Felipe,

Thanks for that link. Interesting.

Just think, though -- Let's say a guy has a good-sized single family lot that would be a candidate for multiple units.

BUT, that same lot has 'protected' trees that cannot be removed, even though in order to use the lot's square footage, they would need to be removed, and not replaced, even if that were financially feasible.

Who wins?

It may be time for someone to queue that meme where the guy is sweating making a decision when two of his sacred cow issues conflict.

It seems like deed restrictions still take precedence. Is that right?

Stan Crowch said:

---

It seems like deed restrictions still take precedence. Is that right?

---

I haven't read the text to the Austin ordinance so I'm not sure. In California their law did away with any deed restrictions that limited housing to one unit per lot.

Red Pear Realty said:

---

Stan Crowch said:

---

It seems like deed restrictions still take precedence. Is that right?

---

I haven't read the text to the Austin ordinance so I'm not sure. In California their law did away with any deed restrictions that limited housing to one unit per lot.

---

You know, I have the same question.

In California, apparently the law was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.

In Austin, it's just a municipal ordinance. So, does a Texas city have the power to negate existing deed restrictions, or would that require action by the State?

And one more thought -- if Austin refuses to back down on its tree ordinances to make room for this new ordinance, could a developer ensure a single-family area by planting (at great expense, admittedly) some of those giant protected trees to make it very difficult to develop the lot further? Of course, a developer may not want to do that if multi-family development will pay him more than single family.

But, how about a HOA doing something like that?

So many questions ... I guess we'll see soon.

There are already a ton of 2-4 units, and bigger in the Park cities that were built in the 20's. and free market has already made the economics of building small multi-family in neighborhoods like that. Hard to make building that type of housing on a 3 million dollar lot work.

also, out all the above I think only River Oaks is not it own municipality setting its own rules.

There will eventually be a nationwide, Fair Housing Act type of legislation that gets passed for this.

So, if that is true, what do you mean by invest accordingly above?

When it comes to investing, I really don't care who's in power or what laws they enact. I'm going to play by the rules and make money either way. There is a very strong business case here that says that those who take advantage of this change can make a lot of money because it creates opportunities and dampens others.

yeah, I have been investing in both urban and suburban areas for 23 years and have never considered politics one time when making an investment (Nor in any other aspect of my life for that matter) I am curious about your your opinion of how this would change your investment targets? It sounds like you are against the increased density which is certainly a justifiable as suburban developments have been zoned single family with homes in one place, business in another since world war 2, and no one argue that suburbs have been a bad place to invest. Quite the opposite actually. So, if a zoning regime requiring more density was forced upon suburbs through a fair housing legislation are you thinking suburbs would not do as well, or are you thinking the opposite?

Wow wow wow, Westlake, Highland Park and I believe Alamo Heights are their own towns and not subject to this nonsense.

It will also be interesting to see if Austin will lift their impervious cover limits to allow this to happen, if they don't then there won't be enough of the extra dwellings for it to make much of a difference. If it works then Austin will probably become Oakland.

Easy example would be that I would not invest in STRs in a blue city with a blue state government. The narrative is that STRs drive up housing costs for normal people and Democrats are by and large on one side of that argument. And I'm not saying I run around choosing my investments solely based on politics. But if you aren't considering it in your overall investment decision making, you're opening yourself up to a lot of unnecessary risk and exposure.

Bigger example would be when I worked for a big multinational RE investment company. We were set to dispose of an asset in Russia in early 2014. The day we were supposed to close, Putin invaded Crimea. Buyer backed out (shocker). That made us a lot less likely to go buy more deals in Russia. And made it a lot more difficult to sell the ones we still had.

Again, my thesis is and has been for at least the last six months that this will eventually come at a national level, and will apply everywhere inside the USA. You don't have to agree with that bet, but I'll invest according to my thesis, now and in the future.

well, I do not see STR as a political issue. Of course there are more STR in cities therefore they are on the front end of regulating them. There are just more call for daily rentals in Austin proper then there is in Round Rock. and I suspect suburban attitudes will change regardless of political leanings if there is a STR on every block (see a thread on this very board) as not in my backyard is an uniquely bipartisan position.

But, that is neither here nor there as my question was not on considering politics to invest but rather the fair housing act you see coming and how to react to that when it will be the same all over the country. Just trying to figure out wins and loses if that becomes realty.

But, all good, I will not press the point any further.

D Nauti said:

---

It will also be interesting to see if Austin will lift their impervious cover limits to allow this to happen, if they don't then there won't be enough of the extra dwellings for it to make much of a difference. If it works then Austin will probably become Oakland.

---

I agree. Not enough impervious cover allowance to build additional housing in the more desirable areas of Austin.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/us/politics/biden-housing-costs.html

Quote:

---

The policy proposals in a White House report being released on Thursday include what could be an aggressive federal intervention in local politics, which often dictates where homes are built and who can occupy them. The administration is backing a plan to pressure cities and other localities to relax zoning restrictions that in many cases hinder affordable housing construction.

---