Towne Lake Worsening? (Houston, The Woodlands, Mart: appointed, apartment complex, renters)

[hindsight2020]

Well, this is C-D we're talking about. This place is a DreamHoarder echo chamber. Of course you're gonna get deafened with socioeconomic exclusionary dogwhistles.

[mkwensky]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

More anti-renter statements. There's no justification for using government regulation to limit renter housing in any one school zone. And y'all know it.

Now there's an explosion in Built-to-Rent (BTR) single family. Are y'all going to be against that in your school zone too?

Renters are people too. Their kids deserve the same access to schools as the kids of owner-occupied homes.

Like it or not, school ratings of top schools almost always decline after many apartments were built in their feeder zone. Just look at the history of SBISD schools.
It takes a lot of parental involvement both in the child's education and engagement in the PTO to have to school maintain its quality, and for one reason or another renters weren't up to the task. A drop in the zoned schools' rating will typically lead to drop in home prices, so the 'anti-renters' mostly just want to protect their investment. Do all of this have some social economic and even racial factors? sure, but you can't overlook the fundamental economic nature of the decision.

[hbcu]

Originally Posted by welltodo11

While I agree, it is very possible those apartments are targeted to middle class families. Apartments don’t automatically mean low income and ghetto…

We've been down this road before starting in the 70s

Those same "nice" apartments in Greenspoint, Sharpstown, North Shore, Alief, Fondren SW, Inwood, etc. all had middle class folks at one time or another but they soon begin to age - middle class folks move out - occupancy rates drop so what's next to keep them filled?

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

More anti-renter statements. There's no justification for using government regulation to limit renter housing in any one school zone. And y'all know it.

Now there's an explosion in Built-to-Rent (BTR) single family. Are y'all going to be against that in your school zone too?

Renters are people too. Their kids deserve the same access to schools as the kids of owner-occupied homes.

I dont see anyone here that is anti renter or saying dont build any apartments. And the SFH rental neighborhoods could turn out like one of those kb home or postwood home starter neighborhoods. It remains to be seen how these types of communities will turn out but we've already seen some examples of what they could be.

Not sure why you have to be dramatic with the "renters are people too" line just because some people have a different opinion on the amount of apartments one area has. Theres a long history in Houston for areas like these and what they turn into. People just want better planning so it doesnt happen. Whats wrong with that?

[usc619]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

I dont see anyone here that is anti renter or saying dont build any apartments. And the SFH rental neighborhoods could turn out like one of those kb home or postwood home starter neighborhoods. It remains to be seen how these types of communities will turn out but we've already seen some examples of what they could be.

Not sure why you have to be dramatic with the "renters are people too" line just because some people have a different opinion on the amount of apartments one area has. Theres a long history in Houston for areas like these and what they turn into. People just want better planning so it doesnt happen. Whats wrong with that?

He's always playing the "poor" card. I don't think anyone has a problem with apartments, folks are just aware of what can happen when shody developers go for the "money grab" in unincorporated areas. we've all seen this story play out time and again.

[usc619]

Originally Posted by hbcu

We've been down this road before starting in the 70s

Those same "nice" apartments in Greenspoint, Sharpstown, North Shore, Alief, Fondren SW, Inwood, etc. all had middle class folks at one time or another but they soon begin to age - middle class folks move out - occupancy rates drop so what's next to keep them filled?

This is what "No Zoning" gets you

[gwarnecke]

*In general* there is a negative correlation between concentration of apartments in an area vs school performance in the greater Houston area. The reasons can be debated but the historical data is there.

Having said that - it's not appropriate to expect anywhere in greater Houston, but especially in unincorporated areas - that undeveloped land in a given community will be developed in a certain way. Market demands and community profiles change over time, and highest and best use for a given plot of land may change from single-family residential to multifamily, at least in the eyes of the owner.

Simple solution - if you want to live in a "stable" community, buy in a built-up area. No more apartments will be built in, say, Copperfield or Green Trails.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

More anti-renter statements. There's no justification for using government regulation to limit renter housing in any one school zone. And y'all know it.

Now there's an explosion in Built-to-Rent (BTR) single family. Are y'all going to be against that in your school zone too?

Renters are people too. Their kids deserve the same access to schools as the kids of owner-occupied homes.

I've had to do a lot of thinking about this topic
the issue is not apartments, the issue is "no urban planning"

When places are planned correctly, thinks work fine
you have some factories, you have stores, houses, apartments, etc, etc.

The issue in Houston is the complete lack of urban planning
The moment an area seems good for building apartments, all of a sudden you see 50 apartment complexes being built.
I blame lack of urban planning in Houston, which is a result of greedy developers and corrupt politicians.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Dopo

I've had to do a lot of thinking about this topic
the issue is not apartments, the issue is "no urban planning"

When places are planned correctly, thinks work fine
you have some factories, you have stores, houses, apartments, etc, etc.

The issue in Houston is the complete lack of urban planning
The moment an area seems good for building apartments, all of a sudden you see 50 apartment complexes being built.
I blame lack of urban planning in Houston, which is a result of greedy developers and corrupt politicians.

Planning does not equal land use and density zoning. Houston actually has some significant planning. Infrastructure planning, thoroughfare planning, parks and trails planning - those are all very significant things. So to claim Houston has a complete lack of urban planning is dead wrong, embarrassingly wrong.

Whenever the "lack of planning" topic comes up in this forum, it is almost always closely associated with the perceived "too great a concentration" of renter housing and entry-level single family. Why? The government has no business rationing those things in any given area. That's a private market decision. So many then seem to defend themselves by saying, "I'm not against renters / apartments / middle class housing."

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by mkwensky

Like it or not, school ratings of top schools almost always decline after many apartments were built in their feeder zone. Just look at the history of SBISD schools.
It takes a lot of parental involvement both in the child's education and engagement in the PTO to have to school maintain its quality, and for one reason or another renters weren't up to the task. A drop in the zoned schools' rating will typically lead to drop in home prices, so the 'anti-renters' mostly just want to protect their investment. Do all of this have some social economic and even racial factors? sure, but you can't overlook the fundamental economic nature of the decision.

But then the point seems to be that government should intervene in the private market and private property rights by force, based on the perceived relationship between renters and school quality, to ration the quantity of renter housing (and often entry-level single family) in any given school zone, with the preferred interest given to owners of more expensive owner-occupied homes. By this reasoning, government land use regulation should be explicitly biased toward those who have paid more for their homes, and use the perceived renter kid or entry-level home kid / school relationship as the guide.

So you paid $550,000 for your home and annually pay what you think is a boatload in property tax, so that you can be in what is perceived as a "desirable" public school zone. How does that mean government should interfere in private property rights in deference to your choice? Answer: it doesn't. That's California / Northeast mentality that doesn't have a place in Texas.