Yesterday’s meeting of the House Committee on Land & Resource Management seemed to go pretty well for those who oppose more housing in Austin. Most of the members of the committee, Republican and Democrat, either misunderstood what HB 2989 does or couldn’t make sense of the debate over it.
I am far from an expert on the Lege, but it appeared clear that most members of the committee are far from convinced that the bill, which would specify that comprehensive rewrites of city zoning codes cannot be subjected to the same housing filibuster that is used to thwart individual zoning cases, deserves their support.
The hearing kicked off with a handful of opponents testifying against the bill –- all familiar faces in Austin anti-development politics. Fred Lewis alleged that city planners, inspired by the “latest fad of New Urbanism” aimed to eliminate “single-family neighborhoods” –– “they say it’s bad for the environment and needs to be eliminated.”
For the record, the vast majority of single-family zoned lots in Austin would have remained so under every code revision presented by city staff in recent years.
Former Travis County Auditor Susan Spataro rambled incoherently about the wonders of single-family housing and the horrors of apartment living, suggesting that the purpose of the bill was to condemn all of Austin to the latter.
“It is destroying the way humans are allowed to live when you get rid of single-family homes,” she said.
Funny. Houston doesn’t have zoning and yet it has lots of single-family homes. How does that work?
Later on, she contrasted the good old days with the dystopian future planned by New Urbanists:
“You had a backyard and you know and maybe a rabbit in it or a dog or something like that. These big high rise units, these small apartments are not that. They will impact families and how people are raised.”
So just how bad does Spataro believe multifamily housing is? Should parents even be allowed to raise children in apartments?
The hallucinations and histrionics were received quite positively by committee members, who later grilled Dan Keshet, the head of Texans for Housing, on both the perception that the bill would deprive property owners of proper notice and that it would destroy neighborhoods.
Rep. Kyle Biederman, a Fredericksburg Republican who attended the infamous Jan. 6 rally at the Capitol and has proposed a referendum on Texas seceding from the union, repeatedly asked Keshet to explain why so many people were opposing the bill and asked him what was going to happen to the properties in “their area.” Keshet had to explain that he didn’t know where the individual opponents lived and how the properties in their neighborhoods were being rezoned, if at all.
“I believe if these people felt like it was going to be zoned single family, they wouldn’t be so concerned, wouldn’t you?”
It’s about the feelings man!
Later, in response to Austin home builder Scott Turner’s testimony in favor of the bill, Biederman conceded that “cities need to grow … but they don’t have to grow over the top of people and roll them over.”
The constraints that the city of Austin is putting on housing is not such a big deal, reasoned Biederman, because “home builders can build homes wherever you want, wherever you got land.”
“Regulation outside of the city is much less,” he said. “Outside the city of Austin it’s a lot easier. There’s a lot of open space around. And it just doesn’t seem fair to individuals that they have to change their lifestyle, their community because homebuilders need to be able to build homes because Texas really needs them.”
This ringing endorsement of sprawl given by Biederman is the logical conclusion of the positions taken by many of Austin’s “progressive” anti-development folk.
And yes, it’s obviously deeply ironic that a politician whose identity is based on nostalgia for the rugged individualism of the Texas frontier is so willing to sacrifice individual property rights.
The conflation of property rights with protest rights was a recurring source of confusion for members of the committee. In general it is the opponents of the bill who seek to restrict property rights by keeping zoning as restrictive as possible (single-family zoning). And yet somehow they appeared able to convince members of the committee that it is their “property right” to increase the voting threshold by which City Council rezones other people’s properties.
Most of the committee members were clearly unfamiliar with the debate around the issue and had a hard time making sense of the fact that both sides were claiming the mantle of affordability.
“Somewhere there’s some disconnect because you and the opposition have the same goals, it seems to me,” said Committee Chair Joe Deshotel, a Beaumont Democrat.
This might take a while.