NOTIFICATION: Johnson Development Attorneys Challenge Courts Protective Order in Case Against Their Own Residents! (case no. 05-CV-144185)
On September 14th John Keville, SJD’s Houston attorney, filed an objection to the court protective order that was originally issued to shield hundreds of homeowners and residents who participated on a local website in protest to the developer’s proposed second grouping of apartments coming to this quiet Missouri City neighborhood (see court connect for verification). This is in addition to an already approved “up to” 900 apartments coming to this area courtesy of SJD.
This case was originally filed after a group of Sienna and Missouri City area residents submitted a petition against the addition of a second grouping of up to 1800 apartments to Missouri City council and the developer backed mayor Allen Owen. This occurred five days after local media reported the campaign contributions list and ethics violations by the mayor during this 6 month long local conflict between residents, the developer and those backed by the SJD corporation on council, namely mayor Owen (see contributions list online at brazosriver.com).
The recent hearing to depose on September 14th allowed the limited depositions of the residents, by SJD attorneys, to go forward but a protective order by the court would be issued over the website MissouriCityTalk.com (formerly SiennaTalk.com) to protect the free speech rights of hundreds of registered users from any possible retribution by the Sienna developers or exposure of their personal information to the developers who manage their residents association and control their resident’s association board of directors in this community of nearly 10,000 in the ETJ of Missouri City, TX.
Ms. Hermer and Jeff Singer are the attorneys who represent the residents and the website in this case. Ms Hermer, on the law faculty at University of Houston, filed the counter motion against the attempt by JDC attorneys to amend the protective order. In her response Ms. Hermer states “…because the requested discovery seeks to pierce the anonymity of potentially each and every one of the scores of users of the website in question, First Amendment protections therefore come into play (see Doe v.2TheMart.com, Inc.)…” she goes on to state in her brief that “… the Petitioner (Johnson Development) is precisely the entity from whom many of the users of the website sought protection through anonymity.” If the court goes along with the JDC/SJD attorneys and modifies the court order many residents would be subject to exposure to the developer and potential retribution for their participation in this very public fight against apartments in this community.
Stay tuned for more as we will continue to update this action by the Houston developer building Riverstone and Sienna Plantation subdivisions here in Missouri City, TX. If you want to help then please contact the below to let them know how you feel:
Contact e-mails:
fbeditor@hcnonline.com -- Fort Bend Sun
bkcstar@earthlink.net -- Fort Bend Star
EricHansen@chron.com -- The Chronicle
City council contacts: Mayor@ci.mocity.tx.us; owenwall@wellsfargo.com; Council2@ci.mocity.tx.us; brjimerson@jimerson.net; bburton@ci.mocity.tx.us; Councila@ci.mocity.tx.us; ehrieiter@hal-pc.org; donsmith@ci.mocity.tx.us; Councilb@ci.mocity.tx.us; bkolaja@ci.mocity.tx.us; Council1@ci.mocity.tx.us
Developer contacts: http://www.johnsondevelopment.com/contactus.html --web contact
Larry Johnson-713-960-9977; larry@johnsondev.com
Chad Johnson-713-960-9977; chadj@johnsondev.com
Doug Goff-713-960-9977; dougg@siennaplantation.com
******
Committee for Responsible Development—MoCity Group
Responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com
Missouri City, Texas
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Sunday, October 02, 2005
85 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Are they still trying to get the names of all the residents who participated or visited the site?
Isn't this all included in another thread?
From our information based on the documents filed and interpreted by this lay person I would have to say yes. The action of modification to this agreement would allow greater access than desireable and would appear to violate first amendment principles. It smacks of a fishing expedition to "build a case" against a few of the leaders in the Sienna petition drive against apartments that took place from February through the end of July (the case was filed August 3rd, 2005).--CRD
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
That's exactly what's going on. You guys and gals are being punished for standing up to them. Keep it up. I just wonder when you all are going to file a counter suit?
I'm getting tired of reading about this. Everyone knows what developers are like and most just accept it. I know apts. can hurt the local community but if the mayor is receiving contributions and other "gifts" from them then the deal is done and not much short of a recall election or replacing him and his cronies will accomplish anything productive. I wish I had a 100k to give you to fight this behemoth out of control business in court but I don't so get on with life!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I know what you mean James. We've seen this battle fought time and time again in areas that were once suburbs. The only way to impact the harrassment is to counter with a hefty case against them. You all have one pretty easily here with the original 3 golf course master plan that's now a 1 course neighborhood with at least two major strip centers added. The agreement with the city has changed numerous times too. You all better look into this or they will keep you wrapped up in a side-show like this defamation thing. Get to it before you can't afford to anymore!
I read this release and it doesn't seem to support the developer's post on the Siennanet.com site. Apparently Doug stated that they just wanted to prove Calvin was posting disparaging statements about them, but if that's true why are they trying to strip the protective court order for the residents who visited or participated on the site and why is he just singling out these homeowners and former clients and not everyone who may have criticized them?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Why are we supposed to write the mayor for?
billyboy.. wake up... it does not matter what Goff wrote on siennanet.com.. as usual they lie and spin the truth.. The truth is in the public documents at the court house. Your rights and the rights of every Sienna Sienna resident (every Missouri City resident for that matter) is at risk. If you don't complain you will have your rights violated.
