Kiss Austin's growth goodbye - International Monetary Fund says int. lending taps will be shut down for years (Houston: real estate, crime rate)

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by twange

I think it has more to do with the size of the state. I noticed from this site(correctional systems INC) that according to 1993 statistics (which are kind of old) that the states were in this order: California, Texas, New york.

Correctional Systems, Inc.- Corrections FAQ

I do believe though that Texas spent a whole bunch of money back in the early 1990s to increase their number of "beds' but I'm not sure if that was in response to increasing crime, harsher punishments or lengthier sentencing. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Actually had much to do with privatizing prisons, and prison corporation lobbyists dropping lots of cash in the statehouse to keep the prisoners flowing in those new, privatized prisons.....BTW, most Texas prisoners are in for non-violent drug crimes, much of it petty....legalizing and regulating drug use can singlehandly shut down the majority of prisons here, not to mention save taxpayers tons of money, let alone actually rehabilitating folks with little opportunity or chance in life to rehabilitate and be a net contributor to society....we can take that money for prisons, create a bunch of trade schools/rehab clinics, and actually put these people to work.......

[texdav]

Originally Posted by orbius

Why bother debating anyone who thinks Bush and Perry were great governors?

Its like talking to a brick wall.

California isnt perfect but neither is Texas. Texas is near bottom in educational standards of all states. Highest number of uninsured children. Highest rate of prison population. We have real problems here that the Republicans have done sod all to fix. In fact they have presided over these declines.

But comparing the two Bush and Perry have done a great job. We are not facing bankrupsy lie so many sates thawt have threw budget contraints to teh wind and spent lie there never was a chance for a downturn.Spend';spend ;spend and it will solved all ills is the liberal view but we see what that has done. I would swap places witht eh people of california for nothng.They are looking at huge cuts or a miracle.

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by AK123

What? The statement on the Navy sounds like a bad conspiracy theory, and when did this occur?

Houston (much by way of the current mayor) has been trying to clean up dramatically, but has actually been hampered by the state of Texas! There has been some success, however. Large Reduction of Smog in Houston - Houston Chronicle

I did see it in a mainstream news report early this year....I'll try looking for it again, but, meanwhile, here are a few stories about other interesting things they burn in the general Houston area's air, 100% facilitated by the lack of regulations.....same premise that cities use to dump waste in the poorest areas, or why we export so much of ours to Mexico....because we can....and if Texas is known to allow it, it will continue to be the dumping ground for the rest of the nation per dangerous toxins they can't burn anywhere else....

Importing PCBs for Burning: In Port Arthur Texas : TreeHugger

For a view of Houston's pollution from space, courtesy of NASA, check this out...

NASA - Getting the Big Picture on Houston's Air Pollution

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by wpmeads

Actually cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and even Dallas and Houston experienced the same kind of growth if not greater when they where Austin's size. Are you saying these aren't successful cities?

I think what you are saying is that Austin should be entitled to the same crazy non-regulated growth spurts that Chicago and company had while they grew exponentially.....keep in mind that those cities were far smaller in area than they are now when they grew, and they were public transit orientated, this LOOOONG before the car culture kicked in around the late 50's, along with the x-ways.......

Now, I don't think, first, anyone WANTS Austin to get as big as Houston and Dallas, let alone Chicago and NYC/LA....the charm of Austin is, for now anyway, that it isn't as dense and chlostrophobic(sp) as the big ones......second, I think Austin at least TRIES to be different than the others, in better, more foresightful ways....when we just get in the race to be big, we not only are destined to lose, but take away the charm that brought people to Austin RATHER than DFW/Houston in the first place..

[joejitsu]

Originally Posted by inthecut

Actually had much to do with privatizing prisons, and prison corporation lobbyists dropping lots of cash in the statehouse to keep the prisoners flowing in those new, privatized prisons.....BTW, most Texas prisoners are in for non-violent drug crimes, much of it petty....legalizing and regulating drug use can singlehandly shut down the majority of prisons here, not to mention save taxpayers tons of money, let alone actually rehabilitating folks with little opportunity or chance in life to rehabilitate and be a net contributor to society....we can take that money for prisons, create a bunch of trade schools/rehab clinics, and actually put these people to work.......

All these new libertarians tea-baggers are against this because in truth they are neo-conservatives masquerading as libertarians.

[joejitsu]

Originally Posted by texdav

But comparing the two Bush and Perry have done a great job. We are not facing bankrupsy lie so many sates thawt have threw budget contraints to teh wind and spent lie there never was a chance for a downturn.Spend';spend ;spend and it will solved all ills is the liberal view but we see what that has done. I would swap places witht eh people of california for nothng.They are looking at huge cuts or a miracle.

