Using the Stimulus to Encourage Sprawl

[N Judah]

And there actually are an increasing number of people who do make extreme commutes from out in the country.

Where did you read this?

I'm sure that they'll decry me for building out of scale with the neighborhood, too, or for casting a shadow on their houses. ____'em, I'm going to do it anyway. This is Houston, after all, the last bastion of unzoned hope for independent-minded people who refuse their civic association's Kool Aide.

Houston has many building regulations and restrictions.

If you want to live in a place where people aren't allowed to build showy homes of their own design, you should really consider the urban portion of a master planned community like The Woodlands You'd probably like it there, since nobody is allowed to either be too showy or not showy enough.

I just spent an entire paragraph decrying Woodlands-style development. I don't want to live there. You are misinformed.

Criticism was strongly implied by your statement.

I can't help your perception. Sorry!

[infinite_jim]

I agree that they ought to be made more transparent. HCTRA would serve as a good model. It isn't as though their financial reports aren't available, however, just that you have to request them. This is actually true of a lot of TXDOT's information. Their website is just inadequate is the problem, is all. Don't get me wrong--they have lots of other administrative problems. But that's basically the one you're complaining about here.

Yes, I think it is not asking too much for them to web-publish and RSS feed their finances. Thank you for the link.

What is worthy? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Have you bothered to initiate your own cost-benefit studies or are you basically just claiming that their opinion is wrong, yours is right, and not bothering to back it up with substance?

I'm claiming their decisions have weighted political bias towards a vested minority group. I could make a laundry list of inner city projects that would appear more appropriate but I do not have cost-benefit studies in support of, say for example the 610W/59S interchange impeovement, US290 widening, or the realignment of the 45 just north of downtown.

Also see Speiler's blog post today:

http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/20...-but-not-rails/

The North and Southeast METRORail lines, which have completed their environmental process, have a contractor selected, are ready to break ground, and are slatred to be done in 3 years, are not “shovel ready.” But the Grand Parkway segment E (as seen in the New York Times), which even its supporters admit has been rushed, which has not completed environmental clearances, and which does not have a contractor selected is “shovel ready.”

Cypress isn't distressed by a commute down 290? The failed developments and ridiculously high rates of foreclosure in North Katy aren't indicators of distress? Houston as a region is not distressed as a result of plummeting commodity prices?

Is Cypress or North Katy as populous as Houston? I'm sure "distress" is a pretty subjective term here but empirically its hard to justify potential minority problems in light of pending majority problems. I tend to think of the Houston's inner city infrastructure problems as an oak tree for whom a gnarly tumor-like growth near it's base branches leads to it's instability but the tree is well positioned nearby a gully and has a plethora of Texas sunlight so it continues to branch out to it's own long-term detriment. Correct me if my metaphor is flawed; as the way things on the ground look, it appears that this project is inappropriate for this money and for these times.

.

Apparently this debate is going on nationwide

An earlier NYTimes Article

Edited March 23, 2009 by infinite_jim

[TheNiche]

Where did you read this?

There was a Census study on the matter that confirmed the trend some time last year. There were a whole flurry of articles about it.

Houston has many building regulations and restrictions.

The building codes are there for safety and my plans actually exceed their requirements. Other restrictions do not impede the plan.

I just spent an entire paragraph decrying Woodlands-style development. I don't want to live there. You are misinformed.

You only thought you did, but you are in error.

I can't help your perception. Sorry!

Sure you can. You can start by communicating clearly with fully-articulated arguments.

[N Judah]

The building codes are there for safety and my plans actually exceed their requirements. Other restrictions do not impede the plan.

deed restrictions/covenants, setback rules, no strip clubs near schools etc etc

You only thought you did, but you are in error.

i 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!

[TheNiche]

Is Cypress or North Katy as populous as Houston? I'm sure "distress" is a pretty subjective term here but empirically its hard to justify potential minority problems in light of pending majority problems. I tend to think of the Houston's inner city infrastructure problems as an oak tree for whom a gnarly tumor-like growth near it's base branches leads to it's instability but the tree is well positioned nearby a gully and has a plethora of Texas sunlight so it continues to branch out to it's own long-term detriment. Correct me if my metaphor is flawed; as the way things on the ground look, it appears that this project is inappropriate for this money and for these times.

