What good are Street Impact Fees?

A lot more people are out and about than a few weeks ago, but this was Congress Ave just north of Ben White at 8:30 a.m. That certainly doesn’t look like pre-COVID rush hour. 

COVID cases surge in Austin
Travis County experienced its two highest one-day totals for new COVID cases on Monday and Tuesday, with 118 and 164 new cases, respectively. The previous one-day high was 88 on June 1. 

The good news is that this has not been accompanied by a surge in hospitalizations so far. There are currently 91 hospitalized, 36 of whom are in the ICU and 26 are on ventilators in the five-county metro area. 

Could this be due to a surge in people getting tested after attending protests? Austin Public Health director Mark Escott says that’s probably not the big reason because it often takes a week for people to get test results. 

Unanimous support on Council for police reform resolutions
City Council’s discussion yesterday on police reform showed no signs of disagreements between Council members. At the very least, it appears that the resolutions scheduled for Thursday that call for reforms to use-of-force policies and shifting funds from APD to other public safety strategies will encounter no resistance. 

Alter says APD needs new leadership
Council members have used different words to make the point, but by my count Alison Alter became the fifth Council member to call for APD Chief Brian Manley’s resignation or demotion. She came to the conclusion, she said, after re-watching the chief’s responses to questions from last week’s meeting over the weekend. 

“We need to breathe new air into a department that time and time again has come short,” she said, highlighting the mishandling of sexual assault cases, APD’s response to the protests, use-of-force incidents, and the Tatum Report, which alleged that officers were afraid to report misconduct within the department. 

She added: “This is really difficult for me to say, but I feel that at this point in time, we need different leadership of our public safety department.”

She suggested that a resistance to “cultural change” at the department was an issue not just for Manley, but for Rey Arrellano, the assistant city manager who oversees APD, and for Troy Gay, the #2 at the department. 

Nobody on Council responded to Alter’s comments, which came at the end of the meeting. The mayor’s office declined to comment when asked whether he believed Manley should resign. 

What good are Street Impact Fees? 
Over the last four years City Council has been exploring the idea of implementing Street Impact Fees. SIFs are a fee that is levied on new development to pay for the road improvements made necessary by the project. Specifically, they are calculated based on the number of car trips that the project is anticipated to add to the existing infrastructure. 

The city already forces developers to pay for the impact their projects have on infrastructure through a convoluted “pro rata” system. However, the money the city collects from those payments can only be used for streets that are directly impacted by the project. 

A universal SIF would be different. The city could use the fee revenue on any projects that boost vehicle capacity within a six mile radius. Thus, the idea is that the city would be split into 17 districts, and the fees levied on a project could be used for a project in its district. 

The problem is, state law requires that SIFs only be used to expand car-carrying capacity by building new roads, expanding existing roads, improving access management or improving intersections. 

You can’t use a SIF to build an urban trail, a bus stop or a standalone bike lane. You can, however, use SIFs to build new sidewalks and bike lanes that are part of a project to boost roadway capacity. And at least according to an ATD spokesperson, that could include upgrading an existing bike lane from unprotected to protected. 

Could they incentivize good things? 
Driving up the cost of housing to build more car lanes is definitely not my idea of good policy for Austin. So my inclination is to view this potential change as worse than the status quo. 

There are some ways the outcomes could be less bad than expected, though. The SIF policy proposed by a task force envisions a number of ways that developers could cut their fees, including by offering some affordable housing or things that discourage car use, such as bike racks, bike lanes, on-site showers (for employers). Mixed-use developments could also be eligible for a discount.

Fees could vary dramatically by area
The fees would differ between the 17 districts based on the roadway capacity needs. Below is the anticipated median fee that would be levied for a single-family home by district. You can see it would be nearly 7x higher in Southwest District K than in Central District I. 
The good thing is that the fees go down as the units go up. Below, for instance, are the estimated median fees that would be levied per unit for duplexes and other “missing middle” multifamily. 
For larger multifamily projects, the per-unit fee would be even lower. See below. 
What’s important to remember is that the fee is only supposed to be levied based on the cost of the demand that will be generated in the next 10 years. The fee is not supposed to account for the current unmet demand or demand that is generated more than 10 years from now. 

If the city really wanted to, it could levy fees that would generate up to $1.8 billion over the next decade, staff estimates. However, the proposal that is being floated does not imagine charging the maximum allowed by state law, but about 35% of the max for residential projects and 50% of the max for commercial projects. And then there are the discounts that developers can qualify for. Taking all of that into account, staff estimates the fees will generate $285 million over a decade, only a sliver of the estimated $1.2 billion of current demand for new road capacity. 

It doesn’t seem like this is getting any pushback on Council but a lot of developers, particularly infill builders, are worried about the costs and say this will drive up the cost of housing. 

