MORE ON AIRPORT EXPANSION PROJECT FROM FBNOW.COM: Is County Setting Precedent For Future Development?
(OP/ED Piece from FBNow.com):
A developer who lives in Harris County owns property here in Fort Bend County (Arcola) and wants the County to build a road (South Post Oak) through his property. I’m trying to understand if the County is looking to set a precedent for future development here, as they are clearly breaking away from normal protocol.
Normally, a developer is responsible for paying for 100% of the cost of constructing a road through his property, yet the County is looking to pay for 80% of the construction costs here. Why?
In addition, TxDOT has indicated that it doesn’t have the money to build all the roads needed in Fort Bend County. South Post Oak is not high on the priority list – in fact, it’s not even on the list. County Judge Hebert claims that this road is needed to provide critical relief for the overly-congested roadways for people living in Sienna when in fact, if you look at the traffic counts provided by the HGAC, McKeever currently has 200 cars/day with a projected count of 600 cars/day. Hardly critical, Judge.
Again, I’m trying to understand the logic to build South Post Oak/improve McKeever.
1) It would entail condemning at least 10 acres of a private subdivision which would not benefit whatsoever from this road being built. In fact, it would be an intrusion into their privacy, damage their property values, and erode the reason for moving out to the country in the first place. There would be additional inverse condemnation of Mrs. Neuhaus’ property, as the project detaches Duke Road access…this issue is not even being discussed.
2) It benefits the developer by the County paying 80% of the cost when other developers pay for 100%. Why is this developer different?
3) Why set such a HIGH priority for this road when there are clearly other roads in Fort Bend County that have much HIGHER SAFETY ISSUES in addition to ACTUAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION? Millions of dollars are being prioritized for this road over other roads, such as Harlem Road (the most dangerous road in Fort Bend County), Oilfield Road, and others.
4) Are future developers going to use this project as a precedence to ask for more County funding of their private road projects?
5) Why is this developer being treated differently than all other developers in this County? Could it be that this project is ESSENTIAL to that developer’s plan to expand his airport?
Judge Hebert, would you be so kind as to answer these questions? Your constituents want to know the real answers. The County SHOULD NOT be funding this road.
Thomas J. Hilton
Arcola
Comments:
1 Chris Calvin, Ph.D. - Jan 19, 09:13 am
IMO Bob Hebert needs to hear from us the voters on this in ‘06. He has become involved in a number of issues that many would question, including myself. From the ECO-MUD Scandal internal investigation to the airport expansion project (using condemnation of private property), his opposition to HB914 (ethics legislation) and the list goes on. Hebert has been consistent in his support of the Houston special interests operating in our county. All one has to do is look at the list of campaign contributors on the back of his big colorful near full page ads he ran in the FB Star before anyone had even announced to run against him (I have a copy along with his campaign contributors list which anyone can get free via http://www.brazosriver.com/locals.htm )
Luckily we do have another local homeowner and former republican running against him this year in Prescott Small.
Prescott supports HB914 and further campaign finance disclosure rules and has sworn off special interest funding in an effort to take back local control here.
We have choices to make this year. Let’s make the right ones!
PS—Thanks Tom for covering this and keeping an eye on it. I know at least two Sienna based businesses on McKeever Rd. that will be forced out of operation because of this special favor you mention above!
2 Tom Hilton - Jan 19, 03:53 pm
What is troubling here is that there is not enough money to adequately address the needs of the roads in Fort Bend County. Bob Hebert is leading the charge of prioritizing millions of dollars from this cash-strapped fund to benefit one of his millionaire cronies. The SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS of Fort Bend County is being put to risk in order to line the pockets of a political insider. In addition, to quote Jamie Griffith; “An integral part of the future development of Houston SW is the expansion of the airport north across McKeever Rd…In order for this to happen, McKeever Road needs to be diverted up to Highway 6 where it will tie into South Post Oak.” This road project is designed to allow for the expansion of this airport – PERIOD. Part of that expansion is, I believe, the lengthening of the runway eastward in order to attract the next-larger size class of corporate jet. This will make it even more UNSAFE for residents living in the area.
