Reply With Quote
if you're talking to me, then you are wrong as usual... i voted for it..
manny, when did you have time to vote...i mean, in between the making of all those super bowl monkey commercials and all... it would seem like you wouldn't have had time...
Yeah, people who vote are better than people who don't!Especially people who weren't even eligible to vote.
if you're talking to me, then you are wrong as usual... i voted for it..
manny, when did you have time to vote...i mean, in between the making of all those super bowl monkey commercials and all... it would seem like you wouldn't have had time...
If I'd have known that the bond wasn't gonna pass I'd have voted....but then what difference would it have made..I'm just one man.
Anywho, my bio professor said that some of the stuff on the bond they did need...but (and I'm not sure what) he said there was something that they whacked on the bond that killed it. I think it might have been the medical center thing but I forgot.
I voted against it because the bond package took away development from the poorer downtown while adding a whole bunch to the richer north. Of course, the richer area is a nicer place, and if every decision is made that way, we might as well depopulate downtown now. This is supposed to be San Antonio's colleges, not San Antonio's northside colleges.
And they can submit a revised bond package that will pass fairly quickly.
Edit: I mean the county's colleges.
Hey, I provided some facts earlier in this thread as to why I voted against it.
80 freaking percent of the students using the college do not come from the northside. Why should they always have to be the ones commuting?
I still don't understand the appeal of the medical center area when there isn't enough space and much research in the medical area goes on downtown as well.
The ACCD needs that bond package badly, but they need to do it right.
Actually, most of the students in the affected programs do come from the north side.
And the land problem is even WORSE downtown.
I think the choice as given was the right one.
Where is your source for the student figures Travis, because the one I have states 80% of the affected students do not come from the Northside.
I think the proper place to train medical professionals would be in or near the medical center.
Even when there's just as much if not more research going on downtown?
Was the bond to build a campus to train researchers only?
Ask Yonivore where he does his research.
No, the bond was not only to build a campus either.
However, the reasoninging behind the ACCD location choice was a consolidation of reaserch, playing off the assumption that the medical center is the centerpiece of everything medical in the city. It is not, just as much goes on downtown.
Of course the facilities are going to be close to where those with the clout want to office and what not.
Chris, are you registered to vote outside of Bexar county?
there is a good reason 80% of the students using accd don't come from the northside... it is because most people don't want to go into those poorer neighborhoods where the majority of accd colleges are...
if accd built a school in the med center then i bet the rest of san antonio would go there...
do you have proof of this?
I think at this point the ACCD needs to stop the sour grapes and get this thing on the May election. The vast majority of that bond needs to go through quickly, but the new school needs to be fixed.Carlos Guerra: The failure of ACCD's bond can be fixed — downtown
Web Posted: 02/08/2005 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
The surprise in Saturday's election wasn't the rejection of the Alamo Community College District's bond issue, but that the margin was that close.
Yes, a small, dedicated bunch will vote against any bond, and since most are decided by small margins, these voters can be decisive. That is why bond proponents must always work to incorporate other voter groups that perceive their interests to be threatened into coalitions that will promote the issue.
Obviously, that didn't happen. ACCD's $450 million bond proposal lost despite the strong support of some very powerful interests.
It should now be brought back in a passable form because community colleges are too important.
These schools' vocational and technical training makes many workers more employable.
And they are also places where many start on the road to becoming the first in their families to earn college degrees, where others beef up academics for university admission and where others who flunked out of four-year schools get a second start. They are schools of first — and of last — resort for many.
But state funding hasn't kept pace with the growth of community colleges, and they are hurting.
Saturday's bond would have paid for renovating San Antonio College, St. Philip's, Palo Alto and Northwest Vista and built a fifth campus for ACCD's 52,000 students.
But what doomed ACCD's bonds were plans to move nursing and allied health programs from St. Philip's and SAC to a new, stand-alone school in the Medical Center.
Proponents argued that its proximity to the University of Texas Health Science Center made it the logical location.
But opponents pointed out that UTHSC conducts a lot of its pediatric clinical training, family practice research and training, and geriatric in-patient admission and teaching in inner-city downtown locations, very close to where the Texas Diabetic Ins ute is located.
"I wasn't against the bond and its components, they were great things," says pulmonologist Carlos Orozco, who unwittingly became a leader of the opposition. "But they were forcing the (nursing) campus to be built on the North Side after (UTHSC) moved pediatrics (training) to Santa Rosa, geriatrics to the Nix and family practice to the Brady Green because that is where the clinical experience is. And the Texas Diabetic Ins ute, one of the most renowned places for this research, is on the West Side; it's where people are learning from patients about cardiology, nephrology, podiatry and you name it."
But ghosts of the past also hexed the bonds. Locating the medical school in the far Northwest Side was broadly opposed, as was the decision to locate UTSA even farther north of our city's core. These are realities many did not want the ACCD to repeat.
But there were also concerns about where students would be best trained.
"We're talking about students (studying to become) licensed vocational nurses," Orozco says. "If they needed to study the molecule of a certain disease or a certain gene sequence, then you would send them to the medical school. But if they're going to take care of patients, you put them where they will get the clinical experience."
Orozco now says that he is eager to join a new effort that will promote passage of the bonds and the location of the nursing school in the city's central core.
"Now we have a chance to get together as a community," he said Monday, "and we can take it back and do it right."
no matter what is built in the poor areas nothing is going to help it... look, they built the sbc center smack on the east side in a predominantly black area, but you you don't see all sorts of building going on... you see cars stream in during concerts, games, the stock show...then you see them stream back out...
Well,they woudln't have much of a choice now would they?
Fortunetly, they do get a choice to decide where it's built. I guess a majority of the people who vote on the "poorer" neighborhoods don't mind their neighborhoods all that much after all?
First of all, it doesn't happen overnight. The SBC already has led to street improvements in the area. The first step in developing an area is developing the infrastructure.
It's not a magic bean that grows a beanstalk to the clouds overnight, but economic revitalization is far from the impossiblity you paint it as.
if it is built in the poorer neighborhoods the majority of the students will be from the poorer sections of the city... if it was built in the northside then it would be a school for everyone...
fact is, people not from those neighborhoods don't want to go into them... and they don't... look at st philips...prime example right there...
but look at utsa, students from all over sa...
My husband did his fellowship at the Brady Green (which was through the Health and Science Center). That place is a dump!
yeah, of course they made the streets nicer...they want you do be able to drive in and drive out... manny, why don't you accept the fact that the majority of non-black people would not be on east side of town after dark if the spurs didn't play there... same as non-mexicans on the S/SW side...
UTSA is not a Community College.
I think it is a shame that some students don't want to attend SAC or St.Phillip's because of the location..but I guess they should understand why the people in those areas don't want the new school in the Medical Center.
You can't compare the only major 4 year university in town with SAC!
Actually, if you wanted to, I would bet money that SAC draws just as many people from the northside as UTSA does form the southside, so it's a wash.
You're throwing the word fact around without very much to back it up other than your opinion of what side of town people would rather live on.
However, downtown is not the same as placing it on commerce and 36th, and is central to EVERYONE.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions