Marc, your disingenuous and misleading post on your alternative blog was brought to my attention this morning. (I will not dignify your trash talking tabloid with a link.) You are obviously baiting us for information with your exaggeration and hyperbole. There have been no secret meetings that I am aware of. On the other hand you appear to be trying to plant these rumors at the bidding of certain parties who are desperate to head off any attempt by the city to right its past wrongs in the Glen Cove fiasco.
Now, for the facts. In the first place, it is not rumor or allegation that we (Glen Cove residents) want the city to rebuild the bridge as originally promised to us by the city. That is a statement of fact and a matter of public record as can be seen in the demands of our lawsuit (See item 24 here.). Second, it is misleading to say that the bridge was removed to facilitate navigation. You are as aware as anyone that there was no navigable waterway above the dam until after the bridge and dam were removed. This NEW navigable waterway above the dam was artificially dug and access to the small area between the bridge and dam became possible for anything larger than a canoe for the first time in a century only after removal of the decades old bridge. It was not until after the city's illegal and secretive breaking of its promise to repair the old bridge that construction began on this new, artificial waterway that you speak of. Third, your estimates on bridge reconstruction are deliberately exaggerated. At least one disinterested third party has obtained preliminary estimates for bridge reconstruction that are well under one tenth the estimates you conjured up. Such plans will satisfy us. If a more elaborate bridge is desired by some party, then the additional costs should logically and fairly be the responsibility of those parties with an interest in creating the above mentioned artificial waterway.
Once again I ask the question, why did the city engage in a deceptive process to remove a long standing bridge without mitigation, compensation, or even notice to the affected residents and without commensurate compensation to the city as a whole when said process resulted in millions of dollars worth of private benefit?
As a side question, why do you, Marc, feel the need to continuously attack and defame the interests and rights of private citizens who have done nothing other than complain about the city's illegal and immoral taking of their rights and property in an issue that has nothing to do with you? Do you just generally like to support abusive government policy, or do you have some hidden ulterior motive?
I will not be dignifying your hit piece by joining the discussion on your alternative blog, but congratulations to Paul Morrato for being the only poster there able to maintain focus on logic and facts.
(Photograph shows destruction of the Seminole bridge in Glen Cove that commenced on a Friday afternoon after city and county offices were closed such that Glen Cove residents could not request a halt. This was done shortly after ex-mayor Shults promised the residents in response to questions about rumored destruction that such was not imminent and after the city promised to give the residents advance notice if such destruction did become imminent. Note height of bridge above the water.)
Jeff Hagen
45 comments:
Jeff (to Marc): "You are as aware as anyone that [the ditch in the cow pasture west of the bridge could hardly be defined as a] 'navigable waterway' until after the bridge and dam were removed."
I'm not sure that's true. Marc has described the bridge as a "rickety old wooden" one, conjuring an image of a disaster not even safe enough to carry the weight of a child on a bicycle (I'm trying hard to ignore that photo you put up top!)
Later, he admitted that he might have mistaken it for a different bridge somewhere else.
So there is no evidence to suggest that Marc has ever been to Glen Cove, or has Clue One about anything he speaks.
It might be unfortunate that his glaring ignorance (or agenda) on this topic could erode any credibility he may hold on other topics of public interest. His close association with Pat in orchestrating gross distortion and untruth about the GC bridge issue isn't helping him either.
Paul, you are absolutely correct. Given Marc's past record of distortion and outright fabrication in relation to the Glen Cove issue, I gave him far too much credit for being aware of basic and obvious facts.
Jeff
Hello all, I will dignify your posts with just a couple of thoughts.
1. The waterway we are discussing has been declared a navigable water way by the Army Corps of Engineers. There is a whole set of requirements to build a bridge over a navigable waterway.
2. The estimare of cost I outlined is for a draw bridge. Jeff are you saying you can build a draw bridge for 175k?
3. I never said anything about when the canal became a navigable waterway.
I did not distort any facts or attack anyone.
Have a great day Jeff.
Oh and Jeff, How was it misleading to say the bridge was removed to faciltate navigation? What do you think the bridge was removed for? If not to allow navigation up stream, then for what?
