Visit FortBendNow.com for more balanced local reports (click on this link)!!!

SIENNA APARTMENT PLANS NOW ON FILE WITH THE CITY!

Thought you all might like an update on the controversial PD-8 apartments that were approved for Johnson Development Co. coming to Sienna Plantation soon. The plans for the first grouping of apartments have been sent to the city and will be reviewed for compliance by the Planning & Zoning Dept. at the first December meeting at city hall (Weds., Dec. 14th starts at 7:00p.).

The project coordinator for Houston's Martin Fine Co., which will be the the property owner soon, is Jason Slanger. We finally got through to Tim Wooten, executive vice president of the Fine Co. He said that they didn't feel the need to meet with community organizations over this matter, but would take e-mails at twooten@mfine.com. We discussed the possibility of having the building use of the apartments changed to condos since building and selling condos would have a more positive taxing impact on our school system and other taxing authorities than apartments. Mr. Wooten refused to meet or discuss this as an option. So far, according to city officials, no waivers on the buildings have been requested. Apparently some discussion has taken place over the height requirements and how that aspect of the construction will be addressed.

Stay tuned for more as we will update this and the Arcola Airport run-way expansion and any development/land use activity that may adversely impact our home and property values.

Stay informed and keep in touch!




*********
Committee for Responsible Development-Sienna Plantation Group
http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com
responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com
Missouri City, TX

NOTICE: “Green Light to Expand Southwest Houston Regional Airport in Arcola?”

“Green Light to Expand Southwest Houston Regional Airport in Arcola?”

CRD has received word from a very reliable source that Arcola and Fort Bend County along with several EDC (Economic Development Council) members have the “green light” to move forward with the extension of the SHRA runways in order to allow jet service. This directly contradicts reports provided earlier in the year by other local media outlets that this project had been halted.

Apparently Jaime Griffith (owner SHRA), Alvin Gibson (mayor of Arcola), Herb Appel (EDC county director) and Bob Hebert (FB Chief County Judge) have worked out a deal between the county and the city of Arcola to move parts of McKeever road in order to comply with FAA regulations so that the runways can be extended for use by jets.

This information runs counter to local media reports earlier in the year that claimed this project was off the table for now. What will this expansion mean to area homeowners? Tom Hilton, who lead hundreds in this contentious fight against airport expansion said, “our property values and quality of life will be adversely impacted”. Mr. Hilton is an Arcola resident and former Arcola city council candidate who has been critical of Bob Hebert during the recent MUD/ECO scandal and on the airport expansion issue.

Neighborhoods like Sienna Plantation, New Pointe Estates, Waterbrook, Silver Ridge, West Pointe, McKeever Rd. Homeowners, and Oakwick Forest are in the immediate impact area for sound pollution coming from the jets. With over 13,000 residents impacted across this area of Fort Bend County how will they respond to such a negative land use issue?

Contact your local city council members, county commissioners for more information and to record your no vote on this expansion. If they ignore your pleas then remember alternative candidates are running in some of the local and county elections. You can make your voice heard!

Remember you read it here first on http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com.


Contacts:

Tom Stavinoha (rep. for this area of FB county)
Commissioner, Precinct 1

Precinct 1
Telephone: 281-344-9400
E-mail Commissioner Stavinoha with any questions or requests for information:
commpct1@co.fort-bend.tx.us

Chief County Judge Bob Hebert
281-344-9400
E-mail werleann@co.fort-bend.tx.us

Arcola Contacts:
Mayor of Arcola: 281-431-0606

Missouri City Council contacts:
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



--Stay tuned for updates on this report as the information becomes available. . . .

Sienna Plantation MUD #2 Ditch Update (from SPMUD2 website)-

Repost from SPMUD #2 website

We will update this as information becomes available:

Ditch Steering Committee Update
Mr. John Jakubik (on behalf of the Ditch Steering Committee) conveyed to the Board the Committee’s


recommendation regarding a solution and path forward for rectifying the standing-water problems being experienced in the ditchsections of Sienna MUD No. 2. The Committee recommended an alternative (Primary Collector Option) that will provide additional elevation drop and increase the slopes available to keep water moving through to the system’s multiple outfall points. As this is stated, the Board wants to be very clear that the drainage system as it exists today works quite well with regard to handling extremely large rainfall events and preventing flooding. The problems that exist within the system are limited to handling drainage issues at the other end of the spectrum - the elimination of standing water from the ditches.

