Jump to content

Orange&White

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    3,109
  • Joined

Posts posted by Orange&White

  1. 1 hour ago, DaggerHorns said:

    Agreed. The housing here won’t be fixed. Ever. Waaay too much chicken fucking.

    When we vote for things like Project Connect, we just make it more expensive but no one cares to understand that this increases both ownership and renting real estate. Pretty cool stuff to vote for. To make matters worse, they didn’t even have the accurate amount it would cost.
     

    I can’t fathom putting together a package for a city of a million people and being a few billion off of the true number.

    It wasn't that they were off by that much. They knew that they were underbudgeting so that the number would look better on a ballot.

    Once it was approved by the voters, there is no repercussion to saying "whoops! sorry. we missed it by a few billion".

  2. Meh...City Managers get fired all of the time. It's part of the job. It is usually because they have been made the scapegoat for something they had nothing to do with, or because there was Council turnover and the new council wanted to hire their own guy.

    I'm not saying this is a good hire or that every CM that gets fired isn't for a good reason. I am simply saying that City Manager's get fired all of the time for a lot of reasons that don't necessarily mean they suck.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 20 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

    Might just be talking out of my ass here but maybe there’s a middle between backing cops that do heinous shit and getting rid of all police.

    The post i quoted and responded to clearly stated that all cops are bad.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    Yes they are.

    A cop beat the fuck out of my father.

    I've had a cop flat-out lie under oath in a case against me.

    And all cops back them up.  All of them.  Always.

    You're mistaking Garza at being bad at his job (actually doing a good job prosecuting cases) with those cops being innocent of wrongdoing.  The fucking cops who killed Ambler killed Ambler.  It was a bad killing.  But the bottom line is, cops want to be able to do EXACTLY what those cops did, with ZERO accountability.  Just medals and thank you's.  Damned right they'd rather go work places like Mississippi, where their superiors cover for them when they shoot people in the fucking face in their own home.  That.  Is.  The.  Problem.

    Let’s get rid of all of them then. Let’s just roll with no police and see what happens. Obviously they are serving no purpose at all right now. So we can save a few hundred million a year and all of Austin will be really happy to be rid of them.

    • Haha 1
  5. 6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    No, but the justice system is (broadly speaking) aware of and somewhat sensitive to the capacity and capability of the prison system to manage. And for what it’s worth, it’s already the biggest provider of mental healthcare in the state, which puts a strain on our ability to incarcerate, rehabilitate, and punish the prison population that isn’t crazy.

    So the guy that is crazy can be locked in prison. That is exactly my point.

    I understand all of those other things you mentioned about ability to incarcerate and that the prisons are the biggest provider of mental health, etc . I know that because those facts have been brought up in this thread, and every other like it, ad nauseum. Again, no one thinks this is ideal or best practice or what the long term solution is.

    But as bad as those things are, they should still not be a deterrent to locking up someone that attacked a person with a machete for no reason.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  6. 11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    @Orange&White when I say there are no good options, it’s because there are no good options. There are also no other options for “right now.” 
    The system we have is working as designed within the real life limits of budget and manpower, at the bottom rung of a declining civilization and a diseased culture. 
    I voted against Garza. I am actively working towards his defeat in November. But the Garza aren’t doing anything differently than their predecessors on this particular issue and people who say otherwise aren’t telling the truth. 
    when you say “this one guy is crazy and should be locked up” I agree. Who should lock him up and whether they will take/have space for him is a different question. The prisons don’t want him, the jail doesn’t want to manage him,  prosecution will never be a priority, and there’s no money to be made getting him square. So it’s intake, stabilize, release, repeat, again and again. 
    The only thing we can do that has any immediate direct impact is support ML&F, because they are they only ones breaking that cycle.

    I wasn't aware that the prisons got a vote or an option on who the courts sentence to prison? Are you saying that the prisons have a right or ability to deny a prisoner that has been convicted to prison time?

