Sugar Land Prison Update (Houston, El Paso: sales, crime, home sales)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has been much speculation and debate on this forum regarding the Sugar Land prison property's relocation and closing. In a previous thread, I mentioned that the City of Sugar Land has been working with TDCJ and state legislators to relocate the longstanding prison unit to a more out-of-the-way location, which would clear the way for the city's acquisition of more than 300 acres of prison property. Specifically, Senate Bill 909 was created during the 80th Legislative Session (2007) to initiate a feasibility study which would pave the way for this to happen. The results of this study would be presented and discussed during our current session.
I also noted that I would post any updates that I had regarding the closing of the Central Unit, so here it is:
After a recent trip to our State Capitol during the 81st Legislative Session, City of Sugar Land City Council members reported that "...the prison acquisition issue was going well."
Sorry, that's not the definitive answer that many of you are seeking, but City Council members did seem optimistic that we were making progress towards the prison closure. However, our regular session does not end until June 1st, so I guess we'll have to wait and see whether this issue reaches a final decision in the next few months or gets pushed to the 82nd Session.
I took this quote form the City of Sugarland's web site "Sugar Land is partnering with TDCJ and state legislators to encourage the relocation and consolidation of the Central Prison Unit and “Smithville” to a more appropriate location.".
I've been in Houston almost over 25 years now, and as I recall, these prisons were in an appropriate location, out away from any city's jurisdiction. Obviously the city of Sugarland grew, and encroached the properties of these prisons, but why is it now not appropriate?
The prisons did not grow, they've been in the same location for decades. Why do the taxpayers of the state have to pay for the relocation of the prison, why doesn't the city of Sugarland pay 100% of the cost if they don't want the prisons there?
This to me is like the people who complain of the trains because they had houses built next to the train tracks that have been there for 3/4 of a century.
I agree with Hook. We shouldnt have to pay for Sugar Land's growth. In the end Sugar Land will benefit from the property taxes etc... but how will building new prisons benefit the average Texas tax payer?
This to me is like the people who complain of the trains because they had houses built next to the train tracks that have been there for 3/4 of a century.
But if you move the prison then what will those HS seniors taking AP Criminal Justice do?? Back in the day, the teacher-cop hooked us up on a field trip to that place!!! (And that is something you will never forget.)
I took this quote form the City of Sugarland's web site "Sugar Land is partnering with TDCJ and state legislators to encourage the relocation and consolidation of the Central Prison Unit and “Smithville” to a more appropriate location.".
I've been in Houston almost over 25 years now, and as I recall, these prisons were in an appropriate location, out away from any city's jurisdiction. Obviously the city of Sugarland grew, and encroached the properties of these prisons, but why is it now not appropriate?
The prisons did not grow, they've been in the same location for decades. Why do the taxpayers of the state have to pay for the relocation of the prison, why doesn't the city of Sugarland pay 100% of the cost if they don't want the prisons there?
This to me is like the people who complain of the trains because they had houses built next to the train tracks that have been there for 3/4 of a century.
Personally, I really don't mind the prison and I live in that area (New Territory). However you fail to look at the big picture. Because something was there first is not a reason for it to stay. Neither is a complaint about it's existance reason to get rid of it. The question is whether it makes sense, with the CURRENT state of development, for something to remain, move, or be taken over and dismantled.
The land that the prison now occupies used to be virtually worthless, yet not so far out that staffing and services would be overly expensive. As Houston grew, then Sugar Land grew, land values have risen and now the prison sits on land with much higher relative value. From an ecomonic perspective, it makes more sense for revenue-producing development to occupy high land value areas and NIMBY (not in my backyard) structures on low value, undesirable areas.
If you were building the prison today, you would not put it where it is now. Because it is there already is only a valid arguement until the economic costs of relocation no longer exceed the benefits of moving the prison elsewhere. At some point, this WILL happen - which is why you do not see prisons, army barracks, and heavy industry in downtown manhattan, for example. Does it make sense yet? Heck if I know. But moving it would net a nice land value profit for the state through the sale of high-value land in exchange for buying low-value land elsewhere. Land values of the surrounding area would rise and increase the tax revenue of existing structures, and all the new construciton that would take place would provide jobs in the short term, and long term add more tax base and commercial revenue to the area. This benefits everyone, both locally and state wide with an increased tax base. (except perhaps existing commuters that now have more traffic to deal with... grrrr....)
Nobody's FORCING it out... only the laws of economics (politics is involved too to an extent) doing what it does naturally. Eventually it will happen, it's just a question of when. I fail to see why someone would really have cause to complain about this.
But moving it would net a nice land value profit for the state through the sale of high-value land in exchange for buying low-value land elsewhere. Land values of the surrounding area would rise and increase the tax revenue of existing structures, and all the new construciton that would take place would provide jobs in the short term, and long term add more tax base and commercial revenue to the area. This benefits everyone, both locally and state wide with an increased tax base.