After receiving the recommendation from Mr. Jakubik along with some engineering input from Mr. Tom Ramsey (with our third-party engineers - Klotz & Associates), the Board scheduled a special meeting for September 30, 2005. For the special meeting, Klotz & Associates were asked to perform the necessary work to take the conceptual alternative chosen by the Committee to a higher level of engineering detail so that budgetary and implementation issues could be more fully discussed. At the September 30 meeting, these issues were discussed and the Board approved a motion to authorize Klotz & Associates to proceed with detail engineering of the Primary Collector Option.

Contracts for Klotz to perform that work were requested to be presented for approval at the October 17th board meeting. Specifically, the Primary Collector Option includes the construction of a piped storm sewer system in the North-South corridors within Steep Bank West to provide for as much as 24 inches of additional elevation drop to the system’s various outfall points.

The piped storm sewer will result in shallow swales with area inlets (see example picture below) that will collect rainfall and channel it into the piped system.

By adding this additional elevation drop in the North-South corridors, the East-West drainage ditches (which flow into the North-South corridors) can be re-graded to benefit from this additional slope. There will also be some re-setting of culverts (under driveways) which were set improperly during initial construction. In these cases, the culverts were set with either a flat or a reverse slope that impeded the flow of water. With regard to the cul-de-sac areas in Steep Bank East and Steep Bank West, the Board is continuing to look at the options available to remedy those drainage problems and that are complimentary to the work described above.

In addition to the work above, the Board will also be working to address the situations where water stands in the culverts underneath driveways. This situation predominantly exists as a result of a design code requirement, from the City of Missouri City, that stipulated the minimum culvert diameter be not less than 24”. This size pipe required that many of the culverts through-out the ditch-sections be counter-sunk below the ditch’s designed flowline elevation. Had the bottom of the 24” culvert pipe been installed at the ditch’s designed flowline elevation, it would have resulted in driveways not being level with the streets. To the extent it does not impede the flow of water in an extreme rain event; the Board is planning to fill in these counter-sunk culverts to match the ditch’s flowline elevation.

This work is estimated to begin in March/April, 2006. The exact start date will be decided based on weather conditions closer to that time. There are several options with regard to how the work might be phased and the Board will continue to work through those options to come up with the most effective/efficient plan that has the least disruption to the community. In the interim, the Board will be going through the legally required public advertising process to prepare the bid documents, qualify the contractors and to accept bids for the work. This should enable the Board to evaluate the bids and execute contracts well before the planned start date mentioned above.

***The final aspect of the Ditch Steering Committee’s charter had to do with finding a third-party legal counsel that would evaluate the legal issues and determine whether or not there were any parties that could be held legally responsible for the situation as it exists. The Board has directed our third-party counsel, Bracewell & Guiliani, to undertake efforts to begin the process of pursuing appropriate remedies. In anticipation of possible legal proceedings, this is all that can be communicated at this time about this aspect of the project.***

Recent Court Decisions (SLAPP case in Louisiana)-

News Story
 
Defamation suit against prof for Web-site criticism dismissed

By The Associated Press,
First Amendment Center Online staff
05.22.03

MONROE, La. — A university professor had the right to criticize school officials on matters of public interest, a Louisiana appeals court has ruled in dismissing a defamation lawsuit.

Louisiana's 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with John Scott, a former University of Louisiana at Monroe economics professor who argued that the defamation lawsuit against his Web site should be dismissed under a state law designed to stop lawsuits that target legitimate free-speech and free-petition activities on matters of public interest.

The decision is a blow to Richard Baxter, former vice president for external affairs at ULM, who sued Scott over the now-defunct www.truthatulm.homestead.com. Baxter claimed Scott defamed him on the Web site.

Baxter sought damages because of alleged injury to his reputation, loss of career advancement and loss of business opportunity, he claimed in the suit.

Because Scott's Web site concerned the operation of a public institution, it was a constitutionally protected form of free speech, the appellate panel said in its May 16 opinion in Baxter v. Scott.

The court found that Baxter could not proceed with his lawsuit because of Louisiana's anti-SLAPP — or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law. The law seeks to protect First Amendment freedoms by allowing courts to weed out lawsuits designed to chill public participation on matters of public significance.

"We believe that publishing statements relating to matters of public interest on a website is an exercise of one’s constitutional right of free speech," the court wrote.

