Green belt?

[ADCS]

So I was thinking about the future of the city, and steps that may be taken to adapt to future changes in transportation, energy, etc. One of the (very non-Houstonian) ideas I was toying around with would be the establishment of a green belt that would surround the Grand Parkway corridor, maybe 5 miles in width. Obviously, current development (like The Woodlands) would be grandfathered in, but future development in these areas would be seriously curtailed, while incentives toward infill of Houston's empty areas (much of the northside between 610 and BW8) would be provided to offset the restriction in land use.

Obviously, this is going to be anathema toward many (if not most) of you, but I'd like to hear objections and elaborations on this idea, what and how it could be done, and how it may fit into a larger environmental/mobility/development plan.

[BryanS]

Sure is a lot of land to condemn, for no good reason, really.

If you want to force people to "live like bees" (as the sign on 45 N, just outside of DT says)... Have the county reduce the land value of all inner loop/inner belt property by 85%. Then you'll get the results you want, with no need to set aside wasted green space.

EDIT: Now that I think about it... that may be a give-away to the real estate agents. Not sure if the market price would really drop, but the tax value would... So instead... you may want to consider something like free utilities, no electric bills, for the inner loop, inner belt. If people will line up for miles for $2 gas (radio station gimmicks), surely they will flock to the middle of the city for free utilities.

[TheNiche]

Sure is a lot of land to condemn, for no good reason, really.

If you want to force people to "live like bees" (as the sign on 45 N, just outside of DT says)... Have the county reduce the land value of all inner loop/inner belt property by 85%. Then you'll get the results you want, with no need to set aside wasted green space.

EDIT: Now that I think about it... that may be a give-away to the real estate agents. Not sure if the market price would really drop, but the tax value would... So instead... you may want to consider something like free utilities, no electric bills, for the inner loop, inner belt. If people will line up for miles for $2 gas (radio station gimmicks), surely they will flock to the middle of the city for free utilities.

Higher property taxes suppress property values. Reduce the assessment for inner-city properties and a much greater number of people can afford to live there; the dramatically-increased pool of prospective buyers will bid up property prices relative to the suburban areas. On the margin, there will be a substantial amount of new development in the urban core, but for the most part it would be a give-away to inner-city property owners...and to the extent that that demand leached from the suburbs, it would be a take-away from suburban property owners.

NIMBYs in single-family neighborhoods within the core would be for lowering the assessment but would subsequently be very active in squelching any further growth...and they would be very difficult for politicians to ignore.

But this would never happen because people not in the urban core would be totally freaking out about having to subsidize other people's lifestyles, and also about the displacement of poor people from the inner-city to the suburbs.

[TheNiche]

So I was thinking about the future of the city, and steps that may be taken to adapt to future changes in transportation, energy, etc. One of the (very non-Houstonian) ideas I was toying around with would be the establishment of a green belt that would surround the Grand Parkway corridor, maybe 5 miles in width. Obviously, current development (like The Woodlands) would be grandfathered in, but future development in these areas would be seriously curtailed, while incentives toward infill of Houston's empty areas (much of the northside between 610 and BW8) would be provided to offset the restriction in land use.

Obviously, this is going to be anathema toward many (if not most) of you, but I'd like to hear objections and elaborations on this idea, what and how it could be done, and how it may fit into a larger environmental/mobility/development plan.

A ring of park lands doesn't really make much sense. Look at what has been going on up around Spring and Cypress Creeks along the Harris/Montgomery County lines. They've been buying up hundreds of acres at a time with frontage along these creeks, including much less expensive land that is within flood plains, and then transforming that into park land. Over the course of many years, this pattern of land acquisition has actually created the opportunity for some really nice linear parks.

Our region actually has a fairly good history of doing this kind of thing, and off-hand I can think of plenty of examples in Houston, but also in Pearland and Pasadena. There are also lots of flood control projects where parks are a concurrent use.

[ADCS]

A ring of park lands doesn't really make much sense. Look at what has been going on up around Spring and Cypress Creeks along the Harris/Montgomery County lines. They've been buying up hundreds of acres at a time with frontage along these creeks, including much less expensive land that is within flood plains, and then transforming that into park land. Over the course of many years, this pattern of land acquisition has actually created the opportunity for some really nice linear parks.

Our region actually has a fairly good history of doing this kind of thing, and off-hand I can think of plenty of examples in Houston, but also in Pearland and Pasadena. There are also lots of flood control projects where parks are a concurrent use.

