Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Taxpayer, I know you hate it when the government spends money, but with the exception of a couple of expenditures, all of the infrastructure monies being spent in our community have been way overdue. You have talked about leaving Victoria in your younger days. How much had changed since you had been gone?
Jack, perhaps in the beginning it was cheaper to renovate than to build, but I'm pretty sure they could have built a dorm/apartment complex for less than $4 million, or was it more?
I agree Jack. It seemed like Dr. Hudson was too quick. However, it may or may not have had anything to do with lack of support from the UH System. I understand that they were not in favor of the downward expansion and perhaps he felt that it was a now or never situation. If that was indeed the case then I think they could have approached the dorm issue in a different way. Refurbishing a mold infested heap is quicker, and costlier, than building from scratch. It probably would have been cheaper to purchase an apartment complex.
Jack and Hole,
Your comments came in while I was responding to Two Cents. We are following the proposed legislation, of course, and expect to update its status this week.
Hand-picked band of screw-ups? That's a characterization I'd hesitate to use on almost any issue.
I guess it comes down to whether you think those for or against the change have developed their positions for pure-of-heart reasons and/or via fully informed reasoning. This is a squishy place to focus any debate.
A more concrete debate could be centered around the specific reasons listed by the supporters and opponents. We've attempted to list and explore all of those in many different stories.
I think most community residents would be in favor a destination university that attracts many students to live and spend their money here and all of the quality-of-life enhancements that can be found in a college town. Where people disagree is how we get there and perhaps whether it's realistic that we can.
I have many thoughts on the subject, but I won't try to address all of them here.
Perhaps one of the reasons the Tribune started its article that way was from the perception that a rouge satellite campus wants to break away from a university system in a seemingly childish and temper tantrum like manner. Perhaps they came to that perception because of some quotes made by our mayor. Personally I think almost anytime Will opens his mouth he becomes a liability to any project he is in favor of, regardless of whether or not it is a good project or not.
I think the commission is well intentioned, however I think the timing is wrong.
The UH System has little to no respect for Victoria. They see us as a nuisance, but tolerate us because UHV gives close to $3 million back to the system every year. UHV has changed a lot in the past 30 years, some for the better and some not. Overall I think UHV has failed to reach its full potential and I place the majority of the blame the shoulders of the system. It is because of this that I support the efforts to find a new partner.
Given the economic climate and other factors, I don't think the plan was well thought out. It feels like a rush job and that is probably going to come back to bite the commission. I'm not really sure what they thought they would accomplish by rushing this into session this year. It's unlikely that it will even get out of committee. I suppose you could say that they wanted to send a message, but I still think they could have done a better job. For that I blame our Rep., mostly. She should know better. I'm not even a politician but I know you don't propose a bill without securing your votes first. I forget what made her qualified to hold the position in the first place.
Again, I support the idea of leaving the UH System, but poor planning and execution.
Pressing the *LIKE* button on mytwocents' comment.
A fair question. To clarify, our editorial board, not our team, supports the change. I don't know the views of most of our reporters on this issue, and I would suspect most don't care either way.
Our editorial board is made up of our two co-publishers, our two owners, our circulation director and several newsroom editors, including myself. Our board regularly takes a position on many local issues, so it is important that we are mindful of being fair and balanced in our news reporting and keep any opinions limited to the Viewpoints page.
With all of our news reporting, we expect our reporters to look for a variety of sources and consider many different angles to important stories. We discuss any real or perceived conflicts and try to be mindful of them and transparent with our readers. When these issues become significant enough, we might bring them before interdepartmental ethics board for further discussion.
This is a short answer to a big question, so I hope I did it justice. If you or anyone would like to bring this issue before our ethics board, we generally meet at 1 p.m. the first Tuesday of each month. The public is always welcome.
Thanks for the question.
How challenging is it for the Victoria Advocate to report in an unbiased manner on this subject given that the editorial team supports this change? With this being such an important issue - what do you do, as editor, to ensure that all sides of the discussion are equally represented?
You certainly can make the case that most people don't understand a lot of issues, particularly complicated ones. Nonetheless, we aim to inform the community so that people can make up their own minds and get involved such as by writing letters to the editor, writing their elected officials and, of course, voting.
Thanks for the comment.
You do report that a lot of local "groups" support the change,mostly for what appears to me to be mostly economis reasons. BUT as mentioned by a lot of commenters, a lot of the "groups' ahve cross-over membership lists. I would hazard a guess that a large majority of the city/county populace has no feeling one way or the other about this potential change,doesn't understand it fully, and if the truth were known,would hope it would just go away! lol Patrick Barnes
My assertion that the majority does not support this is just that—an assertion. There have been no official polls. There is no data to support that assumption. As to the organizations that have made a public statement of support, let me just say that neither of my City Councilmen called me to see how I felt about the issue. My County Commissioner didn’t, either.
I did watch the City Council meeting where the resolution was drafted and voted on and the wording reflected that this was the wish of the citizens. The only thing we can be sure of is that this is the wish of the 6 of 7 folks voting in favor. The County Commissioners have tabled their resolution without taking a vote. But to continue to promote that this is the wish of the majority is not entirely accurate. The story that included the former regents is about the only anti-switch stuff the Advocate has included.
For the record, it doesn’t matter to me where the home office is. My issue with this switch is in another area.
Yes, it's fine to answer any one or all of the questions I posed. Thanks for participating.
Zero, you seem bothered by the article's use of the word "band" to describe the supporters of the change. Why is that? What word would you prefer? Meanwhile, Edith, you assert that only a small group supports it.
We've reported the change is supported by the Victoria chamber of commerce, the Victoria county commission, the Victoria city council, the Victoria Economic Development Corp. and Victoria's state representative who introduced the bill. You can argue all of these bodies don't represent the wishes of most of the people here. However, all but the VEDC are elected by the people.
I did! I answered this question: "What other thoughts do you have about the article?" Chris Cobler didn't say we had to answer every question you ninny!
every paper has a bias, just like the posters here
EdithAnn never answers the question.
Why start with the comparison between tier one designation by Carnegie and the grumblings of the "influential band"? Because it sets up a stark contrast on the wedge issue of why "the band" would want to leave. And this is a point that the TT article really skirted. If you presume that tier one status is the be-all, end all, of a university system, you probably assume that it floats all of the boats in the system. The TT never fully explicates the issues and concerns of the "the band" that are driving the separation. I don't see a bias issue at all in either the TT or VA treatment of the issue.
What I see when comparing the Texas Tribune/New York Times article to the coverage the Advocate has provided is how differently the folks opposed to the switch are portrayed.
The Victoria Advocate stories would have us believing that all but a few folks are gung-ho in favor of the switch. The TT/NYT article implies the folks pushing for the switch are the smaller group. In that regard, I think the TT/NYT article is the more accurate.
The TT/NYT article did a better job of highlighting the things that have occurred at UHV. The Advocate has not stressed those accomplishments, and that has made the Advocate’s coverage look biased. The TT/NYT coverage is fairly balanced, but it's just one article compared to several.