Just when we thought the only issue in town is the fate of Uber and Lyft – you remember those “transportation network company” guys, don’t you? – along came the Pilot Knob planned unit development to gobble up all the headlines. I won’t be able to explain how that happened in 850 words (the city manager’s memo to City Council on the matter covers six years and consumes 15 pages), but you should get a full reprise at today’s Council meeting (Feb. 11), along with some sense of how it became City Hall’s crisis of the week (with TNCs still close behind).
Actually, what the two subjects have most in common is Mayor Steve Adler’s increasing tendency to ride off on his own to address a problem without much involving the rest of the council, or apparently many of the city staff (who are rather more experienced at this sort of thing than either the mayor or virtually anybody else on the dais). There was just a hint of that latter issue in Tuesday’s work session, when Austin Water Director Greg Meszaros reported that AW staff were not actually included in the negotiations over redirecting somewhere between $50 and $80 million in PUD infrastructure fees from the utility to an affordable housing fund. That situation is also very politely suggested in a Feb. 8 internal memo from the assistant city managers to Ott: “Moving forward, it’s clear there is a need for more effective collaboration between departments, as well as amongst staff and Council offices.” Indeed.
Meanwhile, the mayor is simultaneously and feverishly attempting to negotiate a “memorandum of understanding” with Lyft (and an even more resistant Uber) that would enable Council to enact the TNCs’ preferred ordinance, avoid a May initiative election, and still somehow arrive at a fingerprinting “option” that would satisfy basic safety requirements for TNC drivers (with cab drivers waiting in limbo for yet another day). Based on Tuesday’s discussion, it appears the mayor will first need to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with his fellow council members.
Here’s the Deal
Back to Pilot Knob (currently a more quiescent volcano). Beginning as an MUD (municipal utility district), and several years in the making over several Council tenures, the “Easton Park” development anticipates roughly 10,000 units (homes and apartments), of which 650 purchased homes and 350 rental units would be reserved for families earning 80% or less of the median family income (the homes permanently via a land trust, the rentals for 40 years via city buydowns). The program, under already-existing city policy, would be paid for by redirecting AW infrastructure fees (over the 20-30 year buildout) to the affordable housing fund, at an annual cost of around $2 million (bearable, but not negligible). The developer is also providing about $25 million in additional water and mass transit infrastructure, and $6 million to the affordable housing fund.
Mayor Adler has repeatedly apologized for providing an incomplete explanation, but insists that the program is necessary to address housing affordability and growing economic inequality. In a tense exchange with District 8 Council Member Ellen Troxclair at Tuesday’s work session, he said that if he could find $400 million for such a program, he would do so. It’s worth repeating that in this context “fee waivers” is misleading; the developer is still dedicating an equal amount (and more) of infrastructure costs, but much of that money would be incrementally redirected to affordable housing.
Walking the Talk
But with the big ticket numbers now circulating in the headlines (the latest total is a potential $106 million in all, speculated in Ott’s memo), the question before Council has apparently become, not how much affordability can we afford, but “who’s paying?” (I suppose it’s rude to point out that question was largely sidestepped by this Council when the spending was for a homestead exemption.) We’re all paying, of course – that’s how we share the cost of any city program, from roads to more council staff. The more central question is: How serious is all this public talk about “affordability” and “inequality”?
When push comes to shove, does the “affordability” conversation inevitably mean only property tax cuts and utility rate cuts? Is attempting to address the true cost-of-living burden on working-class people who can no longer afford Austin housing payments (water rates be damned) simply a subject for another day? Based on the immediate public and Council reaction to the prospect of 1,000 affordable homes (over many slow years), the answer seems to be: Sorry, affordability just costs too much.
The mayor has acknowledged bungling the council and public rollout of this deal, and it’s not at all clear if the public relations disaster can be mended. Backlash against the PUD has sent council members running for cover, and even if the deal holds, it will likely polarize the dais in ways that will leave political wounds, and make any future such proposals all the more difficult.
Download City Manager Marc Ott’s Feb. 8 memorandum on the Pilot Knob PUD. Follow @PointAustin, and email mking@austinchronicle.com.
This article appears in February 12 • 2016.