This sentence from the article seems telling as well - "Billions of dollars are being spent expanding public transit and widening a major thoroughfare." The public transit is good, but if a city continues to prioritize car infrastructure traffic will not improve.
The existing rail infra was fucked over by NIMBYs before it even got started, and all future efforts related to public transit get screwed over as well.
A ton of money was dumped into Mopac/Loop 1 and so much of it ended up in walls to cut the sound down in high-value residential areas instead of improving congestion areas.
A large portion of real estate/housing is being purchased by investors tossing money way over asking prices, driving up the local cost. Housing in the area has now raised by ~2X in most parts of the city and it's outskirts. I was on my way towards being able to purchase a house in 2020 before the pandemic struck, then with the economic downturn a massive influx of outside investors took the market by storm. Between mid-2020 and now the target area I've been keeping an eye on went from a median home value of $275k to $485k. Many are now being relisted for rent and the rental market is rising fast as well.
I think we're already seeing the same gentrification/cost of living rise, and it's only the beginning.
I fear this place is heading more in the direction of LA than SF -- less earthquakes and beaches; yet all the inequality, homelessness, soul-crushing driving commutes, expensive rents, drought, vapid personalities, celebrity, traffic, tech/crypto bros, etc. But, hey, your income taxes will be a little lower! You can spend that win-fall on power generation to heat/cool your home and boil water when the Texas power grid inevitably fails again.
The other sentence you called out, likely refers to the I35 expansion project proposal that is under the authority of state TXDOT officials, who can, and I'd expect will, flout the wishes of the Austin community [0]. Local organizations have developed several potential alternatives which aim to increase affordability, livability, and economic opportunities within the area but these have seemly fallen on deaf ears at the State level [1].
[0] http://www.my35.org/capital-project-capital-express-central.... [1] https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-08-12/txdot-slams-br...
And it has housing and will build much more. And growing cities do not need public transit. Please see: Houston, Atlanta.
Houston makes the Bay Area look quaint. It is a legitimate megacity and has far fewer impediments to growth than the Bay Area.
But on that note, Austin will not escape the fate of San Francisco because the people whose mentality has serially ruined SF, Chicago, NY, Portland will continue to move there and inflict their failed ideas on that city. I lived in downtown Austin for 10 years and was a staple member of the startup scene back when the whole community could fit in the top of Buffalo Billiards. More fun, I was a staple member of the downtown bar scene for that period, and if you were there any appreciable time, there's about a 50/50 you met me.
I left in early 2021 after being physically assaulted on 3 occasions by homeless people (once by 4 at once). There's over 2500 homeless people downtown because of the Mayor and DA. I loved that city. It was the only city I ever really considered home, and it decided to end itself.
However, big projects have to be justified in multiple ways: environmental impact statements and cost/ benefit analysis are two that are almost universally required throughout the US. Especially in expensive NIMBY cities, a sudden spike in costs (or any other significant change) can be a political tool for opponents to claim those justifications are no longer valid, as a way to halt or delay.
And this being government, there's a good chance that the multi-year planning, approval, and funding process assumed a lower rate of inflation, and now some projects may simply not have enough money and have to start the process over.
Before capitalism, peasants were unlikely to ever face homelessness, even in the span of many generations. Capitalism forced peasants off their land into cities for jobs on which they would have to depend, and this problem has never been solved. It is really incredulous to speak of it like some ornery homeowners started it.
Of course, anecdotal evidence of capitalistic societies housing its population are just that. Political economies have waxed and wained, clashing and falling, since the beginning of history. But, the problem of mass homelessness of working populations did not exist prior to capitalism, and it has become even more pronounced post-industrial revolution, and proportionally more so in the most capitalist societies.
Rent-seeking is fundamentally inhumane, but even if we were to accept the effort to blame NIMBYism, we would still be grappling with the contradiction between capitalism and the possibility of a democratic society insofar as those without a home cannot vote or reasonably be expected to make voting a priority. (even if voting were a path for political change in our society, and there is ample evidence that suggests it isn’t)
If we are in fact as modern of a society as we’d like to believe, we would have learned a thing or two about these matters by now, and it’s not clear that we have.
