KEEP UP WITH LOCAL/CITY/COUNTY NEWS AT FORTBENDNOW.COM & FOLLOW SIENNA AREA ISSUES HERE ON MISSOURI CITY CHATTER . . .
Several local community groups are now networking to address local growth concerns in East Fort Bend County, which impact home, schools and ultimately our quality of life. From the Arcola area you have 1) Citizens for Better Government (CBG) located at http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org and headed up by a group of Arcola area homeowners/residents and Tom Hilton. In the Sugar Land area you have a school reform minded grass-roots movement 2) Save-Our-Schools (SOS for short) lead by area residents and Ms. Mitton located at http://www.save-our-schools.blogspot.com/. The SOS site is interactive, but membership posting is approved. Another group working towards citizen involvement in area growth issues here in Missouri City, TX is the Colony Lakes Against Sudden Change (CLASC) association based in the master-planned community of Colony Lakes (no website available as of this posting--contact CRD for their e-mail address) and finally here in Missouri City, TX based out of the Sienna Plantation area is the Committee for Responsible Development made up of area homeowners and residents and can be contacted through this website and/or via responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com.
These groups are working with many area HOAs and concerned citizens in the Sugar Land -- Missouri City--Arcola area to address and improve quality of life issues here in East Fort Bend county through grass-roots community activism. If your community or neighborhood has such a group and you'd like to be added to this network then please contact us via the e-mail posted above or through this site. We are currently working to support local candidates from both parties that reject non-area special interest and their influence in our community. Join your local group today or get involved with this network and add value to your neighborhood!--CRD
**********
Committee for Responsible Development
Missouri City Group
responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com
Missouri City, TX 77459
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Sunday, January 08, 2006
17 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Related FBNow piece:
Raising A Red Flag Over Arcola
I wanted to raise a red flag for homeowners and residents on this end of the county living in the Missouri City-Arcola areas.
A recent piece in the Fort Bend Star by a Ms. Skinner (p.12) on 1/4/06 highlights many issues that Bob Hebert, chief county judge, has not been forthright about to homeowners and voters in this region over the months. Mr. Tom Hilton, a local homeowner and activist against the airport expansion, has uncovered many documents which highlight the inner-workings of Mr. Hebert’s business networks that demonstrate his advocacy for compadre and airport owner Jaime Griffith (see http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org). Mr. Hilton has tried as a private citizen to bring these issues to the 10 to 15,000 residents living along this fly-way whose home values will be severely impacted by these elites actions. This is definitely not for the greater good of those living in this community and the largest number of people.
Further the road diversion which is needed for the airport to expand is supported by our developer (Johnson Development Co.—EDC member and Houston corporation) who is suing me and many other residents in our community who spoke up against apartments here earlier in the year in the Sienna Plantation subdivision (see SLAPP suit on this via Fortbendnow.com). Aspects of this case are already before the Texas Supreme Court. Now we have to face this 2nd behind the scenes deal that will negatively impact our home values that Mr. Hebert’s friends are forcing on us.
Residents from at least 8 medium to large sized communities here, including many Sienna Plantation & Colony Lakes residents, have opposed this particular special interest plan. Other road improvement options should be considered that keep the airport from increasing its jet traffic over our homes and doesn’t divert McKeever to hwy 6. The current McKeever exit near FM 521 allows a second exit for residents of this area in needed emergencies. Putting this traffic out on hwy 6 during events like Rita, in my opinion, only increases the problem.
Mr. Hilton and many others are now involved with this, as well as a potential legal action from the neighborhood of New Point Estates along with some of the homeowners because of the private take-over of property (which Hebert claims to be against). If the county, city of Arcola and the airport owner had allowed these discussions to be public several months ago and had included area residents like Tom in the dialogue, then much of the current outrage by voters and homeowners could have been avoided (as well as the waste of taxpayer money for this special interest).
We now have some options during this election cycle and as a generational republican who has always voted “party line” I’m changing that bad habit. I will vote a mixed ticket this year and only for candidates who come down on the side of the local homeowners/residents and voters when such contentious issues arise. Hopefully current political operating procedures that exclude the voice of homeowners and voters (and even at times attempts to silence them through strike cases) will change to include them in the process prior to public disclosure. Why should disclosure ever be an issue?
Prescott Small is just such a local homeowner and former republican who is running to reform this type of politics. He is the proverbial dark horse facing a seemingly insurmountable campaign war chest ($300,000+) of Mr. Hebert. He is a new face and a refreshing one too and I believe a needed outsider in a election season with many “insiders”. No doubt he will go through the smears and typical campaign rhetoric at all levels, but IMO he will be the best person for the job because he will represent local interests and not the Houston special interests. PLEASE CONSIDER VOTING A MIXED TICKET THIS YEAR! You don’t have to follow my suggestions but look into the candidates you are supporting and definitely see who is contributing to their campaigns! GOOD LUCK PRESCOTT!! The odds are against you but they are odds I like so come out swinging!
Dr. Chris Calvin
Sienna Plantation Homeowner/Resident
Developer SLAPP suit victim
responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com
http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com
Missouri City, TX
1 , - Jan 5, 11:02 am
I wonder why developer-backed mayor for life of Missouri City, Allen Owen, and some of his council supporters don’t speak up against the airport expansion? Doesn’t this directly impact many home/property values in those communities and thus the tax base of that city?
I just wonder if Owen would ever speak up against any large developer project, ever. . . ?
2 Prescott E. Small - Jan 5, 12:32 pm
I am greatly flattered by Mr. Calvin’s praise.
I really look forward for the opportunity to serve my community and everyone in it.
I really hope to see and meet as many individuals as is humanly possible in the upcoming campaign.