Thanks for the reply. I guess what I'm more going for here is not so much the creation of parkland (though that aspect of it would certainly help get political support) than the disincentivization of exurban development. Let's face it, there's plenty of open land for developers to work with inside the Grand Parkway corridor, and as I see it, it's in our best interests to promote densification (thus the incentives I mentioned). However, it's pretty obvious that we need the roadway for current suburb-to-suburb access and providing a bypass for congestion relief within the city. I simply was thinking of this as a bit of a compromise, so that many opposing who aren't strictly NIMBYs have some of their fears allayed.

[TheNiche]

Thanks for the reply. I guess what I'm more going for here is not so much the creation of parkland (though that aspect of it would certainly help get political support) than the disincentivization of exurban development. Let's face it, there's plenty of open land for developers to work with inside the Grand Parkway corridor, and as I see it, it's in our best interests to promote densification (thus the incentives I mentioned). However, it's pretty obvious that we need the roadway for current suburb-to-suburb access and providing a bypass for congestion relief within the city. I simply was thinking of this as a bit of a compromise, so that many opposing who aren't strictly NIMBYs have some of their fears allayed.

Adding a ring of major regional parks may constrain the supply of some land, but certainly not all, and the availability of parks might actually make the exurbs look more attractive.

An urban growth boundary would be most effective, if that's your aim. If it goes out far enough to truely constrain the supply of land (and five miles would be insufficient), then that'll constrain single-family development within it and force up the price of single-family housing. Existing homeowners, tempted by the prospect of huge increases in their home's value, will vote for it in droves. But people living in rural counties, like Waller, Liberty, Chambers, and most of Brazoria, which would almost certainly be beyond the UGB, would be totally devastated if the value of their land plummeted to basically that of agricultural use.

The hard part is really to get the State legislature on board. There's currently no legal framework that would allow that kind of system to be implemented and since the State government tends to concern itself with economic growth, which a policy like this would curtail, it would be especially unpopular to the representative whose district in the western hill country enjoys disproportionate spending on road maintenance as a result of taxes collected from big cities, for example. This is of course aside from that it would be a challenge to get all the disparate local and county governments to work together as a region, which I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that they won't.

[ricco67]

The only thing I would probably would LIKE for them to do is to go ahead and make areas around the bayous and streams protected and start building large retention ponds so they can be used for park space when they're dry. Otherwise, I'd have to agree with the others on this one.

[memebag]

So I was thinking about the future of the city, and steps that may be taken to adapt to future changes in transportation, energy, etc. One of the (very non-Houstonian) ideas I was toying around with would be the establishment of a green belt that would surround the Grand Parkway corridor, maybe 5 miles in width. Obviously, current development (like The Woodlands) would be grandfathered in, but future development in these areas would be seriously curtailed, while incentives toward infill of Houston's empty areas (much of the northside between 610 and BW8) would be provided to offset the restriction in land use.

Obviously, this is going to be anathema toward many (if not most) of you, but I'd like to hear objections and elaborations on this idea, what and how it could be done, and how it may fit into a larger environmental/mobility/development plan.

I'd rather see the reverse. Replace everything inside the loop with a giant park to force better distribution of residence and employment. Or even better, make everyone live in mobile homes. Then when they change jobs their house moves to the giant parking lot surrounding their place of employment. Marriage would be prohibited. Breeding would be conducted via pneumatic tubes.

Or we could just let people live where they want to live.

[KatieDidIt]

The only thing I would probably would LIKE for them to do is to go ahead and make areas around the bayous and streams protected and start building large retention ponds so they can be used for park space when they're dry. Otherwise, I'd have to agree with the others on this one.

Like they did with Terry Hershey. Love what they did with the area.

[BryanS]

I'd rather see the reverse. Replace everything inside the loop with a giant park to force better distribution of residence and employment. Or even better, make everyone live in mobile homes. Then when they change jobs their house moves to the giant parking lot surrounding their place of employment. Marriage would be prohibited. Breeding would be conducted via pneumatic tubes.

Or we could just let people live where they want to live.

Memebag for Mayor. No - President of the United States.

[ADCS]

Adding a ring of major regional parks may constrain the supply of some land, but certainly not all, and the availability of parks might actually make the exurbs look more attractive.

