Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Not sure how it is taxed but there is a ton of oil out there.

That was the only explanation I could come up with as well, but I also don’t know how it’s taxed.

Posted
5 hours ago, royiv said:

Yeah, I’m trying to figure that one out. It’s more than $200,000 per student that they have enrolled if that number is correct. What the heck is out there that is generating that kind of property tax revenue?

s)

5 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Not sure how it is taxed but there is a ton of oil out there.

 

4 hours ago, royiv said:

That was the only explanation I could come up with as well, but I also don’t know how it’s taxed.

Midland, Pecos, Wink. It's all Permian Basin oil.

Mineral value is added to regular dirt value when it comes to property taxes in Texas, so you get some rinky-dink rural school districts in the Permian Basin with astronomical property tax bases and very few students that have to be educated. That money goes back into statewide coffers in much the same way that Austin ISD has to - just at a different scale.

In the district I attended back in the 1970s-1980s, the boundaries barely reached the city limits. Hell, in parts of town, other districts actually cut into the town proper (still do), which means my district didn't benefit at all from the oil getting pumped out of the ground. We were "property poor," but the district just south of us was based in a town with fewer than 300 people, and they had ALL THE OIL with wall-to-wall carpeting in the high school hallways and an astroturf football field...back in the 1980s. They couldn't spend the money fast enough.

The funding disparities were DRAMATIC before Robin Hood. Shit definitely still needs tweeking/fixing, but the intent at that time was noble because our district boundaries are all kinds of fucked up. San Antonio's very poor Edgewood ISD lawsuit (if I recall correctly) back then was what forced the Texas Supreme Court to declare our property-tax-based system to be unconstitutional because it didn't guarantee even close to an equitable education for all kids.

Personally, I'd do some serious school district consolidation to even things out and then rejigger the formulas once the property tax base disparities were flattened out a little bit after consolidation, but that would never fly politically because suburban districts make out like bandits under the current system.

Where you live in a proximate area shouldn’t dictate whether your kid gets a decent education, especially within a county or metro area, imho. It's kind of dumb to begin with, because what does the value of property in a specific place have to do with funding education, to begin with? I mean, do bigger houses or whatever mean the kids living in them are inherently worth more?

Don't answer that.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Anyone have better ideas on how to spend $101M of taxpayer money?

 

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2025/04/homelessness-strategy-plan-calls-for-101m-in-spending-from-city-partner-groups/

Homelessness strategy plan calls for $101M in spending from city, partner groups

Austin’s Homeless Strategy Office is proposing a funding package totaling just under $101 million for homelessness response efforts in the city’s next budget, with about one-third allocated toward maintaining existing programs, one-third for new city investments, and one-third for initiatives expected to be funded by partner organizations.

The proposed investments broadly break down as follows:

o Roughly $3.8 million for prevention, diversion, and rapid-exit services to keep people housed or quickly rehouse them

o About $5 million for expanded street outreach and encampment management efforts

o Approximately $32.3 million plus capital costs to expand emergency shelter capacity, with a goal to add 550 new shelter beds by 2029

o Nearly $24 million for rapid rehousing programs that connect people to short-term rental assistance and case management

o Around $8 million for ongoing supportive services tied to permanent supportive housing projects already underway

o An anticipated $23 million per year in new spending after 2027 to continue growing the city’s permanent supportive housing inventory through 2034

The presentation emphasized that maintaining the city’s homelessness response at current service levels would require about $22.9 million in addition to new funds to replace expiring federal dollars. City budget officials confirmed that closing that gap on top of addressing a projected $33 million budget shortfall would likely require seeking additional tax revenue through a voter-approved tax rate election that could take place later this year.

 

“Assuming we don’t cut homeless related programs to balance our $33,000,000 deficit, that means we need… about $50 million of new money that we would have to come up for with next year’s budget,” Councilmember Ryan Alter said. “When we’re going to taxpayers, we have to tell them what they’re going to get for that investment. No one’s going to just say, yes. I want to pay more because it feels good. They wanna know, what’s that tangible result? What do they get out of it?”