3 consumerwise - Jan 6, 02:55 pm
Why don’t Arcola, the county and Mr. Griffith work out a deal to sell that airport land to the Sienna developer and move the airport around the corner off FM521 where it won’t cause such trouble?
. .and this time involve those residents. .
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Related article-
Hebert Seeks To Minimize Land Acquisition For McKeever Rd. Project
by Bob Dunn, Dec 30, 07:51 am
Fort Bend County Judge Bob Hebert said Thursday he wants to proceed with Arcola’s McKeever Road diversion project, but in a way that minimizes the amount of private property needed for right-of-way.
Bob Hebert
The project, also known as the South Post Oak extension, is controversial, in part because plans have called for diverting McKeever Road north of a drainage canal running parallel to Houston Southwest Airport property. To accomplish that, the county or city would have to acquire or condemn about 100 feet of land from four private parcels in the Newpoint Estates residential community.
Newpoint Estates and other nearby residents and landowners have assailed county commissioners and Arcola City Council over those plans. Some have accused public officials of pushing for condemnation of private property to accommodate owner Jamie Griffith’s plans to expand the airport.
In an interview Thursday, Hebert said the road project isn’t being pushed to help Griffith expand his airport, but to relieve traffic congestion and allow development to proceed southwest of the airport in Sienna Plantation.
Hebert said he’s trying to find a way to divert McKeever but take as little land as possible from Newpoint Estates property owners. And he said he intends to complete plans for the project by March, so that residents can be sure how the road diversion will proceed.
That might mean changing the planned new roadway so that right-of-way stops just north of the canal, instead of extending 100 feet further, Hebert said. Property owners’ parcels currently include the canal and extend a short distance south of it.
“I’m going to do something to try to take as little out of Newpoint Estates as possible,” he said.
However, he added, county officials need to be careful not to unreasonably raise property owners’ expectations, because the Federal Aviation Administration may object to a modified plan, leaving the county with legal liability.
While Hebert flatly states the county isn’t promoting a project to help private business, the diverted roadway clearly would benefit Griffith’s airport. And, in fact, Griffith has agreed to allow Arcola to annex some of his property, provide $500,000 for road construction costs and deed over land for right-of-way.
But Hebert said airport expansion plans wouldn’t include an expanded runway or a new runway, as some project opponents have asserted, because aircraft clearance requirements and geographical restrictions prevent it.
The diversion of McKeever would make 700 additional feet of airport property usable, Hebert said, but it can only be used as a buffer to insure FAA-required clearance.
While Griffith could not be reached for comment on this story, it appears plans to expand airport operations would involve acquiring room to move existing hangars away from the runway to better accommodate corporate aircraft.
With more fuel capacity, more stringent maintenance requirements and an expectation for more regular flights, corporate aircraft can reasonably be expected to prove more profitable to an airport than smaller private planes.
Houston Southwest Airport could expect to see increasing corporate business eventually, because the FAA has designated Houston Hobby Airport as commercial-only. Hebert said Hobby can’t accept new corporate aircraft, and in the future existing corporate flights will have to be diverted elsewhere.
Houston Southwest Airport is one of several area airports designated as a reliever airport by the FAA, and received the designation two years ago.
As part of receiving that designation and qualifying for FAA grant money, Hebert said, an airport owner has to agree to keep the facility in operation for at least 30 years.
Once an airport receives FAA reliever designation, “the FAA is charged with protecting these airport,” Hebert said. Such “protection” can take the form of assuming authority over nearby construction projects such as the South Post Oak extension.
An Aug. 30, 2004 letter from FAA Texas Airport Manager Mike Nicely to Hebert says the federal agency and the Texas Department of Transportation “have encouraged Mr. Griffith…to bring the airport up to FAA design standards and rehabilitate airfield infrastructure to ensure reliability to the flying public.”
However, Nicely states in the letter, an impediment to meeting those standards “is the present location of McKeever Road near the west end of the runway. Vehicles traveling on McKeever Road violate the runway threshold-siting surface. We have encouraged Mr. Griffith to work with local officials to close or replace McKeever Road…”
In the past few days, Hebert has asked the Fort Bend County Attorney’s Office to seek clarification from the FAA and the state of Texas in order to learn exactly what liability, if any, the county might incur if the McKeever Road alignment did not cut as deeply into Newpoint Estates property as originally planned.
“You indicated that although the FAA could not prevent the county from building the road, if the county were to violate those flight safety requirements and ignore FAA objections, the airport might have a cause of action for damages resulting from the county’s non-compliance,” Assistant County Attorney Glen Dunbar said in a Dec. 20 letter to FAA Senior Program Manager Ben Guttery.
“Further, if there were to be a future accident involving air operations and traffic along the road, the county might be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties for unlawfully obstructing/interfering with airspace regulated by the FAA,” the letter states. “We respectfully request that you confirm to us in writing whether our understanding as described above is correct…”
Hebert also said he asked the county attorney to research the law – and seek an attorney general’s opinion if necessary – to see whether the airport could seek damages if, in the road diversion project, “we stay as far or farther away than the current McKeever Road.”
He said he believes there’s a possibility that by doing so the county would not have liability since Griffith’s runway was built too near McKeever Road to begin with.
“We’re making the effort” to minimize the need to acquire right-of-way, Hebert said. “But we’re going to have to do what the law requires. We can’t put the taxpayers of Fort Bend County at risk.”
1 Chris D. Calvin, Ph.D. - Dec 30, 03:21 pm
Thank you Tom Hilton!
