FB Sun Article (this weeks): Greater Fort Bend County Economic Development Council's Stand On Over Development of Apartments
EDC's Stand on Apartments
To the Editor:
In a recent article from the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council titled "Local economy on a soaring path, says EDC" from its new director John Wiley he stated that "Of considerable concern to the growth formula and quality initiatives of Fort Bend are the alarming number of apartment units being constructed. Over the past three years, over 3500 units were constructed. That number is 140 percent of the units built for the entire five years prior. The successful formula for Fort Bend has been to focus on master planned communities and low density new residential development. "Increased apartment construction will erode our quality initiatives over time if not controlled. Unfortunately, much of the developable land available in the County remains in unincorporated areas or in Cities or ETJs without any form of land control. This needs to be a significant priority countywide in the near term. At the same time, we must encourage affordable housing especially for first time buyers where development follows quality standards we have come to expect in our community."
These comments by Wiley must be applauded if they are sincere.
Will the GFBEDC push for controls on this negative land use issue which over-crowds our schools hurts the tax base and destroys the quality of life in our community (increased density means increase crime, traffic, etc.)?
Can they get their own members like the Sienna Plantation developers to comply with these goals as outlined?
Is another 8-11 (2700 units) apartment complexes in Sienna Plantation desirable or even needed?
It might be added to Wiley's comments that a zoning board and city council heavily supported these additional apartments in our community against much local opposition and a current lawsuit which targets homeowners in Sienna Plantation currently for voicing their opposition.
Hopefully the EDC is taking a new direction! Not all growth adds value and some even hurts our children/families and home values.
__________
Comment: Will the GFCEDC urge the cities and county government to seek ordinances that limit this type of development in our community and seek equitable housing practices that utilize fair taxing patterns and don't hurt schools, homeowners and negatively impact the quality of life?
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Friday, February 03, 2006
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Recent post on Sienna apts:
More MISINFORMATION from Sienna Developers or Just a Mistake???
(click link above for original reference to this ad)
GOODMORNING SIENNA PLANTATION!
Remember the promises made by our developer general manager about separate amenities for the 2700 apartment units (8-11 complexes) being brought to our area.
“Goff answers questions about proposed multi-family housing (03/01/2005)
To: The residents of Sienna Plantation and surrounding communities
From: Doug Goff
General Manager, Sienna/Johnson Development, L. P.
Subject: Sienna Planned Development District #8 (PD 8)
Date: February 17, 2005
7. “….all these apartment people will be using our pools and other rec facilities and this will really overcrowd everything”. Every multifamily project in Sienna will be required to construct its own set of amenities to service the needs of its residents (pools, recreation/exercise centers, media rooms, bar-b-q/gathering areas, basketball and volleyball courts, etc.). Multifamily projects will not be annexed into the Sienna Plantation Residential Association and thus, they will not have the right or ability to use our amenities or recreational facilities.”
Recent ad placed in an apartment locator service—
See: http://www.apartment-locator-houston.com/siennaplantation.htm
-The advertised price range on this site lists them between $400-600 (hardly upscale as promised).
“Sienna Plantation
Near the Houston Southwest Airport, right off of State Highway 6, you’ll find Sienna Plantation, TX. Houston is located about twenty miles from the community and Missouri City is just six minutes away. Sienna Plantation is located in the eastern section of historic Fort Bend County. . . “
. . . There are many different amenities in Sienna Plantation. They include a country club “. . .for the residents, an 18-hole golf course, many nature trails and an amphitheater. There are also a number of different recreational facilities sprinkled throughout the development. Currently, approximately 1,896 residents call Sienna Plantation their home.
Sienna Plantation offers the apartment dweller a rare chance to find an apartment that is centrally located and close to Houston, and still offers many other benefits. The peace and quiet of the country is evident in this community and it can offer a much needed getaway from the stress of city life. If you’re looking for a quiet place to raise a family, or if you’re just tired of the rigors of life in a large city, Sienna Plantation combines nature, recreational fun and convenience in one nice package.
If you are interested in an apartment in Houston, feel free to contact us.”
COMMENT/QUESTIONS***Why is Sienna’s SPRAI/developers advertising the amenities in this community if they have promised the homeowners that “separate amenities” will be maintained? Is this false advertising and another broken promise?***
***ADDITIONAL COMMENT—With verification that South Sienna is not subject to the Sienna Plantation Developers Agreement with Missouri City and the 3rd owner of such property in a year now a matter of public record, what will be the impact on the quality of building in the South Sienna area and will all this delay the safe delivery of the SP second firestation by the developers/MUD 1 and Missouri City???
-As always please check the original sources for yourself and verify all information before commenting.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
More comments on the apts. coming to Sienna by posters here:
Anonymous said...
I guess it's just another mistake!
8:35 AM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
8:35 AM
Anonymous said...
If the information is true then there is no reason to keep this house and pay taxes. I'll just rent and my kids can go to the same school and use the ammenities too.
If the information is not true they better fix it quick or it will be false advertising.
10:38 AM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12:57 PM
Anonymous said...
Here's one JK:
Ask your question
One day at a trial, an eminent psychologist was called to testify. A severe, no-nonsense professional, she sat down in the witness chair, unaware that its rear legs were set precariously on the back of the raised platform.
"Will you state your name?" asked the district attorney. Tilting back in her chair she opened her mouth to answer, but instead catapulted head-over-heels backward and landed in a stack of exhibits and recording equipment.
Everyone watched in stunned silence as she extricated herself, rearranged her disheveled dress and hair and was reseated on the witness stand. The glare she directed at onlookers dared anyone to so much as smirk.
"Well, doctor," continued the district attorney without changing expression, "we could start with an easier question".
2:06 PM
Unknown said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
4:00 AM
InternetImposter said...
