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 08-30-2010, 10:31 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
399 posts, read 1,030,205 times
Reputation: 192

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyEng View Post
Has anyone else noticed that on the AGUA donors page, that they have removed the donors? I am SOOOO surprised.

Does anyone recall any of the names on the list? I sure would love to boycott them!
Here you go

[SIZE=2]La Tuna Grill - ANNADORTMAN2002@YAHOO.COM
Mighty Studio Group - sho@mightystudio.com, domainreg@mightystudio.com
Lake Flato Architects - marketing@lakeflato.com, webman@lakeflato.com, rtrinidad@LAKEFLATO.COM
Blue Star Brewing - info@STUDIOGALLO.COM, info@bluestarbrewing.com
Bangz Hair Salon - bangzhairsalon@sbcglobal.net
Alamo Beer - eugene@alamobeer.com[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Cynthia and George P. Mitchell Foundation 512-502-5182
San Antonio Conservation Society - bmacdougal@saconservation.org (who is supported by: HEB, McCombs Foundation, Valero, Gunn Automotive, Frost Bank, Holt Foundation, any many, many others...)[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2010, 11:29 AM
 
413 posts, read 654,214 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexHwyMan View Post
I'm not sure what point you were making there. The roads *aren't* there.

If that was how it worked, then San Antonio would still occupy about 10 square miles. Infrastructure (roads in particular) has always followed the growth, and people have always moved further and further out without the roads to support that growth-- this isn't a new or recent phenomenon.
Sure there is a road. Everyone can get home without taking a dirt road.

Perhaps San Antonio should occupy a make smaller footprint. There is no reason for anyone to be outside 1604 with so much available land inside. People wanted cheaper housing. People didn't want to pay city taxes. People wanted more land. Builders wanted to buy land cheap. You can't have everything, and this is what happens. Next, people in that area will complain that I should have to subsidize their gas prices because they're waiting so long in traffic. Waiting in traffic is the tradeoff for saving money. People in other cities understand this. Why doesn't San Antonio?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 11:32 AM
 
413 posts, read 654,214 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillCountryHotRodMan View Post
That project needed to be done years ago when things started getting built over there.
Why? So a builder buys some cheap land and the government needs to step in to help? So if I buy a chunk of land on the south side, can I get $200 million earmarked for a highway to my development?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:03 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
1,314 posts, read 2,780,209 times
Reputation: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth View Post
Sure there is a road. Everyone can get home without taking a dirt road.

Perhaps San Antonio should occupy a make smaller footprint. There is no reason for anyone to be outside 1604 with so much available land inside. People wanted cheaper housing. People didn't want to pay city taxes. People wanted more land. Builders wanted to buy land cheap. You can't have everything, and this is what happens. Next, people in that area will complain that I should have to subsidize their gas prices because they're waiting so long in traffic. Waiting in traffic is the tradeoff for saving money. People in other cities understand this. Why doesn't San Antonio?
You're missing my point, which is that this needs to be addressed by land use laws, not by denying expanded infrastructure to an area that's already developed. You won't get much argument from me about the need for more infill and compact development, but the Legislature needs to give cities and counties the tools to make that happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Texas
475 posts, read 971,609 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth View Post
Why? So a builder buys some cheap land and the government needs to step in to help? So if I buy a chunk of land on the south side, can I get $200 million earmarked for a highway to my development?
You might if you have the vision and an ability to show others that vision. Westover Hills was nothing 25 years ago; look at it now with 151, Sea World, etc.. Toyota extracted a lot from the State on down to build the plant down there.

I'm sure if builders build more houses in the south where there is open land and residents move there, they will have the political capital to have an improved infrastructure.

As TexHwyMan says, the failure here is not giving cities and counties tools to manage the growth by insisting on infrastructure improvements that fall into TxDOT's area. Of course, the state could also insist that any large development that will impact existing traffic work through TxDOT to fund improvement. The reality is that this isn't happening and probably will not until we start demanding our legislature to change things and take action.

So fine, for the future, but what about all the areas already developed? Fix them since a lot of folks live out there and a stimulus funding source has surfaced. And to those who speak of subsidizing, just remember that all the freeways that were built in San Antonio with IH or US in front of their numbers were also subsidized by taxpayers long ago and continue to be by virtue of the gas tax that we all pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 05:20 PM
 
824 posts, read 1,606,093 times
Reputation: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexHwyMan View Post
Life has been off-the-hook this past year, so unfortunately, C-D was sent to the back burner for a while.



That was my point. Folks that want to limit development need to pressure the Leg to give cities and counties the tools to do that. I know it's an uphill battle, but that's no reason not to try. The more that people get on board, the more likely (over time) it is that the Leg will listen. (The same is true for getting the transportation funding situation fixed.)



Again, that's only treating the symptoms. It would be like if SAWS (or BexarMet in this case) realized they now needed larger water lines out there-- should they refuse to install those pipes as a mechanism to control growth? Those people still need water and pay water bills.
Agreed on the need for legislative overhaul, but the problem is that it will take a loooooong time in Texas, and during that time, suburbia will continue to require more highways, roads, overpasses, etc. And if we build more highways, we'll get more sprawl.