Someone needs to thank Tom Hilton, former city council candidate, for shining the light on this one. On 11/22/05 many officials were still denying this airport expansion was even being discussed and now they are telling everything. Thanks Tom from the 10,000 to 15,000 residents and the scores of other county voters and tax payers living on the fly-way that will now have to deal with the unpleasant sound of jets landing and taking off a few hundred feet up, not to mention that this supposed diversion plan actually helps Sienna Plantation residents?
IMO as a Sienna resident who uses this road regularly by diverting McKeever from its near connection with FM 521 back towards hwy 6 we are dumping all our traffic on the only hurricane evacuation route available to this area. This creates a greater traffic problem for Sienna homeowners during such crisis and no great improvements under normal conditions. If the county was really interested in improving our traffic they would get us a South exit on to FM 521 through Sienna as is part of the South Sienna plan (see Developer’s Agreement on file with Missouri City June ‘05 5th Amendment).
IMO this is a project for special interests and special interests only. It benefits very few and the excuse that a law suit would be generated hasn’t stopped the county on the DOJ voting concerns, why should this excuse be used now.
If officials really want to improve McKeever Rd. then improve it as is without helping the airport expand for jet service over us. Never has an expanding airport helped property values (or sell homes). If our values tank because of this then Missouri City, the school district and the county among a few will see tax revenue dips as values drop. Not a good plan for the largest numbers in this area of the county Mr. Hebert!
Again if county officials really want to help us here in Sienna then listen to us the voters and not your EDC friends (Griffith, the SJD developer, Gipson, etc.). I might add that some of these people are big campaign contributors to Mr. Hebert too, but they can only vote once.
Thanks Tom for shining the light on this!!!-Chris
visit http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com for more on this and related matters in this area of the county. . .
2 Tom Hilton - Dec 30, 06:24 pm
Howdy,
There seems to be alot of misinformation being bantered about on this subject by the Judge…..
QUOTE/MISINFORMATION: “In an interview Thursday, Hebert said the road project isn’t being pushed to help Griffith expand his airport, but to relieve traffic congestion and allow development to proceed southwest of the airport in Sienna Plantation.”
DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS OTHERWISE: Go to: http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org/EDA.doc
This is documentation from the HGAC which shows clearly that there is no “traffic congestion relief” needed here. Fort Bend County Judge Hebert seems to be on a crusade to extend McKeever Road in Arcola at the expense of taxpayers in order to benefit a private developer who owns an airport. This amounts to blatant abuse of Eminent Domain camouflaged as a Mobility issue. Ask yourself, and more importantly, ask your County Commissioner; WHAT IS THE URGENCY HERE, AND WHAT IS THE NEED AT ALL FOR THIS PROJECT? There are plenty of other ACTUAL mobility issues that are more deserving of our tax dollars.
MORE DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS OTHERWISE: http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org/griffith_adolphus.jpg Hebert wants us to believe that road diversion is being done for “traffic relief” when this document clearly shows why the County is building it…to expand the airport. The road is not the only thing that the Judge wants diverted here.
QUOTE/MISINFORMATION: “To accomplish that, the county or city would have to acquire or condemn about 100 feet of land from four private parcels in the Newpoint Estates residential community.
DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS OTHERWISE: Go to: http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org/plat.jpg
This is a plat showing the actual amount of land planned to be confiscated, which totals to about 10 ACRES, worth about $650,000. The approximate size of this plat is about 300 ft x 2200 ft. In addition, the County will be liable for damaged property values for the adjacent land owners. ALSO, (which is not even on the table being discussed) there is the inverse condemnation which WILL occur to the 17 acres west of the runway and 200 ACRES south of the airport owned by the Neuhaus family. What are the consequences to the economic future of Arcola due to this travesty? Why is there not discussion regarding this?
QUOTE/MISINFORMATION: But Hebert said airport expansion plans wouldn’t include an expanded runway or a new runway, as some project opponents have asserted, because aircraft clearance requirements and geographical restrictions prevent it.
DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS OTHERWISE: I just did an Open Records Request with the County asking for the Master Plan mentioned in the August 2004 from Nicely to Judge Hebert, and that also mentions the EXTENSION OF THE RUNWAY. The County called and said they had everything I needed – I come in and they hand me the 2-year-old Feasibility Study. The plans changed when the County declined acquisition of this airport, yet the County can’t provide the documents as required by law. The Judge claims there are no plans to extend the runway, but does not have the documentation to back that up? How does he know that the runway won’t be expanded? Where is that info? Looks like illegal activity if the County is not acting within the law as prescribed by the Open Records Act, OR looks like NEGLIGENCE by the County to attempt to act on a project without the latest documentation with which to make an informed decsision. Either way, it’s unacceptable.
This thread is getting very long, so will not insert any more info here – go to:
http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org for more information on inaccuracies found in County Judge Hebert’s rebuttals. Also look at the timeline found at; http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org/chronology.htm which puts all of this trickery into perspective.
All the best,
Tom Hilton
3 James DeVoge - Dec 30, 06:57 pm
We do not want expanson of Houston Southwest airport!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 thelittleguy - Dec 31, 07:09 am
Bob has to satisfy his EDC backers and local developers (big business). Lord knows we can’t have a road expansion plan that doesn’t help the airport and keep traffic flowing to FM 521 instead of hwy 6 (were it isn’t needed). Who cares about those poor Sienna Plantation residents (small business) who own companies along McKeever who just bought the properties and now face road diversion.—It’s all for the greater good right? Not Hebert and his friends. . .
5 Tom Hilton - Dec 31, 03:29 pm
In a related topic, that is, dealing with recent “ethically challenged” decision-making by Judge Hebert, Commissioner’s Court has this on their Jan 3rd 2006 Agenda;
36. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Workshop to discuss and take appropriate action on conflict of interest disclosure requirements established by Chapter 176 of the Local Government Code.
