Some tenants of the Acacia Cliffs apartments in Northwest Austin held a press conference outside City Hall Thursday to protest proposed changes to their property, citing the likelihood that the currently affordable apartments will be displaced by less affordable ones. The Acacia Cliffs Tenants Association then carried their demands into City Hall, with a number standing at the back of the chambers with signs. However, during discussion of other zoning cases, the Acacia Cliffs group started shouting at Council, blowing whistles, and were escorted out of the building by police. Residents have complained that the DB90 density bonus, which offers 90-feet of height to developers in exchange for some income-restricted affordable housing, “is incentivizing the demolition of their affordable apartments,” according to their press release.
The zoning case that might impact the Acacia Cliffs tenants is on the May 22 agenda and was not discussed at Thursday’s meeting. Council Member Marc Duchen is hoping to convince his colleagues to postpone the case on May 22 to give tenants more time to negotiate with the developer. He wrote on the Council message board, “Like many other Austinites, the families and individuals living in Acacia Cliffs are hardworking renters living in an increasingly expensive city. Postponing the May 22 vote would provide them with more time to reach a reasonable and meaningful arrangement with the developer, one that ensures that our most vulnerable residents have access to housing they can afford in Austin.”
“I believe the main cause of the Acacia Cliffs emergency is DB90, an ordinance that was designed to improve local affordability but, when impacting naturally occurring affordable housing, has worsened affordability since it went into effect last year. In cases that don’t involve naturally occurring affordable housing, it can create affordability where there was none – which we always need! But in cases like this DB90 gives land developers the freedom to demolish affordable housing in exchange for a woefully inadequate preservation of affordable units. This is antithetical to the affordability issues that DB90 was intended to address.”