Comments

  • I inadvertantly deleted my original post while intending to only delete an incomplete post. I apologize for the error.

    I still contend we need to take care of current infrastructure issues ahead of spending millions on potential tax base increases.

    September 15, 2011 at 7:01 p.m.
  • holein1,

    We can agree to disagree.

    I am not laying blame as that does not accomplish anything. My simple point is, the existing taxpayers (like your parents) deserve to have the existing infrastructure maintained as a priority BEFORE spending millions to annex areas that MAY increase the tax base in the future.

    If annexed, by state law, those new areas HAVE to receive the infrastructure improvements provided by the city. Should the existing taxpayer's dollars be spent in hopes of future tax revenue or should they be spent FIRST to maintain the existing infrastructure at an accelerated pace?

    In my mind the the taxes paid to the city for years and years should first go to maintain the infrastructure associated with the property the taxes were levied against. Let's get caught up on what needs to be done ahead of betting $3.9million on future development.

    September 15, 2011 at 6:15 p.m.
  • Aside from the costs to taxpayers($3.9M), if this annexation goes like others the city have done, property owners get one immediate benefit, if you want to call it that, VPD and VFD service.

    On the negative side, they immediately get to pay city taxes, adhere to city regulations and have to wait about 5 years or so for city water and sewage to reach their property. When city services reach their property, they then have to permit their connection to said services, re- route their water and sewer lines in a way the city approves of and pay a good chunk of money to do so. Prepare to open your wallets landowners, isn't city living great?

    September 15, 2011 at 5:56 p.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    September 15, 2011 at 5:34 p.m.
  • Jeff, I grew up in Castle Hills and my parents still live there. I drive that neighborhood numerous times a month. There a couple of streets that could use a facelift, but I think you're over exaggerating the conditions.

    Yes, there are neighborhoods in town that need street repairs and some need them badly. If you're looking for someone to blame, don't forget to shovel plenty on the city councils that have come before. They were of similar mindset to you with regards to spending and look what it got us. Infrastructure systems that are way outdated, a city works department that is overworked and having to play catch up, a backlog of projects that should have been taken care of the years and years ago.

    September 15, 2011 at 4:07 p.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    September 15, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.
  • and what about the broken infrastructure left behind? What's the city's great plan putting to use all properties along Navarro that are empty. The constitute a blight. Yet for the City of Victoria, there is nothing too good that they can provide for extending utilitiles and providing servies to new projects built up north. Expansion will occur, but the city owes its citizens how remain in the older neighborhoods and the longstanding merchants.

    "On the other hand, when cities grow, more opportunities present themselves for the younger generation. This is one of many reasons for growing a city" Frankly this is simply growth for the sake of growth. It is not responsible to the remainder of the communty. Annexation is NOT supported by a single study. The VA's opinion piece is absolutely vacant here. This quote is typically vacant, "Those new streets and utilities will be built to newer and better standards than those that already exist in Victoria, according to Armstrong. He estimated that the newer standards will prolong the life of the utilities and streets - this means the new ad valorem taxes gained from annexation would help shore up the city's older infrastructure." So what, modern building codes require better building practices .... but conflating that to mean that everyone benefits is poor analysis. The only ones that will benefit are those that receive new services and infrastructure from the city. There is no other effect. Wake up Victoria and realize that you most likely are not going to benefit here.

    September 15, 2011 at 1:25 a.m.
  • Just let me know how far North you plan on grabbing land so I can plan my country estate accordingly.

    Believe it or not, there are people who actually want to live out in the country and away from town. No city taxes and no city BS are a big draw for these people, myself included.

    Keep your city services and your higher taxes. A good septic system and my own water well suit me just fine.

    September 14, 2011 at 8:19 p.m.