KTRK abc13 6 & 10 Coverage of Current Sienna Plantation Lawsuit Against Their Own Homeowners for Protesting!!!
The following is an exert on the abc13 website from the 6 & 10 coverage on the Sienna Plantation apartment protest and the generated SLAPP suit by Johnson Development Co. of Houston. You can discuss this mess here or on the abc13 website (anonymously if you like):
"Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit
Opinions written under assumed names
By Ted Oberg
(1/13/06 - KTRK/MISSOURI CITY, TX) - A Fort Bend County man says he's expressing his first amendment right of free expression. A major land developer says that the homeowner is actually misleading other people and hurting his business. This war over words first played out on the Internet, but is now moving to the courts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also on ABC13.com:
Send us a news tip | RSS feeds | ABC13 E-lert | Info mentioned on air
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're talking about blogging on the net. The law can't always keep up with the Internet and blogging is a little like the Wild West -- there just aren't many rules. But the developer in this case, Sienna Plantation, is huge. So why would they put up a fight about what one little guy writes on a few websites?
This all starts at Chris Calvin's Sienna Plantation home.
"I love it," he said. "I wouldn't speak up if I didn't love it."
He's lived here three years and tells us he wants to stay. But he's pretty upset about hundreds of apartments the developer plans to build about a mile from his home.
"You're going to overcrowd our schools," Calvin predicted.
Months ago Calvin put up signs and circulated a petition to fight the plan. He also started blogging under the screen name 'Responsible Development.' Blogs are online journals and many times people write entries under pen names.
"I wanted to communicate what was going on in the community," Calvin said.
But as he continued to blog Calvin started using other screen names. 'Jane L', 'Buddy J', 'Jim Calhoun 1' - dozens by the time it was done. He admitted using 24 names. And that was when Sienna Plantation's developer had enough.
Sienna Plantation Attorney John Keville explained, "Chris Calvin can say any opinion he wants as long as he puts his name on it. Chris Calvin can't be a mob of 30 people."
It's the power of the Internet as an equalizer the developer says that forced them to sue. They admit much of what Calvin wrote was true or his opinion. But they say he deceived Internet readers when he created the sense that so many people shared his opinion.
"If it's one person saying it, let it be one person saying it," said Keville.
It's an argument our legal analyst says the law may not support.
"You have a first amendment right to express yourself the way you want, providing you're open and honest about it," said Eyewitness News Legal Analyst Joel Androphy. "(Whether you use your name or someone else's) doesn't detract from the credibility."
Calvin said, "We're talking about free speech here. We're talking about rights to property. We're talking about rights to privacy. We're talking about the big issues in American life and these things are important."
Sienna Plantation's lawyer says if Calvin had said all the same things, but used his own name - they never would've sued. Calvin doubts that. In the lawsuit, the developer is trying to get a judge to prevent Calvin from using any screen name or his own name in the future to say disparaging things about the development. . . . . "--for the rest of the story see link above or below-->
___________________
For the entire story visit http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=3810084 or to discuss it at the site.
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Friday, January 13, 2006
20 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
From abc13 news thread on this ( http://forums.go.com/abclocal/KTRK/thread?threadID=99027 ):
Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit
Author: responsible_dvlpmnt
from: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=3810084
Additional comments/opinion--
Aspects of this case have already reached the Texas Supreme Ct. Two of the websites have been pressured off the aire because of the legal manuevers of the developer's here (www.SiennaTalk.com and www.MissouriCityTalk.com). We are keeping the last site open until it is ordered by a court to be shut down (this will be our last stand--and we will appeal as needed). The current site is http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com and we invite your posts (anonymous or not).
The developer's filed their SLAPP case (Strategic law suit against public participation--see Canen & Pring, 1996 research on why developers use this tactic so often) after our group confronted Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen with city ethics complaints when it was discovered he was taking nearly 60% of his campaign contributions from developers over a 5-6 year period. He even appeared to be pushing the apt. projects (2700 units) for the developer at several council sessions (see streaming video on Feb. 7th, 21st; June 6th and July 18th on the Mo-city website for support). The number 2 giver on the list was our developer Johnson Development Co. of Houston. If that isn't a conflict of interest I do not know what is.
Further the use of multiple logins was common among all users of that site after we received threatening e-mails when we began to circulate the petition through the neighborhoods here. These e-mail responses were generated from one of the developer/board members of our HOA to other area developers (our HOA is controlled completely by the developer and we have 9-10,000 residents living here). We have repeatedly asked for minority voting rights on our all unelected, self appointed, non-resident HOA board.
Local media at http://www.fortbendnow.com folows this along with several local papers (and at one point even the Chronicle). SLAPP suits are intended to inflict maximum financial harm on the target (us) and it has. We spent half of our entire savings defending the actions in pre-trial on this case. We now have to continue to defend it.--Their goal will be to spend us out of the case and that shouldn't be hard with one of the largest land development companies in the Houston area (developers of Sienna Plantation, Silver Lake, Fall Creek, Riverstone, etc.).
More related news on this from FortBendNow.com:
"Missouri City Man Forced To Identify Anonymous Web Posters Appeals Case To Texas Supreme Court
by Bob Dunn, Jan 5, 10:58 am
A Missouri City man, ordered in court to submit to questioning by attorneys trying to identify anonymous posters to his web site forum, has appealed the case to the Texas Supreme Court.
In his appeal, Matthew Feinberg seeks an order that Fort Bend District Judge Thomas Culver seal a record of Feinberg’s deposition by Sienna/Johnson Development attorneys, and prohibit its use in any lawsuit the developer might pursue.
However, Sienna/Johnson, developers of the Sienna Plantation community near Missouri City, already have filed a related lawsuit. On Dec. 11, they sued Sienna Plantation resident Chris Calvin for defamation and business disparagement.
