so continental is now "the bridge to nowhere"Originally Posted by boozo
A little hard to tell from the image but the Continental Bridge is officially separated from Singleton Blvd. The overpass that used to go over Beckley has been dismantled.
so continental is now "the bridge to nowhere"Originally Posted by boozo
Temporarily...soon it will be the "bridge park to nowhere"...Originally Posted by OC Dweller
"...Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
YES!Originally Posted by jsoto3
Hmm bridges, tollways, and levees oh my. The Trinty River Project is continuing to loose it's big ticket projects, we are not surprised. Well at least some of smaller more acceptable projects can and are getting done. The recreational projects that at least make the Trinity valley a slight bit more valuable to it's citizens use compared to the past. Well except for the whole damaging the levees and not really wanting to admit there is a problem thing.
I would be fine without another Calatrava if it ends up that way I'd rather see other Trinity projects get more focus from the city staff anyway.
because it should not be job or the responsibility of the federal government to fund the beautification projects of any single cityOriginally Posted by Rangers100
that is why our country is in the world of hurt it is in now
if this project is so important to dallas then the people of dallas can all reach in their pockets and pull out a 5 dollar bill and pay of it themselves
actually I am a conservative there is a differenceOriginally Posted by Phillip
true I often end up voting Republican, but that is because there has never been a democrat in my time of being able to vote that did not see a need for more government and more government spending along with it for nearly every issue
that does not mean that I agree with 100% of what the Republicans do, but they are just the best overall choice...because even if you need to do something and you do nothing.....that is still vastly better than doing something even worse and spending a ton of money on it and then when the failure is obvious......you answer with more government and more government spending because that is the answer to all failings of government.....that not enough money was spent initially....when often the government and especially the federal government never should have been involved in the first place
This is good news. Is there an actual effort to raise money from regular citizens? How do you think people in Oak Cliff raise money for murals and such? One could do this, albeit on a much larger scale.
I'm philosophically conservative as well. Value in traditions and experience, negation of ideologies, etc. Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, etc.Originally Posted by TexasVines
Modern conservatism was born out of an opposition to radicalism. Consistent application of that requires an opposition to right-wing radicalism just as strong as one's opposition to left-wing radicalism. (Bill Buckley fought the Birch Society just as strongly as he fought Socialism and Marxism, for example.)
This is all to say that our current government system regularly funds local and regional projects. We can debate which of those it should fund, but to oppose all funding of such projects is simply being ideological. It is to say that the system should be radically changed to something it currently isn't and that anything short of that should be opposed.
I am sure there are good arguments against additional federal funding of the Trinity bridges. But those arguments would include specifics related to the relevant finances, alternative funding options, value of the bridges, etc. Not ideological denunciations of all federal government funding. A conservative should recognize this.
Quick question. Isn't the Margaret McDermott Bridge considered to be an infrastructure improvement? If so then why is ear marking a key element such as this project considered bad, due to the fact that we will need a bigger and improved bridge in the near future?
With 30 west of the River expanded to a good size, and the 35 project and the eventual Project Pegasus happening why can we not support the funding for a project like this, instead of getting behind the 8-ball, like so many other public works projects do? It will create jobs and do the other B.S. that helps sell the Trinity River Project. So essentially why is it considered bad?
The problem is that the state has the money for a new bridge across the river which is what we need. What the earmark is for is to help pay for a Calatrava bridge which is purely for the name and recognition aspect that comes with using a international known designer. That's the problem with the earmark its extra bloat that's just too much money for very little benefit to many peoples way of thinking in this economy.Originally Posted by Speedbump Joey
It will be fascinating to see how Leppert positions himself as a conservative candidate for Senator, given his stewardship (or lack thereof) of the Trinity River Project. I am simply astounded that after 13 years of planning since the original bond election was approved, that we would still have a totally unworkable plan, no idea how much it will ultimately cost with a persistent lack of funding for the components we do understand. I still can't figure out why 60 Minutes hasn't done a story on it yet.
Ironically, the screwed up plan will prevent philanthropists from getting behind the project. People don't get rich by throwing their money away. You've got to untangle the plan if you want to enable funding.
