HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN

[Johnny French]

The first LTTE takes much of the wind out of Johnny Cotten's forum article's sails, but lacks the space to do it thoroughly. The second LTTE compounds one of the forum's errors by proposing that the City Council intends, much less has the ability, to stop the beach closures after taking another 7400 feet.

Johnny Cotten's right about one thing: many folks are beginning to beginning to use and hear the word "developer" the way the Caller-Times meant to use the word "redneck." Both groups who proudly apply those labels to themselves shun the misuse, but hate even more those few bad apples whose activities created the worst possible connotations. Let's face it, a good developer would be more open in his dealings, go about his business without taking away public lands or public recreational opportunities, and would not expect policy changes, rule exemptions and public subsidies other developers can do without. There is no compromising with such a bad developer, any more than there is with a con man who takes half your money and calls that a compromise because he didn't take it all - this time.
------------------------------------------------------------

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/letters_to_the_editor/article/0,1641,CCCT_841_4420279,00.html
Letters to the Editor: 01.27.06
January 27, 2006

Right to drive

Eliminating driving rights on the beach is catering to the wealthy and elite.

I have stayed in San Diego, Myrtle Beach and Key West. The beaches have no driving rights for the local citizens. Public access is restricted by having to park your car and walk sometimes hundreds of feet to get to the beach.

If you want to fish, picnic or just play volleyball on the beach, you have to carry everything from your car to the beach.

We are restricting local citizens' access to the beach while catering to a few visitors.

In effect, we are creating private beaches for the hotel guests and turning our backs on the citizens of Corpus Christi and surrounding areas.

One of the major reasons I moved to Corpus Christi was the free access to the beaches where I could park my car by the water and just enjoy the scenery.

Don't let mega-corporations ruin that for profit.

Howard B. Boyer

Opportunity knocks

Development is coming to North Padre Island - like it or not. The real question is do we want a planned beach experience? Or . . . do we want to become another hodge-podge Spring Break destination? This is an opportunity, Corpus Christi.

This is an opportunity to have a planned development that will benefit this entire community. Amenities in the pedestrian beach proposal include public parking, a boardwalk, bathrooms, showers and shade structures - all completely free to the public.

It is an opportunity for economic development - the much needed revenue from tax dollars will help pay off the debt of dredging the Packery Channel as well as maintain it - now, that's a significant point. Within the city of Corpus Christi there is approximately 80,000 linear feet of beach. Only 7,500 is needed for the proposed pedestrian beach - that is less than 10 percent. This is about having a choice.

Jeff Riggan

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/contributors/article/0,1641,CCCT_879_4420277,00.html
Why is 'development' such a dirty word?

By Johnny Cotten
January 27, 2006

Why do some think the vocational activity of "developers" or "development" is a bad thing?

I am constantly amused at the shallow and misguided thinking of many letter writers to the editor. Without these vocational activities, there would be no streets, subdivisions, commercial/industrial districts, schools, cities or states. And, yes, these activities and their designer/planner partners, plus hundreds of thousands of the employed community, make and spend money - it's called a living.

Or, perhaps, some people think that these vocational activities just spring out of nowhere and cost absolutely nothing.

Most legitimate "developers" possess an abundant amount of creativity and futuristic thinking. (For starters, see the Caller-Times' four-part series "Lessons in Beach-Building.")

Developers not only understand design, but positive economics. If the design can be justified, and the economics make sense, then not only the developer, but all his employees and the adjoining community profit from the ripple effects of success.

As the "development" progresses, it replicates the snowball effect. The architects/designers, engineers, lawyers, environmentalists, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, buyers, owners, workers, suppliers, visitors and tourists make and spend money. The economic engine is stirred and moved and everyone involved makes a buck and, sequentially, it moves everyone forward toward their definition of the American Dream.

This is purely the free enterprise system at work. It doesn't necessarily mean that it poses a threat to the use of a beach or to the environment.

Let's call it like it is. The controversy is really not about restricting public beach access, driving on the beach, low-paying jobs, or concern for the ecology of the Gulf beach. It smacks of "egotism" - "since it wasn't my idea, then I'm labeling it as a bad concept and, therefore, I will petition against it" . . . sort of "if I can't have it, then you can't have it either." Now "egotism" may be a stretch, but think about what's being conveyed. The concept of sitting down and working out a compromise seems to be a foreign notion for us in Corpus Christi. Rather, it seems to unfold as "if I can't have it then you can't have it either."

I'm amazed at some of the people writing letters to the editor and signing petitions who have, in the recent past, vehemently and verbally abused the city fathers for not creating dynamic economics that would keep or attractively lure their sons and daughters back to Corpus Christi after completing college. Well, duh! Here we have a lucrative opportunity for a world-class development and we're supposedly fighting over losing vehicular traffic on 7,400 feet of dead-end beach.

OK, OK. Say the world-class development nose-dives and doesn't happen. Just the silly fight (egotistically speaking) over such a small piece of dead-end beach says to our young and upcoming generation that the chance for true opportunity in the Corpus Christi area of South Texas area is a dead-end - like the beach we're fighting over.

If the City Council does its job right and limits the closing of the beach to vehicular traffic from Packery Channel south for 7,400 feet, placing legal restrictions controlling any additional expansion in the future, then the problem is solved.

Now, by all the shouting and maneuvering over "developers" or "development," some of you in a moment of "self-only" consideration, feel that it's solely YOUR beach. Let me remind you, it's our beach. For the sake of OUR kids and grandkids, let's sit down, examine our true motives, and then work out a compromise that addresses the vehicular traffic question on the 7,400 feet of dead-end beach.

Here's a marvelous opportunity for exceptional long-term planning, extraordinary community cooperation, and a down-to-earth application of common sense. Let's stop fighting and start thinking. We can have both. We can drive on designated beaches and, at the same time, have a world-class development.

Johnny Cotten is a Corpus Christi architect. E-mail: HYPERLINK mailto:jcotten@stx.rr.com jcotten@stx.rr.com.