METRORail University Line

[ricco67]

today they're supposed to announce the northern route for the red line.

now we need to find that thread.

are you going to oppose this one, a-ag?

or do you think culberson will object to this one as well?

[houstonmacbro]

today they're supposed to announce the northern route for the red line.

now we need to find that thread.

are you going to oppose this one, a-ag?

or do you think culberson will object to this one as well?

all these announcements...

i just wish they'd go ahead and build the thing.

no one is ever going to be completely satisfied so build it and take the flack later.

[AftonAg]

all these announcements...

i just wish they'd go ahead and build the thing.

no one is ever going to be completely satisfied so build it and take the flack later.

Pretty noble of you HMac - considering your daily life, property values, and livliehood won't suffer as a result. For those of us that will be affected we appreciate the opportunity to give Metro, the Mayor, and our Representatives our input.

[AftonAg]

today they're supposed to announce the northern route for the red line.

now we need to find that thread.

are you going to oppose this one, a-ag?

or do you think culberson will object to this one as well?

I think you know me better than that Ricco. What do the residents and businesses along the proposed route want? Is there as much sentiment against the proposed Northern route for the Red Line as there is against the "Railroading of Richmond"? I haven't seen anything on the news or in the papers one way or the other on the route. What are the Demographics along the route? When I know the answers to those questions I will be happy to provide a response.

The answers to the questions above will also provide the answer to Rep. Culberson's position on that line. Keep in mind that his pledge is to listen to the desires of his constituents. Mayor White's promise at the St. Luke Town Hall meeting was, "to not cram rail down the throats of people who do not want it."

[zaphod]

Pretty noble of you HMac - considering your daily life, property values, and livliehood won't suffer as a result. For those of us that will be affected we appreciate the opportunity to give Metro, the Mayor, and our Representatives our input.

something we've all sort of wondered around here....

you say you'll be affected but a lot of evidence says otherwise..

???

[houstonmacbro]

something we've all sort of wondered around here....

you say you'll be affected but a lot of evidence says otherwise..

???

i think any of us that live in houston and ride the freeways will be affected. no i am not a homeowner in the aforementioned areas, but that doesn't mean i will not be impacted.

[AftonAg]

something we've all sort of wondered around here....

you say you'll be affected but a lot of evidence says otherwise..

???

I have seen the evidence that you speak of and I note that much of it is speculation. Except for a few promises from Metro for financial assistance to business along the route. Promises from Metro are just that - promises. As the saying goes, "If 'ifs and buts' were andy and nuts, what a merry Christmas it would be."

[Pumapayam]

Good question. Does anyone know when they must make an announcement? I don't mean a deadline set arbitrarily by Culberson for his own benefit, but is there a legitimate deadline for submitting plans for obtaining funding approval? From what I recall, they did not need to do anything before December.

What a sham that the August 8th deadline turned into such a lie and a mess. I really wanted an answer then.

[Trae]

When will the answer come?

[IHB2]

What a sham that the August 8th deadline turned into such a lie and a mess. I really wanted an answer then.

Beginning in summer 2005 and as recently as the last public meetings in the UC in May, Frank Wilson said a decision on a preferred route would be made in Nov-Dec 2006 after preliminary engineering studies.

Then after the July 18 meeting to show the proposed routes in detail, METRO said the board would vote on Aug 8, which took the citizens on all sides who were at the meeting by surprise. Then that story changed to "staff" would recommend a preferred route for more in-depth engineering studies to the Board on Aug 8. Then White, Culberson, Clutterbuck, and METRO did their little dance and the whole thing got put off to a "future" date.

I figure we're back to the original plan to reveal the preferred route in Nov-Dec. Only now the process has been warped by Culberson/Wong early declaration before METRO could do its work.

(and before I hear that "Westpark means Westpark" bs, let me just say that the original ballot description said Wheeler Station to Hillcroft TC - which is on Westpark. as a kid I rode buses from Bellaire to Foley's on Main that said "Irvington" and "Yale" and the bus never touched either one of those streets in the 9 mile trip I took. If I'd stayed on eventually I would have gotten to those streets, but then my dad woulda kicked my ass. point is, routes are often named for where they end up, and that's true in this case.)

