, , ,  Affordable Housing Forum View All Reponses >>

The Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint, adopted in April 2017, identified a need for 20,000 housing units affordable at 30% MFI and Below over ten years, including Permanent Supportive Housing & Home Repair. Funding mechanisms and tools currently used by the city are unable to meet this need at this affordability level. The Blueprint calls for “new funding, new regulations, new programs, new and deeper partnerships and collaborations with non-profit organizations, legislative changes, land development code changes, and participation from the private sector” in order to meet the growing need. What ideas do you envision to reach significant progress with the goals identified in the Blueprint?

Amit Motwani

City Council, District 3

SUPPORT THE ENTIRE BOND PACKAGE THIS NOVEMBER, p​articularly Prop A and E which
pave the way for increased affordable housing supply and related supports that indirectly address
affordability through manifold mechanisms (detailed in responses below).

  • Increase unit supply ASAP, specifically on available public land. As guided (direct quote) by the
    blueprint recommendations:
  • Preserve: Acquire and rehabilitate affordable homes at-risk, Advance new home
    ownership models, Create supportive financing environment
  • Produce: Simplify regulations, Use available public land for affordable housing, Expand
    funding at all levels, Adopt proven policies
  • (Speculative) Creatively develop a generic fund that is similar that is modeled on the State’s
    “rainy day” discretionary fund that is funded through fees or incentive deals with developers
    and/or large employers that can be used to discretionary cover budget gaps (i.e. not directly fund
    housing affordability). As such, City might increase affordability that could displace funding from
    other areas of the budget (that are not affordability oriented), which in turn might be funded by
    stop-gap discretionary funding from rainy day, potentially circumventing the state-imposed ban on
    funding affordability through fees. This might at least create a rubber steak among many for
    State AG office to chew on for a bit while expending fleeting and diminishing political capital.