Leaders are supposed to confront issues and drive resolution. The days where the feds could funnel cash in to the project are now long gone and will not return for the foreseeable future. I hope the next mayor takes the bull by the horns and drives some decisions that actually make sense. As a person who really wants to see Dallas move forward, it irritates me to no end to bear witness to this astonishing level of municipal incompetence.
part of the problem right hereOriginally Posted by BigD5349
there is no infrastructure project that will "move dallas forward" especially the Trinity River project
massive public works projects, especially poorly planned ones, is not what the USA is lacking
Ok, i know i should not respond to this but i can't help it. I would say i am a conservative Independent and fully acknowledge that both sides say things that make me wince. I just don't see how the Republicans have a conservative leg to stand on after the last 10+ years of voting record. The unfunded liabilities for the Medicare Part D that they voted in alone should bar them from using the word Conservative and Republican in the same sentence. Never mind that they not only did not renew Pay as you go while they were in control of Congress they refused to vote for it when the Democrats were in charge.Originally Posted by TexasVines
Ok i feel better... sorry to high jack the conversation... i will end with something more on topic.
I too was against the extra cost of the Calatrava(sp?) bridges until i read that they will actually last about twice as long as a normal Texas Department of Transportation Bridge When you do the math that puts the bridge on a much better standing.
Having said that i too wish the City would start to focus on the other parts of the park like making the river have natural bends and the bike trails.
Still in the next 3 years we will see the Hunt-Hill bridge finished, Continental park/Bridge finished, Kayak standing wave finished with little bike path and the bike path connecting to the Audubon center greatly connected and extended.
The hard part for me about our new reality as a nation and city is that we are not the economic engine we once were and we finally realize that. The last time we really built infrastructure was in the 1950's with the Interstate Highway system. All you have to do is watch tv shows that show other large cities around the world to realize how behind we are starting to look. Give it 10 more years and we will start to look like the eastern European countries did after the fall of the Berlin Wall (think Detroit today). I will miss seeing all of the new and exciting projects getting built around the world while we are static. At least Texas and Dallas are the last outpost of activity but even that will start to flicker out unfortunately. All empires fall. Happy Monday.
^ Hopefully there will be no response to that (flaming bag of #@%*) statement.
A long term ban on government projects labeled "earmarks" is as wise an effort to stabilize the economy as was President Nixon's Wage and Price Control plan in the early 70s --- that is, a persistent earmark ban will be a complete failure and will weaken the economy.
The Tea Party movement is not a vital evolution of our political system, but it is a dramatic tag-line in American history. The ignorance of many American voters is exposed through the popularity of ambiguous "Tea Party" mandates, and sets up a killing field for unscrupulous politicians.
The grand irony is how many Republicans have duped the public into believing the Tea Party movement echoes Republican cornerstone values. Perpetuating the stereotypes that modern-day Republicans work to shrink the scale of the government may be the biggest scam in the history of the politics.
The elimination of billion of dollars in government spending works against investment of the hundreds of billions of dollars which prevented a total collapse of the world's banking industry.
