Perry Vetoes Smart Growth (Houston, Austin: apartment, how much, houses)

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by bman15470

Bud, that road will lead to higher cost of housing and loss of choices plain and simple. Come on you already have very affordable housing. Smart, healthy, opportunities, quality are words that are used to make growth that is bureaucratic, PC, and limited which translates to loss of your freedoms. The ability to exercise the freedom to live where and how you want is what is driving me out of Oregon and into Texas. These issues need to be left at the local level, not state.

The problem with that last sentence is that a given county, much less region, can have many different cities with their own jurisdictions and land use plans. Then you have growth in unincorporated areas of the county where their is absolutely ZERO planning for growth; just get your septic permit and do whatever you want. What you come up with inevitably is sprawl and a system where the personal motor vehicle is the only way to get around. People are tired of this status quo and realize that smart growth - really a repackaged version of the pre-WWII style of urban development - is actually very efficient whilst providing a high quality of life.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

The reason he won last time is because the opposition was split between Kinky and Carol. I confess to being somewhat annoyed at both of those candidates (who normally I would support) because neither of them was smart enough to see the obvious and had the good of the state in mind enough to step down. If one or the other had, we'd be rid of him by now.

Chris Bell had more votes than both of them & was a d*mn throwback....a moderate/conservative democrat.

If half of those who voted for the Kinkster or Grandma (both incredibly flawed politicians & individuals) had voted for Bell....then Goodhair would by yesterday's news. But the "dancing with the stars" media & voters didn't give a rat about competence.


Regarding the veto.....homebuilders funded Perry. Smart Growth suggests that Homebuilders actually pay for the infrastructure needs that they create (roads, parks, schools, etc.). This is radical communism to homebuilders & developers. They'd rather let the dumb existing homeowner pay for these things (people like me & probably most who are reading this).

But hey....Goodhair is "an Ag".... is handsome & his wife sure is nice...so it's all good. Go ahead & raise my property taxes....I'll pay for this stuff while the homebuilders are off to Tucson, Denver, Birmingham or wherever the next hot market is.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

The problem with that last sentence is that a given county, much less region, can have many different cities with their own jurisdictions and land use plans. Then you have growth in unincorporated areas of the county where their is absolutely ZERO planning for growth; just get your septic permit and do whatever you want. What you come up with inevitably is sprawl and a system where the personal motor vehicle is the only way to get around. People are tired of this status quo and realize that smart growth - really a repackaged version of the pre-WWII style of urban development - is actually very efficient whilst providing a high quality of life.

I agree with every word of this. (except for the word "whilst" )

[orbius]

He also refused to join a new Federal educational standards program that sets basic standards for education and spends money to bring struggling ISDs up to that level. All for pure politics sake so he could tell the rednecks he told the 'evil' Feds to jump in a lake. Playing politics and refusing a program you know will spend billions to improve childrens education frankly thats just downright unconscionable.
Guess what states said no? They all had governors potentially making a run for the Presidency. Alaska(Palin), South Carolina(Sanford), and Texas(Perry).

[TexasTheKid]

Originally Posted by orbius

He also refused to join a new Federal educational standards program that sets basic standards for education and spends money to bring struggling ISDs up to that level. All for pure politics sake so he could tell the rednecks he told the 'evil' Feds to jump in a lake. Playing politics and refusing a program you know will spend billions to improve childrens education frankly thats just downright unconscionable.
Guess what states said no? They all had governors potentially making a run for the Presidency. Alaska(Palin), South Carolina(Sanford), and Texas(Perry).

Try as Perry might, I doubt there's a single American, red or blue, who would even vote another Texan into office these days. Since Perry's screwed in national politics, it would be nice if he stopped pandering to his corporate sponsers and actually started acting on behalf of the people like he's supposed to do.

[04JETTA]

This is news?

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Dangerfield

Yep, Good Ol' President Perry of the Nation of Texas.

An oil well in every backyard, SUV in every driveway, Walmart & Whataburger in every neighborhood and brisket in every oven.

Basically. Please, Get rid of him Texas.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by hound 109

Chris Bell had more votes than both of them & was a d*mn throwback....a moderate/conservative democrat.

If half of those who voted for the Kinkster or Grandma (both incredibly flawed politicians & individuals) had voted for Bell....then Goodhair would by yesterday's news. But the "dancing with the stars" media & voters didn't give a rat about competence.


Regarding the veto.....homebuilders funded Perry. Smart Growth suggests that Homebuilders actually pay for the infrastructure needs that they create (roads, parks, schools, etc.). This is radical communism to homebuilders & developers. They'd rather let the dumb existing homeowner pay for these things (people like me & probably most who are reading this).

