Holiday greetings everyone! What a busy time of the year!
Not only are the holidays upon us, but we are also madly trying to finish the year for the City as well. Last night's agenda was full to the brim, and there were some very bright spots on it that I would like to share with you.
We were dazzeled with the Clear Creek High School Girls Volleyball Team, who have been champions for 6 of the last 8 years! This year they became champs while achieving an average of a 3.6GPA! I felt like the lucky one, being able to present them with a proclamation and have my picture made with them!
I was also delighted to present a proclamation for this years Holiday in the Park to League City Proud. Although Janice Hallisey, leader of the organization, knew about the scheduled presentation, she wasn't there to accept. Mr. Cones said she was ill. Holiday in the Park was a spectacular event and took many hours of work all year long, to be the success it was. Many, many volunteers were a part of the festival and parade, and they used tireless energy, thinking of everything! Thank you everyone!
Speaking of the Parade, did everyone see the great float put together by City employees, as the ending grand finale? A beautiful job, folks! When you pass a city vehicle or employee somewhere, give them a wave and a smile, as they work for you...very well!
In December of every year, City Ordinance requires us to reappoint old members to the Boards and Commissions or appoint new members. Our City Charter, revised in 1995, states that the "Mayor shall appoint," and "the Council will confirm" the appointees. Though this ordinance and Charter are rule of law for our City and have been used for the appointment process for years, Mr. Barron wants to review the process and motioned to put off the appointments until January when a workshop can be done, and then put them on the agenda again in February. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cones. Three Council members voted against postponing the appointments and reappointments, as the City Ordinance does require December action: Sanborn, Barber, and Paulissen, with Barron, Cones, Nelson and Samuelson voting for the workshop, regardless of the ordinance.
A very special thanks goes to the good citizens who have been serving on our Boards and Commissions! I am also very impressed with the number of new folks who have stepped up and applied for Board and Commissions positions! Thanks for volunteering your time for the benefit of all of us in League City!
Council voted 5-2 to enter into a professional services agreement with TCB, Inc. for surveying, environmental, schematic and drainage design of the proposed extension of Palomino Road, with the charge of finding the best route north across the Creek. Concern was expressed by Mr. Paulissen that two years ago when the new High School was built on Palomino, the Council had promised the residents of Clear Creek Shores that a bridge/roadway would not be built through their neighborhood. Mr. Cones expressed the fear that if the citizens of Clear Creek Shores think the City will not keep their promise, they will be attending many Council meetings in protest, as this progresses. For: Barber, Sanborn, Nelson, Samuelson, Barron. Against: Paulissen, Cones
In my Mayors Comments, I announced that Tony Allender, Director of Land Management, will be hand-delivering a letter of support to a meeting of the Galveston City Council on Thursday, Dec. 11th, for Phase AA of the Houston-Galveston Commuter Rail. We need this now more than ever, because of Ike and the fact that so many Galveston workers are using League City as their home base!
Joyfully, there was a very important matter that was ratified into existance, and that was the adoption of architectural guidelines (League City Historic District Design and Materials Guidelines) for the area within the Historic District as provided for in our Preservation Plan. Historic District commission members led by member Fay Dudney and architect David Hoffman had many meetings drafting these guidelines, complete with graphics. Anyone building in the Historic District can go through the guidelines and know exactly how their finished building project in the HD needs to look. The vote was 7-0, unanimous.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15pm
Congratulations to Frank and Marilyn Edelin, as Frank is now home from the hospital and doing better!
Have a happy, safe holiday season,
Toni Randall,
Mayor
City of League City
46 comments:
The Mayor’s comments did not mention the lengthy executive session that was moved to the early portion of the meeting.
For the second time in recent months citizens in attendance were asked to endure over an hour wait while council deliberated about legal issues or real estate transactions.
There was a fair crowd at this meeting time but in the previous instance the council chambers were full. This delay occurred prior to “Citizen’s Request for Hearing Before City Council”.
I do not believe this is the way to encourage citizens’ participation in local government. Also citizens are not given the opportunity to be heard regarding issues occurring in the executive session.
Why was this done???? So a hired by-the-hour attorney does not have to wait for executive session.
