Community Not Commodity

An area east of Austin known as “Dog’s Head,” because of its shape formed by the Colorado River, has been in the news. Residents were surprised to learn in May that the 2,600‑acre Dog’s Head property was set to be annexed and developed. As reported by the Austin Current, some residents didn’t learn the details, including disturbing maps appearing to show new roads going through their living rooms, until May 19^th.  By May 21, the City had annexed the property and approved a development agreement — a project the developer had reportedly been working on for seven years ( pg 90), and key city staff had known about for months but failed to make public.  Needless to say, there are concerns with process and substance.

Unusual approval speed and unjustified secrecy:

• The developer defended the rushed decision on the grounds that an unnamed Fortune 100 “advanced manufacturing facility” wanted to get started right away. The company has not been revealed, but indeed, within a few days of the annexation, heavy equipment was seen leveling the land.
• Information is being withheld from the public under a non-disclosure agreement signed by the Council and reported in a story on Dog’s Head by the Austin Free Press.

Significant environmental and fiscal impacts:

• The initial development agreement did not include any limits on impervious cover or building height (other than airport‑related restrictions) across the roughly 2,600 acres. One representative for Endeavor suggested impervious cover might be “about 90%” or less, perhaps the 80% range.
• This is an environmentally sensitive area, and the environmental impacts of the development agreement are significant. The SOS Alliance points out that the development agreement “significantly reduces the river’s critical water quality zone, allows unfettered floodplain modifications, and permits almost every zoning use imaginable (including data centers!).” 
• Austin’s Environmental Commission raised multiple serious concerns in light of the many environmental impacts not considered and the lack of public process.
• Both City of Austin and Travis County Tax Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) for the area are being considered. This is a mechanism whereby the tax revenue generated by the annexed land funds the area’s infrastructure rather than going into the city’s general fund.   Apparently, the proposed TIRZ would keep 80% of the tax revenue for this purpose (estimated $2.2 billion), with only 20% going into the general fund.  So, rather than the developers paying for the infrastructure, the city would fund it through tax rebates.

Serious environmental justice questions:

• Neighborhoods around the project have long experienced environmental discrimination and disinvestment. The census tract (23.10) where the proposed development is located has 3,251 residents, a median income of $36,991, and an 89% Hispanic population.

Conclusion

The details remain murky, but what is clear is that this deal was largely shaped out of public view and backed by the Mayor and City Council. City staff even issued a report calling it a “once‑in‑a‑lifetime economic opportunity.” Yet with most of the revenue captured inside the development itself, the obvious question is: whose once‑in‑a‑lifetime opportunity will it be?

TIRZ Hearing Dates and opportunities for input:

• July 14 Travis County Comm Court Proposed Participation $649 Million TIRZ
• July 14, 2026: Commissioners Court follow-up briefing and proposed action (County Participation Agreement)
• July 21, 2026: Backup date for Commissioners Court proposed action
• July 23, 2026: Austin City Council public hearing, proposed TIRZ creation, and action on Preliminary Project and Financing Plan (Items 14, 15, 111)

July 4^th marks the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Now, 250 years later, we use this day to celebrate our freedoms and good fortune.   One could argue that Americans are never more united as a community than on the Fourth of July.  We wish you a joyful celebration of the 4^th.

“Community” is at the heart of our strong, diverse CNC coalition. It was formed over 10 years ago to promote land development policies that benefit all of the city’s residents. We support bottom-up planning, strong anti-displacement programs, and a community-led, consensus-driven land development code to accommodate growth and provide true affordability. It was formed to counter the notion that neighborhoods where we live and raise our families were interchangeable pieces that could be cut up and sold to investors. It was formed to insist that our neighborhoods be treated as communities, not commodities.

In the intervening years, the City leaders have repeatedly pushed through land use regulation changes to encourage the redevelopment of established neighborhoods.   They have encouraged the transformation of our communities into a very different vision of Austin, one that is focused on profit not people, acting in undemocratic ways to do so. The City skirted the law and bullied the public, who fought back with court judgments and persistent demands for community collaboration. In the end, a majority of the city council succeeded, for now, in passing part of its agenda – its so-called H.O.M.E. ordinances that enable multi-unit development and lot resubdivision at the pleasure of the developers and investors. It also passed companion ordinances that reduced the requirement for commercial buildings to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood or provide parking.   The proposed (Unequitable) Transit-Oriented Districts blanket large areas of existing communities.   The City has resolved to allow greater deregulation, such as permitting businesses to operate out of small buildings (commercial ADUs) in front yards.

