Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What should the City do with the property?
Lease to the University of the Incarnate Word 7 14.89%
Honor 1979 Commitment to the SA Zoo 40 85.11%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2010, 02:53 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,399 posts, read 23,000,516 times
Reputation: 4435

Advertisements

Here's the story...

Quote:
When University of the Incarnate Word president Lou Agnese looks down from the five-story McCombs building at a city-owned parcel at the intersection of Hildebrand Avenue and U.S. 281, he sees a dump.

So when the city’s Parks and Recreation Department vacated the site recently, Agnese moved in with a pitch.

Let the university, which is landlocked and desperate for more space, lease the land for 50 years to build a new fine arts center for students and a fencing studio and art museum that would be open to the public.

While the city is entertaining the proposal, it has come as a rude shock to the San Antonio Zoo. A 1979 master plan for the 344-acre Brackenridge Park had earmarked the property for a zoo expansion...(full story)
So I am interested in everyone's opinion...should the city lease the land to Incarnate Word, or honor the 1979 plan to use it for an expansion of the SA Zoo?

Cheers! M2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2010, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
944 posts, read 2,042,147 times
Reputation: 761
Depends on how much UIW is willing to pay for the land. Depends on how legitimate/contractual the promise to the Zoo was/is. Do an analysis based on which option would be most beneficial to the majority of residents in the city. I'd probably side with the additional revenue from the UIW if it is a good amount for the land being leased, but that's just a personal opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 03:04 PM
 
Location: North Central S.A.
1,220 posts, read 2,683,488 times
Reputation: 980
As a former UIW Crusader (aka Cardinal), I would like to see the University expand. So my vote is for UIW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 03:22 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
2,260 posts, read 5,620,297 times
Reputation: 1505
I read that article in the paper yesterday. Why would the city choose to not honor an agreement with the zoo? Yes, the agreement was put in place in 1974, but I don't see why that would matter. An agreement is an agreement, no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 03:23 PM
 
1,836 posts, read 3,823,161 times
Reputation: 1735
It was a public piece of land, promised to a public, city-run organization: I say let the zoo develop it as they see fit.

Incarnate Word is a PRIVATE entity. Other than educating their own and spreading profit mostly within themselves, they're not doing anything for the city in the ways that the San Antonio Zoo has. As a city that relies heavily on its tourism value, not letting the zoo expand into this prior-promised land would, IMO, be detrimental.


BN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 03:30 PM
 
824 posts, read 1,817,027 times
Reputation: 604
The UIW's proposal (at least what was revealed in the article) is ludicrous. A 50-year lease for $1.1mm with serious limitations on the city's use of the funds? That's an insult. If the city wants to utilize the site to create revenue (not saying I agree with that), it could get multiple times that number for a ground-lease on the open-market (and do whatever the hell it wants with the proceeds).

I might be able to get behind the idea if UIW would utilize the site for:

1. Designed and constructed to be compatible with the architectural styles contained in Brackenridge Park;
2. Reasonably accessible to the public;
3. Free of any surface parking lots.

But it's pretty clear that UIW wants to be able to use this portion of the park for it's own purposes simply because the city isn't currently utilizing it to UIW's satisfaction. Wonderful logic.

If UIW needs to expand, they should do it the way other urban campus' do. Eliminate surface parking lots, construct garages and/or subgrade parking facilities, and increase density on their existing campus land holdings.

The bottom line is that we (the City of San Antonio) own this asset, and it should be used in a way that benefits the all the citizens of this city. But there's no reason we should feel pressure to negotiate with any private company, or be lectured to by any private interest on how (or when) we choose to utilize that asset.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 03:32 PM
 
1,836 posts, read 3,823,161 times
Reputation: 1735
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr View Post
The UIW's proposal (at least what was revealed in the article) is ludicrous. A 50-year lease for $1.1mm with serious limitations on the city's use of the funds? That's an insult. If the city wants to utilize the site to create revenue (not saying I agree with that), it could get multiple times that number for a ground-lease on the open-market (and do whatever the hell it wants with the proceeds).

I might be able to get behind the idea if UIW would utilize the site for:

1. Designed and constructed to be compatible with the architectural styles contained in Brackenridge Park;
2. Reasonably accessible to the public;
3. Free of any surface parking lots.

But it's pretty clear that UIW wants to be able to use this portion of the park for it's own purposes simply because the city isn't currently utilizing it to UIW's satisfaction. Wonderful logic.

If UIW needs to expand, they should do it the way other urban campus' do. Eliminate surface parking lots, construct garages and/or subgrade parking facilities, and increase density on their existing campus land holdings.

The bottom line is that we (the City of San Antonio) own this asset, and it should be used in a way that benefits the all the citizens of this city. But there's no reason we should feel pressure to negotiate with any private company, or be lectured to by any private interest on how (or when) we choose to utilize that asset.

That post deserves a BRAVO! Nicely said



BN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 06:09 PM
 
Location: South Side
3,770 posts, read 8,296,302 times
Reputation: 2876
zoo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 06:46 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,431 posts, read 19,010,806 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormadmax View Post
Here's the story...



So I am interested in everyone's opinion...should the city lease the land to Incarnate Word, or honor the 1979 plan to use it for an expansion of the SA Zoo?

Cheers! M2
Zoo. The Catholic Church exercises too much power already. Let the People have something for a change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 06:52 PM
 
Location: North Central S.A.
1,220 posts, read 2,683,488 times
Reputation: 980
Wehotex, that's not the Catholic Church putting money into that land. It was my parents and I spending our hard earned $$ so I can go to UIW!

But the zoo can have it. That's cool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2022 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top