I'm wondering why they are allowed to use the courts in this fashion. Isn't this tantamount to legalized harassment?
That's the point! SDJ is using the courts just for that purpose. To harass/scare people into being quiet. Do you think that any Sienna resident will speek out against them now?? There is quite a chilling effect to these kind of cases.
This sounds like the failed management policies of the past. Rule through oppression and comand and control. I thought this went out with the dark ages. It's hard to believe it is alive and well in this community.
It won't silence me if I get deposed in a deceptive trade case against them. I will sing like a bird...chirp . . . :-)
It must be part of the amenities package they advertise, huh anon?
Here's a joke about a lawyer I know named John:
A lawyer, named John, was out hiking with a friend when they encountered a mountain lion. The lawyer dropped his pack and got ready to run.
"You'll never outrun a hungry mountain lion!" exlaimed his friend.
"I don't have to outrun him," replied the lawyer. "I just have to outrun you!"
I remember reading these on the SiennaTalk site before they shut it down.
Who shut it down?
due to the threat of a lawsuit the administrator of the site Matthew Feinberg was forced to shut it down to protect the users of the site.
Thought you all might be interested in checking out the campaign contributions for Bob Hebert at the brazosriver.com site. An interesting name shows up.
Check this local article out from Juanita's Beauty Salon:
--or check this story out from: http://www.brazosriver.com/boys_and_their_money.htm
The Boys And Their Money
Susan DuQuesnay Bankston
It's that time again - campaign finance reporting! Twice a year, in January and July, our elected officials have to tell us who holds their lease.
I know that I may well be the only person on earth who thinks it's undignified, rude, and disgraceful for public servants to be for sell to the highest bidder, but this is my website and I'm gonna holler about it and if you don't like it you can leave.
Once again, I'll explain the ground rules. County Commissioners are the most corruptible political office in Texas. They control how every dime of your county tax money is spent. If the District Clerk, Glory Hopkins, wants to buy something, she has to get Commissioners' approval first. Same deal with Constables and the Sheriff.
Any money spent by the county for "professional services" - lawyers, engineers, consultants - is decided on a non-bid basis. In other words, Commissioners can give those highly lucrative contracts to whoever they want without regard for price or qualifications. Prepare yourself for some shocking news --- those contracts go to firms and individuals who give Commissioners the most money for their campaign warchests. It's legalized kickbacks, pure and simple.
These firms and individuals pass along the cost of doing business to you, the taxpayer, in the form of higher prices to the county. They figure-in their required political "donations" in their overhead.
Campaign warchests rarely have anything to do with actual political campaigns. The law says that elected officials cannot spend the money in their campaign accounts to enrich themselves. But, that's never enforced. At least not in my lifetime. And I'm older than most planets.
Also, we have to trust them that what they are reporting is true. I don't trust them none at all. Nada. They lie. They break their promises. One of them even harasses women and makes us pay for it. On the whole, they're a slimy bunch.
The money they get in their campaign accounts is non-taxable. Politicians made that law. Cute, huh?
In short, they're stepping all over us and giggling about it.
As I explained in a snarky stuff, I go buy these reports and put them on the electric magic internet machine, open 24 hours a day. Commissioners could do that and in many counties they do, but our commissioners have one-half ounce of shame left about using you as a doormat. So, they only let you see them in county office during regular business hours - you know, when you work.
I'll put these online as I get them scanned.
First out of the box is County Judge Bob Hebert, the Mattress Mac of Fort Bend. In the past six months, Hebert has brought in $111,471 tax free dollars to his campaign account. You read that right - for the first time in the history of Fort Bend, we've moved into six-figures. He spent $57,908. He really didn't need to raise any money at all because he has $113,063 left in his account. Yes, he gives lots of money to charity so people will say nice things about how generous he is. That is just pure poopie del pollo!
Click right here to see County Judge Bob Hebert's record breaking hog trough.
Next comes Commissioner, Precinct 1, Tom Stavinoha, who is in Hawaii on "county business" this week. Tom raised $800 in the past six months, spent $9,314 and still has $7,247 in his campaign account. Tom takes his legal kickbacks in baseball and rodeo tickets. It's gotten so bad that vendors call him Ticket Man. We'll talk more about that later.
Click right here to see how Tom Stavinoha spends his tax-free money.
Andy Meyers is once again the genius of "creative finance reporting." He raised $62,175, spent $28,964, and refuses to use the new form that requires him to tell how much is in his account. Best I can figure, he paid around $6,000 in transportation/car expenses from his campaign account for the past 6 months. I hope he pimped his ride that that much money! You will also notice his country club dues and, like Grady, checks to himself or his credit card company for unspecified expenses.
Click right here to see Commissioner Andy Meyers' paid for a trip to California to see a "political consultant." You think he saw Ahnold?
... and just for fun, someone sent us FBISD candidate Ken Bryant's last two filings.
