Albuquerque "The Plan" (construction, school, property tax)
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.
I don't understand how someone can not figure out that Albuquerque needs a nice water park. The beach failed, ultimately because of ownership.
You build a "Wet 'n wild" water park here, and Cliffs will be a thing of the past for summer fun.
But I'm ready for the heat, on how it will waste the "precious water", who cares! They foot the bill most of the time. Just like how the Average Albuquerquean wastes 46,000 gallons of water a year.
The average person wastes water, so it doesn't matter? I see someone has their head firmly planted in the sand.
I'm just so frustrated by this decision by the 5 city councilors. How presumptuous of the sort of projects that Albuquerqueans would be excited about. They describe the rafting course as "frivolous", yet support letting 25 million dollars sit while the rest of the funding for Paseo awaits? How damn arrogant. And then to package it together with the sports complex??
I, too, am now really hoping this gets voted down. The goal of "The Plan" seemed to be to get people interested in investments for the city, and it got alot of people talking, and alot of people invested a significant amount of time in giving their input (I skipped the end of my work day to attend the downtown meeting).
To me though, this signifies a bigger issue. The mayor, while not a person I tend to agree with politically, had managed to rally all sorts of folks around his efforts, and I have enjoyed his non-partisan style - it is just so unusual & refreshing nowadays. The city councilors, however, voted on this down party lines, reafirming that bipartisan bickering and political gamesmanship often comes before the good of the community.
As far as the federal government not having the money...not having money hasn't stopped them for many years, so I fail to see how that would suddenly change.
If recent events are any indication the federal government will no longer be allowed to spend money it doesn't have without huge fights. That's why I said there won't be another stimulus. Another one was talked about rather seriously as recently as last year, remember? But now nobody thinks another round of stimulus funds has any chance of being approved. Haven't you seen that campaign-style commercial about taking away "Obama's blank check"? Things are indeed going to be different until at least after the next election or until the economy improves.
Right now even the normal highway funding sources (through gasoline taxes and such) aren't enough to cover the feds' share of money that goes to the states for normal, everyday highway expenditures and routine maintenance of traffic infrastructure. If the federal government ends up spending any money it doesn't have on transportation infrastructure I guarantee you proposed projects like Paseo/I-25 are going to be passed over for more pressing and existing needs.
So I go back to what I said earlier in one of my posts - If the city and city council was serious about getting Paseo/I-25 done anytime soon it would've placed a separate bond question on the ballot to fund the majority of the projected cost.
It's not unheard of for local governments to fund and build such massive projects on their own. Maybe if more local governments did this the federal government wouldn't be in the situation it's in now. Notice how everybody complains about federal spending but everybody also depends first on federal dollars to get their local projects done be they highways or other sorts of projects.
If recent events are any indication the federal government will no longer be allowed to spend money it doesn't have without huge fights. That's why I said there won't be another stimulus. Another one was talked about rather seriously as recently as last year, remember? But now nobody thinks another round of stimulus funds has any chance of being approved. Haven't you seen that campaign-style commercial about taking away "Obama's blank check"? Things are indeed going to be different until at least after the next election or until the economy improves.
Right now even the normal highway funding sources (through gasoline taxes and such) aren't enough to cover the feds' share of money that goes to the states for normal, everyday highway expenditures and routine maintenance of traffic infrastructure. If the federal government ends up spending any money it doesn't have on transportation infrastructure I guarantee you proposed projects like Paseo/I-25 are going to be passed over for more pressing and existing needs.
So I go back to what I said earlier in one of my posts - If the city and city council was serious about getting Paseo/I-25 done anytime soon it would've placed a separate bond question on the ballot to fund the majority of the projected cost.
It's not unheard of for local governments to fund and build such massive projects on their own. Maybe if more local governments did this the federal government wouldn't be in the situation it's in now. Notice how everybody complains about federal spending but everybody also depends first on federal dollars to get their local projects done be they highways or other sorts of projects.
Recent events will change little to nothing, try cracking a history book. Why do you keep mentioning stimulus spending? Nobody has mentioned it but you. You want the city to pay for the projects with its own bonds? Before you suggest that, I suggest you look up a few things (1)how much that would raise taxes (2) how the city's bond rating would be affected (3) how much money would be pulled from other deserving projects and funneled to this one project.
