
We'll have more on the density wrangling in this week's column, but, suffice to say, the question over whether Downtown density itself is a benefit is as hot a question as ever.
Kathie Tovo and Laura Morrison sounded decided agnostic on the question, saying regardless of its community benefits (reduced sprawl, to name a big one), it still created a financial incentive for developers that should be shared with the city. Said Tovo, “When you have a developer who has purchased a lot to go 60 feet, and they’ve suddenly doubled that – there’s an increasing financial benefit to that developer. Some of that economic benefit should be returned to the public in the form of a community benefit.”
Lee Leffingwell argued that “the additional density, in and of itself, is a community benefit,” noting that “the Downtown area subsidizes the rest of the city” and “produces more money for services than they use … The calibration formula you come up with [for future density bonus projects] should address some part of the community benefit” density itself produces.
Taking a middle-ground approach was Bill Spelman, noting “On balance, I think the benefits [of density] exceed the costs.”
It'll be fun to see how much discord this presents on the dais tomorrow. We'll be live-tweeting the proceedings; in the meantime, bone up on the discussion by eying the presentation council received at their work session.
Density Bonus Briefing - Dec. 2011
HEY! Sign up for the Hustle's weekly e-mail newsletter, recapping news, politics and more every Friday. Don't worry, we'll never spam or sell your address. Visit here, enter your info, and click 'City Hall Hustle.'Got something you wanna show the Hustle? Email it to wells [at] austinchronicle.com, tweet it @CityHallHustle, drop by the Hustle's Facebook or Tumblr page, or leave a comment in the section below.
The Daily Hustle, City Council, Development, Downtown, Downtown Density Bonus, Downtown Austin Plan