Maybe the County Attorney can show some “tough love” to County Judge Bob Hebert and force him out of denial. Judge Hebert has been in denial regarding the legal requirement that elected officials submit Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures. His consulting relationship with Eco Resources is a clear conflict that the Judge refuses to acknowledge. The Judge is in the water business due to his consultant position with Eco.
File that Disclosure Judge. What are the terms of your Agreement with Eco, compensation, etc. ? The voting Public wants to know, and know BEFORE the March primaries.
All the best,
Tom Hilton
from FBNow.com:
"The current judge in the 268th is Brady G. Elliott. He was publicly censured in 1999 by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for failing to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
-Fort Bend County Judge-
Mckeever Rd. Expansion article in the Sun:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15738087&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532245&rfi=6
Ck. this out:
Check this out. It sounds like a similar story from FortBendNow.com:
Officials To Simonton: Disband At Your Peril
by Bob Dunn, Oct 8, 01:13 pm
County, city and economic development officials converged on Simonton Saturday morning to deliver a concerted message warning residents of the downside of “disincorporation”.
Fueled by anger over Simonton’s first-ever property tax, approved by the City Council in April, a group of residents has been circulating petitions seeking an election to decide whether Simonton should disband as a city.
Dismayed at what they called disinformation being circulated with the petitions, Simonton Mayor Paul “Dub” Sabrsula and the council called in a panel of government officials to answer questions at a town hall meeting at Simonton Community Church.
About 85 residents heard presentations from officials, including Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers, Rosenberg City Manager David Neeley and Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council Executive Vice President Jeff Wiley, expound on imminent growth and development, road maintenance issues and the relationship between city services and city taxes.
“You have got to determine, what do you want for your community? Envision what you want Simonton to be … what’s your quality of life,” Fulshear Planning Board Chairman Mike McCann urged the crowd. The growth’s coming. It’s hit Fulshear broadside.”
McCann said the Fulshear – just four miles east of Simonton – now has 3,000 “master-planned acres” within city limits.
“If you’re looking for a place that you feel like will get you out of the mainstream of city life, you need to move further west,” McCann said. “The growth is coming to Simonton, and you can’t stop it. It’s coming fast and it’s coming hard.”
The panel spent two hours giving presentations in response to pre-selected questions, mostly involving road maintenance issues, before directly addressing the source of what has become Simonton’s controversy: property taxes and the resulting disincorporation movement.
Then Simonton resident Ralph Gustafson stood up and put panel members on the spot, asking them each to answer a question.
“Do you believe, in order for us to be able to know what our future holds, do you believe incorporation provides us that ability?” Gustafson asked.
Wiley, of the Economic Development Council, had a succinct answer.
“Yes,” he said.
Orchard City Commissioner Rodney Pavlock said if Simonton disincorporates, some other municipality will use the annexation process to move the area within its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), and then into its city limits. If that happens, Pavlock said, the power of Simonton residents’ votes would be diluted.
Rosenberg’s Neely said one of the main reasons for municipal incorporation is to protect citizens from growth. “You need to develop a subdivision ordinance and make developers within your ETJ develop to your standards.”
“You need to be an incorporated city,” Neeley said. “Run for office. Become a city council member. But be a city.”
Said County Commissioner Meyers, “One of the scary things you ought to consider is, if you disincorporate, I’m going to be the only elected official you’ve got.”
Meyers said he also believes a disincorporated Simonton would be annexed into another municipality’s ETJ. And, he said, that municipality could be the city of Houston. He said while Cinco Ranch residents may believe they’ll someday be part of Katy, they’re actually within Houston’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
rehash (from FBNow.com):
Spat Over Apartments Could Impact Free Speech On The Web
by Bob Dunn, Oct 24, 06:29 pm
It seemed an unlikely hinge upon which Texans’ constitutional right to anonymous free speech might swing:
How many apartment units should the developers of Sienna Plantation be allowed to build, and where should they be located?
A disagreement over the answers to that question began boiling over in public a few months ago. Missouri City Council meetings regularly featured speakers railing over the building of apartments in Missouri City and nearby communities.
Mayor Allen Owen took heat after a deal was reached to relocate a planned group of apartments, to the dissatisfaction of a group of area residents.
In July, for instance, Sienna resident Chris Calvin spoke at a council meeting and said he’d obtained Mayor Owen’s list of campaign contributions, and that more than half of them came from developers. Among the largest contributors, Calvin said, was Larry Johnson, President of Johnson Development Corp. and Sienna Plantation’s developer.
Owen took issue, telling the Fort Bend Star after the meeting that “my vote has never been for sale, nor have I catered to anybody who made contributions to me.”
Thorn in the side
A self-described thorn in the side of Sienna Plantation’s developers, Calvin heads what he says has become a consumer watchdog group – the Committee for Responsible Development – which he said once had 37 members but whose numbers have since dwindled.
Calvin said his motivation came in part from disenfranchisement. Sienna Plantation is outside Missouri City limits, so residents have no vote in city affairs. And, he said, the only voting members of the Sienna Plantation property owners association are appointed by the developer.
“We are not trying to hurt home sales,” he said. “We just want representation in what’s going on.”
Calvin didn’t limit his discourse to council meetings. He and other area residents discussed the apartments and various Sienna Plantation issues on Internet web site forums. One of those, run by Sienna resident Matthew Feinberg, operated on the domain siennatalk.com.
Officials at Sienna/Johnson Development, L.P., which holds a trademark for “Sienna” and “Sienna Plantation,” took notice.
To Calvin, it marked an attempt by Sienna/Johnson “to shut us up.”
