U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-27-2008, 12:42 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
545 posts, read 2,086,134 times
Reputation: 210

Advertisements

From an article in the E-N today: (MySA.com: Metro | State (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA022708.01A.TollwayLawsuit.386ce73.html - broken link))

"This lawsuit is really about common sense," said Enrique Valdivia, president of Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas. "We think paving over 300 acres of recharge is pretty significant to everyone who depends on the aquifer."

Hmmm...I wonder if anyone thought about the common sense involved in covering however many thousands of acres of aquifer recharge with all of the housing developments in Stone Oak?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2008, 12:59 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
1,314 posts, read 2,771,295 times
Reputation: 842
I find it extremely interesting that when 281 was proposed as a toll-free expressway, nobody even hinted about any supposed environmental issues. Now that's it's being planned as a tolled expressway, suddenly the environment is in serious danger? Sounds like an act of desperation by the anti-toll faction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2008, 01:19 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX (78201)
604 posts, read 1,667,678 times
Reputation: 238
I am so sick and F****** tired of these insane people that don't know what the hell they're talking about opposing and continuously pushing back the project while congestion continues to become exponentially worse and construction costs continue to go up.
Did you know that the project would have been 90% COMPLETE by now, had it not been for Terri Hall and her band of highwaymen?? (^this statistic was in the same article that the quote from the first post came from, this morning in the express news). The access roads would have been well complete and the toll expressway would be nearing completion and opening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



.....
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!







90%- The new freeway would have been opening this summer/fall, and now the project STILL hasn't started...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2008, 01:36 PM
 
454 posts, read 370,469 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaleman View Post
From an article in the E-N today: (MySA.com: Metro | State (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA022708.01A.TollwayLawsuit.386ce73.html - broken link))

"This lawsuit is really about common sense," said Enrique Valdivia, president of Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas. "We think paving over 300 acres of recharge is pretty significant to everyone who depends on the aquifer."

Hmmm...I wonder if anyone thought about the common sense involved in covering however many thousands of acres of aquifer recharge with all of the housing developments in Stone Oak?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me...
Actually, plenty have been opposed to that as well.

I'd be thrilled if they had never paved over thousands of acres of aquifer recharge.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2008, 01:38 PM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,814 posts, read 33,121,638 times
Reputation: 13587
Terri Hall's tactics don't bother me.

I don't care for the subterfuge that the lege pulled when it drained off the fuel tax revenues to plug holes in the budget instead of it's designated use of building roads. These toll roads are a tax increase in disguise and the Toll Party is holding the government's feet to the fire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2008, 01:56 PM
 
140 posts, read 446,714 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakapu View Post
Actually, plenty have been opposed to that as well.

I'd be thrilled if they had never paved over thousands of acres of aquifer recharge.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Two wrongs? The fact is like TexHwyMan said, if they were truly SO CONCERNED about the environment then they would want no expansion of 281. They are using the environmant as a cruth for having NO tolls, and if it had been built as a toll free highway Terri wouldnt give a rats A** about the environment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2008, 01:58 PM
 
380 posts, read 1,165,677 times
Reputation: 126
All I can say is the more they have to fight these legal battles the more it's gonna cost us....yes, the taxpayer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2008, 02:00 PM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,814 posts, read 33,121,638 times
Reputation: 13587
Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ4512 View Post
Two wrongs? The fact is like TexHwyMan said, if they were truly SO CONCERNED about the environment then they would want no expansion of 281. They are using the environmant as a cruth for having NO tolls, and if it had been built as a toll free highway Terri wouldnt give a rats A** about the environment.
I imagine it is quite intentional that toll road opponents held off playing the environmental card until there were no other cards left to play. Environmental issues have the best chance for success in the appeals process.

The toll party didn't want 281 expansion to go unbuilt, they just wanted it funded correctly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2008, 02:04 PM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,814 posts, read 33,121,638 times
Reputation: 13587
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1StarRanch View Post
All I can say is the more they have to fight these legal battles the more it's gonna cost us....yes, the taxpayer.
The court battles can come to an end if the state goes back to funding highway construction with fuel tax dollars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2008, 02:16 PM
 
140 posts, read 446,714 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowie View Post
I imagine it is quite intentional that toll road opponents held off playing the environmental card until there were no other cards left to play. Environmental issues have the best chance for success in the appeals process.

The toll party didn't want 281 expansion to go unbuilt, they just wanted it funded correctly.
The environmant is a mute point to me. I think everyone agrees that 281 and 1604 MUST be expanded. There really is no issue, it can not handle the traffic. Two lanes in each direction, traffic lights, I mean it is beyond ridiculous. The issue has always been tolls. So I HATE that the environment is used as a desperation tactic, when there really is no issue on the evironment. If will get paved over, tolls or no tolls. And the tolls is the issue people have.

I personally am FOR the tolls, and unlike other citys no one HAS to drive on the tolls, like you do in Austin, Houston, or Dallas if you choose those specific highways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:12 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top