Happy New Year From CRD! Catch the latest Herald Coaster Article on the SLAPP suit filed by Johnson Development. . .
--The article fails to mention the 1100+ Sienna Plantation and area resident signatures on the petition drive against the second grouping of up to 1800 apartments coming to this neighborhood (above the already approved 900) and that 60% of the campaign contributions going to mayor Allen Owen of Missouri City from '99-'05 comes from Houston area developers. Larry Johnson of Johnson Development Co. of Houston was one of the primary contributors to Owen over the years (#2). Is this misinformation lawyer Keville (JDC rep.)?
--The article also fails to mention that Keville has expanded the case by naming the committee as a co-defendant in the case. This could involve scores of homeowners who helped out during the petition drive and council efforts.
--***SEE THE POST BELOW THIS ONE FOR AN UPDATE ON THIS CASE. MATTHEW FEINBERG, WHO RAN THE NOW DEFUNCT SIENNATALK.COM AND MOCITYTALK.COM HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT PARTICIPANTS ON HIS WEBSITE INVOLVING THIS CASE.***
Developer lawsuit accuses resident of misinformation
By Stephen Palkot
Monday, January 2, 2006 1:39 PM CST
An ongoing lawsuit in Fort Bend County pits a resident contributing to a website on local politics against a company accusing him of publishing misinformation.
Chris Calvin, who lives in Sienna Plantation, has been a frequent contributor to several citizen-run websites, where he has spoken out against a proposal by the developer to build apartment complexes in the neighborhood.
Sienna Plantation lies in east Fort Bend County, along Highway 6 adjacent to Missouri City. The development, with about 10,000 residents, is in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Missouri City.
Through the websites Missouri City Chatter and the now-defunct Sienna Talk and Missouri City Talk, Calvin has criticized developer Doug Goff of the Sienna/Johnson Development Corp., and has accused city council members of unethically bowing to his requests.
Those posts caught the attention of Sienna Plantation officials, who sought to question Calvin about his involvement in the website and the claims he makes there.
On Oct. 18, Calvin participated in a deposition, but only after failed objections from his lawyers. This month, the developers filed a lawsuit against Calvin, in which they claim he defamed and libeled the developers.
In particular, lawyers allege that Calvin deceived readers by posting messages under more than one pseudonym - going as far as to invent conversations between fake Sienna Plantation residents.
Calvin is contesting the lawsuit, and has found an ally in the ACLU. The group has funded some of the legal costs involved in the suit.
Attorney John Keville, who wrote the lawsuit, said the case is not about quashing discussions about the neighborhood. Instead, he said the case is about Calvin's alleged use of fake names to post slander on websites.
"If you look at how the Internet is used today, if someone wanted to look up Sienna Plantation, and they were considering that community as a place to live, and they looked at Mr. Calvin's website, it gives the false appearance that there's this large group that has concerns with the community."
Inaccurate information, according to the lawsuit text, includes an account of developer Goff cursing out a resident in phone call and statements such as "all they (the developer) want is your money" and "(the developer) tried to drive this website out of the community,"
Calvin, however, contends that silencing his right to free speech has been the motivation for Sienna/Johnson to file the lawsuit. Not only did Calvin post comments on the website, but he also spoke in public comments of Missouri City City Council and has passed out fliers expressing opposition to the developer's plans for apartments.
It was after Calvin gained local media attention that the developers filed the suit, he said.
"The website was minor; they're trying to make it major. What was major was when we were trying to go before city council. That's what they're trying to stop," he said.
The lawyer for Sienna Johnson said he is not trying to silence Calvin; he points out that he offered a settlement to Calvin. As long as Calvin posted under his own name, Calvin would not face any lawsuit.
Calvin, however, dismisses the idea of the settlement. The only way for Sienna lawyers to know if he posted messages anonymously, he said, is to call him before a judge and ask him.
"I would have to answer to them anytime anyone makes an anonymous claim about Sienna/Johnson on the web," he said.
Calvin acknowledges that he used several pseudonyms, but he does not believe that is illegal. Plus, he said he and others used the pseudonyms after receiving threatening letters from local businessmen.
Website operator Matthew Feinberg has not been named in the lawsuit, but he, too, answered questions from Sienna Plantation lawyers in a deposition.
"People have the right to oppose the plans of the builder. They're trying to specifically restrict the speech of one individual - it's a travesty," he said.
If the developer is having a problem with their image, they need to hire a public relations firm and not an attorney, said Feinberg. He contends the developer is creating more bad publicity for itself by filing the lawsuit.
"I provided a community service so people can speak about issues," Feinberg said.
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Tuesday, January 03, 2006
18 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
These seems to say it all--
"Calvin, however, dismisses the idea of the settlement. The only way for Sienna lawyers to know if he posted messages anonymously, he said, is to call him before a judge and ask him.
"I would have to answer to them anytime anyone makes an anonymous claim about Sienna/Johnson on the web," he said.
Calvin acknowledges that he used several pseudonyms, but he does not believe that is illegal. Plus, he said he and others used the pseudonyms after receiving threatening letters from local businessmen."
related story at:
http://www.fortbendstar.com/122105/n_Sienna%20files%20suit%20against%20blogger.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This isn't related to the thread but some new year humor might be fun-
Bronze Rat
-----------------------------------------------
A tourist wanders into a back-alley antique shop in San Francisco's Chinatown. Picking through the objects on display he discovers a detailed, life-sized bronze sculpture of a rat. The sculpture is so interesting and unique that he picks it up and asks the shop owner what it costs.