If a Federal Government contribution of $80 million will make a $200 million bridge last twice as long, that's a fantastic ROI. The bridge that would last twice as long will also be more appealing, too; while it's next to impossible to put a dollar value on the aesthetics of public works, there's no doubt that a better looking bridge will make people feel better.Originally Posted by gshelton91
and spending billions of government dollars you don't have while borrowing it on short term interest rates that will have to go up as you borrow more (because the more you borrow against revenues you will never have the higher the risk goes for the lender which requires higher returns on the investment) until your rate of borrowing and the cost to borrow collapse your governmentOriginally Posted by tamtagon
stupid public works projects at a time when a large portion of your population is too stupid or too lazy to be able to participate in any part actually producing something is not an answer
you clearly have no grasp of basic economics
the government is the least efficient spender of dollars period.....that is why a city is building parks over a freeway that it does not even have the money to complete while at the same time it can't even support the existing parks in the city and it is trying all it can to sell off park land or to reduce park services
and that is why we have regular old bridges all over the USA that are or are about to collapse while at the same time spending money on fancy bridges to areas where nothing exist and no one wants to go
and only a total and complete dunce would believe believe these bridges will last longer than a regular bridge because anyone but a dunce knows all the extra part is only art work and it is not structural....which means it will do nothing for the life of the bridge.....and it will cost more to maintain.....while dallas and the rest of the USA have plenty of existing things that need maintenance
and how does the elimination of government spending cost billions more in "lost investment"
if the idea was so damn good it would be able to stand on it's own without the needed government investment.....the idea that the government needs to invest in it is for SAPS......which is why dallas is subsidizing a bunch of people to live in high rises downtown and downtown is still a failure.....because it was a poor investment on the backs of wasted government funding filled with promises of dollars to flow after....that of course never developed.......because only SAP would invest down there without first fleecing the tax payers.....and right now the tax payers are broke
because stupid people think that government works projects on sporadic BS is how to build an economy instead of actually producing something
parks over freeways, fancy bridges to nothing, tax payer hotels, downtown condos, victory park condos, museum district condos, sports arenas, wave pools in a toilet....hell the one thing that might have brought a FEW jobs the ski park in a toilet was run out of town by the homeless plantation minders at DHA....because if the dependent get jobs what will the worthless turds at DHA do for work?
these are not economic developments for the long term....they are the short sighted stupidity of idiots.....most if not all of them will produce nothing and most likely end up being tax burdens in the long run......in a city that can't maintain what it has.......because the producers in society moved away from the foolishness and the subsidization of the lazy and ignorant and the developers that make money off their elected officials
you're an engineer?Originally Posted by TexasVines
one does not need to be an engineer to look at concrete supports for bridge decking that looks like every other concrete support for bridge decking on earth to know that there is nothing significantly special about the calatrlavrallarl bridgesOriginally Posted by tamtagon
and since you ask
in reference to your above projections of government spending leading to billions more in private spending.....are you an economist?
and I would guess the answers to the problems here in the USA according to several recent posters in this thread would be for every city and town to build a fancy bridge, a park over a freeway, subsidize some high rise condos where no one wants to live, build a convention center if they don't have one, and a hotel to go with it, and a turd wave......and as long as a large part of the spending was federal dollars the USA would be in great shape and right back to prosperity
just all living the life in our high rise condos, kayaking in a sewer, chilling at the parks, and flying around to conventions.....I guess about building more parks, bridges, turd pools, and convention centers
maybe if we get big time we can get a casino in every Cstore and then we would all be living large!
Humans are affected by their environment. People want to be in a place that looks nice. Dallas doesn't have a lot of natural beauty - and what IS beautiful about the natural landscape in this area is ruined when you put any kind of development on it. Therefore, if we want our city to look nice, we have to do so with architecture and landscaping.
Investing in the aesthetics of our city is NOT a waste of money. Bridges on the scale of these are going to be visible from points throughout the city. They will become part of the view that we all see on a daily basis. While their may be some curmudgeons who can't stand they way they look, I think the vast majority will see them as beautiful, and perhaps even inspiring. While I'm not naive enough to think that these bridges alone will make businesses want to relocate to Dallas, I do think that they will become part of the total package of Dallas that will lure them here.
The Brooklyn Bridge didn't have to be beautiful, but it is. The Golden Gate didn't have to be beautiful, but it is. The same goes for Sydney Harbor Bridge, the Tower Bridge, the Ponte Vecchio, the Ponte Rialto, the Arlington bridge, Hammersmith Bridge, and on and on. Making them so cost more than a "regular" bridge. While you can argue that the bridges over the Trinity will never have the cache of those famous bridges, the fact is that they (or possibly just the one) WILL be an iconic landmark for Dallas. There is not another one exactly like it anywhere in the world.
You know dude you could be a little more civil and a little less dramatic and people might listen to you more.Originally Posted by TexasVines
plainly the difference between the Calatrava Bridge and the standard TexDOT Bridge is that one is made of Steel the other is all concrete prefab beams. The article I read was saying that the Steel part of the bridge will last longer (think Golden Gate Bridge) not the concrete part of the bridge. I have a fairly decent education and job so until you get to know me don’t be calling me a dunce.