Baxter, who stepped down as vice president last summer to return as a professor in mass communications, couldn't be reached for comment. Scott, who now teaches at an Arkansas university, also couldn't be reached for comment.

OP/ED Piece in the FB SUN Today (Comments on Goff Smears):

Views on apartments shared by many

11/14/2005

It has this community divided."

He stated that this issue of additional apartments had created a firestorm that has the council back to its conflicted way of functioning of three years ago, at which time the council as a group sought professional counseling to reduce the conflict. Mayor Owen made these comments following my comments to the council about the problem of how they were handling some things for our city.

Anyone can go to the Missouri City home page on the internet at http://www.ci.mocity.tx.us and follow the links to see the video of this meeting and hear these comments for themselves.

In marked contrast to the mayor's publicly stated opinion about an issue that has the entire community and the city council itself divided, your paper published on the front page of your November 9, 2005, issue quotations from Doug Goff, senior vice president & director of Land Development of the Johnson Development Corporation. Mr. Goff is quoted as saying that "By doing this (postings made under different aliases on a blog site), Mr. Calvin gave the false impression that the views he was espousing ... were shared by a large number of Sienna Plantation residents." This front page story in part created the impression that this issue of new apartments in the area was only between Mr. Calvin and SJDC, and that the impression that it was not an issue for others in our community was false.

I have no basis for disputing all of the quotes of Mr. Goff in this article, but this one critical aspect is definitely wrong. Mr. Calvin's views about not wanting additional apartments in the Missouri City area are shared by many and has the entire community itself divided, as Mayor Owen said. Mr. Calvin appears to be one of the most vocal individuals who is unwilling to be intimidated into keeping his views to himself. Many people in our community, people who are not willing to expose themselves to the attacks of a large and powerful corporation, share some of Mr. Calvin's views. Although Mr. Goff's seeming attacks on Chris Calvin apparently are legal, they do not appear to me personally to be fair or helpful to healing our community.

I also feel that your paper publishing only Mr. Goff's quotes on the first page and then quoting Mr. Calvin and Mr. Feinberg on the second page added to the impression that Mr. Goff's words were more important and carried more weight than their quotes. I was taught that the more important things are on the first page of a newspaper and the less important things are on other pages.

Your paper is an important source of information to our community. We need you to be fair and accurate in appearance as well as fact.

Paul Malone
Missouri City

***MUD/ECO Scandal Update***

Just in from FortBendNow.com (http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/371/texas-rangers-may-investigate-mud-scam)

TEXAS RANGERS MAY PROBE MUD SCAM
by Bob Dunn, Nov 11, 01:38 pm

The Texas Rangers may wind up investigating a scam through which several local municipal utility districts were bilked of nearly $200,000.

In September, managers for Sugar Land’s ECO Resources discovered evidence of an apparent scheme through which several MUDs – all ECO customers – had been falsely billed for a total of more than $185,000 in work or services never performed.
The company fired Janet E. Trentham, of Missouri City, one if its client managers, in connection with the scheme.

ECO, which manages and operates more than 120 municipal utility districts, agreed to make restitution for the $185,000-plus in losses to MUD districts that’s been identified so far, and also hired a forensic accounting firm to conduct an audit and determine if there were any further losses.

ECO alerted Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey to the apparent scam, and agreed to turn findings of the forensic audit over to his office once it’s complete.

On Thursday, Healey said he’s spoken with Jeff Cook of the Texas Rangers about the matter. If the audit shows a criminal investigation is warranted, Healey said, he intends to ask the Rangers for assistance, and the Rangers “will accept any request I make.”

ECO Resources, which was founded by Fort Bend County Judge Robert Hebert, now is owned by Southwest Water Co., a publicly traded company headquarterd in Los Angeles, with whom Hebert has a consulting agreement.
Southwest’s John Boardman, who manages ECO operations, said the forensic audit still is being worked on, but may be completed by the end of November.

“I’m trying to push them to a resolution,” Boardman said of the auditors, “and they’re trying to remind me that they need to be thorough.”

Meanwhile, Trentham has been served notice that she’s being sued for fraud by one of the victimized MUDs.
First Colony MUD #9 filed suit against Trentham last month in Fort Bend County District Court. The lawsuit alleges Trentham obtained more than $25,000 from the utility district through fraud, and seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting of Trentham and all her financial records, interest on money taken by fraud, and attorney’s fees
Trentham, who does not have a listed phone number, could not be reached for comment for this story.

