Ross

Federal dollars for some, and state dollars in the days where there was enough tax revenue to fund them.

Why mess with taxes that annoy the folks who contribute to your campaigns when you can build toll roads and brag about how you've "held the line" and reduced taxes. Face it, Vinny, the Legislature doesn't give a crap what you or I think, just what their contributors think.

I only pay $1.50, due to my special relationship with HCTRA. And no, we can't afford to build big freeways without tolls right now, since there's no way to raise the taxes necessary to do so.

I do not feel screwed by government on this topic. I understand that building and maintaining roads costs money, and that taxes are not currently adequate to cover the costs to build many of the roads we need. That's as opposed to the Republicans in Austin who think roads magically appear from the wand of the Road Fairy.

Once again, you completely ignore the fact that there is not enough tax revenue to build the roads. Until such time as the folks in the Legislature decide to raise taxes high enough to cover maintenance plus new roads, we will get toll roads in large cities. The land on 288 was bought decades ago, either through negotiated purchase or condemnation. That land never belonged to you, or me, or anyone who didn't own it at the time it was bought, so what is this crap about " every citizen in the county should be reimbursed for that land they took from us "

Because the citizens of the great state of Texas hate taxes. Even when they are for something as useful as a freeway.

I have something to tell you and it's going to make you sad...

Looks like the chain link fence is down, so maybe we will see some action soon

The Tolluminati thing is awesome - keep it. Thanks for reminding to check my account to see if my monthly payment from HCTRA is there yet. (that's satire, for the less perceptive among us)

It was the road to the Riceville School back when that part of town was Riceville https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hrrsm

They redid almost all of the stone cladding not that long ago, maybe 10 years. It shouldn't be too dirty yet.

So now you are saying a church that doesn't engage with the community as a whole is not legitimate? That's hilarious. And utterly wrong. A church doesn't need your approbation to be legitimate.

What I want is for people to realize "it ain't about you". The restrictions and limitations you want to impose on property owners come with real costs that may not be acceptable to the property owner. Sure, the nuns could have avoided demolition, but could they afford it and still achieve their goal of educating girls? Who pays the extra costs to retain the old building? Is there an unlimited well of money to keep old buildings from being razed? It may surprise you, but I have donated many times to funds to maintain or save old buildings in various parts of the world, especially gothic cathedrals. But that's what the owners of those structures wanted. Would you donate to save an old building?

What does paying taxes have to do with property rights? Are you seriously arguing that because we grant certain property owners an exemption from taxes they should lose their rights? That's mushy thinking. One has nothing to do with the other. Property rights is a tired argument? OK, how about anti-discrimination rights. Those are pretty tired too, let's ignore them. Freedom of speech is so tired now, and it's and to let someone rile up others with certain speech, let's ignore that as well, and only allow speech that we agree with. I think I've said that I like cool old buildings, and am happy for them to stay. However, I am against using the police power of the City, State, or Country to enforce someone's aesthetic ideals to the detriment of the property owner, especially when the rules are changed midstream, as happened with the historic district ordinances.

Feel free to criticize, but unless you are willing to put your own money out there to preserve a property that belongs to someone else, your criticism rings hollow. As I've said before, it is very easy to use someone else's money to achieve a goal you favor, it's much harder to commit yourself to paying a potentially uneconomic price to achieve that goal. I recall the hate shown to Gulf Publishing when they decided to demolish their building on Allen Parkway and sell it for a highrise, but like they said, they were not willing to spend $3 million, or $10 million, whatever it was, to create a building worth $1 million. You can say "it would have only cost (name of owner here) $x more to preserve the building", but where's that money supposed to come from?

So, you are against property rights and the ability of an owner to utilize property in a manner that best suits his needs? Why do you think your opinion is superior to the property owner's?

The nuns have zero obligation to satisfy your personal esthetic values with respect to what their buildings look like. Their non-profit purpose is not to further the goals of architecture mavens, in this case it is to provide religious based education to girls. I assume they are fulfilling that role. Perhaps the next time this comes up, you can lead the fund raising effort and convince the next group to "save" the building. I'm perfectly happy for that to happen - I actually like cool old buildings. I am not happy when people with no stake in the project, other than personal esthetic preferences, try to tell people what to do with their property.

It's easy to spend someone else's money. When it's your money, the priorities often change. If you don't have enough money to build something nice, or you have other uses for the cash that something nice would consume, then you build something that gets the job done.

Apparently, there were no parking garages Downtown in 1966 (OK, there's one for the Humble Building, and presumably a couple of others). There are a lot of cars in the surface lots. Which may explain why so many low rise buildings were torn down.

That's the former ExxonMobil Brookhollow Campus that's being turned into retail. I don't think it has anything to do with the high speed rail.

All the nuns care about is whether it's a good building for providing a college preparatory education to girls.

A number of those buildings were likely torn down to reduce property taxes, reduce maintenance costs, and to provide the ability to make money from use as a parking lot. For those of you who weren't here in the 70's and especially the 80's during the oil bust, Downtown was dead. No one went there much, except to go to work. There was no real demand for space, so no reason for the buildings to be kept.

One of the less great things that have happened here to traffic.

That's right, HEB is using their money to build the store they think will best serve their customers. What you or I think is pretty irrelevant, as it should be, given we aren't spending $35 million on construction. You are certainly free to take your patronage elsewhere, although you really need to send them a note to tell them how much revenue they are losing. You might want to also throw in a screed on how evil they are for not using your suggestions and threaten to hold your breath until they get with the program.

The nuns (and to a much larger extent, the Church) don't really care what you, or me, or anyone else thinks. There were, and may still be, plans to tear down the old co-cathedral building. Once the Church decides a building doesn't meet the needs any longer, it's likely to go away. They are in the business of saving souls, not architecture.