PLEASE NOTE: Commissioner Grady Prestage and Commissioner James Patterson have not filed their campaign reports yet. They were due July 15th and today is August 1st. Now you know why we have the one of the highest paid District Attorneys in the State of Texas. (Yes, county commissioners determine the DA's salary.)
Commissioners Patterson and Prestage have now filed their reports. They are posted on the LOCALS tab
When I get around to it, I'll set up a special page for campaign contribution and expenditure files. Okay, it's here --- click LOCAL STUFF over yonder on the left."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
These type of law suits have a name in other states. They are called SLAP suits. Quite a bit has been published about them. You guys may want to read up on it. The petitioners usually do not win them so recovering your costs shouldn't be a problem. Check it out!
What does SLAP stand for?
It's actually SLAPP and it stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. According to Pring & Canan (1996), co-directors at the Political Litigation Project at the University of Denver, they are used to silence individuals and/or groups from influencing local political agendas usually through some libel or slander claim. The cases are rarely if ever won but are used to intimidate. In their research they documented the strategic use of these suits by quite a large number of corporations. Many of their case studies involved developers using SLAPPS to silence local political opposition such as homeowners and residence who stand up to them and interfere with their bottom lines.
Most of the cases are defended via first amendment violations and the right to petition our government (sub-clause). As mentioned earlier the petitioners goal in these cases is not to win but to silence their opposition and cause them to spend a great deal of money defending these cases. Many subsequent legal researchers have documented this abuse of the system and the chilling impact it has had on local democratic processes. A very dangerous premise in a country that relies so heavily on public involvement in the political processes. Let me know if you need more.
What can the average citizen do to fight back against a SLAPP?
Several options exist and they are:
-File a SLAPP-back case claiming abuse of procedures and violation of the "Petition Clause" of the 1st Amendment.
-Settle or quash the deposition (thus the case).--I don't support this one.
-File a hefty counter suit claiming damages.--this is a good one.
-If dealing with a developer, as in this case, then file a "deceptive trade practices suit".--another good option.
Good luck with all this and let me know if you need any additional information and feel secure in knowing that juries rarely find in favor of petitioners in cases as public as this one has been.
I read that the Texas constitution is even more liberal on free speech than the federal const. Does anyone know anything about this?
How about this one:
Q. What's the difference between a carp and a lawyer?
A. One's a scum-sucking, bottom-feeding scavenger. The other is a fish. . . ;-)
I love lawyer jokes! I will look a few up too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Please keep the jokes family friendly if you wish to share them on this site and follow the rules of netiquette.-Thanks
Here are some SLAPP resources-
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/SLAPPS.html
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html
http://www.casp.net/mengen.html
http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1228_reg.html
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/
I found this one you all might like:
A man walking along the beach found a bottle. When he rubbed it, lo and behold, a genie appeared.
"I will grant you three wishes," announced the genie. "But there is one condition. I am a lawyer's genie. That means that for every wish you make, every lawyer in the world gets the wish as well -- only double."
The man thought about this for a while. "For my first wish, I would like ten million dollars," he announced.
Instantly the genie gave him a Swiss bank account number and assured the man that $10,000,000 had been deposited. "But every lawyer in the world has just recieved $20,000,000," the genie said.
"I've always wanted a Ferrari," the man said. "That's my second wish."
Instantly a Ferrari appeared. "But every lawyer in the world has just received two Ferraris," the genie said. "And what is your last wish?"
"Well," said the man, "I've always wanted to donate a kidney...
The Texas legislature has failed to pass an Anti-Slapp law in the last 4 sessions. Remember that the legislature in Texas is controlled by developer contributions and thus an Anti-Slapp law will never pass. Yes. The developers may loose their argument in the end due to First Amendment rights, however, they can cause serious damage to individuals and families by forcing people into depositions. They have already caused a huge CHILLING effect by causing residents to NOT speak out.
Here is a case yesterday that was in the Chron.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3385432
DOVER, Del. — The Delaware Supreme Court rejected a town councilman's quest to find out who posted obscenity-laden tirades about him on the Internet, saying free speech concerns outweighed the politician's argument that he was defamed.
The decision Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling ordering an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of four anonymous posters to a blog site operated by Independent Newspapers Inc., publisher of the Delaware State News.
The posted entries, among other things, accused Smyrna councilman Patrick Cahill of "obvious mental deterioration" and used the name "Gahill" to suggest that he is homosexual.
In June, the lower court ruled that Cahill had established a "good faith basis" for contending that he and his wife were victims of defamation, and it affirmed a previous order for Comcast Cable Communications to disclose the bloggers' identities.
But Chief Justice Myron Steele likened anonymous Internet speech to anonymous political pamphleteering, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court characterized in 1995 as "an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent."
Accordingly, Steele wrote, a court should not order the unmasking of an anonymous Internet poster unless a plaintiff offers strong proof of defamation.
"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," Steele wrote. "The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all."
Steele also noted that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and "generally set the record straight," and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
"Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning," he wrote.
David Finger, an attorney representing a blogger who challenged the lower court ruling, said the Supreme Court decision helps protect bloggers and all citizens against suits filed only to intimidate them.
Robert Katzenstein, a lawyer representing the Cahills, declined to comment Thursday.
The Delaware court was the first state Supreme Court in the nation to consider the question of naming anonymous bloggers.