That's fine, but we in Dallas should then pay for it. Having other people that will never see it pay for it is wrong. It was maybe ok when the US had money, but we don't.Originally Posted by fabuloCITY
I'll avoid discussion on maintenance/life extension since I don't know and also wonder why US should make this bridge any more rugged than other bridges being built. We are not special enough to deserve a boost when other needs simply won't be met. It's that simple.
"...doing something even worse and spending a ton of money on it and then when the failure is obvious..."Originally Posted by TexasVines
You mean like the Iraq War? You might not agree with 100% of what the Republicans do, but it sounds like from what you've wrote that you ought to be very opposed to the Republicans' ways, because they supported wasting all our taxpayer dollars for a war without a purpose.
But maybe you felt that the war was necessary and was a wise spending of taxpayer money. (I would highly disagree with you there, but to each his own...though I might add that believing that spending money on the war was justified is not conservative at all, and you had classified yourself as conservative.)
What you need to realize is that if you consider military defense (or rather, offense) a good use of government money, that's no different from how many of us feel that public works and infrastructure (like these landmark bridges) are good uses of our taxpayer money. Many of us probably believe that tangible improvements in our city are a much wiser use of government money than fighting wars we cannot win and that show little result for the money we pump into them. Seeing a nice park, recreational area, or bridge in our city (all three of which can increase the amount of tourism dollars here) costs a fraction of what it takes to go to war and stabilize a foreign country. Wouldn't it be nicer if some of that money was benefiting us here at home?
so you equally disagree with the idea put forth by obama and the left that Iran and North Korea are a threat as well?Originally Posted by Phillip
did you also disagree with algore when he said Iraq was the biggest threat to global peace and that sadam was doing everything in his power to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction
if sadam was still in power now I suppose you think he would be sitting idly by investing all his new found oil wealth in the best interest of his country while ignoring what was going on in Iran and North Korea
I suppose kadafi would have still handed over his at the time unknown WMD program information and infrastructure and if he had not handed that over after seeing what happened to sadam he would just be sitting idly by while watching what is happening in algeria and tunesia much less what is going on in Iran and what would be going on in Iraq
must be nice to be so naive as you
much less the fact that your counter point to a bridge that has taken 12 years since conception to completion is to bring up the iraq war.....great non-sequitur there especially since you must have missed the part of government class when national defense was specifically outlined as a federal government job with no mention of art projects for bridges
and you also must not have been alive when 82 dim congressmen and 29 dim senators voted for the Iraq war resolution....including algore and the ketchup gigolo
overall great points though
PS didn't obongo just take credit for success after he successfully followed the George Bush plan for Iraq after taking office and promising "change"
I suppose all these facts have passed you over while you clutch at straws and make strawman arguments
I have met transgendered socialist that I believe were more conservative than you...just sayingOriginally Posted by gshelton91
I'm not the one here who is claiming to be part of any political party. You assume I'm this and that without even knowing. I voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean I've been happy with his performance. For many people, including me, he's been too much of a neo-conservative, which is why his approval ratings have not been very high. I think Al Gore is a dunce, and yet you assume that I agreed with him about Iraq/Saddam. You need to stop assuming things and get off your dogmatic high-horse. Not everyone thinks in extremes like you...many of us have opinions that vary from issue to issue, which is why there are so many independent voters out there. We're not all doctrinaires for a political position or party like you are.Originally Posted by TexasVines
I agree that national defense is a part of the federal government's job. I do not believe, however, that national OFFENSE is a part of the federal government's job. The Iraq War was a preemptive offensive war, not a defensive one. American wasn't under threat from Saddam, and regardless, the military is still a big sucker of our taxpayer dollars. You're hypocritical if you're anti-tax but support endless throwing away of your money for wars that we'll never win. We could build a one signature bridge a day over the Trinity River with the money it costs to fund a single day at war, and the money from just a week and a half at war could have paid for the entire DART Orange Line."...especially since you must have missed the part of government class when national defense was specifically outlined as a federal government job with no mention of art projects for bridges..."