 

Posted

I wish they'd put together some nice, easy to read graphics, on where all the money is going.  $5.9B annual budget for the city, and homeless services is 1.7% of that.  Curious where that ranks against other services provided by CoA and if there's any oversight planned on any of it.  I feel like we're trying to get rid of ants by spreading around food crumbs as repellant, and keep trying to figure out where we're going wrong.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, crash_davis said:

The presentation emphasized that maintaining the city’s homelessness response at current service levels would require about $22.9 million in addition to new funds to replace expiring federal dollars. City budget officials confirmed that closing that gap on top of addressing a projected $33 million budget shortfall would likely require seeking additional tax revenue through a voter-approved tax rate election that could take place later this year.

Liiving through the last 10 years or so, it seems to me that the more we spend on homelessness:

1. The more homeless we seem to have here in Austin ... when they count it seems to go up.

2. The fewer homeless I see anywhere else in the region ... nice for them because their spending on homeless can go to zero.

3. The more entrenched "homeless spending" becomes in Austin ... meaning more and more orgs and salaries are dependent on homeless spending.

4. The more homeless I see, particularly on streets around the rapid bus line routes.

The Mobile Loaves and Fishes guy seems to have a plan to help.  Everything else seems, just from what I see, to be creating a homeless industry.  I don't see our tax dollars creating solutions to problems, but I may not be looking hard enough.

Posted

My viewpoint on homelessness in Austin has become a bit cynical. First, these people are transient by nature so they are naturally going to gravitate to the areas offering more services. I’m all for spending more money on homelessness but it has to be on a state or national level. One city trying to do more than their neighbors will get a never ending supply of new people and there will never be enough money.

Second, until we have properly funded mental health institutions that include drug rehabilitation, the most at risk population will stay on the streets. There also needs to be a compulsory part when people get to a certain point. I am highly sensitive to civil liberties concerns, but cycling people in and out of jail every 24 hours is no better. We need a plan for the most severe cases first.

Third, where’s the MFing train lines that people voted for? If people are paying ungodly money for something that is being significantly scaled back and delayed, work on that first.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Second, until we have properly funded mental health institutions that include drug rehabilitation, the most at risk population will stay on the streets. There also needs to be a compulsory part when people get to a certain point. I am highly sensitive to civil liberties concerns, but cycling people in and out of jail every 24 hours is no better. We need a plan for the most severe cases first.

This really is the root cause of the vast majority of homelessness. Mix in some domestic abuse, which often has mental health and drug issues intertwined, and you’ve got probably 80% of the homeless population. Until the global we can properly fund mental health and drug rehab, we’re just repeatedly stepping on our dicks.

 

5 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Third, where’s the MFing train lines that people voted for? If people are paying ungodly money for something that is being significantly scaled back and delayed, work on that first.

Coming up on five years of collecting taxes and not a single shovel of dirt has turned. Voters were insane to think that the city and Cap Metro could pull that project off. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Third, where’s the MFing train lines that people voted for? If people are paying ungodly money for something that is being significantly scaled back and delayed, work on that first.

We're probably doing some studies.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Where’s the MFing train lines that people voted for? If people are paying ungodly money for something that is being significantly scaled back and delayed, work on that first.

Austin Transit Partnership issued a timeline last year that has trains running as early as 2033.

I predict they won't get money from the Trump admin.  There was never an unlimited pile of money for transit and Austin is competing with everyone else in the country for slices.  Seems like the Feds are cutting stuff so I would suspect there will be a big reveal where ATP says that they are not getting a federal match for the train, so we are going to have to scale back the scale back ... or increase the tax going to ATP and pay for it ourselves.

San Antonio got a transit project 60% funded but it's bus rapid transit, not rail, and it's an order of magnitude cheaper.

Posted
2 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

Austin Transit Partnership issued a timeline last year that has trains running as early as 2033.

I predict they won't get money from the Trump admin.  There was never an unlimited pile of money for transit and Austin is competing with everyone else in the country for slices.  Seems like the Feds are cutting stuff so I would suspect there will be a big reveal where ATP says that they are not getting a federal match for the train, so we are going to have to scale back the scale back ... or increase the tax going to ATP and pay for it ourselves.

San Antonio got a transit project 60% funded but it's bus rapid transit, not rail, and it's an order of magnitude cheaper.

Add in that costs are going to continue to escalate in the current environment. So another increase in costs, little or no federal funding and Austin is going to end up bringing back the Dillo trolleys for a couple billion dollars.

