Why are light rail and new roads combined in bond proposal? (Austin: city hall, live)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Komeht

10-1 folks - it's a slow-moving train-wreck.

Hegemonies usually don't look favorably on sharing power.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by rangergrit

This a really interesting situation. And it's very important because of the the huge dollars involved.

The city council, who are almost all "lame ducks" because of '10-1', took a light rail proposal and turned it into a "mixed" proposal that included unspecified and unfunded road projects. That is just the definition of "bad government".

It's obvious that adding the roads was a ploy to pass the rail. Good government would propose each separately and let the people vote.

Some people would argue that there are some very powerful interests pulling the strings on this. And the rest of us end up paying for their gains.

The city officials admitted in the media that it was combined so as to rescue the doomed rail boondoggle proposal. Everybody who has been paying the slightest bit of attention should know that.

Bad government is an understatement. It is just another blatant example of corrupt government - on a par with New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, & Boston.

Austin voted for those sleazy dirtbags, so y'all need to live with it.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There's a difference between dealing with minutia as part of the job and making it the major part of your platform for election. There's all sorts of minor stuff the council does (and has to bother with, if all "minor" things were completely ignored it becomes major).

No, those were not minor issues, they were non-issues and have no real potential for becoming major if nothing had been done. They were pet projects to appeal to their (current) voter base.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Kinda goes to show you how unserious people can get elected based on sentiment alone.

1. A minor annoyance, about number 83 on the list of important issues the city is facing.
2. This is chump change - won't impact taxes at all.
3. We've expanded and expanded and expanded roads everywhere - hasn't worked yet, will never work - oh, and it's very very very expensive.
4. Program can be tweaked to work very well -no need to eliminate it.
5. Not even a city issue at all.

In the meant time, someone with this platform hasn't informed anyone about all the really critical items or deal with the major budgetary issues at all. Scary.

10-1 folks - it's a slow-moving train-wreck.

People get elected on emotion, rarely on policy. Im surprised you dont get it.

The above points represent a different way of doing things. The issues themselves are reflective of a broader stance on smaller less intrusive government (including the lessening of permitting restrictions in the city center that you so love) that the people in 10 would want.

For example one of the candidates in 10 is focused on affordable housing and rail. I can bet you she is following in the footsteps of the ousted council.

On roads, we havent done *anything* with roads.

Loop 360 needs to have all lights removed and be connected to 71, mopac and 183 with flyovers. *this* will immediately benefit 10 and 6.

620 needs to have all lights removed and be connected to 71 and 183 with flyovers.

183 east needs to connect to 71 and have all lights removed

Having real loops will directly help the people in 6 and 10 get to their jobs. Rail doesnt do sh*t for 6 and 10.

Also the city of austin is one of the managing partners for the BCP, one city council member and the mayor sit on the board.

<<The City of Austin owns and manages 13,608 acres dedicated to the BCP, some of which are dual-management lands jointly managed with the Parks & Recreation Department.>>

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Austin97

On roads, we havent done *anything* with roads.

This is completely false. In the last decade or so we've passed more transportation bonds than the $600M they're proposing for rail (2012, 2010, ...)

(plus _all_ the toll roads that have been built. 183A, Mopac, 45, 130, 290, etc.)

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Novacek

This is completely false. In the last decade or so we've passed more transportation bonds than the $600M they're proposing for rail (2012, 2010, ...)

(plus _all_ the toll roads that have been built. 183A, Mopac, 45, 130, 290, etc.)

Austin didn't finance the entirety of SH45 or Texas 130.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Austin didn't finance the entirety of SH45 or Texas 130.

That wasn't the claim. The claim was that "we (collectively) haven't done anything with roads".

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That wasn't the claim. The claim was that "we (collectively) haven't done anything with roads".

I think the poster was referring more to local Austin roads and not state.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

I think the poster was referring more to local Austin roads and not state.

There's no real distinction at this level (measuring action), local and state/fed money go to both. And the poster was complaining about 360, 183, 71, etc. (state and US roads).

[CarnivalGal]

When the city voted on 10-1, the city counsel pretty much admitted that they added the 8-2-1 proposal to the ballot for the sole purpose of confusing voters and taking votes from the 10-1 proposal on the ballot. Pretty slimy in my book. I am in an unincorporated area (but I'm sure we'll be annexed soon), and I just shake my head that Austin residents continually vote these people into office and re-elect them.