12 Comment

• WR April 12, 2017 at 9:03 am

  Re: Attracting Mellennials

  I find it illuminating that seven of the top ten, including all of the top 6 are Democratic strongholds, or in the case od Denver (#8) a toss up. It is possible that the quality of life is better or just there are more jobs being created in those places to attract them? Something to think about; after all, they are the future.
• JB3 April 12, 2017 at 9:45 am

  Dateline 2025 – Torchy’s building a Torchy’s inside a Torchy’s next to a Torchy’s.
• joel April 12, 2017 at 10:09 am

  @WR, I’d make the case that any city with 1MM+ in population that isn’t a solid D is probably because of gerrymandering (yeah you Dallas).
  .
  It’s probably solely about young folks trying to chase higher salaries which mostly rely on dense job centers. However, I’d also note that dense cities and it’s citizens are more concerned about political policy details, worker rights/protections and reining in corporate powers than the more broad ideological/existential or federal land management discussions that can dominate rural area politics.
  .
  Right now the parties are very much split on which type of politics they prefer to address / cater to so the cities should all be aligned in which they lean.
• Old School April 12, 2017 at 10:24 am

  I get the argument from Gov Abbott and Republicans in the Texas legislature that they do not want municipalities getting ahead of the legislature in regulating things like ride sharing or LGBT rights. The legislature does have an interest in seeing state wide uniformity on these issues.
  But the Texas Legislature expressly authorized local governments (i.e. municipalities) to create their own historic preservation regulations. The legislature basically said “we do not want to deal with this and it would be far better for local authorities to tailor these rules to their constituent’s liking”. So, to now show up decades later and try to impose a one size fits all “Nolan Ryan slept here” version of historic preservation is more than just pandering to Katy area builders who want to plow under the historic districts in Houston. It is a fundamental breach of the trust between municipalities and the Texas legislature. If all of the powers expressly granted to municipalities in the local government code are subject to being suddenly eviscerated by the whim of some suburban state Rep pandering to a small group of supporters. Municipalities invest lots of time and money developing and enforcing local issues and should not have to do so while constantly looking over its shoulder to see whether the Texas Legislature is going to steam roll their efforts.
• joel April 12, 2017 at 11:32 am

  @Old School, we’ve all lived in this state long enough to know how this works. The legislature doesn’t care about the fact that it’s many years/decades behind the needs of their constituents and cities that power this states finances (school finance reform anyone?) and really don’t care about local municipal controls until they start hearing from their overlords (ie corporate lobbyists).
  .
  Though do you have a link where Abbot & cronies actually elucidate their concerns on municipal vs. state governance?
• toasty April 12, 2017 at 12:05 pm

  who wants to bet that the real estate folks are UT alums who were asked to do their former school a solid?
  .
  They just need to let it go. Maybe they could offer to do some kind of team work with UH?
• Old School April 12, 2017 at 1:42 pm

  @Joel: Gov. Abbott actually used to be a pretty smart lawyer before he became a right wing air horn. He has correctly noted that the relationship between the federal government and the states is distinct from the relationship between the state government and local government in Texas because the former is set forth under the constitution and the latter is a creature of the Local Government Code. The constitution reserve all powers not expressly granted to the feds to the states. The local government code gives local government broad police powers, but has no analogous reservation of powers.
• SimplySid April 12, 2017 at 2:06 pm

  The former UT property should be turned into a “cannibus campus”. Bringing universities, growers, medicinal producers, researchers, TMC institutions and for profit start-ups all on the same campus. Hmmm
• slugline April 12, 2017 at 2:19 pm

  Another barbecue joint landing right in the Energy Corridor would be welcome — it’s one dining genre where the game could be stepped up.
• Al April 12, 2017 at 3:11 pm

  JB3: Isn’t that the current story line for Starbucks?
• Scarlet Fever April 13, 2017 at 8:11 am

  @ Old School: You make some great points. Within our state government, we do have a third layer involved – namely, the counties. The state constitution makes the state and municipal government weak while leaving the bulk of powers within the 254 counties. All a throwback to the rural nature of the 1890 Texas constitution.
  .
  The constitutional relationship between the federal government and 50 states is simpler in structure.
• joel April 13, 2017 at 12:12 pm

  @Old School, my complaints are based purely on motive and his intellect and being the envy of every personal injury lawyer in the country is well understood.
  .
  However, hearing people try to use the X amendment as some sort of clear distinction on limits of federal powers, when it’s ambiguity has been well noted in judicial history, gives me concern. It’s the type of thing that leads lawyers to waste $MMs and $MMs of taxpayers money on failed litigation time and again. It leads to asinine comments and beliefs from elected lawmakers like what Pittman is currently being crucified for.
  .
  Not familiar with municipal/state breakdowns but I would certainly expect the worst.