But hey....Goodhair is "an Ag".... is handsome & his wife sure is nice...so it's all good. Go ahead & raise my property taxes....I'll pay for this stuff while the homebuilders are off to Tucson, Denver, Birmingham or wherever the next hot market is.

It is common practice now for builders in traditional suburban subdivisions to pay for some of the costs of sidewalks, roads, etc. so there is nothing specific to new urbanism in that. This especially makes sense when many of the roads in these new developments have no connectivity for any residents outside of them. That is you cannot use these new roads to get from one arterial to another arterial or highway. They function more like private roads, and driveways in the case of cul de sacs, for the residents.

The only thing I can think of that you might be relating to communism, really socialism is a more appropriate term, with smart growth is something called Tax Increment Financing. Still when you break it down TIF is just property taxes subsidizing public transportation in lieu of something more conventional like sale taxes.

[bman15470]

Heres what smart growth looks like. All land outside an incorporated area would be zoned exclusively farm or timber use, no residential building. Then in an effort to capitalize on available areas in the incorporated area planners and builders transition to "high density housing", apartments and houses on tiny culdesacs built 20' feet apart. The occasional acreages outside the Incorporated areas are rare and as such expensive. In attempt to reduce the traffic and crowding that results from this HDP the bureaucrats attempt grand projects such as light rail and tram systems that costs 10's of times more than rubber tire transportation per passenger. When that doesn't work they start floating ideas like taxing people on how much/often they use there car to curtail traffic and increase revenues to fund failed public transit systems and bike paths. If you think I'm making this up then just look at Portland and the surrounding areas. I bought 8 acres in rural Marion county eight years ago after looking for 3 years. Just stumbled into a seller contract, got a great deal, $15,000 an acre! Welcome to the peoples republic of Oregon, coming soon to a Texas Town near you if your not careful.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

It is common practice now for builders in traditional suburban subdivisions to pay for some of the costs of sidewalks, roads, etc. so there is nothing specific to new urbanism in that. This especially makes sense when many of the roads in these new developments have no connectivity for any residents outside of them. That is you cannot use these new roads to get from one arterial to another arterial or highway. They function more like private roads, and driveways in the case of cul de sacs, for the residents.

The only thing I can think of that you might be relating to communism, really socialism is a more appropriate term, with smart growth is something called Tax Increment Financing. Still when you break it down TIF is just property taxes subsidizing public transportation in lieu of something more conventional like sale taxes.

My "communism" comment was referring to the fact that anything that goes against the "good ol' boy", let's keep doing what we're doing philosophy....that Perry, the builders/developers & folks who are making money (realtors? subcontractors? etc.) currently enjoy ....then Perry & the developer pigs at the trough would call such opposition "liberal" or "communist". It's become predictable & kind of a knee jerk response.

The reality is that folks who are currently residing (existing homeowners in nearby neighborhoods) near these NEW home McMansion developments are in fact subsidizing the builders/developers (so actually it's Perry & his builder friends that are the d*mn socialists)...since WE (who have lived in our neighborhood for years) have to pay the higher taxes to provide for new parks/schools/police etc. for the newbies who buy the crap McMansions & crap cheap homes in their crap NEW home development which used to be farmland. (& who's tax dollars will be minimal for several years.....since it takes over a year before we even see a nickel of taxes from them & they have "needs" from day 1.)

Ironically many (of these new crap homes) will be bought on govt. subsidized 0% (or 3%) down loans....& a large percentage of these (depending on the market) could go to foreclosure since the newbie won't have any skin in the game. So not only will we (the poor schlep down the road from the crap development) have to pay for the parks/schools/police etc. for the newbie crap homes.....we could also see OUR property values go down do to the foreclosures of the NEW HOME developments in our area. (A double whammy).

I really don't give a rat about the definition of smart growth.....I just want the people who are causing the need (the builders/developers or the newbie who wants their crap built McMansion) to pay for the infrastructure need (parks/schools/cops etc.) that they create (& at the time of the sale). Probably 10K-15K to the various taxing authorities. This would reduce the amount of MY tax bill from these entities (theoretically)....& would probably reduce the number of crap homes built (imo a good thing).

But...but....who would pay for the 10-15K many would ask??

I don't give a d*mn....let the developer & realtor (who brought the little family to the crap home development) eat some of their profit....or not. I don't care who pays it as long as it's paid (& then i'm not having to vote yes or no on bonds to pay for it). Fair is fair....I'm tired of paying for someone else's services & tired of the "conventional wisdom" of not having new home buyers pay for the needs/problems that THEY create.

To me "Smart Growth" would be organically easier to implement if....instead of politicians making rules (& hoping that they are followed)...they would simply tack on a bill for the NEW home at closing (for the need that THEY are creating)....& it wouldn't apply for sales of existing homes, btw.

.