What message does this send?
I applaud several citizens including Gary Coward who stayed and questioned the reasoning for these actions.
Oh yes, thanks to the Seabreeze for the article about the dog park.
Councilman Baron ran his campaign on the promise of immediate ethics reform.
What we got was his pet project supported by Cones & Associates.
my 2 cents
Paul Smith
Paul I went and looked at the Seabreeze. I enjoyed the op-ed.
I'd like our beloved dog-loving couniclmen to expplain why we can spend $$ on a new dog park, but can't reopen Countryside Park.
Oh I know! No developer can make any money!
Neil Baron is a joke! He is doing just what he promised all he would not.
Liar, spineless, weasel, liberal, no morals, not for the people, ..... geesh I could go on forever.
BHL,
I am not aware of the issue at Countryside Park.
Please tell us more.
It is amazing that Councilman Baron has such passion for his pet park. He has no concern for the city creating a private fenced "developer's" park in Glen Cove Subdivision.
Cone's private Cypress Bay Park will be an awesome sight and the city should be very proud. The rest of League city will be able to view it from behind the iron fences.
This is what a developer's $$$ can buy in League City.
BHL: Countryside Park is now contaminated with lead, low level radiation and other toxic chemicals sent downstream from toxic Friendswood. Remediation is going to cost millions and the city is waiting for there fema money to clean it up
Smith: You are such a winer. I would rather save the city $1500.00 and make you wait an hour. If they did not you would be screaming that they are wasting there money, er I mean our money. Why dont you clam up and go back to sleep. You are such a community activist now. what is your name again? When did you move here? Your lawsuit is about to go down in flames, its value is looking about as good as my 401k
Roads, water, sewage, trash collection... THE BASICS
Just the basics. Enough drama in League City. Enough dog parks, and fields of dreams and empty museums and parks with locked gates for years on end and blah, blah blah...
DRAMA, not partisan politics, is what drives normal people in League City to just surrender and ignore the circus of waste and sillyness that is and has been League City Council forever.
Pat, also known as
JCLeague, Butler Oaks, Costyanut2, Fred J, and I could go on.
You are not fooling anyone. Your motivation to attack Glen Cove residents has been understood known for a long time.
If it really matters, I have been here since 1984. However, unlike you, I do not think longevity in this community affords any special rights or entitlements. I am hopeful new comers and old-timers alike will become involved and vote to stop this nonsense.
Unlike you I can use my own name. You hide behing false names to spew venon and discret others. All is on record.
Councilman Cones and your developer buddy deserve your help.
Sir, my suggestion to you is get a job. I doubt developers pay much for political snipers/has-beens.
And now you are an expert on the Glen Cove Lawsuit. It is not my lawsuit, there are over 20 plaintiffs.
Mr. Stevens
I agree with you 100%. All of this nonsense is a distraction.
On the other hand there are people that will be held accountable.
It is time for the city to right the wrongs of the past and get on with the legitmate functions of city government.
Pat, You're full of lies. If it were "contaminated" then the residents living off the creek, next to the park would have been notified by Federal EPA officials as well as Challenger 7 park shut down.
So what's with Baron holding up board membership. We've had Tad on council at two different times. Samuelson has serve for a while now. No City Atty has ever raised an issue, and now all of a sudden the board appointment process has been done wrong?!?!
I see Neil taking up the chief minion role for the anti-Mayor. Hey Tommy, if you wanted control you should have run!!!! I guess this means Jim has been demoted to simple henchman.
BHL
Yes
Don't forget Attorney Jon or was it Jon Keeney. After some of his foolish statements/actions he had the good sense to remove himself from council.
It seems as Neil has taken up Keeney's position.
After watching the last council meeting it looks as if we have two city attorneys. One employed by the city and the another working for Cones and Associates but collecting a paycheck as a councilman.
Paul and BHL,
Your comments are well received. Pat needs to get a job. Less time at the computer would heal his mind and soul. Less time to spew his hate and lies. Amen.