Not something any family or community activist will want to face but all important to fight. Thanks for sharing that case. Please let us know if you find more.
I am so sick of this action-or non-action according to SJD. We had no idea that when moving here we had to "check" our rights at the entrance. I don't mean to vote because we knew we were in the ETJ, but to speak even on the internet. IMHO, I think there is guilt on both sides, but to continue a court issue and bring in or threaten to bring in innocent residents is too much.
The people they are SLAPPing are the ones who live and pay HOA dues here, support the schools etc.-you know the 2nd highest median income in the country ones- the ones with dual incomes and college educations. Do they still want to attract those people? Do they think if they read this stuff about this case those people will buy out here?
It looks bad for everyone.
This has become a PR nightmare. Just another reason why I am looking into turning my house into a FEMA shelter home or rent house.
Heck, when the apartments come what's one more renter.
Houston-here we come and we won't let the door hit us on our way outta here.
It's certainly not the quiet little community promised by the sales people that's for sure! No ones going to stop me from talking either through these court tactics.
Here is the internal covenant restricting free speech in the community. Notice they claim contract areas and "adjacent areas" too. We're sure this could be easily challenged and probably should be. This covenant was passed in late May in response to the petition drive and the SLAPP suit was filed at the 240th district court as a means to silence homeowners involved with the petition drive in early August.
Here is the "dissemination covenant" passed without the SP homeowners vote:
SIENNA PLANTATION RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION IN AREAS OF COMMON RESPONSIBILITY
Adopted: ____________________
The following Rules and Regulations Regarding Dissemination of Information in Areas of Common Responsibility (the “Rules”) are promulgated by the Board of Directors of the Sienna Plantation Residential Association, Inc. (the “Association”), pursuant to the authority found in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Sienna Plantation Residential Association, Inc., recorded under Clerk’s File Number 9734406 in the Official Public Records of Real Property of Fort Bend County, Texas (the “Declaration”) and the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, filed with the Texas Secretary of State on the 9 th of June, 1997.
Unless otherwise specified herein or if the context clearly indicates otherwise, the words used in these Rules shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Declaration.
An Area of Common Responsibility is owned, maintained and/or controlled by the Association.
Area of Common Responsibility, as defined in the Declaration, means the “Common Area, together with those areas, if any, which by contract or agreement become the responsibility of the Association. Road rights-of-ways within or adjacent to the Properties may be part of the Area of Common Responsibility.”
Common Area, as defined in the Declaration, means “any and all real and personal property and easements and other interests therein, together with the facilities and improvements located thereon, now or hereafter owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and Occupants.”
The Association hereby adopts the following Rules:
1. No Owner and/or such Owner’s guests, invitees or agents may disseminate, post, or otherwise display or distribute any written information (including, but not limited to banners, handbills, newsletters, flyers, leaflets and the like) of any nature, content or kind, in or on an Area of Common Responsibility.
2. No Owner and/or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents may engage in any of the following activities in any Area of Common Responsibility: (a) picketing, (b) otherwise spreading propaganda, (c) using sound and/or voice amplifying devices (including, but not limited to microphones, amplifiers, or other similar devices), and/or (d) causing or encouraging persons to assemble for the purpose of spreading propaganda;
provided, however, any such activities listed in this Section 2 shall be permitted so long as such activities are commenced in furtherance of a Community Sanctioned Event, as defined below.
3. A Community Sanctioned Event shall mean an event or activity approved by the Board of Directors and/or General Manager of the Association, which event or activity is (i) a fundraising, charity, pledge, drive or similar event sponsored and/or organized by the Association, the Declarant, other organization approved by the Association, or an organization defined under Section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, or their successor statutes, or (ii) sponsored and/or organized by the Association for the benefit and/or enjoyment of the Owners and/or the community.
4. The determination of whether an Owner or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents are in violation of these Rules shall be made by the Board of Directors of the Association and/or the General Manager of the Association, in their sole and absolute discretion.
5. If an Owner or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents engage in activity prohibited by these Rules, the Association, pursuant to and to the extent of the authority granted in the Declaration may, take one or more of the following actions:
(a) suspend the enjoyment rights of such Owner with respect to the Common Areas for any period not to exceed sixty (60) days subject to notice that may be required by applicable law;
(b) consider a person who enters upon and is present in an Area of Common Responsibility for a purpose in violation of these Rules a trespasser;
(c) impose fines, upon notice and opportunity to cure as may be required by Texas law; and/or
(d) remove and/or dispose from the Areas of Common Common Responsibility any items that are placed and/or posted in the Areas of Common Responsibility in violation of these Rules; in doing so the Association or its agents shall not be subject to any liability for trespass, other tort or damages in connection with or arising from such removal and/or disposal nor in any way shall the Association or its agent be liable for any accounting or other claim for such action.
6. “Owner” shall not include the Association, the Declarant, or any of their respective agents, successors, designees, replacements or assigns.
These new rules can easily be twisted to mean your first amendment rights are violated even in the comfort of your own home using your telephone or computer. Watch out!! SDJ will take your home from you if you use your home computer to post messages on the internet!