so again you see no threat from Iran or North Korea as well?Originally Posted by Phillip
and you were the one that immediately assumed I was for the iraq war so why would I not assume you were against it
you had nothing to bring to the table in the debate about why the federal government should be paying for local art projects so you reached for the nearest liberal strawman the Iraq war or something George Bush did
then when called about about the views of many known leftist on Iraq and the threat they posed to global peace you quickly crawdad back from that argument
yet you again toss it out at the end of your post
at least you are consistent on not having an actual idea or a point.....and sadly that is not "independent" as many want to claim it is just spineless and lacking the desire to actually hold a position and then defend it with ideas
here are ideas that are independent
I was for the Iraq war.....but I thought the USA should have just brutalized them into submission right from the start because the Iraqis were too beaten down to fight for themselves
I think obama is a fool on Iran.....I feel they are a threat, but their actual citizens are in the position to take down their government if they know they will have the support.....obongo does not have the balls to offer that support
North Korea would be won easily by flying a few hundred thousand MREs with .9mms and plenty of ammo attached to them and parachuting them from way way up high all over the peninsula
I am against gay marriage......but I am against government sponsored heterosexual marriage as well......I think people should have to have a prenup or a contract and they, them and their friends, them and their pets, or any combination of the above can contractually obligate them to themselves how ever they wish
those that get MARRIED in a CHURCH or other house of worship would either have the same government contract or they would be 50/50 upon any divorce......taking any type of marriage or relationship contractual obligation to court upon splitting up would be massively expensive......to the point that those that can't separate their personal relationships without the expense of our court system would feel financial pain.......rich or poor it would COST
I would make all workplace benefits be equalized on a dolar basket and then a market basket of benefits (if any) offered by employers.....so if a hetero couple with 12 kids wants them all on the company health plan it would be equalized for the single person with no kids with extra pay, days off, stock, insurance for their pets or any other method
I am against gay adoption.....if you are BORN gay then you should also be mature enough to know you were BORN TO NOT BE A PARENT because you were BORN with a propensity to form relationships that DO NOT PRODUCE OFFSPRING......if you are GAY and still desire to have kids even though you form relationships that are not capable of producing kids.....I question the whole born gay thing, but to be honest I really don't care.....most gay people I know are not the kind out trying to have the right to wear a thong and a green boa in a St Pats day parade and they are intelligent enough to understand life is not "fair" and there is a reason for marriage and for benefits to come from that.....I would not make any changes to gay adoptions as it is now because most of the confused gay dolts that are adopting currently are better parents than most kids have now....the overall goal of course would be less feral kids from less feral breeders and less need to place those kids with anyone much less the confusing situation of "two dads" which is just ignorant
I would 100% END foreign adoptions.....modanna and angiie and brad and the other wannabe colonialist can MOVE TO THAT SHITHOLE instead of moving ONE of them here where they will be culturally lost....not to mention they do it for purely childish and selfish reasons.....we have plenty of need right here in the USA no need to import more especially since it is always under questionable circumstances
I would do away with the child tax deduction.....I like kids I think we need a fresh generation, but what I like more than that is kids that are born to PARENTS that CAN AFFORD TO HAVE KIDS
I would do away with all charitable tax deductions including religion.......if you want to donate to PETA, HSUS, a mosque, or some socialist or communist think tank then you can do it on the backs of your own income not the USA tax payer.....the only way to get that through is to go ahead and do it for all charities....I have FAITH that the types of things I support would survive and thrive.....much of what I am against I have FAITH would rot and starve to oblivion where it belongs
I am for legalization of all drugs.....but I am for drug and alcohol testing for anyone on any type of government aid (government aid being what is traditionally known as welfare, section 8, or food stamps it would not include unemployment assistance or financial aid for college both of which would be overhauled)
I believe the EPA needs to be cut 50%
I believe the department of education needs to be closed down