"Twelve dollars for the rat, sir," says the shop owner, "and a thousand dollars more for the story behind it."
"You can keep the story, old man," he replies, "but I'll take the rat."
The transaction complete, the tourist leaves the store with the bronze rat under his arm. As he crosses the street in front of the store, two live rats emerge from a sewer drain and fall into step behind him. Nervously looking over his shoulder, he begins to walk faster, but every time he passes another sewer drain, more rats come out and follow him. By the time he's walked two blocks, at least a hundred rats are at his heels, and people begin to point and shout. He walks even faster, and soon breaks into a trot as multitudes of rats swarm from sewers, basements, vacant lots, and abandoned cars. Rats by the thousands are at his heels, and as he sees the waterfront at the bottom of the hill, he panics and starts to run full tilt.
No matter how fast he runs, the rats keep up, squealing hideously, now not just thousands but millions, so that by the time he comes rushing up to the water's edge a trail of rats twelve city blocks long is behind him. Making a mighty leap, he jumps up onto a light post, grasping it with one arm while he hurls the bronze rat into San Francisco Bay with the other, as far as he can heave it. Pulling his legs up and clinging to the light post, he watches in amazement as the seething tide of rats surges over the breakwater into the sea, where they drown.
Shaken and mumbling, he makes his way back to the antique shop.
"Ah, so you've come back for the rest of the story," says the owner.
"No," says the tourist, "I was wondering if you have a bronze lawyer."
This is a link to an AP report on corporations starting to fight corporate censorship. I wonder if JDC will sign?
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173600060
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This is a nice piece:
Net anonymity: free speech or cheap words?
by Dave Amis
Should those in favour of free speech on the internet support those who speak freely, but anonymously? Not necessarily.
US sales consultancy Dendrite International brought a libel case against four individuals in May 2000, as a result of anonymous statements made about the company on a Yahoo!-hosted message board. Dendrite requested that Yahoo! release the names of the four, and petitioned Superior Court judge Kenneth C MacKenzie to identify the posters publicly.
In November 2000 Judge MacKenzie upheld the anonymity of two of the defendants, but ruled that Dendrite could subpoena Yahoo! for the identities of two other posters. 'The internet has become a forum for vast discussion reaching many individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions', he wrote. 'These four individuals were utilising that forum to voice their opinions and engage in discussion regarding issues important to them. They were doing so under the protection of anonymity, which…encourages the free flow of ideas.' . . .
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This new law should shake up JDC and their friends:
from: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00914&VERSION=5&TYPE=B
H.B. No. 914
AN ACT
relating to disclosure and availability of certain information
concerning certain local government officers and vendors;
providing criminal penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subtitle C, Title 5, Local Government Code, is
amended by adding Chapter 176 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 176. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS; PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO CERTAIN
INFORMATION
Sec. 176.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Commission" means the Texas Ethics Commission.
(2) "Family member" means a person related to another
person within the first degree by consanguinity or affinity, as
described by Subchapter B, Chapter 573, Government Code.
(3) "Local governmental entity" means a county,
municipality, school district, junior college district, or other
political subdivision of this state or a local government
corporation, board, commission, district, or authority to which a
member is appointed by the commissioners court of a county, the
mayor of a municipality, or the governing body of a municipality.
The term does not include an association, corporation, or
organization of governmental entities organized to provide to its
members education, assistance, products, or services or to
represent its members before the legislative, administrative, or
judicial branches of the state or federal government.
(4) "Local government officer" means:
(A) a member of the governing body of a local
governmental entity; or
(B) a director, superintendent, administrator,
president, or other person designated as the executive officer of
the local governmental entity.
(5) "Records administrator" means the director,
county clerk, municipal secretary, superintendent, or other person
responsible for maintaining the records of the local governmental
entity.
Sec. 176.002. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN VENDORS AND OTHER
PERSONS. (a) This chapter applies to a person who:
(1) contracts or seeks to contract for the sale or
purchase of property, goods, or services with a local governmental
entity; or
(2) is an agent of a person described by Subdivision
(1) in the person's business with a local governmental entity.
(b) A person is not subject to the disclosure requirements
of this chapter if the person is:
(1) a state, a political subdivision of a state, the
federal government, or a foreign government; or
(2) an employee of an entity described by Subdivision
(1), acting in the employee's official capacity.
Sec. 176.003. CONFLICTS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED. (a)
A local government officer shall file a conflicts disclosure
statement with respect to a person described by Section 176.002(a)
if:
(1) the person has contracted with the local
governmental entity or the local governmental entity is considering
doing business with the person; and
(2) the person:
(A) has an employment or other business
relationship with the local government officer or a family member
of the officer that results in the officer or family member
receiving taxable income; or
(B) has given to the local government officer or
a family member of the officer one or more gifts, other than gifts
of food, lodging, transportation, or entertainment accepted as a
guest, that have an aggregate value of more than $250 in the
12-month period preceding the date the officer becomes aware that:
(i) a contract described by Subdivision (1)
has been executed; or
(ii) the local governmental entity is
considering doing business with the person.
