I’m scratching my head over this article, in which business owners along the proposed North Line GRT route are saying Metro wants to condemn their properties but hasn’t told them about it yet.
About 30 owners and residents attended a news conference at Doneraki Restaurant and Cantina, 2836 Fulton, where several said Metro gave them conflicting information.
“I don’t know what I can do,” said Cesar Rodriguez, who opened Doneraki in 1973. “I thought they would take five or six feet in front and now they say they need all my property.”
Jose Reyes, owner of Uncle Johnny’s Good Cars at 1901 N. Main, said he emigrated from Mexico in 1971, became a U.S. citizen and went to work for a car dealer in the neighborhood. Reyes owns the business now and said he is worried about having to move.
Months ago, Reyes said, Metro told him it only would need the corners of his property, but the final environmental impact statement for the line calls for acquiring the entire property.
Several owners said they had not spoken with Metro recently about its plans but were concerned after seeing their properties listed in the thick environmental statement released Dec. 29 as among those to be acquired.
The statement was a hurdle Metro had to clear to qualify for 50 percent federal funding of the $275 million, 5.4-mile line. On Aug. 23 the Metro board approved the route, from the University of Houston-Downtown to Northline Mall.
Metro spokeswoman Sandra Salazar said the actual number of properties needed will probably be much smaller than the 114 entire parcels and 85 partial ones listed in the document.
She said Metro real estate personnel have contacted all owners of properties that the agency intends to acquire entirely, and all but eight owners of parcels to be acquired in part.
There’s a serious disconnect in here somewhere. Putting aside any possible failure of communications, it doesn’t make any sense for Metro to want to condemn businesses like Doneraki or Uncle Johnny’s. For one thing, doing so would greatly increase the cost of construction as well as the risk of litigation and delays if there’s a dispute over fair market price (both of which happened with the Katy Freeway expansion, by the way), and for another removing such destinations undermines the need for a rail line in the first place. Nobody will take a train that runs along empty streets. Having Doneraki on Fulton Street is a feature for Metro, not an obstacle.
It also stretches credulity to think that Metro would try to sneak something like this past everyone by making such significant changes in the final EIS document without public comment. Yeah, sure, accidents happen, but if that’s what this is, Metro will be digging a pretty deep hole if it doesn’t own up to it and explain itself forthwith. I have a very hard time believing this is the case.
In any event, it should be simple enough to resolve this. Metro says they’ve contacted everyone whose property they intend to condemn, a list which presumably doesn’t include these fellows since they say that haven’t been contacted. Metro can talk to these folks directly, they can state specifically that the businesses represented at that meeting are safe, they can release a full list of eminent domain acquisitions, they can do any number of things to clear things up. Let’s hope they do so.
I believe one of the primary arguments by those opposed is that the buses that travel this route are generally empty anyway. What few citizens who need to get anywhere around this area are more than adequately served.
The Chronic had a writeup about the Northline Mall about a dozen years back. It was designed based on the success of the Gulfgate Mall but never met financial expectations, to put it mildly. Beyond serving the local community, it is not much of a stopping off point.
Lots of homeless folks gather around there, so a rail line might provide a linkup to the other homeless communities further south and vice-versa.
But for those who are barely scraping by, putting a modern rail line through their struggling neighborhoods amounts to little more than their own government [services] flipping the bird at them. Most folks in this area would probably prefer government money spent on maintenance of the existing infrastructure and better law-enforcement.
I’m not sure how you’re arriving at that conclusion, Charles. The residents of that area have been strongly in favor of the rail line construction all along.
I’m not sure how you’re arriving at that conclusion, Charles. The residents of that area have been strongly in favor of the rail line construction all along.
Taking directly from your first link: The 250 people who attended Metro’s second and final public hearing on the plans were equally split among those who want the project to move forward as quickly as possible and those who oppose Metro’s proposals.
Since you claimed to not understand, I thought I would provide you an opposing argument.
“It also stretches credulity to think that Metro would try to sneak something like this past everyone by making such significant changes in the final EIS document without public comment”
you’re either new to town or kidding. METRO has, for 25+ years, vacillated between inept and disingenuous in its dealings with the taxpayers that fund it. the vagueness of the 2003 referendum and the construction failings of the Main St. Red Line are recent examples that the METRO board and Frank Wilson continue to publicly apologize for, even while they continue to withold from the public their complete plans for the University Line (eg: the total distance of planned elevation on any of the 3 so-called final options, the scope and total # of eminent domain takings).
There is a lot the bureaucrats at METRO have not shared with the public. They do rely on the pro-urban rail lemmings to support the “Solutions Phase II” scheme regardless of the harm it causes to the poor, minority, elderly, and handicapped bus transit dependent riders throughout the service area.
Where is the 50% increase in bus service? METRO continues to reduce vital service to the public, and now has begun to generate a “backlash.”
There is a lot the bureaucrats at METRO have not shared with the public. They do rely on the pro-urban rail lemmings to support the “Solutions Phase II” scheme regardless of the harm it causes to the poor, minority, elderly, and handicapped bus transit dependent riders throughout the service area.
Where is the 50% increase in bus service? METRO continues to reduce vital service to the public, and now has begun to generate a “backlash.”
IHB2 wrote: METRO has, for 25+ years, vacillated between inept and disingenuous in its dealings with the taxpayers that fund it.
Fortunately, we’re living in the present rather than the past. Beginning in January 2004, our new Mayor (White) appointed a new METRO board who hired a new (nationally recognized) president of METRO who has since hired a bunch of new talent. All of that seems to be generating tremendous improvements in METRO’s performance.
CTC is working on METRO, TxDOT, HCTRA, the City, and others to support meaningful public involvement in projects. In my experience, METRO is now doing more to engage the public than any transportation agency in town. I don’t know that fierce METRO critics like Tom Bazan (Royko) will ever be satisfied, but I expect that most people are getting their questions answered. I share Chuck’s optimism above.