2.5 billion Harris County flood control bond electionset for August 25th 2018 ! (Houston: renter, job transfer)

[predatorprey]

Originally Posted by cBach

A vote of no is that flooding is a sure thing.

A vote of yes is that flooding is a possible thing.

Sometimes it's worth the gamble. Do you want a guaranteed bad thing or a possible good thing?

A 2.5 billion dollar gamble that the county might use the money to fix some flooding issues.

I thought the rain tax was supposed to be used for the same purpose. Was even 50% spent on drainage improvements? I have no idea

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by predatorprey

A 2.5 billion dollar gamble that the county might use the money to fix some flooding issues.

I thought the rain tax was supposed to be used for the same purpose. Was even 50% spent on drainage improvements? I have no idea

The rain tax is a City of Houston levy. It's been used for a bunch of storm sewer work, and street improvements caused by tearing up the streets to replace the storm sewers.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by predatorprey

A 2.5 billion dollar gamble that the county might use the money to fix some flooding issues.

I thought the rain tax was supposed to be used for the same purpose. Was even 50% spent on drainage improvements? I have no idea

Like I said, one option is a sure no fix of flooding issues and the other is a possible fixing of flooding issues.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out...

A No vote means that another Harvey will come and the city will have the same results.
A Yes vote means that another Harvey will come and most of the city will not really have any problems...

Your choice.

[gwarnecke]

I often disagree with cBach, but I'll agree this time.

A "no" vote tells the rest of the world that Houston has its head buried in the sand and doesn't take the threat of hurricanes and catastrophic flooding seriously. Under this outcome, you can forget about major companies relocating to Houston in the future.

[jeremy2788]

I really do hope it passes, we need this for us currently and for our future residents.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by gwarnecke

I often disagree with cBach, but I'll agree this time.

A "no" vote tells the rest of the world that Houston has its head buried in the sand and doesn't take the threat of hurricanes and catastrophic flooding seriously. Under this outcome, you can forget about major companies relocating to Houston in the future.

Thank you.

I totally agree, gave you +1.

[jfre81]

Anyone who invests in a home here and is afraid of their taxes going up as a means of protecting their investment is a fool.

[LocalPlanner]

We'll have to see if local state-level politicians (most notably Patrick and Bettencourt) weigh in on the anti-tax side.

[Jack Lance]

I am for this bond issue , but I must admit I'm a bit disappointed that the "Third" reservoir, is not a part of this bond package. It appears that there will be a study to determine if there is a need for the 3rd reservoir. I thought that had already been determined , but it hasn't..

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

I am for this bond issue , but I must admit I'm a bit disappointed that the "Third" reservoir, is not a part of this bond package. It appears that there will be a study to determine if there is a need for the 3rd reservoir. I thought that had already been determined , but it hasn't..

The worry is that if they build the third reservoir then people will relax and just develop around that reservoir like they did the first two. If they don't build it, people may actually change their ways. At least that's the thinking.