(b) A local government officer shall file the conflicts
disclosure statement with the records administrator of the local
governmental entity not later than 5 p.m. on the seventh business
day after the date on which the officer becomes aware of the facts
that require the filing of the statement under Subsection (a).
(c) A local government officer commits an offense if the
officer knowingly violates this section. An offense under this
subsection is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that
the person filed the required conflicts disclosure statement not
later than the seventh business day after the date the person
received notice of the violation.
Sec. 176.004. CONTENTS OF DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. The
commission shall adopt the conflicts disclosure statement for local
government officers. The conflicts disclosure statement must
include:
(1) a requirement that each local government officer
disclose:
(A) an employment or other business relationship
described by Section 176.003(a), including the nature and extent of
the relationship; and
(B) gifts received by the local government
officer and any family member of the officer from a person described
by Section 176.002(a) during the 12-month period described by
Section 176.003(a)(2)(B) if the aggregate value of the gifts from
that person exceed $250;
(2) an acknowledgment from the local government
officer that:
(A) the disclosure applies to each family member
of the officer; and
(B) the statement covers the 12-month period
described by Section 176.003(a)(2)(B); and
(3) the signature of the local government officer
acknowledging that the statement is made under oath under penalty
of perjury.
Sec. 176.005. APPLICATION TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES. (a) The
local governmental entity may extend the requirements of Sections
176.003 and 176.004 to all or a group of the employees of the local
governmental entity.
(b) A local governmental entity may reprimand, suspend, or
terminate the employment of an employee who fails to comply with a
requirement adopted under this section.
(c) An employee of a local governmental entity commits an
offense if the employee knowingly violates requirements imposed
under this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class C
misdemeanor.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that
the person filed the required conflicts disclosure statement not
later than the seventh business day after the date the person
received notice of the violation.
Sec. 176.006. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR VENDORS AND OTHER
PERSONS; QUESTIONNAIRE. (a) A person described by Section
176.002(a) shall file a completed conflict of interest
questionnaire with the appropriate records administrator not later
than the seventh business day after the date that the person:
(1) begins contract discussions or negotiations with
the local governmental entity; or
(2) submits to the local governmental entity an
application, response to a request for proposals or bids,
correspondence, or another writing related to a potential agreement
with the local governmental entity.
(b) The commission shall adopt a conflict of interest
questionnaire for use under this section that requires disclosure
of a person's affiliations or business relationships that might
cause a conflict of interest with a local governmental entity.
(c) The questionnaire adopted under Subsection (b) must
require, for the local governmental entity with respect to which
the questionnaire is filed, that the person filing the
questionnaire:
(1) describe each affiliation or business
relationship the person has with each local government officer of
the local governmental entity;
(2) identify each affiliation or business
relationship described by Subdivision (1) with respect to which the
local government officer receives, or is likely to receive, taxable
income from the person filing the questionnaire;
(3) identify each affiliation or business
relationship described by Subdivision (1) with respect to which the
person filing the questionnaire receives, or is likely to receive,
taxable income that:
(A) is received from, or at the direction of, a
local government officer of the local governmental entity; and
(B) is not received from the local governmental
entity;
(4) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with a corporation or other business entity with
respect to which a local government officer of the local
governmental entity:
(A) serves as an officer or director; or
(B) holds an ownership interest of 10 percent or
more;
(5) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with an employee or contractor of the local
governmental entity who makes recommendations to a local government
officer of the local governmental entity with respect to the
expenditure of money;
(6) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with a person who:
(A) is a local government officer; and
(B) appoints or employs a local government
officer of the local governmental entity that is the subject of the
questionnaire; and
(7) describe any other affiliation or business
relationship that might cause a conflict of interest.
(d) A person described by Subsection (a) shall file an
updated completed questionnaire with the appropriate records
administrator not later than:
(1) September 1 of each year in which an activity
described by Subsection (a) is pending; and
(2) the seventh business day after the date of an event
that would make a statement in the questionnaire incomplete or
inaccurate.
(e) A person is not required to file an updated completed
questionnaire under Subsection (d)(1) in a year if the person has
filed a questionnaire under Subsection (c) or (d)(2) on or after
June 1, but before September 1, of that year.
(f) A person commits an offense if the person violates this
section. An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (f) that
the person filed the required questionnaire not later than the
seventh business day after the date the person received notice of
the violation.
Sec. 176.007. LIST OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS. The records
administrator for a local governmental entity shall maintain a list
of local government officers of the entity and shall make that list
available to the public and any person who may be required to file a
questionnaire under Section 176.006.
Sec. 176.008. ELECTRONIC FILING. The requirements of this
chapter, including signature requirements, may be satisfied by
electronic filing in a form approved by the commission.
Sec. 176.009. POSTING ON INTERNET. (a) A local
governmental entity shall provide access to the statements and
questionnaires filed under this chapter on the Internet website
maintained by the local governmental entity.
(b) This subsection applies only to a county with a
population of 800,000 or more or a municipality with a population of
500,000 or more. A county or municipality shall provide, on the
Internet website maintained by the county or municipality, access
to each report of political contributions and expenditures filed
under Chapter 254, Election Code, by a member of the commissioners
court of the county or the governing body of the municipality in
relation to that office as soon as practicable after the officer
files the report.
