Jump to content

infinite_jim

Full Member
  • Posts

    1,264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by infinite_jim

  1. Was she riding her bicycle on the sidewalk? Also wouldn't she want the police officer to be pulling over people who are speeding if she's a pedestrian/bicyclist; they are endangering her life more than theirs?

    Another thought; W. Dallas is poorly paved on the right-hand lanes in both directions, it is very dangerous to speed on this road in that drivers in the right lane are paced much slower than a speeder in the left lane (similar to people who speed on lower Westheimer Rd. but with the curves).

  2. It's not a debate because voters approved METRO's funding when it was created. End of story.

    Was there a vote to create the general mobility funds?

    If the answer is no, then it should'nt be a debate.

    Are you going against the will of the voters?

    I'm all ears.

    From last night's meeting the board confirmed that the GMP apportionment was part of the 1988 referendum (which included for it to be voted upon again in the 2003 referendum).

    http://www.houstonpress.com/content/printVersion/217170/

    Also at this point we don't know what the will of the voters is precisely b/c we do not know the ballot verbage.

    I asked you to convince me not harangue me for not knowing what you know.

    • Like 1
  3. I honestly don't see how this is a debate. Voters approved the FULL 1 cent tax to go towards METRO. End of story.

    If Bob Lanier wanted more money to go to roads, he should have created a new tax and have people vote on that.

    This is a debate.

    Please elaborate as to why Metro should not have to pay for road maintenance its buses use and how the Metro member cities should/could recoup the loss infrastructure monies.

    Conversely, why should Metro pay for road maintenance for roads that already have a funding mechanism and how the Metro member cities should/could be spending the monies they have received.

    Convince me; this was my main point of frustration with the pro-rail now crowd in that there were many anecdotal appeals to emotion but quite sparingly devoid of details versus the status quo GMP crowd who were nakedly antagonistic but concerned none the least (even if the board had to correct some of their "factual" statements).

    Compromises were made in the 2003 referendum, what sort of compromise would you like see going forward for the 2013 referendum.

    I'm all ears.

  4. The folks wanting to keep the status quo of the GMP were quite direct that no matter the referendum vote outcome they would go to Austin to resolve the issue (assuming if the GMP was not renewed). Time and again the board would corner each speaker that wanted to keep the status quo GMP and made them answer to that fact.

    The board made it clear that they were going to use the public input from the meeting to determine the ballot language, however it was a wash in terms of support and arguments for either side. There was a suggestion that the board find some compromise in funding the GMP but no one elaborated on would that might entail.

    Also maybe someone here can explain what is the "cap" for the GMP being proposed and how does the current apportionment work as "uncapped?"

  5. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Metro-hears-from-public-on-street-fund-payments-3553021.php

    When the general mobility payments were extended in 2003, the ballot language required another referendum within 10 years. Metro's board is expected in June to approve the ballot language and schedule the election. Its leaders have said they want to continue the payments while finding a way for Metro to recover some of the funds for transit.
×
×
  • Create New...