Sienna/Johnson attorney John Keville said Thursday he hasn’t yet filed arguments in the state Supreme Court appeal and declined comment until that time.
Calvin was indentified as one of several people who posted to Feinberg’s siennatalk.com web site, which later was moved to mocitytalk.com. He was deposed separately from Feinberg at around the same time.
While it appears that information from the depositions already has been put to use in preparing the lawsuit against Calvin, Feinberg’s attorneys – which include representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas – have pressed ahead with the appeal. In part, they believe the district court erred in allowing the depositions in the first place, and because they believe the case could have important implications for all Texans.
“We’re trying to protect the dozens – or hundreds – of users who posted anonymously,” Feinberg said on Thursday. “It’s a matter of principle. They have a right to protect their businesss. But people have a right to speak out on the Internet anonymously. It’s guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. And the Supreme Court has ruled that anonymous free speech is covered.”
“Matthew, I and the ACLU are very concerned about the right of individuals who have committed no legal wrongdoing to post anonymously on Mr. Feinberg’s website,” Feinberg attorney Laura Hermer said. “The First Amendment rights of these individuals should be upheld, regardless of the challenger’s identity.”
This, she said, is especially true when “discovery is expressly sought in part so that the corporate plaintiff may contact those otherwise anonymous individuals in order to question them about the case or other issues,” Hermer said.
Hermer said Feinberg’s is a case of first impression in Texas. Thus, a ruling by the state Supreme Court would establish legal precedent for other cases involving citizens’ First Amendment right to post their ideas anonymously on the Internet.
She said she hopes the Texas court will establish a “clear standard” that would have to be met before a party could compel discovery of anonymous Internet posters’ identifies for purposes of filing a potential defamation claim.
The Delaware Supreme Court, for instance, requires proof of four elements, Feinberg’s attorneys said in the appeal:
- The defendant made a defamatory statement;
- That statement concerned the plaintiff;
- The statement was published; and
- “A third part would understand the character of the communication as defamatory.”
And, if the person contemplating or claiming defamation is a public figure, a fifth proof would be required, that the statement in question is false.
Thus, Feinberg also asks the Texas Supreme Court to order Judge Culver to hold a hearing to “determine the appropriate protective order that will protect Feinberg’s First Amendment rights on the Delaware test of proof,” and require Sienna/Johnson to explain why the deposition should not be destroyed, the information learned from it not used or shared with others.
1 , - Jan 5, 12:28 pm
I think what needs to be mentioned is that many more defendents have been added to this case since the December 13th filing. During pre-trial discovery Johnson Development Co. of Houston (developer of Sienna Plantation, Riverstone, Fall Creek and more mixed use communities) had claimed in the media that they were only after Dr. Calvin, a homeowner and resident of Sienna who lead the petition drive (garnering 1100+ signatures) against more apartments along with other community members from nearby neighborhoods in Missouri City. Now in the latest filings lawyer Keville, of JDC, has added the homeowner committee. This will significantly expand the scope of this case and prove to be a PR nightmare for the company!
Also what should be further mentioned is that the mayor of Mo-City, Allen Owen, received ethics complaints at the July 18th city council session for not recusing himself from the February apartment voting after it was discovered he had been receiving nearly 60% of his campaign contributions from Houston area developers (Larry Johnson of JDC was #2 on the list—developer of Sienna Plantation and supporting the addition of nearly 2800 apartment units to this quiet neighborhood). It was following the press releases IMO from this session that lead to JDCs strike suit against Dr. Calvin which has now been expanded to name homeowners on the committee that volunteered to support the petition drive.
The “camouflage case” is now out in the open. Hopefully the TX Supreme Court will see this as an important issue that needs addressing. Corporate censorship is a threat to all Americans, homeowners and voters who speak up to petition the government for redress of grievances.
2 Gerry Hookstra - Jan 5, 02:08 pm
I believe that the most important information that needs to be given to the public, and made perfectly clear is the fact that for all of the expense, the frivolous waste of the Court’s time, and despite the extensive coverage from given by the media, there has been no ‘proof’ offered to validate Sienna Johnson Development’s (SJD) allegations.
Simply adding more residents, committees, etc., to their case still does not negate SJD from baring the burden of proof for their allegations. Granted, it gives them a larger population to pick on, and to pick from, BUT it’s proof that is lacking in the end!
As far as I know, if you accuse someone of defamation, you need to provide proof that it happened. If you accuse someone of libel, you need to provide proof that it happened. If you accuse someone of negatively effecting your business and subsequently your profits, you need to provide proof that it happened.
So, unless this proof has been withheld from the Court, defendants and the media, it appears as if there is none.
And if that’s the case, then the only purpose being served is for ‘a business’ to utilize attorneys on retainer to run ‘a citizen/resident’ into the poor house. Thereby, and hopefully, having the desired effect of ‘shutting him up!’ Not to mention the fear that this EXAMPLE will instill on everyone else who might dare to oppose them in the future.
Ultimately this legal action is not the act of seeking justice or protection from the Courts. This is the act of cluttering up the judicial system with petty, meaningless games, and to assert power and dominion over someone less capable of defending themselves. This is BULLYING and nothing more!!!!
I take particular issue with the recent developments regarding ‘the committee’ being added to the suit. Although, I have not yet been served with any legal documents, I am nonetheless prepared to stand and fight if I do.
I am proud of the fact that I took part in the Committee for Responsible Development issues regarding various aspects of the development in my community, Sienna Plantation.
And unless the U.S. Constitution has been rewritten only for Texas (and those whom do business here), I’m not aware of, in any of the documents that grant me certain rights as a citizen of the United States, where I’m told that if I don’t like it, I still have to shut up and take it. That If believe I have been lied to or mislead, that’s just too bad-learn to live with it. And if I dare speak up and take a stand, I’ll be made to pay for it. Literally!