And I don't buy your SAWS/water line analogy. Water lines (and all public utilities) support all forms of development, including the type that we ought to be encouraging (walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods). Highways (and all the other expensive auto infrastructure) directly encourage sprawl building patterns.

A better analogy would be if a 500-house subdivision was constructed using only a 2" water line, and people moved into houses there, and then all-of-a-sudden realized they didn't have enough water, and then demanded that "somebody" fix the water problem...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 05:28 PM
 
824 posts, read 1,606,093 times
Reputation: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by datacity View Post
You might if you have the vision and an ability to show others that vision. Westover Hills was nothing 25 years ago; look at it now with 151, Sea World, etc.. Toyota extracted a lot from the State on down to build the plant down there.

I'm sure if builders build more houses in the south where there is open land and residents move there, they will have the political capital to have an improved infrastructure.

As TexHwyMan says, the failure here is not giving cities and counties tools to manage the growth by insisting on infrastructure improvements that fall into TxDOT's area. Of course, the state could also insist that any large development that will impact existing traffic work through TxDOT to fund improvement. The reality is that this isn't happening and probably will not until we start demanding our legislature to change things and take action.

So fine, for the future, but what about all the areas already developed? Fix them since a lot of folks live out there and a stimulus funding source has surfaced. And to those who speak of subsidizing, just remember that all the freeways that were built in San Antonio with IH or US in front of their numbers were also subsidized by taxpayers long ago and continue to be by virtue of the gas tax that we all pay.
Good points.

But I guess where we mostly disagree is that places like Westover Hills are precisely what we need to stop building. It's a place that requires lots of "free" highways and roads in order for it to function (imagine trying to get around that area without 151). But as long as public funds directly subsidize one type of development, that's what we're going to get.

And you're right: all highways in SA were subsidized with taxpayer dollars. But many of these highways decimated neighborhoods when they were constructed, especially those near downtown. And the proliferation of highways were one of the things that kick-started suburban sprawl. I don't accept that highways are unquestionably great things.

Again, it's not a question of growth vs. no-growth. It's a question of how we grow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Texas
475 posts, read 971,609 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr View Post
Good points.

But I guess where we mostly disagree is that places like Westover Hills are precisely what we need to stop building. It's a place that requires lots of "free" highways and roads in order for it to function (imagine trying to get around that area without 151). But as long as public funds directly subsidize one type of development, that's what we're going to get.

And you're right: all highways in SA were subsidized with taxpayer dollars. But many of these highways decimated neighborhoods when they were constructed, especially those near downtown. And the proliferation of highways were one of the things that kick-started suburban sprawl. I don't accept that highways are unquestionably great things.

Again, it's not a question of growth vs. no-growth. It's a question of how we grow.
Actually, I do not have an issue with trying to minimize "future" Westover Hills from happening, but if they will happen, at least we should insist that the infrastructure that a place like that requires be funded from the get go... and yes, it will get passed to the future residents/businesses in the area. I also agree that building closer in is beneficial from a societal and environmental point of view.

Heck, incorporating the higher true cost of development out in suburbia might even make builders think more about redevelopment of existing areas closer in to the city... of course it might drive up prices closer in as well; I doubt it will be cheap to live vertically closer in, but if you can, great! Yes, I know driving in everyday has a cost too!

Still, any solution for the future of the metro area has to include fixing the "mistakes" of the past. In this case, we have money to do so from stimulus funds, so why not?

It doesn't preclude still trying to mobilize people to get their representatives to change land use laws to let regions and cities manage future growth. Is this a big challenge? You bet! But it can happen, even here in Texas. At the very least, future infrastructure might be funded ahead of the physical growth, instead of tackling it after the fact.

Last edited by datacity; 08-30-2010 at 07:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 08:02 PM
 
5,632 posts, read 6,450,230 times
Reputation: 3608
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyEng View Post
Has anyone else noticed that on the AGUA donors page, that they have removed the donors? I am SOOOO surprised.

Does anyone recall any of the names on the list? I sure would love to boycott them!
Google cache still lists them. I copied just the business supporters, the rest are just names of people.

It seems that most of the business supporters are not even located out by 281/1604 intersection.

Business Supporters
Alamo Beer
Bangz Hair Salon
Blue Star Brewery
Lake Flato Architects
Mighty Studio Group
La Tuna
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2010, 10:30 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
399 posts, read 1,030,205 times
Reputation: 192
Excerpt below from StoneOakInfo.com ==> AGUA lawsuit may halt 281/1604 interchange | StoneOakInfo.com

"AGUA’s lawsuit may not only delay the project, but could potentially impact funding for the interchange, which was being paid for with federal stimulus money and Proposition 14 bonds. If construction of the interchange is stopped, more than 200 jobs will also be lost. "

What would we do without agua looking out for our best interests?!?
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 05:09 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