FACT: Texas is 30 years behind California (Houston, Dallas: house, college, to live in)

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by supfromthesite

If you call that an attempted coup they did a **** job lol.

Yes, it was a pathetic job. But it definitely was an attempted coup. The whole point of storming the capital was to change the results of an election and re-instate Trump. That is the definition of a coup.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by H'ton

People can keep yelling "Don't California our Texas" but that cast is dyed....we WILL have to address the ramifications of those issues in the next 30 years.

I don't know if that phrase was meant to be a joke but it is funny.

[supfromthesite]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

Yes, it was a pathetic job. But it definitely was an attempted coup. The whole point of storming the capital was to change the results of an election and re-instate Trump. That is the definition of a coup.

You would think most of them would bring weapons then if that was the goal.

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by supfromthesite

You would think most of them would bring weapons then if that was the goal.

Many of them did:

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...uary-6-1715326

My claim is not that everyone who showed up January 6 was trying to over throw the government. Many of the leaders very much were. You dont have to take my word for it, just look at their statements on social media as it was happeneing.

[supfromthesite]

And some of the BLM leaders were out to kill cops when they were protesting but that doesn’t make them all cop killers…

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by supfromthesite

And some of the BLM leaders were out to kill cops when they were protesting but that doesn’t make them all cop killers…

Thats basically what I said in context about the January 6 people. I said:

"My claim is not that everyone who showed up January 6 was trying to over throw the government. Many of the leaders very much were."

You may think Im trying to defend the BLM rioters. Im not. Many were trying to peacefully protest, many were opportunist looters, and some were evil wanna be cop killers.

Basically the same with with January 6. Some were people who wanted Trump to get re-elected and were upset about it, some were opportunists, and some were trying to have a coup.

My underlying point is this: you cannot cry about BLM while defending January 6. Likewise, its annoying to hear people defend the riotous parts of BLM and cry about January 6. However, in my mind, there was a lot more at stake with January 6. Democracy and the transfer of power is one of the most sacred things about this country.

[TheOverdog]

IMO, the entire thesis is wrong, as CA downzoned in the late 1960s, which created most of the problems CA is experiencing today. So if TX is behind CA, then it's more like 50 years behind, as most TX cities are at best starting the downzoning in built-up areas process. But TX law is pretty different, so a lot of laws with have to change - just blocking projects that don't comply with current zoning won't work.



But then, even in the downzoned areas, TX is actually building some rail systems to handle growth, and far more in DFW than LA (as a comparison to LA 50 years ago). Houston and Austin are also both ahead compared to California of 50 years ago as well.



I actually find TX and CA to be generally very similar *currently*. But there are real differences, even if they are subtle, and I completely disagree that any major TX city will be like major CA cities 30-50 years from now.

[H'ton]

Originally Posted by saibot

I don't know if that phrase was meant to be a joke but it is funny.

Not a joke...we went after pro growth, pro development policies without thinking about our future.
That includes infrastructure disasters that we WILL have to deal with in the future, just like California is now.

California has an extreme car storage issue + housing shortage and Los Angeles was very slow to install a mass transit system...sound familiar.

California is implementing policies to CONTROL populations growth and to CONTROL cars in their cities.

Now for the two major Texas Cities...

Imagine a reality in the near future, say 30 years, where each metro is 10 million plus.

Imagine two or three times the number of cars? Imagine how that will impact traffic and parking demands.

Now housing...yes, we sprawl in all directions but building more low density sprawling housing equals the car problems above.

Ones that California are facing today!

Houston is a metro of 7 million probably the only First World City, if that size, that does NOT have a rail connecting their airport to their central business district. Does Dallas?

Also, Texas just found a way to kill a PRIVATELY funded bullet train connecting Dallas and Houston.

Again...requiring more car demand...how are we going to deal with it ?

Not saying get rid of cars...just provide people moving alternatives.


California is dealing with these issues, based on what I know now, this native Texan has little faith that OUR solutions will be better than those of California today. We have less set up to succeed. AS of 2022, little to no city, regional, or mass transit options other than freeways. Most of our cities have very light, or NO, city planning or zoning. A cash grab for developers today= problems for its residents tomorrow.

[Need4Camaro]

I think current day TX is more ‘Pro-Growth’ than California was in the 80’s and 90’s. TX seems to offer a lot more incentives for corporate relocations and job growth. California boomed once during the Gold Rush (1800’s) and again at the dawn of the Silicon age but both industries were domestic so to speak.

The native industry to Texas is O&G which did bring plenty of growth to TX, especially Houston.. but ..nowhere near the frenzy that happened in California that happened due to desirability / climate. California, as far as I know atleast, never openly invited its growth in the way of enticing jobs to move to it … but didn’t necessarily condemn it either. Current day Texas seems to be more open and inviting to growth than California was in its prime.

Another thing to consider is, California has a lot more in the way of natural barriers than Texas does which causes a lot of complications for mass growth when that growth isn’t higher density and supported by effective mass transit options. DFW and Houston have way less in the way of natural barriers than LA and SF. Smart growth? That’s another story. It’s a double edged sword, for example Houston low development restrictions allow for more affordable housing.. ..but that also puts homes out in the middle of flood plains with seemingly little planning to mitigate future disaster. If Houston were to accommodate for flood planes though and restrained itself to less developable land, would it be as affordable as it is today? Probably no, but how much more expensive? I can’t say.

California IMO does have the smarter building style. Retrofitting for Earthquakes and not building mass population centers in wildfire prone areas. However California is also restrictive on new housing development through zoning restrictions, Prop 13/19 (if municipalities collect less tax per home, they zone less residential and more commercial & industrial to make up for their tax base), character retainment and so forth… all of these, along with demand pushes the price of housing up.

The environmental issues are real, and assisted by climate change, but environmentalists have used poor practices backed by state and fed money making the issues even worse.

TX and CA both experience mass growth in their prime but, the drivers are still very different as well as the geographic conditions. Will Texas experience problems in the future with mass growth? Certainly. Will it be a replica of California? Possibly but only time will tell. Most cities larger than 5 million people have gone through periods of mass growth, but it wouldn’t be fair to say that they will all end up like California.

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

Yes, it was a pathetic job. But it definitely was an attempted coup. The whole point of storming the capital was to change the results of an election and re-instate Trump. That is the definition of a coup.

I remember the day it happened. I was on a conference call with one of my colleagues and she said “are you watching this? It’s getting pretty bad.” I turned on the TV and thought “what a bunch of idiots!” It never crossed my mind that it was a serious coup or insurrection, but that’s what the Trump-hating media turned it into. Some people take Trump way too seriously. He knows how to push the buttons of the mainstream media. It’s comical.