Posted
Liiving through the last 10 years or so, it seems to me that the more we spend on homelessness:

1. The more homeless we seem to have here in Austin ... when they count it seems to go up.
2. The fewer homeless I see anywhere else in the region ... nice for them because their spending on homeless can go to zero.
3. The more entrenched "homeless spending" becomes in Austin ... meaning more and more orgs and salaries are dependent on homeless spending.
4. The more homeless I see, particularly on streets around the rapid bus line routes.
The Mobile Loaves and Fishes guy seems to have a plan to help.  Everything else seems, just from what I see, to be creating a homeless industry.  I don't see our tax dollars creating solutions to problems, but I may not be looking hard enough.

Homelessness is a nuanced, multifaceted issue with no easy answers. It’s also a regional and national issue. Longterm answers must be done at all levels of government and depends on sound economic, healthcare, education, housing, and criminal justice policies. It’s trending in the opposite direction to say the least. Austin’s strategy to target short-term intervention seems like a sound one.

Next time you walk by the College of Social Work try to not scratch their lambos from all the sweet homeless cash they get.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

Liiving through the last 10 years or so, it seems to me that the more we spend on homelessness:

1. The more homeless we seem to have here in Austin ... when they count it seems to go up.

2. The fewer homeless I see anywhere else in the region ... nice for them because their spending on homeless can go to zero.

3. The more entrenched "homeless spending" becomes in Austin ... meaning more and more orgs and salaries are dependent on homeless spending.

4. The more homeless I see, particularly on streets around the rapid bus line routes.

The Mobile Loaves and Fishes guy seems to have a plan to help.  Everything else seems, just from what I see, to be creating a homeless industry.  I don't see our tax dollars creating solutions to problems, but I may not be looking hard enough.

living through the last 28ish years in this town, i think i might can add some perspective to this post. i also worked for the us census in 2010, so i'm hoping to add some further insight.

when i came to town, we had drag worms. some drag worms were homeless, and some were westlake goth kids. i'm not lying. looking back, i'm not a fan of the nomenclature, but that's what it was. i remember in the late 90s, here in school, there was a bunch of folks selling roses in the south of the river area. i dated a girl down there, and we always went to the movies down off stassney. we always joked that there had to be a "rose king or queen" because they were on every corner selling roses. now i feel like the equivalency is the jesus people selling fuck if i know at every south austin intersection, but it all feels similar.

anyways, austin has always been friendly to homeless folks, mostly because the ethos of this town used to be "i'm about to be homeless unless i achieve this dream." this used to be a homeless person couch-surfing town. i remember being told that when i graduated in 2000, if i didn't leave for houston or dallas or somehwere else, i would be chronically underemployed here in austin. problem is, i met a girl in austin, and i had a ton of mostly younger friends in austin, and i had a liberal arts degree in 2000 when the job market was...eh....i stuck around. then i met a girl from here, and she had deep hispanic roots here, so that's sort of  that, so i stayed. as a result of that, and of a real love for the undercity in a city, i've always kept an eye on counter-culture, graffiti, homeless, and other sorts of lovely austin weirdness.

so, aside from a year in japan that was once well-documented, i've pretty much lived here since the mid-90s. i love this town, and what i love most is the goddamn friendliness. even most of the homeless, compared to other cities all over the globe, are pretty goddamn friendly. so i've never really understood the animosity, aside from it being a pretty white-bread provincial town (west of 35 and north of ben white at least) toward the homeless, as compared to what i've experienced globally.

a lot of that to say, i was unemployed in 2010. the federal government was hiring for the census, which looked interesting, and paid fucking well. our first assignments were to locate, confirm, and prepare to count the homeless in austin. this would determine federal funding for services on a per person basis. this meant engagement, understanding of the local homeless community, where they actually lived, because homeless people aren't usually actually homeless, and a plan to count the local population.

since i don't know how this happened, i cannot assign any sense of blame, but the dictate to count the homeless came down to this:

one night, starting midnight, after engagement with local advocates, police, city leadership, etc, the census did this:

1) count occupied homeless shelter beds. give those people free census t-shirts.