Sec. 176.010. REQUIREMENTS CUMULATIVE. The requirements of
this chapter are in addition to any other disclosure required by
law.
SECTION 2. The Texas Ethics Commission shall adopt the
conflicts disclosure statement and the conflict of interest
questionnaire required by Chapter 176, Local Government Code, as
added by this Act, not later than December 1, 2005.
SECTION 3. (a) A local government officer is not required
to file a conflicts disclosure statement under Chapter 176, Local
Government Code, as added by this Act, before January 1, 2006.
(b) A person described by Section 176.002(a), Local
Government Code, as added by this Act, is not required to file a
conflict of interest questionnaire under Chapter 176, Local
Government Code, as added by this Act, before January 1, 2006.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2005.
______________________________
President of the Senate
Speaker of the House
Here's an interesting worried comment about HB914 from Bob Hebert our chief county judge. I wonder what he's really worrie about?:
"“What they’ve done is create a quagmire for companies trying to do business with the state of Texas,” Hebert said. “It is ridiculous on the face of it.” -- FBNow.com
Is anyone following this:
Recent Sienna Plantation /SPRAI/Developer Edicts (Mutual vision or exclusive?)+
The following unedited announcements were posted to Siennanet.com (see 3 informational posts from our unelected non-resident developer's SPRAI board). Note some are unsigned anonymous posts:
1) SPRAI Board Shares Vision for 2006
Michael Smith, SPRAI Board President, shares the broader vision the Board has adopted for the future of SPRAI.
Full Article:
Dear SPRAI Members:
Recently you received your assessment invoice for SPRAI for 2006 along with some information about the budget. On behalf of the Board, I would like to share with you the broader vision the Board has adopted for the future of SPRAI. The input we received from the volunteers and membership through the development of the 2006 Business Plan process was considered in identifying four main areas of focus:
1. Common Area Maintenance
2. Deed Restriction Enforcement
3. Customer Service
4. Recreation and Programs
Specifically,
Sienna Plantation is to be the best maintained community in the country. The visual presentation of the community is the number one priority. This is to be accomplished through aggressive maintenance programs and deed restriction enforcement.
Customer Service is a top priority for the SPRAI staff.
SPRAI should offer as many programming opportunities to the membership as possible including self-improvement, property improvement, safety and awareness programs, recreation and social programming.
In order to achieve this vision, we have already made numerous changes within SPRAI this year and will continue with efforts to achieve this vision while being fiscally responsible.
During 2006 we will be developing a longer-term financial plan for the association. We will be utilizing the assistance of a new volunteer Finance Advisory Committee to assist us in setting the assessment for future years.
The growth of the community has two components – new amenities and assets to be maintained and new houses to help fund these costs. Typically, the amenities are added in advance of the houses; so for a period of time the cost per unit to maintain the facilities is greater than it will be over time. This is typically why a developer deficit funds the association for a while. In the case of SPRAI, the developer has funded approximately $4,000,000 for operating expenses through 2005 and based on the 2006 budget is projected to deficit fund another $500,000 this coming year. As the community approaches build out the association members will be ultimately responsible for funding 100% of the costs to achieve the vision. Further, in 2005 we realized some operating savings through changes in service providers for various maintenance needs. In 2006, we will continue to ensure that we are “getting the most for our money” with all we do. Two areas of specific focus during 2006 will rebid the landscaping contract and evaluating alternative electricity providers.
As the community and association grow and mature, it will take a solid effort from the SPRAI board, dedicated volunteers, staff and input from the membership to make sure that the association is able to maintain the community at the level expected, remain proactive in deed restriction enforcement, continue to offer and expand recreation and programming opportunities and be fiscally responsible.
On January 12th, SPRAI will hold a special meeting about the 2006 budget. If you have any questions, please plan on attending.
Very truly yours,
Michael Smith
President
___________
CRD Comment: Was this vision announced and shared prior to its development with the membership? Did the membership know about this process and participate in it? Was it shared on our resident paid for newsletter or website prior to enactment?
___________
2) Return
2006 Assessments Q&A
SPRAI provides answers to 2006 Assessment questions.
Full Article:
2006 ASSESSMENTS Q&A FOR SPRAI MEMBERSHIP
Q: Was there prior communication about the assessment increase?
A: There was discussion at both the October 24th and November 30th Board meetings. SPRAI members are always welcome to attend the Board meetings and the first 30 minutes of each meeting are available for Member Input Time. Notice of the Board meeting dates are posted on the LED board, in the newsletter, on the bulletin board at Club Sienna and in the Sienna E-news. Board minutes are posted on Siennanet once the board has approved them.
Q: You said that there has not been an increase in assessments since 1997. Wasn’t the original assessment lower?
A: Yes, that is correct, after rechecking our records; we have found that the original assessment was $550. This was increased in 2000 to $700 and was increased in 2001 to $750. We have increased our recreational amenities significantly in that period of time including the opening of Club Sienna Water Park and Brushy Lake Recreation Center.
Q: Is the Association required to give notice of an assessment increase?
A: The Declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions states that the board shall in good faith attempt to cause the budget and assessments to be levied against each owner for the following year to be delivered to each member at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the current year. Assessments were mailed in early December and are not considered late until after January 31. The assessment was posted on Siennanet and the newsletter.