Below is another set of hypothetical projects and how they would be impacted by the new fees compared to the status quo. The IFAC Recommendation is what Council will likely be considering. 

Lax behavior, lack of masks tied to surge in COVID cases say officials: Escott said the reopening of businesses alone is not the reason for the increase in positive tests. Also, because of it can take a week or more to receive results after getting tested, Escott said the recent spike in new cases can’t be tied to the social justice protests that began in the final days of May. Any infections that arose from the protests would be reported later this week and into next week, Escott said.“Quite frankly we also have an increase in risk-taking behavior,” he said. “People are less cautious, they’re not wearing masks as much, they’e not social distancing as much, and there not paying as close attention to personal hygiene messages like washing your hands frequently and not touching your face.”

We’ll see what things look like a week from now, after protesters start getting their results back. Q&A with Austin’s largest apartment builder: Journeyman Group President Sam Kumar said his company will probably build at least 600 fewer apartment units in Austin this year than it had initially planned.Despite that, the company is still projected to have 2,100 apartment units under construction this year, he said. That’s about the same or slightly more than Journeyman built last year.


Fires under I-35 left homeless with nothing. Volunteers stepped up: “During the riots, all my stuff got burnt up. My mattress, my tent – all that stuff got burnt up,” he said. “So, [I’m] starting all over – again.”Howard said he’s been living under I-35 for four months. When the protests outside APD headquarters got heated May 30, he decided to leave.

What’s interesting is that everybody seems to agree there is nothing lower than burning a homeless man’s mattress and yet many of us believe that person should be ticketed/arrested and have his belongings confiscate

Austin has flattened the curve. Now what?

Screen Shot 2020-05-05 at 1.31.43 PM
The green line represents the rate at which confirmed COVID cases have increased each day. The yellow lines are the new cases each day. The red lines are the cumulative total.

The rise in the number of positive COVID cases in Travis County has slowed as a result of a sharp reduction in person-to-person contact, Mark Escott, interim head of Austin Public Health, told City Council this morning.

The rate at which new confirmed cases are doubling is now at about 20 days, even though testing has ramped up significantly in the last couple weeks. In more encouraging news, of the first 735 people who signed up for tests through APH’s online portal, only 16 tested positive (2.18%). Remember, that’s only a fraction of the tests being conducted countywide (many through private providers), but it’s a big drop from the 10% positive rate among those who had been tested up until last week.

We still don’t have the capacity to do widespread testing of those without symptoms, which would be ideal because it would allow us to get a sense of how many asymptomatic cases are floating around. Right now we’re still only testing those who report symptoms or those who have been in close contact with somebody who was infected.

“This is really reflecting of this community’s efforts to flatten the curve,” said Escott. “We need these efforts to continue. It’s critical that we continue to remind folks that this is not the result of luck.”

Those experiencing severe symptoms are disproportionately black and Hispanic. Latinos account for about 35% of Travis County’s population but 51% of local COVID hospitalizations. African Americans are about 8% of the population but 12% of hospitalizations.

Lots of constructions workers getting sick
Although the city and county stay-at-home orders initially restricted construction to projects deemed “essential,” Gov. Greg Abbott’s deemed all residential and commercial construction essential. Like me, CM Kathie Tovo said today that she had seen job sites that were not complying with social distancing guidelines and had heard constituents voice the same concerns.

Escott said among the infected there have been “a significant number of construction workers as well as families of construction workers.” It is “one of the dominant industries” among those infected, along with the grocery and health care sectors.

In other words: “The people getting sick right now tend to be the people who are working right now.”

Should we be optimistic? Ehh…
Where we go from here depends on how behavior changes in the coming weeks. We certainly are nowhere near the testing and contact tracing capacity to practically stamp out the disease, ala South Korea. The absolute best case scenario will be a steady, slow burn of hospitalizations and death until a vaccine arrives.

The slow burn will be possible only if people continue to interact at a far lower rate than usual. And frankly, I think it’s a good bet that person-to-person contact will continue to be far under normal levels. A national poll released today by the Washington Post shows that 63% of Americans are at least “somewhat” worried about getting ill and only 22% say they’d feel comfortable going to a restaurant at this point. There are sharp partisan divides, but even a majority of Republicans say they’re ready to dine out yet.

But there’s definitely going to be increased interaction. That’s for sure. And that is going to lead to an increase in transmission.

What is unclear to me is what the governor will do if hospitals around the state become overwhelmed in June or July. Will he reimpose restrictions or is he going to let us ride this out? Both outcomes seem plausible to me. The United States has failed to contain the virus and is now in the process of giving up the fight in the hopes that we will eventually achieve herd immunity.

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter

Experts tell Council: Get ready for COVID chaos

Credit: Wikicommons

Moves to “reopen” Texas could very likely prompt a surge in COVID infections that will overwhelm area hospitals and lead to thousands of deaths, two experts told City Council yesterday.