2) send us out, starting from 10pm, to known camps. our jobs, with flouro vests, was to walk into known occupied homeless areas and try to count them by audio (you know, asking them questions, which they are so fucking keen to answer from someone from the government) or by visual after dark. the census requires a certain number of criteria to count a person. as i recall it was 3. i could be any 3 of 7 or something, to include, name, gender, race, blahblah, but if as an enumerator, you got 3, you win. but it all had to be volunteered.

until we got to the homeless where i got real fucking practical and weird. if i went door to door and asked questions, i needed 3 things, and that's a W. with the homeless, we needed like 2 real things. 1 - is that a person? and 2) can you determine gender, race, or something about this person? 

yup. why? because the fucking plan was to count them from 12am to 6am while they were passed out. not in the homeless shelters. that was the easy work. i got the assignment of travelling around known homeless encampments and asking questions, or trying to count comatose people in parks, or asking people to control their dogs, or finding entire communitites of people in the city of austin (and i mean 50+) in areas where you'd never. anyways, there was a big local controversy about the idea of government employees shining flashlights into homeless folks eyes in the most vulnerable part of the night; people got fired, fucking apd ran everyone they knew in camps through local jails, and the homeless didn't get properly counted that night.

tl;dr: sorry, but they are going to be here, whether or not you like it. where you want them? 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

tl;dr: sorry, but they are going to be here, whether or not you like it. where you want them? 

I am fine building safe reasonable housing with food, medical care and support.  Anyone that is in that situation that wants a path out of it should have a path.  Anyone who is not mentally with us should have a path to get help.  It's harder to decide how to help folks that have given up and that is their lifestyle.

I feel that Austin is trying to go it alone without support from the state or support from surrounding communities.  The ask seems to get bigger every year.  I don't see progress.  The current ask is about $100 million per year to support about 6000 homeless.  That is over $16,000 per year per person and it is more than we spend on education per child in this community.  Our suburbs and state need to chip in.

  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

I am fine building safe reasonable housing with food, medical care and support.  Anyone that is in that situation that wants a path out of it should have a path.  Anyone who is not mentally with us should have a path to get help.  It's harder to decide how to help folks that have given up and that is their lifestyle.

I feel that Austin is trying to go it alone without support from the state or support from surrounding communities.  The ask seems to get bigger every year.  I don't see progress.  The current ask is about $100 million per year to support about 6000 homeless.  That is over $16,000 per year per person and it is more than we spend on education per child in this community.  Our suburbs and state need to chip in.

State will never do anything to fix it because they want the problem to exist so they can paint Austin in a bad light.  

I want to figure out the solution but I can tell you I will not be voting for higher taxes to do it.  Enough!?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Trains are stupid at this point.

Any mass transportation system needs to be elevated and not street level fucking up the traffic worse than it already is.

Underground is way too expensive, street level fucks shit up.

An elevated system can have a minimal ground level footprint too meaning it can be built along many of the main roads.

E trains?

Monorail?

Gondolas?

 

Posted

In response to the above about homeless: imo I’ve seen more of them everywhere post covid. I get that Austin has more than some spots but traveling through Houston, SA etc I’ve noticed more across the board. You even see them in the suburbs, which seems like a change. I think it’s pretty obvious it’s a national issue but wtf do I know, other than politically it’s going to be a game of finger pointing as to who should do something about it. 

Posted
16 hours ago, royiv said:

This really is the root cause of the vast majority of homelessness. Mix in some domestic abuse, which often has mental health and drug issues intertwined, and you’ve got probably 80% of the homeless population. Until the global we can properly fund mental health and drug rehab, we’re just repeatedly stepping on our dicks.

 

Coming up on five years of collecting taxes and not a single shovel of dirt has turned. Voters were insane to think that the city and Cap Metro could pull that project off. 

Well, it took the city almost that long to get the Zilker Park kiddie train rolling, then promptly had to shut it down because of a design flaw.

 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, texasdago said:

State will never do anything to fix it because they want the problem to exist so they can paint Austin in a bad light.  

I want to figure out the solution but I can tell you I will not be voting for higher taxes to do it.  Enough!?

Honestly pair it with an additional $500 million per year spending in school infrastructure and a promise to get rid of the sticks in the road and I'm all in...

I know that the school and the city are different taxing authorities with different budgets but I would totally vote for that.

Edited by Texas Jeff
Posted
On 4/29/2025 at 12:48 AM, bolverk said:

s)

 

Midland, Pecos, Wink. It's all Permian Basin oil.