An urban growth boundary would be most effective, if that's your aim. If it goes out far enough to truely constrain the supply of land (and five miles would be insufficient), then that'll constrain single-family development within it and force up the price of single-family housing. Existing homeowners, tempted by the prospect of huge increases in their home's value, will vote for it in droves. But people living in rural counties, like Waller, Liberty, Chambers, and most of Brazoria, which would almost certainly be beyond the UGB, would be totally devastated if the value of their land plummeted to basically that of agricultural use.

The hard part is really to get the State legislature on board. There's currently no legal framework that would allow that kind of system to be implemented and since the State government tends to concern itself with economic growth, which a policy like this would curtail, it would be especially unpopular to the representative whose district in the western hill country enjoys disproportionate spending on road maintenance as a result of taxes collected from big cities, for example. This is of course aside from that it would be a challenge to get all the disparate local and county governments to work together as a region, which I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that they won't.

Once again, thanks for the reply. Knowing that you're a big free-marketer, I'm glad you aren't just dismissing the idea forthwith.

You're right, the major reason this sort of thing isn't going to happen is the level of coordination, and the fact that different counties and constituencies are going to snipe at each other for the scarce tax dollars. I also see what you're saying about the increase in property value actually drawing people out further. Interesting points to consider.

I'd rather see the reverse. Replace everything inside the loop with a giant park to force better distribution of residence and employment. Or even better, make everyone live in mobile homes. Then when they change jobs their house moves to the giant parking lot surrounding their place of employment. Marriage would be prohibited. Breeding would be conducted via pneumatic tubes.

Or we could just let people live where they want to live.

Oh, there's no heavy-handed restriction on where someone wants to live, it's just making one option less attractive, and another more attractive. Sort of balancing out personal cost to societal cost, you know?

I'd rather discuss policy than platitudes, thank you.

[BryanS]

Thanks for the reply. I guess what I'm more going for here is not so much the creation of parkland (though that aspect of it would certainly help get political support) than the disincentivization of exurban development. Let's face it, there's plenty of open land for developers to work with inside the Grand Parkway corridor, and as I see it, it's in our best interests to promote densification (thus the incentives I mentioned). However, it's pretty obvious that we need the roadway for current suburb-to-suburb access and providing a bypass for congestion relief within the city. I simply was thinking of this as a bit of a compromise, so that many opposing who aren't strictly NIMBYs have some of their fears allayed.

Why? Why is it in our best interest to promote densification? If your place of employment is close to where you live (Clear Lake, Energy Corridor, etc.) - then what's the point? Also, with technology these days, I can live in one state, work in another. And what if I wanted to retire, get out of middle of the rat race (i.e. Houston), but still wanted to live "close by" for the occasional trip into the city? Not sure why it is in our best interest to live on top of each other...

[RedScare]

Why? Why is it in our best interest to promote densification? If your place of employment is close to where you live (Clear Lake, Energy Corridor, etc.) - then what's the point? Also, with technology these days, I can live in one state, work in another. And what if I wanted to retire, get out of middle of the rat race (i.e. Houston), but still wanted to live "close by" for the occasional trip into the city? Not sure why it is in our best interest to live on top of each other...

Took all the way to post number 12 before someone asked the critical question. If it cannot be sufficiently explained why it is in our best interest to do so, even the first dollar spent on this 'grand parkway' would be a waste. I suspect I know the angle ADCS will take, but I'll let he/she speak for him/herself.

[ADCS]

Took all the way to post number 12 before someone asked the critical question. If it cannot be sufficiently explained why it is in our best interest to do so, even the first dollar spent on this 'grand parkway' would be a waste. I suspect I know the angle ADCS will take, but I'll let he/she speak for him/herself.

I have no problem with there being multiple centers of employment; in fact, I think that's one of the things Houston has going for it in the 21st century compared to other cities with a single major core. When I say "densification" I don't mean East Coast style, I mean a regional network of urban cores integrated by multimodal transportation. We don't need a giant Tokyo-style blob over southeast Texas, however, access to the current centers would be much easier if the most was made out of the land already developed rather than just sticking another new exurban development out there. It'll be much more affordable in the long run.

It's in our best interest to promote densification in pockets because many of the problems we face here are singularly due to or contributed to by low density, such as widespread traffic (as opposed to pockets), health issues, and a whole host of community issues that I notice that you may not agree with. I am not advocating row after row of brownstones; what I am saying is that a scaling back to even 1950s style suburbia with more modestly sized homes with a denser pack in a grid pattern may be in our best interest. Of course, this is extreme long-term thinking, and nothing that we can institute in current policy.

