on our values that ensure an Austin that gives all of its residents a sense of belonging, not just the wealthiest (and typically white) ones in West Austin who are increasingly gentrifying East Austin and pricing out the communities of color whom were forced to that part of town as a result of the racially-motivated policies stemming from the 1928 City Plan.

Project Connect teaches us that the way forward with any big initiative in Austin is through inclusive coalitions. These coalitions need to truly reflect both the values and the voices within our city, not just those with access to capital or privilege. That said, I believe a coalition is beginning to form around housing affordability that could enable us to truly address some of our most severe housing issues with regard to our outdated land use policies.
Given the work of the last two years to address our unhoused population, we now know that any effort to address our City’s housing needs will require not only City action, but also collaboration with nonprofits, the private developer industry and, at times, access to state and federal resources. From workplace housing to housing to support our seniors who should be able to age in place; I believe one way to circumvent potential legal hurdles is by collaborating broadly with institutions such as UT-Austin, St. Edward’s University, ACC, the private market developers AND private businesses and large employers whom have a shared interest in ensuring we build the type of housing that accommodates middle class workers who are essential to our schools, hospitals, public safety agencies and community.
District 9 has not played as active and vocal a role as needed in communicating the severity of our housing and affordability issues under Kathie Tovo. She has been a strong advocate for affordable housing, but not a supporter to more meaningful and necessary efforts to update our land use policies to create sustainable housing affordability. That would change should I be elected, and with District 9’s vote, the Council would be much better positioned to address issues around affordability, equity and sustainability.

Tom Wald

Our guidestar to achieve this is to ensure that enough rental and owned units are available overall near opportunity to keep up with the ongoing demand which, in turn, keeps prices in check. The Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint provides a common discussion resource to make sure that we stay on these goals, and it indicates that we are far behind meeting demand, which is the largest reason prices are spiking. We also need to continue to build income-restricted units (for 31% – 80% MFI) for multiple reasons: to fill the gap left by an inadequate volume of older market-rate housing with affordable units, to provide nearby options for those displaced now and in the future, and to help provide resiliency for future housing market imbalances.

Multiple strategies will be required to increase housing supply, but it is crucial that these strategies work in concert to achieve concrete results: the buildout of the right number of units at the right price points across our region that we need to meet ongoing demand. Some example strategies include allowing more housing on corridors, incentivizing and facilitating the replacement of surface parking lots with housing, eliminating mandatory car parking requirements, expanding Affordability Unlocked (to make it more effective and widely used, e.g., more sixplexes), streamlining the development review process (including guaranteeing development timelines), limiting development fees, building more housing on public land, subdividing existing residences to provide more units, and allowing for more housing types. We also need better data on housing prices, including how rental prices change over time so that we can track our progress.

I support eliminating mandatory car parking requirements. Such requirements increase the cost of housing as well as the cost of products and services at local businesses. The city should not mandate property owners to subsidize the production of greenhouse gas emissions. As part of such a policy transition, I do want to make sure that we plan for providing car parking for persons with disabilities.

Many of our city streets were designed to prioritize travel by car above all other modes. Some of these designs have been frozen in time, oftentimes preserving approaches that enshrine environmental disregard and racist exclusion. I support the facilities people need to be able to access all Austin destinations safely on foot, via wheelchair, and by bike, just as all destinations are currently accessible by car. In some cases, the only way to provide that basic access is to reallocate redundant car lanes or to move car parking elsewhere.
We also need dedicated bus lanes from every direction into congested areas and transit signal priority (i.e. green lights) as the default.

Austin has made progress on providing non-car options in large part because of efforts that I’ve led over the last 16 years at Bike Austin and Walk Austin (now Safe Streets Austin), Austin Outside, Red Line Parkway Initiative, People United for Mobility Action, and other nonprofits, task forces, and councils. Even with these achievements, we still have so much additional potential that will require strong and effective leadership on city council and close coordination with community leaders, agency staff, and fellow elected officials.

Yes, this is absolutely critical. We need to offer enough housing stock (including a wide range of housing types) to ensure that people with a variety of incomes and needs are able to live comfortably in all parts of Austin. We also need to strengthen renter protections and provide our city’s civil rights office with the resources it needs to help enforce fair housing laws.