Comments:

1 CyberInvestigator - Nov 11, 03:12 pm

Thanks for keeping us posted on this. Thank God someone other than the “good ole’ boys” network here in FB county is looking into this. Given the relationships bringing in outside agencies is almost required. Well done FBN!

FB Star Editorial (Hermer Responds)

Reposted from http://thewebbie.com:


Dear Ms. Sandlin:

I am one of the cooperating counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, representing Matthew Feinberg in In re Sienna/Johnson Development. The suit is perhaps better known as the one Sienna Johnson brought against Mr. Feinberg and Chris Calvin to find out the identities of the anonymous users of www.mocitytalk.com and www.siennatalk.com . Sienna/Johnson allegedly sought those identities in anticipation of bringing a suit against one or more of the users for alleged defamation and/or business disparagement.

It is unfortunate that Ms. Fulenwider did not seek to interview either me or Mr. Feinberg’s other counsel before submitting her article.

Although I do not represent Mr. Calvin, we could have provided her with the following information: First, the law of the United States is crystal clear that the users of an Internet discussion board, including Mr. Feinberg’s website, have a right under the First Amendment to make anonymous posts, as long as they do not break the law in doing so. Regardless of what Mr. Calvin or any other website user writes - whether brilliant, boring, or ridiculous - he has the right to do so anonymously, as long as he doesn’t violate the law.

Sienna/Johnson’s lawyer, John Keville, said in Ms. Fulenwider’s article that he wants Mr. Calvin to stop making anonymous posts. In order to make that happen, however, Mr. Keville would either need to get Mr. Calvin voluntarily to agree to the prohibition, or Mr. Keville would need to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to change the well-settled law of the United States concerning anonymous speech. As things currently stand, if Sienna/Johnson doesn’t like people making anonymous criticisms of what it does, that’s Sienna/Johnson’s problem, and not anyone else’s.

As a second issue, it appears that neither Mr. Calvin nor Mr. Feinberg wrote the one and only post that Sienna/Johnson alluded to in its petition as allegedly constituting defamation or business disparagement.

Additionally, neither knows with any certainty who in fact wrote it. Sienna/Johnson evidently deposed the wrong individuals, if it in fact was interested only in finding out the identity of that one poster. However, Sienna/Johnson was not interested in finding out just that one poster’s identity. It was interested in finding out the identities of many different users of the site.

Some readers may wonder why an average person might resort to anonymity to make criticisms of powerful and wealthy people or businesses.

Mr. Calvin says that he’s spent over $20,000 in attorney’s fees involving this case. If Mr. Feinberg didn’t have pro bono help, his fees would have far exceeded this amount, to date. It should therefore be evident what a law-abiding individual such as Mr. Feinberg should fear from large businesses and powerful individuals if he dares to exercise his Constitutional right as an American on American soil simply to sponsor discussion that sometimes becomes critical of a powerful entity in a public forum and make himself identifiable in doing so.

Although we tried to stop Mr. Feinberg’s deposition from taking place, we were unsuccessful. No court of appeal has yet considered the matter based on the First Amendment issues involved. The case is presently before the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston.

Sincerely, Laura Hermer, J.D., L.L.M.
University of Houston Law Center

Fort Bend Sun Article (11/7-11/13/05)

This is the entire text from the FB Sun article which came out today at http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15530122&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532245&rfi=6 .


Top News

Sienna resident, website operator caught in legal wrangle

By: SESHADRI KUMAR 11/07/2005


The legal wrangle between Sienna/Johnson Development, on the one side, and a Sienna Plantation resident Chris Calvin and the operator of a web log Matthew Feinberg, on the other, have raised many new questions.

The nature of comments posted on the website, some allegedly defamatory in the eye of Sienna/Johnson Develo-pment and an attempt to find out the real identity of those who posted the comments, are at the center of the dispute.

SJD, represented by Attorney John Keville, sought to get depositions from Calvin and Feinberg regarding the website.
Calvin is represented by Sugar Land Attorney Jeff Singer and Feinberg is represented by Laura Hermer, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. The American Civil Liberties Union is footing the bill for Feinberg.

Calvin and Feinberg appealed against the court ordered depositions, but were unsuccessful. Consequently, as per the order of Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz of Fort Bend County, Feinberg and Calvin under oath answered the questions of SJD attorney John Keville on Oct. 17 and Oct. 18.