If the question is where are the most distressed areas of Houston, North Katy actually is near the top of the list. It was vastly overbuilt with a disproportionate amount of entry-level housing which was marketed most intensively to households that were the least financially well-equipped to deal with economic contractions. The foreclosure rate is extremely high and home prices are dropping faster there than in the rest of the metro area.

Provided that, and also that there are a limited number of projects that have already cleared the extensive legal process so as that they actually are shovel-ready, this segment of the Grand Parkway is not at all an implausible or unreasonable candidate.

[TheNiche]

deed restrictions/covenants, setback rules, no strip clubs near schools etc etc

Deed restrictions and covenants aren't implemented by the City, but by private property owners among themselves. Setback rules are somewhat negotiable and variances are easy to come by unless some entity is actively planning an improvement to the infrastructure such as would ultimately increase the value of the frontage, anyway. And I don't want to live in a strip club, so that's a non-issue.

i 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!

I didn't suggest you live in any of those. I suggested their disnified urban area as something that might appeal to you because on the one hand, you were knocking on developers that build inexpensive housing and on the other you abhor people that go over the top to try and keep up with the Jones'. It seemed like you would appreciate a controlled environment without the extremes of an authentic urban environment.

[N Judah]

Deed restrictions and covenants aren't implemented by the City, but by private property owners among themselves.

so? and? good luck building your out-of-place "independent minded" house in a deed-restricted area. you would probably be better off in a city with zoning, actually.

I didn't suggest you live in any of those. I suggested their disnified urban area as something that might appeal to you because on the one hand, you were knocking on developers that build inexpensive housing and on the other you abhor people that go over the top to try and keep up with the Jones'. It seemed like you would appreciate a controlled environment without the extremes of an authentic urban environment.

I think you read too much into my post. I don't like the Woodlands.

[TheNiche]

so? and? good luck building your out-of-place "independent minded" house in a deed-restricted area.

I have no intention to. ...though technically Eastwood is deed restricted and I do own a property there and could get away with developing just about anything I could ever want, so long as it was only residential.

I think you read too much into my post. I don't like the Woodlands.

Then perhaps Celebration, FL.

[Houston19514]

I understand, the point you make is about degrees of sprawl. I just agree with the original post that if the administration is anti-sprawl, and this development is most certainly sprawl encouraging, maybe they should refocus the money on things to bring more people inward. Don't know what that would be, but the answer isn't that nothing would bring more people inward.

Apparently, you still don't understand. As Torn and I have said and given examples, this project actually acts to reduce the level of sprawl that would occur without it. Therefore, if one insists on categorizing it as "sprawl encouraging" or "sprawl discouraging", it would clearly be the latter. This does in fact act to bring more people inward (relatively speaking). It just does not act to bring people in to your or Robin Holzer's preferred location(s).

[20thStDad]

Apparently, you still don't understand. As Torn and I have said and given examples, this project actually acts to reduce the level of sprawl that would occur without it. Therefore, if one insists on categorizing it as "sprawl encouraging" or "sprawl discouraging", it would clearly be the latter. This does in fact act to bring more people inward (relatively speaking). It just does not act to bring people in to your or Robin Holzer's preferred location(s).

Like I said, unless you are claiming the people that will live on GP are coming from farther out than it is, it does not discourage sprawl. It may put sprawl closer in than it would have been but in no way does it discourage sprawl. And I'm not looking to bring any people to where I am, the point is to spend the money where more people can benefit from it. Not so much fewer people can live in BFE.

[JamesL]

While I don't agree with the approach in general, if we insist upon building roads for future development then there are far better locations to do so than the Katy Prairie. The area south of Reliant Park comes to mind. Development literally stops at Fannin South and it is far closer to the urban core than this GP section. Not to mention the relative environmental sensitivity. I actually think I read recently about plans to extend Buffalo Speedway and Airport Blvd; I guess they plan for this and GP to happen.

Interesting stuff on http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/

It could probably be a whole new thread on here.