The last time I've seen restrictions like this the Soviet Union was still around!
I want to thank whoever placed a flier on my car at the garage sale this morning. I didn't even know this site was here countering our developers information. I didn't know what a SLAPP suit was until coming here.--Thanks!
has anyone thought to call the ACLU for help? it looks like the developers are voiding the constitution.
Yes maybe a group like Public Cause or the ACLU could provide help for the homeowners in this. I would also suggest contacting Houston media sources to publicize what's going on too.
Here's a telling quote by the mayor from an article in the Sun, "With respect to campaign contributions, Owen said, "I'm proud that developers and builders have chosen to support me as Mayor. I haven't intentionally shown favoritism to any developer, and I am not at all ashamed of the people that have supported me in the past."
Doesn't look like the developer or mayor are the least bit worried about citizen involvement on this.
You all are a bunch of crazy greenies with nothing better to do. I'm outta here!
probuilder1 calls us "crazy greenies".. I say he is an anti-American with views of a communist. Call me a greenie any day for supporting free speech! I am proud to be an American and I love the constitution!
Bye, bye prob. Good luck with whatever project they have you working on and remember on this forum you are free to speak your mind without being sued for it.
Thanks for adding us to your contact list and getting that last update out to us. Did you get the e-mail I sent you with new addresses? Let me know if you got my last e-mail.
Check out this article from FortBendNow.com (the politicos trying to convince the residents to support the status quo again rather than attempt their own solution. The problem being that many developers and those in city & county government are reaping the benefits of this growth while trying to pass the costs off on the consumers. I notice one presenter even used the same arguments they used here. --If you don't like it move). They need to check the contributions list on those speaking:
Officials To Simonton: Disband At Your Peril
by Bob Dunn, Oct 8, 01:13 pm
County, city and economic development officials converged on Simonton Saturday morning to deliver a concerted message warning residents of the downside of “disincorporation”.
Fueled by anger over Simonton’s first-ever property tax, approved by the City Council in April, a group of residents has been circulating petitions seeking an election to decide whether Simonton should disband as a city.
Dismayed at what they called disinformation being circulated with the petitions, Simonton Mayor Paul “Dub” Sabrsula and the council called in a panel of government officials to answer questions at a town hall meeting at Simonton Community Church.
About 85 residents heard presentations from officials, including Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers, Rosenberg City Manager David Neeley and Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council Executive Vice President Jeff Wiley, expound on imminent growth and development, road maintenance issues and the relationship between city services and city taxes.
“You have got to determine, what do you want for your community? Envision what you want Simonton to be … what’s your quality of life,” Fulshear Planning Board Chairman Mike McCann urged the crowd. The growth’s coming. It’s hit Fulshear broadside.”
McCann said the Fulshear – just four miles east of Simonton – now has 3,000 “master-planned acres” within city limits.
“If you’re looking for a place that you feel like will get you out of the mainstream of city life, you need to move further west,” McCann said. “The growth is coming to Simonton, and you can’t stop it. It’s coming fast and it’s coming hard.”
The panel spent two hours giving presentations in response to pre-selected questions, mostly involving road maintenance issues, before directly addressing the source of what has become Simonton’s controversy: property taxes and the resulting disincorporation movement.
Then Simonton resident Ralph Gustafson stood up and put panel members on the spot, asking them each to answer a question.
“Do you believe, in order for us to be able to know what our future holds, do you believe incorporation provides us that ability?” Gustafson asked.
Wiley, of the Economic Development Council, had a succinct answer.
“Yes,” he said.
Orchard City Commissioner Rodney Pavlock said if Simonton disincorporates, some other municipality will use the annexation process to move the area within its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), and then into its city limits. If that happens, Pavlock said, the power of Simonton residents’ votes would be diluted.
Rosenberg’s Neely said one of the main reasons for municipal incorporation is to protect citizens from growth. “You need to develop a subdivision ordinance and make developers within your ETJ develop to your standards.”
“You need to be an incorporated city,” Neeley said. “Run for office. Become a city council member. But be a city.”
Said County Commissioner Meyers, “One of the scary things you ought to consider is, if you disincorporate, I’m going to be the only elected official you’ve got.”
Meyers said he also believes a disincorporated Simonton would be annexed into another municipality’s ETJ. And, he said, that municipality could be the city of Houston. He said while Cinco Ranch residents may believe they’ll someday be part of Katy, they’re actually within Houston’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I just love this one. It sounds just like our banker mayor was saying to his citizens "if you don't like it move". What is this a template for developer lackeys:
"“If you’re looking for a place that you feel like will get you out of the mainstream of city life, you need to move further west,” McCann said."
--How far west???
No one with an sense is reading this stuff. Stop it! Isn't one law suit enough?
pro-b I thought you were "outta here"?
Maybe she/he likes it so much that they came back for more of the same.-Welcome!
-Free speech can be a hoot!
Hey ProB,
Now you know what it feels like to voice an opnion.
That's what we've been talking about all this time. You couldn't do this if you had to live by what you've advocated.
Welcome to the use of the 1st Admendment.
I think you are starting to turn a subtle shade of "green" like us greenies.
