AUSTIN | Economic Development

[dilliam]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

When does the bill get voted on? I know our legislature meets every other year...

They are in session right now. That's why it was proposed.

[randalls]

Correct, I believe the bill is being voted on soon.

And to your point @Novacek, as more Crew move back (or to) Texas, the percentages of local Texans on various productions' payrolls would naturally increase beyond the base 25-30% hiring requirement.

Also... from what I've experienced, most outside productions actually prefer to hire as many local Crew as possible when they come to town for a shoot because it saves a lot of money (assuming the local Crew base is competent). For example... bringing in a Gaffer or Asst. Camera person from Los Angeles or NY means the production/producers now have to house that crew member with hotel or AirBnb for the length of the shoot, pay for their travel, and their daily per diem - which gets very expensive. So if they can hire a local Crew person instead, they usually will.

[Urbannizer]

Austin tried and failed to rewrite its land code. Republican lawmakers might do it for them.

Republican legislators are now wading into Austin’s land code debate.

Lawmakers have filed several bills that, if passed, could greatly impact what kind of housing gets built in the city. State Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, has filed a bill that would lower minimum lot sizes in at least a dozen counties, including Travis, to 1,400 square feet — about a fourth of the requisite amount of land needed to build a house in Austin.

“Clearly, if you have a smaller footprint and cost structure, then you have more affordable housing,” Bettencourt said, an idea backed by research on three decades of home sale data. Senate Bill 1787 also requires that cities allow for a certain number of homes to be built — no less than 31.1 per acre. That's akin to a neighborhood with townhome or apartment-style buildings.

Other lawmakers have filed bills to loosen so-called compatibility rules, which limit how tall developers can build within a certain distance of a single-family home. Last year, Austin council members voted to amend the city’s rules, although several members lamented that the changes were too modest.

While many of these bills are being carried by Republicans in both the Texas House and Senate, at least one Democrat has weighed into the debate. Rep. Carl Sherman, Sr., D-Lancaster, has filed a bill that would make it harder for neighbors to block zoning changes on nearby property, a process called a valid petition.

[drummer]

^ I have mixed feelings about this. Folks with a deeper understanding of these policies and such, please chime in. I'd love to learn more.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by drummer

^ I have mixed feelings about this. Folks with a deeper understanding of these policies and such, please chime in. I'd love to learn more.

It's a problem with state law and has to be fixed on the state level. Otherwise, a handful of landowners will always be able to stop landuse reform unless we can get 9 of 11 council members to agree to a change which is just not really possible given 10 of our 11 council seats are small geographic districts. We lost in court last time because we ONLY had %63 percent of council support and we need %81 to override cankerous homeowners.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by freerover

It's a problem with state law and has to be fixed on the state level. Otherwise, a handful of landowners will always be able to stop landuse reform unless we can get 9 of 11 council members to agree to a change which is just not really possible given 10 of our 11 council seats are small geographic districts. We lost in court last time because we ONLY had %63 percent of council support and we need %81 to override cankerous homeowners.

A handful, cankerous? Are you suggesting city council should not represent their constituents? Rule like kings? Driving thru certain neighborhoods there was an anti codenext sign up in just about every yard. misinformed? perhaps. judging by the other stupids yard signs, yes.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by JAM

A handful, cankerous? Are you suggesting city council should not represent their constituents? Rule like kings? Driving thru certain neighborhoods there was an anti codenext sign up in just about every yard. misinformed? perhaps. judging by the other stupids yard signs, yes.

I'm suggesting %27 of the city shouldn't overrule the vast majority. Crazy in a democracy, I know.

[ATX2030]

Another round....

Indeed laying off 15% of staff, around 2,200 people
by: Abigail Jones

Posted: Mar 22, 2023 / 01:36 PM CDT

Updated: Mar 22, 2023 / 02:55 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/news/business/i...d-2200-people/

[eskimo33]

Originally Posted by freerover

I'm suggesting %27 of the city shouldn't overrule the vast majority. Crazy in a democracy, I know.

I am not trying to get into a fight, so please do not flame me, but I often worry that the terms of democracy and republic are often conflated.
At a high level (and in a perfect world), a republic allows everyone an equal voice through the election of representatives (in this case, council members). Whereby a democracy is a system where the simple majority wins/winner takes all (more like a ballot measure).
The current 10-1 council and the previous council's makeup is not a democracy but a republic. Council members are selected through a democratic election process.
In a democracy, a decision would be put to the general public's vote.
In a republic, we elect representatives (council members) that align with our beliefs/viewpoints; this allows a (quasi) equal voice for all members of the electorate.
As we operate in a hybrid system- our council members (representatives) are democratically elected (by a popular vote of their districts) to represent the interest of their constituents, thereby allowing them an equal voice. The 27% did not overrule the 73%, but the republic system worked.
I think you might be frustrated with the requirement that it takes a super-majority to pass certain items.

https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936

[enragedcamel]

If that's the definition of a system "working" then maybe the system needs overhaul.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

If that's the definition of a system "working" then maybe the system needs overhaul.

some people seem to be perfectly happy with minority rule so long as the status quo suits them.

raising the thresholds for valid petitions and voter referendums is a good start to curbing that trend around here. national trends towards minoritarian rule on the other hand are unfortunately baked into the design...