If you were thinking I was going to take an energy-based tack, congratulations, you've picked up on the obvious. The only thing we truly know about energy is that we don't know what the future holds, and that back growing up, I was always taught to set yourself up so you always have a contingency plan. I don't see current development being that way.

Why do I think the Grand Parkway is in our best interest? Well, for one thing, long-distance truck transportation is not going away anytime soon, even if the rails are more jam-packed. The outer loop will allow for much of this traffic to bypass the clogged inner freeways. I can't see how anyone could oppose that, other than NIMBYs. Also, as you indicate, Houston does have a unique structure to it, and our highway system is woefully inadequate for this regard (Hub and spoke is the last thing you want in a multi-polar city). Much in the same sense that Beltway 8 was full the day it was open due to this reality, so will TX 99 be, due to this effect.

In fact, the only thing keeping it from being a region-wide boon would be low-density development that's sure to spring up all around it, causing even more traffic. I had that in mind when thinking of this idea (a mind experiment, simply, and not anything I advocate for the region without plenty of study).

Finally, and this one's for TheNiche, the biggest reason none of what I proposed will happen is that as any decent urban planning class will tell you, the developers will win 90% of the time. Then again, they only respond to demand, so as long as demand remains for what I find to be an inefficient set up, it will be. Many seem to be happy with it, and to them I say, more power to you.

[RedScare]

I have no problem with there being multiple centers of employment; in fact, I think that's one of the things Houston has going for it in the 21st century compared to other cities with a single major core. When I say "densification" I don't mean East Coast style, I mean a regional network of urban cores integrated by multimodal transportation. We don't need a giant Tokyo-style blob over southeast Texas, however, access to the current centers would be much easier if the most was made out of the land already developed rather than just sticking another new exurban development out there. It'll be much more affordable in the long run.

It's in our best interest to promote densification in pockets because many of the problems we face here are singularly due to or contributed to by low density, such as widespread traffic (as opposed to pockets), health issues, and a whole host of community issues that I notice that you may not agree with. I am not advocating row after row of brownstones; what I am saying is that a scaling back to even 1950s style suburbia with more modestly sized homes with a denser pack in a grid pattern may be in our best interest. Of course, this is extreme long-term thinking, and nothing that we can institute in current policy.

If you were thinking I was going to take an energy-based tack, congratulations, you've picked up on the obvious. The only thing we truly know about energy is that we don't know what the future holds, and that back growing up, I was always taught to set yourself up so you always have a contingency plan. I don't see current development being that way.

Why do I think the Grand Parkway is in our best interest? Well, for one thing, long-distance truck transportation is not going away anytime soon, even if the rails are more jam-packed. The outer loop will allow for much of this traffic to bypass the clogged inner freeways. I can't see how anyone could oppose that, other than NIMBYs. Also, as you indicate, Houston does have a unique structure to it, and our highway system is woefully inadequate for this regard (Hub and spoke is the last thing you want in a multi-polar city). Much in the same sense that Beltway 8 was full the day it was open due to this reality, so will TX 99 be, due to this effect.

In fact, the only thing keeping it from being a region-wide boon would be low-density development that's sure to spring up all around it, causing even more traffic. I had that in mind when thinking of this idea (a mind experiment, simply, and not anything I advocate for the region without plenty of study).

Finally, and this one's for TheNiche, the biggest reason none of what I proposed will happen is that as any decent urban planning class will tell you, the developers will win 90% of the time. Then again, they only respond to demand, so as long as demand remains for what I find to be an inefficient set up, it will be. Many seem to be happy with it, and to them I say, more power to you.

The traffic issues in the burbs are much more related to subdivision development without linking the major thoroughfares than low density housing. A simple rule requiring the thoroughfares to link will solve much of that problem.

I am unaware of any health issues related to low density housing. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Beltway 8 was not full when it opened. Even now, only the west belt is congested. And, the biggest problem with the Grand Parkway is that it will run through low density areas.

Since you insist that I'll disagree on the whole host of community issues without telling me what the issues are, well, I disagree.

Since you are taking the energy tack, let me go down that road with you. As the price of gas approached $4.00, US travel declined nearly 5%. This cut severely into the gas tax used to build infrastructure. This necessitates toll roads. Tolls on top of $4.00 gas will put an even bigger damper on travel, encouraging people to live closer to where they work...which is the REAL goal. If that work is in the burbs, so be it.

