This idea of building to rural density will preserve the beauty of the Hill Country and very importantly recognizes the limited water groundwater resource within central Hays County
Send your comments and questions to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to haystransportationplan@gmail.com (online survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/hctp website www.co.hays.tx.us/transportationplan), or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the post
Hays County officials and members of a county advisory group will be holding an important transportation planning meeting Wednesday Jan. 4, 6:30-7:30 p.m., at the Wimberley High School Library, 100 Carney Ln. The county is in the process of updating its 10-year transportation plan. And they want your input. Wimberley Mayor Bob Flocke, a member of the advisory team, says the plan "will be used to provide overall policy and project direction to guide the transportation future of Hays County. It will focus on improving mobility and accessibility throughout the county, provide for future growth and preserve right-of-way for future transportation facilities."The usually open and informative Mayor Flocke also reminds that the county is paying consultant Parsons Brinkerhoff up to Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars to coordinate the updating process. Way to ring in the New Year, guys!
These are your high-paying tax dollars at work.
So all you who care about the roads you travel and their safety, bridges you cross, hike and bike trails, cross walks, traffic lights, traffic efficiency – just plain traffic – low water crossings, storm drainage, storm runoff, open spaces, scenic spaces, crowded spaces, air quality, water quality, quality of life, or getting your money's worth, should plan to attend.
How we manage our roads and transportation is a big part of the picture we want for our future community and kids. It would be fine with us if the county would just stick by a perfectly reasonable plan reached by consensus (thus far) to concentrate development infrastructure along the Hwy 290 and I-35 corridors and leave the central and western rural part of the county largely scenic, tranquil and uncluttered. Our two western county commissioners, Mr. Conley (Pct. 3) and Mr. Whisenant (Pct. 4), would do well to focus their attention on keeping our county roads in the best and safest possible condition, and staying clear of "build to suit" planning schemes. In the final analysis, a good transportation plan worth $350,000 of the taxpayers' money (plus tips) must answer the question: "Who/what will it benefit most?"
Bob Ochoa / RoundUp Editor
Jim McMeans, a co-founder of the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Development (CARD), recently e-mailed the note below. CARD is a Wimberley Valley citizens organization that takes active stands on groundwater management and development-related issues affecting mostly western Hays County. JRMcMeans@msn.com
I would like to share some thoughts about western Hays County and its growth patterns. Some wise planners have envisioned that Hays County should grow with higher density development corridors along Hwy 290 and along Interstate 35. These growth corridors would extend about five miles either side of these highways and would be supported by high capacity roads/freeways and water/sewer infrastructure.Within central Hays County the vision would be for the area to remain at rural density with transportation systems planned to be compatible with rural development densities. Roads within the central Hays County area would be lower capacity designed to serve rural travel demands.
Roads that would remain as two-lane with limited safety improvements at intersections would be: RR 12 from the Wimberley junction to Dripping Springs; RR 2325 from Wimberley to FM 165; FM 3237 east out of Wimberley; and FM 32 from the junction west across the scenic backbone toward Blanco. Right-of-way should be acquired for the future safety improvements at an early date but the improvements should only be made when needed. RR 12 from the junction east toward San Marcos should be built as a divided parkway as was promised in the 2008 Hays County Bond Package promotion.
This idea of building to rural density will preserve the beauty of the Hill Country and very importantly recognizes the limited water groundwater resource within central Hays County. If a reliable, long-term surface water supply is ultimately brought into central Hays County, the price to area customers will be very expensive and it will only serve organized water systems such as Aqua Texas and Wimberley Water.
There will be pressures to build high capacity roads through our Hill Country to serve traffic demands that might evolve. But with limited transportation dollars, the best plan is to concentrate transportation spending in areas where it is needed - along planned growth corridors.
Thanks for listening.
20 comments:
Hmmm.
Maybe the anonymous "wise" planners should have consulted with the landowners along RR 12. Unless the county is planning to purchase the land, the right to develop the land remains with the property owner - not the whims of anonymous planners. The "vision" is not shared by the people who own the land.
"Building to rural density" is an equivocal characterization. In fact, the objective of "rural density" is to prohibit building at all. Again, this is really up to the land owners - not the anonymous "planners" or those who wish to impose their "vision" on everyone else.
McMeans just can't wait to jump in front of any infrastructure progress in the area. Actually Jim never saw any progress in the area as a good thing.
Withholding infrastructure, especially, by such restrictions as "limited safety improvements at intersections" in central Texas wont stop the growth that Jim fears so much; it will just make it harder and more unsafe for the people that live here.
The area will grow until it reaches saturation and that is the nature of people. As long as it is not against the law to have more children our numbers will continue to increase. Those people will have to live somewhere whether Jim likes it or not.
Jim, you are a no-growth old fogey!
.
Before people get too focused on the next ten year plan, I hope the county will produce a full review and report of the last ten year plan.
When it comes to roads and transportation, HINDSIGHT can be the best teacher. What was the policy, how much tax money was spent, what was accomplished?
Look closely at road projects and subsequent development patterns. Then ask, who/what benefited most by those policies and dollars spent.
Do you like what you see? If not, then you will know where to change direction.
Whose "vision" is this? Was this the result of another bogus "stakeholder group" meeting attended by McMeans and a few pretextual "environmental" groups? Fortunately, the owners of the property need not pay heed to this "vision" that anonymous others have.
With respect to the water problem - no problem! Everyone drills their own well. Oh, didn't Jim mention that he's trying to prevent other property owners from being able to have residential wells?
What exactly is "rural density"? 1000 acre ranches? 35 acre lots? 10 acre lots? 2 acre lots? 1 acre lot? Who pays for the miles of road between the "rural lots" when the rural lot owners get huge tax breaks?