The final chapter on all of this has not been written. What has been done can be corrected if there is the will and the spirit in our community to take the reins and do so. The community will have the final word.  Let’s raise our voices!

The City is proposing a new density bonus program to replace DB90 – the provision that allows an additional 30 feet of building height above the base zoning (up to 90ft) on commercial property in exchange for a small percentage (10%) of affofdable units.  The city says that these categories will be available for “future City-initiated areawide rezonings as directed by Council.  The proposal was supposed to be a reform. It bitterly disappoints. To understand why, a brief history is required.

At its May 22, 2025, meeting, the City Council considered a request to upzone the market-affordable Acacia Cliffs apartments under the Density Bonus Program (DB90). This change would trigger the future demolition of the property and the displacement of its tenants. Before testimony began, Mayor Watson acknowledged serious problems with DB90, calling it an “extremely unhappy experience” with “significant unintended consequences,” and likening it to “swinging an axe.” He proposed further study and revision of the program. Council Member Fuentes added that she was particularly interested in “looking at the one-for-one replacement on affordable units” under DB90.    For context, the Council has approved ninety DB90 combining‑district upzonings across the city (see the map).

Without waiting for the ordered study and revision, on June 5, the Council lowered the axe. It granted the applicants’ DB90 rezoning request, enabling, even incentivizing, a redevelopment that will result in a net loss of 210 affordable housing units.  The city has now unveiled

its proposed reforms in a draft of the new code, a memo, and a presentation.    The proposal would replace

DB90 with 5 new density bonus districts and a new nomenclature: DBCBase, DBC15, DBC30, DBC45, and DBC60.  Unlike DB90, the numbers do not represent the maximum height of the structure but the additional height available, e.g., DBC60 adds 60ft.  In local and general office zoning, for example, the with-bonus height under DBC60 would be 105 and 120 ft, respectively, at least doubling their base heights.  DBC45 would yield 90 and 105 ft., respectively – significant added height with no added compatibility requirements.The proposed compatibility standards would allow a 90‑foot building 25 feet from a single‑family lot line, and a 120‑foot building 50 feet from that  lot line.

The proposal would also extend density‑bonus eligibility to the Neighborhood Office (NO) district — the commercial district historically intended to be most compatible with residential neighborhoods. Under state law, it currently has an allowable height of 45.’ Under DBC60, NO‑zoned properties could reach 105 feet. (45 + 60).

In their table of equivalencies, the city shows that several of the new density bonus categories are equivalent to the automatic upzonings created under last year’s Equitable Transit-Oriented Districts (ETOD).     But if ETOD’s special height allowances were intended to attract “transit supporting” density to locations near transit, doesn’t offering comparable heights on commercial property across the city undermine that rationale?

And returning to Council Member Fuente’s call for one-to-one replacement units when naturally occurring affordable housing is being upzoned, how does the new proposal fare?   The city’s draft states that a developer must replace the number of units affordable to someone earning 70% of Austin’s MFI, with units with the same number of bedrooms.  That sounds good until the next section, which caps the affordable units at no more than 20% of the total units built (and, in some cases, at no more than the original 10%). So if you tear down a building with 300 affordable units, you would have to replace it with a building of at least 1500 units to replace the 300 affordable (20% max on replacement units).  So there would always likely be a big loss in affordable units that  these “reforms” were supposed to cure.   And, it gets worse: you can also ask for a waiver that exempts you from the minimal replacement requirements!   So while the new DBC code amendments act like they are being supportive of people living in existing affordable units, well, it is just an act.

In summary, the city’s proposal does not solve the three primary problems DB90 posed. When redeveloping existing multi-family housing, it does not require replacing the affordable units, but only a token amount. Second, while it laudably offers multiple height options, some with maximum heights of less than 90ft, most will result in the same or even greater height than allowed under DB90. Third, it does nothing to address the incompatibility of the DB90 zones adjoining or in neighborhoods, and by including the Neighborhood Office district, it widens that incompatibility to zoning districts intended to be compatible with neighborhoods.

Postscript: One can always count on the  Planning Commission to create a more extreme version of any proposal.    Their list of amendments to the proposal included:

• Adding another density bonus category up to DBC200 – for 200 ft bonus height.
• Allow these bonuses on MF-1, MF-2, MF-3 and MF-4 lots that are under a half acre. (see a map of this impact).
• Allow payment of a “fee-in-lieu” (in place) of actual affordable units in the project for all categories.
• “Consult the development community to calibrate affordability requirements of the program’s lower tiers.”

