About Downtown

[sj]

Wish you would give some thought and numbers in your statments panzer... ;D

I think you have some valid points. Will or can Amarillo accept and support such an endeavor? Are the resources available?

Besides, I kinda like the 'ol Midnight Fistfight....

[floozikoozi]

Very well put PP. I wish I was so eloquent. One of my big concerns has been about the transients. People that don't work downtown or come downtown very often don't realize the problem with them.

[sccindy]

Well put PP.

[petiepanzer]

Well, let's take a look at the homeless situation in downtown Amarillo and see if we can identify the problem. First, let me say that this problem is not one that is unique to Amarillo and I have seen it up close and personal in many of the cities I formerly called home. Not that there is such a thing as a good homeless problem, but at least the homeless in Amarillo seem to be older homeless people for the most part. In cities like Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco, a large portion of the homeless population have been street kids. These kids tend to be intraveneous heroin addicts and a great many of them are HIV positive. A lot of them, both male and female, turn tricks to make enough money for their next fix and are much more likely to get violent than the older homeless population.

So, why do the homeless in Amarillo tend to congregate in the downtown area. Obviously, it is because there is something down town that keeps them hanging around. If I had to make an educated guess, it would be available food and shelter. Now, they could get food behind any restaurant in Amarillo. Shelter is the tough one, though. They stay down town because there are a lot of unoccupied buildings that provide available shelter. If occupancy were to increase in the neighborhoods surrounding Polk, the homeless problem would decrease as a result. Now, I'm not idealistic enough to think it would ever completely disappear, mind you. After all, that is where the local homeless shelter is located, after all.

So, why do the owners of these unoccupied dwellings allow them to remain unoccupied? Why don't they just fix these places up and either sell them or rent them out? It's supply and demand, really. At the present moment, there is not enough demand to fix a lot of those houses up and rent them out or sell them. As it stands right now, there is more than enough space west of town to continue building new homes. Let's not forget, a lot of those homes in that area are 80-100 years old. They are going to have structural, plumbing, and electrical problems that will need to be dealt with. Now, a person could spend a fortune gutting one of these old houses and fixing it up. The fact is, though, that the general contractor doing something like this would get a better return on his investment by building these cookie cutter houses they are currently putting up in new housing developments across the country. They all have the same floor plans and it doesn't require as much innovation as an original, like the old ones downtown. Now, if you have young children, where would you choose to live? Choice A is the old house. It is really unique and is just bursting with character. The only problem is the location. It is in a neighborhood that has definitely seen its' better days. Just a few blocks down, there are some sketched out people, the schools are not very good, the local park has lots of homeless people and perverts, and the streets were made before the automobile was such a prevalent factor in society. In fact, you most likely are going to have a carriage house that has been converted into a garage instead of an attached 2 car garage. Choice B is the home in the new subdivision. Sure, it is a little cookie cutter house and your neighbors all have the same exact house. The schools are some of the best in town, though, and there is a beautiful new playground right down the street. The neighbors are all nice, married couples, unlike those unpredictable folks downtown. The worst crime experienced usually involves some neighborhood kids going on a vandalism spree or the teenagers speeding on the residential streets. Seriously, I hate tract housing as much as the next guy, but I would take choice B in a heart beat if I was married with children.

These people that are wanting to pump some life back into downtown need to understand a few things. First, it is more than just 2 blocks on Polk Street. There is a whole neighborhood(s) that could use some attention. Second, they are not going to get anywhere without creating a sense of community amongst the people that live down there. Third, they need to clean up Elwood park before they can even hope of accomplishing anything. That place has been a canker sore on the mouth of downtown for years. I would really be furious with the city if I lived across the street and I can't imagine they would let the kinds of things take place over there if it was located on the Southwest side of town.

Not that I have much faith in the powers that be to actually accomplish anything. As tradition dictates, it seems that the decision makers all live west of the Canyon E-Way and south of I-40. Tell me, how can people who don't live downtown be trusted to do what is best for downtown, while the people that actually live close by get shut out of the decision making process, once again?

[catsmeow]

So, Petie ... you've obviously given this much thought ... are you involved at all in giving your input to anyone who might listen or care to listen? You have some really good ideas and suggestions.

[petiepanzer]

Catsmeow,
No, I am not currently involved with the Downtown Econ. Committee right now. As I do not currently live downtown, nor do I own any business downtown, I am not entirely sure if I am in any position to give my 2 cents to the current situation. When I first moved back to Amarillo, I almost bought a home on Monroe. It was a beautiful old home, with 3 stories, a basement, and a carriage house in back. It had over 3000 s.f. and I really liked it. The reason I didn't get it was because I was worried about the plumbing and electrical, I thought the gas bill would cook my goose, and that was just too much house for 1 person. In the end, I bought one on the west side. I wouldn't rule out a move to that part of town, though, if I was to find something I liked. Anyhow, I would be happy to give my input to anybody that would care to listen, but I'm not sure what good it would do. I don't have any expertise in Urban Planning at all. The only thing that I could offer is previous experience from having lived in several neighborhoods in other cities close to the areas that were then being redeveloped.

[amatx]

petiepanzer,

Amarillo comprises 90.3 square miles (14th largest in the nation) yet only has a population of some 187,000 or so (probably 250,000 counting illegal aliens) which makes for a fairly low population density.
We enjoy an even lower population density of artsy-fartsy high-income gays and DINKS (dual income, no kids) that would rather visit Taos, LoDo, or Bricktown; such is the same for the entirety of the Panhandle.

If you are right that the Center City planners intend to seduce the self-aborbed high-spending"hipster" crowd by replicating Denver, San Francisco, Dallas, or OKC, then failure shall surely ensue.