Hermer has filed an appeal in the 14th Court of Appeals, along with an emergency motion to stay the use of the deposition. Hermer wants the deposition to be sealed.

Hermer believes the protective order issued by Judge Ruiz prohibits the public release of the identity of the bloggers and that information can only be used by Sienna if they file a lawsuit.

Doug Goff, senior vice president & director of Land Development of The Johnson Development Corp. issued a statement clarifying some of the published reports on the litigation.

"First, SJD did not sue anybody. The legal proceeding we instituted asked the Fort Bend County District Court to allow SJD to take two depositions, that of Mr. Chris Calvin and Mr. Matthew Feinberg. The purpose of these depositions was twofold: (1) to determine whether Mr. Calvin made defamatory statements under fictitious screen name aliases on websites administered by Mr. Feinberg, and (2) to determine if Mr. Calvin was masquerading as many different people and whether he clicked on his postings possibly hundreds or thousands of times to create the appearance of great community interest in his agenda.

"SJD does not now, nor ever has, wanted the names of innocent users of the Siennatalk or MissouriCitytalk websites disclosed. We just wanted to get the truth behind Mr. Calvin's fictitious aliases, and to find out if Mr. Calvin had any facts to back up his accusations.

"SJD has never intended to limit Free Speech rights of anyone. However, the right to Free Speech does not include the right to defame others, and it does not, in our opinion, include the right to deceive the public.

"The alleged escalation of legal costs was not caused by SJD, but by the attorneys representing Mr. Calvin and Mr. Feinberg. Mr. Feinberg was represented by the ACLU and they repeatedly filed motions against the depositions going forward in three different courts including the Texas Court of Appeals. Ultimately, all three courts have rejected the legal claims presented by Mr. Calvin, Mr. Feinberg and the ACLU. If Free Speech rights were truly an issue here, then at least one of the courts would likely have agreed with them and the ACLU. But to say in some of the postings that the Free Speech rights of Sienna Plantation residents are in jeopardy is ludicrous and Mr. Calvin knows this.

"When the legal dust settled, the two depositions occurred routinely and produced the following results:
"Mr. Calvin admitted under oath that he had used at least 30 different fictitious aliases on the Siennatalk and Missouri Citytalk websites and that he had repeatedly clicked on his postings. In fact, one website "discussion" appeared to include back-and-forth postings between nineteen users of the website when, in fact, at least 15 out of the 19 message posters were actually aliases of Mr. Calvin. By doing this, Mr. Calvin gave the false impression that the views he was espousing - some of which involved unfounded accusations of wrongdoing - were shared by a large number of Sienna Plantation residents, when, in fact, most of it was coming from him. While SJD has no issue with truthful discussions and/or criticism about the company or the community, it will not stand idly by in the face of insinuations of wrongdoing, particularly when made under false aliases.
"Mr. Calvin has admitted under oath that he does not have now, nor has he ever had, any evidence of wrongful conduct on the part of SJD, its partners, Johnson Development or any of its employees.
"Mr. Calvin has admitted under oath that he has no evidence that SJD, its partners, Johnson Development or any of its employees (a) made anything other than lawful and proper campaign contributions to any official of Missouri City or (b) that SJD received any favors from any Missouri City official in return for campaign contributions.
"Mr. Calvin admitted under oath that he signed a Notice to Lot Buyers several months prior to the purchase of his lot in The Woods and that he was aware that SJD had the right to build multifamily housing (apartments) and commercial/ retail development in Sienna Plantation. He further admitted that he had ample opportunity to investigate these issues before the construction of his home if they were of such a concern to him.
"Mr. Calvin admitted under oath that he was notified of the existence of a homeowners association in Sienna and that he had ample time to investigate the manner in which it is operated and specifically, the fact that members of the Board of Directors are appointed by the Declarant (SJD) until such time as a majority of homes in the community have been sold.
"SJD is now deciding whether to sue Mr. Calvin for damages and reiterates that we do not intend to sue Mr. Feinberg. SJD encourages residents of Sienna Plantation and other area citizens to contact us directly if you have any further questions. We will be happy to explain the truth about what has transpired and are always available to discuss issues of concern about the community. We just prefer to do it with real people, not an Internet imposter who twists the facts to suit his hidden agenda."

Calvin responds:

Responding to Goff's statement, Calvin said "They obviously have left out a great deal of information in this case besides potential violation of the court order over the deposition We won't violate the court protective order, but we will respond to some of the misinterpretations of the 400-500 pages of transcripts taken."