The Judge needs to understand that the citizens of this great County will not tolerate putting the SAFETY of the citizens at risk for SLEAZY purposes such as this.
I urge my fellow citizens to demand that Judge Hebert prioritize those funds for SAFETY – not SLEAZY.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Hilton
--We will update this thread as comments are posted!
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Friday, January 20, 2006
9 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2 Tom Hilton - Jan 19, 03:53 pm
What is troubling here is that there is not enough money to adequately address the needs of the roads in Fort Bend County. Bob Hebert is leading the charge of prioritizing millions of dollars from this cash-strapped fund to benefit one of his millionaire cronies. The SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS of Fort Bend County is being put to risk in order to line the pockets of a political insider. In addition, to quote Jamie Griffith; “An integral part of the future development of Houston SW is the expansion of the airport north across McKeever Rd…In order for this to happen, McKeever Road needs to be diverted up to Highway 6 where it will tie into South Post Oak.” This road project is designed to allow for the expansion of this airport – PERIOD. Part of that expansion is, I believe, the lengthening of the runway eastward in order to attract the next-larger size class of corporate jet. This will make it even more UNSAFE for residents living in the area.
The Judge needs to understand that the citizens of this great County will not tolerate putting the SAFETY of the citizens at risk for SLEAZY purposes such as this.
I urge my fellow citizens to demand that Judge Hebert prioritize those funds for SAFETY – not SLEAZY.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Hilton
I wonder if Hebert is going to comply with HB914?
From http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00914&VERSION=5&TYPE=B
AN ACT
relating to disclosure and availability of certain information
concerning certain local government officers and vendors;
providing criminal penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subtitle C, Title 5, Local Government Code, is
amended by adding Chapter 176 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 176. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS; PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO CERTAIN
INFORMATION
Sec. 176.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Commission" means the Texas Ethics Commission.
(2) "Family member" means a person related to another
person within the first degree by consanguinity or affinity, as
described by Subchapter B, Chapter 573, Government Code.
(3) "Local governmental entity" means a county,
municipality, school district, junior college district, or other
political subdivision of this state or a local government
corporation, board, commission, district, or authority to which a
member is appointed by the commissioners court of a county, the
mayor of a municipality, or the governing body of a municipality.
The term does not include an association, corporation, or
organization of governmental entities organized to provide to its
members education, assistance, products, or services or to
represent its members before the legislative, administrative, or
judicial branches of the state or federal government.
(4) "Local government officer" means:
(A) a member of the governing body of a local
governmental entity; or
(B) a director, superintendent, administrator,
president, or other person designated as the executive officer of
the local governmental entity.
(5) "Records administrator" means the director,
county clerk, municipal secretary, superintendent, or other person
responsible for maintaining the records of the local governmental
entity.
Sec. 176.002. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN VENDORS AND OTHER
PERSONS. (a) This chapter applies to a person who:
(1) contracts or seeks to contract for the sale or
purchase of property, goods, or services with a local governmental
entity; or
(2) is an agent of a person described by Subdivision
(1) in the person's business with a local governmental entity.
(b) A person is not subject to the disclosure requirements
of this chapter if the person is:
(1) a state, a political subdivision of a state, the
federal government, or a foreign government; or
(2) an employee of an entity described by Subdivision
(1), acting in the employee's official capacity.
Sec. 176.003. CONFLICTS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED. (a)
A local government officer shall file a conflicts disclosure
statement with respect to a person described by Section 176.002(a)
if:
(1) the person has contracted with the local
governmental entity or the local governmental entity is considering
doing business with the person; and
(2) the person:
(A) has an employment or other business
relationship with the local government officer or a family member
of the officer that results in the officer or family member
receiving taxable income; or
(B) has given to the local government officer or
a family member of the officer one or more gifts, other than gifts
of food, lodging, transportation, or entertainment accepted as a
guest, that have an aggregate value of more than $250 in the
12-month period preceding the date the officer becomes aware that:
(i) a contract described by Subdivision (1)
has been executed; or
(ii) the local governmental entity is
considering doing business with the person.
