Wow, what a turnout last night in Baytown for the latest Rep. Gene Green Town Hall meeting. My best guess is that a total of 250+ showed up at the Sterling Library, with 100 of them allowed inside. At least 75 constituents with photo id in hand were turned away because they ran out of room and another 75 from out of the district showed up to protest his positions on healthcare and cap/trade. I'll have a separate post on the whole id issue forthcoming. Once again, the crowd arrived early. I pulled into the parking lot at 5:20 pm for a scheduled 6:30 pm start and the line was already half a block long.
[caption id="attachment_17868" align="alignnone" width="449" caption="Queue for Gene Green Town Hall 8-19 at 5:30 pm."] [/caption]The lady in the bright green suit is Linda Taylor. Ms. Taylor was the first to arrive at 4:30 pm. She wanted to make certain that she got into the meeting and was hoping for a chance to ask a question. She told me that she was there to express her opposition to HR 3200. She did get her chance to ask a question, which was "why should she be forced to pay for someone's insurance when they are carrying Gucci bags, iPhones, driving BMW's, etc." Her point was that many people do not have insurance because it is their choice, not because they can't afford it. The congressman didn't have an answer for that one, relying upon his 47 million estimate and 230,000 in his district that do not have insurance, not all of them by choice. Read more...
 Back in the first part of June we told you about the City of Friendswood filing suit against itself in an effort to thwart the voter's defeating a couple of bond proposals: Friendswood City Gov’t Run Amuck. The situation got even messier when the city tried to force five residents that had traveled to Austin to put up a million dollar bond: Friendswood Sues Five Citizens. Public pressure forced the city to back off of that demand: Friendswood Drops Bond Request of Citizens. After several delays, the judge finally ruled last week that the Friendswood 5, as the residents came to be known, were correct and the city cannot issue debt without voter approval nor can they purchase land outside of the city limits.
The city cannot move forward with plans to issue certificates of obligation without voter approval to buy parkland outside the city limits, a Travis County judge has ruled.
Judge Scott Jenkins of the 53rd District Court signed an order Friday ruling in favor of five residents, who have dubbed themselves the Friendswood 5. The residents fought the city’s plans, which they said violate the city’s charter.
“It is a victory for Friendswood and a victory for taxpayers everywhere,” said Janis Lowe, a member of the Friendswood 5.
Because of the city council's actions, the city is now facing, in addition to having to pay the court costs from the failed lawsuit, a $1.43 million loss from the illegal attempt to purchase the land, unless they are able to sneak out of it on a technicality. What really caught my eye in this story were the comments from two of the principals in the land deal talking about being heartbroken.
‘My Heart’s Broken’
Friendswood, however, agreed to pay three times more for the land than its assessed value, according to Brazoria County Appraisal District records.
The city in September signed a contract to spend $1.3 million for the 60 acres, which is in three parcels of 30, 20 and 10 acres. The appraisal district assessed that property in 2008 for less than $400,000.
Friendswood agreed to pay $658,108 for 30 acres, four times more than the property’s assessed market value of $149,550, appraisal district records show. The city agreed to spend $440,000 for 10 acres although appraisal district records show the property is assessed $125,000 on the market.
However, Wanda Morris, a Brazoria County Realtor, said $1.3 million is reasonable for 60 acres along FM 528.
Residential property in Alvin typically sells for $10,000 to $12,000 an acre, but the size and property on FM 528 makes it more valuable, Morris said.
Wight said he didn’t know the market value of the land, but he was confident Friendswood was not paying any more for the property than it should.
“I actually had the city’s best interest at heart,” he said.
Hill said he was disappointed the city would be unable to buy the space for a much-needed ballpark.
“My heart’s broken over this,” he said. “We were assured all the way that we were on solid legal ground.”
Heh. Whenever I hear someone say they are heartbroken for someone else after losing out on a small fortune, it makes me go, hmm. Four times the appraised amount? Yeah, I'd be heartbroken too. In a perfectly just world, the mayor and city council of Friendswood would be held personally responsible for this money. Unfortunately, it isn't a perfect world and the citizens of Friendswood will be responsible for it. I do hope the voters remember that at election time. Super duper congrats to the Friendswood 5 for taking on a mucked up city hall and winning.
Recall that last week, I noted that the City of Friendswood was, in essence, suing its own citizens in this post: Friendswood City Gov’t Run Amuck. In a follow-up article in the Galveston Daily News, the mayor of Friendswood, David Smith, denied that accusation, saying:
“That is not true,” he said.
Instead, the city is trying to answer, once and for all, whether the city can issue certificates of obligation to pay for park land outside city limits that it put a contract on in 2008.
A 1997 city charter amendment prohibits the city from issuing debt without voter approval that it could not finance from its own revenue streams, except in cases of “emergency or public need.”
The city had planned to issue $11 million in certificates of obligation to fund streets, drainage improvements, sports parks expansion, an animal shelter and a records building, but some residents said the city charter prohibited the city from accruing the new debt. While bonds require voter approval, certificates of obligation do not.