In a July 19 missive to the Missouri City Council, Johnson Development Corp. Senior Vice President Douglas Goff said that assertion was incorrect. “Sienna/Johnson did not ask Mr. Feinberg to shut down his discussion forum, but only to stop using the Sienna and Sienna Plantation marks,” he said.
Substantial misunderstanding
Goff sent his message to the council in response to an anonymous email, also sent to members of council and to Larry Johnson of Johnson Development. The email, signed CRD, “reflects a substantial misunderstanding of the facts and makes several erroneous statements,” Goff said.
The email in question contended that Johnson Development Co. was trying to shut down missouricitytalk.com, the new web home of Feinberg’s forums, opened after Sienna/Johnson informed him of the trademark issue involving siennatalk.com.
“They are now trying to force the site administrator into turning the domain names over to them,” the email states. “This obviously is not allowing free speech or open communications between residents here in Sienna.”
But it was another anonymous communication, posted under the pseudonym NextDoor on missouricitytalk.com, also on July 19, that really drew Sienna/Johnson’s attention.
“You do not have the rights to Sienna Plantation – it is the name of a place. You would be shutting down all the other small businesses that use that name not just this site,” the post said. “So what, we changed the name now get off and leave us alone. So Matt doesn’t want to hand over the domain names – pay him for them at the price he wants just like you did the mayor and council that you are addressing in your post.”
Anticipation of a lawsuit
That post became part of the court records in a case Sienna/Johnson filed 15 days later in Fort Bend County District Court, in which it sought to depose Chris Calvin and Matthew Feinberg in anticipation of a defamation and business disparagement lawsuit “in which the Petitioner may be a party.”
In its petition to take depositions from Calvin and Feinberg, Sienna/Johnson said it and its employees “have been the subjects of false and disparaging statements, including malicious accusations of criminal conduct,” made anonymously on Feinberg’s web sites.
As its sole example of such disparagement, the petition seems to refer to the July 19 post by NextDoor: “For example, recently under the name “nextdoorneighbor” a message was posted that indicated Petitioner has made “pay-offs” to the mayor of Missouri City and Missouri City council members. Petitioner is informed that deponent Chris Calvin makes posting under the screen name “nextdoorneighbor.”
The petition also said Sienna/Johnson believed Calvin repeatedly posted on Feinberg’s web sites using multiple pseudonyms “to create the impression that large numbers of residents of Sienna Plantation and Missouri City oppose further development by Petitioner, and thereby affect Petitioner’s economic interest.”
Identification of users
Among other things, the petition asked that Feinberg produce “all documents concerning the identities and IP addresses for the registered users” of Feinberg’s web sites, including “CRD,” “responsible_dvlpmnt,” “BuddyJ,” “Mike,” “JaneL,” “starbuck,” “Jim_Calhoun,” “Bill_Crane,” “twinstuff2,” “nextdoor,” “nextdoorneighbor,” “sundaysiennasurfer,” “sss,” and “donny12.”
Eventually, the notion of a Texas court helping a private business learn the identities of anonymous web forum members attracted significant legal attention, including the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas.
Feinberg’s attorneys sought to have Sienna/Johnson’s petition quashed, but their motion was denied by Fort Bend County District Court Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz.
Ruiz did, however, grant a protective order stating, among other things, that identities of users of siennatalk.com and misouricitytalk.com be considered confidential and would be disclosed only to attorneys in the case “as well as secretaries, paralegals, law clerks and support staff of those attorneys” and also the parties in the case and their partners and employees.
Ruiz’s ruling set off a flurry of activity by Feinberg’s attorneys in an attempt to head off the depositions, including a Notice of Appeal and Request For Hearing and Emergency Request for Stay of Orders, brought to court Oct. 17 just before the depositions were scheduled to take place.
Right to anonymous speech
“This matter raises an important issue of first impression to Texas jurisprudence,” Feinberg attorney Laura Hermer said in the 35-page notice. “To what extent does Texas protect its citizens’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the Internet…?”
As if in answer to that question, Ruiz denied Feinberg’s attorneys an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. And in an early-morning teleconference, Ruiz denied a stay of the depositions.
They took place as scheduled, and their full transcripts have not been made part of the public record, in keeping with the court’s protective order.
However, anyone who posted comments critical of Sienna Plantation on Feinberg’s web sites with the expectation of doing so anonymously has had his or her expectations dashed.
Douglas Goff and Chad Johnson of Johnson Development Corp. were present at the depositions, said Sienna/Johnson attorney John Keville, of Howrey LLP.
Among other things, the depositions clarified the issue of whether there really were a large number of people writing anonymous posts on Feinberg’s web sites about Sienna Plantation, Keville said.
“I think it’s fair to say that a lot of the identities were Mr. Calvin,” he added.
Calvin said the legal action by Sienna/Johnson is consistent with what have become known as SLAPPs – strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Keville insists otherwise.
“That’s absolutely not true,” Keville said. “Feinberg was never forced to shut down the web site. This was never about suppressing free speech.”
What to do next
However, he added, “when you cross the line into defamation, that’s another thing.”
As for the court case, Keville said he and his client are discussing what, if anything, to do next.
“We always said we never intended to file suit against Matthew Feinberg, and that still holds true,” Keville said. He would not extend that statement to Calvin.
“I know I’m the target,” Calvin said. “I think they’re trying to divert our political campaign. We’re trying to get a candidate to run against the mayor.”
Whether it was Sienna/Johnson’s intention or not, Feinberg’s MissouriCityTalk site still is up, but the discussion forums have long been shut down.