[Highway6]

(and before I hear that "Westpark means Westpark" bs, let me just say that the original ballot description said Wheeler Station to Hillcroft TC - which is on Westpark. as a kid I rode buses from Bellaire to Foley's on Main that said "Irvington" and "Yale" and the bus never touched either one of those streets in the 9 mile trip I took. If I'd stayed on eventually I would have gotten to those streets, but then my dad woulda kicked my ass. point is, routes are often named for where they end up, and that's true in this case.)

Can't wait to hear AO's retort to this...

Edited August 23, 2006 by Highway6

[dbigtex56]

The answers to the questions above will also provide the answer to Rep. Culberson's position on that line. Keep in mind that his pledge is to listen to the desires of his constituents

And that's turned out to be a big ol' steaming pile of crap, now hasn't it. Culberson then decided that he would base his decision on the opinions of the people and businesses on Richmond - a small fraction of his constituency. So much for pledges.

(But duplicity is nothing new for Culberson. He's the fellow who, three years ago, assured his constituents that the war in Iraq wouldn't cost taxpayers a thing, as we'd be repayed in oil revenues. )

What a nutcase.

[AftonAg]

And that's turned out to be a big ol' steaming pile of crap, now hasn't it. Culberson then decided that he would base his decision on the opinions of the people and businesses on Richmond - a small fraction of his constituency. So much for pledges.

I believe that he is doing the right thing by listening to the people that will be most affected by the ill-conceived route down Richmond, So it's easy to attack Culberson, but not the Mayor, and his quote that he "will not cram rail down the throats of people that don't want it?

(But duplicity is nothing new for Culberson. He's the fellow who, three years ago, assured his constituents that the war in Iraq wouldn't cost taxpayers a thing, as we'd be repayed in oil revenues. )

I don't recall that quote, but I do remember, "I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". So then any politician, even the "hero of the left" could be accused of duplicity.

I figure we're back to the original plan to reveal the preferred route in Nov-Dec. Only now the process has been warped by Culberson/Wong early declaration before METRO could do its work.

Remember that it was METRO that waited until 2003 to even put the rail issue on the ballot? So don't blame the other elected officials for supporting their constituents and delaying rail - that is just BS. Why did Metro wait so long to get it on the ballot in the first place? Incompetence.

(and before I hear that "Westpark means Westpark" bs, let me just say that the original ballot description said Wheeler Station to Hillcroft TC - which is on Westpark. as a kid I rode buses from Bellaire to Foley's on Main that said "Irvington" and "Yale" and the bus never touched either one of those streets in the 9 mile trip I took. If I'd stayed on eventually I would have gotten to those streets, but then my dad woulda kicked my ass. point is, routes are often named for where they end up, and that's true in this case.)

Too bad, because you will hear it again, and probably many more times - a little research will show you that at the time of the election the route shown on the METRO site was CLEARLY DOWN WESTPARK, AND ALONG THE SW FREEWAY. hw6 - there is your answer.

Edited August 24, 2006 by AftonAg

[IHB2]

Too bad, because you will hear it again, and probably many more times - a little research will show you that at the time of the election the route shown on the METRO site was CLEARLY DOWN WESTPARK, AND ALONG THE SW FREEWAY. hw6 - there is your answer.

1. so only those voters that both had internet access and visited the METRO website or maybe saw a rendering in the Chron would have seen that before they cast their vote. not too persuasive that the map influenced some large % of the vote.

2. the precinct containing AO was the only precinct in the UC corridor west of Main that voted against the referendum, so when spokespersons for AO say "we voted for rail b/c it said Westpark," they are being less than forthright.

[Highway6]

2. the precinct containing AO was the only precinct in the UC corridor west of Main that voted against the referendum, so when spokespersons for AO say "we voted for rail b/c it said Westpark," they are being less than forthright.