Lauren Ancel Meyers, a UT professor of biology and statistics who has been modeling the progress of the disease in the Austin area, attributed Austin’s relatively low body count to its success in reducing person-to-person interaction over the past five weeks. She estimates that interactions are down 95%.

If we drop back to a semi-normal situation, where interactions are only down 40% from their usual level, the model projects that area hospitals will exceed their surge capacity in early to mid-June. If no additional social distancing measures were ordered to reverse the trend, Austin will experience a “catastrophic” three months that would Meyers said would resemble the chaos that engulfed Italy and New York City in recent weeks.

However, the death toll in that scenario will vary widely depending on how effectively we “cocoon” high-risk populations: the elderly and those with certain health conditions. If overall interactions are reduced by 40% but the at-risk population is able to avoid 95% of interactions, her model projects 2,900 deaths in the metro area by September. If, however, the at-risk group’s interactions only stay 80% below normal, deaths would shoot up to 6,500.

For what it’s worth, it’s hard for me to imagine how a change in most of our behavior would not also impact the behavior of those in at-risk groups. It’s one thing to tell retired people to stay at home, but many people at-risk are younger people who are not able to get out of work, despite underlying health conditions. So far the governor has not suggested that those people will be eligible for unemployment or disability.

Assuming no measures were taken to counteract the catastrophic scenario Meyers described, the community would reach “herd immunity,” at some point in September, which would significantly reduce the spread of the disease.

The prospect of another lockdown
Meyers also offered another scenario, in which state government responds to a major surge in cases by putting in place another lockdown.

For instance, if the goal was to reduce overwhelming hospitals, a logical “trigger” for another lockdown would be 100 COVID hospitalizations per day. If we only reduce interactions by 40%, we’ll hit that point in mid-June and then lock down for another three months, likely forcing schools to delay opening until mid-September.

The good news, she says, is that the second lockdown would probably be the last. Drastic measures will not be necessary after that due to herd immunity.

The consequences of exceeding hospital capacity
Clay Johnston, dean of the Dell Medical School, said that Meyers’ model likely understated the limits on hospital capacity. There are only about 1,000 available hospital beds in the metro area right now, he said. The 3,200 beds in her model is the “surge capacity” that would involve doubling up of beds and putting people in hallways and the emergency room.

Johnston also noted that Meyers’ model does not assume that the death rate will increase as hospitals overcrowd. In fact, patients will be far more likely to die in that scenario because they won’t be getting adequate care, said Johnston.

So what do we do? 
If we don’t dramatically increase testing capacity and boost contact tracing, it won’t make much of a difference whether we reopen now or some time in the future, says Meyers. The benefit of continuing the lockdown for at least a couple more weeks is that it will “buy us valuable time” to ramp up testing, she said.

Travis County still has a far higher testing rate than the other major urban counties in Texas. At about 66 per 10,000, we’re way ahead of Harris, Dallas, Bexar, El Paso and Tarrant. It appears that most people who report symptoms of the virus can get scheduled for tests within 24 hours, but the testing capacity is still nowhere near what it would need to be at to effectively manage the spread of the disease through testing and contact tracing.

Until we have a vaccine, the most likely way to prevent a catastrophic spread is to conduct widespread testing, including of people who don’t have any symptoms, so that those who test positive can quarantine.

What will people do?
It will take a few weeks before we see whether the grim scenarios Meyers’ discussed come to pass. Her model cannot predict exactly how people will behave in the coming weeks. She had to make an educated guess about how people will act in a situation that we’ve never experienced before; therefore her model assumes that in the coming weeks the average Austinite will be engaging in 40% fewer interactions than they would be in the pre-COVID world.

It’s very possible, however, that interactions will not increase that much. Or that they’ll increase even more. Only time will tell.

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter

Can Trump save light rail in Austin?

Screen Shot 2020-04-07 at 2.21.35 PM
A Project Connect rendering. 

Project Connect is in serious danger. The coronavirus has jeopardized every resource needed to build the two light rail lines and many other transit improvements the project envisions. Notably:

Attention. It’s all devoted to the virus, both at City Hall and among the public. Many of the leaders, activists and donors who are key to a successful transit referendum this fall aren’t thinking in the long-term right now.

Money: Sales tax revenue, which makes up the great majority of Cap Metro’s funding, has plummeted. The federal stimulus bill approved last week provided $25 billion to shore up transit agencies, off which Cap Metro is getting $104 million. According to Cap Metro CEO Randy Clarke, that money is simply to help the agency keep services afloat through the end of the year. We’ll see whether that is enough, but there is certainly the prospect that the severe damage to sales tax revenues will continue into next year and put current services at risk.