Now, and finally, my personal disclaimer since ‘Law suit happy’ seems to be the theme lately…
The commentary and opinions of the writer of this article are her own and are based upon her own knowledge and/or beliefs at the time they were written. There is no intent to defame or libel any party. And any opinions and comments made are done so without malice.
Thank you
3 , - Jan 5, 03:35 pm
I like this one. I think I will use it too:
“Now, and finally, my personal disclaimer since ‘Law suit happy’ seems to be the theme lately…
The commentary and opinions of the writer of this article are her own and are based upon her own knowledge and/or beliefs at the time they were written. There is no intent to defame or libel any party. And any opinions and comments made are done so without malice.”
.....Me too. . .
Posted: 1/13/06 11:06 PM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: rjohn442k
Great!!!...Now there's no internet privacy,..guess I better start getting dressed before logging on...I might get charged with internet-indecent-exposure.
Posted: 1/13/06 11:18 PM
Another posted to the abc13 thread at http://forums.go.com/abclocal/KTRK/thread?threadID=99027 :
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit
Author: rjohn442k
Great!!!...Now there's no internet privacy,..guess I better start getting dressed before logging on...I might get charged with internet-indecent-exposure.
Posted: 1/13/06 11:18 PM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: responsible_dvlpmnt
Matthew Feinberg who ran the first two websites is still fighting to seal the protected deposition to keep the comapny from accessing his data-base and possibly creating a black-list of residence here.
Some of the local papers have been following this and homeowner letters are carried at http://www.fortbendstar.com/Columns/letters.htm. I read one from a resident that said he felt it was like a "reign of terror". Maybe over done but certainly reflects the fear invoked when a major land corporation can go after its own residents like this. Thousands took part in this protest but the singled just one out along with the committee that helped. They still haven't named this group yet though and a possible SLAPP-back (counter suit) is in the works based on potential trade deception, libel, defamation, etc...
Letter's to the editor in the Fort Bend Star on this:
Matthew Feinberg’s counsel responds to article
Dear Ms. Sandlin:
I am one of the cooperating counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, representing Matthew Feinberg in In re Sienna/Johnson Development. The suit is perhaps better known as the one Sienna Johnson brought against Mr. Feinberg and Chris Calvin to find out the identities of the anonymous users of www.mocitytalk.com http://www.mocitytalk.com and www.siennatalk.com http://www.siennatalk.com. Sienna/Johnson allegedly sought those identities in anticipation of bringing a suit against one or more of the users for alleged defamation and/or business disparagement.
It is unfortunate that Ms. Fulenwider did not seek to interview either me or Mr. Feinberg’s other counsel before submitting her article.
Although I do not represent Mr. Calvin, we could have provided her with the following information: First, the law of the United States is crystal clear that the users of an Internet discussion board, including Mr. Feinberg’s website, have a right under the First Amendment to make anonymous posts, as long as they do not break the law in doing so. Regardless of what Mr. Calvin or any other website user writes - whether brilliant, boring, or ridiculous - he has the right to do so anonymously, as long as he doesn’t violate the law.
Sienna/Johnson’s lawyer, John Keville, said in Ms. Fulenwider’s article that he wants Mr. Calvin to stop making anonymous posts. In order to make that happen, however, Mr. Keville would either need to get Mr. Calvin voluntarily to agree to the prohibition, or Mr. Keville would need to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to change the well-settled law of the United States concerning anonymous speech. As things currently stand, if Sienna/Johnson doesn’t like people making anonymous criticisms of what it does, that’s Sienna/Johnson’s problem, and not anyone else’s.
As a second issue, it appears that neither Mr. Calvin nor Mr. Feinberg wrote the one and only post that Sienna/Johnson alluded to in its petition as allegedly constituting defamation or business disparagement.
Additionally, neither knows with any certainty who in fact wrote it. Sienna/Johnson evidently deposed the wrong individuals, if it in fact was interested only in finding out the identity of that one poster. However, Sienna/Johnson was not interested in finding out just that one poster’s identity. It was interested in finding out the identities of many different users of the site.
Some readers may wonder why an average person might resort to anonymity to make criticisms of powerful and wealthy people or businesses.
Mr. Calvin says that he’s spent over $20,000 in attorney’s fees involving this case. If Mr. Feinberg didn’t have pro bono help, his fees would have far exceeded this amount, to date. It should therefore be evident what a law-abiding individual such as Mr. Feinberg should fear from large businesses and powerful individuals if he dares to exercise his Constitutional right as an American on American soil simply to sponsor discussion that sometimes becomes critical of a powerful entity in a public forum and make himself identifiable in doing so.
Although we tried to stop Mr. Feinberg’s deposition from taking place, we were unsuccessful. No court of appeal has yet considered the matter based on the First Amendment issues involved. The case is presently before the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston.
Sincerely, Laura Hermer, J.D., L.L.M.
University of Houston Law Center
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reader responds to Fulenwider’s Nov. 2 Article, “Sienna blogger admits to using many aliases”
Dear Editor,
Your Wednesday, Nov. 2 front page article on the Sienna blogger litigation was a disgraceful excuse for “journalism”. The reader would assume from the uncritical parroting of “Keville” (who was never identified in the article as the Sienna/Johnson Development lawyer he is) that Barbara Fulenwider was Keville’s nom de plume.
This is not to fault Mr. Keville, who is merely doing his job in putting forth the best case he can for his Sienna/Johnson Development client. But that is not the role of a journalist, who should be skeptically examining the “facts” put forth by plaintiff’s lawyer instead of uncritically repeating them without any effort whatsoever to balance the article with the other side’s points.
If the defendant’s lawyer “didn’t return calls”, then go to other sources as any enterprising reporter would do. For example, it is a matter of public record (but apparently unknown to your reporter) that Mr. Keville did not just seek depositions as your article states, he also sought - but was denied by the Court - the legally more important right to compel production from both defendants of a wide range of documents which would have enabled him to go on a “fishing expedition” looking for something to sue on.
