The rebuttal is: it's a big tract, it's very close to Burnet (which is our #3 transit corridor by my estimation), and the interests of the potential new residents of this place deserve as much of a say as Cranky Grandpa Who Drives Everywhere.

2. on Nextdoor, explaining to boomers that the 1/801 is actually full quite often, based on the inexplicable-to-them fact that I ride it to/from work sometimes.

You can thank all the idiot cyclists bleating about how paint isn’t protection.

I'm sure more self-congratulatory preaching-to-the-choir happy hours where people who never ever ever hold Cap Metro or ATP accountable for delivery of anything will make this all OK in the end though.

Sorry, but this isn't remotely true. The big investors are responding to a profit opportunity caused by a mismatch in supply and demand (meaning rent prices go up). The investors do not cause the price rises; they respond to it by moving units to rental. Immigrants do impact the demand side.

Julio's position obviously takes as a given that no serious person would ever cut spending identified as 'social'. But the voters knew that going in and voted overwhelmingly (against headwinds) to not approve the tax rate that would prevent those cuts. They knew. Do it!

It serves Julio's purposes as a semi-advogrifter to keep sounding Very Serious and insist Nobody Has A Plan On What To Cut but it's the same kind of dishonest that the establishment tried after Prop B. You may not LIKE what the voters said, but they were clear.

The voters saw tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on interventions purported to solve the homelessness crisis and that money was obviously wasted in ways that a two-year-old could see. That money should be drastically cut (CM budget did it, or so we hear).