People are also going to have much less money. The idea of paying for Project Connect entirely with a tax rate election (rather than general obligation bonds) was politically dubious a month ago. Now asking for property owners, a significant percentage of whom are likely facing foreclosure due to lost jobs/income, to approve even a small tax increase (1¢ or 2¢) may be tough. Especially since the drop in property values may prompt the city, county and school district to ask voters to approve other tax increases just to keep basic services afloat.

The federal government may be our only hope
Project Connect has always been premised on major federal support. The general assumption is that the Federal Transit Administration would pay for 40% of the cost of the rail system. However, in order to qualify for those funds, we’d have to prove we have the ability to not just cover the rest of the capital costs but that we have a permanent revenue stream to support operating costs. Unfortunately, we can’t use GO bonds to pay for operating costs. Hence the tax rate election idea.

If we were to assume that nothing changes in terms of federal support, my recommended approach would be to ask for as small of an immediate tax increase as possible and then to fund whatever you can with GO bonds. Yes, those eventually lead to tax increases too, but not until the city begins selling the bonds and spending money, much of which is years away. It’s essentially the city’s version of deficit-spending.

But perhaps amidst the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the rules will change. Trump has floated the idea of a giant infrastructure bill to further stimulate the economy. The good news is that Congressional Democrats already have a $760 billion infrastructure plan that they introduced in January. It includes $105 billion for local transit agencies.

With that kind of increased funding available for transit, are the feds still going to ask local governments to raise taxes to qualify for it? That’s not very stimulus-y.

In fact, now Trump and Democrats are talking about something even bigger –- maybe $2 trillion. Mitch McConnell isn’t happy about it and Congressional Republicans are sounding the alarms about Democrats using this as an opportunity to accomplish long-term environmental objectives, but as the economic crisis continues, the pressure on them to pump more money into the economy will only increase. Nancy Pelosi knows this.

Trump, of course, couldn’t care less about investing in transit. He couldn’t care less about any of the details of the stimulus package. But that’s the good news. It means he’ll sign anything as long as there’s a big number attached to it.

Austin as we know it wouldn’t exist if not for the largesse of the federal government during the Great Depression. Local leaders, notably former Mayor Tom Miller and a young congressman by the name of Lyndon Johnson, maneuvered to get New Deal funds to realize the decades-long goal of building dams to control the seasonal floods that had been such a big constraint on the city’s growth. The Mansfield and Tom Miller Dams put Austin on an entirely new trajectory, allowing it to grow into the major city it is today. They also created thousands of jobs.

Perhaps 80 years from now we will say something similar about the Great Coronavirus Crisis of 2020. How local leaders seized the opportunity to transform Austin’s dangerous, congested, sprawling infrastructure into the safest, greenest and most equitable transportation system in the Sunbelt.

(We have the New Deal to thank for many of our most treasured local public assets. Here’s a list.)

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter

Will local media survive COVID?

This article comes from the March 30 edition of my newsletter.

The coronavirus may very likely be the knock-out blow to long-struggling local media outlets that depend on ad revenue.

Let’s start with the paper of record, the Austin American-Statesman. After shedding dozens of positions over the years via buyouts, the Statesman was purchased in early 2018 by GateHouse, the largest newspaper owner in the country, whose profit model is based on gutting local papers. Late last year, GateHouse acquired the second largest chain, Gannett, and is now operating under the Gannett brand.

From the New York Times today:

You could, this Sunday, purchase Gannett, the biggest newspaper chain in the country, for a mere $261 million — about a quarter of what Michael R. Bloomberg spent on his presidential campaign.

And (Elizabeth) Green, a founder of the nonprofit education news organization Chalkbeat, is one of the few people who may be able to raise the money to pull off a deal like that.

But she quickly realized that Gannett wasn’t worth it: Buying it would mean signing up to pay off a high-interest loan from a giant New York private equity firm and relying on an advertising business model that may be in its death throes because of the coronavirus.

Indeed, I had already begun writing this article when it was reported that Gannett will require any employee making over $38,000/year (that likely includes every Statesman reporter) to take three weeks of unpaid furlough over the next three months.

The ad-based revenue model that used to prop up local papers has been eroding for 20 years. The reason they succeeded for decades was simple: there was no competition. Where else would a local car dealer advertise other than local media? Where else but the classifieds section of the local paper would a landlord place an ad for a vacant apartment?

Craigslist completely destroyed the once-profitable classifieds business and the broader internet opened up new advertising opportunities that local media couldn’t compete with. Sure, local papers sell online ads, but they don’t get anywhere near the money they used to get for ads in print.

Many of the local businesses that continued to advertise in local print –– local retailers, local bars and restaurants –– were just dealt a potentially fatal blow by the coronavirus. Whatever margin local media was operating on before will likely evaporate.

