Jump to content

mattyt36

Full Member
  • Posts

    811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

3455 profile views

mattyt36's Achievements

(16/32)

901

Reputation

  1. Well at least we pulled this one off, a bright spot on an otherwise awful day. GO ASTROS!!!!
  2. 849 people in a city of more than 1 million people in a metro area of more than 8 million. It's never good when public policy outcomes are determined by the loudest voices. I do not get that conclusion from this statistic: 31% + 27% = 58% of 849 people in favor of keeping the highway is in line with 66% of a different 1,000 people 2 years later. I don't think one can label the current state of affairs is exactly "politically popular." The truth of the matter is the vast majority of the community just isn't engaged. It's a matter of making the simple case between the status quo and "doing something," just as it always has been. Avoiding "doing something" that affects hundreds of thousands of people a day because, for example, some group thinks private housing that was bought with gas tax monies for the express purpose of building a freeway should be converted to a measly 400 units of public housing--I can assure you--that will definitely not be politically popular, not to mention illegal.
  3. Inanity. “This expansion has really affected people in the city the last couple of years, and it’s going to be important for (TxDOT) to work with us and be honest and transparent. Things move so quickly, and we already have a housing shortage...and we can’t displace any more people in the city,” Plummer said. She seems to be oblivious to the fact that all the residents have already moved out. “It would be a shame if the building comes down in the future, and especially if all three do. Our message to the city is to hold off until you find a solution that allows them to stay up,” Moritz said. That's quite the statement.
  4. Not a bad thing, but it sure as heck won't solve much. (Granted, it seems for whatever reason that is immaterial from your perspective.)
  5. I'm sure their argument is "now that it's owned by the government, the housing should be public," i.e., free. Rent doesn't even enter the equation. I know I won't have any luck, but maybe someone else can get him to expand on this--unqualified statements like this really beg explanation.
  6. The absurdity of this idea has already been discussed in detail months before. 1) Through traffic can use 610 now if they want to--sure you can hang a sign for the interchange saying 610 East to Galveston, but what he's proposing already exists. You can add two lanes each way in capacity, but . . . most importantly . . . 2) What percentage of traffic during rush hour is actually through traffic? Enough with this Conroe-Galveston nonsense. Rush hour I-45 traffic is north and south suburbs to downtown, the Medical Center, and Greenway Plaza, end of story. Tilting at windmills. But more proof, per se, that a certain individual is not ideologically anti-freeway or even this project were it being constructed somewhere else (even though it is often presented otherwise), just pro his (or her) own convenience, i.e., a classic NIMBY, and certainly not concerned with anyone else's convenience, at least those who disagree with him (or her). Nothing wrong with that--it makes total sense--but boy wouldn't it have been more efficient if we started with simply acknowledging that. As stated above in re the Stop IH-45 group, don't be surprised that the list of people in support of (or indifferent to) this project is much longer than those against. Have your voice, of course, but don't expect your opinion to get to override the input of others who disagree. It sure would be helpful if people made their points in good faith instead of obfuscating the real root of one's opposition and relying on tropes and (not even) half-truths.
  7. Asking for a friend who is in the market . . . Does anyone have any insight on the City Gate DR Horton development around 288 and Beltway 8? It seems relatively new--are there any other similar communities in the metro area developed by DR Horton that are more mature for comparison?
  8. Well aware Also a conservative talk radio host I know my Republican friends don’t like media bias
  9. Why do you think the County paused the lawsuit? "Two things": (1) Are you sure about that? I mean, really sure? Or are you just speculating/shooting from the hip/going with your "gut feel"? (2) Does the DoT Office of Civil Rights not have a legal obligation to investigate when a local government entity expressly alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act grant assurances? Actually, no "four things": (3) Has the DoT ended the stoppage vis-a-vis some work being allowed to proceed with the downtown segments? (4) Why do you think that is? Connect the dots.
  10. Seems to me a temporary injunction on proceeding would've been pretty damned likely to give the County time to at least demonstrate its case and the potential for damages if it did proceed. The DoT's involvement simply "greased the wheels" and was at the behest of the County, as you stated. I'm honestly not sure what the City could've done differently, but am all ears.