Actually Bush and Perry had nothing to do with the states economy. Texas owes much to the energy sector, because of tis abundance of oil, which has nothing to do with government. Texas's economy does owe its success to the pro-business climate, but this had nothing to do with Perry. Its the Texas legislature that deserves more credit. I was a legislative reporter and I noticed that Democrats and Republicans always worked together and treated each other with respect. Its this bipartisanship that makes Texas a success. But the most important factor is the people. We the individuals are the most important factor in the economy not the government.

Rick Perry is just a clown without a suit. People in El Paso are forced to buy wind insurance to subsidize people in Galveston thanks to Perry. As for Bush, he never saw a spending bill he didn't like.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Houston obviously has some air quality issues. But Houston's problems are somewhat unique in Texas - a heavy oil/gas industry and many automobiles.

Is it really that unique? I wouldn't really say so.
American Lung Association - Rankings of Ozone Pollution (http://activism.ology.com/american-lung-association-releases-ranking-of-best-worst-cities-for-air-quality/ - broken link)
1 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Calif.
2 Bakersfield, Calif.
3 Visalia-Porterville, Calif.
4 Fresno-Madera, Calif.
5 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, Texas
6 Sacramento-Arden-Yuba City, Calif.-Nev.
7 Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
8 Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, N.C.-S.C.
9 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz.

It also needs to be mentioned, again, that air quality is composed of more than just ozone/smog rankings. Another big one is particulate pollution (like soot), in which NO Texas cities even rank within the top 20 worst.

Originally Posted by inthecut

Importing PCBs for Burning: In Port Arthur Texas : TreeHugger

Port Arthur isn't near Houston... it's in what's called the Golden Triangle area I believe, near the state border. But yes, there are major pollution problems there.

Originally Posted by inthecut

For a view of Houston's pollution from space, courtesy of NASA, check this out...
NASA - Getting the Big Picture on Houston's Air Pollution

This is an older article, and I feel like it's deja-vu of the 2000 election.
The Houston Chronicle article I posted previously would be much more relevant to today.
Even so, notice the NASA article still mentions smog (ozone) as the type of air pollution, not other types of air pollution such as particulates.

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by joejitsu

All these new libertarians tea-baggers are against this because in truth they are neo-conservatives masquerading as libertarians.

A rose is a rose.....just like the neos that pushed the military/Iraq under Bush that were former Democrats(Wolfowicz and chums)....actually, either you are a facilitator of the power structure, or you are not, regardless of what you call yourself...right now, both democrats AND republicans are facilitators, which is why we are presently getting watered down poop in the guise of a health reform bill.... Ultimately, corporate money and lobbyists rule in all statehouses and in DC...that's why we got privatized prisons in Texas, Blackwater paramilitary in Iraq, and a big pharma/HMO in cahoots to destroy anything resembling a health care bill coming out of Washington as we speak/type... It all comes down to the golden rule...he(corporate interests) who has the gold(lobbyists and campaign bucks), makes the rules(deregulation), or makes sure that they don't happen(current health care bill being debated)

BTW, what an awesome thread this is turning out to be....VERY interesting!

[inthecut]

crap, they deleted my Blagojevich pic....pooh!

[wpmeads]

Originally Posted by inthecut

I think what you are saying is that Austin should be entitled to the same crazy non-regulated growth spurts that Chicago and company had while they grew exponentially.....keep in mind that those cities were far smaller in area than they are now when they grew, and they were public transit orientated, this LOOOONG before the car culture kicked in around the late 50's, along with the x-ways.......

Now, I don't think, first, anyone WANTS Austin to get as big as Houston and Dallas, let alone Chicago and NYC/LA....the charm of Austin is, for now anyway, that it isn't as dense and chlostrophobic(sp) as the big ones......second, I think Austin at least TRIES to be different than the others, in better, more foresightful ways....when we just get in the race to be big, we not only are destined to lose, but take away the charm that brought people to Austin RATHER than DFW/Houston in the first place..

I was referring more to the fact that you seemed to be implying that it's a negative aspect for a city to be growing at an extremely fast rate and nothing good can happen for Austin to keep growing at the rate it is. Austin is a long way off from either of those cities, but my point was that many of the greatest cities in the country at some point have experienced extremely rapid growth rates the likes of which Austin is yet to see. Austin has a lot of personality and the only reason the growth would turn it into a city carbon copy of Dallas or Houston is if Austinites and the city decided to head in that direction. My point was a high growth rate isn't bad and has greatly benefited cities in the past. It just means that Austin is going to half to do some soul searching as it turns into a major city.

Trying to fight the growth is probably the worst growth is probably the worst move the city can make. It will probably cause a lot more problems than just letting it happen.