[TheNiche]

While I don't agree with the approach in general, if we insist upon building roads for future development then there are far better locations to do so than the Katy Prairie. The area south of Reliant Park comes to mind. Development literally stops at Fannin South and it is far closer to the urban core than this GP section. Not to mention the relative environmental sensitivity. I actually think I read recently about plans to extend Buffalo Speedway and Airport Blvd; I guess they plan for this and GP to happen.

Interesting stuff on http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/

It could probably be a whole new thread on here.

Yes, the City of Houston has been working towards the commencement of construction of these new roads and others for the past several years. They cannot merely snap their fingers and declare a project shovel-ready, however, and the example you provide as something you'd like to see done is actually a good case in point of where the stimulus funds are very limited in their application...even to undertake good ideas.

Another complicating issue is that TXDOT or METRO each have some level of discretion as to where they want to apply their stimulus funding, but neither have the jurisdiction to build the infrastructure you're talking about.

[Houston19514]

Like I said, unless you are claiming the people that will live on GP are coming from farther out than it is, it does not discourage sprawl. It may put sprawl closer in than it would have been but in no way does it discourage sprawl. And I'm not looking to bring any people to where I am, the point is to spend the money where more people can benefit from it. Not so much fewer people can live in BFE.

LOL Amazing that you keep saying it yourself, but still don't comprehend. As you said, "it may put sprawl closer in..." i.e., it will in fact reduce sprawl. (and fwiw, many many thousands, no doubt hundreds of thousands of people will benefit from this over the coming years.

[20thStDad]

LOL Amazing that you keep saying it yourself, but still don't comprehend. As you said, "it may put sprawl closer in..." i.e., it will in fact reduce sprawl. (and fwiw, many many thousands, no doubt hundreds of thousands of people will benefit from this over the coming years.

Your concept is not difficult at all to understand, I just don't think it means anything to the point of the article or what Holzer is trying to say. Less sprawl is still sprawl. You pointing out that a lighter is smaller than a flamethrower does nothing to the point, both are still fire. Using this money somewhere that isn't in BFE could possibly draw/keep people further in as opposed to pulling them out, which is exactly what this is doing.

Tell me if you disagree with how this project lines out:

1. No one lives where this is being built right now

2. When it gets built, neighborhoods will be built out there

3. People will move out there

Now your turn, tell me how this funding for this project lessens sprawl. It doesn't. It directly causes it. You act like the ONLY alternative for using the funding on this project would be to fund one even farther out, and that is ridiculous. The point is about what the funding is being used for, not the fact that people will continue to develop out in BFE.

Edited March 24, 2009 by 20thStDad

[Houston19514]

Your concept is not difficult at all to understand, I just don't think it means anything to the point of the article or what Holzer is trying to say. Less sprawl is still sprawl. You pointing out that a lighter is smaller than a flamethrower does nothing to the point, both are still fire. Using this money somewhere that isn't in BFE could possibly draw/keep people further in as opposed to pulling them out, which is exactly what this is doing.

I know you can get this, let me walk you through it

1. No one lives where this is being built right now

2. When it gets built, neighborhoods will be built out there

3. People will move out there

Now your turn, tell me how this funding for this project lessens sprawl. It doesn't. It directly causes it. You act like the ONLY alternative for using the funding on this project would be to fund one even farther out, and that is ridiculous. The point is about what the funding is being used for, not the fact that people will continue to develop out in BFE.

You continue to ignore the plain simple reality that people are building houses in suburban areas with our without the Grand Parkway. They will buy houses in developments that have easy access to freeways. That is reality. If there is no Grand Parkway, then the existing freeways will have to suffice and people will move out even further than Grand Parkway. Out further = MORE sprawl. Closer in = less sprawl.

Now, please tell me what use of this money would convince people who want a suburban home in a good school district to instead decide to move somewhere inside the loop, or even inside the beltway.

[20thStDad]

You continue to ignore the plain simple reality that people are building houses in suburban areas with our without the Grand Parkway. They will buy houses in developments that have easy access to freeways. That is reality. If there is no Grand Parkway, then the existing freeways will have to suffice and people will move out even further than Grand Parkway. Out further = MORE sprawl. Closer in = less sprawl.

I'm not disagreeing with this. Degrees of sprawl aside, I'm simply saying that using this funding for this project is definitely using this funding to encourage sprawl.

