Reply With Quote
ok, so now what you are saying is that the reason the ACCD location shouldn't be downtown is because of crime?
i wasn't referring to the location being central to everyone.. i was referring to who lives in the neighborhood...
the same way many non-hispanics don't like venturing into the soutside, many non-blacks don't like being in the black side of town either... it is a feeling of safety issue... i'm not saying more crime is committed in either of those two areas, but they are not perceived by outsiders as safe places...
ok, so now what you are saying is that the reason the ACCD location shouldn't be downtown is because of crime?
Manny, he's been saying that for the whole thread.
It DOES take time to develop an area around a sports complex. Friggin Sunset Station didn't pop up overnight, and NO ONE used to venture to the other side of 281/I37 at night, either.
LOL!!! I guess since I didn't specifically say, "THE EAST SIDE IS DANGEROUS...THE S S/W IS DANGEROUS TOO" he didn't understand... Maybe I should attach an mpeg saying what I mean... he sure as should be able to hear me...Manny, he's been saying that for the whole thread.
It DOES take time to develop an area around a sports complex. Friggin Sunset Station didn't pop up overnight, and NO ONE used to venture to the other side of 281/I37 at night, either.
, well I hear Detroit is pretty dangerous too!!!! It's a good thing the ACCD isn't planning on building a school there!
I admit, I made the mistake of taking what you were saying in context of the thread. !
However, I don't think crime likelyhood came into much consideration for any campus location considering that the ACCD runs their own police department which has a good record of keeping crime limited on ACCD campuses.
So, I guess your arguement had relevence at some point.
Why not put the ACCD campus out by SW Reseach Ins ute/ SW Foundation for Biomedical Research? That's near NW loop 410, but is pretty far west, and not too far north of 90. You can buzz up 151. Plenty of land out that way.
From http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/edu....633341e3.html
Though ACCD data show that the highest concentrations of its nursing and allied health students live in the north half of the county, some students fear that putting the new campus in the South Texas Medical Center will deter lower-income residents who live in the southern half.
More stuff...
Comment: Voters must consider the needs of students, not special interests
Bernard K. Weiner
A lot has been written about the placement of a college to train medical personnel as proposed by the board of the Alamo Community College District.
Most articles have not taken pertinent facts into consideration. The board did not make its initial decision to locate the college in the South Texas Medical Center arbitrarily or capriciously.
Taken into consideration were two independent studies conducted by two groups. Among the many factors studied were whether the site offered sufficient space or would require additional land; whether it offered reasonable and convenient access to students and faculty and was equally accessible from all areas of the district; the cost of land; bus access; whether buildings would have to be torn down; whether public utilities are available at the site; whether there are significant drainage problems; and whether the site is within a flood plain.
The studies were done by two separate groups, neither of which was part of the board, and they rated the available properties separately on the pertinent factors. Both came back with the medical center as the best location.
Concerns have been expressed that St. Philip's College and San Antonio College will lose programs if a new nursing and allied health campus is built in the medical center area. Studies show, however, that neither college will lose enrollment. Students in the nursing and allied health programs at San Antonio and St. Philip's colleges will still have to take their prerequisite courses on the main campuses. For example, students in the nursing program will take about 40 percent of their coursework at San Antonio College or St. Philip's College.
Therefore, the colleges actually will increase their capacity for enrollment as students satisfy their prerequisites and transfer to the new health campus.
New and expanded facilities are needed to accommodate the significant growth at ACCD. Student enrollment has grown by 41 percent the past six years. Current enrollment exceeds 50,000 students. Bexar County's population grew from 998,000 in 1980 to 1.4 million in 2000. The number of public high school students in the past seven years has grown by almost 10,000. The ACCD colleges — Northwest Vista, Palo Alto, San Antonio and St. Philip's — have an open admission policy that allows all high school graduates, including students earning their GED, to enroll at any of the ACCD colleges. Enrollment is projected to grow to 68,000 by 2010.
I feel that the responsibility of the board is to the students of our district. We are charged with providing students with the best facilities and equipment possible. This includes adequate building space, parking and computers.
One of the concerns was transportation to the medical center site from all parts of the city. The board took into consideration the possible expansion by VIA of express buses to the area as part of the tax increase approved by voters in November. The ACCD board thought all this out and arrived at its decision with the students in mind, which is a tremendous change from the way the board has operated in the past.