(b) A local government officer shall file the conflicts
disclosure statement with the records administrator of the local
governmental entity not later than 5 p.m. on the seventh business
day after the date on which the officer becomes aware of the facts
that require the filing of the statement under Subsection (a).
(c) A local government officer commits an offense if the
officer knowingly violates this section. An offense under this
subsection is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that
the person filed the required conflicts disclosure statement not
later than the seventh business day after the date the person
received notice of the violation.
Sec. 176.004. CONTENTS OF DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. The
commission shall adopt the conflicts disclosure statement for local
government officers. The conflicts disclosure statement must
include:
(1) a requirement that each local government officer
disclose:
(A) an employment or other business relationship
described by Section 176.003(a), including the nature and extent of
the relationship; and
(B) gifts received by the local government
officer and any family member of the officer from a person described
by Section 176.002(a) during the 12-month period described by
Section 176.003(a)(2)(B) if the aggregate value of the gifts from
that person exceed $250;
(2) an acknowledgment from the local government
officer that:
(A) the disclosure applies to each family member
of the officer; and
(B) the statement covers the 12-month period
described by Section 176.003(a)(2)(B); and
(3) the signature of the local government officer
acknowledging that the statement is made under oath under penalty
of perjury.
Sec. 176.005. APPLICATION TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES. (a) The
local governmental entity may extend the requirements of Sections
176.003 and 176.004 to all or a group of the employees of the local
governmental entity.
(b) A local governmental entity may reprimand, suspend, or
terminate the employment of an employee who fails to comply with a
requirement adopted under this section.
(c) An employee of a local governmental entity commits an
offense if the employee knowingly violates requirements imposed
under this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class C
misdemeanor.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that
the person filed the required conflicts disclosure statement not
later than the seventh business day after the date the person
received notice of the violation.
Sec. 176.006. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR VENDORS AND OTHER
PERSONS; QUESTIONNAIRE. (a) A person described by Section
176.002(a) shall file a completed conflict of interest
questionnaire with the appropriate records administrator not later
than the seventh business day after the date that the person:
(1) begins contract discussions or negotiations with
the local governmental entity; or
(2) submits to the local governmental entity an
application, response to a request for proposals or bids,
correspondence, or another writing related to a potential agreement
with the local governmental entity.
(b) The commission shall adopt a conflict of interest
questionnaire for use under this section that requires disclosure
of a person's affiliations or business relationships that might
cause a conflict of interest with a local governmental entity.
(c) The questionnaire adopted under Subsection (b) must
require, for the local governmental entity with respect to which
the questionnaire is filed, that the person filing the
questionnaire:
(1) describe each affiliation or business
relationship the person has with each local government officer of
the local governmental entity;
(2) identify each affiliation or business
relationship described by Subdivision (1) with respect to which the
local government officer receives, or is likely to receive, taxable
income from the person filing the questionnaire;
(3) identify each affiliation or business
relationship described by Subdivision (1) with respect to which the
person filing the questionnaire receives, or is likely to receive,
taxable income that:
(A) is received from, or at the direction of, a
local government officer of the local governmental entity; and
(B) is not received from the local governmental
entity;
(4) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with a corporation or other business entity with
respect to which a local government officer of the local
governmental entity:
(A) serves as an officer or director; or
(B) holds an ownership interest of 10 percent or
more;
(5) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with an employee or contractor of the local
governmental entity who makes recommendations to a local government
officer of the local governmental entity with respect to the
expenditure of money;
(6) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with a person who:
(A) is a local government officer; and
(B) appoints or employs a local government
officer of the local governmental entity that is the subject of the
questionnaire; and
(7) describe any other affiliation or business
relationship that might cause a conflict of interest.