Now, please tell me what use of this money would convince people who want a suburban home in a good school district to instead decide to move somewhere inside the loop, or even inside the beltway.

The thought is that if this was used in the city instead of 25-30 miles away from it, more people would benefit from whatever it was used for. Holzer's suggestion was improving city traffic flow - I don't know exactly what projects this would be. But I think it's obvious that projects done within the city have the potential of providing benefit to hundreds of thousands to millions, as opposed to the maybe tens of thousands 25-30 miles from town.

I don't think we disagree about what sprawl is or that there are different degrees of it. If we disagree about using funding for it, oh well.

[TheNiche]

I'm not disagreeing with this. Degrees of sprawl aside, I'm simply saying that using this funding for this project is definitely using this funding to encourage sprawl.

The thought is that if this was used in the city instead of 25-30 miles away from it, more people would benefit from whatever it was used for. Holzer's suggestion was improving city traffic flow - I don't know exactly what projects this would be. But I think it's obvious that projects done within the city have the potential of providing benefit to hundreds of thousands to millions, as opposed to the maybe tens of thousands 25-30 miles from town.

I don't think we disagree about what sprawl is or that there are different degrees of it. If we disagree about using funding for it, oh well.

When was the last time that you tried to drive Fry Road during morning rush hour? It ain't pretty. Not only will the people that use the Grand Parkway segment benefit from it, but by way of diverting traffic, so will the people using ridiculously congested north/south alternatives to it. Segment E will also come in handy for people in Fort Bend County traveling to or from College Station, Temple/Belton/Killeen, Waco, or the northern parts of Austin, including Round Rock and Georgetown. It will benefit hundreds of thousands of people; I have no doubt about it.

And certainly it will benefit the thousands of people that help to build it. That is, of course, the spirit of the law that authorized the disbursement of federal funds.

[livincinco]

The thought is that if this was used in the city instead of 25-30 miles away from it, more people would benefit from whatever it was used for. Holzer's suggestion was improving city traffic flow - I don't know exactly what projects this would be. But I think it's obvious that projects done within the city have the potential of providing benefit to hundreds of thousands to millions, as opposed to the maybe tens of thousands 25-30 miles from town.

I don't think that it is obvious at all. The area that is served by Katy ISD, which would be at one end of the proposed highway, had a population of 218,000 in 2008. Cy-Fair ISD, which is at the other end of this project serves a population of more than 300,000.

Hate to break this to you, but there are a lot more of us suburbanites out here than you seem to want to admit.

[barracuda]

When was the last time that you tried to drive Fry Road during morning rush hour? It ain't pretty. Not only will the people that use the Grand Parkway segment benefit from it, but by way of diverting traffic, so will the people using ridiculously congested north/south alternatives to it. Segment E will also come in handy for people in Fort Bend County traveling to or from College Station, Temple/Belton/Killeen, Waco, or the northern parts of Austin, including Round Rock and Georgetown. It will benefit hundreds of thousands of people; I have no doubt about it.

And certainly it will benefit the thousands of people that help to build it. That is, of course, the spirit of the law that authorized the disbursement of federal funds.

Maybe there should be a price to sprawl, and maybe horrendous traffic is that price. 20thStDad is correct in my opinion. Building the road only justifies and accelerates the sprawl.

Normally, I wouldn't be that concerned about another road construction project, but two things bother me about this.

One, taxpayer money will fund the building of a toll road and thus encourage more sprawl. So, all of us taxpayers, rich and poor, are essentially subsidizing a wasteful and inefficient development model for the wealthy, who the the most likely benefactors considering that this is a toll road on the far west side of Houston.

Two, it's going to be built on an ecologically sensitive area that environmentalist have been trying hard to preserve. It may not be as easy to quantify from an economics standpoint, but ecologically rich areas have value on their own when left undeveloped. Turning the Katy Prarie into yet another massive sprawl of homes, strip malls, and roadways will benefit developers and increase tax revenue, but we loose another piece of nature that provides habitat for insects that pollinate crops, wetlands that prevent erosion and flooding, and a place for people to enjoy and learn about the world that sustains us. Shovel ready or not, there are other areas where development could take place with lesser ecological impact.

