HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN

[Johnny French]

Too much to address today, so I'm providing only the link to the editorial, which was cut off a few words short in the paper edition, anyway:
http://www.caller.com/ccct/cda/article_print/0,1983,CCCT_840_4486935_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html . The editorial's thesis is to support planning to make the evacuation for another Hurricane Rita less life-threatening, and thus to help convince those who need to evacuate to take to the roads next time instead of taking their chances at home. The editorial totally misses the point that such proper planning would never include encouraging coastal development in the first place through subsidies, editorials, and viewpoints articles like today's. Closing the beach to traffic is not a small price to pay when considered on its own merits, much less than when you add to that the loss of taxes for FEMA flood insurance, the loss of barrier dune protection, and the potential loss of lives associated with island resort construction.

Besides the obvious sympathy for any referendum, I threw in Donna Site's LTTE because, although her topic is not about the island development, she and Charles Porter both live in Rockport, yet have opposite impressions about subsidies. Make a few changes in her last paragraph and it makes a nice counterpoint to the Viewpoints Page. It might have read:

"I don't have any particular disagreement with development of the North Padre Island. I do disagree with giving special concessions to new, private business that diminishes the beauty and quality of life in Corpus Christi. Let the merit of development stand on its own, and give the people of Corpus Christi some credit for being able to think."

The second LTTE's beginning sentence seems not to fit the rest of its argument. Perhaps, like the end of the editorial, something's missing from it.

-----------------------------------------------------
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_4486939,00.html
Closing the beach to traffic is a small price to pay
Common sense demands a ban of motor traffic in the area of development on the beach.

By Charles R. Porter
February 22, 2006


ROCKPORT - What happens in Corpus Christi is not merely of concern to its citizens but is of major importance to the Coastal Bend area. Corpus Christi is the metropolitan focal point of this entire area. Therefore, I feel that it is part of my business to express my thoughts about what is happening there, even though I now live in Rockport.

I suppose that one of the reasons I no longer live in Corpus Christi is because there seems to be too much opposition to growth and progress there.

This is certainly evidenced by the outcry from what I hope is a minority of folks who oppose the closing of a relatively small portion of Padre Island beach to automobile traffic so as to facilitate the development of resort and recreational facilities.

One of the main reasons for the opening of Packery Channel was to encourage development of the natural beauty and resources of that area so that more people could come and enjoy the beaches and have a direct waterway to the Gulf of Mexico.

In order to accommodate such development, we should understand that no one will risk some pretty heavy money if auto traffic is allowed to continue between an expensive hotel or resort development and the waters edge of the Gulf. South Padre Island is the prime example of the truth of this statement.

What are some of the reasons expressed by those who oppose closing this small segment of over 100 miles of beach where auto traffic is allowed?


"Our birthright as Texans gives us access to open beaches, therefore, we can drive our cars and trucks on the beach next to surf."
Wrong. Open beaches law does not necessarily call for and allow auto traffic along the beach area. It only provides that a beach may not be totally closed to the public. There are many areas in Texas where autos are not allowed on the beach.


"To close the area in question would only benefit the rich."
Wrong. In the first place, who are "the rich?" In this society of ours, some folks are rich one day and poor the next or poor today and rich tomorrow. Such a "benefit the rich" argument leans toward communism. Taking a monetary risk by some is one of the prime reasons why our country is the best place to live in the whole world.


"We don't need tourist facilities because the wages paid are less than may be earned in other businesses or industry."
Wow. What kind of reasoning is this? Wages, even though they may be less than what may be earned elsewhere, are better than no wages at all. And besides, the person who works at a beginning low wage may end up as the manager or even the owner. Furthermore, such reasoning neglects to recognize the many other benefits of the tourist dollar. What goes around comes around.


There apparently are those among us that want to keep Corpus Christi as it was. As it was when? With this kind of reasoning we could still be living in caves or tents. No progress, no jobs; no jobs, no income; no change, complete stagnation.
Aside from the fact that if we desire to see development on the island we must keep automobile traffic off of the beach adjacent to the development, there is still the fact that motor traffic on a beach is destructive to its natural environment. Common sense and a desire to bring jobs and a more interesting life to the Coastal Bend demands a ban of motor traffic in the area of development. It's a no-brainer, as is said in advertising.

Charles R. Porter of Rockport was a founding member of the Corpus Christi law firm of Porter, Rogers, Dahlman and Gordon. He retired in 1992. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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_4486941,00.html
Letters to the Editor: 02.22.06

Let Rockport vote

I am thankful that Rockport Mayor Todd Pearson is watching out for us. When asked about letting the voters make the decision by referendum to change the height restrictions on buildings from the current 35-foot limit to eight stories on downtown waterfront property, he said: "It is a complex issue. I don't think we can properly educate the public."

I certainly wouldn't want to risk having my head explode trying to understand that complicated stuff.

Jim Carrillo of Halff Associates, the company preparing the city's downtown master plan, stated: "Downtown Rockport must hold its own economically."

As a gallery owner here for six years, I would like to know in what way are we not "holding our own." Despite the city's effort to have us designated a slum in July of 2005, we are not. We are over 50 upscale shops, restaurants and galleries.

I don't have any particular disagreement with development of the downtown waterfront. I do disagree with giving special concessions to new, private business that diminishes the beauty and quality of life in Rockport. Let the merit of development stand on its own, and give the people of Rockport some credit for being able to think.

Donna Sites

(Rockport)

Preserve island

Opening Packery Channel would be a mistake. If this idea goes through, it would commercialize too much of the natural habitat surrounding the area. More condos and meaningless beach souvenir shops would be added to the land, making it look more cluttered.

People go to the beach to see the differences between inner city life and the outdoors. If you bring the city into the outdoors, we will have nothing left. Due to zoning laws, the privilege of the natural beach that we have left would be taken away to make more cash cows.

Residents need to look at the outcome of this and decide if they are willing to jeopardize what natural beach environment we have left. More frivolous shops and oversize condos would put additional motorists on the roads, leading to the increase of accidents in such a congested area.

We need to keep what we have now. Port Aransas should stay the more cluttered end of the island, and keep the south end of Mustang Island the less built up. We should try to preserve what untapped part of the island we have and enjoy it as it is.

Kristin Cowan

[mastergunner]

Mr. Porter's comments crack me up. If he no longer lives here then apparently he didn't care enough about this area to try to do something about it. Some people just don't get it. This is some of the last truely open beach in America, why can't people understand that. I guess if it was the last forested land left in America they would want to cut the trees down also to build a resort. I guess Bob Hall Pier will eventually become a private pier only for resort residents. I'm surprised the city doesn't pass a ordinance banning fishing poles from the beach. I also think it is funny how Mr. French has the city on it heels trying to figure this packery completion date. I also bet that if the Army corp of engineers are doing it I bet if someone called them they would say that they are through. The city is waiting until they get their ducks in a row to "officially" say it is open.
_________________
Hardheads should be the state fish of Texas