  7. 8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


    Maybe that’s because there really aren’t any that can actually be achieved - that’s the rub. We have the system we have, and there is no political will or willingness at the Legislature to change it.
    All kinds of possible solutions. None can be achieved. Want to change things? Change your government. But I suspect you’ll just keep voting for the same old same old.
    We get the government we vote for. We keep voting for “let local law enforcement be our sole mechanism of addressing mental health dangers, and let’s not even give them any real tools to do that.” So that’s what we get.

    I still get it. There are no good options. But that is exactly why I am asking what some of y'all think should be done right now with the violent/aggressive/repeat offenders? Just keep letting them out until some magical cure that everyone agrees on and funds?

    At some point, the most violent repeat offenders have to be locked up to protect society. No one wants that. No one if hoping that is the permanent fix. But RIGHT NOW, in this immediate environment, that is the only option. Repeatedly freeing them to commit progressively more dangerous and violent crimes is ridiculous.

    Anytime there is discussion here of a violent/aggressive/ repeat offender, it seems that it cannot be discussed here in a vacuum of "this one particular guy is fucking crazy and needs to be locked up". It always devolves into the context of trying to solve the entire homeless/mental illness issue in one conversation that goes in endless circles.

     

     

  8. 3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


    It’s not necessarily about what we WANT to do. Local authorities are limited in what they CAN do. We’re not advocating for or excusing dangerous mentally ill people. We’re telling you that the toolbox is limited as hell.

    I know the toolbox is limited, and I understand that, but there are a couple of posters here that do nothing but deride the people who are in favor of locking up the most dangerous people, and then go on to tell the same story of how the system is broke. But they never, ever offer any alternatives or solutions that can actually be achieved.

  9. I’m really curious about the opinions and ideas of what can and should be done, in the current environment and budget constraints, for people who attack random and innocent people with machetes, and destroy a small business owner repeatedly.

    Sure, you can sit and bitch and moan about mental health care and unfit to stand trial, but what do you actually propose be done with the machete guy RIGHT NOW? What do you propose should be done with the guy that repeatedly breaks the window of the exact same establishment, right now? 

    Im not talking about pie in the sky perfect plan with unlimited budget that everyone magically agrees upon. I am talking about today.

    Because some of you seem to be content to just keep letting these obvious dangers to society keep getting let out, knowing damn well they are going to do the same shit again and again.

    Is that it? You are good with the way Garza is handling this right now? Are you fine with the collateral damage now as long as you believe it is going to eventually lead to some kind of reform? 
     

    If the guy was breaking into your house once a month and threatening your family would you feel the same? Or is it because it is a business owner downtown or some rando on a hiking trail that you are fine that they keep getting set free to do shit again?

    Seriously, what are y’all’s recommendation for the immediate problem, within the immediate environment of public opinion, politics and budget?

     

    • Hook 'Em 5
  10. 15 minutes ago, Bevo said:

     

    A mental health facility would work but keeping someone in a mental health facility for life when he is "okay" on medication isn't appropriate in today's society.

    You know what else is not appropriate in today's society? ATTACKING PEOPLE RANDOMLY, WITHOUT PROVOCATION, WITH FUCKING MACHETES.

    I don't give a single fuck if that guy stays in a mental health facility for the rest of his life if it keeps one single other person from being attacked with a machete.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  11. 36 minutes ago, Felix said:

    The Sometimes islands are just the highest points on a big ass stone ridge that was the right bank of the river before it was dammed.  It might make that area of the lake more navigable but to clear any significant amount of material would involve blasting a shit ton of rock once you got down a little ways. You should look at the topographical map of the lake and you'll see what I mean.

    Exactly.

    This gives you a better idea of what "Sometimes Island" really is. And for perspective, that cliff on the left side of that ridge is the deepest point in the lake at about 185' when the lake was full.

    LCRA_1938-1024x813.jpg

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  12. Few things:

    1. There may be more people with straws in the water now, but 4-5 years ago the LCRA dramatically changed the thresh holds that need to be met to supply water downstream to rice farmers and environmental concerns in the estuaries.

