Ok a few corrections to your non facts. My property was annexed less than a month ago.
The fire station that moved twenty years ago directly lead to spending (wasting to a large part) >$7MM on station 6. So picking the wrong destination now can cost big in the future. I have no problem with a new station but I want it to not be short sighted like that was and cost us again in the future. I suspect all the problem children with AICP on their bio at COCS are hard at work on the next tax grab. Where station 7 should be be located should not be based on free land for CSISD, it needs to cover the existing and future tax victims. Fire may have knowledge of who planning intends to assimilate but nothing I have seen publicly says that it even was considered in the location planning. Of items in this proposal the fire station is the most justifiable, but only if the future needs completely evaluated.
I am firmly in the government is part of the problem and seldom part of the solution camp.
The last council member I routinely agreed with with Dick Birdwell and I miss North Bardell at city manager.
So we disagree, you think its a good idea to kick soccer players out of Veterans for A&M parking, I don't. You think the higher electric rates in CS are offset by the lower taxes, I don't. You think the staff and council are all benevolent and looking out for the best interest of all the citizens of CS, I don't (at least in some case). I think our basic difference is you assume that all these proposal are well thought out appropriate, I say prove it.
I have lived in Brazos county since 1978, I have seen shenanigans at COCS, Bryan, Brazos County none are immune. Just how me the facts.
So here are my votes:
1: No unless there is a lot of new information and justification why a small number of substations or relocating 911 dispatch (or merging with the county) will not remove or delay the need for a new facility. Also not unless there is clear direction how the old facility would be repurposed or sold.
2: No unless they tell us what they are. I suspect this is to cover only the one about a block from my house at Greens Prairie Trail and FM2154.
3: No unless they enumerate if it will cover the land grabs for a number of years.
4: No unless they are very specific and this is not
5: No pending convincing information
6: Not without details
7: No lived there for years, if adding their calming strategy implemented elsewhere my answer will be absolutely not.
8: Maybe, but they assimilated one in welborn, why not improve it. Or maybe they could build it in conjunction with station 7, all the stations have publicly available conference rooms this one could just be bigger.
9: Not without details
10: nope
11: nope
12 nope (that is the developers job if you ask about adding a park)
13: He11 no. After they ditched weingarten and wallmart because having it there, even though it was exactly in line with the development plan, would force having them to improve and expand roads in the area, no, never, not a chance. Live with it.
14: Spray park, we had this discussion in regard to their stupidity at WP ditch and swamp hole. No
15: No
16: No and do what ever to the existing green spaces so we don't have to have a full time staff member (greenways program manager) and any associated staff that does not operate a shovel and lawn mower.
17: no One is enough (maybe to many if the liability is as bad as I expect)
18: Not until you figure out how to effectively share your joint undertaking at CSMS with the public.
The fire station that moved twenty years ago directly lead to spending (wasting to a large part) >$7MM on station 6. So picking the wrong destination now can cost big in the future. I have no problem with a new station but I want it to not be short sighted like that was and cost us again in the future. I suspect all the problem children with AICP on their bio at COCS are hard at work on the next tax grab. Where station 7 should be be located should not be based on free land for CSISD, it needs to cover the existing and future tax victims. Fire may have knowledge of who planning intends to assimilate but nothing I have seen publicly says that it even was considered in the location planning. Of items in this proposal the fire station is the most justifiable, but only if the future needs completely evaluated.
I am firmly in the government is part of the problem and seldom part of the solution camp.
The last council member I routinely agreed with with Dick Birdwell and I miss North Bardell at city manager.
So we disagree, you think its a good idea to kick soccer players out of Veterans for A&M parking, I don't. You think the higher electric rates in CS are offset by the lower taxes, I don't. You think the staff and council are all benevolent and looking out for the best interest of all the citizens of CS, I don't (at least in some case). I think our basic difference is you assume that all these proposal are well thought out appropriate, I say prove it.
I have lived in Brazos county since 1978, I have seen shenanigans at COCS, Bryan, Brazos County none are immune. Just how me the facts.
So here are my votes:
1: No unless there is a lot of new information and justification why a small number of substations or relocating 911 dispatch (or merging with the county) will not remove or delay the need for a new facility. Also not unless there is clear direction how the old facility would be repurposed or sold.
2: No unless they tell us what they are. I suspect this is to cover only the one about a block from my house at Greens Prairie Trail and FM2154.
3: No unless they enumerate if it will cover the land grabs for a number of years.
4: No unless they are very specific and this is not
5: No pending convincing information
6: Not without details
7: No lived there for years, if adding their calming strategy implemented elsewhere my answer will be absolutely not.
8: Maybe, but they assimilated one in welborn, why not improve it. Or maybe they could build it in conjunction with station 7, all the stations have publicly available conference rooms this one could just be bigger.
9: Not without details
10: nope
11: nope
12 nope (that is the developers job if you ask about adding a park)
13: He11 no. After they ditched weingarten and wallmart because having it there, even though it was exactly in line with the development plan, would force having them to improve and expand roads in the area, no, never, not a chance. Live with it.
14: Spray park, we had this discussion in regard to their stupidity at WP ditch and swamp hole. No
15: No
16: No and do what ever to the existing green spaces so we don't have to have a full time staff member (greenways program manager) and any associated staff that does not operate a shovel and lawn mower.
17: no One is enough (maybe to many if the liability is as bad as I expect)
18: Not until you figure out how to effectively share your joint undertaking at CSMS with the public.