CALIFORNIANS.... Do you like living in Houston, TX? (Dublin, West: insurance, unemployment rate)

[LocalPlanner]

I just don't get why the powers that be will not let Houston be both though? If you want the former I described then you have that galore in the burbs. But why cannot Houston just support the thriving art scene we have here much much more, maybe attract some of that tech growth that's in Austin, etc.

What is the vanguard in Houston afraid of, lol? That we'll be "weird" lilke Austin? That it just cannot be practically done?

Your thoughts guys?[/quote]

There are some folks in Houston who believe that folks who prefer the kind of environment you talk about: (1) will not support the free-market capitalism which is Houston's hallmark; (2) will want a government "bigger" than the limited-scope model that Houston and Texas have traditionally promoted; and/or (3) will promote spending $ and precious public right of way on pedestrian/bicycle/transit improvements when those resources could be spent on providing more space and better traffic flow for automobiles. Because of this association they have made, they would prefer Houston not appeal to those looking for that environment.

I don't know how many of such folks (those that make this association) there are - hopefully a shrinking minority - but they are definitely here.

[BarcelonaFan]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

I just don't get why the powers that be will not let Houston be both though? If you want the former I described then you have that galore in the burbs. But why cannot Houston just support the thriving art scene we have here much much more, maybe attract some of that tech growth that's in Austin, etc.

What is the vanguard in Houston afraid of, lol? That we'll be "weird" lilke Austin? That it just cannot be practically done?

Your thoughts guys?

There are some folks in Houston who believe that folks who prefer the kind of environment you talk about: (1) will not support the free-market capitalism which is Houston's hallmark; (2) will want a government "bigger" than the limited-scope model that Houston and Texas have traditionally promoted; and/or (3) will promote spending $ and precious public right of way on pedestrian/bicycle/transit improvements when those resources could be spent on providing more space and better traffic flow for automobiles. Because of this association they have made, they would prefer Houston not appeal to those looking for that environment.

I don't know how many of such folks (those that make this association) there are - hopefully a shrinking minority - but they are definitely here.

I am one of those people. But at the same time why not use some of the revenue to do such things and more like provide for more pedestrian urban center, social services and transit improvements.

[LocalPlanner]

Which one of those people are you saying you are?

[BarcelonaFan]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Which one of those people are you saying you are?

The kind that wants the city itself to publicly invest in the city; more social services, arts, education, transit, pedestrian walkways, etc. Just invest in the city.

[LocalPlanner]

OK, sorry, it wasn't clear (although my language was a little contorted).

There is a growing population of folks who share your sentiment though many prefer that such increased investment (arts, social services, education) occur through private means, not public tax dollars. Transportation investments remain mostly public and that is generally accepted.

[Johnhw2]

Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan

I am one of those people. But at the same time why not use some of the revenue to do such things and more like provide for more pedestrian urban center, social services and transit improvements.

Whose revenue, which revenue are you talking about doing something with other than return it to the people who put up the money to build the thing? Barcelona, I think you are better suited to live in Ca... where using other people's money is considered smart and non boorish as some of us in Texas consider it. Its taking money from people who invest and spending it for things that are "marginal" uses at best is what drives up the cost of living and running off investors.

[BarcelonaFan]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

Whose revenue, which revenue are you talking about doing something with other than return it to the people who put up the money to build the thing? Barcelona, I think you are better suited to live in Ca... where using other people's money is considered smart and non boorish as some of us in Texas consider it. Its taking money from people who invest and spending it for things that are "marginal" uses at best is what drives up the cost of living and running off investors.

Publicly investing in your city is considered "marginal"? My gosh, it's not "socialist" to publicly invest in the arts, increase social services and education. I am well aware of the rather dismal state of the public sector in Houston.

It's not using other people's money. I am sure that residents and businesses wouldnt mind their money going back to spruce up the city and make it more vibrant. We do it for sports, why not for things that would bring more culture into the city and connect them together?

Is the conservative strain that ingrained in the Texas psyche?

There is a growing population of folks who share your sentiment though many prefer that such increased investment (arts, social services, education) occur through private means, not public tax dollars. Transportation investments remain mostly public and that is generally accepted.