It’s well-established, for instance, that the Austin Chronicle, which has remained a much thicker paper than many of its peers in the alt-weekly world, has stayed alive in recent years due to the largesse of its founders, Nick Barbaro and Louis Black. Both men were made rich by SXSW, and have used their fortune to keep the lights on at an unprofitable enterprise. The Chronicle has also asked readers for donations, an unusual step for a for-profit publication.

I don’t know what the implications of SXSW’s cancellation in particular has on Barbaro or the Chronicle, but it’s likely that the closure of local retailers and eateries will prove devastating to the paper.  The first paper where my work was ever published, Isthmus, an alt-weekly in Madison, Wis., announced that it would “go dark for an undetermined period of time due to a dramatic drop in advertising.

The death of the advertising model does NOT have to be the death of local news. At least not in Austin. Strong news reporting –– in many cases better than what the ad-based model provided –– can be supported through philanthropy and/or subscriptions.

The philanthropic model is best-exemplified by the Texas Tribune, which raises money from donors large and small and makes money by hosting events. KUT, like other public radio stations, is also funded mostly through donations as well as some public funding.

The Austin Monitor and the Texas Observer feature a blend. Both are nonprofits but they also sell subscriptions.

And then, of course, there’s this newsletter, which is funded entirely through subscriptions.

I’m fairly optimistic about the long-term future of local media in Austin. Not only is it a large and growing city, but it has a large population of highly-engaged people who have both the interest and the mean$ to support nonprofit or subscription-based media. I am much less hopeful that quality media will survive in poorer communities, including some large cities. 

(To be clear, I don’t expect any of this to serve as much consolation for the many journalists who are looking ahead at pay cuts and layoffs. I don’t want to see any current publications fail and I very much encourage employees of local media outlets to unionize so that they have a seat at the table during the tough times ahead)

In this context, my own contribution to local news is limited by the fact that one person only has so many hours in the day to work, especially when I’m trying to take care of a 1-year-old.

However, my hope is that in the coming months the subscriptions will continue to grow and I will be able to devote myself to this project full-time. I’ve also begun to consider ways that I can offer the product at free or reduced rates to those for whom $10/month or $100/year is a significant burden. One idea that a reader shared is allowing subscribers to pay a little extra for their own subscription (perhaps $1/month or $10/year) to subsidize subscriptions for others. If you have other ideas, feel free to share.

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter

The timeline of COVID in Austin

Screen Shot 2020-03-22 at 12.35.23 PM
The mayor convenes a 6 a.m. press conference on March 13 to announce the first two confirmed COVID-19 cases.

The breakneck pace at which this crisis has unfolded is astonishing. Here’s a timeline.

March 4: In response to concerns about SXSW, Mark Escott, interim director of Austin Public Health, says there is “no evidence that closing SXSW is going to make the community safer” and said “the threat of community spread is low” in Austin

March 6: Mayor Steve Adler declares an emergency that cancels SXSW

March 7: Adler, Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt and Kirk Watson urge Austinites to support businesses impacted by SXSW’s cancellation by going out to bars, restaurants and live music venues. (The video has since been taken down from all of their Twitter feeds)

March 10: Escott announces that events over 2,500 people will be subject to closure if they cannot present satisfactory plans on how to mitigate the risk of infection. However, he tells City Council members that there was no reason to discourage people without symptoms of going out to bars and restaurants since there was “no local spread.”

March 11: Escott announces new measures aimed at protecting infection at nursing homes and emphasized that those under 50 have very low risk of dying of the disease.

March 13: Austin has its first two confirmed cases of COVID-19. Escott says Travis County is now at Phase 3 of the COVID plan, which describes confirmed cases but no person-to-person spread.

March 14: Adler and Eckhardt announce ban on gatherings of more than 250 people.

March 17: Adler announces closure of bars and dine-in restaurants and bans gatherings of more than 10 people. Austin Public Health says the area is now at Phase 5, indicating “sustained community spread”

March 19: Travis County up to 41 positive cases. Far more are likely out there but haven’t been tested.

March 21: Up to 61 confirmed cases.

Most of us are not yet in a position to judge the actions that public officials took in recent weeks based on the information they had at the time. However, this sequence of events, which mirrors the rapidly changing response at the national level, illustrates just how hopeless we may be at predicting the full impact of this virus on our health care system and economy. As hungry as we may be for reassurance from experts that this crisis will soon pass, I would be wary of anybody who expresses confidence about what will happen next.

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter

Is it time to stop going to bars?

A photo I took of people waiting at Franklin’s a few years ago. Is this really the type of gathering we want to encourage now?

Austin schools are closed. UT and ACC have moved online. NYC has shut down Broadway. So are our local leaders going to back off their previous plea for residents to go out and party?

“Now is the time to go to restaurants, go to clubs,” said Mayor Steve Adler in a joint video with Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt and Kirk Watson six days ago in an attempt to mitigate the economic damage done by the cancellation of SXSW.

