one MEEN Ag said:
Federale01 said:
Ah, then it's just the quotes you selected. Made me think you were making it more about the politics. What's funny about the article is all those people in Lakeway complaining about a massive influx of liberals are probably new transplants too. Lakeway was almost nothing 30 years ago.
That being said, I don't get the knock on liberal cities. For the most part, they are the most expensive places in the US to live because people want to live there. Everyone says that liberals are destroying cities in CA so people are fleeing to Texas. But in reality, it's high cost of living associated with property being so high that is driving that train. And property prices are higher in SF than Austin because more people want to live there than here and there is limited space. I'm not sure "conservatives" should take much credit for cheap land. Plus, lakeway would be almost nothing without Austin, which has always been pretty liberal. That has always confused me.
30 years ago is your measuring stick for new transplants? So are you required to live in an area for over 1/3rd your life before you're allowed to say you're a native?
And the idea that just demand drives the high cost of living in cities is an oversimplification, its not just demand, but demand on the local real estate laws and dynamics. SF has a huge issue with local government outright banning vertical growth, and other real estate development to accommodate the population boom.
Rent caps and controls dry up investment dollars. Requiring % of housing to be under market value only serves to increase the cost for the rest. The burden of heavy regulation on an area greatly effects an area's ability to serve its people.
Increased regulation hurts poor people, outside of the few that get the government to directly subsidize. If development dollars have to be spent on stupid upgrades like requiring 30k in solar power on each new home, there is no way to build to lower price points. There's a reason California has the highest disparity rates in the country. Nanny state regulation increases the cost of doing business and doing so guts the ability to be poor and not on government assistance.
The problem is the democrats in power in California like it this way. They get to act morally superior about their regulatory actions, see their property values skyrocket, and ensure that poor people keep on voting democrat to stay on the government dollar.
There is a real concern that these transplants take their failed ideology and ruin the good thing going for us.
A native means a native. I am from Texas, lived there most of my life. I am a native. I have since moved around to various places for work. I will never be a native of places other than Texas.
Also, heavy regulation is often requested by the people already there to protect what they have. No one really wants to see a whole block of historic Victorian houses knocked down for a 40 story apartment building so a bunch of new people can move in. They want to protect their property values (framed as protecting the "character of the neighborhood") so they block projects like these. Its not necessarily nanny-state dems driving local zoning disputes. You see this in most places property values are high.
Here is an example of this fight in one of the most expensive areas to live in the U.S. Montgomery County, MD just outside of DC. The very liberal council wants more housing. Many single family home residents are opposed. This same fight happened in Austin a few years ago.
https://wamu.org/story/19/07/23/tiny-homes-detached-apartments-approved-for-zoning-in-montgomery-county/Plus, I have been to many very expensive places to live and there is plenty of vertical growth. Check out Manhattan, LA, Chicago, Seattle, etc. Even SF has the financial district. This is not really a common issue outside of a few towns with historic structures or that have laws to protect views, such as Austin and Washington, D.C. Even Austin has numerous new residential towers that weren't there a decade a go. Most liberal dems want higher population densities (aka more multi-family development) around transit hubs. Its the single family home owner that usually tries to block these initiatives.
A lot of the rent control laws also come in to "protect" residents against gentrification. Again, policies designed to help the citizens who already live there, and not necessarily driven by liberal masterminds. Its economic populism designed to win elections if its anything.
Also, SF is bracketed by other very expensive areas to the north and south and natural boundaries to the east and west. Austin, Dallas, Houston, SA, Phoenix, etc, etc, etc, can all spread out in a multitude of directions for as far as freeways allow people to do so. If Austin makes it more difficult and expensive to develop through zoning laws, which is does, then people can always move to Manor or RR and save money. That is not an option in SF or Manhattan.