We would all, for whatever disparate reason, like to see the revitalization of downtown Amarillo.

[jazzman]

If they want to build a ballpark, downtown would not be the place to put it. It should be built south of I40 and west of Soncy. People would go to it there.

[petiepanzer]

amatx,


*Amarillo comprises 90.3 square miles (14th largest in the nation) yet only has a population of some 187,000 or so (probably 250,000 counting illegal aliens) which makes for a fairly low population density.*

I agree, Amarillo does have a low population density.


*We enjoy an even lower population density of artsy-fartsy high-income gays and DINKS (dual income, no kids) that would rather visit Taos, LoDo, or Bricktown; such is the same for the entirety of the Panhandle.*

Uh, yeah. A couple of notes here:

A. Cultural enrichment enhances the lives of everybody in a community, not just the wealthy and elite. It provides entertainment for all people and helps to build a sense of community. It also strengthens the intellectual development for the youth of a community. It also provides a great relief of day to day stress that are often related to the job and home.

B. In the spirit of full disclosure, I will tell you that I do have a family member who is gay, a high-income one at that. I won't make an issue out of your statement, but please be aware that your comment could be considered both offensive and bigoted. You know, I have never really understood why people in the Panhandle seem to hate members of the gay community so much. They really don't hurt anybody, they tend to be more educated than the general population as a whole, and they do provide a lot of important features for society as a whole. When I was in high school, I remember that kids would go down to Maggie's and would roll homosexual men. With such an environment of intolerance, it is a wonder that Amarillo didn't experience something similar to the Matthew Shepherd murder of its own. And DINKS, what is your problem with them? Has it ever crossed your mind that both DINKS and gay couples do a tremendous favor to the people with children? First, they pay property taxes into a school district in which they have no children. That helps everybody that has children by lowering their tax burden, while at the same time creating more money per child for that school district. In addition, they also tend to have higher disposable incomes, due to the fact that they don't have children (some gay couples are starting to adopt children, but it's still nowhere near the same rate as married couples). This disposable income allows them to purchase more luxury items, which is good for the economy. It also means they have more money for investment, which helps fuel economic growth in this country.

[joe]

I think the only reason to dress up downtown is tourism. I don't see it accomplishing much in that arena. Can't even get folks to tie up any money in the Harrington. The baseball park thing is a waste. Folks just don't care about it here, at least not enough to invest in it. What are they gonna do to get people to go beyond I-40 while passing through?

[princessbaybay]

Good point Joe....... I have met many many people that knew exactly where Amarillo was because they had passed through....but never got off I-40.

[catsmeow]

joe said:

I think the only reason to dress up downtown is tourism. I don't see it accomplishing much in that arena. Can't even get folks to tie up any money in the Harrington. The baseball park thing is a waste. Folks just don't care about it here, at least not enough to invest in it. What are they gonna do to get people to go beyond I-40 while passing through?

I'm still not convinced the ballpark is a good idea, but I suppose in some ways, it depends on who the field is for. If it's "just" the Dillas, then it won't fly, but if it's a complex-type thing for the little leaguers, and/or for the adult baseball/softball leagues, that may be a way to attract "family type" activity and money into downtown.

As a parent who spends a lot of time with a lot of other parents at baseball fields, watching kids play, nice fields with close-by places to eat, and other conveniences, would be great. There are some days when we spend an entire weekend at a ballpark, and it would be really nice to have places close by where we could rest, eat, get other errands done, etc.

But, I don't believe that will be viewed as terribly realistic. Frankly, I'm having a hard time picturing it. It's just a thought, though.

[jazzman]

I think a new ball park is a good idea but not downtown. Maybe the NW corner of John Stiff park near the SW library

[westtexan]

jazzman said:

I think a new ball park is a good idea but not downtown. Maybe the NW corner of John Stiff park near the SW library

Yep...and another good location...would be west of the Tech Med school buildings...and just north of the very west end of the Boulevard.

That would make the stadium visible from I-40.

The advantages of your location off 45th...between Bell and Coulter...would be a nice part of town...where the people are...who have money to spend on tickets...and lots of traffic to see the people at the stadium...which generates even more fan interest.

BTW...I'm still trying to figure out...where downtown it could be put...and what would have to be knocked down...because the stadium and parking lots...would have a footprint...as large as the Civic Center complex...and its parking lots.

To build a proper modern stadium...with enough parking for the future...you're talking about 1/4 to 1/2 a square mile of space.

Would be much cheaper to build a stadium out west...on barren dirt...and it would get a lot more use...being out where the people are...and could have huge parking and picnic/park areas around it.

Again...where in downtown...could it be put...and what will be torn down to clear space for it???

[petiepanzer]

I have a question for the people in the know. Why would we even consider building a new stadium that would cost millions for the "Dillas"? I mean, everybody does realize that they are not even a minor league team, right? The people that play for them are wash outs that were not even good enough to get picked up by a dismal single A baseball team or were cut because they figured out that they didn't have the skills to make it at their level of play. I don't think talk of a new stadium should even take place until there is some type of affiliation with a major league team.

Now, how is the new stadium going to be financed? Are they expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill on this one? What are they going to do, place an excise tax on gasoline? Are they going to raise property taxes to cover the construction costs? Well, property taxes are already high enough in Amarillo. I am still wincing when I think about the $3,200 check I wrote out last year for my property that was only valued at about $150,000. That was about twice as much as my property taxes in a previous state with a home that was worth over $300,000. I think I would vehemently oppose any type of stadium bond if they expect to pass the cost on to the property owners in Potter and Randall counties.