On March 10, Austin Public Health Interim Medical Director Mark Escott assured Adler that his reasoning was correct. “Absolutely,” he said, when Adler asked him if it is true that the virus is not a reason for people to go out to enjoy the local nightlife. Events that are not drawing out-of-town visitors are not a major concern, said Escott, “because we don’t have a local spread.”

These were my thoughts last night:

And yet, as recently as yesterday local media and public officials repeatedly stated that there were no confirmed cases in Austin as if the city might be spared. But we of course won’t be spared. It’s a global pandemic.

Indeed, at the 6 a.m. news conference organized this morning in response to the first two confirmed cases in Austin, the mayor stated that everybody expected there to be local cases; that it was only a matter of time. However, nobody who spoke –– Escott, Eckhardt, Adler –– described any new precautions people should take beyond what they had already advised about hand-washing and staying home if you feel sick. They did not walk back their comments from six days ago urging people to go out to bars and restaurants.

The predictable fuss from the media about the two cases this morning misses the point: there are almost certainly far more cases already in the community because a) that’s how pandemics work and b) WE DON’T HAVE ANY TESTS!!!!

I’ll defer to Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. From the WaPo reporting on his remarks to Congress Wednesday:

“We must be much more serious as a country about what we might expect,” Fauci said. Even places that have little or no known community transmission at the moment need to take action to try to limit infections, he said: “A couple of cases today are going to be many, many cases tomorrow.”

While everybody agrees that “social distancing,” both mandated and voluntary, is the most effective way to slow the spread of the disease, there are definitely different opinions about what degree of isolation people should adopt (or be forced to adopt). The Atlantic interviewed three public health experts, all of whom offered slightly different answers about what activities one should avoid.

So is it right for our city leaders, justifiably concerned about the wellbeing of the economy, to tell people to go out and enjoy restaurants and bars? Or for the Austin Justice Coalition to hold a pub crawl to support local business? Meanwhile, Belgium just shut down bars and restaurants

I don’t envy the position of local leaders at this moment. There couldn’t have been a worse time for a pandemic than mid-March. The loss of SXSW is economically disastrous and it’s understandable that local leaders are worried about further damage to the local economy.

The problem is, the economic damage will be far worse if we fail to take the necessary measures to slow the spread of the virus. We are heading into a recession. It is unavoidable that the global, national and local economy will suffer as communities grapple with the disease. The extent of the economic damage will depend on the extent to which we are able to slow the spread of the disease.

The preventative measures are going to hurt. There’s no doubt. But we may be hurting much worse if we fail to take them.

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter

What land development reform?

A single-family home twice the size of the bungalow that used to sit on this property in South Austin. This is the type of development the current code encourages.

The narrative about the code playing out in the local media is that City Council is poised to approve dramatic reforms to land development rules that will have urbanists and developers dancing in the streets as older homeowners mourn the imminent demise of single-family neighborhoods.

Much of that narrative is due to the fact that if you watch Council debates, it appears clear that supporters of reform are getting what they want and reform opponents are getting crushed. But the votes don’t tell the whole story.

Behind-the-scenes many of those who work in development are despairing over a proposed code that they say will hardly make things better than the status quo.

“At this juncture, I’m not convinced it is better for Austin as a whole,” says one longtime land use pro.

“It’s choosing between bad and bad,” said another builder, referring to the current code to the proposed code.

“It’s a piece of shit,”  a leading urbanist activist told me last week.

Subpar zoning
Despite consuming the great majority of the attention in the media and on the dais, zoning may be the least important problem with the new code. But it’s still a disappointment.

For starters, there is the “Equity Overlay,” a policy pushed by Delia Garza and Greg Casar that reduces missing middle zoning in certain gentrifying areas of the city. The equity overlay adopts the flawed reasoning that reform opponents use to defend single-family zoning on the west side and applies it to the east side. If we want to retain and expand housing opportunities for low and middle-income people to the east side, we need to allow a diversity of housing supply. The more properties that are zoned single-family, the more likely it is that the future residents will be elites who can afford single-family homes. The Equity Overlay will not slow displacement, it will accelerate it.

Things are a little better West of I-35, but not much better. In the second draft of the code, staff pared back transition areas behind corridors that were deemed “primarily residential.” That was in response to a request by Alison Alter that was embraced by the mayor in an attempt at compromise.

The affordable housing bonus is a mess
Experts say the affordable housing bonus is not properly calibrated, meaning that developers are unlikely to participate in the bonus and provide income-restricted housing.

This is not just a case of developers trying to pressure the city into providing more generous entitlements. Sources say that the consultants in charge of crafting the bonus, EcoNorthwest, initially calibrated the bonuses in a way that would make it more attractive for developers to participate in it and provide the affordable housing. However, city staff, under pressure from various City Council members has in some cases replaced the carefully calibrated affordability requirements with arbitrary ones that likely don’t make financial sense.