In your documnets, I found this,
On September 15, 2006, however, NRG Texas (a successor to Texas Genco II, LP) conveyed the property to MB Harbour." and "MB Harbour now claims property rights to submerged lands of the cove and has demanded that Glen Cove residents, including many of the Plaintiffs, pay “license” or “maintenance” fees for the continued use of their boat docks and piers."
Jeff you have repeatedly denied user fees were an issue for the Glen Cove plaintiffs. Well after reading the suit, it appears that fees the owner of the canal wants to charge for docks and boat houses are an issue.
Marc, your tiresome obfuscation at least supports growing suspicion that you've never been to Glen Cove. Do you even know where it is?
If so, can you find one person there who remembers hearing the word "navigation" when the city was giving everybody the song-and-dance about why the bridge had to come down? Unless somebody was lying, how would promised subsequent repair or reconstruction of the bridge alter existing navigation?
You also blurted that "MB Harbour now claims property rights to submerged lands of the cove..."
The cove, if that means Glen Cove, borders on a good stretch of Clear Lake, a public and quite navigable waterway, unlike a drainage and cooling ditch that poured into it at a spot roughly where the bridge was. Are you talking about the latter, those waters to the west (upstream), or do you mean those to the east (downstream) of the bridge? Or maybe you're talking about both, which would have to include Clear Lake.
Were property "rights" you refer to
conveyed by easement transfer, or by ownership transfer? Was a conveyance even legal in the first place?
Your characterization of the whole issue makes it sound like you alone know answers to questions that everyone else still finds in dispute, some of them in pending litigation. Have you given any of the attorneys this information? Sounds like nothing short of revelation to me.
Marc,
You are forgetting the fact that this artificial water way was able to come into existence only as a result of a flawed and illegal process on the part of the city, which has still not been rectified. In simple terms you are basically treating it as a fait accompli. Is that really how we want the city to be run? -It's okay to keep doing something that was done wrong just because it's already been done?
Jeff, you spoke french.
If "the bridge was removed ... not to allow navigation up stream, then for what?"
Oh, let's see. Maybe because it was old, rickety, wooden and somehow unsafe? Hmmm, who could have said that? Could it be...?
Gee Wiz Paul, I got the verbage about MB harbour charging usage fees from the GC Law suit, I hardly blured that out.
But your reading it so wrong is what makes your case so ridiculous.
By making such an absurd claim (private rights to public waterways), the defendant bears the full burden of showing how he could possibly have such a right.
That's why his claim is outlined in the suit, so the plaintiff's facts can torpedo it, not because it scares anybody in Glen Cove. Get an English teacher instead of a lawyer to read and interpret that part for you, Marc.
Marc,
I've been busy, just got around to reading some of your posts. Once again you are completely off-base. I have never said that Glen Cove residents are not concerned about user fees. That has always been a concern of some in Glen Cove. In particular how the city was a party in that threat coming about has been a concern to some. That has been a matter of public comment and public record from the beginning and contrary to what you say I have never denied it.
On the other hand, it was you (and others) who repeatedly and quite falsely tried to distort the story to say that such fees were the only concern of Glen Cove residents and the litigants and that nobody was really concerned about the bridge. Such statements are an absolute lie and you know it. The only point I ever tried to make on this subject was that such assertions by you are completely false for the simple reason that there are residents in Glen Cove (and in the law suit) who are not affected by the threatened fees but are affected by the loss of the bridge. And quite obviously there are those who are concerned about both issues and the relative importance of which is a matter of individual thought. I have always been clear with you that when speaking of the relative importance of these issues I am speaking only for myself, not my neighbors.
Marc, I know you well enough to know that you are not stupid enough to be unable follow this very simple and logical train of thought. Yet for years you have persisted in acting the simpleton in a vain attempt to distort the facts in order discredit the complaints of Glen Cove.
As alway, the question remains why? Why does Marc Edleman expend so much effort and sacrifice so much credibility trying to defend and provide cover for attacks upon the rights of his fellow citizens? What's in it for you?
Jeff
Not to preempt Marc's answer, but he's already said previously that it comes down to blind loyalty to his friends. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, honest or otherwise.
