The intellectual elite have begun showing their ultimate disdain for Middle America with efforts to remove single-family zoning. This is a trend that has caught on in cities where the radical Left is in charge and answering developer-led calls to build urban-planning utopias. Heaping fuel on the fire are Biden Administration incentives for cities to revoke single-dwelling zoning laws, all in the name of density and alleged affordability. Adding to the list of cities going along with that trend is Austin, which voted last night to change land development codes as phase 1 of the overall plan. Below is an op-ed from Rupal Chaudhari, an Austin resident who has had her fill of the city’s efforts to shoehorn incompatible developments next to small businesses and residences, and how this not only violates basic common sense but an age-old social principle.

Even though hundreds of people waited all day to speak Thursday on the elimination of single-family neighborhoods in Austin, it obviously didn’t matter to the city.

As public testimony wrapped up late into the night, the city had its celebratory press release all queued up just before midnight, complete with generic clip art photos of obviously non-Austinites smiling at a marketer’s camera, crowing about passage of the one item on the agenda.

Thankfully two city council members voted against approving phase 1 of the risky HOME Initiative – perhaps to avoid drawing opponents with candidate filing ending on Monday. But add this to a growing list of examples of the city of Austin not considering our voices equal to theirs.

A history of not listening

From the Candlewood Suites conversion to a shelter and a failed approach to addressing homelessness, to police defunding by a third of the budget, to an over-ambitious rail project when we’re generations behind on road-building, it’s now abundantly clear that Austin City Hall neither respects us nor hears the voices of taxpayers and residents.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing, APD is still hundreds of officers short and violent crime and homicide is on the rise (and good luck calling 9-1-1 … or 3-1-1, if you get an answer with staffing shortages there, too). Even world-famous Sixth Street is about to be turned into an HGTV-style daytime shopping center to try and reinvent what was once a relatively safe corridor in the Live Music Capital. Meanwhile, office buildings are sitting empty, iconic bars and restaurants are moving to the suburbs or closing entirely, and basically nobody wants to play in Austin anymore as “weird” has given way to wearisome.

Supporters of HOME have a similar idea in mind: Using several phases of increasingly complex regulations to increase density and bring a more economically diverse workforce to the city. But based on the track record above, it’s not likely to make Austin any more affordable, accessible, or attractive.

Those testifying Thursday and during previous hearings made their objections against the Home Options for Middle-income Empowerment (HOME) initiative quite clear – parking, traffic, noise, attracting crime, and dramatic property tax increases that would negate any benefits of affordable housing. It’s coming from both sides of the political fence and from all income-levels.

Social contract violated

There is, however, a very fundamental problem with HOME that isn’t being discussed much: It’s not what anyone who lives in a single-family neighborhood signed up for.

HOME represents a violation of the social contract buyers and the city basically agreed to when land was purchased. Unlike with other changes to zoning, homeowners cannot be compensated or “grandfathered” from up to four new housing units being built to the left and right of their property, let alone across the street. Homeowners are stuck with the results of this law should it pass in its current form, as drafted by [Democratic Party affiliated] Council member Leslie Pool.

Even though Austin is far from landlocked, the overall vision of HOME is to make Austin proper more like its fellow ten-most-populated-cities. Jamming in as many people into the urban core, the thinking goes, will feed demand for public transit, walkable business districts, and turning streets into bike paths – an urban planners’ idea of utopia.

Those in opposition to HOME are immediately accused of standing against greater private property rights for homeowners and land owners alike. Conservatives especially are subject to ire: Why wouldn’t they want a landowner or homeowner to build a “granny flat” or quad-plex apartment to help offset the rising costs of inflation and living in Austin? Or how about an airstream trailer to take in someone “experiencing homelessness” – how dare we oppose that simple act of compassion! Or what about, as the name of the proposed law suggests, build homes for Austin’s disappearing middle-class?

But now let’s go back to this term “social contract.” By purchasing land in a city (i.e. not in a largely unregulated county area), a new property owner has voluntarily surrendered certain freedoms in exchange for various benefits, whether or not spelled out in law or in a property deed. In essence, it’s an unwritten contract between the buyer and the city. Those who purchased single-family property in Austin bought it with the understanding that, while Austin will inevitably change in many ways, their immediate surroundings would remain single-dwelling unless a rezoning process is entered into. It’s reasonable to buy a home well-within an Austin neighborhood and assume the lot next to you will not become a dollar store parking lot overnight. Zoning laws were written to protect that kind of thing from happening.

The concept of the social contract goes back to Socrates and Plato, and was brought into the modern era by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. A social contract differs from a written contract in that it’s supposed to be basic common sense. It’s why we don’t plow into others on the sidewalk while checking our phones, or why we’d stop to help a neighbor retrieve a lost cat from a tree. It’s part of being civil, and that goes for both citizens and those who govern them. You don’t have to spell out that kind of common sense in law, but perhaps we need to shout it a little louder for those who can’t hear us on the Council dais.

Is it really that hard?

Sadly, the city of Austin has proven itself to be anything but civil in how it has caved in to the demands of progressive zealots and their nonprofit front groups. Yanking away single-family zoning is only the tip of one gnarly iceberg.

To say HOME would be transformative is an understatement. But what would be more transformative would be to treat our residents equally, and with the civility and respect we’ve come to know in this great city. We were already growing and becoming denser by our previous reputation alone! Let’s focus on rebuilding that before we cram in more residents to our neighborhoods.

You don’t have to have a philosophy degree or know what a “social contract” is or who Hobbes and Locke are to simply be a good human being. You only have to actually listen to the needs of your residents and do your best to serve them, and not kowtow to developers and special interest groups. Is it really that hard?