For instance, one of the things everybody on Council agreed to was that residential uses should be allowed just about anywhere (unless there’s a public health concern). So staff was told to rezone existing commercial properties to allow mixed-use. However, many of these properties on corridors can only include residential if 10% of the units are income-restricted. That sounds great, but at least one developer I talked to said it’s unlikely that that bonus will prove more attractive than simply building commercial. The developer explains:

“We did some basic financial modeling on a typical podium and typical wrap deal on a corridor site and found that for both types of projects the yield was higher in the base case scenario than their revised bonus scenario, meaning you would make less return for every dollar invested in the bonus scenario (even while taking more risk) than in the base, so there would be no reason to ever build beyond the base scenario.”

The Equity Overlay also arbitrarily did away with the carefully-calibrated affordability requirements proposed by the experts and imposes a 10% requirement. This goes in precisely the opposite direction of what the consultants proposed. They calculated that higher affordability requirements would be feasible in more expensive parts of town; they proposed requirements as high as 15% for some zones in Central/West Austin. In general, they proposed a 5% requirement on the east side.

If the density bonuses aren’t attractive to developers, the city has little hope of achieving its housing goals, which are largely premised on the bonuses. Not only does this shut the door on the opportunity to get more income-restricted housing on the ground, but it will mean far less market-rate housing being built! Remember, the bulk of the “bonus” is the additional market-rate housing the developer gets to build in exchange for providing the affordable units.

Rules, fees and other headaches
Many insiders voice deep concerns about other rules that will continue to make getting housing built a costly hassle, particularly in the urban core, where we most desperately need more housing.

“All the new non-zoning stuff adds lots of dollars to every site,” says one lobbyist. “Lots of dollars.”

Examples include tree planting requirements and new water detention rules. I’ll get into the details of the latter in the coming days.

Another big disappointment is the lack of reform on site plans and the lack of clarity about what a “site plan light” process for smaller projects will entail. The proposed code exempts projects of three units or less from getting a site plan, which could amount to 8-12 months of extra time and tens of thousands of dollars of extra cost.

One infill builder predicted that few builders would bother going for four units on R4 sites because of the site plan. Instead, they’ll go for two or three. The site plan + the poorly calibrated density bonus means it’s unlikely that many builders will actually build eight units (one income-restricted) that is envisioned under the density bonus.

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter. Sign up here to get daily breaking news and insider insights on local politics that you won’t get anywhere else in town.

The new code is not anti-tree

Trees. If you don’t love them already (most people do), you should learn to love them. They’re not only a key part of fighting climate change, but they’ll play a crucial role in mitigating the worst impacts of climate change, particularly in urban environments where increased temperatures are made all the more miserable by urban heat island effect.

So it’s a good thing that there are people in Austin who are vigilant about tree protection. And it’s a good thing that our current and future code seek to preserve our biggest trees, otherwise known as Heritage Trees. The bigger the tree, the more valuable it is environmentally. It absorbs more carbon dioxide and its sprawling roots absorb more water, which helps to prevent flooding.

And yet, the hard truth is that there are legitimate reasons to take down a tree. Even a healthy one. Tree preservation should not come at the expense of housing. First, because that obviously aggravates the housing shortage that hits low-income people the hardest. Denying housing in central neighborhoods simply leads to more sprawl, which leads to more car use and more CO2 emissions, thereby counteracting whatever environmental benefit was achieved by preserving the tree.

Currently any tree is “protected” if it is at least 19 inches in diameter. To remove it, you need a permit from the city. Staff must determine that it meets one of seven criteria for removal, including that it’s dead, diseased or “prevents a reasonable use of the property.”

tree is a Heritage Tree if it’s one of nine species native to Central Texas and is at least 24 inches. To remove one of those, you need to get a variance from the city Environmental Commission. If the Heritage Tree is at least 30 inches, you need to get approval from either the Zoning & Platting Commission or the Planning Commission, depending where the property is.

In addition to preserving old trees, the code often requires builders to plant new ones. For instance, currently residential builders are generally required to plant 2-3 trees per lot based on the size of the lot. However, this requirement is enforced through the site plan process, which 1-2 unit projects are exempt from. So single-family or duplex infill projects are functionally exempt from the planting requirement.

What the new code does
As far as I can see, there are only two meaningful changes to tree rules in the new code:

1. Small infill projects will be subject to planting requirements
2. Certain Projects located on the transit priority network will be able to more easily to take down heritage trees

The first change has infill builders very worried. Again, the planting requirement didn’t technically change, but it was moved out of site plan to another part of the code that infill projects will be subject to. You may already have 15 trees on the lot but you’re required to plant three more, which may render the project impossible. I’m less concerned about the impact on 1-2 unit projects and more concerned about the impact on larger missing-middle developments. I don’t want anything that encourages builders to do a big single-family house instead of 3-4 units.