Q: I did not receive my assessment until December 12th.
A: While we strive to have the assessments delivered by December 1st, technical difficulties did not allow us to meet this deadline.
Q: Should we expect an assessment increase every year?
A: SPRAI is forming a volunteer Finance Advisory Committee to assist the staff and Board in developing a long term financial plan which will help the board in setting future assessment levels.
Q: I do not understand the Property Owners Association (POA) and why a portion of my assessment goes to pay the POA dues.
A: We will be sharing some financial information relating to the POA at the January 12th meeting. The POA’s primary expenses are to maintain Sienna Parkway for landscaping, irrigation, lighting, and the lakes adjacent to the Parkway, a share of sheriff’s patrol and mosquito control. Sienna Point and SPRAI are members of SPPOA as are commercial property owners. SPRAI is made up of only residential property owners. At the Board meeting we will provide additional information relating to the SPPOA expenses.
Q: Is any of the assessment increase due to costs that should have been directly borne by the developer?
A: No. The developer pays their own costs directly for administrative, legal and marketing. In addition, the developer is deficit funding SPRAI in the amount of $500,000 for 2006.
Q: I have some questions about the budget which are not answered by the insert that came with my bill. How can I get more detail about the budget?
A: A meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2006 at Club Sienna at 7:00 p.m. to present the budget and answer questions about the budget and assessment, we hope you will attend.
____________________________
CRD comment: Why do the unelected non-resident developer SPRAI board not provide a detailed budget justifying this 6% increase that was not voted on by the membership? Isn't this one of the highest fees in this area of Houston? Why wasn't this shared at the recent annual meeting? Why did the mail insert from the SPRAI claim only one increase had occurred since inception while the above post from the SPRAI claims several increases have occurred?
____________________________
3)Arcola Airport Expansion
Recently, several members of the community have asked what the SPRAI’s position is regarding the neighboring Houston Southwest Airport in Arcola, Texas.
Full Article:
Dear SPRAI Member:
Recently, several members of the community have asked what the SPRAI’s position is regarding the neighboring Houston Southwest Airport in Arcola, Texas.
While it is not the association’s mission to take positions on land use issues, in general the SPRAI Board is supportive of any effort that might improve the current economic condition of the Arcola area. However, we cannot support any proposal or project that would create a safety concern and or a sight or sound nuisance to the residents of Sienna Plantation.
Very truly yours,
Michael Smith
President
SPRAI Board of Directors
9600 Scanlan Trace West Missouri City, TX 77459
_____________________
CRD comment: Why is the unelected, non-resident, developer SPRAI board president claiming they support this road diversion plan that will also allow the airport to become FAA compliant for increased air traffic? What is this post above really saying?
See http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/509/arcola-council-passes-agreement-paving-the-way-for-controversial-mckeever-road-diversion for more . . .
_____________________
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Tuesday, December 27, 2005
14 Comments:
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
6:47 AM
responsible_dvlpmnt said...
Here is the full article from FortBendNow.com:
More Local News
Arcola Council Paves The Way For McKeever Road Diversion Project
by Bob Dunn, Dec 22, 05:41 am
Arcola City Council has approve an agreement with Fort Bend County that appears to pave the way for the controversial diversion of McKeever Road, which would allow for the expansion of Houston Southwest Airport.
Plans under discussion by county and city officials would alter the road, diverting it to South Post Oak, which runs east to State Highway 6. The existing McKeever roadway south of Post Oak would be abandoned.
In the process, 100 feet of right-of-way would have to be acquired from land owners in nearby Newpoint Estates. Many of those property owners have expressed vocal opposition to the plan, and did so again Tuesday evening in a special meeting before the City Council voted to approve the agreement.
Ironically, one clause in the agreement states, in all caps, “THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE CLOSING OR ABANDONMENT OF McKEEVER ROAD OR EXPANSION OF HOUSTON SOUTHWEST AIRPORT.”
Opponents of the plan, however, say that while the agreement itself may not technically authorize the road abandonment, that is in fact the main purpose of the agreement.
Terms in the document appear to support that contention.
The document passed Tuesday describes a three-way agreement between the city, county and an unnamed property owner who has agreed to pay $500,000 to be used for construction of the diverted roadway.
That property owner appears to be airport owner Jamie Griffith. Earlier this month, Fort Bend County Judge Robert Hebert said Griffith has offered to donate land for right-of-way, pay a half-million dollars toward construction of the altered road and then allow 200 acres to be annexed into the city of Arcola.
Fort Bend Precinct 1 Commissioner Tom Stavinoha said the county would prefer not to act on the roadway extension project unless Griffith’s offer was contained in a written contract.
The interlocal agreement passed by Arcola City Council on Tuesday appears to be the first draft of such a contract.
The agreement states that the county has “appropriated” $1.5 million for the road project, which is to be held in a “special project account.” The property owner, which appears to be Griffith, is required to pay $500,000 into the special project account once plans and surveys are completed by the county engineer.
According to the agreement, the city of Arcola “shall then be responsible for acquiring the necessary right of way, either in easement or in fee, as may be appropriate and allowed by law. The costs (including plans, surveys, title fees, appraisals, filing fees, professional fees, judgments, payment to property owners, costs of any related or resulting administrative or judicial proceedings and other related or incidental items) shall be paid from the special project account.”
