Austin's Growing Pains

We’ve got “an affordability problem”


If it's spring – a bit early even for Austin, but the redbuds say yes – it's survey time, and the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce has followed the City of Austin's "Community Survey" with its own production, an annual "Voter Survey" performed Dec. 12-14. Produced for the GACC by Baselice & Associates, it's more narrowly focused than the city's version, with 501 respondents (a fourth of the city's number) generating a larger margin of error (+/- 4.4% to the city's +/- 2.1%). But it uses reasonable geographic and political spreads, and has a few points of overlap with the city's results.

The most obvious of these: In the Community Survey, respondents graded the city's "planning for growth" very poorly – at 13% approval rating, compared to a 33% national average in large cities. The question is framed differently in the GACC survey, asking respondents if the city should "plan for some more growth" or "stop or slow down growth." Sixty percent of respondents said "plan for more growth," even if that means paying more for "transportation, energy, and water infrastructure." Thirty-one percent said "stop or slow down growth" (8% were unsure).

Other questions/responses were less illuminating. The surveyors asked respondents to choose ("if you had to choose") between a "clean environment" and a "strong economy" – a false opposition both rhetorically and economically, but the responses featured some interesting details. Fully 53% answered "clean environment" over "strong economy" (31%) – and that was a 10% increase over the 2015 responses. (Note: Republican respondents preferred "strong economy" by 61%; Democrats "clean environment" by 72%.)

Other questions elicited fairly predictable responses: 82% said Austin has "an affordability problem," and 77% said Austin's "cost of living is too high." (Only 52% thought the cost of city government is too high.) Fifty-five percent supported a substantial increase in the housing supply (15,000/year over the next 10 years); that support jumped to 61% after a series of questions "informing" respondents that increasing supply would reduce housing costs. One glaring anomaly: 59% opposed "lowering the cost of building by reducing the amount of parking for businesses ... served by public transportation." The survey suggests folks support greater housing supply, greater density, greater building heights – but please don't take away those parking spaces.

A note to readers: Bold and uncensored, The Austin Chronicle has been Austin’s independent news source for almost 40 years, expressing the community’s political and environmental concerns and supporting its active cultural scene. Now more than ever, we need your support to continue supplying Austin with independent, free press. If real news is important to you, please consider making a donation of $5, $10 or whatever you can afford, to help keep our journalism on stands.

Support the Chronicle  

READ MORE
More by Michael King
Can’t Vote by Mail Now? Perhaps November.
Can’t Vote by Mail Now? Perhaps November.
Courts have time – if not the will – to expand VBM before general election

June 30, 2020

Supremes to Texas Voters: Drop Dead
Supreme Court Rejects VBM Stay
U.S. Supreme Court Won't Lift Stay on Vote by Mail

June 26, 2020

MORE IN THE ARCHIVES
NEWSLETTERS
One click gets you all the newsletters listed below

Breaking news, arts coverage, and daily events

Can't keep up with happenings around town? We can help.

Austin's queerest news and events

New recipes and food news delivered Mondays

All questions answered (satisfaction not guaranteed)

Information is power. Support the free press, so we can support Austin.   Support the Chronicle