Keep copying JK! . . ;-)
8:51 AM
Has anyone read this one from FBNow.com:
2003 Plans To Expand Airport In Arcola Secretly Moving Forward
I went to Austin to meet with TxDOT Aviation officials earlier this week, and was shocked to discover that they are still working on expanding Houston SW Airport EXACTLY as prescribed in the 2003 Feasibility Study.
This is the same Feasibility Study which was approved by Commissioners Court in July 2003 due to Judge Hebert’s incorrect claim that the County would be required to repay the $500,000 if the Court did not accept it. This is the same plan that was overwhelmingly rejected by the City of Arcola, Area Residents, and declined acquisition by Fort Bend County itself over 2 years ago.
So now they are going ahead with the plan to expand the airport anyway – they are just not telling anybody. They are claiming that the 22 properties presently being surveyed for possible purchase by the airport east of the runway are being bought for “safety purposes.”
However, Arcola City Councilman Greg Abarr called me last week and said that Judge Hebert admitted to him that he had seen plans illustrating that the airport owner is indeed planning to extend the runway 950 feet eastward. Abarr was reportedly upset over this revelation, and told the Judge that the deal (South Post Oak) was off, as he felt he had been lied to by Mr. Griffith. However, by Monday of this week, Abarr had flopped on this decision, and the deal was back on.
Judge Hebert is continuing to fight for this expansion, even though it is presently an unsafe airport (it’s currently out of compliance with FAA safety regulations) and such expansion would make it even more unsafe (plans show a possible 1,400-foot extension to the runway). One example of Hebert’s quest is the Dec. 20, 2005 letter from the County to the FAA where they asked leading questions in the hope that the FAA would respond in kind. This would allow the County to place blame for confiscating the 10+ acres in Newpoint Estates on FAA regulations, and not on their blatant attempt to use government power and taxpayer funds to unfairly take land from some citizens for the sole benefit of private business interests.
Unfortunately for Judge Hebert, the FAA’s reply did not respond to their leading questions, but simply approved the layout intruding into Newpoint. I had heard that the Judge was very upset about this.
An example of these leading questions in addition to false claims in this letter are;
“Given the traffic count associated with increased development south of McKeever in Sienna Plantation and other areas, a new alignment is absolutely necessary.”
FALSE. Steep Bank Trace has nothing to do with South Post Oak for one thing. Studies by the HGAC show the traffic count to be 200 cars/day presently with a projection of 600 cars/day on McKeever – no critical traffic relief needed here Judge. In addition, all plans to date show the closure of McKeever from the point extending eastward from the connection with South Post Oak, thereby causing more congestion, not less.
“McKeever Road cannot provide the needed relief because westbound traffic on Highway 6 cannot exit onto McKeever due to the Highway 6 overpass at FM521 recently built by TxDOT.”
FALSE. I live off of McKeever, so I know that when I’m westbound on Highway 6 heading toward FM521, there are very large signs showing the exit to McKeever Road. This is how I get to my home – claiming that westbound traffic cannot currently exit onto McKeever is a blatantly false statement Judge. (The Judge is apparently referring to the future here, where that claim would be true when the City of Arcola gives away the R.O.W. of McKeever to Griffith in exchange for the annexation of the 90 or so acres excluded in the recent Interlocal Agreement between the County, Griffith, and Arcola).
“You have informed us the FAA flight safety standards would not allow expansion of the existing McKeever, or a replacement thoroughfare, at locations within a certain radius of the end of the runway, which happens to be near Newpoint Estates.”
FALSE. McKeever Road was an existing road when the airport was developed, and the airport owner built the runway too close to McKeever, thereby endangering the residents using that road. The FAA cannot prevent the County from upgrading McKeever or building a “replacement thoroughfare.” This airport has received about $1.3 million to date for the specific purpose of bringing it into compliance. Taxpayers should not be asked to foot the bill for bringing this airport into compliance – the airport owner needs to remove about 565 feet from the west end of the runway to do so. This would alleviate the need for the County to go into Newpoint Estates to confiscate the property there, and would allow the upgrading of McKeever on its present location.
“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 with those FAA flight safety requirements.”
FALSE AND MISLEADING. This statement is in direct contradiction of the previous statement. The County is not required to comply with FAA flight safety requirements Judge, the Airport is required to comply with FAA flight safety requirements. This is a blatant attempt by the Judge to have the FAA respond in a manner where the County could then point to FAA regulations forcing the confiscation, when in fact, they don’t.
“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.”
FALSE AND MISLEADING. The runway is unlawfully violating McKeever Road’s safety by being built too close to the road in the first place. The County will be subject to civil/criminal litigation by residents of the County if there is an air operations/traffic accident, as it is the responsibility of the County to ensure the safety of the citizens driving on its roads. The action that needs to be taken is for the County to force the Airport to take McKeever Road out of danger, Judge.
In addition Judge Hebert, the possibility of the Airport extending its runway 950 feet eastward should be of concern to County officials. If, after repeated warnings of the clear and present danger of the existing layout of this airport are ignored, and the runway is extended due in part by the County’s help, the County will be liable for damages resulting from such, when the inevitable catastrophic accident happens.
This South Post Oak Road project is being done solely for the benefit of this airport, and takes much-needed funds away from other mobility projects in the County that are ACTUALLY needed. All one needs to do to find proof of this, is to read from the letter from Mr. Griffith to then-County Judge Adolphus 6 years ago in April 2000: “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.” There you go Judge, straight from the horse’s mouth – any further claims to the contrary from you or other officials claiming otherwise is nothing more than propaganda.
The South Post Oak Road project MUST die a well-deserved death, or the County will be complicit in disregarding the safety and welfare of Fort Bend County Residents.
Thomas J. Hilton
Arcola
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home