Now, let's talk about cost. A 5 mile ribbon of parks surrounding the 160 mile long Grand Parkway would comprise roughly 900 square miles, or 576,000 acres. Purchasing this land would be a nightmare, but we'll try. Even if the land was unimproved, it would sell for upwards of $40,000 an acre or more. At $40,00, that 576,000 acres would cost nearly $24 BILLION. Considering your green belt in actuality rolls through Clear Lake, Pearland, Sugar Land, Katy, and Cypress, your total cost to buy all of those homes could top $100 Billion. Would it not be easier AND cheaper to build commuter rail to every corner of the metro for far less cost and hassle? The rail stations would attract clusters of homes, condos and apartments, along with retail, encouraging the density you seek.

[BryanS]

Now, let's talk about cost. A 5 mile ribbon of parks surrounding the 160 mile long Grand Parkway would comprise roughly 900 square miles, or 576,000 acres. Purchasing this land would be a nightmare, but we'll try. Even if the land was unimproved, it would sell for upwards of $40,000 an acre or more. At $40,00, that 576,000 acres would cost nearly $24 BILLION. Considering your green belt in actuality rolls through Clear Lake, Pearland, Sugar Land, Katy, and Cypress, your total cost to buy all of those homes could top $100 Billion. Would it not be easier AND cheaper to build commuter rail to every corner of the metro for far less cost and hassle? The rail stations would attract clusters of homes, condos and apartments, along with retail, encouraging the density you seek.

900 square miles...

With an average diameter of only 25 miles, the area of the inner loop = 12.5^2 * 3.141592 = 490 square miles. So we would buy the equivalent of almost TWICE that land area... to encourage dense development. Sounds like a plan.

More so than anything, the price of fuel and commuting will shape the city. No other incentives required.

[memebag]

Oh, there's no heavy-handed restriction on where someone wants to live, it's just making one option less attractive, and another more attractive. Sort of balancing out personal cost to societal cost, you know?

No, I don't. You said "development in these areas would be seriously curtailed" by the "establishment" of a "green belt". How would you do that without heavy-handed restrictions on where someone wants to live? A gentle nagging belt? A mildly irritating whine belt? I don't follow.

[ADCS]

The traffic issues in the burbs are much more related to subdivision development without linking the major thoroughfares than low density housing. A simple rule requiring the thoroughfares to link will solve much of that problem.

I am unaware of any health issues related to low density housing. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Beltway 8 was not full when it opened. Even now, only the west belt is congested. And, the biggest problem with the Grand Parkway is that it will run through low density areas.

Since you insist that I'll disagree on the whole host of community issues without telling me what the issues are, well, I disagree.

Since you are taking the energy tack, let me go down that road with you. As the price of gas approached $4.00, US travel declined nearly 5%. This cut severely into the gas tax used to build infrastructure. This necessitates toll roads. Tolls on top of $4.00 gas will put an even bigger damper on travel, encouraging people to live closer to where they work...which is the REAL goal. If that work is in the burbs, so be it.

Now, let's talk about cost. A 5 mile ribbon of parks surrounding the 160 mile long Grand Parkway would comprise roughly 900 square miles, or 576,000 acres. Purchasing this land would be a nightmare, but we'll try. Even if the land was unimproved, it would sell for upwards of $40,000 an acre or more. At $40,00, that 576,000 acres would cost nearly $24 BILLION. Considering your green belt in actuality rolls through Clear Lake, Pearland, Sugar Land, Katy, and Cypress, your total cost to buy all of those homes could top $100 Billion. Would it not be easier AND cheaper to build commuter rail to every corner of the metro for far less cost and hassle? The rail stations would attract clusters of homes, condos and apartments, along with retail, encouraging the density you seek.

I'll go backwards.

First of all, I didn't leave those rail options out. Just because they weren't mentioned doesn't mean they weren't considered. If you noticed, I mentioned current development would be grandfathered in. That is, no condemnation of current property would be undertaken. I would love to see regional rail to our current development centers with interurban commuter rail between these. However, that's not what I'm talking about here.

I never said anything about development in the suburbs being a bad thing. In fact, I specifically mentioned that Houston's multipolar nature was one of its greatest benefits. I would agree that living closer to your workplace is the goal (which I implied in my last post), and that in Houston, densification isn't what is normally meant in other areas because of this nature.

When I say community issues, and I am admitting that this is most likely a controversial OPINION (which this most certainly is), I mean that because people become tucked away in their own cul-de-sac or twisting street, or any sort of development (subdivision related, as you mention), they tend to dissociate from their community concerns, because the level of interaction rarely extends beyond that of the homeowner-to-association level, and since so much of Harris County is unincorporated, there rarely seems a place to go (beyond religious organizations, which don't necessarily have a sense of place around here) even if one wants to engage in community action.