(d) A person described by Subsection (a) shall file an
updated completed questionnaire with the appropriate records
administrator not later than:
(1) September 1 of each year in which an activity
described by Subsection (a) is pending; and
(2) the seventh business day after the date of an event
that would make a statement in the questionnaire incomplete or
inaccurate.
(e) A person is not required to file an updated completed
questionnaire under Subsection (d)(1) in a year if the person has
filed a questionnaire under Subsection (c) or (d)(2) on or after
June 1, but before September 1, of that year.
(f) A person commits an offense if the person violates this
section. An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (f) that
the person filed the required questionnaire not later than the
seventh business day after the date the person received notice of
the violation.
Sec. 176.007. LIST OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS. The records
administrator for a local governmental entity shall maintain a list
of local government officers of the entity and shall make that list
available to the public and any person who may be required to file a
questionnaire under Section 176.006.
Sec. 176.008. ELECTRONIC FILING. The requirements of this
chapter, including signature requirements, may be satisfied by
electronic filing in a form approved by the commission.
Sec. 176.009. POSTING ON INTERNET. (a) A local
governmental entity shall provide access to the statements and
questionnaires filed under this chapter on the Internet website
maintained by the local governmental entity.
(b) This subsection applies only to a county with a
population of 800,000 or more or a municipality with a population of
500,000 or more. A county or municipality shall provide, on the
Internet website maintained by the county or municipality, access
to each report of political contributions and expenditures filed
under Chapter 254, Election Code, by a member of the commissioners
court of the county or the governing body of the municipality in
relation to that office as soon as practicable after the officer
files the report.
Sec. 176.010. REQUIREMENTS CUMULATIVE. The requirements of
this chapter are in addition to any other disclosure required by
law.
SECTION 2. The Texas Ethics Commission shall adopt the
conflicts disclosure statement and the conflict of interest
questionnaire required by Chapter 176, Local Government Code, as
added by this Act, not later than December 1, 2005.
SECTION 3. (a) A local government officer is not required
to file a conflicts disclosure statement under Chapter 176, Local
Government Code, as added by this Act, before January 1, 2006.
(b) A person described by Section 176.002(a), Local
Government Code, as added by this Act, is not required to file a
conflict of interest questionnaire under Chapter 176, Local
Government Code, as added by this Act, before January 1, 2006.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2005.
______________________________ ______________________________
President of the Senate Speaker of the House
I certify that H.B. No. 914 was passed by the House on March
23, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 145, Nays 0, 2 present, not
voting; and that the House concurred in Senate amendments to H.B.
No. 914 on May 26, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 131, Nays 0, 1
present, not voting.
______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House
I certify that H.B. No. 914 was passed by the Senate, with
amendments, on May 23, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 31, Nays
0.
______________________________
Secretary of the Senate
APPROVED: __________________
Date
__________________
Governor
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ck this out:
Hebert leads in campaign bucks
By Stephen Palkot
Campaign finance reports poured into the Fort Bend County Elections Administration Office on Tuesday, and County Judge Bob Hebert reported the most contributions of any county government candidate.
Tuesday was the final day to submit campaign finance reports for local candidates for a reporting period that began on July 1 and ended on Dec. 31.
Hebert, who is unopposed in the Republican primary and who faces a little-known Democratic candidate in the general election, has garnered $99,011 in six months. As of Dec. 31, he retained $137,794.09 in his campaign treasury, with a large portion of that money deriving from sizable contributions of local developers and firms that conduct business with the Fort Bend County government.
Carter and Burgess, an engineering firm, has been contracted by the county to conduct engineering work related to mobility bonds passed in 2000.
Other notable donors include Paul Cheng, the Dallas-based developer who in 2005 broke state records by contributing the high bid of $47 million for a 2,045-acre tract of land in northeast Fort Bend County that had been up for auction by the General Land Office. He, too, contributed $5,000.
Also on the list are Les Newton ($2,500), president of Sugar Land's Planned Community Developers, and accountant John Null ($5,000), a partner in the firm Null-Lairson LP.
According to his campaign finance reports, Hebert has spent large portions of that money at charitable events, such as the $5,800 he spent at an auction at 2005's Fort Bend County Fair and the $5,000 given to the American Red Cross for Hurricane Katrina relief.
In contrast, Prescott Small, Hebert's Democratic party challenger in the 2006 election, has raised and spent no funds as of Dec. 31. . .
--this came from the TXHC online.
This showed up in the Fort Bend Sun:
at http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/607/is-county-setting-precedent-for-future-development
Prescott Small files for county judge
01/16/2006
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly
Prescott Small of Stafford has announced his candidacy as the Democratic nominee for County Judge of Fort Bend County.
He is unopposed in the primary.
Small says he is running not merely to oppose one man, but to offer new fresh leadership and a new openness to county government.
Small has graduated from high school with honors and attended the University of Arizona. For the past eight years, he has had a successful career in Information Technology. He works for a Fortune 500 Company in the area of security and anti-intrusion systems. He has worked on projects all over the globe with budgets up to over thirty million dollars. All projects were completed on time and on budget.
Small will represent and work hard for the taxpayers of Fort Bend County. Unfortunately, the incumbent only listens to developers and no-bid vendors to the County who give large campaign contributions, Small says. He promises to never accept money from developers and vendors seeking no bid contracts, making it clear that this county and its development is not for sale.
Small says he will not use the county payroll to reward political cronies with jobs.
The incumbent, who claims to be a fiscal conservative, has bloated the county bureaucracy with political patronage for his cronies, he says.
"The County won't provide adequate salaries for law enforcement, but the incumbent hires and pays the mother of the Republican Party Chairman $30,000 per year as a telephone operator. Such cronyism resembles Mike Brown and FEMA," Small says.
Small believes we need to give the hard working county employees a well deserved pay raise.
"They deserve it, not the big raises to political appointees and officials,"
Small is committed to helping Stafford Mayor Leonard Scarcella bring a light rail system from Houston into Fort Bend County. The incumbent, along with his friend, Tom DeLay, have continually blocked efforts to bring 21st Century solutions to mobility. Instead, they do the developers' bidding, he says.
Small strongly supports Texas new disclosure laws concerning conflict of interest and gifts and donations from lobbyists. The incumbent opposes such disclosures. He does not want the public to see his gifts and conflicts such as Eco-Resources. Small lives with his wife Alex, a lawyer, in Stafford.
Advertisement
©Houston Community Newspapers Online 2006
Reader Opinions:
responsible development Jan, 17 2006
"He promises to never accept money from developers and vendors seeking no bid contracts, making it clear that this county and its development is not for sale."
Finally someone who understands how important it is to have politicians in office who are at least independent of the special interests operating in our county. LET'S GIVE PRESCOTT OUR SUPPORT AND ANYONE FACING UP TO SUCH A TASK AS REFORMING OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM!
This look interesting. Let's see if he reeps what he has sown.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060121032709990011&ncid=NWS00010000000001
Thanks for the post. I think it does make a point (Kinda like living history). Often the rich and powerful lose attachment for the common person.
See this comment from FBNow.com on local political favoritism:
2 Jeffery - Jan 22, 10:04 am
Ok here is some interesting facts for you:
Bob Perry, who is on Healey’s donor list, is a huge financial supporter of the Rebublican party and it also shows he gave $165000 to Delay and another $105000 to the Texas Association of Business, thus which was part of the investigation…..lol Here is the news link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5844156/ Other info: http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/207_perry.html Altogether Perry has handed over close to $1 million to the Republican party in Texas through a group called Texans for a Republican Majority which is an offshoot of Tom DeLay?s Americans for a Republican Majority. This is why Healey refused to intervene in the Delay case, cause they have a mutual interest.
Post a Comment
<< Home