That one reminds me of what Owen said to one of our residents a few months back that got him into hot water.
“If you’re looking for a place that you feel like will get you out of the mainstream of city life, you need to move further west,” McCann said."
" said that when one resident spoke opposing apartments the mayor told him that he could sell his house if he didn’t like it here. "
I wonder if the EDC cuts/pastes that into their speeches?
Who is the EDC?
Some of you may want to bookmark this resource:
http://texas.ahrc.com/engine.php/legislatorwatch;
This is interesting (a national movement):
Petition to Permanently Stop Homeowner and Property Owner Association Foreclosures in America
The People of the United States of America
Circulation Period: 09/10/2003 - 12/31/2003
To: The Congress of the United States of America
Federal, United States
Petition To The Congress of the United States of America
I am writing to ask you to ensure that when I get to the closing table to purchase my properties, there are no pre-existing liens on my property before I get there. I want the opportunity to decide if I want to subject my home to a homeowner or property owner foreclosure if I do not pay my maintenance fees or violate a deed restriction.
I am asking for protection of my property from foreclosures by my neighborhood Homeowner Association (HOA) or Property Owner Association (POA). You may not be aware of this but throughout the United States, developers have been and are placing nonnegotiable restrictions and conditions of ownership on our future property as they develop the land. These restrictions and conditions are listed in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) attached to the title of the property. These CC&Rs contain a potential lien capability whereby the Homeowners Association can foreclose in the event you do not pay maintenance fees or commit some other CC&R "violation" such as painting your mailbox a color they don't like, or a roof type that is not approved, or if you are not cutting your lawn enough, etc. These are certainly not violations you should be foreclosed for.
If a homeowner is having trouble paying their maintenance bill or fail to pay included penalties generated by their board members, they should not be subject to a foreclosure of their property.
We want this foreclosure cancer to stop eroding our property values and our property rights. We bought our homes and we want to maintain our right to decide what should happen to it as our forefathers planned decades ago.
We need your help in ensuring that this is what happens. It is time to stop these cottage industries from robbing us of our property rights. We ask that you stop this practice of including a foreclosure capability in the CC&Rs by creating a law that will stop it once and for all. We cannot rely on our state to do this for us. This practice is unjustly robbing us of our property and causing us financial loss. Across this country, this practice is and has caused an epidemic that must be stopped. It is impossible for us to stop this practice through our local legislators because special interests groups have more power and more money than we do. We cannot win at the local level; we need your help!
This capability must be removed from existing CC&Rs and prevent its inclusion in future CC&Rs. To that end, we, the undersigned, do petition you, the Congress of the United States of America, to draft and pass legislation that prohibits the foreclosure of any of its citizens' property by a Homeowner Association, a Property Owners Association, or any comparable homeowners Association that may go by any other title, by banning the practice of developers creating these restrictions prior to our making a decision at closing as to whether or not we want this on our property. Help us get back our property rights!
Instructions:
After you submit your signature, you will immediately receive a return email with a link to click. Clicking this link verifies your signature.
Actions you can take to assist include signing this petition; cut and paste this letter into your own letter to your representative and sending the link to this petition to as many concerned and like-minded individuals as possible.
Thank you for your continued support to the homeowners, future homeowners and voters across these United States of America.
Since many of the developers support politicians through their giving I doubt this has much of chance but I will support it!
The EDC is the Economic Development Councils. They have integrated themselves into most local, county and state governments and operate much like a PAC for business interests but with the appearance of formal government sanction.--It's quite a cast of characters here locally but I'm sure it's the same anywhere. They are very pro developer.
More on SLAPPs as a violation of the petition clause of the first amendment:
SLAPP Suits (from:http://www.nj-landuselaw.com/slapp_suits.htm)
With increasing frequency, particularly in California, private citizens have been sued for communication with government with respect to land use and environmental issues. These lawsuits--characterized as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and known by the acronym of "SLAPP Suits" are often the result of development proposals involving both state and local approvals and strong community opposition.
In contrast to most litigation, the SLAPP suit is brought, not to resolve a problem, but to remove a controversy from the political arena-- where the developer may be loosing-- to the judicial arena where the "chill" and expense may enable the developer to seize victory from defeat.
A Law School study of 228 SLAPP suits found that the SLAPP targets prevailed in approximately 77% of all cases, but that they were considerably more affective with regard to small community groups, particularly where the membership is less affluent and tend to have little familiarity with the legal system. On the other hand, the larger, well-organized national environmental groups are generally unaffected by the threat or commencement of such suits.
Any suit, even a SLAPP suit, must have an underlying alleged wrong, or in lawyer's parlance a cause of action. In SLAPP suits defamation is the most used claim.Other underlying claims are tortuous interference with business or contractual relations, RICO, and the allegation that the there was a conspiracy between the citizens and government to deprive the developer of his property interest under color of state law contrary to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
SLAPP suits are highly controversial as a result of the perceived abuses. They are as strong, however, as their underlying claim. Have the objectors really libeled or defamed the developer. If the developer is determined to be a public figure he must prove in addition "actual malice" and "a reckless disregard for the truth". As a result of anti-SLAPP sentiment in California a bill has been introduced in New Jersey to limit this cause of action.
