‘Unintended consequences': Austin reworking affordable housing incentive program
For Eric Gomez, who has lived at Acacia Cliffs since 2016, it could mean he'll no longer be able to afford living in a spot that allows him to easily get to work, the grocery store, the library and a nearby hospital. He's one of the residents showing up at city hall regularly, asking city council members to shut down that rezoning request.
But what the residents may not have known at first is that — for now — city council has tied its hands on what it can do in cases like this one. The options here: Approve the rezoning request under Austin's DB90 program, which only requires developers to commit to a certain number of affordable units in exchange for loosened height restrictions, or don't approve the rezoning request and allow the developer to demolish the complex anyways, rebuild it under the same zoning structure and commit no affordable units to the city's pipeline at all.
'DB90 has been an unhappy experience. Even with Council's well motivated goals for DB90, this density program, as currently created, is proving to be divisive, difficult to utilize, and ultimately too far from achieving the goal of Council to provide more housing by allowing more density,' Austin Mayor Kirk Watson wrote. He continued, 'The unintended consequences we're seeing need to be addressed.'
That's why Austin City Council is voting on changes to DB90 Thursday in an attempt to close those loopholes. One group of council members — Jose Velasquez, Chito Vela, Zo Qadri, Mike Siegel — and the mayor are proposing the city's density bonus programs be reworked entirely.
'The main thrust of the resolution is creation of a hierarchy of density bonus paper districts that include both lower and higher heights than DB90. This is a critical necessity in our code, as this provides options that may allow for better outcomes,' Watson said.
Meanwhile, Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes said she wants the city to prioritize a one-for-one unit replacement. And Austin City Council Member Marc Duchen is looking to fund a new preservation program altogether — modeled after other cities like Dallas.
'This would give us another enormous tool in our arsenal that could start working in as little as three months to start buying down the affordability and making sure that we are extending the life of these properties,' he explained of his proposal.
You can see all of the proposals from Austin City Council members on this message board heading into Thursday's council meeting.
Gomez said he'll be there Thursday, asking for a solution that lets him stay where he is, at a price he can afford.
'Everyone needs to be made aware of it and make sure that the policies that the city council members create are actually indeed doing what they're supposed to be doing and not the opposite,' he said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
2 days ago
- Time Magazine
What Is the Home Rule Act? The Law Trump Invoked in D.C. Takeover
To take control of the police force of Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump on Monday invoked part of the law that has given the nation's capital a greater degree of self-governance over the past five decades. Citing 'violent crime,' Trump declared a public safety emergency in D.C. and invoked section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. The law 'is the result of the ongoing push by District residents for control of their own local affairs,' according to the Council of the District of Columbia. D.C. was previously directly governed by Congress—which the Constitution grants authority to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the district—and federal appointees. The Home Rule Act allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council starting in the fall of 1974, though it maintained a congressional oversight over D.C. Congress reviews all legislation that the Council passes before it can be enacted into law, and maintains authority over the city's budget. D.C. still doesn't have a voting member of Congress. Section 740 of the law allows the President to take control of D.C.'s police force in 'conditions of an emergency nature'—with certain limitations. The President can federalize the city's law enforcement agency for a period of up to 30 days under the Act, after which point both chambers of Congress must enact into law a joint resolution to extend the emergency control. The Executive Order that Trump signed on Monday says that the federal government shall maintain control of the city's police force 'for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' Read More: Trump Threatens to Federalize D.C. After Beating of 'Big Balls' Trump threatened to federalize D.C., decrying crime in the city, after the reported assault of a Trump Administration staffer—though data show that violent crime in the city is down significantly. For the federal government to fully take control of the city's governance, the Home Rule Act would have to be suspended or repealed. Some GOP politicians have expressed support for federalizing D.C., a heavily Democratic city, and pushed to repeal the law. Democrats, meanwhile, slammed Trump's move on Monday. D.C.'s Democratic non-voting representative in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, called it 'an historic assault on D.C. home rule' and 'a counterproductive, escalatory seizure of D.C.'s resources to use for purposes not supported by D.C. residents.' Norton and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland announced the same day that they plan to reintroduce legislation that would give the district full control over the D.C. National Guard and the city's police department when Congress convenes next month, saying those actions 'are needed more urgently than ever.' The bills, the lawmakers said, would repeal the section in the Home Rule Act that allows the President to federalize the city's police force. Norton and other Democratic lawmakers previously introduced similar legislation in 2021, soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In announcing her intention to introduce the legislation at the time, Norton said that the attack on the Capitol 'highlighted more starkly than ever the risk to local D.C. public safety from the president's control over the D.C. National Guard and ultimate authority over the D.C. police department,' adding that 'the mayor should not be reliant on the president to deploy the National Guard to protect public safety in D.C., and D.C. should never have to worry that a president will take over its police force and use it how he or she sees fit.'