To those who oppose the upcoming bond issue, I must remind you that it will be the students who are hurt if the bond issue fails. There will be no new facilities, no parking garages added to existing colleges and no new equipment purchased.
At the two hearings conducted by the ACCD board, many special interests were represented. However, I saw only one student, a young man from Northwest Vista, speak out. He pleaded for the bond issue to pass so he would not have to wait for hours to access a computer. None of the other protesters identified himself or herself as a student.
It has been said that this bond issue will be brought back in May with a change in location of the medical college. We must remember that the cost of a bond issue is expensive ($300,000 to $400,000) and it would prohibit a second election in just a few months.
It seems to me that thoughtful persons would consider the students who would be adversely affected if the bond issue fails. It is my hope that voters, after thoughtful contemplation of all the issues and benefits to students, will go to the polls and support this very important bond issue, which will affect the children of Bexar County for years to come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard K. Weiner, M.D., is District 1 trustee for the Alamo Community College District.
This was the original E-N editorial in support of the bond issue. Personally, I find it interesting that even the editorial board, which tends to be somewhat (but not overly) left-of-center, said that the opposition to the site selection was politically/emotionally based.
Editorial: ACCD bond plan deserves approval
The rapid growth of the Alamo Community College District speaks well of its efforts to make higher education accessible in Bexar County.
In the past six years the district's student population has grown from 35,465 to 50,056, creating a need for a fifth community college campus and expansion of existing campuses.
Preliminary discussions for a much needed bond issue to fund those projects were derailed two years ago after a public corruption scandal resulted in the indictment of three board members.
The district's healing process has been slow, but the election of new board members and the hiring of a new chancellor have helped.
The board is counting on the community's restored confidence in its leadership for passage of $450 million in bonds on Feb. 5.
ACCD officials make a strong case for the passage of the bonds, which will not only pay for a new campus in Northeast Bexar County but also for expansion and improvements at Palo Alto, Northwest Vista, St. Philip's and San Antonio colleges and a new $100 million nursing/allied health campus.
The district spent a lot of time with a community advisory board establishing the community colleges' needs.
However, we are concerned about the board's apparent naivete in the process of choosing the site of the new nursing/allied health campus.
The ACCD administration plans to move the nursing programs from San Antonio College and St. Philip's College to its own stand-alone campus at the South Texas Medical Center.
The plan has great merit; it would enhance enrollment opportunities for the nursing programs, which have long waiting lists.
Unfortunately, the ACCD board members' political insensitivity to the emotionalism attached to location could undermine their efforts.
The college district's plan to establish the nursing school campus in the medical center area is strongly opposed by many who would prefer to see the programs remain where they are or relocated downtown.
The debate has opened old political wounds.
The board was negligent in not recognizing the festering resentment left after the establishment of the University of Texas at San Antonio and the University of Texas Health Science Center in the northern sector of the county.
State Rep. Robert Puente, one of the more vocal opponents, has vowed to work against the entire bond proposal.
We hope he reconsiders.
Bexar County's higher education needs far outweigh the controversy about the location of the nursing campus.
The ACCD board could have handled the location of the nursing campus more diplomatically. More time could have been spent researching downtown sites, but this bond issue should not go down because of that one factor.
The last college district bond issue was more than 17 years ago.
The ACCD and San Antonio residents seeking accessible higher education opportunities desperately need approval of this bond issue for the development of the northeast campus and for the upgrades at the four existing campuses.
It deserves voter support.
The bond failed.
why do you think they voted along these lines? only hispanics and black aren't afraid to go to school in their communities..the rest of the city are afraid to go into these neighborhoods... wake up farmboy...
An analysis shows Hispanic and black communities voted against the Alamo Community College District bond last weekend, while the Anglo community largely favored the proposition — a tension played out from the beginning of the debate over the $450 million initiative.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met....8cc8d1c8.html
Travis, there are MORE (theree more I believe) reports beyond those 2 which reccomended a downtown location, but the board has yet to make them public. The opposition was going to sue to have them released, but I'm not sure if they still have plans to do that considering they won.The studies were done by two separate groups, neither of which was part of the board, and they rated the available properties separately on the pertinent factors. Both came back with the medical center as the best location.