I am not and never will be a Sienna Plantation resident, so what is my interest in all this? I am concerned because Sienna/Johnson Development honchos are among the largest campaign contributors to Missouri City’s “Mayor-for-Life” Allen Owen (a fact that Mr. Calvin unearthed, as reported elsewhere). Now, no one’s saying that there was any illegal quid pro quo for the Mayor’s campaign funding, but it’s interesting to note that under this Mayor’s reign a fire station within Quail Valley was “re-located” to Sienna and, after allowing Missouri City’s only hospital to vacate its strategic (for Missouri City) location, - surprise - a replacement hospital is now to be built at Sienna.
Since Sienna will not even be part of Missouri City for a number of years - if ever - one wonders what the benefits for all this are to the tax-paying citizenry of Missouri City whom Mayor Owen is supposedly serving? We certainly know what the benefits are to Sienna/Johnson Development.
Now, let’s cut to what really lies behind this deposition which, despite what the article says, undoubtedly is the initial “discovery” phase of a lawsuit for libel. Your article quotes Sienna/Johnson Development at length as to how defendant Calvin “used at least 30 fictitious aliases on the … websites”, resulting in the vast majority of postings on the websites being Calvin’s, enhanced by his repeated clicking on his own postings to inflate the number of his supposed readers. Conveniently omitted from your article is the fact that, while deceptive on Mr. Calvin’s part, none of these juvenile antics are really illegal.
In fact, lawyer Keville is really saying that no one was reading Calvin’s postings anyway, which is why Calvin attempted to inflate the numbers of both the participants and his readers. But if there really weren’t any readers anyway, then where was the harm to Sienna/Johnson Development in these obscure postings? Certainly this legal proceeding initiated by Sienna/Johnson Development has publicized their “big bully” image far beyond what the websites would have done by themselves (my letter is evidence of that, since I neither read nor participate in blogs).
The real purpose of this legal proceeding initiated by Sienna/Johnson Development is revealed by lawyer Keville’s statement quoted in the article – to “see if we can resolve something with him without a lawsuit”. In other words, either this gadfly agrees to shut up or he will be spent into financial oblivion defending an endless stream of lawsuits from a corporation with unlimited funds, who by doing so is sending a chilling message to other would-be critics of Sienna/Johnson Development, confident that their ally Mayor Owen would never take a stance against a major campaign contributor.
Neil Beck
Quail Valley resident
Controversy continues
Dear Editor,
Hello, I am Gerry Hookstra.
1. I am a SHE and NOT a he.
2. The 95%+ residents opposed to the apartments comes from the 1,100+ signatures obtained, and the 5% comes from those in favor of. Those figures do not come from the entire 5,300+ residents in Sienna, as we did not survey/sample every resident.
3. “No more than 150 to 250 residents would support...”
4. Mayor Owens’ rebuttal states a compromise was struck to reduce the number of apartment units from 1,523 to 900.
However, that reduction was only in the PD8 region. The city council and the mayor have left in place the approval for the remaining (up to 2,700+ units) within various areas of the development. Thank you for your time.
Article one-sided, claims Sienna resident
Dear Editor;
I am both dismayed and disappointed at the one-sided nature of your July 6, 2005 front page article titled "Tree Huggers vs. Developer in Mo. City". To use the pejorative term "tree hugger", coined by the mayor, to describe residents who happen to disagree with the mayor and developers shows an incredible lack of objectivity. If the writer had actually contacted any of the residents the mayor is referring to, she might have found that the majority of the residents of Sienna do not oppose all commercial development.
The reality is that the majority of residents oppose the placement of hundreds of apartments at the entrance to their subdivisions, and not all commercial development. The approval of these apartments gives lie to the statements made by the mayor and city government that it’s all about lowering the tax rate for the residents of Missouri City.
The thousands of residents brought into the apartments will generate a demand on city and county services far in excess of any property taxes raised by the apartments. These apartments would never have been built in Missouri City proper because the voters would rise up in protest. Instead the mayor and certain members of city council have decided that the interests of the developer outweigh the interests of the non-voting residents of Sienna (as we are in the ETJ of Missouri City not Missouri City itself).
Rather than taking all statements made by the mayor and city at face value, I would suggest more investigation into all sides of the story. Please, in the future display articles exhibiting this lack of balance and objectivity as editorials as opposed to news articles.
Roy Die
Sienna Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulenwider’s article is biased
according to homeowner
Dear Editor,
I am dismayed at the article by Barbara Fulenwider, Tree huggers Vs Developers. How can she be so obtuse, and how can you print such a biased story? We in Sienna know the mayor is in the developer's back pocket. You too? Open your eyes and look at the entire picture.
Obviously Ms. Fulenwider uses a narrow scope in her reporting. Please be aware that oversimplification of the issues can sway community opinion. Politicians depend on this. I am sure the developers at Sienna Plantation appreciate your help.
The homeowners in this area have been lied to about the scope of the apartment project, and the developer tries to keep inforamation under weaps. There is a reason for this. If the continued expansion of the apartment project were a REAL asset to the community, the developer would willingly share info with us.
Sienna has already gotten approval for a limited amount of apartments. The community feels this is more than adequate. I believe the developer is merely interested in THEIR short term gains.
Barbara Beckett
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sienna homeowners felt they were lied to
Dear Editor:
After reading your article about us "tree huggers" I really felt the need to respond. My husband and I lived in apartments most of our lives while saving up for our dream home. We dealt with the drugs, crime, noise, overcrowding, vandalism, and lack of space, because we knew that one day we would be able to have that wonderful "dream come true" home. When we finally had the money, we researched a lot. We finally chose Missouri City because they had Sienna Plantation and also had a Mayor that had a reputation of not allowing apartments to be built. We had lived that life and worked hard to get away from it. Look at Missouri City and tell me how many apartment complexes you see.