In perspective, the fees issue is directly important only to a very small number of GC residents, those who live right on the water and who have docks, piers, boat houses or lifts.
What about wharf rats who don't have any of those improvements? Would there be parking fees for merely tying boats up to posts on the water's edge of their yards?
The bridge issue, though, is relevant to the entire city because it shows what can or cannot happen in any part of the city. That's why the rest of us had better care what happens in GC.
Dear Admirers,
Many years ago, in 1985, Luanne and I looked at homes in Glen Cove. One of them on a double lot at the foot of the Glen Cove Bridge. The listing agent was very quick to disclose to us that the canal was the property of HL&P. She disclosed to us, that at that time the, the houses used the canal at the discretion of HL&P. No guaranty of usage would come with the home. At that moment, we knew that this was just not for us without some guarantee of canal usage. We chose not to pay for waterfrontage that would not include a transferable right to access the water. It was clear then, as it is now, the canal usage was subject to private ownership by someone other than the Glen Cove homeowners.
Marc: First, thank you for conceding to let us worship before you (or behind you, as the case may be), and for gracing us with your presence tonight. Good thing I decided to skip that rerun of the Trailer Park Boys episode.
I know of only one GC residential property which might be on the canal, because it is on the west side of Seminole (and therefore the bridge), on the north bank of the water.
Most are on the east side of the street, on both the north and south banks of what is arguably Clear Lake. By that I mean historical waters that were there prior to the dredging of the canal.
It might all depend on which of these you looked at, and whether a realtor is a reliable authority on canal ownerships. You did use the term "private ownership," after all. It would seem she did take the safest route with repect to making full disclosure anyway.
I have a question for Your Highness. As you may know, marinas east and west of Glen Cove (Watergate and SSH) have both dredged the lake bottom all the way out to the channel in the middle of the lake. Would you now call those dredgings "canals," and believe that the marinas now "own" them?
Without a doubt these marinas created are subject to private ownership. The Wharf at Clear Lake is a prime example. It started as a borrow pit (Sand Pit)that was excavated, then became a marina when the walls were dug out to allow Clear Lake to flow in. I have a title to a boat slip there, and my association holds the title to the channel as common property that goes into clear creek/Clear Lake. So what is your point?
As another point Paul, the realtor showed us the survey that also showed that lot had encroched on the HL&P property by 2 feet or so with their bulkhead had been built out into the canal. She showed us plat maps showing the HL&P ownership of almost all the submerged land to the very edge of the mouth of the inlet.
Wharf at CL "started as a (pit) that was excavated, then became a marina when the walls were dug out to allow Clear Lake to flow in."
You are talking about land (property) that somebody already owned beforehand. They still own it, because they already did. No problem there.
I am talking about something different, public waterways that belong to all of us. How would I go about "acquiring" ownership of a piece of that? Who would I "buy" it from, and should the "seller" (all of us, presumably) have the right to say "not for sale" or else be compensated for our loss? You do agree that we lost something finite, don't you?
Here's a story, Marc. Like the property you declined in GC, I passed up a waterfront lot at the north end of Landrum several years ago.
The realtor explained that a fourth of it was under water due to subsidence or natural erosion (would it matter if it was because of man digging up a pit?).
The portion that went to sea still appeared on the survey, and I have little doubt I would continue to pay taxes on it even though the realtor said USACE would never allow me to reclaim it.
So I would "own" worthless land underneath what later became part of Clear Creek. You reckon I could charge folks who might use the creek above "my" property?
Demolishing glen cove bridge $25,000.00
Jeff Hagen turning on his computer and blogging about Marc Edelman's opinions four cents
Jeff Hagen blathering on an on showing the world what he is not grounded in reality, Priceless
Pual, hear what you are saying, however, the map I saw then and the same map recently showed the HL&P propery prior to them dredging the canal. So as you say, they owned that land before it was cut as a canal and inlet/cove. That entire cove was solid land. Not Until HLP cut a cooling canal there did was that cove created. At least that is what the HLP survey map showed in 1985. If you are saying that there was a natural cove where the homes are now and that land was taken by HL&P in the early 30's or later, I can't speak to that. I just know that was on the plat map in 1985 and the recent plat showing the land of the canal owned by HL&P and its heirs and assigns.
