While I am generally in favor of most bond issues that allow us to invest in our community, if you live in College Station, I encourage you to vote “No” on propositions 6 on November 4th. This proposition is for $26,300,000.00 to be used to construct a new City Hall.
It is true that our City Hall is way too small, city staff deserves less cramped quarters and the existing council chambers seldom accommodate the crowd of interested citizens that attend meetings. But this is a particularly bad suggestion for solving the problem.
Currently City Hall is at the core of the city, immediately across from the university. Not only is this convenient, it also contributes to keeping density at the core of the city, which reduces traffic and urban decline. The city owns the whole large bock that city hall sits on, more than half of which is either undeveloped or in open parking. If the city were to sell this land, as has been proposed, the city building would likely be razed and hauled to the Landfill. Additionally the new development on this block, if any could be found, would probably be less dense and of lower quality.
While our developing comprehensive plan calls for more intensive master planning, this proposition calls for just sticking this new building on a very large piece of raw land. While it has been said that the “idea” is to have a campus setting, I have yet to hear any articulation of a real concept, much less something that would constitute a master plan.
This is the one proposition being put forth that would result in the raising Taxes.
Over the last several years the citizens of College Station have done a great job getting rid of City Council members who served at the pleasure of the development community and replacing them with Council members who serve the whole community. While I see this initiative as anathema to the tide of sentiment that brought this council to office, it is important to keep in mind two important points. First, this City Council pretty much inherited this project from past Councils. And second, these ballot initiatives were not just the whimsy of Council, they were bought forward by a citizen committee. I’m not sure what process was used by this committee, but it is likely that these were not so much recommendations for projects that should be built, as they were recommendations for projects that we should be given a chance to decide on.
The one good thing that proposition 6 may do is bring together liberals and conservatives. Conservatives will oppose this proposition because it is wasteful spending that will raise our taxes. Liberals will vote against this proposition because it will result in sprawl development, the unnecessary destruction of raw land and a perfectly good building, and the degradation of what little density that College Station has at its core, which will bring a whole host of bad consequences such more traffic, less walkability and less pull for future redevelopment at our core.
Like proposition 5, which I also oppose, the idea behind a new city hall has not been developed and articulated. The people of College Station have made it clear that we are paying attention and we want smart governance and smart development. Why are we being asked to vote on a 26 million dollar project that will raise our taxes without better justification being put forth? I fully support the expansion of our current City Hall, even if it means raising our taxes. Or hard working, dedicated city staff deserve better than the cramped conditions that they are now working in. But I would hope that any such plan would be much more thoroughly thought out and developed before being brought before the voters.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Vote no on proposition 6 on November 4th
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Building a new city hall is a terrible idea. I have discussed this with many people in our community and I find almost no support for it.
There will always be a desire for more space. It's human nature.
I agree that the council room sometimes overflows, but this only happens occasionally. I agree that population growth puts pressure on city services, but much of this growth is from the increased student population. The "official" population of College Station includes many A&M and Blinn students who happen to list CS as a residence. They rarely use services of the city that require a trip to city hall. Maybe it's a credit to our very good city staff and their efficiency, but I never found that the main building is an overflowing beehive of activity. The Parks and Recreation headquarters at Central Park is a pleasant, efficient and appropriate place to visit It befits a city with a fine park system. Most of the city employees can contact other parts of the city staff through email and the telephone. They don't need to be in the same building. Distances traveled for face-to-face meetings are minimal. Jamming all employees in the same physical location to improve communications is an antiquated idea and downright silly in a mid-sized town.
This proposition was cooked up years ago by earlier councils that thought of nothing but expansion and rarely saw a tax dollar that they didn't want to spend. Somehow it has taken on a life of its own. I'm sure that at least one councilman imagined his or her name immortalized and emblazoned on the inevitable brass plaque that would be displayed prominently at the entrance of the new structure.
It seems wasteful to dispense of current structures that are perfectly good and useful to fulfill someone's misplaced idea of efficiency. It's an idea that seems to have come from some focus group that developed an "edifice complex." It is out of step with the desires of the permanent residents and actual needs. People have a right to question why population growth should result in an increase in the tax rate. Shouldn't all this growth pay for itself? That's what we've been told for years.
If we absolutely must spend more taxpayer's money, then spend it on something useful like parks, police and fixing potholes.
Ask those who served on the CIP committee. They can tell you that Terry Childers pulled this item from the committee's list of items to consider when the first meeting showed a total lack of support among the members.
At that point, Terry, at direction of council, removed this item from the committee's list and instead told members that it would be brought forward to voters as a separate item, seeking its own voter-approved funding.
So the committee had nothing whatsoever to do with the inclusion of this item on the November ballot.
Finally, people need to realize that this one "Taj Mahal" proposal will require a ten percent increase in our property tax bill, on top of the 9% increase in electric rates and the conservation rate structure that is proposed for water use.
There are documents on the city website, (sorry I don't have the URL) that detail the cost breakdown and show that more than 20% of the budget is for non-essential items such as a water feature.
Thanks for your comments Jack. Even the CIP committee tried to bury it. Kudos to the CIP.
It now appears that this bad idea has taken on a life of its own without any apparent citizen support. If, by some accident, this proposal gets passed it will be because the taxpayers haven't been following the issue.
The people of College Station have made it clear that they are prepared to pay for “non-essentials” such as fountains and public art. These are investments in the value of our community. Also, under the right circumstances, I would support an increase in our relatively low tax rate. I am just not willing to support an undeveloped and inherently flawed idea – what is being put forth does not meet the minimum criteria to be called a plan.
The problem is that the people of College Station generally support their city at the ballot and many see voting for this proposition as a show of support, without regard for its merits. Arguments against funding “non-essentials” will drive many to support this proposition based on the larger principle of being willing to invest in our community. If this proposition is to be defeated it must be done with state recognition of the problem of inadequate space at city hall. Most people in College station do not think that it is appropriate that most city council meetings require overflow seating outside of the chambers. Most people recognize that staff is very cramped. If the argument is that we do not need to solve these problems, most voters in College Station will vote for an ill-conceived new building in the middle of nothing.
I believe in investing in our community. I believe that our city staff deserves better working conditions than what they are currently crammed into. I believe that it is important to have large welcoming Council chambers that encourage citizens to pay attention to what is going on. Unfortunately, proposition 6 is a bad solution to these things.
Post a Comment