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 08-26-2010, 04:43 PM
 
413 posts, read 653,719 times
Reputation: 453

Advertisements

Add another vote for doing nothing. People chose to live out there. Enjoy your mess, or find a way to bring business and industry into your neighborhood. With so many options for housing at various price levels throughout the city, the fact that anyone would choose to live in Stone Oak/281 and commute out of it is ridiculous. One of the reasons many people move here is the lack of traffic, and to situate yourself right in the middle of it... crazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2010, 04:53 PM
 
Location: That's pretty obvious
1,035 posts, read 2,081,904 times
Reputation: 950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quattro72 View Post
Do nothing? That sounds like a typical San Antonio answer.
my thoughts exactly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 04:55 PM
 
Location: That's pretty obvious
1,035 posts, read 2,081,904 times
Reputation: 950
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth View Post
One of the reasons many people move here is the lack of traffic, and to situate yourself right in the middle of it... crazy.

that's funny and...absurd. Kind of like saying one of the reasons people move here is for the mild summers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Texas
475 posts, read 971,064 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr View Post
Great point. The people that have to deal with 281/1604 on a daily basis are dealing with a problem that they're integral in creating. And they want all of us to pay for their suburban sprawl lifestyle.

More sprawl infrastructure will create more sprawl. It's not a living arrangement that we should be subsidizing, for lots and lots of reasons. That's why people like AGUA are fighting against this intersection.

By the way, just in case anyone's forgotten, our sole source of drinking water is dependent on a healthy Edwards aquifer recharge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr View Post
Of course, a 281-1604 interchange would reduce traffic for all drivers, including people who "happen to be in that area".

But the primary beneficiaries of this interchange are the people who live and work there - in suburban sprawl. And I don't believe we should be subsidizing that sort of living arrangement.
They pay quite a lot in taxes... in fact, without getting into a socioeconomic battle, I would be willing to bet that they subsidize a lot of services enjoyed by residents on the Southside and Eastside. Also, remember that besides residents, there are also countless businesses that provide both sales tax and property tax revenue, again benefiting the greater San Antonio area. This area covers more than just the Stone Oak area. It includes a wide swath of already developed area stretching across and along and both sides of 1604.

I was reading the actual lawsuit today, and while there were a few good points by the plaintiffs, the vast majority of it came across as whining and many of arguments were of a caliber that could easily be shot down by any good high school debate team.

Protecting the aquifer? Where were all of you 40 years ago and why didn't you get the state to ban all development then or anytime since? Why didn't you support the development of an alternative water basin to supplement our water supply San Antonio when you had the chance.

I have seen San Antonio's growth firsthand since the 1970s (and for that matter, DFW, Houston and Austin). It is the same story: residents don't like growth and say no to any and everything. So instead of working and fighting to have cities manage growth, instead of having a seat at the table and influence the way their metro grows, they sit back and let it happen and then complain.

To paraphrase FCF: "If you're not [part of] the solution,you're [part of] the problem!!"

Last edited by datacity; 08-26-2010 at 05:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 06:18 PM
 
Location: SA/Pipe Creek
2,790 posts, read 5,183,783 times
Reputation: 1590
The problem that is predominant (not "predominate" as I have seen it spelled so many times) is that there is no foresight in planning anything in this city! And 40 years ago, they probably had no foresight that the city would explode in population growth. I have no idea why "they" wouldn't have had foresight regarding that matter.... but they didn't. Fast forward to 2010....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 07:48 PM
 
Location: The "original 36" of SA
816 posts, read 1,478,767 times
Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by datacity View Post
Protecting the aquifer? Where were all of you 40 years ago and why didn't you get the state to ban all development then or anytime since? Why didn't you support the development of an alternative water basin to supplement our water supply San Antonio when you had the chance.

I have seen San Antonio's growth firsthand since the 1970s (and for that matter, DFW, Houston and Austin). It is the same story: residents don't like growth and say no to any and everything. So instead of working and fighting to have cities manage growth, instead of having a seat at the table and influence the way their metro grows, they sit back and let it happen and then complain.
There were residents trying to protect the aquifer back then. The location of UTSA was controversial, as many wanted it downtown in the Hemisfair area. A few years ago, I attended a lecture where Howard Peak (I believe it was his lecture) stated that in the '60's there was actually a proposal to buy up a bunch of the recharge zone.

The Applewhite resevoir was opposed by many geologists, engineers, and environmental groups because of its location downstream from military bases, and because it would almost assuredly lead to weaker restrictions over the aquifer. If the concern was truly about supplementing the aquifer, then recharge dams would have been a much better solution.