That's pretty ed up. I didn't know, but everything I've worked on lately has either been coal plant related or rereg related, and I wish I had known the showing at the hearings had been so small.At the two hearings conducted by the ACCD board, many special interests were represented. However, I saw only one student, a young man from Northwest Vista, speak out. He pleaded for the bond issue to pass so he would not have to wait for hours to access a computer. None of the other protesters identified himself or herself as a student.
I don't want to hear about that becasue it is saying that people shoudl put their concernts aside because of the cost of an election.We must remember that the cost of a bond issue is expensive ($300,000 to $400,000) and it would prohibit a second election in just a few months.
The ACCD needs a bond. They need to get a corrected one on the board May. , if you can't resolve the medical college situation, then you REMOVE it from the bundled bond.
However, I'm also curious as to have much of that would apply now because most of the research has been done, and they aren't starting from scratch. I don't think they'd have to spend nearly that much. I think it's the usual in scare tactics from an editorial and that pisses me off even more. Why not come out and say that the actual cost would be much less because most of the work has been done? Why do they have to spin facts to scare people into voting for their bond?
I can understand the sentiment of the 2nd editorial. By and large that bond as a great thing for the ACCD. But it feels ed when they won't listen to the cons ancy because then the only way you have of expressing how you feel is to vote it.
I won't argue that the motivation for most of the people who voted was soley based on not wanting it go to the northside in an emotional arguement. But at some point, those people have a right to have their tax dollars spent closer to them, and not farther from them.
There are studies that show a downtown location would be better, 3 of them. I don't know much about locating schools and I went into this with an open mind. But when you hear Dr. Charlie Orozco and Dr. Robert Jimenez (Chairman, University Health System) say some things that the ACCD has just swept under the rug, then yeah, I wonder.
Either way, the bond needs to come up in May. There's not a good enough reason out there to prevent it from happening.
Clad that article does nothing to support your hypothesis that the main issue of contention with the campus location was based on crime.
Zero.
I'd like to see those reports myself.
I guess my main point was that, regardless of which "side" you are on, there is sufficient evidence of demagoguery "scare tactics" over this issue. Could the ACCD have done a better job educating the voting public? Sure. Did the opponents of the issue use their own "loaded words" to sway public opinion? Absolutely.
I don't know what the BC Elections department budget is, so I can't say whether another $300-400K would be a large expense. In any case, it will eventually have to be recouped from you and me. How it's done I don't know and in any case that's a different debate.
I don't think that 300-400k is the actual election cost, but research and preperation for a bond by the ACCD as well as other costs leading up to the election. But I can't imagine a single issue in an election balllot costing 3-400k each election, we'd go ing broke!
Honestly, if you look at the 2 reports actually released, then it does look like it's a slam dunk decision for the Med Center. But there is much more information that is not being released, and that is usually the case with city politics.
You'd think not even 3 years after ACCD Board members were indicted over bridery charges, they'd be WAY more open about things.
No, I think it is the actual cost. Have you seen a precinct map of Bexar County?
I don't consider the given amount an unreasonable overhead cost for an election. It's not a single-issue cost...it's the overhead for the elections process. That's why you don't see too many special elections...it costs basically the same amount to hold a single-issue election as a multiple-issue.
In that case it would be less either way, because there is already an electio nslated for may.
If that's the case, then maybe they should remove the nursing program for now.
[ cynic program start]
Of course, if that happens, the opponents of the previous issue will scream something about "ignoring the will of the people" or something like that.
If they just redo the program for a downtown site, then they will be reamed for "caving in to special interests".
If they put the issue up as it stands, see response #1.
[/cynic]
I'm so lost travis.
There's going to be major ing no matter what ACCD does now. It's been made into a political football.
Yeah all those violent blacks and hispanics need to be kept in their place.
Very true.
by precient
Some Precients where NO ONE voted and there were registered voters
Prc 1030 - 125 Registered Voters
Prc 1107 - 164 Registered Voters
Prc 1123 - 214 Registered Voters
Prc 2051 - 377 RV
Prc 2109 - 72
Prc 3019 - 86
Prc 3155 - 108
Prc 4020 - 290 Registered Voters
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
