It appears that the tapes for the past park board meeting have disappeared. How coincidental that such a thing should occur. So that you know this is not a “grassy knoll” statement I have included the actual response to the freedom of information act requesting a copy of the tapes. The person who usually takes care of these matters and has done a great job in doing so over the many years should not be blamed for this situation. It appears that someone, who may have made some remarks during the meeting, did not want the public to know what was said and could have intentionally removed the two tapes in question. Hmmmm I wonder who that could have been?
From: "Diana Stapp"
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:39:28 -0500
Subject: Application for Public Information #09-274
Dear Requestor:
The City of League City has received your Application for Public Information regarding “audio copy of the Parks Board meeting held on July 8, 2009” (#09-274)
The City has processed your request through the Parks Department. They advised they are unable to locate Tape 1 and 2 of the meeting. They were able to locate Tape 3 which was found still in the recorder. Do you want a copy of Tape 3? The recording was done on a microcassette recorder and the only available duplication is to play in real time onto a regular size cassette recorder. Let me know if you will want a copy of the one tape.
Please feel free to contact me if you should have any questions.
Diana Stapp, Records Supervisor
City Secretary's Office
281-554-1034
281-554-1035 (fax)
City of League City, 300 West Walker, League City, Texas 77573
Friday, July 17, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Councilman Baron Barks
During last night's council meeting Neil Baron made a number of interesting comments during the dog park debate.
He proclaimed:
"The hundreds of petition signers I got"
I am hopeful someone will post a text of Baron's most memorable "dog park" comments.
Nonetheless, I applaud the citizens that spoke on both sides of the issue. In some cases the fuzzy logic was most entertaining. A gentleman spoke connecting the need for a dog park, pet waste, and Clear Lake clean water issues. I am glad someone else cares about Clear Lake water quality.
Does anyone else find it odd that a councilman would be a leader of a special interest group and use his elected position to advocate the group's special-use park?
Some have raised the question of a possible ethics issue. What do you think?
ps.
I did hear a good idea. A private organization could lease city land (or get private land donation) and operate the dog park by volunteer activities and donations. Why not?
He proclaimed:
"The hundreds of petition signers I got"
I am hopeful someone will post a text of Baron's most memorable "dog park" comments.
Nonetheless, I applaud the citizens that spoke on both sides of the issue. In some cases the fuzzy logic was most entertaining. A gentleman spoke connecting the need for a dog park, pet waste, and Clear Lake clean water issues. I am glad someone else cares about Clear Lake water quality.
Does anyone else find it odd that a councilman would be a leader of a special interest group and use his elected position to advocate the group's special-use park?
Some have raised the question of a possible ethics issue. What do you think?
ps.
I did hear a good idea. A private organization could lease city land (or get private land donation) and operate the dog park by volunteer activities and donations. Why not?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Jez Factor
Today’s Galveston County Daily news states “Jez has been fielding questions about the water supply because the city does not have a permanent city administrator, public works director or water superintendent.” It is now becoming apparent why the public works director took a job out of the country. But why is it that “The city could not immediately provide information late Monday about when it purchased the plant or how much has been spent trying to repair it.” Could it be that Mr. Jez forced the water superintendant, who has been with the city 25 years, to retire? Have we lost another long time city employee to the politics at city hall? Is it true that this employee had recommended voluntary water rationing weeks before the actual start date but was ignored because some in the administration were too busy planning Chris Reed’s going away party and the city employee’s party? So who pays for the problem? You got it …the Taxpayer.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Low pressure or no pressure?
Are you experiencing low pressure or no pressure from the water system? I’m not talking about water breaks, (3 in Newport in the past 6 days) which have been taken care of very quickly; I would like to know if you are having low pressure problems. I have received several emails regarding this problem and I am interested to know if this is an isolated incident or not. Tell me what you are experiencing.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Dog Daze
Directed by the president of the League city dog park association, city council member and council liaison to the parks board, the parks board voted to send a request for funding of a city dog park to our council. Ignoring a parks survey done by the city to set priorities as well as ignoring a phone survey taken only a few days ago that stated that out of 4873 Phone calls made to residence of Leaguer city, 1751 we hang up, 83 were wrong numbers or fax machines and only 201 voted for the park while 2778 voted against the park, the parks board rubberstamped the request. The total amount is not known but I have a spread sheet that says the total cost of phase 1 and 2 will be 377,000 dollars.
It is a disappointment that Council member Baron, who is the president of the League city dog park association, city council member and council liaison to the parks board, has made this a political pet pork barrel project for the chosen few that we must all pay for. Ethically, he should not be involved in this project as he is the president of the dog park association and his organization will directly benefit from it. All that talk about ethics during the campaign and all the citizens get is another special interest project.
It is a disappointment that Council member Baron, who is the president of the League city dog park association, city council member and council liaison to the parks board, has made this a political pet pork barrel project for the chosen few that we must all pay for. Ethically, he should not be involved in this project as he is the president of the dog park association and his organization will directly benefit from it. All that talk about ethics during the campaign and all the citizens get is another special interest project.
Friday, July 3, 2009
A Developer’s Point of View About Dog Parks
I recently received this email. Clearly, it was widely circulated. I have NOT included email addresses.