Yeah.. I love how their yard signs contradict.

First you got "ELECTIONS SHOULD COUNT". Which I take to mean, regardless of where the route is, build the thing. They take that to mean, build it westpark, not richmond, but regardless, they are saying Build It !!

And yet, in the same lot you'll have signs that say "STOP METRO WASTE" and "NO TO MONEY FOR RAIL, YES TO MONEY ON FIREMEN, POLICEMEN" ... etc., I'm paraphrasing.

They don't want rail period. Their idea of compormise is killing it. Why are we still allowing them to have any say period ?

Edited August 24, 2006 by Highway6

[aftowl]

They don't want rail period. Their idea of compormise is killing it. Why are we still allowing them to have any say period ?

Because that's what we do as citizens. Something else we get to do is expose the lies and contradictions of people who lie and contradict themselves on a regular schedule. But the aftonags and their cohorts have been exposed to the bone so many times here and elsewhere that it's pointless to waste any more key-strokes on them.

As my 15 yo said, why give them any more exposure? Ah, the wisdom of youth.

BTW, great news on the North Line!

[AftonAg]

2. the precinct containing AO was the only precinct in the UC corridor west of Main that voted against the referendum, so when spokespersons for AO say "we voted for rail b/c it said Westpark," they are being less than forthright.

You can't even get that right - Yes we voted against it as a precinct, but the referendum passed anyway, and what we are saying is (typing slowly so you can keep up) Sine the referendum PASSED and the route on the Referendum and METRO's website said Westpark - then put the rail on Westpark not Richmond. Now take a little time and digest that.

[Highway6]

Can we add a [Mute User] function to Haif ?

[AftonAg]

QUOTE(Highway6 @ Thursday, August 24th, 2006 @ 1:01pm)

They don't want rail period. Their idea of compormise is killing it. Why are we still allowing them to have any say period ?

H6 you act like you and your little band of pro railers runs the whole city - guess what you don't! Your opinion is worth no more and no less than mine. We will have our say and if that means taking it to court and putting it back on the ballot and delaying it 5 or 10 more years then so be it and hooray for the greatest political system in the world, or put it on Westpark where it was approved.

Because that's what we do as citizens.

Finally something wise from the owl.

Something else we get to do is expose the lies and contradictions of people who lie and contradict themselves on a regular schedule.

Spoken like your alter ego Nmainguy - where has he been anyway - wink, wink

Can we add a [Mute User] function to Haif ?

You wish - But then that is "your way" if I can't hear it then it doesn't exist!

[west20th]

I don't recall that quote, but I do remember, "I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". So then any politician, even the "hero of the left" could be accused of duplicity.

What the hell does this have to do with the topic?

[aftowl]

What the hell does this have to do with the topic?

Nothing. It's what those devoid of ideas offer up as an excuse. It's their "Better Way".

[IHB2]

You can't even get that right - Yes we voted against it as a precinct, but the referendum passed anyway, and what we are saying is (typing slowly so you can keep up) Sine the referendum PASSED and the route on the Referendum and METRO's website said Westpark - then put the rail on Westpark not Richmond. Now take a little time and digest that.

typing v e r y s l o w l y myself:

Primary AO spokesperson Chris Seger has publicly stated, for the record, at more than 1 METRO meeting in the UC this year "we [meaning AO residents] voted for rail because the ballot said Westpark" (not a direct quote but very close). I know this b/c I was at every one of those meetings. At each meeting a stenographer recorded the claim, and that has been transcribed into text available from METRO.

I have not personally heard, nor seen any quotes from, Mr. Seger or any other AO speaker say "Yes we voted against it as a precinct, but the referendum passed anyway...Sine [sic] the referendum PASSED and the route on the Referendum and METRO's website said Westpark - then put the rail on Westpark not Richmond," or words to that effect. If you can provide a source I'll recant, but why would anyone in AO say such a thing?