I also suggest that you start reading my posts before responding to them. You keep arguing against points that neither I nor anyone else have bought up. If you can't stay on topic and actually argue against the points I have made, then I'll just consider that you can't and that I have already won.
Recent events will change little to nothing, try cracking a history book. Why do you keep mentioning stimulus spending? Nobody has mentioned it but you. You want the city to pay for the projects with its own bonds? Before you suggest that, I suggest you look up a few things (1)how much that would raise taxes (2) how the city's bond rating would be affected (3) how much money would be pulled from other deserving projects and funneled to this one project.
I also suggest that you start reading my posts before responding to them. You keep arguing against points that neither I nor anyone else have bought up. If you can't stay on topic and actually argue against the points I have made, then I'll just consider that you can't and that I have already won.
Won what exactly?
And actually, you're the one who brought up stimulus funding in your initial post towards me in this thread. Perhaps you should start reading your own posts before responding to me about responding to you.
From post #23 in this thread, in case you need help finding it for yourself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanrice
Look up how much was contributed to the Big I project from the federal and state governments. I believe the point of setting aside 25 million is to start gathering the money needed and to open up more sources of funding. I don't know if anyone remembers, but I think I remember that this project got passed up for stimulus funds mainly because nobody had yet devoted any money to doing the work. Every million that is saved now helps to get the project done sooner rather than later.
And actually, you're the one who brought up stimulus funding in your initial post towards me in this thread. Perhaps you should start reading your own posts before responding to me about responding to you.
From post #23 in this thread, in case you need help finding it for yourself:
Thank you for proving my point. I said that the projects did not win stimulus money. I mentioned what happened in the past, I never said that I thought that the project would or should be paid for with stimulus funds. You then made the argument that there would not be another stimulus and that we shouldn't try to pay for it with that kind of money. I made an observation about the past which you assumed meant that I thought that we would have another stimulus. So, once again, please try to read posts before you respond to them.
Thank you for proving my point. I said that the projects did not win stimulus money. I mentioned what happened in the past, I never said that I thought that the project would or should be paid for with stimulus funds. You then made the argument that there would not be another stimulus and that we shouldn't try to pay for it with that kind of money. I made an observation about the past which you assumed meant that I thought that we would have another stimulus. So, once again, please try to read posts before you respond to them.
My intial response about the stimulus to you was that I didn't see why you were bringing it up in the first place. You keep advising me to read posts before I respond, but I think it's you who needs to read posts more carefully before you respond and work on your comprehension, as well.
Well, these thoughts are really more in my head than in images, but for a close
approximation, google Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, OR (only a southwest version).
Rather than make this a research project for people who might be listening: Pioneer Courthouse Square
In any case, that's a nice image. I don't see how it is much different than Albuquerque's much larger square though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8!
Convert Paso into a toll way and let the people who want to use it pay for it.
I'm kinda in agreement there, but the problem I see is that the East side of
Paseo ( which I would use ) has a jillion entry points. Some ( most ) of these
could be closed off and replaced with underpasses - forcing drivers who want
on Paseo to go to another street. This would be a big benefit once on the road
preventing a jillion unncecessary stops for lights that turn red without warning.
This is even better than the second choice - a dedicated road improvement gasoline tax.
The alternative "bond choice" makes people who either don't drive or drive very little
pay way more than their fair share of a project that doesn't benefit them at all.
A toll road would keep people who don't use the interchange from having to pay for it.
I like funding. Funding in advance keeps stuff like the Railrunner fiasco from happening.
Funding also gets stuff built.
I'm not really sure of the answer myself, but I do know that many cities are actively working to create exciting and inviting places to live. Albuquerque's got so much going for it already, but it just doesn't seem like we are building anything right now that we can look forward to in the future.
True. We aren't very marketable, and don't seem to want to do much that would help enhance our image internally or externally. Another nice-looking interchange, another sports complex. We're on the way to becoming the world's coolest place for civil engineers who love softball and baseball.
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.
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.