  11. Seriously, who is funding this? Is anyone on this site one of those whizzes at how to find this stuff through whatever federally mandated disclosures apply? I see from going through their website (Stop TxDOT I-45 (stoptxdoti45.com)) they have updated the ridiculous mission that was there before (something about "building political capital to stop I-45") From: "To elevate walkability, challenge the status quo of transportation policy, build capacity within Houston neighborhoods to stop the I-45 expansion, and advocate for strategic, inclusive, and equitable transportation in Texas." To: "To challenge the status quo of transportation policy and to fight for all people in Houston to be able to participate in the decisions that affect health, safety, and mobility in their communities." Spoiler alert: They already can. Real world alert: Just by expressing your opposition doesn't mean things will change. There are many other interests involved, and, guess what, they get to participate too. Misguided at best. At worst, well, there's a long list of possibilities, as is the case with anything political . . . everything from it being bankrolled by some NIMBY like Mattress Man or an East End real estate developer to even indirectly by the State GOP, which hopes the protests like the ones for the Lofts at the Ballpark will transmit the message that the County is becoming "too socialist." These political interest groups are rarely what they advertise to be.
  12. Seems to me that Stop IH-45 group would've found someone. And, if DoT didn't mandate a "pause" for review, they would've inevitably been sued as well. Mattress Jesus could've funded with one of his frequent gambling wagers/promotions. 🤣 Absolutely it is, and much more effective than an individual. I'm sure the Stop IH-45 group and other interested parties were already lobbying the County to sue. The County Commissioners voted to 3-2, ergo these groups could stand down and worry only about filing supporting briefs. My understanding (but this is from memory) is that Turner tried to intervene and mediate ahead of the lawsuit by getting the DoT to accept some concessions, which I don't believe were all that specific--they were presented more as re-design "guidelines," e.g., minimize the right of way, etc. It was sort of a "mealy-mouthed" way to demonstrate that changes were made to appease to some opposing political interests (perhaps, as you suggest, mainly related to the post-summer 2020 backlash). The City has supported--and has been planning for this project--for years. 💯. This is how politics works--it's not that complicated to understand. The County was in the driver's seat for this. Ergo the blame--to the extent anyone wishes to blame anyone--lies with the County. Hopefully your saying so will resonate with others.
  13. Well, I mean, the lawsuit had to be framed that way as that was the legal basis for the lawsuit, i.e., the lawsuit was against the State of Texas for violating terms of the Civil Rights Act that it is obligated to follow to receive any federal monies. But, from a political perspective, I can appreciate how the George Floyd murder and attendant racial awareness protests were a likely major influence on the political approach. My conclusion remains the same--the approach was misguided and not very politically astute. The above said, once the County sued the State and asked the DoT to intervene on the basis of noncompliance with the Civil Rights Act, I'm not sure what the DoT could've done--they have an obligation to at least investigate and respond. And, even if they didn't, the project would've likely been put on hold as the legal process played out, no matter what Joe Biden directed the DoT to do. Not to mention, if the administration declared "full steam ahead," I think that would've left the project vulnerable to further lawsuits, which would have led to even further delays with the parties potentially way further apart. As it stands now (again, as far as I can tell), they're at the table and negotiating a settlement. That is not to say that the project would be underway now had the County not sued, as multiple other organizations and individuals had standing to file a lawsuit on the same grounds, and I'd say that would've been pretty likely given how the project became a political "hot potato" overnight. This is pretty simple stuff (albeit admittedly frustrating for many to comprehend as it is pure politics). Anyone have any idea what the Mattress Guy is saying these days? He was against the project the last time I heard, and he has hand-picked the Republican Party's challenger to Lina.
  14. If it wasn't abundantly clear from my original post, I'm not proposing to blame George W Bush for anything (at least, not related to Houston transportation infrastructure). Happy to learn. Please expand.
×
×
  • Create New...