The deposition used in this case by JDC/SJD attorney and Doug Goff's subsequent interpretation of it is based on his opinion of the findings and not a court or jury finding, Calvin said.

Goff is attempting to base his limited claims on several hundred pages of testimony certainly based on his opinion of the transcript and not fact, he said.

"This deposition was rather one-sided, expensive and brought by the SJD/JDC and does not allow other witnesses or cross-examination by the target/defendant (which is still unnamed at this juncture of pre-trial discovery)," Calvin said.
This case is a template borrowed from Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation( SLAPP) cases which have been used by many developers around the country to silence groups and individuals engaged in public debate (such as land use issues). The intent is to "chill" the community.

"Goff's statement has erroneous claims. First the appeals were filed by Ms. Hermer (Feinberg's attorney) and the constitutional experts, not Jeff Singer, my attorney," Calvin said.

The final court appeal ruled that since the depositions had already taken place that the arguments were moot Ruiz did not allow an extension for the last appeal to be effective ). So the case was sent back to Ruiz's. This is not a victory for Goff's attorney or a ruling against free speech as implied above, Calvin said.

As anyone knows who follows SLAPP cases keeping the deposition fishing expedition from happening is crucial to keeping these cases from getting dragged into, what experts call, "fact quagmire" (arguing over each statement made and its intent). According to the research when depositions have been allowed the financial damage to the target/targets and the length of these trials extends quite a bit. In most states with anti-SLAPP statutes these cases are thrown out before deposition .
Feinberg has since started a new blog called www.thewebbie.com where he has posted the following comments regarding the depositions and Goff's statement.

"I was deposed on the 17th but under extreme duress under a court order by Judge Ruiz. The order was give by Ruiz even though there was a pending appeal. If I did not complete the deposition me and my lawyers could have been held in contempt of court," feinberg said.

"Chris Calvin and the rest of us have a constitutional and god given right to "blog" anonymously. This has already been decided in many other states and by the Supreme Court of the USA," Feinberg said.
SDJ has yet to prove the comments are defamatory, he said.

"Goff could only show two cases of possible "alleged defamatory" statements. Mine was one of them and we already proved that it was not defamatory. The other I told who I believed made the statements and it wasn't Calvin. What else is there?" Feinberg said.

"For many years the apartments were not on the map, in the sales office or literature given to the public. There was not even a road sign until this past summer. The sign that was there said "Commercial Property". In my opinion that was deceiving the public. And I don't care that we all signed a document stating that SJD has the right to build what ever they want. We did not know or was not informed of the apartment plan. Really.. who goes to the city hall and searches through all the agreements between the city and the builder?"

"In the new Covenant for Sienna Plantation there is specific language that limits fee speech and assembly in or near Sienna. This means they want to restrict free speech in or out of Sienna. Here is Proof that SJD wants to limit free speech. Check section 2 in the new Covenant, they specifically don't want owners to "assemble for the purpose of spreading propaganda". If you read more into this you are not even allowed to have web site that opposes them. They can even use personal emails against residents. It would be easy for Sienna to enforce this rule on anyone that runs a web site or opposes their views," Feinberg said.
********************************

OP/ED--we appreciate the efforts of at least one local paper to balance the reporting. Thanks FB Sun!--CRD

A Very Sad Tale (Sorry Susan I Didn't Know)--

From http://www.brazosriver.com/oldorchard.htm (visit and see the pictures--they help tell this story). It shouldn't matter who you support in the upcoming county and local city elections, anyone can relate to loss.


Grieving Again

(from http://www.brazosriver.com/oldorchard.htm)


Five years ago this month, my beloved 26 year old son died after a brief and courageous battle with cancer.  He was damn near perfect, and I miss him so much.  It is a pain for which there are no words, but sometimes you can almost see it in my eyes.  Even my closest friends usually look the other way because they don’t want to see how deep pain can go.   

He chose cremation because he felt he shouldn’t take up space after he was gone.  He was like that – a tree hugger and proud of it.   

We spread his ashes at Old Orchard Golf Course on a cool brisk evening next to a pecan tree that looks like it’s been there forever.   He considered Old Orchard to be his home course because he played it regularly since 1990 with me, his Dad and his brothers.  For those familiar with the course, it’s the tree next to the old windmill.  He really liked that old windmill.   