As long as the county is providing services or infrastructure to McMeans' home and as long as McMeans gets a tax break for the bulk of his property, the county has to fill the financial shortfall.
One way the county does this is by creating new taxable development occupied by third class citizens which the county ensures the existence of by mandating "planned communities" and involuntary membership HOAs. McMeans is also somewhat of an elitist. He wants to make sure that those third class taxpaying citizens are located well away from him. Can't put them in the lower decks of the ship so you put them along I-35 somewhere. Got news for ya McMeans - when the Titanic went down, it didn't recognize class distinctions.
The other way the county fills the financial shortfall is by borrowing money - indebting future generations of Hays County residents. That's right, McMeans wants YOU and YOUR KIDS to pay for McMeans' vision.
In the event McMeans becomes a victim of "limited safety improvements" along routes that he travels regularly (RR 12 and FM 2325) and survives, the author probably still wouldn't have the sense to rethink his objectives.
Thanks for sharing your "vision" McMeans.
Jim,
What do you mean "our Hill Country"?
Didn't you retire here from North Texas, thus becoming part of the problem of growth in the hill country.
Reasonable people will agree. Unreasonable people will never agree to anything but their own position. I'm hoping that future development and transportation will be settled by a bunch of reasonable people. Happy Reasonable New Year!
Jim McMeans could not be more right in his assessment.
These reactionary yahoos panic every time someone mentions not "saturating' the Hill Country with new populations, wall-to-wall subdivisions and convenience stores.
Amen to poster Jan 8, 11:42.
Building subdivision after subdivision over an aquifer which is already declining yearly is plainly asking for disaster. It's not that "slower-growthers" don't like like people. It's merely that we need our water more than we need them.
Secondly, builders are shooting themselves in the foot if they continue to put new houses on the market in this economy. There are already many houses here which haven't sold after being on the market for many months -- even over a year. The word is out that water is becoming scarce in this area. Also astronomical water bills are a deterrent.
Amen! said...
"Also astronomical water bills are a deterrent."
The water bills aren't a deterrent if the Builders, Sellers, Title Co., Real-estate brokers, or the POA don't warn potential buyers or renters. I received no warning and now I'm stuck with ATI at $150+ per month! It's partly my own fault but there ought to be a law...
@ Amen! who said:
It's merely that we need our water more than we need them.
i. the water is not "your water"
ii. they really don't care that you don't want them around - and they aren't a commodity to fulfill your wants
There is a rather large population growth for central Texas over the next 50 years and you. The problems with houses not selling in your area is not the water.
to Anon, 4:40:
I said "our water," not "my water." By "our water" I mean the water used by all people in Hays County -- including you.
Pore Belterra! If they think their water & sewage bills are high now...
Think what they'll be paying when their bills start going up yearly. Plus they'll have to keep paying the assessments to their WCIDs.
Growth isn't inevitable and in fact is ill-advised.
There is a time, a size and a season for everything and the wise person tries to stay within Nature's limits.
I suppose Nature is a subversive, too?
@Amen! who said...
to Anon, 4:40:
I said "our water," not "my water." By "our water" I mean the water used by all people in Hays County -- including you.
You also said:
It's merely that we need our water more than we need them
So you really mean "our" in a possessive sense - and you've already cast this as "us" vs "them".
It's still not "your" water - and you have no superior right to it.
I agree that we need to protect our natural resources, including OUR WATER (possessive) from rampant and ill-advised growth.
This development boom is about making profits with no regard for either current or future residents.
Building houses without building an employment base is just lazy development.
Building houses on land that cannot support those houses is just plain wrong.
We are continuing to build roads and sprawl development as if these patterns were needed or feasible.
We are using 20th Century ideas for 21st Century futures that are not and will not be the same.
Why are we giving big money still to road companies when driving is actually down nationwide, including in this county? Because there are big companies who build roads, that is what they do, it is what they know how to do and it is what they really want to continue to do, WHETHER WE NEED THOSE ROADS OR NOT.
Development is being pushed upon us by those whose chosen career is to build houses or strip centers or roads.
This is not the kind of "development" we need. We need solar arrays, rainwater collection systems, wind farms and home and commercial retrofitting that can make our houses more efficient into a more expensive future.
If we allow these companies to buy our politicians and steer our limited tax money to outdated plans for sprawl and large roadways, we will not have the ability to adapt to our real needs.
Say NO to Conley, his road buddies, the housing developers, new golf courses and anyone else who refuses to see limits and to think about a healthy future for this land and its people.
To "Not convinced":
WELL SAID!
To "Not Convinced"
Hear, Hear! Very well put now lets vote Conley out of office.
@ Not convinced who said:
This is not the kind of "development" we need. We need solar arrays, rainwater collection systems, wind farms and home and commercial retrofitting that can make our houses more efficient into a more expensive future.
Who is "we"? You sound like a remnant of the "give special privileges to the people that are here now" crowd who of course expect to be exempt from the extra restrictions they wish to impose on everyone else.
As to all the improvements you claim you need, you are perfectly free to install them at any time you want - unless of course you live in a house burdened by an HOA corp that local government has been burdening everyone with. Why don't you work instead to eliminate absurd restraints on your ability to improve your own property. Once you do that, you are free to make the improvements to your house - and pay for them yourself.
Say NO to Conley
He's done a number of good things. But the bad... Just based upon the multiple scandalous land deals and "donation" of taxpayer dollars for the exclusive financial benefit of David Baker and the WVWA clan, one should have no problem saying "good-bye". Good-bye!
OUR water
OUR land
OUR natural beauty
OUR community
YOUR opinion cannot change the fact that we do indeed have every right in the world to protect these things.
And we will.
Post a Comment