Comments

  • This is section 8 housing, pure and simple. The Mayor issues a veiled threat to vote for the measure or, "use your imagination" as to what may be built there. What would be worse? I believe it's time for a new mayor. I have listened to him speak on several occasions and I'm not impressed. It's time for him to retire and new blood to come in.

    February 26, 2012 at 9:55 p.m.
  • horrible location

    plenty of land west of 87 and the loop why not expand out that way ?

    February 13, 2012 at 5:39 p.m.
  • "The city would have spent no money."

    Maybe the city would spend no money but the tax payer will. Where do you think the subsidy money comes from? The taxpayer of course, it comes from the ever flowing money pit out of Washington. Victoria is not the only city building "low income" housing, every city in the country is doing it.

    Subsidized anything has a tradition of high cost, poorer quality and workmanship and poor management. After it is built, who ends up paying for the management and upkeep? Who determines if an occupant really qualifies for subsidized housing? I seriously doubt any oil patch worker will qualify unless they lie....OK there I go I just lost my point, whatever!

    It comes down to this, why work anymore? H3ll everything is almost free all we have to do is keep the other half busting their butts to pay for all this largess. As an example there is a person I know of way past retirement age collecting Social Security, and unemployment. He can barely scrape by on his military retirement and a $90,000 + income......WTH is that? What it is, it's the path to bankruptcy and default .

    February 13, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    February 13, 2012 at 10:50 a.m.
  • There is a need for affordable housing in Victoria, I don't believe anyone can argue against that.

    With that agreed I don't believe it to be ethical to designate this area in town a "site for community revitalization". This area is growing, is on a major throughfare, has single family homes ranging from $150,000 to over $200,000 in close proximity, has major commercial and retail development and the list goes on and on. How can anyone truthfully designate this area as being in need of community revitalization?

    If a private individual intentionally falsifies an application for government funding, credits, benefits, etc. they are subject to prosecution for fraud. How is it that a government entity can make false statements in support of funding, credits, benefits, etc. and this is an accepted practice?

    If the other two potential resolutions can be supported without having to make untrue statements, go for it. If it requires making false statements to achieve the awarding of the credits this is not in the best interest of Victoria or any other city. We need honesty and integrity in city, state and federal government, not a continued "whats best for me" approach.

    Another concern is how would the establishing of this area as needing revitalization impact other federal funding such as CBDG? If city council decides that an area on Stockbauer in the middle of banking, high end jewelry retail, home furnishings retail and $200K single family residences is eligible for "revitalization" does that impact other areas of the town that really need this from qualifying?

    I would hope that this City Council would act on the side of truth, honesty and integrity and not make false statements in support of this area being designated as being in need of revitalization.

    February 13, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.
  • So what is the average income for those moving in for Eagle Ford Shale or Cat? Are any of them going to qualify? Do we really need a fourth unit like this? How about some affordable housing for regular folks?

    February 12, 2012 at 8:14 a.m.
  • The area on John Stockbauer is indeed a highly sought after area. For the city to classify it as a revitalization area would reduce property values on existing properties not to mention increased traffic in a small area. There are some highly expensive homes in the area and I believe their views should be considered...also "no cost" to the city in basically untrue, because the property in question is valued very high which means future taxes to the city. Ultimately, I believe it would be best to pass on this proposal and let private business take its due course.

    February 11, 2012 at 6:49 p.m.