We all can agree how Councilman Baron has been a disappointment. Dog park over Ethics reform; Cone's supporter; and anti-Mayor activist. Tad was correct labelling Baron a left-wing nut activist. Sorry Tad, I should have supported you this time around again. Baron is a joke.
The Seabreeze was exactoo!
www.seabreezenews.com
Good to hear from you again Chris. Stay active, stay tuned, the winds of change will be here before we know it. The voters will once again vote for change. The Mayor will have the ability to run city government as she promised. Her obstacles will be gone. Baron will have Nelson and Nelson will have Baron .
Developer money will not buy this election.
Harry out.
Found this tid bit and thought that some may find it telling.
JCLEAGUE said...
We need to wipe all of these bad elected officials off the Council and Mayors spot, we need a recall elecction for 3 council seats, and a new slate of 1 new council and 1 mayor for this springs election, Mike Narber needs to rerun. Leaving us Barber, Paulissen, Sanborn, and 4 new council and a mayor. Then we need the entire directorate to resign, and then the new mayor needs to interview any director who wants his/her job back. I would hope that 90% of the directors would be replaced, examples of who should go would be Mary Straw Chambers, Chris Reed, Mr Murphy. Disolve all boards and commsisions and re appoint new chairmen/chairwomen and members. Until this happens, it will be business as usual at city hall. Also we need to pass an ordinance banning Dale Hardy from conducting business at city hall.
Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:57:00 AM
Chris,
As I told JC/Pat "All is on record".
Thanks for sharing this most telling post.
He is dead on about one comment. As he suggested, unless aggressive measures are taken it will be business as usual at city hall.
A few "special interests" are betting big bucks that huge campaign contributions, political weaseling, and glossy mailers will determine to faith of this city.
My predication is that during the next election there will be some campaigns primarily funded by loans seemingly from a candidate to their own campaign fund. “Special issue” funders will hunker down in the shadows. It may be fashioned after ex-mayor Shults political playbook where he received over $40,000 in campaign contribution immediately AFTER the election.
In the last city election over 70% of the voters ask for change. It is amazing that Cones and Associates can totally disregard the will of the citizens and block the mayor at every attempt to implement ANY change.
Again,
That’s my 2 cents
thanks for your 2 sents smitty, cuz when this ia all over thats all you are going to have to rub together.
Patty,
That is the risk I am willing to take.
How about a comment on your December 13th 2007 post.
Pat,
Since you have so much insight into the city's legal affairs, would you please explain how the city can be represented in this case by an attorney who is NOT the city attorney, but who claims to be authorized by city council to represent and bill the city in this case despite the fact that the city can show NO record that council ever made such an authorization?
If you are concerned about minimizing the city's legal billing expenses, why are you not concerned that the city is expending tax payer funds on an attorney without a vote of council authorizing such?
Jeff
Well, everyone hold Jeff's thought for a moment, while I break in to say I hope everyone had a very meaningful Christmastime, and that 2009 will be another year in which the citizens step up and make their wishes known very strongly in Election 2009!
Now back to Jeff's thought. Sounds like there may be more to that story, Jeff. How could this happen?
I would like to know. I sure wish someone would explain it.
I guess it happens the same way that spending $ 377,000 on a dog park instead of using that tax dollar for more pressing problems like playing fields for our children in our city happens. It is more important for the chosen few to be served than the good of the city and the citizens. This will be corrected in May and those that voted for such “pet” projects will need to answer for it. Does anyone remember how far down the list a dog park was on the city survey?
Our mission is not complete until we finish the “house cleaning” this May. This election is not about party affiliation it is about getting rid of the tax and spenders on our council. It’s about getting rid of those that have been there and complain but have done nothing about our traffic situation except continue to approve development after development adding more traffic to our city. It’s about civility on council, not calling another councilmember a profane name during a meeting. It’s about listening to the will of the people and not someone who gives you $ 5,000 and takes you to Italy. It is long past the time to stop the pork barrel projects, the good old boy give aways and put League City First !
And I'm just getting warmed up!
cjm, looking forward to may's election. i am sure tc and co. is getting ready and lining up their developers errrrrrrrrrrr ducks.