Marc,
Glen Cove Myth #??:
“The entire cove was solid land”. “Glen Cove appears to have been dredged out of upland area.”
Fact: As early as 1928 Glen Cove it has been documented as a “salt-water” marsh by numerous US Geological Topography Maps. It is shown as a salt-water marsh in the 1928 plat map and has been shown in many aerial photographs that pre-date 1960. I also have a number of eye-witness statements and some photographs taken prior to 1950.
(A color copy of the 1932 US Topo map is on my wall)
HL & P’s 1960’s USACE dredging permit stated that the Glen Cove portion of the canal was out of HL & P-owned upland (solid land). I have been told this may have been done to skirt some environment issues with US Fish and Wildlife. I do not know.
Instead HL & P dredged an existing salt-water marshland and an embayment to Clear Lake. The dredging was of great mutual benefit of HL & P and the developer.
Without getting into property ownership or easement rights, which we won't settle here anyway, I can say from personal and family knowledge that Clear Lake had a natural "cove" (origin of the neighborhood's name, I suppose) that went westward into a "corner" approximately the location of the bridge. Farther west of that, it was nothing but an unused ditch that had water in it some of the time, and was passable by foot or car most of the time. We have photos, from the 40s and 50s, so there is evidence of the past!
My grandmother told me not to ever row the boat over there into the slew, which is what we called it because it was swampy or marshy and said to have alligators. I never saw one. There was no canal or bridge yet.
I surmise that homestead rights, and the fact that waterfront property owners' bulkheads and other improvements have gone unchallenged for decades leaves them in a strong if not bullet-proof position legally.
Sorry, Paul. That was meant for Marc, but you posted while I was busy composing. No matter, since we are on the same page, literally and otherwise.
Bad news Paul, one of the disclosures was thqt HL&P challenged the possession of the land by the bulkhead.
So if I read Paul Myth’s information correctly, he alleges that the land that is beneath the houses that are adjacent to the canal were (allegedly illegally or a someone looked the other way) filled wet lands. From what Paul Myth alleges, in the 1960’s some shady deal took place between HL&P and the original developer. Instead of dredging the canal through upland or solid land, a salt marsh was dredged instead to get around some wetland issues(????), Then the spoils was used to create the lots on either side of the canal? Therefore if what Mr. Myth states is true, there maybe some question about the deeds to these houses as well as the deed to the canal. There may be defects in their chain of title because the lots were created out of State owned wetlands and therefore the state may have some claim to the lots, homes and canal. Did I get that right Mr. Myth?
Whatever you're smoking, Marc, it must be some really good $h!T!
Marc,
I have NO idea how your logic lead you to such assumptions.
In 1928 the original Glen Cove plat shows a saltwater marsh with the caption "Glen Cove Lake (proposed". Homes were platted around the marsh.
Long ago you were given the original Glen Cove plat. It is also shown on Jeff Hagens website.
This portion of Glen Cove showing the bridge, the lots around the Cove, and Glen Cove Lake has NEVER been officially replatted.
The majority of the dredging occurred within the boundry of the cove and within the salt-water marsh.
What Scotto bought from HL&P could have been state-owned wetlands.
Who knows?
I forgot to credit Marc and especially Pat Hallisey for attempts to create many of the Glen Cove myths.
A complete chapter in the book will be devoted to their diligent efforts.
Signed,
Mr. Myth Buster
If the good guys are lucky, Helfand will try to build his case around some of Marc's hallucina... er, ideas. I'd love to see a judge try to sit and listen to this stuff with a straight face.
Marc,
I see you've once again bee spending all your time trying to obscure simple truths with fantasies while I've been busy working for a living. (Lucky thing you work for yourself I suppose as I would think anyone else would have fired you by now.)
If that's really what your real estate agent said, you clearly should have gotten a different agent as she had no idea what she was talking about. Obviously you did not bother to look at all of the relevant documents yourself. If you had, you would have learned what those of us who have looked at all of the documents know - namely that HL&P did not have the rights that you claim.