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
House Republicans back up Trump on DC crime push
But it will be difficult to get actual legislation to the president's desk. House Republicans moved quickly Monday to follow President Donald Trump's lead as he took unprecedented action to target Washington's locally elected government — further heightening the GOP's scrutiny of the capital city and its Democratic elected leaders. Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said he would haul Mayor Muriel Bowser, Council Chair Phil Mendelson and Attorney General Brian Schwalb to Capitol Hill next month for a hearing. The public grilling is likely to come as Trump's takeover of Washington's Metropolitan Police Department approaches a 30-day expiration date, requiring congressional action to continue. 'For years, the D.C. Council's radical, soft-on-crime agenda has emboldened criminals and put public safety at risk in our nation's capital,' Comer said in a statement.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Attorney for Hopewell vice mayor says lawsuit based on 'political disagreement,' not misconduct
Calling it 'political disagreement, not actionable misconduct,' the attorney for Hopewell Vice Mayor Rita Joyner has asked a federal court to throw out former Hopewell City Manager Concetta Manker's almost $7 million wrongful termination lawsuit against Joyner. The paperwork was filed Aug. 8 in U.S. District Court in Richmond at the same time that the city of Hopewell filed its own motions to dismiss the suit. Manker, who was fired May 1 along with City Clerk Brittani Williams, filed the suit July 7 and is asking for a total of $6.85 million in damages, including punitive damages against Joyner, Mayor Johnny Partin Jr., and councilors Ronnie Ellis of Ward 4 and Susan Daye of Ward 5. Manker accuses Joyner of racism, citing several examples where the vice mayor reportedly said that Manker, who is Black, was 'Blacking up the city' by hiring people of color as major department heads. She also claims Joyner defamed her by calling her 'incompetent' in a 2024 email and stating that she hoped to get enough votes from the results of that November's election to have Manker fired. All four councilors who voted to fire Manker are White. Because Joyner was singled out for more than the others, she had to hire her own attorney and file a separate response. Joyner is represented by Virginia Beach-based attorney Anne Lahren. More: Judge continues Hopewell treasurer's case after her attorney asks to withdraw Vice mayor acted within 'authority' In the lawsuit, Manker cited Joyner for racism, defamation and blocking due process. In her response, Joyner's attorney said the vice mayor was acting totally within her authority as a Hopewell elected official and as one of seven people to whom the city manager is directly accountable. 'Joyner exercised her authority as an elected official to criticize Plaintiff's performance and advocate for a change in leadership consistent with the will of the voters,' the response stated. 'Plaintiff repeatedly characterizes Joyner's conduct as 'thwarting' her initiatives, opposing her policies, and expressing negative views about her job performance. These allegations, even if true, reflect political disagreement, not actionable misconduct.' None of Manker's allegations are 'a matter of law,' the response said. "The Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish racial animus, deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest, or actionable defamatory statements,' it read. 'Moreover, Joyner's actions as an elected official – expressing criticism, participating in governance decisions, and communicating with constituents and the press about matters of public concern – are fully protected under both constitutional and state law doctrines, including qualified immunity and the First Amendment.' Because Manker's allegations represent 'disagreement with the political and policy choices of the City's duly elected leadership, rather than any legally cognizable wrongdoing,' the suit should be dismissed, according to the response. More: 'Sad and difficult case': First of 3 suspects in Hopewell child's shooting death sentenced Mirrors Hopewell's response Joyner's response jibes with the official position of Hopewell in the case. That response, filed by City Attorney Anthony Bessette, calls the allegations 'nothing more than legal conclusions, or where the allegations permit a court to infer no more than a possibility of misconduct. It stated that Manker was terminated because she 'was not performing at a level that met the City's legitimate expectations.' As for the claims of racism, the city's response called them 'flimsy. 'The race of the decision makers does not give rise to an inference of discrimination,' it read. 'This is particularly true where the same four councilors who voted to terminate Dr. Manker's employment voted to hire Michael Rogers, an African American male, to be the Interim City Manager. Because Dr. Manker was not replaced by someone outside of her protected class, there is no inference of race discrimination.' While the lawsuit alleges that Ellis blew 'a racist dog whistle' when he circulated campaign flyers saying it was time 'to take back our city,' it also claimed he improperly made the motion to reconsider a February vote to terminate Manker because he walked out of the meeting. Ellis is a battalion chief with the Hopewell Fire Department, and in that position, Manker claimed he directly reported to her; therefore, his motion was a violation of conflict-of-interest. Hopewell claims that Manker's termination was permissible because her contract was not originally in violation of the act. Virginia's Conflict-of-Interest Act [COIA] states that only contracts and purchases that run afoul of COIA can only be voided, and it is silent on any other legal transactions. 'The termination of Dr. Manker's contract is neither a contract nor a purchase made in violation of COIA,' the city's response said. 'Therefore, even if the vote violated COIA, the vote is not void or voidable.' No dates have been set for preliminary hearings on the lawsuit. Bill Atkinson (he/him/his) is an award-winning journalist who covers breaking news, government and politics. Reach him at batkinson@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @BAtkinson_PI. This article originally appeared on The Progress-Index: Hopewell officials respond to former city manager's federal lawsuit Solve the daily Crossword