Citizens have also tried to manage growth through changes to the Unified Development Code, but it seems that developers then convince the City Council to later weaken the restrictions. The cry is always that houses will be too expensive if we have wider sidewalks or keep trees, that Walmart won't move here if we don't allow tons 'o parking in the front, etc.

I don't yet have a position on the lawsuit, but unfortunately the reason we have come to this point is because this town's politicians have continually ignored the plea of concerned citizens. Instead, they have marched in step with those who believe in the motto, "pardon our dust, for progress is a must." A lot of us aren't against growth, we just don't think that a new strip mall next to (but buffered so that you can't walk to it) a sea of identical homes is a sign of progress. To me, the Pearl redevelopment and the river expansion is a much better sign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Texas
475 posts, read 971,064 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montirob View Post
There were residents trying to protect the aquifer back then. The location of UTSA was controversial, as many wanted it downtown in the Hemisfair area. A few years ago, I attended a lecture where Howard Peak (I believe it was his lecture) stated that in the '60's there was actually a proposal to buy up a bunch of the recharge zone.

The Applewhite resevoir was opposed by many geologists, engineers, and environmental groups because of its location downstream from military bases, and because it would almost assuredly lead to weaker restrictions over the aquifer. If the concern was truly about supplementing the aquifer, then recharge dams would have been a much better solution.

Citizens have also tried to manage growth through changes to the Unified Development Code, but it seems that developers then convince the City Council to later weaken the restrictions. The cry is always that houses will be too expensive if we have wider sidewalks or keep trees, that Walmart won't move here if we don't allow tons 'o parking in the front, etc.

I don't yet have a position on the lawsuit, but unfortunately the reason we have come to this point is because this town's politicians have continually ignored the plea of concerned citizens. Instead, they have marched in step with those who believe in the motto, "pardon our dust, for progress is a must." A lot of us aren't against growth, we just don't think that a new strip mall next to (but buffered so that you can't walk to it) a sea of identical homes is a sign of progress. To me, the Pearl redevelopment and the river expansion is a much better sign.
I agree that our politicians do not have the courage to do what is right, but that is the result of an indifferent populace. Yes, there have always been pockets of citizens that are concerned, but they have to convince the greater body of people. Yeah, democracy is inefficient, but most believe it better than the alternative.

Sorry for the tangent. Getting back to this specific topic, I sincerely hope that a resolution can be agreed upon, less the project lose the federal stimulus dollars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 08:34 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
399 posts, read 1,029,729 times
Reputation: 192
I don't think anyone is against saving or preserving the aquifer. The point here is that building this much-needed interchange will have zero effect on the aquifer or our citizen's pocketbooks. It will actually help the environment by limiting emissions from idling cars. It's a win-win.

AGUA needs to back off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 08:51 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
4,274 posts, read 6,652,636 times
Reputation: 3910
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr View Post
Great point. The people that have to deal with 281/1604 on a daily basis are dealing with a problem that they're integral in creating. And they want all of us to pay for their suburban sprawl lifestyle.

And while this intersection might make things better now, what happens when the next 10,000 acres of sprawl (where driving is mandatory for virtually every basic need) are built? What sort of improvements will we have to build to ensure that people who live on 2 acres in Bulverde can get to the Costco without having to drive slower than 50 mph?

More sprawl infrastructure will create more sprawl. It's not a living arrangement that we should be subsidizing, for lots and lots of reasons. That's why people like AGUA are fighting against this intersection.

By the way, just in case anyone's forgotten, our sole source of drinking water is dependent on a healthy Edwards aquifer recharge.

Well, what's the solution? That we use legislation and market reforms to make people live in hemp buildings downtown with lactose-free recycled toilets? You can't have everything. There has to be a compromise.

They were right, where was AGUA 30 years ago when they just started building in the area? That's right, none of them were alive, probably. Pathetic attention-grabbing loons.

They are making things worse for the environment by delaying on this, and they're too dumb to realize that. So sad. It's an insult to the green movement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 08:56 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
4,274 posts, read 6,652,636 times
Reputation: 3910
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeet09 View Post
To anyone interested in city planning, I'd encourage a class in Urban Planning at one of our higher education institutions here in the city.
We have so many opportunities to use our existing infrastructure and our existing land to create something marvelous, to create little self containing cities if you can call them that to help alleviate our traffic situation. Just thinking outside the box and going against the grain is needed. Easier said than done though.
Anyone interested in urban planning needs to check this out: Songdo International Business District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South Korea's spending its money on cutting-edge infrastructure....why can't we? Not necessarily to THAT degree, but certainly something similar. Self-contained cities that limit the need for miles and miles of driving are certainly a step in the right direction.
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.

© 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