New Jersey: Proposed Statute
Identical anti-SLAPP bills were introduced in early 1998 in the New Jersey Senate and Assembly. Senate Bill No. 745 was introduced Feb. 26, 1998 by Sen. William Schluter. Assembly Bill No. 1788 was introduced March 2, 1998 by Assemblyman Leonard Lance. The text of S.B. 745 as introduced is given below. An anti-SLAPP bill introduced in 1996 by Assemblyman Lance was worded in more general terms than the present bills (see Assembly Bill 1545).
Senate Bill 745
State of New Jersey
208th Legislature
Introduced February 26, 1998
Sponsored by: Senator William E. Schluter
VERSION: Introduced February 26, 1998 Schluter
An Act concerning claims arising from a defendant's valid exercise of certain constitutional rights and supplementing Title 2A of the New Jersey Statutes.
STATEMENT
Lawsuits have been filed in increasing numbers against individuals and groups who speak out to public officials and in public forums about public issues. Nicknamed "SLAPPs" (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) by consumer advocates, these lawsuits are brought for the purpose of deterring the valid exercise of constitutional rights through abuse of the judicial process. Even though most of these suits are legally baseless and are eventually dismissed by the courts, the defendants often incur substantial legal expenses, such as court costs and attorney fees, in defending themselves.
This bill attempts to remedy this situation by providing for a prompt judicial assessment of these actions prior to incurring substantial legal fees. With the assistance and cooperation of the courts in establishing appropriate court rules, a motion to dismiss would be authorized in a cause of action arising from a defendant's valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. All discovery would be stayed pending a ruling on the motion which would be determined on the pleadings and supporting affidavits. A prevailing defendant on the motion to dismiss would be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a motion to dismiss is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court could award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff prevailing on the motion.
TEXT:
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. The Legislature finds and declares that:
a. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances;
b. The threat of a civil action for damages in these situations and the costs associated with defending such suits can be severely burdensome and deter individuals and entities from fully exercising their constitutional rights to speak out on public issues;
c. It is in the public interest for citizens to participate in matters of public concern and provide information to public entities and other citizens on public issues that affect them without fear of reprisal through abuse of the judicial process;
d. An expedited judicial review would avoid the potential for abuse in these cases. Since the practice and procedure in the courts is constitutionally committed to the Supreme Court's rule making authority, these cases provide an opportunity for a cooperative effort between the branches of government.
2. As used in this act:
a. "Valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances" includes, but is not limited to, any written or oral statement or writing made before a public entity; any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a public entity; any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or any other conduct in furtherance of the constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection with an issue of public interest.
b. "Public entity" means the federal government, the State, a municipality, a county, a school district or charter school board and any agency, board, body or authority thereof and any other public body in this State.
3. In accordance with such New Jersey Court Rules as may be promulgated, a cause of action arising primarily to deter a defendant's valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances shall be subject to a motion to dismiss, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. Except as may otherwise be provided by the court, all discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a motion to dismiss pursuant to this section and shall remain stayed until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination.
4. In any cause of action subject to a motion to dismiss pursuant to this act, a prevailing defendant shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs. If the court in a separate finding determines that a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to this act is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff prevailing on the motion.
5. This act shall not apply to any enforcement action brought by a public entity.
6. This act shall take effect immediately.
New Jersey Legislature Main Bill Information 1998-1999 Legislative Session
A1788 - Lance, Leonard
Authorizes a motion to dismiss in a cause of action arising from a defendant's valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.
Mar-2-1998 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Judiciary Committee
Identical Bill: S745
S745 - Schluter, William E.
Authorizes a motion to dismiss in a cause of action arising from a defendant's valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.
Feb-26-1998 Introduced And Referred To Senate Judiciary Committee
Identical Bill: A1788
any questions or comments
E-mail
REZONE@NJ-landuselaw.com
I found this part particularly interesting--
"SLAPP suits are highly controversial as a result of the perceived abuses. They are as strong, however, as their underlying claim. Have the objectors really libeled or defamed the developer. If the developer is determined to be a public figure he must prove in addition "actual malice" and "a reckless disregard for the truth". As a result of anti-SLAPP sentiment in California a bill has been introduced in New Jersey to limit this cause of action."
It sounds very familiar-hum?
So what it isn't going to change anything.
Apparently SLAPPs are used most frequently by developers as a common business tactic and the filing claim is usually defamation/libel (sound familiar). This is according to Pring & Canon, 1996.
Sometimes, in cases like these, a great deal more comes out about the business practices of an organization than they may have wanted. This could be interesting. Obviously the standard mud slinging will occur, but juries are amazing in these cases with regard to their collective wisdom.
Of course business as usual FB politics had nothing to do with this gift:
Sugar Land Hands Developer A Plum
by FortBendNow Staff, Jun 22, 12:49 pm
State land that would otherwise be up for auction could be purchased by a Sugar Land developer without competition, according to an agreement approved Tuesday by the Sugar Land City Council.
The agreement involves former prison land north of U.S. 90A and west of Highway 6, now owned by the Texas General Land Office.
