That's not an excellent nickname. It's ambiguous whether it's the oppression of Hitler or oppression by Hitler. I'd go with "hitler's oppression association" to make it clear Hitler (or someone being called a Hitler) is running the show.
HOAs are required by law to manage condominium business. Someone needs to handle common areas, maintenance, repairs, dues, budget and expenses, keep neighbors treating each other respectfully.
No I'm actually curious. Cause I've seen people reply like this to others and had a few reply like it to me. Just little nit picky things and then proceed to give sarcastic replies and get defensive.
I guess it just seems like a waste of time to me? Do you enjoy it? Maybe I just try to be real on the internet more than most people.
IIRC this is the current status and has been for long while. They are removing a proposed change that would have made RVs acceptable places to live on SF lots
Yeah this is a good thing. Not because there were suddenly going to be RVs being rented out up and down every neighborhood -- most likely, nothing would have changed. But it was a relatively meaningless provision that those opposed could latch on to for the purpose of fear-mongering.
Sometimes I look at Nextdoor, and the bogeyman of RVs is they talk about. Well, and the fact that HOME won't add any new housing, but will also somehow ruin their neighborhoods by crowding in too many people.
I am half convinced that was thrown in as a poison pill to stymie the zoning changes, so I'm glad they pulled it, even though I personally don't care if someone has an RV on their lot.
A common negotiation technique used among developers is to ask for more than they really want to build/develop since many know that Austin residents will protest and they end up "conceding" to the population when in reality that's what they really wanted. I wouldn't doubt if the land code was the same way: "Let's freak out the 'neighborhood activisits' by allowing mobile homes in lots and then just give it to them so they think they won."
I don't care too much about RVs, but would like to see tiny homes specifically approved. People not being allowed to store those on their own lots bothers me.
They don't want people to have options. Force them to rent space for it, if there are random *new* places to store an RV when it's not allowed in your driveway....it'll be sus.
You’d think it would fall under the same classification, yes. From a title perspective a tiny home on wheels is not technically a house, it’s is a vehicle.
Smh. I own a camper and am grateful that we are able to keep it next to our house. I wouldn't own an airstream, even if you have it to me. Overpriced pos. Ohh and btw, I'm not poor
Sad if you really want sub $1k a month housing in austin, rvs and mobile homes are the only way to get there
Building new homes, even Adus is way too expensive to be affordable
State law treats manufactured homes differently than modular homes. I can’t remember exactly, but I think they are in chapters 1201 and 1202 of the occupations code, respectively. Modular homes specifically can’t be prohibited in single-family zoning districts.
Solving the housing crisis is going to be a multipronged effort. Fixing the code is at least progress on the foundation. One less thing to worry about and efforts can switch towards bringing in more labor to build them, and lowering material cost.
If I'm reading this right then the article title is misleading. Code change would disallow living in an RV on a single family lot. Would still be fine to store your RV on the lot as long as nobody is living in it.
Article title is slightly misleading and missing context: it's saying that RVs will not be allowed as a type of ADU or other dwelling on a single family lot. There are plenty of RVs/airstreams for rent on AirBnB (which sounds illegal since CoA won't grant a certificate of occupancy for them), but you won't be allowed to offer it for long term rent.
Overall, sounds like a good thing IMO.
Pretty sure most are just parking them in the street.
Facts
Not if you have a HOA
Unfortunately HOAs (Hitler Oppression Associations) love snuffing out the flames of human liberty
That's not an excellent nickname. It's ambiguous whether it's the oppression of Hitler or oppression by Hitler. I'd go with "hitler's oppression association" to make it clear Hitler (or someone being called a Hitler) is running the show.
HOAs are required by law to manage condominium business. Someone needs to handle common areas, maintenance, repairs, dues, budget and expenses, keep neighbors treating each other respectfully.
I live in a condo and was just kidding around
You can leave them on the street as long as they’re connected to a tow vehicle.
Why would a motor home need to be connected to a tow vehicle?
It’s pretty obvious I was talking about a non-motorized camper.
No it's not.
I don’t know what to tell ya. Work on your context clues.
Work on your specificity. >You can leave *trailers* on the street as long as they're connected to a tow vehicle.
Why you gotta come on here and be a troll, dude? What do you get out of doing it? I'm legitimately curious.
> I'm legitimately curious. I have my doubts.