Before we built our home in Sienna, we asked specifically if apartments would be built anywhere near us and the answer was a swift and confident NO. We were told that there would be an assisted living center built, but that was the only facility of that type going in. So we built. Now we are having the very thing we moved here to get away from shoved in our faces. I am not against commercial development, in fact I am thrilled to have some businesses coming out this way. However, I am against being misled and down right lied to. I am against the fact that the people making these decisions for those of us living in Sienna do not even live out here nor do they have our best interests at heart. They are dealing with their bottom line, which would have been fine had they been up front with it. To have so many people build homes and start lives based on a lie is wrong, no matter how much money you can make doing it.
Apartments out here are not in our best interest. Unlike single family homes, apartment dwellers, via the apartment owners, pay 4 to 5 times less in property taxes thus creating stress and over crowding on school systems, roadways and other community services. This is not the case with commercial/retail and single family homes. Those apartments will also bring more crime our way. I am paying a fortune in taxes to live out here and opposing apartment communities being built in Sienna Plantation does not make me a "tree hugger," it makes me a concerned resident. I understand that your paper is probably controlled by some of the very people forcing these apartments on us, and this letter will never be seen. But I want you to know that you should check those facts before writing your articles, and maybe even (gasp) interview the people on the other side of the issue. I also want the elected officials that are voting for this apartment development to realize that we have good memories, and will not forget which way they voted come election time.
Sincerely,
Sunni Sargent
Dear Sargents,
As a matter of fact, the writer of that article is a "tree hugger" herself and tried, I think, to write the story fairly.
As far as the owner of this newspaper (me) is concerned, she is somewhat of a "tree hugger" herself and at least feels guilty about the trees destroyed as a result of printing this newspaper.
The problem, as I see it, is that developers sell the land to many builders and the builder (who probably was the liar, or at least an employee of the builder was) can do anything he wants with the land as long as he obeys the zoning and building codes. Additionally, the builder who sold your house can’t dictate what another builder closeby may do.
The saving grace is that Missouri City zoning ordinance calls for so few apartments per acre that any apartments built will have to be high dollar and thus will have little impact on the infrastructure.
What one has to stay alert about is any attempt on the part of a builder or developer to increase the number of apartments per acre.
Missouri City has had apartments on its books for 25 years. Every time some politician wants to "showboat," he gets on some narrow soapbox and preaches "no apartments." I think the Fair Housing Board would descend on Mo City like white on rice if that were attempted.
Mo City has a good ordinance. The ordinance makes sure only quality apartments are built.
BKC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tree huggers???? More like concerned citizens…
Dear Editor,
I read with much interest, AND disgust, Barbara Fulenwider’s article in last week’s Fort Bend Star. I didn’t realize that as a near-lifelong resident of Missouri City, that not wanting to have an apartment complex, or perhaps a Taco Bell, or, better yet, a four lane boulevard built behind my house makes me a "tree hugger"…but, hey I am sure I have been called worse.
I am not sure how Mayor Owen says he "understands" our plight as concerned citizens of Missouri City. I have been to many city council meetings where residents have packed council chambers pleading and in some cases, even begging, to have tighter constraints on development, especially in and around Sienna Plantation. The mayor, and vast majority of council, save Councilmen Wyatt and Kolaja have ignored our wants and needs while rolling out the red carpets to the plans of large scale developers. Like it or not, apartments were "quietly snuck through the back door" and none of us were the wiser until it was too late to do anything about it. Sienna Plantation married apartments, or condos or whatever they want to call it to the hospital, so the city’s hands were tied on that one.
I live on the outskirts of Sienna, and have seen my quiet, 20 home neighborhood encroached upon on basically all four corners. Did I ask for a HCC to my south? Did I ask for a waste water treatment station to my west? Did I ask for hundreds of homes across the creek from me? Did I ask for the Toll Road to go adjacent to my neighbors down the road who have been there just as long as we have? Did I ask for McKeever road, that was once a dirt road, to now become a major thoroughfare with thousands and thousands of vehicles speeding up and down it every day? NO!!!!
Our mayor says "he favors preserving as much green space as possible"….not quite sure where that one came from…..so far, have only seen a few acres here and there, nothing larger than 5 or 10 acre parcels out of 20,000+ acres left unassaulted. The pecan orchard that once grew along Highway 6 was mowed down in a matter of hours…what happened there???? Or the magnificent old growth pecans, oaks and ashes that have been ripped up, to be replaced by fairways and crepe myrtles? Wetlands are protected by a "loophole"….replace half of what you take, somewhere else…is pretty much what it turns out to be.
I really enjoyed the part of your article where Mayor Owen urges homeowners to "visit city hall to find out what is zoned where" Give me a break! That is a great concept, but, when you have developers like Sienna Johnson who have changed their planning maps more often than I change the sheets on the bed, makes it a little difficult to keep track of what is going on, unless of course, you want to visit council chambers on a weekly basis. I personally have multiple "site plan maps" from Sienna Johnson, and guess what????? They are ALL different……want a taste of it for yourself? Go down to the offices and see what’s happening on their "big map."
If being a concerned citizen, and wanting to preserve the "buffer zone" around my home that has existed against the "outside world" for twenty years or so, not to mention being someone who enjoys the outdoors, and finds great pleasure in sharing the peaches off my trees, and the vegetables in my gardens with the dwindling population of deer, woodpeckers, squirrels, and assorted other wildlife (you know it wasn’t named Quail Valley all those years ago for nothing folks) makes me a tree hugger….well, then I say, goodnight to you, as I walk out my front door to hug my nearly 80 foot tall native pecan growing in front of my garage, as well as the multiple ashleaf maples, water oaks, palmettos, American elms and assorted other trees and plants behind my house that just might one day give up their long growing roots to a McDonalds.
