HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN

tyler · Last edited by tyler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

Let's not jump on folks who have a different opinion regarding this.

Tyler

Bryanccfshr · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject:

Due to the narrow frontage in front of "the seawall", I think that area needs to be kept one way.. Preferably southbound. That is simply for the physicla constraints of a constantly eroding beach. One way with bollards wis also approproiate. The rest of the beach area should be open. Unless special attractions J(jetties-piers) cause parking problems. Then a lot on the beach such as at Bob hall and bollards would be appropriate.
I don't agree with the term "restrictions" How about traffic control?

Keeping traffic in lanes away from the area of recreational beachgoers is not a bad idea but parking at the waters edge should be the norm.

We need to be able to maintain vehilce traffic but do it in a manner that is organized due to the congestion that this particular stratch will suffer.

Johnny French · Flour Bluffian in Training Joined: 21 Apr 2005 Posts: 407

The problem I had with the Caller.com poll over the word was that it wasn't defined. The replacement poll above distinguishes among four alternative definitions. Substituting "traffic control" for "restrictions" doesn't seem to make the poll any clearer, and some may think of stoplights, crosswalks or a traffic cop when you discuss traffic control. Stet.

Tyler found he couldn't post both the (A) and (B) options at the same time, which is why that "(A)" appears in the poll's question, and I let a typo "at" slip into the original. Option (B) asked the same question in reference to all beaches in the city limits outside the seawall.

Even where just the seawall beach is concerned, since the width of the beach was restored and will supposedly be maintained by dredging Packery Channel, I don't agree that any restrictions to driving are necessary, but could live with the bollards if there were any doubt about safety due to congestion. But, if the beach gets too narrow to drive, I'd say we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot to let the City Council close that stretch to vehicles or even make it one-way. A wide beach protects the seawall and those living behind it as much as it does the beachgoers, mounted and afoot, and should be maintained frequently enough to keep it wide.

Bryanccfshr · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject:

I can absolutely agree with that Mr French . I do not know how wide that sand is right now but I can remember many times when the water was beating on that seawall. I have moved up to Cibolo and haven't had an oppurtunity to watch the physical impacts of the channel. But if two way traffic is pasable with enough sand remaining for beachgoers to park or lay out/set up for thje day then I have no problem with it.
But I also remember what a problem Corpus Christi has keeping up with the maintenance it already has and fear that sand won't last long.

jl7 · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject:

I totally agree with Mr. French. The area is not stable enough to make driving lanes. It's not like building a street in town. This area will shrink and grow by the day. You will have to have room for two lanes, parking and an area for recreation. I just don’t think there is enough room at all times. I think it is an all or nothing decision. I personally vote for no restrictions at all.

Grandpa · Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:13 am Post subject:

I remember when you could drive on Galveston's beach. Like to see you do that now. Development has its place, but, at what cost?

Guest · Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:43 am Post subject:

Agreeing to the bollords or one-way traffic may solve the problems most people on this site preceive. But never loose sight of the developer's, therefore the city council's end goal which is to have no traffic so people from the resorts will not have to cross traffic to get to the water. When you comprimise and give ground on an issue like this, it will just give the develpers firm footing to make the next step.

RWHAG78 · Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:48 am Post subject: Guest Reply

I made the prevois post, but somehow my connection dropped and I lost my log-in. Maybe it will work this time.

RWHAG78
_________________
Robert Hoffmann

rabbit · Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:10 am Post subject:

I am in favor of no restrictions to driving other than a speed limit. However if it becomes necessary then bollards is best just as long as the restriction does not include no driving. Very Happy

_________________
Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it. Smile

paulj4400 · Shark Wrangler Joined: 21 Dec 2005 Posts: 9

I voted for no resttictions other than speed limits. I feel that if we must have restrictions then only after 50% of this GREAT? resort is built. Seems strange to me that the City Council talks of safety concerns, but has no statistics to show.

NONEITA WEST · Guest

I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR NO RESTRICTIONS FOR VEHICLES ON THE BEACH.

I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. GIVE THE COUNCIL AN INCH THEY WILL TAKE A MILE.

CARS HAVE BEEN ON THE BEACH SINCE WAY BEFORE I HAVE BEEN HERE AND NO ONE EVEN THOUGHT A THING ABOUT IT UNTIL GREED STEPPED IN AND THE CITY WANTED THE GREEN STUFF. THAT PLUS A DEVELOPER WHO WANTS THE BEACH HIS WAY OR NO WAY. I SAY GO ON YOUR WAY.

Dexter · Finger Mullet Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 74

No restrictions! Give an inch and they will take the whole beach from the Port A jetties to as far south as they can go.
Dexter

Zane69 · Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject:

I feel that government should have less control and power. The more they get, the more they want, the more they take.

I vote no restrictions at all.
_________________
Did ya hear the one about the guy that couldn't spell?

Big Jack · Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:53 am Post subject:

This is my beach and has been since 1957. I will not now or ever allow the Carpetbaggers from Austin or anywhere else to restirct my access to it in any form or fashion. Nor will I allow them to restrict my access to any part of the Packery channel jetties. For Pete's sake it isn't even completed and there is a dialog about that.
This is not about beach safety or traffic. It is once again about some wealthy people trying to become wealthier at the expense of public right of way. It is a violation of the Open Beaches act. It is pretty sad to know that the majority of the city council has stars in their eyes over the Schexnailder plan and Mark Scott has been in bed with this fellow for a long time. What they intend on building will only be utilized by the wealthiest of tourists. My mantra is: "It is not about traffic, It is not about safety". Repeat it 100 times, write it one thousand. It is not about traffic, Its is not about saftey.
Do not forget that PI is a barrier island. The first direct hit of a cat 4 or 5 where we receive a big storm surge will obliterate all buildings from the gulf across the island and the ICWW into Flour Bluff.
Who do you think is going to foot the bill on that? Simple Joe's like you and I.
_________________
"Charlie Don't Surf"

Nespharin · Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: No resrtictions

No restrictions on driving is one of the most attractive features of the beaches down here. It is so nice to be able to drive miles and miles away from everything; work, cities, traffic, cell phones. I am from Virginia where all beaches are closed to traffic. Access to pristine fishing areas are reserved to those who own the adjoining property's. It completely sucks. I've been here a year now and have completely fallen in love with this place. I will definitely do my part in the fight to keep our beaches open. If they close this one it just makes it that much easier to close another.