Mineral value is added to regular dirt value when it comes to property taxes in Texas, so you get some rinky-dink rural school districts in the Permian Basin with astronomical property tax bases and very few students that have to be educated. That money goes back into statewide coffers in much the same way that Austin ISD has to - just at a different scale.

In the district I attended back in the 1970s-1980s, the boundaries barely reached the city limits. Hell, in parts of town, other districts actually cut into the town proper (still do), which means my district didn't benefit at all from the oil getting pumped out of the ground. We were "property poor," but the district just south of us was based in a town with fewer than 300 people, and they had ALL THE OIL with wall-to-wall carpeting in the high school hallways and an astroturf football field...back in the 1980s. They couldn't spend the money fast enough.

The funding disparities were DRAMATIC before Robin Hood. Shit definitely still needs tweeking/fixing, but the intent at that time was noble because our district boundaries are all kinds of fucked up. San Antonio's very poor Edgewood ISD lawsuit (if I recall correctly) back then was what forced the Texas Supreme Court to declare our property-tax-based system to be unconstitutional because it didn't guarantee even close to an equitable education for all kids.

Personally, I'd do some serious school district consolidation to even things out and then rejigger the formulas once the property tax base disparities were flattened out a little bit after consolidation, but that would never fly politically because suburban districts make out like bandits under the current system.

Where you live in a proximate area shouldn’t dictate whether your kid gets a decent education, especially within a county or metro area, imho. It's kind of dumb to begin with, because what does the value of property in a specific place have to do with funding education, to begin with? I mean, do bigger houses or whatever mean the kids living in them are inherently worth more?

Don't answer that.

It sucks, and the only way it will change is the same way it changed back in the '90s.  SCOTUS will have to force the state's hand.  There is a zero percent chance the fundagelical voter base in the suburbs will tolerate their politicians taking a single thing away from them, as they are content letting inner city kids wallow in rat infested schools getting a crappy education as somehow, in their minds, they deserve it.   The vast majority have no clue how their happy little suburban districts were built on the backs of Austin taxpayers and at the expense of inner city kids, and will argue over it even when presented with facts.

As for the PB and West Texas in general, I went to a very poor rural school (no oil) that was in a district with places like Seminole (the heart of the current measles outbreak).   They had their own indoor pool, a golf course, modern beautiful buildings, state of the art theater, etc.   All paid for with oil and all in the middle nowhere.   Any time we went there for athletic or academic competitions we always felt like the Clampetts visiting Beverly Hills.  And it was always a long two hour busride back after getting our butts kicked in whatever competition we were there for.  Thanks to recapture, my dinky little school has quadrupled in size and is now drowning in money.   As we do with everything in this country, we overcorrected, and it's really difficult to find an equilibrium after that.  We're just going to overcorrect again with vouchers, but I have to admit I'm intrigued to watch suburbanites finally wake up to what's going on in public education when their schools start losing tons of kids to all of the pop-up Jesus schools that are about to appear.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

It sucks, and the only way it will change is the same way it changed back in the '90s.  SCOTUS will have to force the state's hand.  There is a zero percent chance the fundagelical voter base in the suburbs will tolerate their politicians taking a single thing away from them, as they are content letting inner city kids wallow in rat infested schools getting a crappy education as somehow, in their minds, they deserve it.   The vast majority have no clue how their happy little suburban districts were built on the backs of Austin taxpayers and at the expense of inner city kids, and will argue over it even when presented with facts.

As for the PB and West Texas in general, I went to a very poor rural school (no oil) that was in a district with places like Seminole (the heart of the current measles outbreak).   They had their own indoor pool, a golf course, modern beautiful buildings, state of the art theater, etc.   All paid for with oil and all in the middle nowhere.   Any time we went there for athletic or academic competitions we always felt like the Clampetts visiting Beverly Hills.  And it was always a long two hour busride back after getting our butts kicked in whatever competition we were there for.  Thanks to recapture, my dinky little school has quadrupled in size and is now drowning in money.   As we do with everything in this country, we overcorrected, and it's really difficult to find an equilibrium after that.  We're just going to overcorrect again with vouchers, but I have to admit I'm intrigued to watch suburbanites finally wake up to what's going on in public education when their schools start losing tons of kids to all of the pop-up Jesus schools that are about to appear.

