pineda Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 (edited) (excerpt from The Leader-Houston newspaper):Noting that traffic congestion was a key issue in north Houston, Joe Adams, Chairman of the North Houston Association, and the host for the Senate District 7 Breakfast Forum, next asked the candidates to state their stance on the Grand Parkway extension, and particularly on Segment F-2, which is designed to run through some areas of Spring.Mark Ellis said the Grand Parkway is a necessity, but that he doesn Edited February 2, 2006 by pineda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 (excerpt from The Leader-Houston newspaper):Noting that traffic congestion was a key issue in north Houston, Joe Adams, Chairman of the North Houston Association, and the host for the Senate District 7 Breakfast Forum, next asked the candidates to state their stance on the Grand Parkway extension, and particularly on Segment F-2, which is designed to run through some areas of Spring.Mark Ellis said the Grand Parkway is a necessity, but that he doesn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adagio Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 (excerpt from The Leader-Houston newspaper):Joe Nixon said he favors building the Grand Parkway to help alleviate traffic congestion. He said those residents who live near the route and oppose the project should have seen this day coming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 (From January 19th, 2006 story in Houston Community News): Joe Nixon considers the most important issues for the western section of District 7 residents are schools, appraisal caps and moving the proposed Grand Parkway north to Montgomery County. Nixon said he and District 7 residents want the Grand Parkway to be built in Montgomery County instead of passing though Spring in Harris County. "They feel that it needs to go north as originally planned and doesn't need to go through their neighborhoods," he said. (Apparently when Joe Nixon says THEY, he doesn't necessarily mean WE!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 (edited) Adagio- Mr. Nixon had a stormy time in the House lately and was accused several times of misappropriating the trust that his constituents had placed in him. Something about Farmer's Insurance recently and a possible conflict of interest on the part of Joe Nixon. It may be why he abandoned his hopes of running for his old seat in the House, because he muddied up the water there. I know some doctors in the Spring/Klein area touted him because he worked on tort reform, but when they were informed today of his statements regarding the Grand Parkway, they told me that they are now abandoning him and going with Dan Patrick. Too bad for him, but then again, "he should have seen this day coming!" According to who you speak with, the Public Hearing has been delayed again for Segment F-2. The Feds read what TxDOT proposed for Segment F-2 and tossed it back in their laps for them to fix it. They did what they could, and sent it back. FHWA still has it. Who knows what will happen next? I hope the Feds take a good look at Segment F-2 and seriously question the numbers reported for the year 2025 traffic patterns. TxDOT's pat answer is "We don't build for today, we build for tomorrow." When told that current traffic patterns would suggest that the Segment F-2 be located in Montgomery County rather than north Harris County, they reply, "That doesn't fit the parameters of our studies." Edited February 3, 2006 by pineda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Does it really matter which Corruptlican you guys elect? I give it to Patrick in a run-off. He is probably the cleanest but so far on the radical right he may end up being ineffective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENGcons Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Peggy Hamric is a moron for making comments like that. It is my understanding that she has the support of John Lindsay who is retiring. It is also my understanding that Lindsay wants to consult ont he land aquisition for the Grand Parkway at a salary of $5,000 per day. Scumbags. Not only is she in Lindsays pocket, she has also bad mouthed Klein for their planning of the new High Schools. She is an idiot who talks before she does her homework.Dan Patrick has the only real solution for this problem and gets my vote on the GP issue alone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dp2 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 (From January 19th, 2006 story in Houston Community News): Joe Nixon considers the most important issues for the western section of District 7 residents are schools, appraisal caps and moving the proposed Grand Parkway north to Montgomery County. Nixon said he and District 7 residents want the Grand Parkway to be built in Montgomery County instead of passing though Spring in Harris County. "They feel that it needs to go north as originally planned and doesn't need to go through their neighborhoods," he said. (Apparently when Joe Nixon says THEY, he doesn't necessarily mean WE!) Gee, what a mature response to post a distorted picture of the man. And I'm