Texarkana, Tyler or Longview?
#1
Posted 09 July 2006 - 06:25 PM
#2
Posted 09 July 2006 - 08:26 PM
#3
Posted 10 July 2006 - 02:07 AM
Now Texarkana, I haven't seen enough to really make up my mind, but it seems like a nice place.
#4
Posted 10 July 2006 - 07:56 AM
#5
Posted 10 July 2006 - 09:46 AM
FromCityToRural, on Jul 10 2006, 03:07 AM, said:
Now Texarkana, I haven't seen enough to really make up my mind, but it seems like a nice place.
Is Tyler "dry??" I hate dry counties and parishes... what a waste when people are just going to cross county lines to buy their alcohol and then come back and drink it in your county anyway. Your county just lost tax revenue and you didn't keep anyone from drinking.
Longview certainly isn't dry, and it has one of the best... uhh... gentlemen's clubs around. Although the owner of this particular establishment isn't allowed to hold a liquor license in the state of Texas, so it's BYOB... but there are liquor stores right next door.
Edited by SBCmetroguy, 10 July 2006 - 09:47 AM.
#6
Posted 10 July 2006 - 06:12 PM
FromCityToRural, on Jul 10 2006, 03:07 AM, said:
Now Texarkana, I haven't seen enough to really make up my mind, but it seems like a nice place.
#7
Posted 11 July 2006 - 09:04 PM
#8
Posted 12 July 2006 - 08:52 PM
#9
Posted 12 July 2006 - 09:00 PM
bigboyz05, on Jul 12 2006, 09:52 PM, said:
To answer your question, no... I don't think so. Tyler is growing at a slower pace than it was 5+ years ago. Not to mention, it's a little ways south of I-20 and Longview is centered north of I-20. I think those cities are too far away to grow together given their current growth rates, but I wouldn't be surprised to see more communities in between those two cities gain a bit of population as time goes on.
#10
Posted 12 July 2006 - 10:14 PM
#11
Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:45 AM
FromCityToRural, on Jul 12 2006, 11:14 PM, said:
I haven't been to Tyler in a couple of years, so I wasn't aware that the growth was mostly to the south. Thanks for clarifying.
#12
Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:47 AM
#13
Posted 13 July 2006 - 05:54 PM
Not to mention that this project is nothing at all like the project that was first outlined. It was originally supposed to be a free road which passed through at grade level. It has become a large, ungainly toll road which has controlled access, and is almost diametrically opposed to the original concept.
49 is a case in point where politicians are completely out of step with their constituents.
#14
Posted 13 July 2006 - 05:58 PM
#15
Posted 13 July 2006 - 10:33 PM
#16
Posted 13 July 2006 - 11:26 PM
#17
Posted 13 July 2006 - 11:27 PM
Myself, I think it's mostly a waste of money. It caters to the growth on the south side of the city, but I'm not so sure that it'll spur it any more. I think a free road as in the original design could be a boon, and the toll road is a mistake. I hope nobody uses it. Still, I could be wrong. It could be a boon. But, I don't want Tyler to get too big...then we get big city taxes and will have to smog our vehicles on top of the inspection (yuck).
#18
Posted 14 July 2006 - 06:36 AM
#19
Posted 14 July 2006 - 09:19 AM
#20
Posted 14 July 2006 - 10:01 AM
SBCmetroguy, on Jul 14 2006, 10:19 AM, said:
That would probably be a better investment, I think. Although, by my own California standards the traffic on it isn't that bad.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users