Chris, to answer your question about where the dog park ranked on the 2005 Parks Needs Assessment, it was in the #22 spot, with 37% of the respondents for it and 47% against. This is from Table 3-4:Possible Future Projects by Importance, page 36, of the Parks and Open Space Master Plan approved by Council in November, 2006.
Here's how some other items ranked:
#2. Off-street paths for hiking/jogging/biking which 78% wanted, 8% didn't.
#7. Senior Center, 65% for, and 19% against.
#8. Acquisition of open park lands, 64% for, 20% against.
#9. Remodel/expand existing park facilities, 64% for, 19% against.
#15. Large parks for active uses, such as soccer, softball, football, etc. For 49%, against 38%
#17. Indoor swimming facility, 44% for, 40% against.
21. Additional outdoor swimming pool, 41% for, 42% against.
So you see, the hot-button for a dog park is way down on the list, and more respondents were against it than were for it.
Also, Survey question #6 asks respondents to score their interest in various future Open Space, Trails, Parks, and Recreation Faciilities. The 9th item on the list is the subject dog park, and 38% of the respondents thought it was important, while 33% said it was not important, and 14% even opposed dog parks.
These numbers are very enlightening, as regards priorities. At that time the City had not been been made aware about the need for a Special Needs Park or playground, so it was not on the horizon.
If anyone would like a copy of the Parks Master Plan, you can request a public information disc from the City Secretary's office.
Hello Everyone,
Hope you all had a Merry Christmas.....
I have followed this thread with mild amusement.....you all seem shocked that a dog park has been a priority for this council....I don't understand how this could be a surprise....
I mean really...who didn't see that coming from a mile away?
I must say though.....I am secretly happy that all this time spent on dog parks has gotten elected officials off that silly ethics reform kick.....I'll take a dog park over ethics reform anyday.
Sounds like we are all ready for a new year.
Chris,
Pleased to hear you say “And I'm just getting warmed up!”
Enough with the good old boy give-a-ways.
I have been fairly quiet for some time about the Glen Cove lawsuit. A few days ago I had the opportunity to voice my opinion to the court. Now I will speak.
Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, those responsible for the Glen Cove Fiasco (Land Grab) will be held accountable. I invite all citizens to visit Glen Cove and see the iron-fence barricaded Cypress Bay park. I believe this property was unlawfully given to MB Harbour/Cypress Bay development by Councilman Cones and Associates. Let us not forget Attorney Gregg’s important contributions. He was the developer’s attorney before accepting his position with the city. Ask him if he has legally notified the courthouse about the unauthorized and invalid bridge deed that was of legal record on behalf of developer in December 2006.
Ms. Sharp,
Thanks for dog park survey information.
How many citizens voted for Neal Baron placed the dog park as a major concern?
His #1 campaign promise was to take action for immediate Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform. How many supporters were thinking about a dog park?
LCPD,
There has been no campaign finance reform and you are 100% correct.
The ducks and big bucks are lined up.
Casey,
Good to hear from you. As I recall, you and Tad Nelson thought very little about the ethics and campaign finance reform.
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but if my old memory is correct, I believe your stated opinion was that honest folks would act honorably. As for others, they will do whatever they want to do and either way ethics reform would make little difference.
Don’t be a stranger. See ya at the dog park.
Jeff,
I understand your confusion about the hiring of Attorney Helfand. I believe he actually stated he was hired by city council in defense of the lawsuit.
Here is some background: Many Glen Cove residents were at the council chambers the evening of March 27, 2007. Councilman Barber sponsored an item requesting independent investigation of the Glen Cove matters.
A check of the on-line posted minutes reads: “Mr. Barber amended his motion to request TML Risk Pool Attorney to proceed with investigation despite their normal policy of waiting until a suit is filed”
A check of the audio recording of the evening indicates the final reading of the action item by the mayor immediately prior to the vote as “Request TML (Texas Municipal League) to move forward on the audit, despite their normal policy of waiting until suit filed.”
After hearing council discussions that evening, I think it was common perception by most council persons that TML insurance was doing investigation and was paying attorney fees. I spoke with a representative of TML a couple days after the council meeting and was told that TML does not do investigations.