.
.
.
I fail to see why someone would really have cause to complain about this.
That sure does sound great, but it is just a fantasy; you write intelligently that I can surmise that you are aware that government, and politics don't work in that manner.
I don't think you would find much arguement in the fact that people don't want prisons near their homes, but the objection here is the funding for such a project. It is Sugarland that wants the prison moved, for whatever reason, forget that inmates are incarcerated there. It could be a new sports venu that they want. The problem is that people in El Paso would be paying for a venue in Sugarland that they would never use, and never asked for.
The prisons were there for decades, the city built around them, and near them with full knowledge of what was there. Again, it's like a criminal breaking into a home via the chimney, breaking their neck in the process, getting arrested, then suing the homeowner because he had to go through the chimney to break into their home when he could have easily have gone through the door if they just had left it unlocked. Absurd, yes!
That sure does sound great, but it is just a fantasy; you write intelligently that I can surmise that you are aware that government, and politics don't work in that manner.
I don't think you would find much arguement in the fact that people don't want prisons near their homes, but the objection here is the funding for such a project. It is Sugarland that wants the prison moved, for whatever reason, forget that inmates are incarcerated there. It could be a new sports venu that they want. The problem is that people in El Paso would be paying for a venue in Sugarland that they would never use, and never asked for.
The prisons were there for decades, the city built around them, and near them with full knowledge of what was there. Again, it's like a criminal breaking into a home via the chimney, breaking their neck in the process, getting arrested, then suing the homeowner because he had to go through the chimney to break into their home when he could have easily have gone through the door if they just had left it unlocked. Absurd, yes!
Obviously there an inherent expectation of incompetance, fraud, or both of the government in your logic. Which might be a fair point but certainly a pessimistic one. There are some big holes in your arguement though.
First, Sugar Land IS planning a sports venue - but that is a completely seperate issue and land has already been set aside for that. Nobody's asking El Paso for help with that project, I assure you. The prison land would, I assume, be sold off to developers for additional housing the same as Telfair, which was recently also prison land and now is a area of hundreds/thousands of $300K+ homes.
Two, I don't think the inmates can or should have a vote in this process. They will go where the state tells them they'll go. That's sort of the whole point of prison. (granted, the guards are another story)
Three, nobody (save the inmates, obviously) is commiting a crime here like in your flawed burgler analogy. Sugar Land is negotiating with the state for an equitable arrangement. Why do you have a problem with this if you don't live in Sugar Land? It is not taking over with eminent domain or cutting off water and power to the prison or forcing the state in any way here. There are better uses for that land than a prison, plus it depresses home values. The prison can always say no (they have not said yes, either, by the way) and leave things as they are.
I just don't get the opposition about this. If you LIVE in Sugar Land and object to our tax funds going towards this effort than that's a legitimate gripe, but I'm not picking up that that's the case. The OP was just providing an update to those interested as to the status of the situation, all this objection from out-of-towners (Sugar Land, i mean) is really misplaced, I think.
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
4,893 posts, read 6,699,895 times
Reputation: 2624
I agree with Silverwings.
I don't think the other posters, who are complaining, are fully understanding the situation. And the OP was just giving an update, not looking to start a big debate.
As far as I know, there have been no complaints by homeowners about the prison being nearby. You can hardly see it, you don't hear it, it doesn't create traffic... you get the idea. What reason is there to complain? And it sure doesn't seem to be hurting home sales or prices in places like New Territory, Telfair or Orchard Lakes. In fact, I know last year the MLS area known as Fort Bend Central (including much of First Colony and these subdivisions I believe) had the highest amount of activity in the metro, and has proven to be a strong and highly desirable market.
The reason Sugar Land wants the land, to my understanding, is to expand their airport and build a business park. Some homeowners may actually prefer that it stay prison farmland than to have that happen, believe it or not! And like Silverwings said, when the prison was established there the land was much cheaper and there was no reason for anything else to be there. Both Houston and Sugar Land have grown immensely since then. At one point the location was considered BFE, but no longer. At one point much of 77079 was BFE as well. It's all relative. People should be happy about the growth in the Houston metro considering the state of matters in other areas of the country, not complaining about it and nit-picking. If it's found to be more positive than negative (economically and financially) for the prison to be relocated elsewhere, it should be.
The objection is from Texas taxpayers who will have to fit the bill for building a new prison to re-place the one in Sugar land. Prisons are much more costly than schools and no developer is going to pay anywhere near what the cost of constuction a new one would be. Especially in this economic climate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back in the day, the teacher-cop hooked us up on a field trip to that place!!! 
(And that is something you will never forget.)