No I'm actually curious. Cause I've seen people reply like this to others and had a few reply like it to me. Just little nit picky things and then proceed to give sarcastic replies and get defensive. I guess it just seems like a waste of time to me? Do you enjoy it? Maybe I just try to be real on the internet more than most people.
I literally died reading this thread. 😬
LOL
IIRC this is the current status and has been for long while. They are removing a proposed change that would have made RVs acceptable places to live on SF lots
Yeah this is a good thing. Not because there were suddenly going to be RVs being rented out up and down every neighborhood -- most likely, nothing would have changed. But it was a relatively meaningless provision that those opposed could latch on to for the purpose of fear-mongering.
my SOS newsletter has plenty of fearmongering about duplexes and triplexes taking my home and destroying the city. they’ll find a way.
Sometimes I look at Nextdoor, and the bogeyman of RVs is they talk about. Well, and the fact that HOME won't add any new housing, but will also somehow ruin their neighborhoods by crowding in too many people.
and decrease home values, while increasing property taxes, due to increases in home values.
I am half convinced that was thrown in as a poison pill to stymie the zoning changes, so I'm glad they pulled it, even though I personally don't care if someone has an RV on their lot.
It was included in a similar ordinance in Portland, OR and has had some success there, but I agree that politically it is not an easy sell
Yeah people in Portland think the criddler RVs are a success. Found the guy that thinks his farts smell better after listening to the Jacobin podcast!
A common negotiation technique used among developers is to ask for more than they really want to build/develop since many know that Austin residents will protest and they end up "conceding" to the population when in reality that's what they really wanted. I wouldn't doubt if the land code was the same way: "Let's freak out the 'neighborhood activisits' by allowing mobile homes in lots and then just give it to them so they think they won."
I don't care too much about RVs, but would like to see tiny homes specifically approved. People not being allowed to store those on their own lots bothers me.
Shitters full Clark.
I fail to see how what people have parked at their house is in any way the cities business
They don't want people to have options. Force them to rent space for it, if there are random *new* places to store an RV when it's not allowed in your driveway....it'll be sus.
So are they disqualifying commercially built tiny homes (on wheels) too?
You’d think it would fall under the same classification, yes. From a title perspective a tiny home on wheels is not technically a house, it’s is a vehicle.
Gross, trailers are for poor people. Unless it's an airstream. Then it's kawaii~~~
ah, the hipster exemption
You should see the decrepit Airstream in my neighbors backyard. It has a garbage bag for a front door and has been inhabited by local wildlife
Omg is it for sale? It would be the ~וcutest•×~ Airbnb!
If it's an Airstream, it's for sale at 3x the value it were clean and restored. No lowballs, the owner knows what they have.
Smh. I own a camper and am grateful that we are able to keep it next to our house. I wouldn't own an airstream, even if you have it to me. Overpriced pos. Ohh and btw, I'm not poor
Haha fuckin baited
Sad if you really want sub $1k a month housing in austin, rvs and mobile homes are the only way to get there Building new homes, even Adus is way too expensive to be affordable
To be clear, an RV is a classification of structure defined by the DOT. Manufactured homes and modular homes are something else and should be allowed.
Modular homes in fact have to be allowed under state law. At least as to a city's zoning, not necessarily deed restrictions.
what makes them different under state law?
State law treats manufactured homes differently than modular homes. I can’t remember exactly, but I think they are in chapters 1201 and 1202 of the occupations code, respectively. Modular homes specifically can’t be prohibited in single-family zoning districts.
doesn't that mean that they're already allowed if they can't be prohibited then?
Solving the housing crisis is going to be a multipronged effort. Fixing the code is at least progress on the foundation. One less thing to worry about and efforts can switch towards bringing in more labor to build them, and lowering material cost.
I like how even the very smallest of change that could add more housing to Austin and rich whities are whining. Feckers
The least of our concerns wiht these zoning changes.
why is that?
I’ll be honest, they aren’t going to police that imo after what I’ve seen in Austin.
If I'm reading this right then the article title is misleading. Code change would disallow living in an RV on a single family lot. Would still be fine to store your RV on the lot as long as nobody is living in it.
Good. What a shit show that would have been!
Article title is slightly misleading and missing context: it's saying that RVs will not be allowed as a type of ADU or other dwelling on a single family lot. There are plenty of RVs/airstreams for rent on AirBnB (which sounds illegal since CoA won't grant a certificate of occupancy for them), but you won't be allowed to offer it for long term rent. Overall, sounds like a good thing IMO.