You can have his name removed – all you have to do is give more than $1.3 million to the university.

See how easy it is?

I’m saying that it should be. That doesn’t mean replacing anyone. It means identifying the four or five issues that keep coming back, and developing more expertise at P&Z and Council.

What I see, is the developer and the neighbors each doing their best to educate and convince the city that their side is right. It sure *looks* like the city is getting most of its information from those two sides, as opposed to drawing on, and offering up, its expertise.

I’d also like to see post mortems on developments that don’t go so well, so that we can build on whatever expertise we have, and make better decisions the next time. For that matter, post mortems on the ones that do go well, would provide valuable information as well. Again, if that has been happening, I’d be very interested to see that data.

So yeah, with an ever growing student population, we do need more student housing….apartments being about the only choice with this town’s un-student-friendly rules on cohabitation.

Aquarena Springs Drive is lined with complexes, there are multiple complexes on Old Ranch Road 12 – plus the new development near the intersection of Old RR 12 and Craddock – multiple complexes near campus, the new complex on Hunter Road, areas with duplexes like Sagewood, and on and on.

While I understand that students do contribute to the local economy – and am glad for that – students aren’t the only people who live in San Marcos. Yes, keeping graduates here entails a whole lot more than is relevant here, but San Marcos isn’t just a “college town” and I’d like to see some development beyond that.

Yes, the university drives the local economy, but it does not mean that student housing should have priority over established neighborhoods. There are adequate and more appropriate sites for this kind of housing. We, the other citizen population of this city, who do LIVE here, and pay our taxes, should have some say as to how our neighborhoods will look and function.

But, we have definitely been threatened to play (retail/residential) or pay (shabby two bedroom student filled housing with no buffer zones). And, the divide and conquer strategy is making its rounds. So much for the Casey who has such respect and concern for this community. Money, honey, is what is driving him.

If I recall correctly, something like 60% of the money the university pumps into Texas, goes outside the city. Something like 50% goes outside of Hays County.

As to why graduates don’t “stay” in San Marcos, I’ll play devil’s advocate, and say that most of them don’t live here to begin with, so they probably stay wherever they are, until a job takes them elsewhere.

In that regard, more student housing *might* be part of the answer, but it is not that simple. Most of the graduates I talk to leave because there are few careers here, and few opportunities for personal or professional growth.

As Dano points out, that’s a whole different discussion.

IMO, there is ample need for student housing, and rental properties for non-students. There is no evidence that there is any corner of town where these properties won’t succeed, so it is difficult to make a case that they need to be right next to campus, particularly in residential neighborhoods. In fact, one could argue that placing them closer to businesses (bars, restaurants, retail, etc.) might do more for the economy, and also might get a lot more cars off the streets.

While I agree with your point about making SM attractive to post-graduate population, I disagree vehemently with the first part of your post.

If not apartments, where do you expect the students to live in their time here? We have a growing – booming, even – student population here that *must* be accommodated. And while it’s true that the students often don’t stay after graduation, there’s a whole new class coming in that also needs a place to stay while they’re here.

San Marcos “caters to the student population so severely” because they drive the local economy. It’s really that simple and it isn’t going to change.

I also don’t believe that housing is the first step toward making SM attractive to a post-graduate population….the job market has to be here first, and that’s a whole different discussion.

Why does San Marcos cater to the student population so severely? These students don’t stay in San Marcos after graduation. They get their degrees and then they move on. Rather than catering to the students, I would like to see the city start catering more to the post-graduation population – young professionals, first-time home buyers, new families, etc. Make San Marcos a place graduates can imagine building – or at least starting – their lives post-graduation. That would benefit the city, in the long run, much more than catering to students (temporary residents) will.

Do you know what constitutes an adequate buffer, between an apartment complex and a residential neighborhood? If the city has that expertise, are they sharing it with Mr. Casey, so that he does not have to keep coming back with more and more revised plans?

I’m sorry. I just don’t see the evidence of that expertise, and I dare say I am not the only one. Otherwise, far fewer people would be up in arms.

And further, I strongly believe we do have the expertise to plan compatible housing for that area and the master plan committee is working on that. The master plan should be allowed to be completed before this sensitive tract of land is developed. That land has so much to do with whether our river will remain clear and swimmable in the future.

Just wondering.