Maybe some of this development will occur even without the road, but the road will accelerate the development and drive up land prices to where preservation is no longer feasible.

[Houston19514]

I'm not disagreeing with this. Degrees of sprawl aside, I'm simply saying that using this funding for this project is definitely using this funding to encourage sprawl.

The thought is that if this was used in the city instead of 25-30 miles away from it, more people would benefit from whatever it was used for. Holzer's suggestion was improving city traffic flow - I don't know exactly what projects this would be. But I think it's obvious that projects done within the city have the potential of providing benefit to hundreds of thousands to millions, as opposed to the maybe tens of thousands 25-30 miles from town.

I don't think we disagree about what sprawl is or that there are different degrees of it. If we disagree about using funding for it, oh well.

But you ARE disagreeing with this and failing to comprehend You are pretending that if we don't build this particular highway, we will avoid that much sprawl. That is simply not reality. If we don't build this highway, the houses will not be built along the route of this highway; instead they will be built FURTHER OUT along 290 or I-10. Thus, this project is definitely NOT using this funding to encourage sprawl; rather it is in fact using this funding to reduce sprawl.

You seem to be changing your argument mid-stream. Earlier it was, or at least seemed to be, that the spending should be focused on reducing sprawl. Now you have shifted to focusing purely on how many people will benefit from the spending (and of course you offer no support whatsoever and no particular projects that in your imagination will benefit more people.)

[Houston19514]

Maybe there should be a price to sprawl, and maybe horrendous traffic is that price. 20thStDad is correct in my opinion. Building the road only justifies and accelerates the sprawl.

Normally, I wouldn't be that concerned about another road construction project, but two things bother me about this.

One, taxpayer money will fund the building of a toll road and thus encourage more sprawl. So, all of us taxpayers, rich and poor, are essentially subsidizing a wasteful and inefficient development model for the wealthy, who the the most likely benefactors considering that this is a toll road on the far west side of Houston.

Two, it's going to be built on an ecologically sensitive area that environmentalist have been trying hard to preserve. It may not be as easy to quantify from an economics standpoint, but ecologically rich areas have value on their own when left undeveloped. Turning the Katy Prarie into yet another massive sprawl of homes, strip malls, and roadways will benefit developers and increase tax revenue, but we loose another piece of nature that provides habitat for insects that pollinate crops, wetlands that prevent erosion and flooding, and a place for people to enjoy and learn about the world that sustains us. Shovel ready or not, there are other areas where development could take place with lesser ecological impact.

Maybe some of this development will occur even without the road, but the road will accelerate the development and drive up land prices to where preservation is no longer feasible.

I am not going to argue against the environmental aspect. It is possible that the road should not be built for environmental reasons ( although I am highly skeptical).

But the "encouraging sprawl" argument has been addressed and demolished. The reality is, Houston is experiencing explosive population growth. Those people (approximately 130,000 additional people EVERY YEAR) have to live somewhere. Many of them prefer to live in suburban developments in good school districts. The reality (as much as so-called "anti-sprawl" folk prefer to avoid it) is that development will continue to "sprawl" out along the the transportation infrastructure. If the only infrastructure is the existing spoke freeways, that's where the development will occur... further out along I-10, 290, etc. If we add additional transportation infrastructure to serve the areas between those spoke freeways, we will reduce the extent of the sprawl. The alternative, as mentioned repeatedly is further sprawl out the spoke freeways, leading to even greater dispersal of the job bases (i.e., even further sprawl and disintegration of the metro area).

[20thStDad]

But you ARE disagreeing with this and failing to comprehend You are pretending that if we don't build this particular highway, we will avoid that much sprawl. That is simply not reality. If we don't build this highway, the houses will not be built along the route of this highway; instead they will be built FURTHER OUT along 290 or I-10. Thus, this project is definitely NOT using this funding to encourage sprawl; rather it is in fact using this funding to reduce sprawl.

You seem to be changing your argument mid-stream. Earlier it was, or at least seemed to be, that the spending should be focused on reducing sprawl. Now you have shifted to focusing purely on how many people will benefit from the spending (and of course you offer no support whatsoever and no particular projects that in your imagination will benefit more people.)

I am not going to argue against the environmental aspect. It is possible that the road should not be built for environmental reasons ( although I am highly skeptical).

