December 2006 Archives

Three articles by Asher Price in the Statesman yesterday!

Hill Country development bringing big environmental concerns
Hill Country development linked to Barton Springs water quality
One subdivision edging toward LCRA water.

The trouble with "fair and balanced", as these articles appear to be, is you have quotes like this from home builders:

"If someone is opposed to any growth, that no one should move here and everyone should go somewhere else, then I can't help you," said Harry Savio, the head of the Austin Homebuilders Association. "If you believe we should have controlled, restrained, responsible growth, sensitive to the environment, then the home building and construction that has taken place over the last five years is going to be much better than what was done before."

Savio says new rules for stormwater detention and vegetative filter strips are keeping the water that runs into area creeks from developments cleaner. Thompson said the developers are paying attention to the environment that creates the very demand they bank on.

The trouble is, the home builders fight environmental regulation at every step. I know from personal experience on the all but forgotten Regional Water Quality Plan. They get all regulations watered down as much as possible, then crow, in statements like the one above, about how sensitive they are to the environment.

So basically, they're a bunch of liars, and when they portray themselves as reasonable in articles like this Statesman series, you can't believe them.

HPR, and other Texas roads, would be safer for cycling if motorists would slow down and pass cyclists with a safe margin. Florida and Utah have such a law; California is considering one. Last session, the Texas Senate failed to pass a Safe Passing bill by only four votes. This session, we're making another run at it.

Safe passing requires motorists to slow to 45 mph and give three feet of clearance. If there's some oncoming traffic that makes it unsafe for the motorist to pass, then they just put on the brake until it becomes safe. It's sad that you need to spell out a common sense law like that, but I guess good laws really only enforce common sense.

A couple of articles, both via Germany.

"It was meant to counter urban sprawl - an offer for families not to move out to the suburbs and give them the same, if better quality of life. And it is very successful."

... Rather than handing the area to a real estate developer, the city let small homeowner cooperatives design and build their homes from scratch.

Ok, I forgot what the second article was, but go to Google Earth and float around the countryside of Germany or France.

Do I think this could work here? I don't know, has it ever been tried?

Last week a teenager died on Hamilton Pool Road, between Destiny Hills Drive and the Lazy Fork restaurant.

Adam Smith, 16, died after a Ford pickup truck crossed into oncoming traffic and hit his Toyota truck.

The crash caused the Toyota to go airborne and land on a third car, a BMW.

Smith's friend David Torres, 17, is in critical condition. The drivers of the Ford pick up truck and BMW were treated and released.

Police are still investigating the cause of the accident.

It was a misty Sunday night, wet roads. And that's a really twisty section. It's easy to imagine oncoming headlights on a slick road causing you to lose sight of the road.

The speed limit should be 45, but I imagine drivers would ignore it anyway. Sigh.

You know, every time I hear the word "Stakeholder" my stomach goes into a little knot. Why is that? I sort of automatically relate it to RAND Corporations "Mohawk Valley Formula". Oh, it's not the same thing and this isn't the 1930's, science has evolved.

I witnessed it's use during the HP waterline meetings during which something like a thousand people spoke or other wise 'voted' against the waterline and mainly 3 developers... err ranchers, voted for it. Somehow this resulted in the building of the waterline and of course the development that normally follows.

I saw the 'ballot' stuffing suits appear at LCRA meetings to register to speak for the waterline but disappear shortly after causing the slovenly American Statesman "journalist" to conclude that, "wow look at all the folks that are for the water line".

I have to wonder just how this particular model of consensus building came about. Where is it written? And to be honest, I'm not particularly interested in watered down agenda driven 'consensus'.

Does anyone know anything about it?

The Statesman has begun what appears to be a "fair and balanced" series on development west of Austin, with particular attention to Hamilton Pool Road. It's a must read!