The email originated from a local developer and list of recipients was lengthy. It was sent to all city council members, some to personal/business addresses and other to their city email address. It was sent personally to Neil Baron, Jim Nelson, The Halliseys, Tommy Cones, and Marc Edelman. The email was also sent to numerous individuals at the Galveston Daily News and many others I will not list.
I have respect for most personal emails. However, it is clear this is not a personal email. The entire text (without signature) follows:
________________________
League City imposes a $1,000 per lot Parks Fee for every building lot created by Developers. Looking around the City you can imagine how much money has been received from this requirement. This “Fee” was created to promote and build public parks for “ALL” League City residents to enjoy. This imposed fee is in addition to the required park areas that developers need to create within their projects as well. This administration and the past election cycle has demonized developers. But the fact is that Developers have improved the life styles of all League City residents. League City residents have a right to know that Developer money (and a lot more than $200,000) is sitting in this dedicated fund waiting to be used for Park areas only.
What is wasteful of our tax dollars (and something every League City resident should be deeply concerned with) is that fact that this Dog Park has already been researched, discussed, voted on and passed. Back tracking on this issue when City council and staff should be focused on flooding, traffic and other serious issues facing this City is the real waste of money, time and energy. The losers here will not be the “dogs”, it will be the people of League City.
Embarrassing for League City, yes but also down right disgraceful.
____________
end of email
My favorite comment is “But the fact is that Developers have improved the life styles of all League City residents.”
What do you think?
The email originated from a local developer and list of recipients was lengthy. It was sent to all city council members, some to personal/business addresses and other to their city email address. It was sent personally to Neil Baron, Jim Nelson, The Halliseys, Tommy Cones, and Marc Edelman. The email was also sent to numerous individuals at the Galveston Daily News and many others I will not list.
I have respect for most personal emails. However, it is clear this is not a personal email. The entire text (without signature) follows:
________________________
League City imposes a $1,000 per lot Parks Fee for every building lot created by Developers. Looking around the City you can imagine how much money has been received from this requirement. This “Fee” was created to promote and build public parks for “ALL” League City residents to enjoy. This imposed fee is in addition to the required park areas that developers need to create within their projects as well. This administration and the past election cycle has demonized developers. But the fact is that Developers have improved the life styles of all League City residents. League City residents have a right to know that Developer money (and a lot more than $200,000) is sitting in this dedicated fund waiting to be used for Park areas only.
What is wasteful of our tax dollars (and something every League City resident should be deeply concerned with) is that fact that this Dog Park has already been researched, discussed, voted on and passed. Back tracking on this issue when City council and staff should be focused on flooding, traffic and other serious issues facing this City is the real waste of money, time and energy. The losers here will not be the “dogs”, it will be the people of League City.
Embarrassing for League City, yes but also down right disgraceful.
____________
end of email
My favorite comment is “But the fact is that Developers have improved the life styles of all League City residents.”
What do you think?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Mandatory water Rationing.
Starting July 2,2009 all League City Residence and businesses are required to comply with a mandatory restriction on outside water usage. Read all the details at the League City website or The Galveston County Daily News.
Monday, June 29, 2009
The winner is ….
Marcus Jahns has been named interim city administrator. Mr. Jahns lives in Seguin and is a consultant for Marcus Jahns & Associates. He was the Interim city manager of New Braunfels, 2005 to 2006. He took over for current Seabrook City Manager Chuck Pinto, who had then been hired as city administrator in League City. Read more on the Chronicle blog. I say Welcome to League city Mr. Jahns. What are your thoughts.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The finalists
Today’s Galveston County Daily news gives us some insight in the 3 “Finalists” for the interim city administrator. To me the selection seems like a no brainer. What are your thoughts on the subject? What do you think about the candidates and what is your impression of Texas first group replacement services?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Property measure headed to voters
"Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill Monday that asks voters to amend the state constitution to limit the ability of government entities to take private property using their eminent domain authority." Houston Chronicle June 15, 2009
On the surface this story does not sound like much, but it is huge win for proponents of private property rights. The US Supreme Court Case Kelo vs. City of New London in 2005 gave authority to local governments to take private property for private use. This decision was contrary to long established use of eminent domain whereby governmental entities take private property only for a specific public need and public use. Over 20 states have enacted legislation to severely limit or stop takings of private property for economic reasons.
Last year the Western Seafood (Freeport TX) case was discussed on Marc’s blog. Many argued the local governments have the right to take private property for private use to increase local tax bases and other economic reasons. Generally these types of eminent domain issues are referred to as economic takings. Another local case of interest is a recent district court decision were the Porretto Family won a lawsuit against the General Land Office over beach property.
Looks like Texans will have the opportunity to vote on this issue.
On the surface this story does not sound like much, but it is huge win for proponents of private property rights. The US Supreme Court Case Kelo vs. City of New London in 2005 gave authority to local governments to take private property for private use. This decision was contrary to long established use of eminent domain whereby governmental entities take private property only for a specific public need and public use. Over 20 states have enacted legislation to severely limit or stop takings of private property for economic reasons.
Last year the Western Seafood (Freeport TX) case was discussed on Marc’s blog. Many argued the local governments have the right to take private property for private use to increase local tax bases and other economic reasons. Generally these types of eminent domain issues are referred to as economic takings. Another local case of interest is a recent district court decision were the Porretto Family won a lawsuit against the General Land Office over beach property.
Looks like Texans will have the opportunity to vote on this issue.