Austin's Future Skyline

[scm53]

Originally Posted by petro

I like seeing neighbors making decisions about what they want their neighborhood to become, or not become. What I don't like is a bunch of people who live out in the burbs, or worse, don't live in Austin at all, feeling entitled to make decisions about what I can do with my central austin property

Define "burbs". Is Cherry Creek "burbs"? Tanglewood Forest?

Define Austin. City of? Or MSA?

Finally, as far as "entitlement". Does that extend to central Austinites making decisions about roadways or development nowhere close to central Austin?

[petro]

Originally Posted by capcat

Well, then, we have something in common. I'm not in the suburbs, so possibly you'll listen to my opinions. However, there will likely be a reason not to based on some other criteria, what with "smarter heads" and all.

If you have an opinion you could share it, or not share it—that's your prerogative.

[petro]

Originally Posted by scm53

Does that extend to central Austinites making decisions about roadways or development nowhere close to central Austin?

Both of these are good discussion topics, but probably should be in separate threads.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by scm53

Define "burbs". Is Cherry Creek "burbs"? Tanglewood Forest?

Define Austin. City of? Or MSA?

Finally, as far as "entitlement". Does that extend to central Austinites making decisions about roadways or development nowhere close to central Austin?

Well central Austin residents are Travis County residents and since most of SH 45 being considered (Loop 1 to 1626) is in Travis County, they should have more say on it that residents in Hays County. Not to say the latter should have no say, since we are supposed to have a regional transportation system, but Travis County and Austin with its ETJ, have (albeit limited) control over land use within their jurisdictions.

For the less than a mile it is in Hays they can do whatever they want.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Well central Austin residents are Travis County residents and since most of SH 45 being considered (Loop 1 to 1626) is in Travis County, they should have more say on it that residents in Hays County. Not to say the latter should have no say, since we are supposed to have a regional transportation system, but Travis County and Austin with its ETJ, have (albeit limited) control over land use within their jurisdictions.

For the less than a mile it is in Hays they can do whatever they want.

#1. Travis County voters passed bonds in 1997 to build SH 45. Sounds like they had their say.

#2. Petro's point was that as a central Austinite, his, and his neighbor's opinions about development in their neighborhood should matter more than those that don't live there. Obviously, you don't agree with that.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by scm53

#1. Travis County voters passed bonds in 1997 to build SH 45. Sounds like they had their say.

#2. Petro's point was that as a central Austinite, his, and his neighbor's opinions about development in their neighborhood should matter more than those that don't live there. Obviously, you don't agree with that.

I believe the 1997 bond was for ROW only. Roads cost a lot more than ROW and subsequent decisions can change the fate for this or any other road as the situation changes. Even the Astrodome demolition in Houston is not a done deal as of now.

Their concern should not just be for their neighborhood, but for all of the city and county they reside in. If Petro want to just focus on his district, neighborhood, or whatever smaller unit that is his prerogative. Of course in the voting booth they will be looking at Austin and Travis County bonds, and nothing labeled "CBD only." And well we do have neighborhood associations and zoning overlays that affect neighborhoods in different ways. In that regard he should have extra concern for these very specific regulations at that level, but in no way does this preclude his having a say in what happens in the far flung parts of Travis and Austin.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

I believe the 1997 bond was for ROW only.

Since Travis Ciunty's contribution was only for ROW (the toll road will be built and operated by CTRMA), I'm not really sure what your point is. County voters approved an amount. There isn't any more required - yet central Austinites continue to bleat about it. Because it really isn't about the money, is it?

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Their concern should not just be for their neighborhood, but for all of the city and county they reside in.

How about region? How about state? Seems that your chosen distinctions are more about excluding discordant voices that aren't drinking from the same kool aid as you. Aren't they?

If people like Petro want their neighborhoods to develop in a way the neighborhood desires - a concept I fully embrace - then that needs to extend to every neighborhood. But if buttinskis want to dictate choices to people miles away, then don't be surprised when the same happens in your 'hood.

[ScoPro]

Got to be amused at those vocal opponents of 45 who are complaining that it won't take much traffic off Brodie and add more to MoPac.

What balderdash, as that traffic is already heading to MoPac and the neighborhoods adjacent to Brodie will undoubtedly get some relief from the air pollution & the clogged local streets.

If any residents of those neighborhoods were really concerned about the "environmentally sensitive" zone they live over, then their houses should not have been built in the first place. Plus they should have looked elsewhere to buy so as to discourage developers.

Those NIMBY folks need to look at themselves before condemning the Hays County residents who can't afford to live in the CoA, but have to make their modest living there.

The "good neighbors" concept seems to be lost on those who have been the previously mentioned vocal opponents of anything that was established after they arrived.

The no-growth crowd over the past 40 years have probably created as many of our present Austin area problems as the developers have. They should bear in mind that the "progressive" city councils of the past that pandered to their desires of keeping Austin weird are the ones who green-lighted all the much vilified sprawl.