so touched by your concern for saving your neighbors' houses, considering your support for a Montgomery Co. route that would take far more homes. Not that NIMBY's are ever logically consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 (edited) Sorry, but I have no respect for "Moldy Joe" Nixon's flip-flop on issues such as The Grand Parkway. He tailors his response to his audience, how predictable. He's been in office a little too long, and needs to go.As for the Montgomery County route, we have long asked for a route through Montgomery County to be considered, one that would actually take far less homes than the one proposed in the Spring area. We are constantly told by TxDOT that Montgomery County and The Woodlands area doesn't want it, but that they do support the building of it through Spring, as they want the access to Harris County.Why is it they can say they want it built, just not in their backyards, but when we say the same thing, we're called NIMBY's? All we've ever asked for is that a route be considered into the Montgomery County area, rather than Spring, and yet all we ever get in response is "It doesn't fit the purpose and need of our studies." As for me, I'll be voting for Dan Patrick's sensible approach to Segment F-2, how 'bout you? Edited February 3, 2006 by pineda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adagio Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Sorry, but I have no respect for "Moldy Joe" Nixon's flip-flop on issues such as The Grand Parkway. He tailors his response to his audience, how predictable. He's been in office a little too long, and needs to go.As for the Montgomery County route, we have long asked for a route through Montgomery County to be considered, one that would actually take far less homes than the one proposed in the Spring area. We are constantly told by TxDOT that Montgomery County and The Woodlands area doesn't want it, but that they do support the building of it through Spring, as they want the access to Harris County. It should make one consider.... if The Woodlands and Montgomery County won't consider placing this project in their area, what is wrong with the project. If local developers and residents in the Woodlands want to be able to access the Grand Parkway - let them have in their yards. Unlike what Mr. Nixon told his audience a few days ago, many of us did the research before moving into our neighborhoods in Spring and would have never forseen the alignment changes coming for the Grand Parkway F-2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxConcrete Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 There may be a controversy over whether the alignment should go on the proposed path or north of the Woodlands, but in the long run a freeway/tollway will be needed on both corridors as the area fully urbanizes. Ideally there should be a freeway about every 5 miles in an urbanized area, perhaps a little more widely spaced in low-density areas. The separation between the proposed alignment and 1488 is around 10 miles.So the best action is to build the proposed alignment now, and preserve another corridor near 1488 to meet future needs. Then Spring residents can feel relieved that the Woodlands area will also get a tollway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 and preserve another corridor near 1488 to meet future needsToo bad that no corridor was ever preserved in the Spring area, Max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Gee, what a mature response to post a distorted picture of the man. That's not immature. This is, though: Does it really matter which Corruptlican you guys elect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) Since this race only involves Republicans, I will pre-empt any knee-jerk reaction from Parrot to deflect away from the facts.From:http://www.texasinsider.org/local_news/Fre..._of_the_Day.htmSD7 Question of the Day: What is the Shelf Life of a Patrick Campaign Promise?Published: 02-03-06 At the October 11, 2005 Cy-Fair Republican Women candidate forum, Mr. Patrick made the following documented statement (see pp. 72-73 in attached file Edited February 6, 2006 by nmainguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted February 6, 2006 Author Share Posted February 6, 2006 And because you won't demand better, I suppose you'll once again get what you deserve.We HAVE demanded better in State Senate District 7, which is why Jon Lindsay is stepping down, because he knows there's no way he would have gotten re-elected again. Neither will his would-be replacement, Joe Nixon. You have to question whose interests are being represented, clients of the law firm or citizens of his district? Smith asked. It has the appearance of a conflict of interest for a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 We HAVE demanded better in State Senate District 7, which is why Jon Lindsay is stepping down, because he knows there's no way he would have gotten re-elected again. Neither will his would-be replacement, Joe Nixon. Thanks, pineda. It sounds like there is more backbone in the 7th than I thought previously. 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.