I couldn’t count the number of times he played that course; he felt at home there.  He knew every twist and turn.  We had always imagined that one day he would teach his own children to play golf by bringing them to Old Orchard.   

We put a bench, handmade by one of his friends, next to the tree with his name on it and some words from Bagger Vance (the book, not the movie) that talks of always being in search of your authentic swing.  He had read the book shortly before he died and liked the idea that you might be able to find your soul through sports. 

His brothers tend the bench and visit it on holidays to set out a few flowers or add some mulch.  Every year for Christmas they have given me a picture of themselves sitting on their brother’s bench.  It is almost as if he is growing older with them. 

 
Over the past five years, people who are strangers to us make an effort to tell us how beautiful the bench is in its simplicity. Our son would have liked that. When we play golf at Old Orchard now, and laugh recalling his incurable slice, we play a little faster to get to the bench and “see” our son and brother.   

Old Orchard, an integral part of our community, has been eaten-up by developers.  Brutalized.  Flattened.  Destroyed.   

The green space, the quiet, the pecans bursting and the squirrels running, the chance to find your soul, a place we thought would be there forever, is going to be leveled and concreted by the creeping unsustainable development that our elected officials in Fort Bend County encourage and brag about.  You can almost see the pain go deeper in my eyes. 


Old Orchard was rated one of the finest public golf courses in Texas.  It was a country club quality course for the working man to take back the game of golf from the cigar smoking fat cats who only play to do a deal.  It was a course where you might find your soul instead of paying your dues.  It was beautiful. Its owners kept it excellent condition while keeping the rates low enough for families to play. The profit margin was low but the value it had to the community was immense. We mistakenly thought that gave it a reason to exist.   

This will not be the first time that I have been called anti-growth by someone looking to make a buck.  They are going to build grand, expensive houses on top of my son’s ashes.  He would have hated that.  I hate it.  I will not be able to drive down FM1464 again because I know I will look over where the golf course used to be and ache.  I ache not only for my son’s resting place, I also ache for green areas and places where families can be together in the quiet and build memories.   

I figure that developers close by Old Orchard have sold the land around it by boasting of the added benefit of green spaces and a prime public golf course right in your community.  And now they are eating that.   


I understand that nothing is forever.  You don’t have to tell me that.  I’ve lost a child, I know that better than you do.  But I think the greatest loss is the idea that pouring concrete is progress. I have lived here for half my life.  You cannot see the stars at night here anymore.  However, you can see the result of developers’ big dollar political contributions to eager politicians.  You can clearly see the traffic jams and over-crowded schools.  The rise in crime is apparent and the pollution is thick with haze.   

Yes, my property values have increased, but so have my taxes.  Obviously, the value of our memories is of no concern to developers or money crazed politicians.  Growth trumps quality of life for those who have made their homes here.  There are plenty of areas to build without tearing down a pecan orchard and a golf course. 

The destruction starts on November 6th, and they will build million dollar homes over the ashes of my child.  They call it progress.   I call it a shame. 

 

 

Fort Bend Star Report (from one perspective/opinion again)

We found this editorial on http://www.thewebbie.com. We compliment its author:

03 Nov 2005 10:48:29 am
Fort Bend Star
In my opinion the Fort Bend Star is trash. I won't even use it to line the bottom of my bird cage!!!!

http://www.fortbendstar.com/110205/n_Sienna%20blogger%20admits%20to%20using%20many%20aliases.htm

As usual Barbara Fulenwider reports a one sided view! Why? Could it be that SJD spends thousands of dollars advertising in her rag? Barbara Fulenwider has never contacted me or my attorneys to get our side of the story. Barbara Fulenwider has never followed up to verify facts. In this case she is too lazy to even write her own story! She quotes someone else's one sided statements and forgets that there were replies to the commentary of Doug Goff...

Anyone remeber the "Tree Hugger" Article??
http://www.fortbendstar.com/Archives/2005_3q/070605/n_Tree%20huggers%20vs.%20developers%20in%20Mo%20City.htm

Barbara Fulenwider is not a real reporter. Real reporters check their facts and seek the truth. Her paper can not (in my OPINION) be considered anywhere near journalistic. I get more useful information from the "Star" at the checkout counter. For real reporting see http://www.starmagazine.com/

Maybe she will get reprimanded by the court like SDJ and their attorneys will be for reporting confidential information from a confidential deposition. Let me correct some errors..