The city’s lawyers have advised city council members it is legal for the city to borrow the money and to use it to buy 60 acres in Alvin off FM 528 to create ball fields for the city’s growing youth sports organizations. The land is 1/4 mile from Friendswood’s city limits, and officials chose it for the sports park because it was cheaper than land in Friendswood.
Still, the city thought it best to seek a judge’s opinion, which Smith said was the most concise, expedient and least expensive method to answer the questions raised by residents.
“I want a definitive answer,” he said. “I don’t want to dance around politics with folks about can we or can’t we?”
On Monday, June 15th, the date of the hearing that Mayor Smith requested so that he would know, once and for all, five residents showed up to testify in opposition to the planned sale of Certificates of Obligation, traveling all the way to Travis County on their own nickle because that is the court that the city's lawyers hand picked, ostensibly because Judge Naranjo is familiar with certificates of obligation issues. Judge Naranjo postponed the hearing until July 13th.
A Travis County judge on Monday postponed a hearing until July to determine whether Friendswood can issue $11 million in debt without voter approval and buy park land outside city limits.
The delay gives Friendswood residents who are opposed to the city’s plan more time to prepare, said Mel Austin, a former city councilman and one of the five residents who showed up in Austin on Monday to argue against the city’s plan.
The rescheduled hearing will be held at 9 a.m. July 13 in the courtroom of Judge Orlinda Naranjo of the 419th Judicial District in Travis County.
“If we hadn’t shown up today, the city would have been going back with certificates of obligation in its pockets right now,” Austin said.
Routine enough, I suppose. If one of the citizens that took the time and money to travel to the 5th floor of the Travis County Courthouse in Austin is satisfied with the result, that is good enough for me. Unfortunately, by taking the time to do what he and four others thought was their civic responsibilty, they put themselves squarely in the middle of the target for the City of Friendswood to sue them directly. How's that for handling civil opposition? Yes, that is correct. Because five citizens dared to show their faces at a remote courthouse handpicked by the City of Friendswood and state their opposition on the record they are now the targets of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the city by the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, one of the most powerful and prestigious law firms in the country. Read it for yourself by clicking here (1.7 mb pdf). It is very important to recall what Mayor David Smith is quoted as saying in the Galveston Daily News:
Friendswood is not suing its residents by asking a judge to validate the city’s plan to issue $11 million in debt without voter approval, Mayor David Smith said.
“That is not true,” he said.
Instead, the city is trying to answer, once and for all, whether the city can issue certificates of obligation to pay for park land outside city limits that it put a contract on in 2008.
"That is not true". Well, if it wasn't then, it certainly is now. It is also imperative to point out a footnote in the lawsuit itself to get a sense of what is happening here. Remember, the Mayor stated that the only goal in filing the lawsuit in Travis County was so that the City would have a once and for all definitive answer on the issue of whether or not the City could issue debt without voter approval. And that is important because the voters had just rejected two bond proposals that would have paid for similar but not identical projects that the city wishes to pursue. If that were the case, if the City only wanted a once and for all answer, why pursue a lawsuit against five citizens? Let's take a look at the second paragraph on the first page of this new lawsuit against five citizens.
This motion could not be filed until an intervenor or opposing party appeared. On June 15, 2009, five interested parties, Janis Lowe, Kathy Rogres, Deborah Winters Chaney, Mel Austin, and Leslie Roque, attended the trial and stated their names for the record. Now that opposing parties have come forward1, the City hereby requests a show cause order be signed by the Court...
In other words, there were no specific citizens that the City could identify prior to filing the lawsuit against all of their citizens. After five citizens took the time to drive to Austin and state their names for the record, the City immediately filed a lawsuit against them, which, if granted, will require them to either post a one million dollar bond or shut up. Sure is nice to be an incumbent politician. But look further at the footnote referenced after the word "forward" above:
...the Expedited Declaratory Judgment Act permits interested parties to intervene by one of two methods: "filing an answer with the court at or before the time set for trial under Section 1205.041" or intervening after the trial date with leave of court.
Okay, so, one of two ways that these citizens could be targeted by the City. Read on:
The interested parties did not file an answer before the time set for trial, which was June 15, 2009. The interested parties also have not sought leave of court to intervene, stated that the (sic) intend to intervene, or taken any steps to formally intervene or otherwise join this lawsuit.
Interesting. The lawsuit against the five citizens spells out the two methods by which the five citizens could have intervened and then states that the five citizens did not use either method. Read on:
Nonetheless, the City files this motion out of an abundance of caution.
An "abundance of caution"? What? Requiring five citizens to hire lawyers, raise money, put their lives on hold, etc., is an abundance of caution? Sounds odd to me. Truly, it sounds like intimidation of citizens, not caution. This case should make every voter, be they conservative, moderate, or liberal, approach any election with an "abundance of caution". Be very careful whom you put into office. Be very careful.
|
|
Login