    2. The Arbuckle Reservoir in Lane City in Wharton will eventually come online this year after years of delays. It will hold 90k acre feet, which is about 75% of what Austin uses in a year. Obviously it is downstream and cannot be used to provide water for use in Austin, but the idea is that you can use it for the downstream needs and send less out of Buch/Travis to do it. And it collects all of that water that falls south of lake Travis that currently just flows to the Gulf with no benefit.

    3. "Droughts end in floods". I've lived on or near Lake Travis since 1983 and there is definitely a cycle. The lake can be completely filled in three days if the right storm hits at the right place. Think Memorial Day weekend.

    • Hook 'Em 7
  13. Well I guess I’ll find out. I take delivery on Friday.

    A5 45 Sportback. Premium Plus. Blackout package. Convenience package. Air conditioned seats. Black paint, dark brown interior. $3k off msrp and includes 4 yr/50k mile warranty and 4 years of maintenance. It will be on the market at 3 years and 360 days.

    IMG_0016.jpeg

    IMG_0015.jpeg

    IMG_0014.jpeg

    IMG_0013.jpeg

    • Hook 'Em 4
  14. 3 minutes ago, ABSR said:

    Are you saying Nicole is Homophobic?

    Maybe she's just jealous that those victims were getting more dick from attractive men than she was? Now that she's found herself a "boyfriend in Atlanta" she does not feel the need to murder as many gay men?

  15. 5 hours ago, drt said:

    Could it be F16s are finally in theater?

    In my dream, the US is using some sort of super nuke satellite shit to knock ruskie planes from the sky. Something akin to the bullshit super weapon Putin keeps alluding to, but we all know that he is full of shit, and does not have

    . Basically calling his bluff and showing him that we, in fact, have what he is completely making up and we are using it on him in front of the entire world.

    Well, that and a Kiera Knightly, Natalie Portman threesome.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 3
  16. 40 minutes ago, texasdago said:

    See... here's where I screwed up.  I stopped at Southside Market in Elgin on the way back from Houston and I should have just driven my car into the creek for a fatty cut of beef.  I already had a pint of sauce with me.

    Um...that was not beef, it was the last homeless guy that died in that camp. 

    Donner party style.

  17. 16 minutes ago, PvilleStang said:

    Someone with the knowledge, fill me in here.  If an ETJ votes for disannexation, are they required to get a winning percentage of the vote, or do they have to obtain a certain amount of FOR votes in order for the proposal to pass?  E.g. in an ETJ of 1000 registered voters, they need to receive 501 YES votes to proceed, vs a mere 51% of the votes.

    ETJ de-annexations are done at the request of the land owner. So the de-annexations occur on a parcel by parcel basis. It is NOT that the entire ETJ gets to vote for removal and, if the majority vote is for it, then the entire ETJ is dissolved.

    Edit/Clarification: IT CAN be done the way you described. If you live in a subdivision and think that the entire subdivision should be removed from the ETJ, you can submit through the appropriate process and, if you have all of the requirements met, the city will have to have it on the next election and all of your neighbors will have to approve it by majority to have the entire subdivision removed. 

    However, the VAST majority of what is happening now is that a single landowner petitions to remove his property and the City is granting.

    There is a process the city can make the landowner go through to get approved, but it is so costly, time-consuming and so stacked in favor of the land owner that the Cities are simply just granting them their request for de-annexation from the ETJ.

  18. 56 minutes ago, Bolero88 said:

    That's just straight paranoia with nothing to back it up whatsoever. 

    Is it though?

    Remember when the citizens voted to re-instate the camping ban and the City made a map that showed that they would re-locate all of the homeless to the neighborhood parks, even though that was illegal?

    Now, incorrectly counting votes to achieve their outcome is a bit cray cray, but making it difficult to vote for your neighborhood to be de-annexed is exactly the type of petty bullshit the city staff has shown themselves to not be above.

    • Hook 'Em 3
×
×
  • Create New...