1 Tom Hilton - Dec 22, 09:29 am
Howdy,
In a letter dated May 17, 2005n(which can be viewed @ http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org/ (Click on Chronolgy of Events) Commissioner Stavinoha points out that;
“Widening McKeever Road to 4 lanes from South Post Oak/Hwy 6 to Sienna Parkway (3.1 miles) will cost _ $25.3 million. ($21 million of which will have to be fuinded by unkown sources.” I estimate that South Post Oak itself is _ one mile long. They are going to build this road from scratch in addition to building a bridge over Briscoe Canal…this portion of the project will cost more than upgrading existin McKeever Road. So, SPO will cost at least $10 million to construct – Mr. Griffith initially agreed in writing to funding 50% of this road construction (also shown on above website).
WHO AUTHORIZED THIS MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR REDUCTION IN MR. GRIFFITH’S PART OF THIS CONSTRUCTION? Commissioner’s Court needs to answer this question to the taxpayers before any action is taken…also, layout the TRUE costs, as the numbers quoted by Stavinoha (he told me SPO would cost $2 million) just don’t add up.
Sincerely,
Tom Hilton
2 honestyingov't - Dec 22, 02:47 pm
I don’t know about the rest of you, but this election year is going to be interesting. With so much back door work going on it becomes essential to get out this new year and vote for reform candidates (no matter which party you are in). I know who I’m not going to vote for on the commissioner’s court this year Mr. Hebert! With the ECO Scam, the airport expansion and your other local dealings I can see no reason to support the “fat cat repubs” this cycle!
6:49 AM
responsible_dvlpmnt said...
And yet another:
More Local News
Protesters Hammer Arcola Mayor Over Road, Airport Project
by Bob Dunn, Dec 13, 10:28 pm
It was a rough night for Arcola Mayor Alvin Gipson, who was lambasted by 10 speakers in a row at Tuesday’s Arcola City Council meeting, upset over what they say is the city’s clandestine role in a plan to divert McKeever Road to benefit the owner of Houston Southwest Airport.
Then the 11th speaker stepped up to the podium, announced that he was a process server, and handed Gipson and several city officials a notice that they’d been sued in a wrongful termination action.
To start the evening off, about 20 protesters carrying signs with slogans such as “Citizens Against the Airport Expansion” gathered in front of Arcola City Hall and greeted council members, citizens and reporters.
Led by Arcola resident Tom Hilton, several members of the protest group signed up to present statements to the council.
Many were property owners upset to learn that Fort Bend County commissioners plan to negotiate a contract with the City of Arcola and airport owner Jamie Griffith that would result in McKeever Road being diverted through the Newpoint Estates neighborhood, allowing for an airport expansion.
“Mr. Mayor, the cat is out of the bag,” former Arcola City Councilman Thomas Tuffly said of McKeever Road. “All along while I was on the council, you…were trying to convince me it had nothing to do with the airport. It did. It did. Why can’t you people be honest?”
Jason Miller, who said he operates a company adjacent to McKeever, told the mayor he sees no reason why the current roadway should be abandoned, adding “this will kill my business.”
“The only reason McKeever Road is being diverted through Newpoint Estates is the airport,” Hilton told Mayor Gipson. “You’re either in denial, you’re incompetent or you’re corrupt. Or maybe all three.”
“Somebody has not been telling the truth,” said Newpoint Estates landowner Caleb Makukutu. “The road is coming. The road is coming to benefit Mr. Griffith, and of course to benefit Arcola City Council.”
“I am an attorney and I know my rights,” said another Newpoint Estates property owner. “And we will not go quietly.”
Then Mike Saenz, a former Arcola Mayor, addressed the current mayor and council.
“A lot of people are going to be affected by what you’re trying to do. Why are you hiding?” Saenz asked. “The only person who’s going to benefit is the airport owner. They’ve been trying to do this since I was the mayor in the ‘90s.
“Now ya’ll think you got all the votes. Fine. The election’s in May, fellas,” Saenz said. “What’s in the best interest of Arcola? That’s what you got elected for.”
Then a speaker identified as Kenneth Picazzio took the podium. “I’m a private process server,” he said. “I would like permission to approach. I have a citation to serve.”
“Certainly,” said the mayor, whereupon Picazzio presented a notification to Gipson, Police Chief Donald Chaney and all council members except Rosie Rojas, saying they were being sued.
Details of the suit were not available Tuesday night, but involve the firing of two city police officers, one of whom termed the action a “whistle-blower suit.”
After taking heat from a dozen citizens, Gipson said he would make a statement, and then “I will not answer any questions.”
“I’m just going to say there is no plans to close McKeever Road – not with this council,” the mayor said. “There is no plans for us to expand the airport…Can’t nobody else sell or close that road but this city council. And that’s all I’m going to say.”
Later in the meeting, however, the council agreed to draft an agreement with the county that involves McKeever Road.
Fort Bend County Commissioners Court was scheduled to vote on land acquisition last week that would allow the McKeever project to move forward. Plans would alter the road, diverting it to South Post Oak, which runs east to State Highway 6. The existing McKeever roadway south of Post Oak would be abandoned.
In the process, 100 feet of right-of-way would have to be acquired from land owners in Newpoint Estates.