Some specific strategies (as also mentioned above) include allowing more housing on corridors (including additional corridors not yet included in VMU), incentivizing and facilitating housing to replace surface parking lots, eliminating mandatory car parking requirements, expanding Affordability Unlocked (which is already available on single-family-zoned lots, but needs help), building more housing on public land, and allowing for more housing types (e.g. row homes). Our policy development should be guided by estimating the number of additional units that will become available in any given area near opportunity (from each policy), and whether the resulting range in home prices actually meets the goal.

Too often, the workers that we meet on a day to day basis inside of Austin are forced to live outside of Austin and spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on transportation. A just city would allow them to afford to live near where they work if they choose to do so.

This question combines so many important values, which I will incorporate in my approach to decisions: racial equity, economic resilience, climate change action, local environmental stewardship, and mobility needs.

Within walking distance of our largest transit investments, e.g. Orange Line and Blue Line, I support midrise housing as the default. There will, understandably, be exceptions that reduce or expand on that default, but such exceptions should demonstrate our common values, and not be based on rewarding the most wealthy nor exacerbate racial segregation.

I’ve long been attuned to the potential for displacement pressures resulting from large public investments such as transit. As treasurer of People United for Mobility Action and member of ATX Mobility Coalition, I supported inclusion of the $300MM of anti-displacement funding as part of Project Connect, the first such example of this type of investment in our country. As Executive Director of the Red Line Parkway Initiative, we are partnering with city departments and nonprofit allies to ensure that the Red Line walk/bike/transit corridor includes both new affordable housing and measures to mitigate displacement of existing residents.

Time is of the essence, and our most impactful council actions must be completed by the end of 2023. Austinites are displaced and evicted regularly, many remain unhoused, and every month that we delay compounds this. I entered the race knowing that I would be running alongside well-intentioned candidates, but also knowing that as a result of my continuous 16 years of working with Austin City Council, agency staff, and Austin community leaders that I would be uniquely prepared on day one to take immediate and effective action. If elected, I would continue my work with housing leaders to build a plan of community action that includes making the case publicly, expanding and strengthening our coalition, and organizing a demonstration of overwhelming and broad support at public meetings to achieve the number of council votes needed.

Regarding the mechanisms, as I mentioned above, I would focus on ensuring that whatever tools and parameters that we may use result in enough units (in all areas and at all price points) to meet the actual ongoing demand which will, in turn, keep prices in check.

Some of the mechanisms that must be started immediately and would have the quickest on-the-ground results include streamlining the development review process, eliminating car parking requirements (which both reduces costs and allows for more housing units for a given property), building housing on city land, reducing development fees (temporarily and/or permanently), subdividing existing residences to provide more units, and expanding Affordability Unlocked.

We need further action in 2023 as well, including the other mechanisms I outlined above, e.g. allowing more housing on corridors, incentivizing and facilitating the replacement of surface parking lots with housing, and allowing for more housing types.

We can also apply what we learned from the multi-year CodeNEXT land development code (LDC) reform conversation and the lawsuit that prevented its implementation. For one, City Council could approve a new LDC, providing new options for additional housing, improved flood controls, water reclamation, and other environmental benefits, without specifying which properties each type of zoning applies to, i.e without mapping the zoning. The mapping was what resulted in the most consternation, including from my fellow member neighbors on the Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Planning Team. This is far from ideal, but it would allow the city to begin to use updated zoning as we move forward, and could trigger many new zoning cases from property owners who want to use the new code instead of the old one.

Second, the City can adopt all of the draft LDC proposals that aren’t a part of the actual zoning changes that trigger protest rights. Third, the city could begin an ambitious program to update local area plans to apply the new code in coordination with community leaders and other residents to develop plans that can survive the petition process. None of these options are the best option, but they are options that could be implemented quickly, and could have been done by Council immediately after losing the LDC appeal.

Again, we can’t afford to wait. Too many are being pushed from District 9 and from Austin, and too many are being pushed from housing altogether. Providing for more housing at middle income and working class income levels also gets us closer to housing the unhoused, but we must also take further action beyond the LDC. I am firmly aligned with the Housing First model and believe that we must end chronic homelessness over the next several years by funding and building permanent housing. In the meantime, we can and should immediately improve the health, safety, and living conditions of the unhoused by creating more temporary sheltering options.

Tag: elections

Austin Local Elections Endorsements 2022

Endorsements

Austin City Council

Ballot Propositions

Forums & Questionnaire

Endorsement Process

Early Endorsements

Regular Endorsements

Austin City Council Candidate Questionnaire 2022