It would be politically unwise to publicly claim to have voted against rail anywhere and then claim the right to specify where rail will be routed based on ballot language you rejected as a neighborhood. and AO is definitely not politically unwise.

that's why AO spokespersons continue to claim "we voted for rail" when they didn't.

[ricco67]

Look A-ag,

I

[AftonAg]

What the hell does this have to do with the topic?

Another quote taken out of context - seems to be a trend on this thread. In the original post that I responded to Representative Culberson was cited for duplicity, I pointed out that if one searches long enough any politician's quotes can be used to make a similar charge and offered up a quote from a former President that was later revealed to be a lie.

[AftonAg]

Look A-ag,

I

[west20th]

Another quote taken out of context - seems to be a trend on this thread. In the original post that I responded to Representative Culberson was cited for duplicity, I pointed out that if one searches long enough any politician's quotes can be used to make a similar charge and offered up a quote from a former President that was later revealed to be a lie.

Again what the hell does Clinton have to do with the topic. Culberson obviously has a lot to do with the topic. Clinton obviously has nothing to do with the topic. The fact that other politicians make duplicitus statements begs the question, so what? The politician that concerns us on this thread is Culberson. Brushing aside the fact that Culberson made "misleading" statements with the old "they all do it" is a very weak argument. Please try to stick with the debate at hand without muddling things with statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. If you are so intent on rehashing the past and bashing someone that's been out of office for 6 years, start another thread.

[AftonAg]

Again what the hell does Clinton have to do with the topic. Culberson obviously has a lot to do with the topic. Clinton obviously has nothing to do with the topic. The fact that other politicians make duplicitus statements begs the question, so what? The politician that concerns us on this thread is Culberson. Brushing aside the fact that Culberson made "misleading" statements with the old "they all do it" is a very weak argument. Please try to stick with the debate at hand without muddling things with statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. If you are so intent on rehashing the past and bashing someone that's been out of office for 6 years, start another thread.

It was an example - get over it - I wonder if I had used a Republican politician if your response would have been as vociferous. I didn't bash former President Clinton - I merely quoted him, in fact if you read back up a page or two you may just find another post in which I stated that regardless of which party is in the White House the President of the United States is my President and I respect him and support him. Why do you insist on perpetuating this off thread discussion if you are so offended by it? Please don't bother answering.

[west20th]

It was an example - get over it - I wonder if I had used a Republican politician if your response would have been as vociferous. I didn't bash former President Clinton - I merely quoted him, in fact if you read back up a page or two you may just find another post in which I stated that regardless of which party is in the White House the President of the United States is my President and I respect him and support him. Why do you insist on perpetuating this off thread discussion if you are so offended by it? Please don't bother answering.

Who you used doesn't make a difference. By justifying Culberson's "misleading" statements by citing someone else's lies you are conceding that in fact Culberson's statements are indeed misleading. Why didn't you justify Culberson's statements rather that using the old and tired "they all do it" argument? The answer is you couldn't. One might think you are fresh out of valid points and arguments.

And since you so kindly asked me not to answer I felt compelled to do so.

Edited August 25, 2006 by west20th

[KinkaidAlum]

Another quote taken out of context - seems to be a trend on this thread. In the original post that I responded to Representative Culberson was cited for duplicity, I pointed out that if one searches long enough any politician's quotes can be used to make a similar charge and offered up a quote from a former President that was later revealed to be a lie.

No wonder ATM has fallen out of the national top 50!

The Culberson quote was directly attributed to LIGHT RAIL IN HOUSTON. That's how it was on topic.

Last time I checked, Clinton, Monica, cigars, and other things had absolutely NOTHING to do with mass transit.

[Pumapayam]

This thread gives me a headache.

It has turned into "Let's convice AftonAg how great Richmond rail is".

Can we just ignore him and just post updates and news article links about the project.

You all can still pester AftonAg your rants with private IM's. He is too stubborn to change and this is starting to become borderline "Way off Topic" :closedeyes: .

Just my 2 cents.

Let just sign the petition!