I believe if we are going to feed kids for the majority of their meals at schools then we should end food stamps 100% and set up feeding stations at schools for KIDS......adults would have other places to show up to to get fed after performing hard physical labor
I think people that have drug issues should not be in prisons with thieves, murders, rapist, and car stealers
they should be in HIGHLY managed residential environments that are almost like military boot camp with SLIGHTLY more freedoms for SOME that have PROVEN they are trying to walk the straight and narrow
morning exercise, cooking their own meals, cleaning up for themselves and then either going to work or going out into the community to WORK by picking up trash, mowing weeds scrubbing "art" off walls and power boxes and then returning for GED training and then possibly job skills
they would not be able to leave after sun down unless for work and if they were outside after that time they would not be allowed in until sun up and immediately drug and alcohol tested.....if clean they would be ask to explain and go from there....if they fail it would be to a low level non-violent offenders jail for a period of time and then back to square one
we need many many more high quality long term orphanages......we need to spay or neuter feral breeding "parents or jail them until all their kids are over the age of 18
I am for sending ALL illegals back home PERIOD.....then I am for a ROTATION of workers for 9 months at a time for LOW SKILL labor and then they can return home until they make the top of the list again
their families would STAY HOME IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY.....the workers would be free to come and go during that 9 month period provided it was not getting in the way of their work
I would do away with HB1 visas period and all other "skilled" worker visas
I would also do away with foreign students in US universities unless there was CLEAR open space and I would put a federal tax on foreign students
I would no longer train them in technology, physics, math, or basic sciences.....it would be education and agriculture only and possibly some medical training.....skills they can TAKE BACK HOME to THEIR COUNTRY and help it stop being such a third world pile of crap instead of coming here on their government dollars on their families wealth (please don't be dumb enough to think that foreign students come here from poverty it is a LIE) and then they stay and compete with American workers while their country stays and ass backwards dump
I would cut all foreign aid even to Israel
I would chop the defense budget 20%
I would bring 100% of US troops home from Japan, 25% from Korea, I would move 20% of what is in Europe to Poland and the rest would return home
from there I would look for another 10% cut in years to come
I would end social security for those under 40 and phase it out for those over
I would cut the congressional budget 30% and maybe more.....same with the Whitehouse
department of energy would be cut 50%
I would open up all federal lands to mineral explorations
I would implement loser pays in court cases
I would have medical tort reform on a massive scale
I would have AG subsidies on a scaled basis and I would probably stop subsidizing crop insurance
more of our "stored food supply" in good times or times of low prices would consist of properly stored long term staples bought when prices were down and it was plentiful
I would never have an abortion in any relationship I am in, but there are plenty of places in the USA where they should be offered through the drive thru.....and if you come in for a second one you would end up spayed or neutered along with it
again I am sure you will "brand" many of my ideas to suit your lack of a reasoned argument, but the difference is at least I have ideas, they are consistent, and I can support them instead of just tossing out the strawman of the day and then backing off from it when called out on your lack of continuity to the specific topic, your lack of understanding of history or global politics and your inability to have an idea other than spend more money because it is federal or let anyone and everyone do anything they please
again have an IDEA....have a SOLUTION.....HAVE A POINT......take a STAND AND A POSITION
instead of tossing out strawman and clutching at straws and then retreating before tossing back out the same strawman again and again...while claiming some type of independence which is just speak for I have no position or point or ideas
Thank you for the above post.
Now we know who the real dunce is and can happily ignore.
another independent I seeOriginally Posted by utgf
just shovel them the federal dollars on disjointed, unproductive, waste and they will forever be happy even to the point of ignoring anyone with an opinion or idea when it all fails them
who cares how much time or effort (much less money) is wasted on some "badly needed" infrastructure project that should have taken a year or a year and a half to complete instead of nearly a dozen
just as long as someone else pays for it it is all good!