Yeah, we had much the same experience visiting other districts. Our school had to borrow the YMCA's pool for swim meets, and the legend goes that our rickety football stadium was a hand-me-down from another district, which was disassembled and put back together where it is now. Visiting Andrews for away games and inevitably comparing facilities always lead to embarrassment. If I had to guess, it sounds like you were in the Lubbock Cooper district back in the day, when it was a poor cotton-farming area that's now booming and is *the* up-and-coming district up there, with its fancy new second high school. Frenship would also apply, I suppose, depending on your age. I think they just got a second high school, too.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yeah, we had much the same experience visiting other districts. Our school had to borrow the YMCA's pool for swim meets, and the legend goes that our rickety football stadium was a hand-me-down from another district, which was disassembled and put back together where it is now. Visiting Andrews for away games and inevitably comparing facilities always lead to embarrassment. If I had to guess, it sounds like you were in the Lubbock Cooper district back in the day, when it was a poor cotton-farming area that's now booming and is *the* up-and-coming district up there, with its fancy new second high school. Frenship would also apply, I suppose, depending on your age. I think they just got a second high school, too.

It was indeed Cooper, back when it was a backwater.  It's incredible how much has changed. My mom taught at Andrews for a few years, driving down from Lubbock every day.  That would have been the early seventies if my memory is sound.  She ended up at Lubbock-Cooper, so I did too. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Samson's Wig said:

It was indeed Cooper, back when it was a backwater.  It's incredible how much has changed. My mom taught at Andrews for a few years, driving down from Lubbock every day.  That would have been the early seventies if my memory is sound.  She ended up at Lubbock-Cooper, so I did too. 

Got it. My first six years were spent in Seagraves, and my dad's mom lived in Denver City. The rest of my public school years were in Big Spring, and I got my undergrad at Tech. So, I'm pretty familiar with the various dynamics of the area. Despite all flatland appearances, those towns on the Llano Estacado aren't fully homogenous.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Got it. My first six years were spent in Seagraves, and my dad's mom lived in Denver City. The rest of my public school years were in Big Spring, and I got my undergrad at Tech. So, I'm pretty familiar with the various dynamics of the area. Despite all flatland appearances, those towns on the Llano Estacado aren't fully homogenous.

Ah, Seagraves.  I dated a gal from there for a stretch.  She moved to Sundown, and for some reason, that ended things. She probably found a better-looking fella with a nice truck or something.  My dad's family moved from the Goldthwaite area to Brownfield when my grandma was pregnant with him, and the poor guy was born in Hobbs, NM, when they went there for a visit for some unknown reason.  Mom's side is cotton farmers from the south end of Wolfforth.   Both folks went to Tech, and I did as well for undergrad.  Still tons of family growing cotton and raising cattle scattered amongst the communities in that triangle of Lubbock, Big Spring, and Midland/Odessa.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

Ah, Seagraves.  I dated a gal from there for a stretch.  She moved to Sundown, and for some reason, that ended things. She probably found a better-looking fella with a nice truck or something.  My dad's family moved from the Goldthwaite area to Brownfield when my grandma was pregnant with him, and the poor guy was born in Hobbs, NM, when they went there for a visit for some unknown reason.  Mom's side is cotton farmers from the south end of Wolfforth.   Both folks went to Tech, and I did as well for undergrad.  Still tons of family growing cotton and raising cattle scattered amongst the communities in that triangle of Lubbock, Big Spring, and Midland/Odessa.

Funny. My mom grew up on a farm outside of Blanket, and the rest of her family was scattered from the Brownwood/Early metropolis to San Saba, Goldthwaite, and on down to Bertram.

So, anyway, what the fuck is wrong with you, Austin?

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Trains are stupid at this point.

Any mass transportation system needs to be elevated and not street level fucking up the traffic worse than it already is.

Underground is way too expensive, street level fucks shit up.

An elevated system can have a minimal ground level footprint too meaning it can be built along many of the main roads.

E trains?

Monorail?

Gondolas?

 

sylt catapult GIF

Posted (edited)

Going back to the Dobie MS issue...there is another special school board "information only" meeting on Friday to talk about options for Dobie, Webb, and Burnet Middle Schools.  Looks like there are now 3 campuses that need to be fixed immediately.   So, that's 1,800 kids that will need to be absorbed by A/B campuses.  Murchison, prepare your butthole.

 

Edited by CooterBrown

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...