David Broiles, meanwhile, a cooperative attorney with the Texas ACLU who assisted in Feinberg’s case, said he and Feinberg’s other lawyers also are discussing what to do next. One possibility would be to seek an order that the depositions be sealed.
Gathering anonymously to talk on a web site forum “is a way of assembling” and a form of free speech protected under the Constitution, Broiles said. And if a court is being asked to compel people to divulge identities of anonymous writers who have been accused of no wrong-doing, “we want to stop it.”
In Feinberg’s case, however, Broiles acknowledges that didn’t happen.
“It’s certainly a loss to this point,” he said. “We have certainly not prevailed.”
1 Gerry Hookstra - Oct 25, 04:42 pm I post this for anyone whom ever posted on the web sites being investigated by Sienna/Johnson Development (Missourcitytalk.com or Siennatalk.com). Unfortunately, this ‘witch-hunt’ type pursuit of depositions and hearings, has cost Sienna Resident, Chris Calvin over $20,000. To date it appears that no libelous statements have been established, nor has any wrong-doing been established. At least not from what I’ve read or heard in the news.
This seems to be such a senseless punishment to be handed out. Not to mention what a waste of time and money it is, and for no apparent reason. It frightens me how quickly and easily anyone’s savings could be drained, and their life so severley changed just in the course of defending themselves from someone’s unfounded, unproven allegations. It could happen to any of us.
I also find it frustrating that not once has there been any mention of the identity, or of the motives, or of the credibility, of the woman who wrote ‘the affidavit’ to Sienna/Jonhson that started this ball rolling!
2 Chris D. Calvin, Ph.D. - Oct 25, 05:34 pm I would like to pass on a comment or two to Mr. Keville, the JDC attorney on this case. He appears, IMHO, to have violated the protective order on the deposition by releasing bits from it in this interview. I wonder what Ruiz would say to all this or anyone else. Although I think the article is balanced I think it ignores the majority of the 270 other registered users of the old SiennaTalk.com site and the many, many visitors to that site along with the thousands of people in Missouri City who oppose more apartments (of which I have amny e-mails from). I would have to agree that at this point free speech, rights to privacy and the right to petition our government for redress of grivances have taken a hit in this court in Fort Bend county. It will not stop the effort to find a mayoral candidate John/JDC! Missouri City needs an election it hasn’t had one in years.
As for the 1100+ petitioners and 9 to 10,000 residents in this community that have been virtually ignored to this point, I say keep your faith that homeowners do have some rights and the press is your best friend in these situations.Take care-Chris
3 John Armstrong - Oct 25, 08:28 pm It was my understanding that there were several meetings scheduled with JDC to level set expectations on the development in Sienna Plantation area, all of which were cancelled for one reason or another.
I believe that if there was real concern on the part of the developer and employees to handle any questions or concerns on the part of those who disagree with the development of the apartments that would have happened already and not through annoucements at town meetings or short e-mails.
I’ve watched numerous e-mails travel ‘back and forth’ between neighbor and JDC employees on this subject. I’ve yet to see anyone ‘accuse’ anyone of a wrong doing or an unethical action, it’s always the replies to the e-mails were someone has read between the lines and interpreted the e-mail in such away to warrant a barrage of hate.
Everyone is far from innocent on this subject of ‘misinterpretation’ and ‘miscommunication’, everyone in my opinion equals all parties… neighbor and JDC employees.
Political agenda, monies contributed, he said – she said, is just fixation on the wrong issue(s) at hand. The real issue is trust. Trust your neighbor, trust the mayor, trust the developer to do the right thing.
There is a small group, which was referred to as ‘tree huggers’, this group doesn’t trust the developer or mayor to make the ‘best’ decision for the develop of the dreaded apartment complexes in Sienna Plantation!
There is another group of neighbors that don’t trust the ‘tree huggers’ because they have been portrayed as trouble makers out to hurt economic welfare of Sienna Plantation. Did the ‘tree huggers’ paint this picture? No. Did the neighbors who don’t trust the ‘tree huggers’ paint this picture? No. Hmmm…
Sure, neighbors will disagree on different things but, neighbors are neighbors and you have to live next to them… almost like family. Good thing Christmas comes once a year, right? We need to remember to treat our neighbors with the respect worthy of that which we wish to be shown to us.
That hasn’t happened and it’s a shame.
I believe it’s time for JDC to step up and pull everyone together work this out. Communicate, level set and get people involved in their efforts of development.
You get more with honey…
4 Right To Be - Oct 26, 11:29 am Thank you Bob for being the very first news publisher to print the real facts.
The Texas ACLU would not have taken notice and become involved unless there are serious constitutational implications. I hope Matthew and the ACLU fights this all the way to the Texas Supreme Court.
SJD claims they did not ask for missouricitytalk.com to be shutdown. The fact is that their leagal actions has caused a huge chilling effect. Matthew was forced to shutdown the site to protect the anunomous users of the site. This is not over yet. If SDJ sues either Matthew or Chris they will supena the database and emails from them putting everyone that ever posted on that site at risk from either being included in the law suit or being dragged into depositions.
This fear has also caused people in Sienna to stop talking about community issues. I personally am afraid of being taken to court by simply speaking my mind in public or to anyone that might “tell on me”.
Sienna has even gone as far to update their Covenant to include the following. Notice they say ” 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 SDJ wants to limit free speech. Check section 2, they specifically don’t want owners to “assemble for the purpose of spreading propaganda”. “PROPAGANDA: Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause” They don’t wany anything expressed that opposes their views. If you take this latterly you are not even allowed to have web site that opposes them. It would be easy for Sienna to enforce this rule on anyone that runs a web site or opposes their views.
