Idea for Austin's newest lake - good or bad? (Taylor: for sale, 2013)

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Again, why are you so insistent on destroying this neighborhood, the majority of which is outside the floodplain and isn't being bought out?

The neighborhood is already destroyed (flooded and being bought out), and btw I actually live in this area (and you don't) and I'm not trying to destroy it, I'm trying to IMPROVE it.


I think the issues here are bigger than a proposed lake. It brings up the same issues as the gentrification of East Riverside.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Uh, better check your math again.

If topsoil in that area was that valuable, no one would have ever built a subdivision there in the first place, they just would have bought the land and scraped it for the soil.


?

The topsoil is valuable, but the location is too valuable to scrape the topsoil. Anywhere in Austin is too valuable to scrape the topsoil. If you scrape the topsoil, then land is worthless for anything except a lake, or a quarry.

[CT_ATX]

I walked the southside Onion Creek trail today. It was nice. I saw a few deer and a rabbit. Kind of muddy and some garbage but pretty normal other than that.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by CT_ATX

I walked the southside Onion Creek trail today. It was nice. I saw a few deer and a rabbit. Kind of muddy and some garbage but pretty normal other than that.

It is nice. I have hiked it with my children many times. I love McKinney Falls too - I renew my TPWD pass every year as well.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

The neighborhood is already destroyed (flooded and being bought out),

They are (offering to) buy out homes in the 100 year flood plain. There are still plenty of houses not in the 100 year flood plain.

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...r_onion_ck.pdf

Look at the map. See all those houses in tan. That's the half of the neighborhood not in the new 100 year floodplain and not being bought out.

Originally Posted by sojourner77

and btw I actually live in this area (and you don't) and I'm not trying to destroy it, I'm trying to IMPROVE it.

You want a lake near you, and don't mind the houses of hundreds of other people being destroyed to get it.
Got it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

The topsoil is valuable, but the location is too valuable to scrape the topsoil. Anywhere in Austin is too valuable to scrape the topsoil. If you scrape the topsoil, then land is worthless for anything except a lake, or a quarry.

You just claimed there's $60-100M (or more) in _just_ topsoil. That's more then the land is worth. That's on the same order as what the city is paying for the land (+ topsoil) + houses.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They are (offering to) buy out homes in the 100 year flood plain. There are still plenty of houses not in the 100 year flood plain.

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...r_onion_ck.pdf

Look at the map. See all those houses in tan. That's the half of the neighborhood not in the new 100 year floodplain and not being bought out.

You want a lake near you, and don't mind the houses of hundreds of other people being destroyed to get it.
Got it.

No one is talking about destroying houses outside the 100-year flood plain except you.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

No one is talking about destroying houses outside the 100-year flood plain except you.

1. You originally wanted to flood a lake up to the 500 year floodplain. Your picture still seems to do so.

2. All those houses would now be in the new 25 year floodplain, which would destroy their value to the owners.

3.

Originally Posted by sojourner77

The neighborhood is already destroyed

And I'm showing you that it's not. There's all the houses in the "non destroyed" neighborhood. But you want to take away the roads that reach them.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You just claimed there's $60-100M (or more) in _just_ topsoil. That's more then the land is worth. That's on the same order as what the city is paying for the land (+ topsoil) + houses.

The entire 100 year flood plain is larger than the neighborhood being bought out. The flood plain is about 3 square miles.

3 square miles = 1920 acres
1920 acres for $60mil = $30,000/acre of topsoil.

It makes economic sense if you took the top 12" off the land, and were able to sell for about $25/yard wholesale.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by Novacek

1. You originally wanted to flood a lake up to the 500 year floodplain. Your picture still seems to do so.

2. All those houses would now be in the new 25 year floodplain, which would destroy their value to the owners.

3.


And I'm showing you that it's not. There's all the houses in the "non destroyed" neighborhood. But you want to take away the roads that reach them.

The footprint of the 100 year is shown.

as for the roads, yes, keep them in the flood plain and let taxpayers repeatedly pay for repairs. Brilliant.