[myBrain]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

I am not trying to get into a fight, so please do not flame me, but I often worry that the terms of democracy and republic are often conflated.
At a high level (and in a perfect world), a republic allows everyone an equal voice through the election of representatives (in this case, council members). Whereby a democracy is a system where the simple majority wins/winner takes all (more like a ballot measure).
The current 10-1 council and the previous council's makeup is not a democracy but a republic. Council members are selected through a democratic election process.
In a democracy, a decision would be put to the general public's vote.
In a republic, we elect representatives (council members) that align with our beliefs/viewpoints; this allows a (quasi) equal voice for all members of the electorate.
As we operate in a hybrid system- our council members (representatives) are democratically elected (by a popular vote of their districts) to represent the interest of their constituents, thereby allowing them an equal voice. The 27% did not overrule the 73%, but the republic system worked.
I think you might be frustrated with the requirement that it takes a super-majority to pass certain items.

https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936

I really don't understand what this comment is getting at. 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms. Above you are simply defining a 'Republic' as a representative democracy, which is how it is most often used in modern times. When someone says that "we're a democracy," unless they're qualifying that as a "pure" or "grassroots" democracy, they aren't excluding representative democracy.

The supermajority rule has nothing to do with whether legislation happens by ballot measure or representative -- a supermajority threshold could be required either way.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by myBrain

I really don't understand what this comment is getting at. 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms. Above you are simply defining a 'Republic' as a representative democracy, which is how it is most often used in modern times. When someone says that "we're a democracy," unless they're qualifying that as a "pure" or "grassroots" democracy, they aren't excluding representative democracy.

The supermajority rule has nothing to do with whether legislation happens by ballot measure or representative -- a supermajority threshold could be required either way.

Don't engage. It's just drivel meant to justify literally anything that happens. It's Orwellian doublespeak that's better ignored than engaged like it's a serious legal theory.

[eskimo33]

Originally Posted by myBrain

I really don't understand what this comment is getting at. 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms. Above you are simply defining a 'Republic' as a representative democracy, which is how it is most often used in modern times. When someone says that "we're a democracy," unless they're qualifying that as a "pure" or "grassroots" democracy, they aren't excluding representative democracy.

The supermajority rule has nothing to do with whether legislation happens by ballot measure or representative -- a supermajority threshold could be required either way.

What I was trying to express was, railing against democracy (in the "pure or grassroots term," which was never specified) was actually contradictory to the point being made.
This is a bit of an academic exercise; hence the do not flame comment.

[eskimo33]

Originally Posted by freerover

Don't engage. It's just drivel meant to justify literally anything that happens. It's Orwellian doublespeak that's better ignored than engaged like it's a serious legal theory.

[StoOgE]

Land owners will always vote to keep their property value as high as possible noatter their political leaning.

Liberals in big cities will make housing for the poor more expensive to do it. Small government conservatives will step in and ask the government to block a meat processing plant to do it.

NIMBYism is the sole unifying political theory of our country.

[enragedcamel]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Land owners will always vote to keep their property value as high as possible noatter their political leaning.

Liberals in big cities will make housing for the poor more expensive to do it. Small government conservatives will step in and ask the government to block a meat processing plant to do it.

NIMBYism is the sole unifying political theory of our country.

Worth noting that there's a new trend, YIMBYism, that has developed purely as a response to NIMBYism. I hope it catches on in Austin as well.

[enragedcamel]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

I think the reason you got that reaction is that your post reeked of the "well ackshully we aren't a democracy!!!" stuff that conservatives always pull when liberals point out that the minority of the populace (e.g. red states) having such an outsized effect on national politics and the direction of the country is undemocratic. Maybe that wasn't your intention but it came across that way.

[clubtokyo]

“Sunbelt Cities Nashville and Austin Are Nation’s Hottest Job Markets”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sunbelt...rkets-5a454a53

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

“Sunbelt Cities Nashville and Austin Are Nation’s Hottest Job Markets”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sunbelt...rkets-5a454a53

Good news for the twins!