City Council is set to consider a resolution (Item #26) this week, on May 7. The resolution is broadly written, vague in key areas, and rests on several faulty premises, but its intent is clear: to expand the impact of the H.O.M.E. ordinances into all zoning categories where single-family homes are allowed.   Here are some of their plans:

• Make H.O.M.E. available in Lake Austin (LA) and Residential (RR )zoning districts and PUD zoning districts like Mueller (every zoning district where single-family is permitted must be consistent with the H.O.M.E. ordinance). This would also impact areas with Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts (NCCD) and Historic Districts, conditional overlays, and regulating districts. The effect is to override focused local planning.
• Reduce lot widths
• Allow front porches to extend to 7.5 feet from the front lot line
• No building coverage limits, only impervious cover limits

Notably, their proposal does nothing to promote affordability. For example, it fails to appropriately constrain unit sizes on small lots for that purpose.

These new code amendments are to be delivered by December 3, 2026.  Sponsors of this Resolution include Council Members Laine, Vela, Velasquez,  Qadri and Alter (who added a motion to make subdivision of lots faster and cheaper).

City Council is set to consider a resolution (Item #26) this week, on May 7. The resolution is broadly written, vague in key areas, and rests on several faulty premises, but its intent is clear: to expand the impact of the H.O.M.E. ordinances into all zoning categories where single-family homes are allowed.   Here are some of their plans:

• Make H.O.M.E. available in Lake Austin (LA) and Residential (RR )zoning districts and PUD zoning districts like Mueller (every zoning district where single-family is permitted must be consistent with the H.O.M.E. ordinance). This would also impact areas with Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts (NCCD) and Historic Districts, conditional overlays, and regulating districts. The effect is to override focused local planning.
• Reduce lot widths
• Allow front porches to extend to 7.5 feet from the front lot line
• No building coverage limits, only impervious cover limits

Notably, their proposal does nothing to promote affordability. For example, it fails to appropriately constrain unit sizes on small lots for that purpose.

These new code amendments are to be delivered by December 3, 2026.  Sponsors of this Resolution include Council Members Laine, Vela, Velasquez,  Qadri and Alter (who added a motion to make subdivision of lots faster and cheaper).

Some controversial policies  passed off of the Council’s “consent agenda.”    These are some of the actions that your elected city council took:

• Approved the resolution for front yard businesses in single family neighborhoods, under the guise of “economic opportunity” with all members voting yes.  They expect to identify neighborhoods for this “pink” overlay program in the next 90 days.   Council Member Harper-Madisons office claim that this “is a state-level mandate (HB 2464), not a local policy choice”,  contradicts the intent of  HB 2464  that defines a “no-impact  home-based business” as one that “operates in a manner in which none of its activities are visible from a street.”  Having front yard accessory structures with signage certainly does not align with this law and is not mandated.   One speaker noted that this idea “is a product of a DC area neo-libertarian think tank and legal advocacy organization that took in over $50 million last year and has over $140 million in assets, much contributed by billionaires.”

• Approved the resolution to create missing middle/mixed use zoning categories which could “replace” existing single family zones. Their advisors include Austin Infill Coalition, AIA Austin, Home Builders Association Austin, ABOR, AURA, Planning Commissioners, and City staff.  Only CM Marc Duchen voted against this  “But as people want to settle into homes, they’re going to leave Austin. And no matter how much upzoning we do, we won’t have a community [i]f we can’t make this a place where families can remain. We continue to force families out of our cities … Given our track record, it seems like this proposal will be making building and preserving single family homes less likely. And maybe that satisfies the needs of a few.”  Watch this clip of CM Duchen detailing the city’s hostility to single family neighborhoods.

• Approved giant digital electronic signs all over austin at bus stops.  Council Member Mike Siegel attempted to make amendments to curb the signs in single family neighborhoods and limit the total number of signs to 200 but he only had CM Duchen’s support.  Previously Austin had fought all the way to the Supreme Court about regulating signs, but this council flipped the position.   CM Duchen said, ” worry that our new strategy, whenever we do need money, is going to go to, you know, a lobbyist to dispense candy or corporation in place of a real policy with real guidelines.”  In the end  CM Siegel CM Duchen and CM Qadri voted against the giant signs.

• Rejected a postponement and approved amplifying a rezoning on a contaminated property near UT from 60 feet to 445 feet – so that it would “pencil out” for the developer, despite protests by nearby neighborhoods and the University of Texas. Richard Suttle, representing UT said: “If you don’t postpone and you do support the 445 [foot height], you will be basically rolling two neighborhood groups, the university of Texas and your city staff on two different issues”.   CM Duchen voted no and CM Ellis abstained.

The Council continues its assault on single-family neighborhoods indifferent to the long-term consequences for families and schools.