Now, why do you not answer my simple question? What is your motivation for devoting so much of your time and effort defending the assaults upon our rights and property when ostensibly there is nothing in it for you? You have been proven wrong more times than I can remember. You have proven with your own words that you are willing to blatantly fabricate "facts" out of thin air no matter how divergent from reality just to support your argument. (For instance, your latest claim that the cove was dug out of solid upland bears as much connection to reality as your past recollections of driving over the 'rickety old wooden bridge'. But then 4¢ worth of Google search would have shown you enough old ariel photos to put the lie to that myth.)
Why are you so willing to destroy your own credibility over something that on the surface does not seem to affect you? Why (particularly as an official of the city) are you engaged in an obvious effort to influence the actions of the city with a campaign of veiled intimidation?
If your motivation is somehow to recover your dignity and reputation after having so thoroughly sullied yourself, this is not the way to do so. Your only option is to admit that you have been wrong on this issue and move on. Unless of course your goal really is to make a fool of yourself.
Hope you enjoyed the blather.
Jeff
Matt,
(Don't expect me to address you on Marc's blog after his latest outrage.)
First, it was not I or anyone else in Glen Cove who started this latest round of public discussion on the bridge. That was purely Marc & Pat. If you find this discussion annoying, address it to them.
Second, property value was taken from myself and my neighbors without our consent and without compensation. That is not legal. Do you expect us to merely accept that situation without complaint only because it takes a lot of hard work and a long time to achieve justice? I doubt seriously that you would do so; it is hypocritical for you to expect it of us.
Jeff
Dear Mr. Myth,
You ask how I could logically come tot he conclusions in my earlier post. Well sir, I just used good logic.
1. If the canal itself was dredged from a marsh, then it stands to reason that the lots directly besides it were part of that marsh, unless it was a really skinny small marsh.
2. Pursuant to your comment that the dredging deal was mutually beneficial to HLP and the developer, It makes perfect sense that if the marsh was dredged in a deal that benefited the developer and HLP that the spoils were used to fill adjacent land to the canal to create the lots.
3. It is now your contention that the wetlands were used for the canal, so logically the lots too were built on marsh land. Of course unless they were able to with surgical skill just carve a canal out of a small skinny marsh, it is reasonable to assume there might be some title issues for the lots too right? Maybe they got a permit to fill the marsh in and created some other wetlands somewhere else? Do you have documentation for that Mr. Myth?
You can not have it both ways Mr. Myth. If you want to assert issues with title for the canal, then you have to accept the possibility that the lots could have clouded title too.
What I take issue with is, you put forth supposed local lore as fact, but when challenged you and yours resort to personal attacks. Sorry, but I am after the truth as much as anyone. I am not willing to accept your stories as fact when they can not be substantiated.
Please tell me some more stories Mr. Myth.
Whatever you're smoking, Marc, it must be some really good $h!T!
To quote Mr. Myth
[SIC]
"In 1928 the original Glen Cove plat shows a saltwater marsh with the caption "Glen Cove Lake (proposed"."
"HL & P’s 1960’s USACE dredging permit stated that the Glen Cove portion of the canal was out of HL & P-owned upland (solid land). I have been told this may have been done to skirt some environment issues with US Fish and Wildlife. I do not know."
"Instead HL & P dredged an existing salt-water marshland and an embayment to Clear Lake. The dredging was of great mutual benefit of HL & P and the developer."
Using Mr. Myths [SIC] "Facts" I came to the reasonable conclusions I stated above.
To answer Jeff Hagen's question, I seek the truth and to establish what is fair in this situation for all the residents of League City.
Marc,
So simple. Just look at the plat. As with a lake or marsh there is usually a shoreline. Such is visible in the old aerial photographs. This is not to say the elevation of adjacent platted lots was not raised. Surely ground level was raised.
Glen Cove Myth #???
There is a difference between fee ownership and having an interest such as an easement or right of way.
It is myth that to maintain a street the city must own the street.
"The City has to own the rights of way, because it cannot spend public funds on leased or borrowed land." From Pat Hallisey
Similar statements have been made by City Engineer Jack Murphy.
