Corpusfishing.com

[The Trash Heap]

The games' afoot, Watson! Unfortunately, I'll be sitting with C.H. at his doctor's office when the hearing takes place before the judge at 9 this morning. Looking forward to seeing the report on the news. Way to go Mike, Michael, and Art!
------------------------------------------------
Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_5013275,00.html
Beach wording is back in court
Ballot language change is sought

By Denise Malan Caller-Times
September 22, 2006


A beach vehicle ban opponent is asking a district judge to force the city to change ballot language, saying it was intended to sway an election on the issue.

Mike McCutchon, spokesman for the Beach Access Coalition, a group fighting the proposed ban, filed a request Thursday for a temporary restraining order against the city and asked for a hearing on a temporary injunction. District Judge Jack Hunter is scheduled to hear attorney Mike Hummell's arguments for the restraining order today and possibly decide whether to set a hearing.

McCutchon objects to the use of "public, pedestrian-safe beach" in the city's proposed charter amendment and said the language the city set for his group's proposed amendment is confusing.

City officials defended the language, saying it presents a clear picture for voters, who will decide Nov. 7 whether to ban vehicles on 7,200 feet of beach from the Packery Channel south jetty to Padre Balli Park. A development company asked for the ban to build a $1.5 billion resort with homes, hotels, shops and restaurants on Padre Island.

"There has been a substantial discussion and coverage of the issues that are on hand here," City Manager Skip Noe said. "There will be efforts on everyone's part, including the city's part, to educate the public on what the issues are. We feel confident that the ballot language is clear and fair."

Noe also said state law gives the power to the City Council to set ballot language and the issue is not for courts to decide.

McCutchon said the use of "public, pedestrian-safe beach" in the ballot language does not give voters a true picture of the vehicle ban. He also said it's misleading that the ballot language does not refer to a part of the charter amendment that would prohibit residents from petitioning to overturn ordinances enforcing the ban if it were to pass.

"They're banning vehicles, and they don't even want to say it," McCutchon said. "The key thing is we want a pedestrian-safe beach too. The issue is not about safety. There's plenty of room for pedestrians and vehicles."

Mayor Henry Garrett said he couldn't comment on specifics of the court filing because he had not seen it. Garrett said he the filing didn't surprise him because the coalition had threatened legal action, but he also said he was disappointed.

"I thought we'd pretty well come to an agreement and everyone was pretty satisfied with (the ballot language)," Garrett said. "We listened to their concerns. Evidently, it didn't make them happy."

Councilman John Marez said he agreed with McCutchon that the "pedestrian-safe" wording could affect the vote. Marez had asked the council to find more neutral language.

"I can see their concern with wanting to change that language," Marez said. "Vehicle-free is as neutral as it can get."

The City Council and members of the Beach Access Coalition had debated the wording before the council voted last month to set the election. The council changed a reference to "pedestrian-safe beaches" to "vehicle-free beaches" on another charter amendment, which the coalition forced by petition and which would put all future vehicle bans to a public vote. The city's charter amendment ballot language remained the same, with "public, pedestrian-safe beach."

The coalition wants the city to use wooden posts to separate people from vehicles rather than ban traffic. The group is made up of surfers, fishermen, environmentalists and other residents who worry that other developers would ask for vehicle bans on Corpus Christi beaches if this one is granted.

Another group of residents, It's About Time Corpus Christi, is campaigning for the ban and touting the resort's expected boost to the economy, jobs and tax rolls. The Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, the Corpus Christi Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and most City Council members also are in favor of the ban.

Contact Denise Malan at 886-4334 or at HYPERLINK mailto:maland@caller.com maland@caller.com

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_4955858,00.html
Beach Ballot language

August 30, 2006

Charter amendment 1

Ballot language:

Providing for a public pedestrian-safe beach limited to the approximately 7,200-foot area between Packery Channel and the north boundary of Padre Balli Park.

Full amendment:

A public pedestrian-safe beach area is authorized on the Gulf beach extending approximately 7,200 feet from the south jetty of Packery Channel southward and along the seaward side of the Gulf seawall to the northern boundary line of Padre Balli Park. The City Council is authorized to adopt ordinances restricting vehicular traffic on the public pedestrian-safe beach, except for emergency vehicles, vehicles used to maintain the beach or other authorized vehicles, and establishing the conditions required before the creation of the public pedestrian-safe beach. The ordinance effecting the creation of a public pedestrian-safe beach is not subject to initiative or referendum.

