Because of recent bad regional planning, local governments are rushing to preserve right-of-way that will greatly affect the lanscape. If they wanted to be proactive, this should have been done years ago. However, this is hasty reactionary, and un-wise. Many of the land in the Right-of-way has been owned by local families for over 100 years. This is not fair and at its core is un-American.
9 comments:
Okay, seriously. I can appreciate an educated discussion, but this is just typical anti-growth propaganda. On one hand you say "why are they rushing" and in the same statement you said they should have been more proactive and done this a long time ago. Again, this process started 10 years ago. There is no rushing about it. Nothing in the transportation world is rushed, as there is too much red tape to go through, too many public forums, extensive studies, etc. Using the word "rush" and "roads" in the same sentence is just absurd, unless you are talking about being stuck in "rush" hour traffic on overcrowded "roads".
Then your second comment about "people at the City not even living in NB". That's absurd. Every person on the City Council, including the Mayor, MUST live in the City to be elected. If you aren't referring to them, then you must be referring to the employees of the City, who have little to no say in this project. So I'm not sure who you think is conspiring to take people's homes.
Lastly, the number one priority of the study was to make the route affect as few people's homes as possible. They are talking about routes now so that developers can avoid building more homes in the potential right of way, so that again as few people are displaced as possible. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a road and not affect anyone. Someone will be displaced, someone's farm will be divided, someone's home will be affected. The point is to make sure there are as few someone's as possible.
Really, you have some valid points in other sections. But making these scare-tactic claims just devalues your stance.
It seems "aja" cannot read! Nothing was said about City officials not living in New Braunfels-- the blog said that the people being affected by the new road are not in the city. I am thinking that this person was involved in the study-- a borderline illiterate! No wonder it is such a bad plan! The problem is not that roads should not be built-- this is just a terrible plan based on a dumb idea!
Laz,
I was involved in the process as much as any other citizen had the opportunity to be. I went to the public hearings and open houses, and attending one of the small group sessions. I am on the Transportation Committee for the Chamber of Commerce, and therefore I like to keep up with as much of the transportation goings on as I can -- hence the reason I wanted to check out this site. I enjoy hearing all different viewpoints, and appreciate well thought out debates. This is obviously a heated topic with many differing opinions.
With regards to your points, whether or not I misquoted the author of this site, it is still an absurd comment that The City doesn't care about the residents who could potentially be affected by the outer loop. None of this is from the City. This is TxDOT hiring an outside firm to conduct a study and send their results to the City. The City has not voiced their opinion either way on anything yet (with the exception of adopting the idea into a thoroughfare plan back in '98, which in essence doesn't mean a whole lot).
Whether or not this plan is the best idea, ask 100 people and they will give you 100 different opinions for 100 different reasons.
I agree with you on your statement "The problem is not that roads should not be built", but the author of this site seems to disagree with you. He/she wrote: "Should our long range planning really include major roadway plans? I think not."
Again, my personal stance is not that this is a flawless plan. It has some merit, just as some of the opinions on this blog site do. I think the important thing to remember is that it's still VERY early in the game here, and there's still plenty of time for public input. Write to your council person if you live in the City or write the County Commissioner if you are outside the city limits. Talk to the officials who have a say in this and voice your opinion! Ask questions to clarify any misconceptions. Information, your voice, and your vote = your power.
If you would like to chat more, or if anyone reading this would like to e-mail me, please feel free. I will share whatever information I have and try to direct you elsewhere if I don't have the answers. My e-mail is Aja.Edwards@ERA.com.
Aja: Sounds like you are a realtor. This would open up development in this area and that would be good for you? Are you truly objective here? Also, of course the Chamber of Commerce would be for a new road, offering new frontages for commercial development.
I think we should try to balance the economic and the social, cultural and environmental value. It doesn't ALWAYS have to be what is best for the developers/businesses. What about the residents?
Renee,
Yes, I am a Realtor (my primary job is actually running the company, not so much selling). Part of being a Realtor is abiding by the NAR Code of Ethics, which makes it clear that we always look out for the best interest of our clients. Our clients are everyone from people relocating for work, retirees, small business owners, commercial developers, and current residents of New Braunfels and surrounding areas. As a resident of New Braunfels myself, I certainly have my own personal opinions about the road proposal.
I completely agree with you that there should be a balance between economic, social, cultural and environmental issues.
Again, I'm really not arguing for one side or the other (if there are even just 2 sides to this). I just like challenging people to present solid debates (okay, and I like participating in the debates too). I enjoy looking at things from all different angles and trying to understand where someone is coming from. I think too often in our political world things are rubber stamped because some authority told the public that something was good or bad -- and too often it's fear-based. I love that Julie and her crew are challenging the City and TxDOT to justify the Outer Loop! I just want them to go to those officials fully armed with points that have validity, facts, and justification. If I can find holes in them, certainly the "experts" will too.
I'd like to humbly address the statement that this is "typical anti-growth propaganda," by just stating that there is a link to the Outer Loop Study website on this website. Much care was taken to be sure to allow readers access to many viewpoints, including the Outer Loop Study itself. I think there is a great need for intelligent growth management - not growth at the expense of the greater good of the community. (as opposed to "anti-growth")
WOW, so since someone in the past failed to use a crystal ball to predict what we have today, todays leaders should not try to have the foresight to make a change and plan for the future. Yes it stinks to have to possible uproot peoples lives, but what is so wrong with giving 10-15-25 years of warning that this may happen? Maybe we should leave it to leaders in the future who have to uproot people for the betterment of the community with little warning. Look, maybe your planning model is different and I respect your opinions, but any critical text on the subject will clearly show that there is no overriding school of thought amongst premier planners in America as to what is "smart planning." Why not help to plan instead of planning to disrupt?
In reference to the above comment, I entirely disagree with your statements. Actually, a link to the Congress for a New Urbanism is located under the links section of this page. Yes, New Urbanism is just one genre of "smart growth," but I think most leading scholars would agree on basic principles for smart growth. One of the most important of these is to prevent sprawl. This leap frog development occurs when you don't force business and residences to locate contiguous to the already built environment... (for example- don't build a loop and then let it fill in). By the way, the author of this site has a PhD in Urban Planning and I am a former Senior Planner (Masters in Geography) - one with experience in doing what is best for the ENTIRE community as opposed to what is best for a few.
The decisions planners have to make might not be popular, but when you are backed up with a good plan and sound guiding principles, you do what you know is right. Since I am now out of the public sector, I feel compelled to educate the residents when I see a poorly designed plan with poorly articulated goals generate a weak idea that will have negative effects on the landscape - just as I would if I were on the other side of the table. My arguments would be exactly the same. In fact, I have already fought this battle in another area - but we were trying to curtail haphazard development and restrict growth in the ETJ - exactly what New Braunfels should be doing.
There are plenty of journals (not trade magazines) and texts that would support the idea that sprawl is bad and loops without serious growth management leads to leap frog development and thus sprawl.
Can I suggest to the City that they enter a comprehensive study of the ETJ - compatible future zoning, transportation, retail clusters (not strip commercial) etc before plopping down a loop corridor?
Post a Comment