Bob Yancy said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Brian Alg said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

We need more housing developments. Badly.

---

Key thing is the city needs to start allowing the kind of housing needed in the areas where it is needed. TAMU stuff near TAMU, etc. Creating a centrally planned student living district on the other side of the airport from campus is not a great way to fix the problems the city leadership has created.

The market is signaling that people (not just students) are desperate for more housing near campus, not miles away from campus. For students, luckily, that might mean a single bedroom. A lot of those can fit in a couple block perimeter around campus..

If city hall starts going that direction, it is going to ease a lot of the problems caused by pushing students further from campus. And it will also make it easier for people trying to get started post-college in town. Especially if the city also starts allowing university complimentary economic development, we can see an influx of good paying jobs with not-to-expensive housing for young professionals and young families. I pray that's how city leadership adjusts. We've got so much going for us.

It is frustrating that it takes the state legislature to force the change. But given city leadership's obstinance, I am glad to hear it is likely to pass.

---

Texas A&M owns so much land in College Station. They also are the reason for the ever growing demand on housing. Wouldn't it make the most logical sense for Texas A&M to build this housing option?

I think it is ridiculous how much A&M has grown without providing a similar increase in on campus housing. Basically the university has punted the problem to the city. It is probably much easier to get funding to build a new engineering building than a dorm, so I see why that would be the case.

The city council should have an obligation to serve its voting residents. Forcing families out of local neighborhoods so that businesses can come in buy up local houses and then rent out to students is not serving the voting base. It will likely lead to the gradual downhill condition of those neighborhoods as the owners and tenants aren't trying to establish long term sustainability.

Also note how this law wouldn't impact neighborhoods that have HOAs. So one unintended consequence you will see are more HOAs. Further because HOAs are exempted; this law is essentially targeted to impact low and middle class neighborhoods. So this will drive up the housing costs of young families as "starter homes" will be gobbled up for rentals.

Ultimately the idea that the state, sufficiently removed and very slow moving, should seek to interject itself in truly local issues should be rejected on that premise alone.

---

We have a housing shortage which is elevating everyone's property taxes. 69% of the people working in College Station don't live here. Housing prices have skyrocketed 75% since 2015.

---

And how will this solve that problem? It isn't making it cheaper nor easier to build more housing. It is only increasing the potential demand for the SAME housing. So prices will only go up. How can a new family pay the same rent as 4 college kids who are taking out loans or using their parents money?

If the problem is SUPPLY then the solution should be fixing the supply. This will just drive families out of the city even more.

---

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm saying we need more housing. You disagree?

---

Perhaps I failed to understand what you were commenting on about my post. I think this bill will exacerbate the price problem especially for low and middle class families.

This bill seems to force an increase demand on current housing in college Station. That will just drive prices up. Which may be in line with what you are thinking. Always hard to understand proper thought flow over the internet.

texagbeliever said:

---

I think this bill will exacerbate the price problem especially for low and middle class families.

This bill seems to force an increase demand on current housing in college Station. That will just drive prices up. Which may be in line with what you are thinking. Always hard to understand proper thought flow over the internet.

---

Allowing more people who are willing to pack in to houses near campus to pack into houses near campus is going to increase demand for houses where they would do that. It would tend to decrease demand everywhere else.

I get the impression people are myopically looking at the area near campus and not thinking about effects everywhere else. Things will get better the people you are talking about if they are willing to live a bit further out from campus. Also traffic gets better and all that kind of stuff, too.

Brian Alg said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

I think this bill will exacerbate the price problem especially for low and middle class families.

This bill seems to force an increase demand on current housing in college Station. That will just drive prices up. Which may be in line with what you are thinking. Always hard to understand proper thought flow over the internet.

---

Allowing more people who are willing to pack in to houses near campus to pack into houses near campus is going to increase demand for houses where they would do that. It would tend to decrease demand everywhere else.

I get the impression people are myopically looking at the area near campus and not thinking about effects everywhere else. Things will get better the people you are talking about if they are willing to live a bit further out from campus. Also traffic gets better and all that kind of stuff, too.

---

Why will things get magically better? You think new builds are going to be starter homes?

Why do you think students, who most likely have cars, will be limited to just the immediate area of campus? There are lots of bus routes that go far away from campus as well.

Why should this issue not be handled by local officials who should have a much better pulse on hosing in a college town then some rep that lives in El passo or Austin or Houston or Dallas.

RafterAg223 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

So, building enough student housing will remove the need for NMT4 in the first place? If so, how many single family houses suddenly open up once there is enough?

---

We need housing across the board. All types, but in particular detached single family residential and purpose built student housing. We're rocking and rolling on student towers. We are not on single family. Is that responsive to your question?

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Because after dealing with Cocs, single family is a major PITA to get built, and much more expensive than the city on our Northern border. Until this changes, Bryan will keep lapping us.

---

That sums up my belief, albeit indelicately. It's not just impact fees. Our permit fees are higher, our development fees are higher, our parks fee is higher, our inspection process is slower (time = money) and we have impact fees where surrounding communities don't. This causes "builder flight" to neighboring jurisdictions where they don't have to deal with it. When builders don't build in a jurisdiction, the property values go up. Thusly taxes increase. Young families and first time homebuyers get squeezed out and occupancy rates increase.

Right now it's the early onset of a structural deficiency in our housing market. Markets move slow. The longer we wait to address it, the worse the problem will become.

Respectfully,

Yancy '95

---

I agree, but at this point I feel that much of this has been intentional. I made no beans about it. I was in a pac meeting recently. Staff did NOTHING to paint a picture of willingness to assist, and this was simply to investigate a simple residential use switch that was common sense. They really didn't want to answer any question that wasn't black and white, kept referring us to the UDO which they clearly didn't understand themselves, and then kept falling back on the crutch of the upcoming Comp plan review. Absolute craziness, no other way to put it. And they probably really don't care that we felt that way.

---

I think staff care and were we to be of a mind on council they'd get behind it and you'd see change. This anti-growth stance did not emanate from staff all by themselves.

The irony is many well-intentioned councilors over the years embraced 'anti-growth' policies across the board thinking they would keep the charm of a small college town and keep a lid on traffic. They've created the opposite- a consumerism based, commuter city. People drive all the way in from _______ where they live and all the home after work. They drive all the way in to shop and all the way home afterward. Commuter cities are notorious for bad traffic and strained finances because when 70% of your workers don't live in the city they work in, they wear out infrastructure without paying property tax. Those that do manage to live here often have to find creative ways to do so due to the high cost of housing- like sharing housing with others and splitting rent, leading to overoccupancy.

Respectfully

Yancy '95