Tara Jurica
Arcola Feed
Arcola, Texas
http://www.arcolafeed.com
--You get the idea!
This exert says it all:
"If it's one person saying it, let it be one person saying it," said Keville.
It's an argument our legal analyst says the law may not support.
"You have a first amendment right to express yourself the way you want, providing you're open and honest about it," said Eyewitness News Legal Analyst Joel Androphy. "(Whether you use your name or someone else's) doesn't detract from the credibility."
_______________
Hopefully the courts in this county will see it the same way, but doesn't the developer have a great deal of economic influence here and don't they contribute to many of the politicians in charge in FBC?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
More comments from KTRK abc13 site:
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: done036
It's hard to believe that such a large corporation would be coming down on any homeowner through such a ridiculous law suit and expect to attract more customers to their community. I'm also concerned about any company that would try and unmask anonymous posters.
Posted: 1/14/06 7:28 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: Bulldog2_0
done036 wrote:
I'm also concerned about any company that would try and unmask anonymous posters.
Perhaps you'd feel differently about "anonymous posters" if you had someone intentionally defaming you and possibly hurting your business or family with lies. When people are not held accountable for their actions, they tend to do or say things that they normally wouldn't have the guts to say or do.
Posted: 1/14/06 7:41 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: responsible_dvlpmnt
You mean like the threatening letters and all the money the homeowner has had to pay before even being accused or are you speaking up for the large corporations actions of keeping this information from many in the community?
Posted: 1/14/06 7:44 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: Bulldog2_0
responsible_dvlpmnt wrote:
You mean like the threatening letters and all the money the homeowner has had to pay before even being accused or are you speaking up for the large corporations actions of keeping this information from many in the community?
Nope... I'm not even involved in your problem with the developers. I just made a comment about "anonymous posting" over the internet. But, you've shown me how "responsible" you are by tagging me as an "enemy" just because it APPEARED that I crossed your opinion. I don't really have an opinion in your dispute with the developer and haven't even been following the story. My opinion deals solely with "anonymous posting".
If what is being said is the truth and you can prove it ot be the truth, why do you need to hide? I feel it's too easy for those who wish harm to others to do so these days via vehicles such as the internet.
Posted: 1/14/06 7:52 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: done036
Is Bulldog2_0 your real name or are you posting all this anonymously? Maybe some company can expose your posting patterns with the help of a court! Did you even read the related posting materials in the threads?
Posted: 1/14/06 7:54 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: Bulldog2_0
done036 wrote:
Is Bulldog2_0 your real name or are you posting all this anonymously? Maybe some company can expose your posting patterns with the help of a court! Did you even read the related posting materials in the threads?
I knew that was coming. LOL!!! The reason I don't use my real name anymore is because of nutcases out there who get upset with what you have to say. These are usually gutless people. You know what I mean? I used to use my real name until one of these "anonymous posters" threatened me and I didn't take it seriously until the person posted my address and a picture of my house. If this person had had any guts, he would've rang the doorbell. What was the disagreement about? Friggin' INKJET PRINTERS.
Posted: 1/14/06 8:01 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: done036
Sorry to hear you were bullied. I can understand how you feel. It is good then that you can post anonymously. I think if you read the background and some of the resdient letters posted as background in the original thread you might get more of a flavor for what has been going on in this case. From my read the lawyer was hired to silence this group, not just go after anon posters. It looks like they have run them off 2 sites already. As a matter of fact it seems like most of this was going on at city council sessions and in the local press. The website looks like a side-line to what was really going on.
I also think you can visit their site at http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com and see that little offensive material (or threatening) is on those sites.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
some more from KTRK thread:
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: done036
Sorry to hear you were bullied. I can understand how you feel. It is good then that you can post anonymously. I think if you read the background and some of the resdient letters posted as background in the original thread you might get more of a flavor for what has been going on in this case. From my read the lawyer was hired to silence this group, not just go after anon posters. It looks like they have run them off 2 sites already. As a matter of fact it seems like most of this was going on at city council sessions and in the local press. The website looks like a side-line to what was really going on.
I also think you can visit their site at http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com and see that little offensive material (or threatening) is on those sites.
Posted: 1/14/06 8:22 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: Bulldog2_0
done036 wrote:
Sorry to hear you were bullied. I can understand how you feel. It is good then that you can post anonymously.
In my case, I wasn't even being bullied. I was commenting on one person who bully another and tried to inject calm. This person took my post as support for the one he was bullying and then turned his wrath on me too. As you saw, the same thing happened this morning to a small extent. Just because I commented on the "anonymous posting" issue, "Responsible" took it as support for "the enemy" and so do you to some extent. This seems like extremist behavior to me. I have no opinion when it comes to this developer other than if what is being said towards them is the absolute truth, then I don't see how they can silence you.
As far as being anonymous here, that's not totally true either. You DO have to register here in order to use this website. And, as others who know me here can testify, I do stand behind what I say. You've pretty much skirted around my original question... wouldn't you want to know who is saying false and harmful things about you and/or your family on the internet? Do you think they have a right to do that?
Posted: 1/14/06 8:40 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: done036
Bulldog2_0--I really don't see what you are saying about resp. I think they asked you a question. Also I think that debate is healthy and not problematic as long as it stays professional and honest. I've read most of the background material posted and did a search on SLAPP suits and from my understanding this fits that definition. One site claimed that Texas is one of the few states that doesn't protect citizens from speaking out publically through anti-SLAPP legislation. This may impact all bloggers/discussion boards.
Your question--wouldn't you want to know who is saying false and harmful things about you and/or your family on the internet? Do you think they have a right to do that?