As for #2, the new code does not give builders a blank check to remove any trees just because they’re located on the TPN. It simply allows them to get a permit to remove a heritage tree administratively, rather than going to the Environmental Commission. But ONLY if the project is 50% residential and 10% of the units are affordable. That’s an extremely narrow exception.

The black lines below, btw, make up the TPN. You can zoom in closer here.


Screen Shot 2020-03-03 at 4.58.34 PM

An amendment added by Paige Ellis seeks to encourage builders to preserve trees even if they have the right to take them down.

Her proposal will allow builders some additional flexibility (perhaps height, setback etc) in development rules if they opt to preserve a heritage tree instead of getting a variance to cut it down. The idea is that the city could relax some rules to allow them to achieve the same project size (in terms of units or square footage) that they would be able to get if they removed the tree.

In sum, the new code may very well end up mandating more tree planting than currently and the changes to tree preservation are pretty modest tweaks in service of important economic and environmental goals.

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter. Sign up here to get daily breaking news and insider insights on local politics that you won’t get anywhere else in town.

Huh? City says reducing transition areas would barely impact housing capacity

As Council inched towards the end of debate on the LDC Thursday evening, Alison Alter asked staff for an update on a question she’d asked earlier. If all of the missing-middle transition areas were limited to only two lots off the corridor, how much housing capacity would the city lose?

The answer was shocking: 400 units.

For a bit of context, the total additional housing capacity under the current code is about 135,000. Under the proposed code, it’s a little under 400,000.

The response from seemingly everyone watching, including those on both sides of the dais, was befuddlement. Seriously?

Later that night and the following day I was told by numerous insiders that staff was actually answering a far more specific question. There had been a misunderstanding.

However, Friday afternoon I talked to Annick Beaudet, the co-lead of the LDC revision team, who told me that the estimate was in fact an attempt to calculate the impact of reducing transitions to two lots citywide. She stressed that the estimate was very rough. It was not actually calculated by counting lots, but rather by limiting the transitions to 300 feet from the corridor. In many cases there are more than two lots within 300 feet.

How can this be? 
When I posted this news on Twitter over the weekend, I was hoping some mapping geeks would jump at the opportunity to either disprove or confirm staff’s estimate. No takers so far. It still doesn’t make sense to me looking at the maps.

Let’s just look at this one section of Crestview, just west of N. Lamar. All of those dark yellow lots are currently single-family and are being proposed for R4. That means that the base entitlement is increasing from a duplex (based on lot size) to four units. If they take advantage of the affordable housing bonus, they can go to eight units.

I counted 60 lots zoned for R4. Now, I don’t know exactly what would qualify as two lots off the corridor. The most conservative estimate would include anything that is within two lots of those large commercial (brown) properties that front Lamar and Justine Lane. If we use that methodology, there are 28 lots left.

Most of those 28 units probably only have a single unit, but under the current and new code they could all become duplexes and/or add an ADU. And some of them are eligible for the preservation incentive, which would give them the right to add two units on top of the existing unit.

So if those 28 are rezoned to R4, their base capacity = 112
With the affordable housing bonus, their total capacity = 224
With affordable housing bonus + preservation bonus, total capacity = 252

If they aren’t upzoned, their base capacity will = 56
If they aren’t upzoned, their max capacity w/preservation incentive = 84

That seems like a pretty big gap in capacity. Remember, I’m not saying that upzoning will actually result in 252 units. The actual yield will be far less. It’s very likely that few, if any, developers will take advantage of the affordable housing bonus.

That’s why staff’s calculation is based on what they call feasible capacity. According to staff, it “accounts for redevelopment potential of lots given zoning and market. Uses conservative estimates of build-out densities based on observed trends.”

It’s impossible to predict when homeowners will sell
There’s an additional complication when calculating the impact of missing middle zoning: most of the properties are owned by individual homeowners. It’s very, very hard to predict what they will do with their properties in the coming years.

Planning Commissioner Conor Kenny elaborates:

In the long-term, my guess is that there is much more than 400 units to be gained from extending transition areas beyond two lots.

In the near-term, the question is: How does this estimate impact the LDC revision? The preservationists, after months of bemoaning how the transition areas will transform neighborhoods, are now touting this number as evidence that the transitions don’t actually produce much housing so why bother with them?

Meanwhile, some reformers on Council, notably the mayor, are likely looking at that number and thinking that getting Tovo, Alter, Pool and Kitchen’s votes in exchange for 400 units would be a pretty good deal politically.

I would urge reformers to think carefully and get some more context before offering such a deal. I think there’s a very good chance that the staff estimate understates the impact.

This is just a small sample of what you get every weekday if you subscribe to the Austin Politics Newsletter. Sign up here to get daily breaking news and insider insights on local politics that you won’t get anywhere else in town.