the ignore button.....short for ignorance...by those that can't compete with an answer or idea so they just ignore the realities around them and call for more money, more spending, more waste, and more government
Applying that same logic, then the taxes paid by the citizens of Dallas shouldn't be used to pay for roads in far west Texas because most will never see them. We shouldn't have to pay for upkeep on National Parks and landmarks because (sadly) most will never see them. The fact is that citizens of Dallas pay federal and state taxes. We are all part of the same huge nation, and as such, we may have to help pay for things we'll never see. Some of that money should come back to Dallas in the form of funding for projects.Originally Posted by mjblazin
I completely agree. TVines might actually have some valid points, but after reading a few of his posts, I could not care less about what he has to say. Now I mostly just skip past them. I guess he'll have to learn the hard way that you catch more flies with honey then vinegar.Originally Posted by gshelton91
We should get our share to construct a FUNCTIONAL solution. Other people should not be paying for above average elements. Financially we are at a bare bones situation, nationwide. We don't have the time or money for cute. A Caltrava designed highway bridge is the epitome of non-functional cute. If we as a community valued it, then we should pay for it. Adults have to make choices. I'm not saying it is per se a bad choice. Too many people think we should not have to choose. Let's get a rep to stash some money. That's what children do.Originally Posted by fabuloCITY
^So, imagine you need a new pair of shoes. A pair from a line of mass-produced shoes costs $50, and comes with a 2 year guarantee. A custom shoe designer will make you a pair for $75, and gives you a 4 year guarantee.
Which is the better value?
You don't have nearly enough information about me to make that determination.Originally Posted by TexasVines
And if all your thought/opinions above are based on the same limited information then I am starting to see why you have come the conclusions you have.
Oh, and telling me that your just saying something is redundant. FYI
Originally Posted by utgf
Is the Calatrava Bridge not functional? It is, on more than one level. It functions as a way to get vehicle traffic from one side of the river to the other. Another of its functions, as intended by the designer and by those who contracted him for the design, is something like I described above in post #227. There is also the intention that it will connect a historically blighted and underserved area of the city, and make it more attractive to private development and investment. There is nothing "non-functional" or "cute" about the Calatrava bridge. The function does beyond the mundane task of getting people across the river, so it doesn't make the bridge any less functional.Originally Posted by mjblazin
As for "what children do," it doesn't really seem to apply here. However, since I'm well past childhood and don't have any kids of my own, I will defer to your apparently greater experience on that matter.
We can only afford at the national level mundane functions. If you want more, you pay for it out of your pocket.
Children like to get pretty things and not worry about paying. A Caltrava bridge is a pretty thing. Adults pay their bills. If you don't pay your bills by choice, no matter your age, you're not an adult.
I choose to live in Dallas so I can be blown away by the architecture and the civic projects.Originally Posted by mjblazin
If I just was interested in functional, I'd live in Lubbock.
Let's stay off the children thing. It's not relevant to the topic.Originally Posted by mjblazin
The taxes that tax-paying Dallas citizens pay to the federal government do come out of our pockets. Additionally, some of the funding for the bridge did come from private donations.
I, as a single tax-payer with no dependents pay more than my fair share of taxes, am glad that this bridge is being built in part with money that I pay in taxes. There are things that the government funds that I don't agree with, and there are things that the government funds that you don't agree with. It's part of the compromise of living in a democracy.
/\ You know I think at this point we are arguing semantics. The question that was raised was should the Calatrava bridge be paid for with Earmarks. And I think that is getting confused with should the federal government help pay for a bridge in Dallas at all.
Do I think the rest of the nation gets some utility out of having a bridge cross the trinity – yes
Do I think it should be handled via Earmark – no, It should go through a value analysis like any project.
Is the Calatrava bridge a “Cute” toy or can the cost be justified via the longevity of the structure and the other benefits? -- I don’t know -- That would require an evaluation with more access to facts then what we have.
The City of Dallas, TexDot and the Feds should be making an analytical analysis of what the need is and the value of the bridge. Depending on the ‘facts’ about the value points on the bridge. There may be some unique value that a certain version of the bridge would bring to the Dallas and we should be on the hook to pay for those. But if that generates some added value to our other partners then I see no reason not to sell that to the partners and seek funds from them. Weather they pay or not is another issue and up to their value analysis.
any confirmation if they are going to light it up for the superbowl?Originally Posted by Mballar
Senator Hutchison's letter this AM in the DMN makes it clear that without the additional, 65-70 million from Dallas City, the bridge can't get built as designed. Forget about any more Federal money. As expected.
If this is the path then I expect all of our futures in the USA to look like Detroit does today. Hooray!
Originally Posted by fabuloCITY
Are you sure?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)