After much discussion I am surprised no one has researched city ordinances and state laws regarding the closure of a city street. Opinions stated on Marc's blog are no more than hearsay with no consideration of city ordinances, state laws, and applicable case law.
The following link is “How to Close a Street Called Desire” A legal History of Streets presented on Texas Municipal League.
www.tml.org/legal_pdf/HistStreets.pdf
Types of Ownership and Interest in Street (Item B Page 8)
“a city rarely acquires the fee simple estate of property for street purposes, but is generally given or acquires a surface right-of-way easement with the underlying fee ownership retaining the interest to the extent that is not in conflict with the street easement.”
People Who Do Not Abut the Street – Special Interest (Item D Page 9)
“Another class of persons owning a special interest in streets is represented by people who, though not owning property actually abutting that particular portion of the street concerned, purchased their property with reference to a plat or map showing the street involved. Such people own a private easement in the street and alleys and public ways shown in the plat or maps reference to which they purchased their property.
The city usually acquires interest by way of public dedications of right of way easements.
On the other hand the state typically acquires fee ownership of all state and farm to market roads.
Road Closure 101
Action must be taken by council BEFORE a roadway can be closed and then abandoned, sold or leased. .There is a lengthy multi-step process and no such process took place.
https://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10947&sid=43
The municipal code is structured after similar states laws. .
An 11 item “Check list for Street Closure” is included in the TML link.
Prior to the lease no action was made by council to abandon, vacate, or close the right of way. Therefore, many would argue that as the city did not lawfully follow city ordinances and state laws the City’s 99-year lease to MB Harbor is voidable.
Thanks for all the information Paul.
Marc,
You have not answered my question at all. You have not sought the truth or fairness at all. You have done nothing but pile mistruths on top of deceit. When caught in obvious fabrications you defiantly refuse to admit error. You have consistently taken a position that what has been done must be accepted by all in its fullest extent regardless of how unjust and unfair it may be and regardless of the fact that the city's actions have been shown to be illegal and even admitted so by the city. Such absurdly false sanctimony on your part only adds to your folly.
Now, answer my question. No more hiding. What is in it for you? Why do you continue to obscure and deny the truth and promote injustice?
Tell us why you strive so strenuously to defend past corruptions or else go away and be silent.
Jeff
Jeff, I think you have it all wrong. I do not defend past corruption. I am a long term involved community person who wants to be sure that what ever action is taken with regards to this bridge situation is fair to the community as a whole. You on the other hand are a single issued, self absorbed, screamer who believes that every conversation that takes place in League City should contain some reference to your bridge and thinks that Glen Cove is the only community that has been impacted by development. Once your issue is put to bed, you will fade into the sunset as any motivation to be a community leader will be gone. I have a 24 year history of active involvment in my local government, what is yours?
Try to stay focused, Marc. The thread is about a single issue only, and only about the rest of the city as it is affected by the bridge issue.
Thanks at least for seeing that it does affect the rest of the city, for the individual and collective rights of any and all of us are really at stake in this.
Gentlemen,
I agree with Paul, please focus. There are many more Glen Cove myths to be busted. This is in response to comments made by Marc and Pat on Marc's blog.
The next installment in the works is for Pat Hallisey's statement.
"Why should Scotto have to pay for anything. He followed all the City rules."
Pat, the truth of the matter - Neither the city nor Scotto followed the rules.
I am done talking about this issue. The courts are going to decide and it does not matter what blather is said here. We have discussed this ad nauseum.
Marc and Pat,
What did you think about “How to Close a Street Called Desire” A legal History of Streets presented on Texas Municipal League.
I am also interested in your review of city charter items.
Instead your opinions about of rumor and hearsay what do you think about city and state laws??
Paul, please. Let a sleeping dog lie.
Finally. I thought this day would never come. It will be nice to elevate this discourse to people who have at least looked at their basic history and have some semblance of facts and evidence in order.
As one who grew up in and around GC, and feel that I know something about it, I might have enjoyed some of the fantasies and fairy tales I've been reading here, if only they could have been made at least a little bit funny.
Post a Comment