But the "encouraging sprawl" argument has been addressed and demolished. The reality is, Houston is experiencing explosive population growth. Those people (approximately 130,000 additional people EVERY YEAR) have to live somewhere. Many of them prefer to live in suburban developments in good school districts. The reality (as much as so-called "anti-sprawl" folk prefer to avoid it) is that development will continue to "sprawl" out along the the transportation infrastructure. If the only infrastructure is the existing spoke freeways, that's where the development will occur... further out along I-10, 290, etc. If we add additional transportation infrastructure to serve the areas between those spoke freeways, we will reduce the extent of the sprawl. The alternative, as mentioned repeatedly is further sprawl out the spoke freeways, leading to even greater dispersal of the job bases (i.e., even further sprawl and disintegration of the metro area).

Your point is easily comprehended, but it is also pointless in my opinion. It does not matter to this argument that GP is sprawl to a lesser degree than you contend will happen without it. The only thing being ignored here is you ignoring the absolute fact that this project is directly funding sprawl. It doesn't matter that sprawl would be built farther out without it - according to you that sprawl is universally inevitable and will be built even if this is built, maybe just a little later. The argument is against using THIS PARTICULAR FUNDING, which is what the article was about. The contention in that article was that the anti-sprawl administration is using its stimulus money to pay for sprawl.

I don't know if any projects exist that are effectively sprawl-killing - if there are any, I would be for them. But I am sure there are projects intended for the inner city where the majority of residents live. Yeah, lots live way the hell out, but way more live in the center.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying.

[JLWM8609]

I see that some inner loop HAIFers want sprawl killed, but had it not been for sprawl, we wouldn't have the neighborhoods that some of these anti-sprawlers live in and admire like the Heights (the first suburb and master planned community in Houston), and Riverside Terrace (the first area community built with the automobile in mind) among others.

Edited March 25, 2009 by JLWM8609

[livincinco]

Your point is easily comprehended, but it is also pointless in my opinion. It does not matter to this argument that GP is sprawl to a lesser degree than you contend will happen without it. The only thing being ignored here is you ignoring the absolute fact that this project is directly funding sprawl. It doesn't matter that sprawl would be built farther out without it - according to you that sprawl is universally inevitable and will be built even if this is built, maybe just a little later. The argument is against using THIS PARTICULAR FUNDING, which is what the article was about. The contention in that article was that the anti-sprawl administration is using its stimulus money to pay for sprawl.

I don't know if any projects exist that are effectively sprawl-killing - if there are any, I would be for them. But I am sure there are projects intended for the inner city where the majority of residents live. Yeah, lots live way the hell out, but way more live in the center.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying.

There is a base assumption being made here that sprawl is bad and it is apparently politically incorrect to question that assumption. I disagree. Sprawl is necessary and I challenge anyone to provide me of an example of a MSA in the United States that has experienced population growth without resulting sprawl.

The core question here is what is the role of government? Is the role of government to support the needs/desires of the people or is it to dictate to people what it believes is in their best interest?

Here's some assumptions - feel free to argue them if you disagree

The majority of the growth in the Houston MSA is occurring outside the loop.

Future growth is expected to continue to occur primarily outside the loop.

A large part of that growth is occurring in the western part of the MSA (Katy/Cypress/Sugarland)

That growth pattern is occurring because that is where people want/choose to live.

So back to my core question - what is the role of government in this situation? If people want to live in the west Houston suburbs isn't it the role of government to provide them the infrastructure to support that choice??

[crunchtastic]

(Katy/Cypress/Sugarland)

That growth pattern is occurring because that is where people want/choose to live.

So back to my core question - what is the role of government in this situation? If people want to live in the west Houston suburbs isn't it the role of government to provide them the infrastructure to support that choice??

The government's role? Based on voting record of the majority of people who live in west Houston suburbs, one could surmise that their overriding concern is that government is too big, and an inefficient steward of resources. Therefore, transit and infrastructure is best handled by the private sector.

The stimulus money will get spent by private companies awarded no-bid contracts, who hire illegals, to build and manage more toll roads. Problem solved.

[TheNiche]

Maybe there should be a price to sprawl, and maybe horrendous traffic is that price. 20thStDad is correct in my opinion. Building the road only justifies and accelerates the sprawl.