Quote :
On Oct. 17, Calvin and Feinberg were deposed in Calvin’s lawyer’s office in Sugar Land and the next step, Keville said, is “to consider our options in what to do regarding Mr. Calvin.” The crux of the matter, Keville said, was never to stop Calvin from making public statements but instead to stop him from making “untrue, inflammatory judgements and preferably not under fake identities,” -- blogger user names.


1. I was deposed on the 17th but under extreme duress under a court order by Judge Ruis. The order was give by Ruis even though there was a pending appeal. If I did not complete the deposition my and my lawyers could have been held in contempt of court.

2. Calvin was deposed on the 18th.. Not the 17th as reported.

3. Mr. Keville... with all due respect and without defending Calvin's actions.. Chris Calvin and the rest of us have a constitutional and god given right to "blog" anynoumously. This has already been decided in many other states and by the Supreme Court of the USA. Do we really need to make a case study from this and to create legal precedence in the great state of Texas? Hey.. You can be famous for being the attorney that fought against constitutional rights of free Americans.

4. SDJ has yet to prove the comments are defamatory.. To be defamatory the comments must be a false statement of fact and they must be made with malice and that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive. Doug Goff may have actually been insulted but I doubt he has had harm to his reputation. Goff hurt his own reputation by pushing through with these witch hunts. The statements should be referred to as being "Alleged".. since they have not been proven.

Quote :
“Other things we were trying to find out is who made certain defamatory statements and some of that we found out and some we didn’t. We’re looking at that now as to what may be actionable and what isn’t,” Keville said.

What the hell does that mean??? Again Mr Keville.. Alleged Defamatory statements.. You have not proven the statements are defamatory.. Your behavior is quite strikingly disturbing. You could only show two cases of possible "Alleged Defamatory" statements. Mine was one of them and we already proved that it WAS NOT defamatory. The other I told you who I believed made the statements and it wasn't Calvin. What else is there?

Quote :
“The SJD has never intended to limit the free speech rights of anyone. However, the right to free speech does not include the right to defame others, and it does not, in our opinion, include the right to deceive the public,” Goff wrote.

1. Mr. Goff.. But it is ok for you and your company to hide the apartment plan for so long? For many years the apartments were not on the map, in the sales office or literature given to the public. There was not even a road sign until this past summer. The sign that WAS there said "Commercial Property". In my OPINION that was deceiving the public. And I don't care that we all signed a document stating that SDJ has the right to build what ever they want. That is not the point Mr. Keville. We did not know or was not informed of the apartment plan. Really.. who goes to the city hall and searches through all the agreements between the city and the builder??????

2. Have you seen the new Covenant for Sienna Plantation? There is specific language in there that limits fee speech and assembly in or NEAR Sienna. Check the full reply by "Right to be anynomous" at http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/317/ They (SPRAI) say in the new Covenant ”rights-of-ways within or adjacent to the Properties”. This means they want to restrict free speech in or out of Sienna. Here is Proof that SJD wants to limit free speech. Check section 2 in the new Covenant, they specifically don’t want owners to “assemble for the purpose of spreading propaganda”. “ The definition of PROPAGANDA: Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause” They don’t want any anything expressed that opposes their views. If you read more into this you are not even allowed to have web site that opposes them. They can even use personal emails against residents. It would be easy for Sienna to enforce this rule on anyone that runs a web site or opposes their views.


Quote :
“In light of the information provided in the two depositions, SJD is now deciding whether to sue Mr. Calvin for damages and reiterates that we do not intend to sue Mr. Feinberg,” Goff wrote.

I challenge Mr. Goff again.. If you mean that you will not sue me then put it in writing. Our requests have gone unanswered for this. If you won't put it writing and file it with the courts your statements mean nothing.

Quote :
The Fort Bend Southwest Star called Jeffrey Singer’s office but the call was not returned. Singer is Calvin’s lawyer

Barbara.. But yet you have again failed to call me or my attorneys to get our side of the story. I wonder why? Barbara.. Check your facts.. YOU KEEP GETTING THEM WRONG!

I believe the best thing for SJD to is to drop this whole thing. They took something that very few people knew about (in their words Calvin was 15 out of 20 posts) and made it very very public. It will not be long until national media picks up on this. Come on Douggie.. Leave us alone. All I wanted to do was provide a community service and get people talking about community issues. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.

I never should have been dragged into court. My rights have been severely violated and I will continue to fight with all my might until SJD guarantees I will not be bothered again.

That's that about that!