• MerleW,

    Thanks for sharing that analysis. That's a beautifully reasonable argument. It couldn't be said any better. But when has logic & reason been enough to shake a bad idea from their agenda. We can expect a revised justification for the Airline extension to surface if the original UHV angle doesn't pan out. They might say that UHV would like to see development on the Airline extension before they commit to the expansion, so we should build the road to encourage development. (Hmm, I bet the Board of Realtors would love that.) In the same breath, we'll hear that we need to "invest" in downtown to have something for UHV students to do. I submit that before the students are known to arrive, private investment dollars will chase those entertainment opportunities.

    With every insult to my intelligence, it gets harder and harder to feel like a "partner" in the UHV expansion. Until UHV inks a deal, I can commit to no more than building a stop light on 59 at the airport entrance.

    March 31, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.
  • "Putting off other projects to pay for the Airline extension may have to become a priority, Polasek said."

    The city is set to spend now. They can say what they want, but they would spoend this in a drop of a hat, if the general public didn't call BS.

    I spoke with a friend last night and he clarified a few things for me. He does business with UHV regularly, and here are some things he pointed out for all of us to think about before we jump off the deep end on this whole deal(I was one of those ready to jump/ btw)I appreciate his insight.

    UHV will be in their current location for at least a decade. They have a signed agreement with The Victoria College that would cost them large sums of money if VC were to lose students over the next 10 years. If VC was stomping and screaming about this possible move, then it would be time to worry, however VC has said nothing. UHV depends on VC to provide lower level developmental courses, as well as many general ed. classes and professors. VC also provides a library, gymnasium, work out facilities, Auditorium, Science labs, food services, campus police, a bookstore, and many other services that only VC has the current ability to provide. He said that the UH System just doesn't have the extrodinary amount of money it would cost to build a new campus and are encouraged by the prospect of keeping UHV right where it is in its current location. He also said that UHV administration has yet to comment because they realize that they have plenty of room to build right where they are and that VC is such an integral part of what they offer to incoming students. I never knew or thought about many of these issues, but it does make sense. This is further reasons as to why the city needs to calm down and plan for this over maybe a 10 to 20 year period. Cost of construction for a new campus to be built in an alternate location will be exceedingly high and UHV most likely from what they are being told will remain in their current spot for years and years to come.

    March 31, 2010 at 9:59 a.m.
  • Of course Will thinks that! I'm just going by what I saw/heard at the council meeting--8 million spent only if UHV moves that way. As much power as Will 'thinks' he has, I seriously doubt he can sway UH into this agreement anytime soon.

    March 30, 2010 at 5:17 p.m.
  • MerleW, you misunderstood my post. Obviously it's a big ticket item, but it's not something being added to the budget. It's my understanding (based on what was said and Polasek's clarification for the audience) that this project will not go through if UHV doesn't move out that way. It's a commitment to spend the money IF (bold, italicized, underlined) UHV moves there. Check the video.

    With regards to your questions:
    1)I think there's somewhere around 20. What's your point?

    2)In Spring 2009, 548 students attended Face-to-Face classes in Victoria for a total of 2354 semester credit hours. I'm assuming it's more this term. How many of those classes were offered 8-5? I don't know.

    3)You know as well as I do that public universities don't just buy land like that. There's a long process involved. And to clarify, Campaign Victoria has nothing to do with raising money for buildings or's strictly scholarship money.

    None of this really matters though--the whole gist of your original post is that the city is spending 8 million dollars on a road to nowhere. That's not the case. It hasn't been added to the budget, and it won't be unless UH and UHV eventually decide to move to that land. That could be 20 years from now. I agree that the city has been going spend crazy for a while now, but people need to understand the fact that this is not an imminent project.

    I think the way the Advocate worded this story is a bit misleading, and it's causing folks like yourself to get a little out of sorts without researching the full story. I'd urge you to visit the city's website and watch the council meeting.

    March 30, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
  • There's some low-hanging fruit over here:

    March 30, 2010 at 4:45 p.m.
  • I did not have conjugal relations with that woman. I did not have conjugal relations, with that; woman? I did not have conjugal relations; with that, woman!

    I really love the English language to; I bet nobody got the nuances, I bet you!

    March 30, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.
  • longdistantshot, maybe when Janak said "This is a very delicate thing that I believe in. I don't want to do anything that would jeopardize it.", he was referring to his dogmatic version of the truth.

    March 30, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    March 30, 2010 at 1:34 p.m.
  • What about the residents along the planned route expansion? Airline is not a highway from the VC/UHV property. Won't the entire road need to be rebuilt?

    Vote NO on Victoria's Road to Nowhere.

    Make use of Lone Tree Lack of Business Park and give that property to UHV as suggested by some.

    March 29, 2010 at 8:18 p.m.
  • Buhler. Sorry.

    March 29, 2010 at 6:07 p.m.
  • exres--Paco Buehler owns the land. He is going to donate a small portion, but he has many more acres up for sale, **in case it is needed**. Wonder what the price per acre will be?

    March 29, 2010 at 6:05 p.m.
  • I think some of you folks are jumping the gun a bit. This is not another big ticket item added to the budget, it's just a consensus by the council that if and when UHV decides to build out that way that airline gets extended. It's not like they are going to just build a road out there.

    And Merle, where do you get that UHV is a struggling university? Since 2005 enrollment has grown by nearly 70%.

    March 29, 2010 at 4:41 p.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    March 29, 2010 at 3:27 p.m.
  • Before another dollar is spent, I really need to know how in the heck the West High and Junior High schools are using one entrance to get in and out onto one highway!!!! That is a lot of traffic for two schools with one entrance!

    March 29, 2010 at 11:26 a.m.
  • Oops buy the pie; How much do they need, if that is the case?

    March 29, 2010 at 11:14 a.m.
  • I'll pie the pie...but for the sack of the pony, I'll skip the rides. Poor, poor, ponies if someone like me ask for one =(

    March 29, 2010 at 11:14 a.m.
  • I still haven't heard why Hwy 59 is unacceptable as a route to the airport. Geeze, you have to drive right by the entrances!

    Is it too much trouble to pull out of the parking lot at UHV and turn right toward the Houston Highway rather than left toward Airline? Are people too stupid to find their way out there?

    Golly, if this is about convenience, the I'd like to ask the city to cut a new road from my driveway across town to my office. I find it bothersome to make all those turns.

    And I find it completely fascinating that, no matter the issue, somewhere in his life time, our local sage offered up a solution on EVERY ISSUE BROUGHT FORTH! Perhaps that is the biggest problem Victoria has--they haven't been listening to Kenneth Schustereit's advice.

    March 29, 2010 at 9:04 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    March 29, 2010 at 8:36 a.m.