SIENNA PLANTATION RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING DISSEMINATION OF
INFORMATION IN AREAS OF COMMON RESPONSIBILITY Adopted:
The following Rules and Regulations Regarding Dissemination of Information in Areas of Common Responsibility (the “Rules”) are promulgated by the Board of Directors of the Sienna Plantation Residential Association, Inc. (the “Association”),pursuant to the authority found in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Sienna Plantation Residential Association, Inc., recorded under Clerk’s File Number 9734406 in the Official Public Records of Real Property of Fort Bend County, Texas (the “Declaration”) and the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, filed with the Texas Secretary of State on the 9th of June, 1997. Unless otherwise specified herein or if the context clearly indicates otherwise, the words used in these Rules shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Declaration.
An Area of Common Responsibility is owned, maintained and/or controlled by the Association. Area of Common Responsibility, as defined in the Declaration, means the “Common Area, together with those areas, if any, which by contract or agreement become the responsibility of the Association. Road rights-of-ways within or adjacent to the Properties may be part of the Area of Common Responsibility.”
Common Area, as defined in the Declaration, means “any and all real and personal property and easements and other interests therein, together with the facilities and improvements located thereon, now or hereafter owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and Occupants.”
The Association hereby adopts the following Rules: 1. No Owner and/or such Owner’s guests, invitees or agents may disseminate, post, or otherwise display or distribute any written information (including, but not limited to banners, handbills, newsletters, flyers, leaflets and the like) of any nature, content or kind, in or on an Area of Common Responsibility.
2. No Owner and/or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents may engage in any of the following activities in any Area of Common Responsibility: (a) picketing, (b)otherwise spreading propaganda, (c) using sound and/or voice amplifying devices(including, but not limited to microphones, amplifiers, or other similar devices), and/or (d) causing or encouraging persons to assemble for the purpose of spreading propaganda; provided, however, any such activities listed in this Section 2 shall be permitted so long as such activities are commenced in furtherance of a Community Sanctioned Event, as defined below.
3. A Community Sanctioned Event shall mean an event or activity approved by the Board of Directors and/or General Manager of the Association, which event or activity is (i) a fundraising, charity, pledge, drive or similar event sponsored and/or organized by the Association, the Declarant, other organization approved by the Association, or an organization defined under Section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, or their successor statutes, or (ii) sponsored and/or organized by the Association for the benefit and/or enjoyment of the Owners and/or the community.
4. The determination of whether an Owner or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents are in violation of these Rules shall be made by the Board of Directors of the Association and/or the General Manager of the Association, in their sole and absolute discretion.
5. If an Owner or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents engage in activity prohibited by these Rules, the Association, pursuant to and to the extent of the authority granted in the Declaration may, take one or more of the following actions:
(a) suspend the enjoyment rights of such Owner with respect to the Common Areas for any period not to exceed sixty (60) days subject to notice that may be required by applicable law;
(b) consider a person who enters upon and is present in an Area of Common Responsibility for a purpose in violation of these Rules a trespasser; (c) impose fines, upon notice and opportunity to cure as may be required by Texas law; and/or (d) remove and/or dispose from the Areas of Common Common Responsibility any items that are placed and/or posted in the Areas of Common Responsibility in violation of these Rules; in doing so the Association or its agents shall not be subject to any liability for trespass, other tort or damages in connection with or arising from such removal and/or disposal nor in any way shall the Association or its agent be liable for any accounting or other claim for such action.
6. “Owner” shall not include the Association, the Declarant, or any of their respective agents, successors, designees, replacements or assigns.
5 Taney Hall - Oct 26, 12:22 pm I moved to this area thinking it would be a fairly quiet community. Is it so wrong to want something unlike the rest of Houston? I look at the apartments as I drive in and dread what is coming and now with the further actions of our local officials it makes me wonder how long before it will be time to move again?
Check this poem out:
Dooh Nibor-
http://www.reedandwrite.com/poems/Dooh_Nibor.shtml
Some of you may be interested in some information regarding the train companies that travel through the Sienna area. According to the company sources the tracks will continue to be used over the long term and traffic will actually be increasing (currently 2 companies use them). Also it was further reported by this source that when the development was first platted one of the companies suggested that the SJD developer's move the homes further back (several hundred feet was what they said).
Of course as usual ck all this information with the original sources (the train company and/or the developers or both). Stay informed and keep in touch!
Just in from SOS:
Monday night's Board meeting hints at more controversy ahead for District
The agenda for Monday night's FBISD Board of Trustees meeting contains several items that will likely be of great interest to many:
1) The latest internal audit (this one on district vehicle usage) will be discussed;
2) The Board will "recieve opinion from Board counsel as to what belongs in Open/Closed session and the necessity for closed session to be taped or recorded";
3) Consider necessity (in closed session) for possible counsel for District/Board legal matters; and later (in open session), "Possible action to retain counsel for District/Board legal matters";
4) Consider (in closed session) possible litigation options for recovery of previous settlement funds; and later (in open session) "Possible action related to recovery of previous settlement funds"; and
5) Possible action to recieve written report from Lloyd Kelley and Mir Fox & Rodriquez in closed session.
A little background/analysis on the above:
1) The fact that the Board is recieving this audit in open session is a stark departure from the previous Board's habit of keeping the public in the dark on these matters. Kudos to the new board majority of Lisa Rickert, Ken Bryant, Laurie Caldwell and Stan Magee on getting this right and following the Texas Open Meeting Act. Also, the content of this audit (given the fact that the district did it's first EVER inventory of District vehicles in mid 2004) may prove quite illuminating. Look for it (along with the previous audits) on the FBISD website and read it for yourself.
2) This is long overdue. Especially since, in recent meetings, certain long-tenured board members have shown a penchant for "not recalling" decisions that had been made in closed session by the Board.