Answer--Well we have had misinformation spread about us over the internet before, but we don't have enough money, like large corporate interests with fleets of lawyers on retainer, to pursue it. We learned to develop a "thick skin".
note: In the original article it appears that the corporate lawyer claimed that many of the posts were true so I'm not sure if the question is linked to this thread or something else?
Posted: 1/14/06 9:06 AM
Additional comments from KTRK blog on this:
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: Bulldog2_0
I'm talking about this "question"...
"You mean like the threatening letters and all the money the homeowner has had to pay before even being accused or are you speaking up for the large corporations actions of keeping this information from many in the community?"
This "question" placed me in the enemy's camp and I had to answer to "defend" myself when I'd said nothing in support of anyone's actions.
I see that you've danced around answering my question. I'm not talking about anonymous people being insulted in discussions... I'm talking about some anonymous person making direct threats and lies designed to inflict harm and/or physical/monetary damage to YOU or your family using your REAL name. Would you like that? A yes or no answer will suffice.
As for the corporate attorney claiming that many of the posts were true, my guess is that it's the UNTRUE posts that are causing the problems for the rest of the posters. In that case, I would advise EVERYONE to stick to the facts. Doesn't THAT make sense?
Posted: 1/14/06 9:22 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: done036
Bull_dog-
I think simple answers are something lawyers try to do in a court (nominal responses). Usually there is context (meaning) to a response thus a simple yes or no does not suffice. You have the right to disagree with anyone you choose, at least according to the framers of the constitution and I believe in the case of a corporation doing public works the lawyer involved with have to raise the bar from mistakes in information to malicious lies (intent). I've visited the site in question and read the background, have you? Look into the SLAPP literature and see what you discover about these cases. I did it in a few minutes. I may enhance this thread.
--Second response to your question--No I don't think the corporation in this case (or some of its officers) have a right to threaten these people. That may be illegal conduct on their part but I'm not a lawyer. So I hope this answers the question since this is my 2nd try at it. Let me know I'm not given to circular debate.
Posted: 1/14/06 9:47 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: Bulldog2_0
done036 wrote:
I think simple answers are something lawyers try to do in a court (nominal responses).
It WAS a simple question. Thanks for proving my point.
No I don't think the corporation in this case (or some of its officers) have a right to threaten these people.
Sure they have that right. Everyone has that right. You think "Freedom of Expression" or "Freedom of Speech" only applies to you? Anyone can sue anybody for anything. The problem is with WINNING. If you don't have a case, you lose. You also have to decide how important it is to you to fight this lawsuit. I recently had a person threaten to sue me for something I said about him right in front of him and he even had it recorded. I told him to go for it and that was also recorded. That was a couple of months ago and I haven't heard anything yet. I really hope he goes through with it.
Posted: 1/14/06 10:06 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: Swthwdy2005
My husband and I have a Deceptive Trade Jury Trial coming up in April in Fort Bend County against a production home builder.
I would be frightened to name the builder in my www.homeownernightmares.com for fear of retaliation. Years ago, I had suggested to our Real Estate Appraiser that there should be a class action against some builders for the poor workmanship in their newly constructed houses. The builder's lawyer was very upset. We do have free speech, however, it can be costly for the little person challenging the corporation.
Posted: 1/14/06 10:23 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: qnxt
I've heard the deceptive trade law can be a great equalizer and that the TX law is very strong but of course you have to be able to afford the case.
Q
PS-I fully understand the anonymous need for posting when corps are on the hunt for targets such as Johnson Development is in this case. Did you read the related materials at the start of the thread swthwdy?
Posted: 1/14/06 11:42 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: Swthwdy2005
My husband and I have a Deceptive Trade Jury Trial coming up in April in Fort Bend County against a production home builder.
I would be frightened to name the builder in my www.homeownernightmares.com for fear of retaliation. Years ago, I had suggested to our Real Estate Appraiser that there should be a class action against some builders for the poor workmanship in their newly constructed houses. The builder's lawyer was very upset. We do have free speech, however, it can be costly for the little person challenging the corporation.
Posted: 1/14/06 10:25 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: qnxt
Hope you don't mind if I chime in Bull, but your example is of two probably equally funded individuals. Did you read that the family being sued has already spent half their life savings in this case? Hardly a just or fair act. If I'm not mistaken the law is also supposed to provide protection for this in the pre-trial on cases like this (no excessive burden on those being accused). Could it be this large land corp. is doing what these companies usually do and use their influence to strike at their critiques?
Posted: 1/14/06 11:46 AM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: done036
Bull dog I can really only suggest that you read some of these. I looked them up today:
http://www.mobar.org/journal/2005/mayjun/kling.htm
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/slapp.html
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=13565
http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1228_reg.html
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/SLAPPS.html
--Keep the conversation going (circular or not). It is our right!
Posted: 1/14/06 11:52 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
More KRTK Thread:
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: responsible_dvlpmnt
I think the best literature to look at on this is the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation literature (SLAPPs). The earliest studies on this were based on several hundred cases whereby SLAPP suits around the country were followed. Pring & Canen actually maintain a data-base at the Litigation center at the University of Denver whereby these cases now number in the thousands. Most of these suits are brought by developers (about a 1/3rd) against individuals or groups involved in petitioning activities such as we were when the case was filed (Aug. 3rd). According to the experts the standard claim is business defamation, disparagement, etc. Since they first began studying what lawyers used to call "strike" suits 22 states have passed anti-SLAPP legislation but Texas is not one of them.
If you want to help get a law like this on the books please contact TX senator:
The Honorable Kyle Janek
kyle.janek@senate.state.tx.us
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0117
(800) 445-2635
(512) 463-0639 Fax
7777 SW Freeway, Ste. 102
Houston, Texas 77074
(713) 272-8929
(713) 272-8956 Fax
P.O. Box 888
Lake Jackson, TX 77566
(979) 297-5261
(979) 297-7669 Fax
Posted: 1/14/06 12:29 PM
Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: done036
Bull dog I can really only suggest that you read some of these. I looked them up today:
http://www.mobar.org/journal/2005/mayjun/kling.htm
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/slapp.html
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=13565
http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1228_reg.html
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/SLAPPS.html
--Keep the conversation going (circular or not). It is our right!