On a side note, there was discussion and some confusion between council members how to word the action item. Only Attorney Gregg did not sound confused. He thought Bill Helfand would be hired.
Jeff, I guess we are all(except for City Attorney Gregg) confused about how Helfand was hired.
Whoa, I want to go back to what Casey said. Yea we were promised ethics reform during the campaign, but as soon as he was elected, Baron did the dog park, as (I've heard)TC owed him a vote, so it had to get done right now. The next piece of Baron smokescreen is his Farmers Market project---all just fluff!
Oh well, I hear Toni is working on the ethics reform so we WILL get it, if the clowns will pass it--and hopefully before the 2009 election!
Mr. Smith, from what I hear, so many of the things that have been swept under the rug all over town as result of actions of certain Council members, could sure use some of your tough help...not just stuff in your own neighborhood! Take off your blinders about the rest of town!
One last piece of gossip I heard-that Cones is having second thoughts about running in 2009, because of last years election trouncing taken by Shults and Nelson, and that he may push Pat out to the forefront as a candidate! The winds of change are still blowing strong! Hmmmm.
evelyn, ph's ego won't allow him to run for anything else than mayor or higher position. TC will run again and hopefully cjm or casey will throw their hats in the ring. Although, it would be fun to see ph in a race again-we missed him during the last election.
Can anyone explain how and why the dogs overcame other needs in this city.
Lcpd,
At least one councilmember has aspirations on a county seat and must do as instructed by those that can assist him getting there. To them the objective is to get what they can for themselves while they are there. Had that council member been truly concerned about our tax dollar and the needs of our citizens they would have waited for the county to build a dog park in the next couple of years and used the $377,000 in tax dollars to benefit a large portion of the city and citizens instead of his own little group. What a disappointment.
It is my personal opinion that one member MUST run for reelection because they have promises (already paid for) to keep. Like Jerry they do not have a choice in the matter. To replace that person with someone who continues to blindly support such a councilperson, like Mr. Hallisey and his band of good old boys, does nothing to help our mayor move our city forward.
I understand that there are some very good candidates that will run against those that need to be replaced. It is my hope that it will be a two person race in most of the positions.
Casey,
LOL, still against ethics reform? My goodness. That is like saying no need for DWI laws because honorable people will not drive drunk. And we all know that some past and present council members make a very good living off getting drunks back on the road.
Evelyn,
Like many others I was involved in the protest of the city’s attempt to rezone a tract adjacent to Lakeside Subdivision for high density apartments. I also have concerns about the City’s ability and expertise in developing the FM 270 bypass without TxDOT assistance.
Does your neighborhood have a property rights issue? Do you think the city is not following proper procedures about real estate issues? There is the City Charter, State’s, Local Government Code, and State Constitution (the Supreme Court) that dictate laws/regulations regarding cities and real estate activities.
The problem lies in the fact that it is very easy for a City Council to ignore all the laws/regulations and approve actions that are unlawful. It only takes a council vote of 4 to 3. It is very difficult for citizens to correct these unlawful acts.
I am semi-retired and have time to volunteer. I can also recommend several non-profit organizations interested in property rights conflicts between local government and the public.
Please feel free to contact me if you believe your neighborhood has a real estate or property rights issue. My contact information can be found in the local phone book and on the web under “real estate appraiser and consultant”.
“Tiny bit of land triggers big fight over city powers”
Houston Chronicle 12/28/08
“Case centers on whether eminent domain used on developer’s behalf” it is about city’s taking of less than 4, 000 square feet of land for a park.
“To take land, a local government has to need it for a public use” says Professor Matthew Festa, a specialist in land use law at South Texas College of Law.
Cities, big and small are have problems dealing the eminent domain and property rights.
Good article for anyone interested in this subject matter.
Eminent domain always has been a process involving some controversy, but since a June 2005 United States Supreme Court decision that appeared to relax traditional domain limits, debate has intensified throughout the country.
Through eminent domain, governments have the power to appropriate private property without the owner's consent for public projects such as roads and lakes when the owner of the needed property is unwilling to sell. According to the Texas eminent domain law, the government pays the property owner just compensation for the property it uses eminent domain to acquire.
In Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.), the Supreme Court ruled that local governments also may use eminent domain to seize citizens' private property for economic development. That means the government can take a person's private property and give it to a private developer for an economic redevelopment plan if officials determine that the project would benefit the community as a whole or the government.
It's great that the subject of eminent domain has been brought up.
Paul, as a member of the Parks Board, I would like to clarify that the three pieces of Cypress Bay parks are HOA parks- not City parks. Of course our Board approved the details and locations of these HOA parks, which were laid out on the development's original plat plan, not land that had to be obtained by eminent domain.
Eminent domain cannot be used for HOA parks.
I have a nagging question in my mind: If indeed eminent domain was used to acquire land for a park in Cypress Bay, how could it have been done without Council's approval? Or coming through the Parks Board?
It is amazing to me that we can be talking about the same park, and I'm wondering if one of the HOA parks has been placed differently than where the Parks Board approved it. To use eminent domain, an HOA park would have had to become a City Park and would have required an action of Council.
FYI, one of the recommendations of the 2007 Charter Review Committee was to add the words "There shall be no eminent domain of private property for private use," which covers some situations, but not everything.
The Charter Review Committee made its report to Council about their recommended changes to our Charter in November of 2007, but Mayor Shults tabled the report.
The current Council voted to have a Charter Revision workshop for the Committee to deliver the list of recommendations this past December, but Council could not get a quorum at the pre-scheduled time.
The Committee is waiting for this workshop to be rescheduled, so the recommendations can be laid out on the table and this Council can decide where to go with them.
Another important item in the Committee's report is Ethics and Campaign Finance Reporting changes--sadly, here comes another election and this item has not been enacted! One of the incumbents has neglected to file several reports, and we really need correction to our charter on this issue.
LC Confused Party,
Do you beleive the Kelo case could be city's justification for conveying various property rights in Glen Cove to a private developer? Perhaps as an economic taking?
Do you think there is any connection whatsoever?
thanks
Joanna,
Ethics was a battle cry during the last campaign and now it has died thanks to Baron's needed Dog park and Tommy (2 Tones) Cones. Besides, the incumbent you refer to is the same incumbent who voted for Big League Dreams, took campaign monies from Scotto and whose only looking out for the developers after 9 years in office. This is the same incumbent along with Sanborn & Samuelson who voted to keep the incompetent Chris "Beatum Up" Reed and is buds with PH.
And your surprised that Toni is having a problem getting the city moving in the right direction. At least pirates know when the tides against them. NO CONES, NO SAMUELSON, NO SANBORN...These politicians are old news just like Shults......
Vote for new council people who can work with the new mayor and replace our current city admin with someone who has business experience. Reeds' bungling of the Glen Cove bridge property was nothing but a poor excuse for a city admin.....Toni's right, Reed should be GONE & is someone few respect......
Captain Blye, though I don't have the pleasure of knowing who you are, I find your thoughts are right on target! Very inciteful!
Being a Sally-do-gooder at heart, for the last three years I have picked a candidate to work for who I believed was totally honest and very dedicated to the good of the City and helped with their campaign: Barber, Paulissen and Toni. (Sometimes it's hard to figure out who to work for, and sometimes you gotta go with your gut instincts or intuition.)
This year fortunately there will again be some totally honest and dedicated candidates in the running, who will complete the job that was begun last year, with the ousting of Shults and Nelson!
Just imagine, with the defeat of the candidates you named, League City's historical political haze will clear and all of the 'me-first' deals will be finished!
I just hope that when asked to help by the good guys in the spring, everyone out there will
now know that "every little bit does help" when we work together.
Alright everyone, heads up!
PH has a brand new email floating around, asking Toni if she has done what she promised to do during her campaign, in a very negative tone.
In my book she has done just what she promised, with the $9 million dollar budget cuts to pinpoint some of the mismanagement. This in spite of being thwarted every step of the way by some Council members who think they can manage better than professionals.
Yes, the citizens do know that the City is more responsive to them than ever before--it took Ike to prove this, but the public saw the work of the city staffers for their benefit.
Guess Pat is going to be the chief harasser as we approach this election, with his spies in City Hall and emails to everywhere!