3) Speculation only: Could the board finally be considering a change of outside legal counsel (after years of representation by Feldman & Rogers)? Perhaps. It was hinted in the initial investigative report that either Feldman personally or members of his firm had not cooperated fully in the initial investigation. The Board subsequently voted unanimously to compel Feldman to comply and our sources tell us taped interviews with pointed questions were asked this past week. Of course, Save our Schools went on the record months ago questioning the conflicts inherent in Feldman and Rogers advising the Board while, at the same time, collecting hefty fees from work assigned by the administration.
4) Speculation only: This may relate to an item in the Risk Management audit. The audit revealed a $37,850 settlement for a lawsuit that was brought against TML by Memorial
Herman Hospital System (not FBISD). According to TML, the hospital was not eligible for payment because they were an out-of-network provider. A letter from Memorial Herman Hospital's attorney was sent to the Board of Trustees on August 8, 2003 requesting payment. At that time, according to the Director of Risk Management (John Griffin), he advised the District's Board of Trustees that FBISD was not a party to the lawsuit and that this claim was processed in accordance with the plan document and was not to be paid. However, a settlement was subsequently reached and authorized by the Associate Superintendent of Business and Finance (Charles Dupre) in the amount of $37,850 on November 10, 2004 (original charges were $78,415) and this additional information was not brought to the attention of the Board of Trustees. Perhaps the Board will be seeking to get our tax dollars back? But from whom?
5) Let's hope we hear at least most of this in open session. This will be round 2 of the ongoing investigation. However, since we already know that the District Attorney is being consulted regarding bringing possible criminal charges to bear, we may have to wait a bit longer on this one.
Stay tuned... SOS will post a full report following tonight's meeting. If you've been curious about what's really going on, this would be a great meeting to turn out for and support the new board majority in their ongoing effort to bring more accountability and fiscal responsiblity to FBISD.
For more information on current Fort Bend ISD issues or to comment, visit our website at:
www.save-our-schools.blogspot.com
Update on board investigation:
Asst. Supt. Dupre resigned today on the heals of this report.
See this recent release:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/community/560/prescott-small-announces-candidacy-for-county-judge
-is a politician really running against the Houston developer special interests?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thought some of you might get a kick out of the second comment in the thread on the ongoing FBISD investigations (I wonder if it is DG backed BOT member BB)?
"1 consumerwise - Jan 10, 12:31 pm
Thanks FortBendNow.com for keeping the tax payers/voters in this community posted on this event. My confidence in this school board is significantly improved because of these community watchdog actions!-Thanks
2 accountabilty4all - Jan 10, 06:41 pm
Mr. Dunn,
Why do you allow Ms. Mitton to continue to present only one side of FBISD matters on your site? She is obviously biased and believes that everything done prior to the coronation of Rickert, Caldwell, Magee and Bryant was evil and that they can do no wrong. You are being used by this bunch of people who, IMHO, are power hungry and are doing much harm to the district because of their ignorance and arrogance.
3 Bob Dunn - Jan 10, 07:25 pm
The story in question leads with the fact that the FBISD board terminated its outside legal council, and provides details related to that action.
A representative of that firm was provided the opportunity to comment on that action, and did so.
The investigative law firm and other board members were asked for comment and chose not to respond.
What in your opinion was the “other side” of the story about last night’s meeting that wasn’t presented?"
Found this comment on FBNow.com:
"Along with the recent non-membership approved 6% increase in annual fees to nearly $800 (taxation without representation) by the Sienna non-resident developer only HOA board we now have a new list of fees that the membership did not approve here. I sure wish we could vote this crowd out in the coming elections:
I found it interesting that there’s now a list posted on Siennanet for “deed restriction” violations. It would be nice to see it made available to prospective buyers…
Schedule of Sienna Plantation Fines (for public edification)
SCHEDULE OF FINES
As permitted under Article III, Paragraph C, Section 6, Enforcement, of the Bylaws, SRPAI Board of Directors has the right to set rules and regulations, and impose fines if necessary to achieve compliance. Below are the fines that were recommended by volunteers and approved by The Board associated with some common violations. Fines may be levied upon observance of the violation and may continue until problem is corrected. These categories are for reference only and may apply to other situations. Fine amounts may be increased at the discretion of the Hearing Advisory Committee (HAC) or SPRAI Board of Directors. All fines are per item.
Payment of the fine amount does not grant a variance for the violation. All violations must be corrected to come into compliance. If there is a subsequent violation of the same rule the fine amount will double with each subsequent violation.
•Broken driveways or walkways
$50.00 per month
•Certificate of Compliance not requested
$100.00 one time fine
•Decorative embellishments without approval
$50.00 per month
•Excessive pets, barking dogs or other noise from animals
$50.00 per month
•Holiday decorations past deadline
$50.00 per month
•Improper Signage
$25.00 per inspection
•Lawn Maintenance $50.00 per week
•Livestock or poultry kept on property $25.00 per day
•Operating a business out of home in violation of declaration $125.00 per month
•Major house or property repairs needed $100.00 per month
•Mildew on Property
$50.00 per month
•Minor house or property repairs needed $50.00 per month
•Modifications not per approved plans $100.00 per month
•Modifications made without approval $100-500 per month
•Non-approved window treatments $50.00 per month
•Property/street used for storage of unauthorized vehicles or other items boats, trailers,
RVs, basketball goals, etc. $25.00 per day
•Trash Can Public View $10.00 per inspection
•Unapproved exterior lights or light spilling onto adjacent properties
$50.00 per month
SPRAI HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS POLICY AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE"
Post a Comment
<< Home