You're right, I was exaggerating when I said Beltway 8 (meaning the West Belt, sorry to not be specific) was clogged the first day. However, it became congested fairly quickly, an indicator of Houston's many centers.

Health issues include the contributions to the sedentary lifestyle, due to the inability to engage in any sort of walking outside of dedicated health purposes. Yes, people may counter with the climate being inconducive to walking, but then again, most of us have lived here long enough to be able to tolerate it.

I have no disagreements with the first statement, in fact, I fully agree with the need for a connecting grid system of any type of arterial streets.

No, I don't. You said "development in these areas would be seriously curtailed" by the "establishment" of a "green belt". How would you do that without heavy-handed restrictions on where someone wants to live? A gentle nagging belt? A mildly irritating whine belt? I don't follow.

You don't make it so it's impossible to build there (as the grandfather clauses indicate). You just make it very expensive or beyond worthwhile for many developers. If someone is absolutely committed to it, there's no stopping them. You're just influencing the opportunity cost.

I'm a bit of a Georgist when it comes to land use.

[memebag]

You don't make it so it's impossible to build there (as the grandfather clauses indicate). You just make it very expensive or beyond worthwhile for many developers. If someone is absolutely committed to it, there's no stopping them. You're just influencing the opportunity cost.

So people can build stuff in these public parks if they are willing to pay a lot of money?

[TheNiche]

Finally, and this one's for TheNiche, the biggest reason none of what I proposed will happen is that as any decent urban planning class will tell you, the developers will win 90% of the time.

I've taken that urban planning class. But I've also worked with and for developers extensively within Texas and in much of the Sunbelt. The extent to whether that is true is entirely dependent on the political landscape of the individual state, county, city, ward (if applicable), neighborhood (if applicable), and even individual NIMBYs.

In Texas, it seems like the <5% of developers that happen to be very well connected in local politics (or are willing to pay former city councilmembers as 'political consultants' that will wine and dine current city councilmembers) seem to give all of the others a bad name. Otherwise, given that our astonishing rate of growth is in no small part due to the low cost of doing business, anything that can be done at the state and county level to maintain and promote growth in any form will be done. At and below the City level, it varies tremendously--the Cities of Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are all a very unique experience from one another.

The suburban municipalities operate differently, too. Many of them have economic development programs set up to lure development to their towns...and because they want it, not because a developer asked for it. In that sense, it is hard to say that developers are 'winning' anything when many places are set up to accomodate them, whether with zoning that encourages low-density single-family development, discourages dense multi-family development, or with specialized incentives. Seems more like that is what the constituents want...and the constituents are vocal.

[pestofan]

We already have an almost complete greenbelt encircling Houston, but most simply aren't aware of it and it isn't formally named.

Take a look at a good map of our area (not Google, they don't show nat'l forests.) From Galveston Bay north to Lake Livingston is the heavily wooded Trinity River bottoms, in most places several miles wide. There's already a program to buy up and protect land in that floodplain. The huge Sam Houston National Forest encloses the north side from Cleveland-Livingston to above Lake Conroe and the western Montgomery Co. border. On the region's west side we have the Brazos River bottomlands from the Gulf near Freeport all the way up to Navasota, and the wide Navasota River floodplain above that. So there's only about a 15 mile gap between the SF Nat'l Forest and the Navasota River needing to be closed. Would be nice for one of the region's conservation groups to proclaim this a greenbelt project and start pushing to buy up development rights in Grimes County to make a complete Gulf to Bay ring.

Formally designating this as a greenbelt could assist and encourage the local communities along those rivers to set aside the floodplain as parkland, so we don't get any more encroachment like the choke points in Rosenberg, Richmond, and Sugar Land that block having a continuous nature corridor. I'd also like to see a second phase of buying up agricultural bottom land along the upper Brazos and Trinity and letting it revert back to woodlands. Perhaps buy up development rights in a 20-mile strip west from the future lake south of Sealy to southeast of Columbus. Would connect the Brazos to the Atwater Prairie Chicken Preserve and the bottomlands of the San Bernard and Colorado Rivers. Wouldn't take much to tie the Trinity portion of this greenbelt into the expanding Big Thicket Preserve.

As the comcast commercial says, "More bang for your buck!"