Purplehood wrote:With the option of "the military should buy the buffer zone", any existing community would have to be physically displaced. Do you want to be the victim of some sort of eminent domain act?
The real question is who should buy the buffer zone, the local community or the federal government. Either way, the property owners are subject to getting the "market value" of the land through eminent domain procedures and parts of the community may be subject to being displaced.
The way I see it, the advantage of the military doing it is that they seem to have a little more respect from the community and the land in the buffer zone would stay there.
The advantage of the city buying the zone is that the land would be used by the city for other purposes. For example, San Antonio has a small city park (Eisenhower Park) outside one of the gates to Camp Bullis. If they bought the land, this park could be expanded and city residents could get some use out of it while the military still gets its protected buffer zone.
I, personally, am of mixed thoughts on this. As a US citizen, I see the need for a strong military with proper training sites. This means I see the need for the buffer zones. I would support the Army BUYING the land for the zone. At the same time, as someone who no longer lives in San Antonio, I can argue that the city is trying to benefit from the zone by protecting their economy. This means I would rather see the city use its money and not have my tax dollars used to protect the San Antonio economy.
And I also noted that the amendment is permissive and not mandatory. It means San Antonio (and other cities where this will come up) may decide to buy the zone and they may decide not to. There is something to be said for the local decision option.