Charter amendment 2

Ballot language:

Prohibiting any restrictions on vehicular access in order to create vehicle-free beaches unless approved by a majority of qualified voters of the city who vote at an election held for that purpose.

Full amendment:

Vehicular access to and on the Gulf beach may not be restricted unless approved by a majority vote of qualified voters of the city, voting at an election duly called for such purpose. Thereafter, the City Council may take appropriate action to restrict vehicular access to and on specific portions of the Gulf beach and comply with all other requirements necessary to implement the result of the election. The approval at election requirement shall not apply when vehicles are restricted from access to areas of the Gulf beach for public necessity. "Public necessity" shall be limited to environmental emergencies, public health and safety emergencies, and government functions whose importance justifies the restriction of vehicular access. The restriction of vehicular access for public necessity shall be limited to the smallest possible area and for the shortest possible duration.

Source: City of Corpus Christi

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_5013272,00.html
Letters to the Editor: 09.22.06
September 22, 2006

Right to beach

When Bob Eckhardt penned the Open Beaches Act in 1959, he simply codified what was already common law, an entitlement dating back to biblical days when fishermen spread their nets along the beaches of the Sea of Galilee. He recognized that nobody had the right to block off access to cattle trails, highways or beaches that had always been used for commerce and transportation since "time immemorial."

In 1966, an Oregon beach resort owner fenced off the beach in front of his resort for his customers' exclusive use. The public resisted and ultimately the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the public had established a right to use the beach based on customary usage and held that the resort owner was blocking the public's access to their property.

Bob Eckhardt foresaw what the power of development money could do to undermine the public's ability to enjoy this traditional right. Let's not allow our fundamental rights to slip away for the simple benefit of Paul Schexnailder.

And that beach resort in Oregon? Today it is still in operation and contributing substantially to the local and state economy without a private beach.

Art Morris

Plan switched

The Sunday, Sept. 10, article failed to show why the Beach Access Coalition considers the parking by the Packery jetties a "promise," not just a "plan." Here is our reasoning:

In February 2002, the city finalized the Packery Plan, with parking by the jetties. This plan was subsequently used to get approval to lease the land for the channel from the state.

The plan was also used to get $20 million in funding from the federal government. The plan showed, in pictures and words, 140 parking spaces "immediately south of the South Jetty."

Clearly, the plan for a pedestrian beach was to include a vehicle lane to the jetty. That's all we're asking for. We're not against pedestrian beaches or resorts.

When you use a plan to get the state to give you public land and the federal government to give you money, the public use plan becomes more than just a plan. It becomes a promise. It's amazing to me that the city would try to break that promise before the project is even done.

The city is attempting a bait and switch. You can stop them by voting "no" on Charter Amendment No. 1 and voting "yes" on No. 2.

Michael McCutchon
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[Bluffer]

What a sneaky bunch try to word it like that. Who do they think we are!!!
_________________
-STAY THIRSTY MY FRIENDS!-

[Tarzan]

Wow, it is good to hear that Jack Hunter will be the judge hearing the case. He has lived here all his life and is very old school about the rights of Texans. I can honestly say that I would trust that man with my life. Don't let me down now uncle Jack
later,
Ernie

[The Trash Heap]

Just heard on the C. 6 news @ noon that the judge denied the appeal for a change in the ballot language.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[mastergunner]

No surprise to me. I already knew that was going to happen.
_________________
Mastergunner, supporter of hardheads for state fish of Texas

[fishmicki]

that's too bad, but I'm sure you guys will do what you can to make all the voters in CC aware....
_________________
No matter where you go, there you are....

[Big John]

Appeal to the next level. Due to its nature it will receive priority status. It may have a few more denials, byut once it hits the District Federal Court, which may have initial jurisdiction due to it affecting voting rights - read as, you may be able to go straight to fed. District Court, the city's ballot language will get shot down.


Almost all cases on ballot language comes up under fed jurisdiction, and they normally dont side with the city or local government.
_________________
GOBZA!!!
Save $$$ - Get Coupons local businesses today! - http://www.gobza.com/29472

[The Trash Heap]

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_5013807,00.html
Beach ballot language can stay for now
By Denise Malan/Caller-Times
September 22, 2006

A judge denied a request for a restraining order against the city, allowing ballots to be set for a Nov. 7 election on a proposed vehicle ban after a ban opponent argued the ballot language was misleading.