Normally, I wouldn't be that concerned about another road construction project, but two things bother me about this.

One, taxpayer money will fund the building of a toll road and thus encourage more sprawl. So, all of us taxpayers, rich and poor, are essentially subsidizing a wasteful and inefficient development model for the wealthy, who the the most likely benefactors considering that this is a toll road on the far west side of Houston.

Two, it's going to be built on an ecologically sensitive area that environmentalist have been trying hard to preserve. It may not be as easy to quantify from an economics standpoint, but ecologically rich areas have value on their own when left undeveloped. Turning the Katy Prarie into yet another massive sprawl of homes, strip malls, and roadways will benefit developers and increase tax revenue, but we loose another piece of nature that provides habitat for insects that pollinate crops, wetlands that prevent erosion and flooding, and a place for people to enjoy and learn about the world that sustains us. Shovel ready or not, there are other areas where development could take place with lesser ecological impact.

Maybe some of this development will occur even without the road, but the road will accelerate the development and drive up land prices to where preservation is no longer feasible.

There are already prices: federal income taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, and sales taxes. Why shouldn't people receive government services at least close to proportionate with the taxes they pay? It seems only fair.

Also, you clearly don't know much about the area being discussed. Many of the subdivisions in these areas were marketed from about $90k and up. They're extremely affordable. This is where poor inner city residents go when they get bought out by townhome developers.

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I like birds shot, smothered in spices, fried, and on my plate next to the little container of honey mustard. Otherwise, ____'em. Habitats for humans are more important than habitats for the rodents of the sky. And the insects can just move along to the other 98% of the State of Texas that isn't developed. As for wetlands, they can be created artificially along important segments within flood plains, not unlike Art Storey Park in southwest Houston, which also allows for human recreation.

[crunchtastic]

Also, you clearly don't know much about the area being discussed. Many of the subdivisions in these areas were marketed from about $90k and up. They're extremely affordable. This is where poor inner city residents go when they get bought out by townhome developers.

But, what if the new road means that the poor, less-white people of north Fry road now can travel easily to ..... Bridgelands? It might as well be a train from the Third Ward straight to Cinco Ranch!

[TheNiche]

But, what if the new road means that the poor, less-white people of north Fry road now can travel easily to ..... Bridgelands? It might as well be a train from the Third Ward straight to Cinco Ranch!

It also means that the people that live in Bridgeland (they dropped the 's' at the end) can take the road directly past the North Katy people without having to look at all their off-putting small houses covered in hardie siding and unconvincing brick.

...once again, balance is restored to the universe.

[memebag]

I see that some inner loop HAIFers want sprawl killed, but had it not been for sprawl, we wouldn't have the neighborhoods that some of these anti-sprawlers live in and admire like the Heights (the first suburb and master planned community in Houston), and Riverside Terrace (the first area community built with the automobile in mind) among others.

Without sprawl, a bunch of inner loopers wouldn't be able to afford their current digs. Sprawl drains the population density, which reduces the cost of living in the center of town. Just imagine what it would cost to live inside the loop if everyone had to live there for some reason.

Another benefit of building roads to enable sprawl is the reverse commute. Businesses like to sprawl, too, and that gives a lot of people the opportunity to live close to cultural and entertainment hubs and work on the edge without sitting in traffic.

All hail sprawl!

Edited March 25, 2009 by memebag

[Houston19514]

Your point is easily comprehended, but it is also pointless in my opinion. It does not matter to this argument that GP is sprawl to a lesser degree than you contend will happen without it. The only thing being ignored here is you ignoring the absolute fact that this project is directly funding sprawl. It doesn't matter that sprawl would be built farther out without it - according to you that sprawl is universally inevitable and will be built even if this is built, maybe just a little later. The argument is against using THIS PARTICULAR FUNDING, which is what the article was about. The contention in that article was that the anti-sprawl administration is using its stimulus money to pay for sprawl.

I don't know if any projects exist that are effectively sprawl-killing - if there are any, I would be for them. But I am sure there are projects intended for the inner city where the majority of residents live. Yeah, lots live way the hell out, but way more live in the center.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying.

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?