Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC_Longhorn
Wow, a totally misrepresentation of the proejct... As someone who is familliar with the history, it was a totally inaccurate portrayal of the political issues regarding the highline.... and your use of other over-budget infrastructure projects in NY are not relevant to this discussion and do not strengthen your points any more than reminding us you are a native-Austinite...
The discussion to be had for Austin in particular is choosing how we spend out money... and I'm worried by the tone and political bias that comes through in your posts that you aren't appreciating the need for creative projects to spur creative jobs and preserve Austin's unique position in the states...
For instance, a well-developed district on waller creek in Austin would be a great example where a truly creative planning process might yield incredible dividends for years to come and enhance Austin's values...
|
Fact number one is that NYC budgeted $16 million for "design
and construction" and fact number two is you now say NYC spent $170 million. What appears to have happened (which I'm not saying is a fact, but is a reasonable hypothesis) is the State, Federal, and private contributions didn't meet expectations so the city made-up the difference. Perhaps the budget was $170 million total but they didn't get squat from other sources, or perhaps they got what they originally hoped to get from other sources but costs increased.
Government always low-balls the cost of projects to get the voters on board before reality sets-in. I think an above-ground Waller Creek project is worth doing, especially if it helps pay for the tunnel that will diminish the flooding threat downstream. But the reality is that they've already shortened the tunnel and scrapped a lot of the masonry and landscaping at the tunnel's intake and outlet to try to keep the budget down (but they only want you to remember the pretty project originally proposed). The city's TIF still wasn't enough funding, so they had to get Travis County on board to pay half (with the lure of splitting future casino taxes, I'd imagine). And there's lots of time left for it to become more expensive and less-pretty.
So you don't mistake my "tone and bias" here it is: It isn't government's job to fund "creative projects to spur creative jobs". Governments need to provide services (and reasonable parks and recreation facilities are a needed service) and keep their debt down so businesses will be willing to take a chance on investing their own resources there, knowing that sober, responsible people and institutions (eg: UT) have made the place what it is and likely will continue to be. Or you can champion an end result such as creativity without ever knowing how things get created in the first place; maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll fail. Austin is too important to risk on hope-driven schemes. California is a very creative place, but they've bankrupted themselves by only chasing end results while ignoring the economic climate, then over-reacting with propositions to destroy what they previously demanded. Businesses see the lack of stability and are leaving and taking jobs with them.
Oh, here's an idea! New York has a
city income tax (and state, and federal), even on workers who commute from the hinterland...we should have one of those too! That'll pay for all kinds of creativity and attract lots of high-salary jobs...oh, no it won't...sorry...nevermind.
Prev
Now that is cool!
You were thinking exactly what I was. That view looking up of 360 just doesn't make me think it's 360..
Linear Mode
