Reply With Quote
Not even Buddy Holly gives a .
Enough forgien arguing, this is something more people should be interested close to home...
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met....a7180ea1.html
'Vested rights' debated
Web Posted: 11/30/2004 12:04 AM CST
John Tedesco
Express-News Staff Writer
In 1987, the Texas Legislature wrote a law for developers that said cities couldn't change the rules after they start a project.
Today, San Antonians still are grappling with the statute that protects developers — even if they build on the most sensitive land in the county.
About 70 people gathered at the University of the Incarnate Word on Monday to ask environmentalists and two City Hall lobbyists about the "vested rights" law and how the city can balance the interests of the public and those of landowners.
The issue is crucial in San Antonio, where polluted runoff from urban development seeps into caves, sinkholes and fissures on the city's North Side. The tainted water helps to replenish the Edwards Aquifer.
Yet San Antonio used to grant vested permits to developers with few questions asked, said lobbyist Ken Brown, who represents real estate clients.
"The city was handing out vested rights permits like they were candy," Brown said.
The forum, sponsored by Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas and the Bexar Audubon Society had Brown and lobbyist David Earl on one side, and Austin environmental lawyers Bill Bunch and Brad Rockwell, of the Save Our Springs Alliance, on the other.
Like Brown, Earl acknowledged that some developers have taken advantage of the law and filed plans on paper to be grandfathered, without making any real investment in the land.
The tug of war over whether old or new regulations should cover a piece of land over the aquifer's recharge zone misses the point, Bunch said.
There should be no development over the aquifer, he said, yet Texas is spending billions of dollars in highway expansion projects that encourage sprawl.
When developers file plans for a neighborhood, commercial center or other project, they can be "vested" and subject to the local land-use ordinances in place at the time. Developers can then ignore new rules or cherry-pick ones they like.
Proponents say the law encourages long-term planning and investment in large, master-planned communities.
Critics say the vested rights law has evolved into an excuse for developers to get by ordinances that preserve trees, green space and the aquifer.
Not even Buddy Holly gives a .
A shame, this issue was central to the recent PGA issue.
"Attention Tree Huggers.........."This reminds me of Buddy Hackett when asked," Did you know that there are only 642 Canadian Snow Geese left in the world?" His reply......."If one of them s on my car, there will be only 641 "
All I know that anythin touted as being good for San Antonio is probably bad for it and good for the city council's wallet.
Well, the PGA project could have benefcial aspects. If you look at it in the light that the land there was going to be developed one way or another, then a golf course is more than prefferable to a housing or multiple housing communities.
However, Council tried to get this one under the noses of the people who opposed it last time, and that's ed. They didn't let democracy work, and I honestly think it's going to bite them in the ass BIG time when election time comes.
Why don't you do us all a favor Manny, and run for city council since you are the wise one? You probably have to replace your front door weekly from so many pounding it down for advice.
I have higher goals.
So, back to the subject, do you agree with the actions of city council Hook, or better yet, do you know what even happend?
You know, you'll be a lot better off when you quit assuming that others are stupid and climb down off your pedestal. Of course I know what is going on. It's in my backyard. I'm closer to it than you by miles. Why don't you worry about developments in your neck of the woods( way out west)? You may have higher goals but you're gonna have all kinds of obstacles with your at ude.
Thanks for the advice pops.
I asked questions, I didn't assume you knew anything.
So whats your opinion on the situation?
I don't live in San Antonio, but if I did, I'd be very interested in this.
What gets me is..where were all the supporters of the first PGA plan?
All I saw on the news was COPS and those against it and they did their work but seems like all the supporters just stood back and ed but didn't do anything about it.
Because everyone who supports it is in it for the money. I'm not talking about a better economy, I'm talking about the people who own land around the proposed site, or the contractors who will bribe the council people to get the work.
You have goals?????? News to me!
What strikes me as funny is that we have like 600 feet of water that we arent allowed to use because of environmental concerns, leaving us with about 50? 70? feet for human use.
600 feet to 70? Seems real fair to me.
The regulations that are in place are fine.
Most can be achieved using permiable concrete and building materials.
The aquifer is in NO danger whatsoever.
It's not about the use, it's about possible contamination.
Also, the regulations that are in place aren't there to prevent a compelte drainage of the aquifer, they are they to prevent a drainage level which will effect certain species in the area.
Right, I would rather have blind salamanders on earth than a green lawn.
So where do you draw the line on what species should be protected?
i agree with you there, however i think its sad that any untouched and natural land around here sends everyone into a frenzy trying to think of what they can build on it. the current council sucks, i dont know anything about Hardberger but he's getting my vote for mayor because julian and schubert are both idiotsIf you look at it in the light that the land there was going to be developed one way or another, then a golf course is more than prefferable to a housing or multiple housing communities.
Hardberger in my opinion is by far the best option on the ballot. Castro is Ed Garza Lite and Schubert, well, is an idiot.
Personally, I'm voting for Julian.
What about that new chick who declared?
Somewhere above blind salamanders and below me.
Unfortunately in Texas, landowners feel they have the god-given right to do whatever they want with their property with little regard to how it affects our safety. We wouldn't give permission to terrorists to contaminate our drinking water. Why shouldn't the same apply to landowners?
Keeping apparently useless species around seems silly until you decide whether you are in favor of degrading our environment or protecting it. Species becoming endangered or extinct seems to be a sure sign of degradation.
Personally, I'm not voting because I live just outside city limits.
Care to be more specefic? That isn't exactly a line. And feel free to provide an explanation what makes certain species more important.
Also, you didn't mention anything about aquifer contamination, is that not a valid concern?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