“This is not to accommodate the airport,” County Judge Robert Hebert said at the time, but to accommodate commercial development in Arcola, to boost the city’s tax revenue.
Hebert said what the county is considering amounts to a three-way deal: Griffith would donate right-of-way property to the county, plus $500,000 to help pay construction costs for the road changes. Once the county builds the altered roadway, he said, Griffith would agree to allow the City of Arcola to annex 200 acres of land Griffith owns north of McKeever road.
Commissioners went into executive session to discuss the matter, but emerged without taking action.
Precinct 1 Commissioner Tom Stavinoha said members of the court weren’t comfortable signing off on the three-way deal because it wasn’t legally binding.
“We would prefer a contract between Griffith, the city of Arcola and the county,” he said.
1 thelittleguy - Dec 14, 05:49 am
Sounds like some of the GFBCEDC clique is working over-time on this one in Arcola. I witnessed the bold face claim by the mayor and it reminds me of other mayors in the area being told what to do by their EDC bosses. I sure hope people wake up to this before it is too late! Former Mayor Saenz was right at the meeting last night saying that someone is telling them what to do and say. Way to go Tom and Mayor Saenz! Stop the take-over of private property by the county for the owner of the airport (isn’t this now illegal under Senator Janek’s new law?)! What right have they got to take these people’s property for another private buisness?
Keep up the good fight! America still votes and can take control away from these elites telling our politicians what to do.
2 Tom Hilton - Dec 14, 08:40 am
Howdy,
One person not mentioned last night for his role in these shenanigans was Council Member Greg Abarr. He ran for re-election last May on the platform of being against the airport expansion. What does he do, literally 5 minutes after taking oath office? He votes yes on approving the resolution concerning South Post Oak – this road not only allows for the expansion, it is absolutely ESSENTIAL for the expansion as it does 2 things for Griffith; 1) It diverts the road out of the FAA safety zone and 2) It allows for the closure of McKeever thus making it possible for the airplanes to taxi across to the planned hangars north of McKeever. Mr. Abarr also claims that there has been extensive studies done regarding the economic/traffic impacts to the City, yet declined to offer those up when requested by me and other citizens. An Open Records Request was done regarding this, and the only thing that I got back was plans prepared by the airport…hardly credible to say the least Mr. Abarr.
Now, Judge Hebert, Commissioner Stavinoha, and Mayor Gipson all claim that this road is being done for the ECONOMIC benefit of Arcola (although virtually no studies have been done to corraborate this). The point is that Arcola failed to negotiate in good faith for the best interests of the City…Arcola controls the roads inside it’s Limits. If Griffith wanted a road, the very first item on the negotiating table should have been annexation of the 211 acres into Arcola’s City Limits – then we’ll discuss road plans. But no, Arcola immediately took the position of the developer, saying that he MAY NEVER incorporate his property into the City unless they do what he says.
Bunk.
Stavinoha also uses the ruse that Griffith may sue the County if they don’t do this – please Commissioner, do you really expect the citizens of this county to believe that the County is being blackmailed into doing the bidding of this developer without your consent and approval?
There are 4 things that concern me here;
1. THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO CONFISCATE OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY PURELY FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE TO INSIDERS.
2. COUNTY JUDGE HEBERT AND COMMISSIONER STAVINOHA HAVE REPEATEDLY LIED TO US (AND CONTINUE TO LIE TO THIS DAY).
3. MAYOR GIPSON IS ABUSING HIS POWER TO PROMOTE THE AIRPORT’S AGENDA.
4. THE MAYOR HAS LIED TO US, AND CONTINUES TO LIE TO US TO THIS DAY.
This County is sorely lacking in an ETHICAL STANDARD, which I believe needs to be instated similar to the one that Sugar Land just approved. We need leaders who are accountable to the Citizens of this County relative to truthfulness and fairness. Their behavior should be governed by ETHICAL VALUES – their commitment to the Public Welfare has been sorely lacking in this GFBEDC-controlled environment.
All the best,
Tom Hilton
3 consumerwise - Dec 14, 09:31 am
After reading the articles about this and reviewing the available materials through the local media I would like to thank the citizens of the Arcola area for standing up to this behemoth cohort operating in our county. This “bullying” by some area developers of the local elected officials and with the help of other special interest politicians has got to stop.
There is an election cycle coming up and another opportunity for homeowners and residents of Fort Bend County to take back local control. This reminds me so much of the efforts taken to silence homeowners who complained in Simonton, Missouri City, Fulshear and now here in Arcola by the GFBEDC. Does this special corporate interest group really think this is good for buisness or their public image? Some types of land use just are not going to add value to area homeowners and this ultimately impacts long term stability and growth.
Voters are the stockholders in the community. It’s time we woke up and voted this gang out. Let them do their buisness the old fashioned way by involving local communities in the process rather than trying to sneek it past them and releasing deliberate misinformation to the media in hopes of fooling the consumers. The days of consumer contempt by these companies and some politicians operating in this county must stop and our elected officials can mediate that process if they are not co-opted by the Houston special interests working the back-rooms of our city and county government!
Support reform candidates in your party this coming year!
4 Kevin - Dec 15, 11:17 am
I am rather amazed that from the quotes this mayor is not even capable of speaking proper english. I suppose that says something about him as the mayor.
6:52 AM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
6:52 AM
Anonymous said...