Houston has a good art, music and theater scene but it's rather limited in scope because it mostly comes through private investment. If the city stepped in and likewise invested, Houston would be a power house.

I mean with all this business coming in, why not use that extra revenue to make the city great?

I am not sure why that's a "CA" idea as if it's some rather weird "socialist" concept.

[Johnhw2]

I strongly believe in investing in many things....I also strongly believe it is the right of the money provider to decide where to invest his money. Money doesnt belong to a city it comes from the tax payers and citizens of the city. Calling a city spend an investment is misleading unless there is a return on that investment of money. Do you have a clue why california is so expensive? Do you assume it is supply and demand not the cost of taking the funds from the citizens and putting it where some gov bureaucrat thinks is a good idea? If gov planners were smart enough to spend wisely places with big government wouldnt be too expensive to support jobs that can compete in the global marketplace.

I prefer private sector fund the arts and their facilities as has been the case in Houston which you laud in your post.

Labels are meaningless, taxes and cost of living and doing business some place are what is relevant...... I prefer Texas remain competitive for jobs and provide an alternative those who do not want to be californicated..... we need options not look alike cities across the country.

Dont assume that means Texas and Houston do not need to progress... they do but let the private sector guide the process in Houston not gov like in Ca. I dont support the way Sports have been funded with HOT taxes which run off travelers and make business and family visitors pay for sports venues they do not visit.... this isnt about right and wrong or left and right, its about the Texas approach vs the left coast approach and letting them battle it out to see which alternative works best in the long run in a global world

[BarcelonaFan]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

I strongly believe in investing in many things....I also strongly believe it is the right of the money provider to decide where to invest his money. Money doesnt belong to a city it comes from the tax payers and citizens of the city. Calling a city spend an investment is misleading unless there is a return on that investment of money. Do you have a clue why california is so expensive? Do you assume it is supply and demand not the cost of taking the funds from the citizens and putting it where some gov bureaucrat thinks is a good idea? If gov planners were smart enough to spend wisely places with big government wouldnt be too expensive to support jobs that can compete in the global marketplace.

I prefer private sector fund the arts and their facilities as has been the case in Houston which you laud in your post.

Labels are meaningless, taxes and cost of living and doing business some place are what is relevant...... I prefer Texas remain competitive for jobs and provide an alternative those who do not want to be californicated..... we need options not look alike cities across the country.

Dont assume that means Texas and Houston do not need to progress... they do but let the private sector guide the process in Houston not gov like in Ca. I dont support the way Sports have been funded with HOT taxes which run off travelers and make business and family visitors pay for sports venues they do not visit.... this isnt about right and wrong or left and right, its about the Texas approach vs the left coast approach and letting them battle it out to see which alternative works best in the long run in a global world

It sounds more like libertarian propaganda. No world class city in the world works like this, even the ones in boom times. Houston's economy is diverse, which means if one takes a hit the other ones hold it up. Oil, Energy, construction, medical, real estate, etc. It's not so much because of limited government. If government invests in the things I said, it's not going to kill the boom. I don't know how you think that might happen?

Why do libertarians think of government as some abstract entity that just wraps around a free market sucking it dry? You and I are supposed to be the government, we live in democracy. We vote on where we want the city to spend. You speak as though the government is dictatorship, with some bureaucrat stealing money from the hard workers and doing what he wants with it. That's comic bookish.

[CAHomeschoolMom]

Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan

It sounds more like libertarian propaganda. No world class city in the world works like this, even the ones in boom times. Houston's economy is diverse, which means if one takes a hit the other ones hold it up. Oil, Energy, construction, medical, real estate, etc. It's not so much because of limited government. If government invests in the things I said, it's not going to kill the boom. I don't know how you think that might happen?

Why do libertarians think of government as some abstract entity that just wraps around a free market sucking it dry? You and I are supposed to be the government, we live in democracy. We vote on where we want the city to spend. You speak as though the government is dictatorship, with some bureaucrat stealing money from the hard workers and doing what he wants with it. That's comic bookish.

Actually, we live in a Republic. What has made America great is free enterprise, and yes, limited government. As a lifelong Californian, I am glad to be moving to a State that is still business friendly, family friendly, and more conservative. This is very, very attractive to some....even many of us...moving to the State.