when is enough enough? 281/1604 interchange and environmental issues (San Antonio, Anton: credit, buy)

[Montirob]

Originally Posted by Soviet

I wasn't around in 1971(?) when that happened, but the fact of the matter is, how much park land do you NEED?! How many people in this city actually go to parks on a regular basis. I am in no way decrying the beauty and necessity of parks, I am just saying that if you have something that is worthwhile economically (shortened travel times on 281) why not do it? The alternative isn't necessarily any better environmentally.

To continue with your reasoning, since it is "hard" to find parking downtown, why not convert some of the greenspace downtown to parking lots? That was actually attempted back in the 1950's. We need more power, so why not take a little parkland and use if for high power transmission lines? That was actually tried just a few years ago. It's a slipperly slope type of thing - carve a bit here and there and soon nothing is left. Kind of like what we are seeing happening to the natural beauty outside 1604 where hills are leveled to save a few bucks.

I don't think anyone is against "progress", its just that San Antonio's idea of progress is so 1980's. Other cities have already learned that this type of development is not sustainable (and not in just a "green" way), and is, well, just ugly. We've made remarkle improvement over the last few years, I just hope it isn't too late.

Parks are very worthwhile economically. Hardberger noted in a recent speech to City Council (post mayor) that SA can't compete with Houston or Dallas with economic incentives to lure businesses. We can (and do), however lure them with the beauty of the city.

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by dvlpr

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.

Yes, but you deal with that by using zoning and development laws, not by blocking infrastructure to serve what's already there. The Legislature has given very limited tools to cities and especially counties to control growth-- that's where people who want to control development should direct their efforts. In the case of 281/1604, the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

[skeet09]

Originally Posted by Quattro72

Because the words “cutting-edge” and “San Antonio” don’t go together.

Yes, isn't that a shame?

[heimerswt]

Originally Posted by bluffsatlookoutcanyon

I moved out to far north San Antonio to get away from the riff-raff that has infiltrated a lot of the areas of San Antonio....yes, even in the 281 and Bitters area.

LOL!


(wait....you're serious??)

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by Soviet

For example? ???

Don't want to list them on here. Don't want to derail this thread offtopic into what neighborhoods are better and not.

I can DM you what I think is seedy outside of loop 1604 if you really care to know my opinions.

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

Yes, but you deal with that by using zoning and development laws, not by blocking infrastructure to serve what's already there. The Legislature has given very limited tools to cities and especially counties to control growth-- that's where people who want to control development should direct their efforts. In the case of 281/1604, the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

Hey- where the hell have you been lately?

Unfortunately, Texas cities/counties are quite limited in how they can regulate growth patterns (state law/legal precedent, as I'm sure you know). CoSA can't enforce zoning/planning in the ETJ (where most sprawl is built), and the counties can hardly regulate anything. In Texas, we can't regulate against sprawl, and changing that through legislative means is going to be virtually impossible in the near-term.

The only thing we can do is stop subsidizing sprawl by spending huge amounts of money on auto infrastructure. And, as everyone who lives there is realizing, sprawl without lots of "free" highways/roads doesn't function very well...

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by bresilhac

Some people just cannot seem to realize that with continued growth you must have the improved infrastructure to go along with it. People have been and will continue to flock to this area from around the country and indeed the world for the foreseeable future. And to just throw your hands up and say "I don't want San Antonio to change or grow" is just foolish, deluded thinking that is not connected to reality.

I don't believe, like so many others, that this lawsuit is about beetles at all. It is about trying to stall progress in one of the most successful parts of town. People have been moving to the 281/1604 area because it is a great place to live with many amenities. A new interchange at that intersection to alleviate traffic bottlenecks would serve to preserve and enhance the quality of life that exists in the area.

Like so many other large projects in the past everything connected with improving the lot of commuters in San Antonio has been one big fight. Maybe, just maybe, people around here will concede that San Antonio is a major, growing, sprawling urban area that needs forward thinking citizens and effective leaders if the city is to continue to be an attractive destination for people around the country.

It's not about whether or not SA is going to continue to grow; it is.

It's a question of how we grow. And I don't think that just because a city grows that growth has to take the form of sprawl. I don't think SA should strive to be like Houston, Atlanta, or Phoenix.

And I also disagree that 281/1604 is "successful". If it's so successful, why does it require hundreds of millions of dollars in highway construction just to accommodate the existing auto traffic?

Advocating for sprawl while saying that SA "needs forward thinking citizens" is tough to reconcile.

[ItsTheTruth]

Originally Posted by bluffsatlookoutcanyon

I moved out to far north San Antonio to get away from the riff-raff that has infiltrated a lot of the areas of San Antonio....yes, even in the 281 and Bitters area. Yes, I do sit in traffic, but I would much rather sit in traffic than live in some of the seedy neighborhoods I have seen just inside Loop 1604.

At least I don't have a McDonalds in my neighborhood. Classy indeed. Nor do I have coke dealers in my neighborhood:
Stone Oak already going ghetto

Enjoy your cookie cutter house and traffic.

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by datacity

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!!"

Moderator cut: off topic

Generally speaking, ALL residential neighborhoods generate less revenue (ad valorem taxes) than they cost to serve. And there are businesses in virtually all parts of SA. So that's not really a valid argument. We all pay taxes (and there are plenty of very expensive neighborhoods in SA with crappy public infrastructure).

My issue is that we're constantly subsidizing a living arrangement (sprawl) that requires tremendous amounts of highway/road infrastructure in order to function.

40 years ago...I wasn't around. Sorry. And I don't want to ban development. I just don't want to subsidize bad development. And I'm not just "sitting back and complaining". I'm involved in creating alternatives to sprawl...but it's tough when the vast majority of public infrastructure dollars go to "fix" places like 281/1604 instead of incentivizing the creation of walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by dvlpr

Hey- where the hell have you been lately?

Life has been off-the-hook this past year, so unfortunately, C-D was sent to the back burner for a while.

Unfortunately, Texas cities/counties are quite limited in how they can regulate growth patterns (state law/legal precedent, as I'm sure you know). CoSA can't enforce zoning/planning in the ETJ (where most sprawl is built), and the counties can hardly regulate anything. In Texas, we can't regulate against sprawl, and changing that through legislative means is going to be virtually impossible in the near-term.

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.)

The only thing we can do is stop subsidizing sprawl by spending huge amounts of money on auto infrastructure...

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.