State District Judge Jack Hunter set a hearing on the matter Oct. 6 when a lawyer for Mike McCutchon, Beach Access Coalition spokesman, will argue that the city is misleading voters into approving the ban. Carol Bray, senior assistant city attorney, said the city's ballot language is taken directly from a charter amendment that would allow for the ban and tells residents exactly what they are voting for. However, the hearing is set for nearly two weeks after the deadline for county election officials to finalize the ballot, so the hearing is not likely to have an impact on the ballot.

The ban would remove vehicles from 7,200 feet of beach from the Packery Channel south jetty to Padre Balli Park.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[The Trash Heap]

There's a glitch in the Caller.com posting of this article, apparently incorporating a table from another story. My paper copy won't arrive until I leave town in a few.

Wish I had more details on what's in the filing so I'd know what to expect for an outcome. If the reporter's not reporting the whole story, I can sympathize.
--------------------------------
Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_5016465,00.html
Hearing set on beach vote's fate
Judge to decide whether process goes as scheduled

By Denise Malan Caller-Times
September 23, 2006


By the numbers
1998
The year Qualitech Steel Corp. built the plant to process scrap metal into steel. The plant closed in 1999.

$125 million
The amount Qualitech Steel Corp. paid to build the plant.

$45 million
The sale price for which the plant was listed in 2005.


An Oct. 6 hearing will decide whether residents can vote on a proposed beach vehicle ban as scheduled Nov. 7.

District Judge Jack Hunter denied on Friday a vehicle ban opponent's request for a temporary restraining order, allowing the ballot to be set as planned. But Hunter is scheduled to hear arguments in two weeks from a lawyer for Mike McCutchon, Beach Access Coalition spokesman, and the city on the ballot wording.

If Hunter grants an injunction against the city, as McCutchon's lawyer Mike Hummell has requested, the issue already would be on the ballot but votes would not be counted, County Attorney Laura Garza Jimenez said. If Hunter finds in favor of the city, the vote would be Nov. 7 as scheduled with the current wording.

The ballot must be set by today and the computer programs locked for ballots to be sent overseas, although the county clerk's office has notified the secretary of state's office that ballots will be finalized Monday because of glitches with the new electronic machines.

McCutchon filed suit Thursday, saying the ballot language misleads voters because it refers to a "public, pedestrian-safe beach" rather than the "vehicle-free beach" wording his group prefers. City officials have defended the language, saying it presents a clear picture for voters.

Carol Bray, senior assistant city attorney, told Hunter the language tracks the wording of a charter amendment that would allow for the ban and in no way misleads voters.

"It's expected voters do research before they vote," Bray said. State law requires ballots to have one sentence describing charter amendments, she said.

She also said she found one case where a judge found language misleading when a city referred to a ballot issue only as an amendment.

Hunter asked Hummell whether the suit is an attempt to postpone the election, which originally was scheduled for April and the City Council voted last month to move up to November.

"It seems the citizens need to vote on this and not have groups fighting," Hunter said.

Hummell and McCutchon both said they have no intention of postponing or stopping an election. McCutchon said he did not file earlier because he switched attorneys and was exploring his options. The council first passed ballot language Aug. 22, then finalized it on second reading Aug. 29.

"It just took us a little while to finalize things," McCutchon said. "There was no particular plot. I wish we could have filed it two weeks ago."

He also pointed out that members of the Beach Access Coalition protested the language at City Council meetings. The council changed a reference to "pedestrian-safe beaches" to "vehicle-free beaches" on another charter amendment, which the coalition forced by petition and which would put all future vehicle bans to a public vote. The city's charter amendment ballot language remained the same, with "public, pedestrian-safe beach."

The proposed vehicle ban covers 7,200 feet of Padre Island beach from the Packery Channel south jetty to Padre Balli Park. Developer Paul Schexnailderc has said banning vehicles from the beach section is necessary for a company to build a $1.5 billion resort.

The Beach Access Coalition is campaigning against the ban and for the charter amendment that would allow residents to vote on all future bans. The group worries that other beaches could be closed to traffic, and it supports the use of wooden posts to separate people and vehicles.

It's About Time Corpus Christi, another group, is campaigning in favor of the ban, along with some City Council members and city officials and the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce and the Corpus Christi Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The ban proponents tout the resort's expected economic benefits and the new experience of a beach without cars.

Contact Denise Malan at 886-4334 or at maland@ caller.com
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[Bluffer]

Jack Hunter just lost my vote.....What a scam!
_________________
-STAY THIRSTY MY FRIENDS!-