20thStDad Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 so now your argument that all stimulus money should be spent in the inner cities and only in the inner cities, because anything else will be "paying for sprawl"? You keep saying you understand, but you keep demonstrating that you don't understand... The simple reality is, this project will actually REDUCE sprawl here in the real world. Isn't that a good thing for a supposedly "anti-sprawl" administration?My argument hasn't changed at all. This is funding sprawl, how far out I don't care. Whether it makes for "better" or "worse" sprawl doesn't really matter to what I'm saying. That's what my first handful of posts on this said. As to what to do with funding, I'm sure there are projects much closer to the city center that could provide benefit to many more people. Yes, as Niche said lots of people live out there and will use it, but do many many more not live inside the beltway and loop who could benefit from other projects? That's all I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 As to what to do with funding, I'm sure there are projects much closer to the city center that could provide benefit to many more people. Yes, as Niche said lots of people live out there and will use it, but do many many more not live inside the beltway and loop who could benefit from other projects?Probably not. Look at population density curves and maps for Houston; we're remarkably flat and evenly distributed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 As to what to do with funding, I'm sure there are projects much closer to the city center that could provide benefit to many more people.what projects are you referring to that meet the criteria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 what projects are you referring to that meet the criteria?I am not referring to any in particular, I just assume there must be some projects on the table that are not 30 miles away. Is that a safe assumption? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I am not referring to any in particular, I just assume there must be some projects on the table that are not 30 miles away. Is that a safe assumption?no as this is the basis for the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I just assume there must be some projects on the table that are not 30 miles away. Is that a safe assumption?No, not at all.In order for the stimulus funds to be available to a project, it has to be within 90 days of breaking ground. TXDOT's big projects are years in the making and there simply aren't very many that are so close to starting at any given time. That's why the bulk of TXDOT's stimulus-funded projects are maintenance to all kinds of their roads in all kinds of places: urban, suburban, and rural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No, not at all.In order for the stimulus funds to be available to a project, it has to be within 90 days of breaking ground. TXDOT's big projects are years in the making and there simply aren't very many that are so close to starting at any given time. That's why the bulk of TXDOT's stimulus-funded projects are maintenance to all kinds of their roads in all kinds of places: urban, suburban, and rural.Then if this is the ONLY project out there eligible for the funding, fine, use the funding for it. Even if it is technically on the outskirts of Austin. As for the topic title - "Using the Stimulus to Encourage Sprawl" - yes, it is. I guess I'm done with this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This thread was hilarious. I'm going to send links to it to my friends in other places. Oh man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsb320 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I just read on globest.com that an investment company scooped up 157 acres in the NW corner of Clay Rd and Katy Hockley Cutoff, for $3m. I'm commenting on this thread because this land will be conveniently located to the GP.I zoomed in on maps.google.com - What are those weirdazz circles cut into the grass? (not the same mystery circles from the other thread).Also, look slightly west. There seems to be a ready to go neighborhood with a lake and cul-de-sacs, but no houses yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h2obuff Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 deed restrictions/covenants, setback rules, no strip clubs near schools etc etci do not like mass production of starter castles in sprawl development. i do not like the woodlands. i will not like whatever they have planned for the katy prairie. sorry!Have you actually ever been to the Katy Prairie? I have, heck I live in the so called Katy Prairie. I have also gone to the current Katy Prairie as maintained by the KPC. First, most of the "prairie" was destroyed in the 20's and 30' by rice farms. Most land in west Harris County was laser leveled. Any resemblance to a prairie is long gone. In addition, letting a worked over piece of land remain fallow will not bring back the prairie, instead, non-native, invasive species (i.e. tallow) will take over the entire land, further irradiating any resemblance to a prairie. The cost to reproduce an acre of prairie is also astronomical, and requires tens of thousands of dollars in yearly up keep. A natural prairie has wild animals working through it (bison, deer, rabbits, etc.) that help keep the grass growth maintained. There are also naturally occurring events like fires that help rejuvenate the land. No current prairie owner can reproduce what nature does, so instead they must hay the fields twice a year and do many other non-natural items to the land to keep it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) Please, visit and understand what the prairie really is and isn Edited March 26, 2009 by N Judah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 h2obuff has a lot to learn about dealing with anti-sprawl zealots. He has yet to figure out that you folks couldn't care less about the environment--it's only a politically convenient line of argument (coupled with unsubstantiated accusations of obfuscation, misrepresentation, projection, or exaggeration) supporting their totalitarian point of view that people with tastes and preferences unlike theirs ought to be deprived of the right to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 h2obuff has a lot to learn about dealing with anti-sprawl zealots.Death to all zealots! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) h2obuff has a lot to learn about dealing with anti-sprawl zealots. He has yet to figure out that you folks couldn't care less about the environment--it's only a politically convenient line of argument (coupled with unsubstantiated accusations of obfuscation, misrepresentation, projection, or exaggeration) supporting their totalitarian point of view that people with tastes and preferences unlike theirs ought to be deprived of the right to them.Oh, OK. Sounds like you've got it all figured out!Anyway. If H2O wants to "improve" his land he should buy a shovel and get started. It's a little discouraging that he should feel entitled to eminent domain and/or use of others' tax dollars. It can be a tough lesson to learn: you shouldn't be so dependent on other people. Edited March 27, 2009 by N Judah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 H2Obuff is right about the the prairie and the rice farms. That hasn't been 'prairie' in 150 years or more. But to defend Bridgeland based on its contribution to ecology is ridiculous. Hat tip to Meme. Always appropriate, in just the right way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 h2obuff has a lot to learn about dealing with anti-sprawl zealots. He has yet to figure out that you folks couldn't care less about the environment--it's only a politically convenient line of argument (coupled with unsubstantiated accusations of obfuscation, misrepresentation, projection, or exaggeration) supporting their totalitarian point of view that people with tastes and preferences unlike theirs ought to be deprived of the right to them.And still more from the Department of Sweeping Generalizations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 At the risk of taking this thread completely off topic... Let's say we don't want any further sprawl. There is no sign that population growth in Houston is going to slow down anytime soon, so let's channel all that growth inside the loop and increase density.Do you really think that we can develop the roads and infrastructure to support that population? Look at the controversy that the development at 1717 Bissonet is causing and explain to me how we support development at the rate necessary to support the growth that is going to occur. There's no ability to expand the capacity of the existing freeway system inside the loop and please don't even try to propose that light rail is going to fill that gap.With all due respect, I think that the anti-sprawl contingent is just trying to deny reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Anyway. If H2O wants to "improve" his land he should buy a shovel and get started. It's a little discouraging that he should feel entitled to eminent domain and/or use of others' tax dollars.The use of eminent domain and tax dollars for transportation projects is an issue affecting urban, suburban, and rural populations alike. If that's a key point of contention, then surely you should be outraged at the East End light rail route just as much as you are about this segment of the Grand Parkway. ...strange, though, I haven't seen you complaining about it on any of the threads.It can be a tough lesson to learn: you shouldn't be so dependent on other people.Not everyone can be an antisocial mountain man living off the land of an unclaimed territory. For the rest of us, there simply is not a single lifestyle choice available that would allow us not to be dependent on others in some form or fashion.And still more from the Department of Sweeping Generalizations.Nope, it was from the Department of Hyperbole. It's a rhetorical device, very intentional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) If that's a key point of contention, then surely you should be outraged at the East End light rail route just as much as you are about this segment of the Grand Parkway.Either you're intentially misrepresenting my point, or there is something very fundamental that you don't understand. Edited March 27, 2009 by N Judah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Either you're intentially misrepresenting my point, or there is something very fundamental that you don't understand.Either you're intentionally misleading people, you have a poor grasp of logic, or you poorly articulate your thoughts, as exhibited by your statement, which is a false dichotomy. There are more than two possibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Alright, so then there's something very fundamental that you don't understand. Fortunately it's not my job to convince anybody of anything. Sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Alright, so then there's something very fundamental that you don't understand. Fortunately it's not my job to convince anybody of anything. Sorry!It's really asinine when people come on HAIF, espouse the dogmatic conclusions to a poorly-structured argument, then refuse to support it with sound premises when challenged...instead relying on ad hominem attacks as though they're an appropriate way to exit the conversation.If you aren't going to explain why you hold certain beliefs, why do you even bother to participate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) What are you talking about? Judging by your hysterical rant about "anti-sprawl zealots" -like I said- it sounds like you've got everything all figured out. Were you really expecting me to take the time to respond to your bizarre personal attacks? Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone wants to sit there and play these games with you? Edited March 27, 2009 by N Judah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 What are you talking about? Judging by your hysterical rant about "anti-sprawl zealots" -like I said- it sounds like you've got everything all figured out. Were you really expecting me to take the time to respond to your bizarre personal attacks? Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone wants to sit there and play these games with you?As I already pointed out, that was a rhetorical device. It was not intended to be taken literally and was written in a kind of extremist prose that is dissimilar to how I usually write.Instead of attacking something that I've already explained, how about replying to the reasoned criticism I presented in post #78? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) No, I really don't care. Go bother somebody else. Edited March 28, 2009 by N Judah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 No, I really don't care. Go bother somebody else.If your intent is to instigate and then not participate, then stop wasting HAIF bandwidth and members' time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 No, I really don't care. Go bother somebody else.Neutral corners, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It is? I thought cities sprawled because, overall, people prefer sprawl. That's the bit ignored by so many urban planners. A whole bunch of people really like big cheap houses with big yards and long drives.Sprawl will continue as long as the economy can support it. This stimulus money should be sprawl-neutral.For whom??? This is a bad assumption to make. GenXers may not prefer sprawl as they get older, and the economy may not be able to support it anymore anyway. How quickly we forget last summer...some families in our metro were stretched to their absolute limit b/c of gas prices. They were shopping at second hand stores and going to food pantries just so they could afford the drive to work and their mortgage in the same month. Do we really think that gas prices have "returned to normal"?? Sprawl growth may be the preference today, but I'm of the belief that people's minds may chnge out of necessity in the next 10-20 years. And unless the Katy area is planning on growing enough to establish its own metro, this current growth pattern is dangerous and unsustainable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 At the risk of taking this thread completely off topic... Let's say we don't want any further sprawl. There is no sign that population growth in Houston is going to slow down anytime soon, so let's channel all that growth inside the loop and increase density.Do you really think that we can develop the roads and infrastructure to support that population?No, but we can improve the frequency and quality of METRO, form some auxiliary transit organizations, increase usage of alternative modes of transportation (bicycles, walking, etc.) and establish more mixed-use development so that the growing population can adjust its travel needs. Look at the controversy that the development at 1717 Bissonet is causing and explain to me how we support development at the rate necessary to support the growth that is going to occur.The argument over 1717 Bissonet has absolutely nothing to do with traffic concerns... it's a result of NIMBYism. The citizens of that area want to keep it exclusive, and they don't want something that would disrupt the character of the neighborhood. They are rich and feel like they have "earned" a certain look to their area. But the problem is they live in houston, Texas... zoning doesn't mean much here unless you have a deed restriction. (For the record I don't support the Ashby high rise either, but not for the same reasons). There's no ability to expand the capacity of the existing freeway system inside the loop and please don't even try to propose that light rail is going to fill that gap. No, but we can improve the frequency and quality of METRO, form some auxiliary transit organizations, increase usage of alternative modes of transportation (bicycles, walking, LIGHT RAIL, etc.) and establish more mixed-use development so that the growing population can adjust its travel needs. With all due respect, I think that the anti-sprawl contingent is just trying to deny reality.Who's reality and what time period??? This is fully dependent on the trends of the NEXT generation... and they may not be so willing to sprawl. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 For whom??? This is a bad assumption to make. GenXers may not prefer sprawl as they get older, and the economy may not be able to support it anymore anyway. How quickly we forget last summer...some families in our metro were stretched to their absolute limit b/c of gas prices. They were shopping at second hand stores and going to food pantries just so they could afford the drive to work and their mortgage in the same month. Do we really think that gas prices have "returned to normal"?? Sprawl growth may be the preference today, but I'm of the belief that people's minds may chnge out of necessity in the next 10-20 years. And unless the Katy area is planning on growing enough to establish its own metro, this current growth pattern is dangerous and unsustainable.I don't understand why you question my statement. If the economy can't support it, then sprawl will stop. The price of gas isn't the only factor in that equation. New transportation and/or communication technology can quickly make the price of gas irrelevant.I'm not saying peoples' minds won't change, just that they haven't, on average, and I don't see them changing any time soon. And I'm not convinced of the "danger".Who's reality and what time period??? This is fully dependent on the trends of the NEXT generation... and they may not be so willing to sprawl.Correct. They could be diametrically opposed to their parents. Stranger things have happened. But why not let them set their own policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.