Will you never get over your vengeful mission?
let PH rant and rave. Everyone knows it's sour grapes.
Joanna, you failed to mention you supported Jerry Shults for Mayor. Was that a memory lapse or selective memory?
Again I reply to
LC Confused Party,
Do you beleive the Kelo case could be city's justification for conveying various property rights in Glen Cove to a private developer? Perhaps as an economic taking?
Do you think there is any connection whatsoever?
thanks
Yes, Confused, the year Shults won, I worked on a grassroots team for Keith Dill, but mostly centered around Barber and Paulissen, who were also running that year. When Keith lost, the team moved to Shults, while I continued to mostly work for Mike and Tim.
I did at the end organize the Election Day Poll Volunteer Schedule, and that is what Shults thanked me for publicly.
Everyone knows, including Shults, that I challenged him from the moment I met him because of his open Ethics charge when he filed to run!
To be very candid--I thought then and still do that I as a citizen DO NOT WANT to be represented by someone who can't manage their affairs in order to avoid an Ethics challenge and/or doesn't have respect for State Law.
One last comment, when I pick a candidate to work for, I am working FOR that person, NOT necessarily against the opponent, so when you see PH publicly attack me, that is the reason why--that election!
Last comment about this, Confused.
The winning candidate I stuck with start to finish that year was Mike Barber; Tim did not quite make it that year.
J. Sharp and Captain I will go along with no Tommy Cones and Chris Samuelson but I am going to support and work for P. Sanborn. I think overall she has done a good job in her position. Has she been perfect? no, but overall she has represented me and my family well.
I hope you both support her but no Cones or Samuelson. Chris Mallios what do you think?
Paul, no I don't think that the Kelo thing you speak of is related, but merely a point to show that the city has options to take property for reasons that include more tax revenue. In general, your rant grows tiresome. We will all abide by the final courts decision, until then hold your tongue. If you and your band of merrymen and woman prevail, then you can jump up and down and pound your chest.
Joanna Sharp:
In your post of January 1st you said “I have a nagging question in my mind: If indeed eminent domain was used to acquire land for a park in Cypress Bay, how could it have been done without Council's approval? Or coming through the Parks Board?
What happened in Glen Cove was city gave away property rights that it did not own without going thru the process of condemnation. Such is wrongful and illegal.
There are only a few ways a city can obtain property rights, such as legal purchase from rightful owner, condemnation, dedication by property owner, or tax sale. The only way a city divest itself of a property is by sale or legal process of abandonment.
Cypress Bay has two park areas within the boundary of Glen Cove. These are located on both the north and south side of the Seminole Bridge. They actually include part of the bridge property as well as land leased to the developer on a 99 year lease.
The deed obtained by developer for the bridge has been declared void and invalid by Attorneys Polanco, Gregg and Helfand. Even Chris Reed as acknowledged he should not have signed the deed.
As for the other part of the park, the city had no legal right to lease a street to a private developer. The only interest (at best) the city had in the street was as a roadway easement. The only legal action the city could take was to abandon this easement and it could not be abandoned to the developer. Glen Cove property owners have underlying property rights associated with the roadway.
Many think legal advice given by Attorney Gregg is faulty and biased to suit the needs of the developer. From the date of his hiring there has been a claim that he has a conflict of interest with respect to all Glen Cove issues.
LC Confused Party,
I will not be silenced.
I suggest you educate yourself about the Kelo Case. A great starting point is the Institute for Justice. After the Kelo case the majority of the states have adopted legislation limiting powers of eminent domain. Texas Senate Bill 7 (2005?) severely limits use of eminent domain for economic purposes (called economic takings).
The Mayor and EDC of Freeport (Texas) are being given an education at the expense of the tax payers.
See Southwestern Seafood vs City of Freeport. I believe the latest City offer to the plaintiff was $360,000 to cover legal expense and drop the plaintiff’s federal lawsuit.
With the co-operation of the Southwestern Seafood the proposed marina may eventually be built as a city marina (not private as planned). Southwestern Seafood will continue to operate on the same site it has occupied for over 40 years.
Post a Comment