The General Land Office has auctioned several similar large tracts in Fort Bend County and elsewhere, but also is allowed to sell the land to a city instead of holding an auction.
Under the agreement, if the General Land Office sells Sugar Land the property, the city would immediately sell it to Cherokee Sugar Land, L.P., which intends to develop the tract along with another occupied by Imperial Sugar Co.’s closed refinery and historic char house.
Cherokee Sugar Land is a partnership of Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC and W.C. Perry Properties, LP. City negotiations with Cherokee have been led by City Manager Allen Bogard, since it was revealed that Mayor David Wallace has a business arrangement with Perry.
“As I previously stated, I have consummated a business transaction with W. C. Perry Realty Investment Fund, LP and W. C. Perry Properties, LP whereby I will serve as Chairman of the Investment Committee,” Wallace said in a statement earlier this year. “This business involvement is not associated in any way with W.C. Perry Land Development, LP, or any other entity involved in the Imperial transaction. I have relocated my business office to Perry’s office in Sugar Land in early January.”
I found this one floating around too:
After years of assisting more senior attorneys at trial, a young lawyer was finally allowed to try a case on her own. Determined not to lose, she prepared furiously.
The trial went on for eight exhausting days. Finally, the case went to the jury, which quickly returned with a verdict in favor of her client.
Ecstatic, the attorney phoned the firm's managing partner, and the moment he was on the line announced, "It's me! The jury just came back, and justice has prevailed!"
The managing partner gasped, stammering, "Appeal at once."
Good one! . . . :)
Some of you may find this of interest:
From the Hearld-Coaster:
Hebert to seek second term as county judge
Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:24 PM CDT
Fort Bend County Judge Bob Hebert announced his intent to file in the Republican Primary seeking reelection to office in the upcoming 2006 elections.
Hebert took office Jan. 1, 2003 for the current term expiring Dec. 31, 2006.
As county judge, he presides over a commissioners court that oversees the county's 1,900 employees and its $172 million budget.
Hebert cites major accomplishments during his first three years in office include construction and opening of the Fort Bend Parkway and its companion toll road the Westpark Tollroad; completion of a major portion of the mobility projects authorized by the 2000 bond election; and reformation of the county Mobility Planning Committee to further research and prioritize mobility improvements for Fort Bend.
Hebert says he is proudest of the fact the county has been able to reduce its tax rate while expanding the budget to meet the growing challenges presented by the county's phenomenal growth.
"I filed for judge in a county of 375,000 people, today I represent 470,000 and, when reelected, I will enter my second term serving an estimated 500,000. This rapid growth places severe strain on the county's infrastructure and it would be very easy to lose control of the county budget if we dropped our guard. A commitment to careful planning and financial stewardship is absolutely required as we move forward.“
Reared in the Texas Panhandle cities of Amarillo and Pampa, Hebert graduated from Pampa Senior High School in 1959 and came to the Houston area in 1963 upon receiving his honorable discharge after four years of service in the U.S. Navy.
Hebert founded ECO Resources, Inc., a national utility operating company headquartered in Sugar Land, and served as its chairman and CEO until 1985, when the firm was sold to Southwest Water Company. He currently serves Southwest Water as a senior consultant to its Southwest Water Service Group.
Hebert also has a broad background in public service, including prior service as vice president and director of the Brazos River Authority; as the city manager of Rosenberg; as president and trustee of the Alief Independent School District and as the court-appointed temporary receiver for Arcola.
For many years a resident of First Colony, Hebert now resides in Foster Creek Estates in West Fort Bend County with his wife, Pat. They have three daughters and five grandsons.
Looks like the elections season is just around the corner.
Hello All,
We have recently joined an affiliate of the American Homeowners Association here in Texas called the Texas Homeowner Association (THA). This association is located at http://texas.ahrc.com/ and it monitors legislation going on that impacts associations. We neither endorse the site or oppose it but feel it is a good source for current information on HOAs and a place to practice your first amendment right to talk to each other about these concerns. However we do endorse associations that are represented by their homeowners and not exclusively their developers (a problem here in this area with a few developments).--CRD
Isn't that the group fighting HOA abuse in Texas?
Looks like they are fighting the "good ole boys network" in this state. Doubt they will have much success here. It's just not a very consumer friendly place.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
THA is the group that lobbied the Texas legislature to institute a ban on Eminent Domain and foreclosure powers for local HOAs and other government bodies protecting homeowners rights (unsuccessfully I might add).
Sorry to hear that.
The little guy is the one who loses on this one in the end. It's time for homeowners to stand up to the powerful Austin lobby taking away the citizens rights!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
qzz0714
chrome hearts outlet
canada goose jackets
michael kors
grizzlies jerseys
true religion jeans
coach outlet
ray ban sunglasses
jordan shoes
fitflops sale clearance
ugg outlet
ultra boost
lacoste outlet
pandora charms outlet
nike shoes
salomon
nike huarache
off-white clothing
nike shoes
クロムハーツ
skechers shoes
zzzzz2018.10.11
moncler outlet
canada goose outlet
james harden shoes
coach outlet
adidas clothing
adidas superstar
converse trainer
coach outlet
north face
off white clothing
Post a Comment
<< Home