Posted: 1/14/06 11:52 AM
Is this the site that the developer is suing?
This is ground zero. Welcome! Do you ahve any questions???
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here's one from goposter (KTRK site):
"Re: Re: Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit Author: goposter
((It's the power of the Internet as an equalizer the developer says that forced them to sue. They admit much of what Calvin wrote was true or his opinion. But they say he deceived Internet readers when he created the sense that so many people shared his opinion.))).......Freedom of speech is FREEDOM of speech!!!!!!...........News agencies quote "un-named sources" everyday......."deepthroat" de-throned a POWERFUL world leader......and nowhere have i ever,on the net,signed an agreement to NOT use
monickers..................and besides...."all war is deception"...Sun Tzu.
But its all moot anyway since private proerty was murdered last year it only stands to reason that FREEDOM of speech would follow,even if the injured party agrees that 'much of what was said' was TRUE.......
Posted: 1/14/06 2:57 PM"
I wonder if John will try to sue those anonymous posters for his JDC clients?
Some of you may be interested that CRD is now off the defensive with these filings and initiating discovery for anticipated SLAPP-back (counter suit) based on (DTP, Def, Libel, friv. suit, etc.):
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM ORIGINAL ANSWER FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Found this comment on thewebbie.com site under the KTRK post (an interesting synopsis on land development):
Greedy Developers Strike Again!
By : TXMXK @ Time : 17 Jan 2006 05:31:53 pm :
My hats off to Chris and Mathew for fighting the theiving developers. Our country has been plagued by unscrupulous developers for decades now. I first saw it in Florida in the seventies and then in Houston in the eighties. I'm sure it is the same in California.
What they are doing is nothing short of thievery and deception. Here's how it works: First they buy cheap land, in Houston this usually means land that will eventually flood. Then they build cheap homes and sell them for exhorbitant prices. Once they sell the homes, they use the rest of the land to build cheap apartments (making even bigger profits with less investment). When they build apartments they don't have to pay the same taxes you and I pay as homeowners. Why? Because county and local and state governments give them tax breaks.
Usually the local government officials are in on it. How do they make their money? Well, besides payoffs and bribes, the government officials have what is akin to insider trading information.
They are the first ones to know where the development and government road projects will go. Then they buy up the real estate in the area. Once the area is developed, they sell and make a killing. At your expense.
The developers steal from the homeowners by building cheaper housing near their homes. Let's say you buy a $200,000. home thinking it will retain its value. A developer comes in and builds cheap apartments next door. Crime goes up, your land value goes down. It's thievery, plain and simple.
By building apartments developers know that once they sell, they will no longer have to pay taxes. And the county and local governments don't require them to pay up front for the additional roads, schools, water and other resources that a large new residential population will create. You the homeowner, will be the one paying more taxes for better roads to hold all the new residents, new schools for all the apartment residents that don't pay school taxes, etc.
It's a scam by which they make billions of dollars every year. The county doesn't require them to add to the tax revenues to build the roads ans schools first, so they build and run.
Strip malls work on basically the same concept. They build, they lease, it goes downhill after a few years because businesses can't survive the lease costs. Then they buy it back cheap, put a few bucks in to renovate and then lease and sell again at a profit. Over and over again.
The banks have been stealing farms from farmers in this way for decades. Land that has been in their families for generations. The bank loans them a bunch of money for farm equipment knowing they'll never be able to repay if they have just one tough year, then they steal the land to pay the loan.
Most people are too stupid to realize just how much developers steal on a daily basis. Of course they have all the blue collar workers under their belt, because for the construction worker it means a job. Little do they realize that all that hard earned construction wage will eventually end up in the hands of the developer through higher taxes and lower property values.
I'm proud of Chris for standing up. I wish more would do the same. Because I know for a fact that county, state and local elected officials and employees won't do the same.
Just take a look at what is happening in Conneticut with the imminent doamin laws. Developers and goevernment can bed together to steal property for jobs and economic development. Fact is, economic development does not always mean jobs and it certainly does not always mean a thriving community. Good people make a great community, not buildings.
Developers reach further and further out into suburbia, tearing up green spaces, ruining quiet areas that property owners have spent years nurturing, drying up water wells, overcrowding schools and roads --- while at the same time our inner city and even suburban areas are self-destructing. Businesses moving out, buildings and homes falling into dilapidation and disrepair. Why aren't the developers developing in these areas that need it the most? Easy money, that's why.
Don't misunderstand me, not all developers are like this, but most of them are. We have a few minor cases where redevelopment has worked (parts of downtown). But for the most, part this is the exception and not the rule.
Kick ass, Chris. America needs more courageous voices like yours to stand up against the corporate greed. If you need more support it is out there. Drop a line into the Houston.politics newsgroup sometime. I can't leave an email address because there are very powerful people out there whose toes I've stepped on before when I stood up for right over wrong. My anonymity is my strength right now, although many certainly know who I am becasue I am always vocal. And I will continue to be as long as there are dirty large dogs stepping on little people for their own pleasure and amusement. Which at this point seems like it will be always.
Best of luck on your legal case and I hope that there are attorneys aout there that are willing to take your case prop bono so that the developer has to spend their fortunes and not your two dollars.
See this Chicago blog piece on this:
http://www.thebloggingjournalist.com/2006/01/blogging_under_.html#comment-12975767
Check out Matthew's Blog.
http://www.thewebbie.com/mybloggie/index.php
He posted some disturbing information about the Texas Supreme Court case.
Post a Comment
<< Home