Here’s what I wrote in the last e-letter:
“I have not seen a copy of the FONSI yet. It may be that TxDOT made some changes. I doubt it. Remember, their plans had some major discrepancies among them was a safe way to enter and exit Tom Mays Park and a provision for the protection of motorists from collisions with animals by building a safe animal corridor/crossing.”
The good news is that TxDOT did make some changes. El Paso Times reporter, Chris Roberts, summarizes those changes in today’s paper. Read the FONSI itself if you would like. It is good that TxDOT did indeed make provisions for a safe access to the Park and for a place for an animal crossing. Those good ideas for safe access and an animal crossing were proposed to them in 2004 and again in 2008 and it took some noise to make them make changes in their final plans. However, the animal crossing will be constructed west of their Paseo del Norte interchange in an area that could become developed if the 800 acres conservationists wish to set aside isn’t. In other words, animals won’t have a crossing because they won’t go through a human neighborhood. TxDOT did some good things – but let’s talk about the best thing: preserving 800 acres of the Scenic Corridor including moving Paseo del Norte west.
Today’s El Paso Times ran an editorial – Development: Northwest petitioners should ease up. Note to the El Paso Times publishers: Like Hell We Will!
That editorial is so filled with (to be charitable) “misinformation”, that a rebuttal is worth making.
The El Paso Times says: “Growth in the Northwest has been long planned out and the City Council signed off on an official ‘Northwest Plan’ in 2005. It includes open space, hiking and biking trails, and there is a buffer zone between land to be developed and the base of the Franklin Mountains.”
Nobody is talking about all of the land in the NW Plan – just the less than 800 acres of the Scenic Corridor. Plans can be changed and modified and should be. City Council has already called for using Smart Growth for the area – something not in the 2005 Master Plan and certainly something you can expect push back from Archuleta and others. Also, most favoring preserving the 800 acres are for widening Transmountain. The Times publishers suggest that they are not.
Then the Times says this about the land petitioners call for preserving: “It's land owned by the Public Service Board. The PSB says if it can never sell that land, likely portions at a time, it would probably mean a rise in water rates. Selling land it owns, at timely times, has helped keep rates at their present levels, according to Ed Archuleta, who heads El Paso Water Utilities and its various arms.”
Again, to be charitable, this paragraph is packed with misinformation – oh hell – they are down right lies that either the Times publishers ignorantly believe or are themselves complicit in re-telling and spreading.
First, the PSB doesn’t own any land. They can’t by State law. It is City of El Paso land managed by the PSB. They may track that land on different ledgers; but make no mistake, it is El Paso land and the City Council, our elected representatives, have final authority. At the last Open Space Advisory Board meeting, a PSB representative used the misnomer “PSB owned” and I called him on it. He admitted that I was right. The PSB will use this terminology in order to put into the public mind that they, and they alone, can make decisions about City-owned land that they manage. The final decision-maker is City Council – or, more to the point, you the people who elect members of the City Council.
It is also “misinformation” that land sales keep your water rates low. Land sales are about 2% of the revenue of the El Paso Water Utilities. In their favor, it is the policy of water conservation that has kept those rates low. We have gone from 200 gallons of water per day per person several decades ago to 130 gallons of water per day per person today. Sprawl and added infrastructure only mean that the cost of City services are going up and will go up.
What do land sales really mean? A non-free market manner of subsidizing particular developers and builders. A few El Pasoans benefit on the backs of many. I say “particular” developers because I suspect Archuleta is in bed with some on El Paso’s Westside while being antagonistic toward (as are his developer friends) some builders on the east side. The west side has one source of drinkable water: the Mesilla Bolson (a source of water that EPWU’s plans are certain to deplete very quickly.) The east side has the Hueco Bolson, two river plants, a desalination plant, and potentially farm water from counties east of El Paso. Yet, Archuleta will tell you that there are problems with the east side and that the west side should be developed. Of course, better than more sprawl any where is in-fill.
The Times talks about “unstoppable natural growth”. More people and lower water rates cannot cancel the laws of supply and demand. Think less water, much higher rates, the end to more farm land . . . unsustainability. So, EPWU/PSB, go ahead and keep adding water meters (especially in NW El Paso) because natural growth is unstoppable, according to your pals at the El Paso Times. According to those Campbell Street Cronies, we El Pasoans lack the vision to have policies of sustainability and should just continue to subsidize the plans of the few.
As for easing up – should City Council members on September 20 vote down the proposed ordinance of petitioners, then those same petitioners will sign another petition to have the ordinance placed on a ballot for the people of El Paso to decide.
Great report and links. The shallow editorial says much, as does my experience in how the power elite are reflections of their place and are merely formed by it...except for the minority of the power elite who form their place.
ReplyDeleteI think most powers-that-be in EP, Abq, etc have little understanding of linkages *through* their developments, including drainages, trails - human, wildlife. They speak of buffers, but those seem like token, 2 dimensional strips...buzz-phrases. I doubt few can show the whys and hows of a buffer...what to do and what not to do, scales, contexts, etc. That would take a designer, or at least people who get design and are turned on by the land.
And design - the architects do almost all site planning (most so poorly, it defies description). Then, they turn it over to civil engineers who do grading and drainage without regard to the land (so poorly and unimaginatively, it defies all thought). Certainly little preservation of anything of value, always with lame excuses such poor work, as they drive in their late model cars and saying "what pretty mountains we have".
Then my profession is brought in to meet code minimums, for much less in fees.
Then there is time - the more critical a part is in the process, it seems the less time it is given by the power elite and their hired top-of-the-heap consultants...particularly the part involving excellence in thought and design.
I think the key is to reach those in power who do care, and circumvent those in power who do not.
Such a dislike of all architects and engineers. You obviously believe that since Before Christ no architect or engineer has a clue about design. I guess un-trained individuals have much more experience and knowledge of the process. All architects and engineers are required to design according to the ordinances and codes that were made by local city councils, state legislatures and federal government. That said - there's not much left to the imagination after you get finished with the design requirements set forth by governing agencies. The second factor is the client - be they government or private. They pay the bills - they tell you what they can afford. There is no perfect architectural or civil design - there isn't enough money or time in this world to support that perfect design.
ReplyDelete