Why do the unelected non-resident developer SPRAI board not provide a detailed budget justifying this 6% increase that was not voted on by the membership?
Isn't this one of the highest fees in this area of Houston? Why wasn't this shared at the recent annual meeting?
Why did the mail insert from the SPRAI claim only one increase had occurred since inception while the above post from the SPRAI claims several increases have occurred?
6:57 AM
Anonymous said...
Here's an on-going investigation going on in FBISD from http://www.save-our-schools.blogspot.com/:
FBISD Probe Could Land In District Attorney's Office
A preliminary probe into Fort Bend Independent School District operations could result in a criminal investigation, FortBendNow has learned.
Lloyd Kelley, head of the law firm leading the investigation, met with Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey late last week to discuss a matter involving the school district, Healey confirmed Wednesday.
Healey wouldn’t further identify the topic of his conversation with Kelley. However, he added, “after hearing what he had to say over an hour and a half, I’m going to ask that he meet with other individuals in this office and beyond this office, with an eye toward an investigation into the matters he brought to my attention.”
Healey said Kelley and members of the FBISD board have a responsibility “as stewards of the public business to make a referral” to his office in the event they become aware of a criminal matter.
Click on title link above for full story.
posted by Save Our Schools @ 1:03 PM 3 comments
7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Is this the same Smith that is suppose to make all decisions on information being available in the Sienna neighborhood according to their information dissemination covenant? You know the one that allow their company to decide what is propaganda or not?
9:46 AM
Anonymous said...
I wonder if Mr. Smith will allow the villages here in Sienna to erect and fully participate in the crime watch program unlike a few years ago?
10:37 AM
Anonymous said...
Visit this site for more about the airport:
http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org/
11:45 AM
Anonymous said...
Doesn't it look like that meeting took place at the Sienna Grill?
11:46 AM
Anonymous said...
Ck this out:
SLAPP Suits
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.
3:46 AM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
11:40 AM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
11:40 AM
Anonymous said...
Update on FB Star road article:
County one step closer to McKeever
Road diversion with Arcola agreement
By Cheryl Skinner
Fort Bend County and the city of Arcola now have an official agreement on the plan to divert McKeever Road. County officials say the diversion will provide necessary traffic congestion relief and could be of economic benefit to the city of Arcola, while opponents of the plan say it is nothing more than a scam being perpetrated by officials on behalf of the Houston Southwest Airport.
Fort Bend County Judge Bob Hebert said in previous interviews, the plan would divert McKeever Road to South Post Oak, which runs east to State Highway 6. This, he said, would provide critical relief for the overly congested roadways for people living in Sienna Plantation as well as overall relief for motorists who use those roadways.
At issue is the estimated 100 feet of right-of-way which will have to be acquired from land owners in nearby Newpoint Estates. Hebert said only about four of the property owners in the subdivision would be impacted and those would see a graduated need for right of way property with the landowner closest to the road probably having to release 100 feet and the others less. The lot sizes in the subdivision are generally five or more acres, Hebert noted. Despite the small number of property owners actually affected by the plan, a number of Newpoint Estates property owners have expressed opposition to it.
After the opposition was voiced in a recent session of the county commissioners, Hebert asked that the county’s legal advisor in the county attorney’s office, fully review and investigate the Federal Aviation Administration’s laws pertaining to Houston Southwest Airport. Hebert vowed that absolutely no action would be taken if the widening would be found to benefit only the airport and he also noted that no property would be needed if a rule by the FAA did not actually mandate that the county had to make the airport “whole” if the changes in the road impact that facility negatively.
A three-way agreement between the City of Arcola, Fort Bend County and an unnamed property owner who has agreed to pay $500,000 to be used for construction of the diverted roadway was approved by Arcola officials last week.
Hebert said the airport owner, Jamie Griffith, had agreed to provide $500,000 toward the project and had also agreed to allow the City of Arcola to annex 200 acres of his land, which is now deemed farm property, into the city. Griffith also agreed to donate right of way for the project.
Hebert said he had no idea what prompted the “conspiracy theory” being suggested by opponents of the project other than suspicion over why Griffith would be willing to put up such a substantial sum toward the road project. Hebert said he felt the airport owner would benefit not by any changes to the airport itself, but by the previous farm land going to prime property once the changes to the road are completed. He said developers and business people are often willing to make such an investment toward a project, knowing they will eventually recoup their investment and possibly make money on top of it. He also said he was unaware of any plans to revamp and enlarge the current airport because the demographics of the airport limit what can be done and those demographics will not substantially change should the project go forward.
Hebert said the report on the findings of legal representatives working with the FAA should be forthcoming after the first of the year.
5:17 AM
Visit http://www.brazosriver.com/locals.htm to see Mayor Allen Owen's campaign contributions list or get it from the state of Texas elections/ethics site.
It's interesting to see that Owen gives to Hebert and so does Tom Delay's wife. I think they all give to each other.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ugg boots
ugg outlet
kate spade sale
coach outlet store
sac longchamp
rolex watches
ray ban sunglasses
ugg outlet
true religion outlet
ugg boots
2017.7.26
nhl jerseys
lebron 13
michael kors outlet
air jordan 6
michael kors outlet
vibram fivefingers
james harden shoes
asics running shoes
hermes belt
adidas outlet
Post a Comment
<< Home