Corpusfishing.com

[The Trash Heap]

First, here's the link to the City website that includes, among other things, the info in the flier circulated in the utility bill envelopes: http://www.cctexas.com/?fuseaction=main.view&page=3019 I couldn't copy the link to the Caller-Times site showing that flier.

The flier (I won't dignify it by calling it a "fact" sheet) is an example of the sort of hijacking Larry Haas describes in his LTTE and which Mike and Bill protested in the first article below. The City Manager's explanation for what was intentionally excluded from the flier, "There's a limit to how much you can put on one page, two sided," is particularly ludicrous, because the significant Amendment No. 1 language the flier deliberately omits about taking away the right to challenge future beach closing ordinances is only two sentences long. What could possibly be more important than putting the whole amendment on the flier? The amendment itself wouldn't even have been necessary if the City Council had simply placed the BAC referendum on the 7200-foot closure ordinance on the April ballot in the first place

Luciano Salazar's LTTE shows he thinks enough of our brains have drained away already not to recognize that all the goals he lists cannot be accomplished without giving up the right to drive and park on the beach, much less to petition against future beach-closing ordinances.

Finally, if voters do not approve the driving and parking ban, they can still fight City Hall to make it cough up the 140-space parking lot, bath house, toilets, and ADA access ramp promised them at the south Packery Channel jetty before the TIF election. I doubt that a tram would be necessary to move folks from the St. Bartholomew access road to the jetty, just a row of bollards down the beach to provide separation between private vehicles and kids making sand castles.
--------------------------------------
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_5058136,00.html
Letters to the Editor: 10.11.06
October 11, 2006

Island's future

The self-anointed pro-growth group that wants to ban vehicles on some of the Texas beaches wants growth at all costs. Setting a precedent of beach restrictions to suit a developer will surely end up costing Texans more than a few thousand feet of easy beach access in the future.

The fact that taxpayer money was spent on the Packery project is reason enough not to allow Councilman Mark Scott and private real estate interests to hijack a public asset for their private benefit or financial gain. The island will develop without Scott or developer Paul Schexnailder.

The elevation of the causeway and the dredging of Packery Channel guarantee the island's growth.

The groups of citizens that oppose this vehicular ban are often referred to as an anti-growth. I would be willing to bet each and every one of them welcome responsible growth in the Coastal Bend.

Vote "no" on Amendment 1 that restricts vehicles on the beach and vote "yes" on Amendment 2 that will allow the public to have a voice in any future beach changes.

Larry Haas

Stop 'brain drain'

A year ago, my wife and I moved to Corpus Christi from Los Angeles to be closer to family. It is her first time living back here since we met at MIT.

Since moving here, we've heard many young people complaining about the lack of high-paying jobs and things to do.

We have also heard the phrase "brain drain," where the educated leave and don't return. We now have a great opportunity to address these issues with Charter Amendment No.1. If passed, it will bring economic development on the heels of a pedestrian-friendly beach.

This is the catalyst to begin reversing "brain drain." It will create white- and blue-collar jobs, student internships, restaurants, shops and entertainment. Let's give our educated children a reason to stay and, for those who have left, reasons to come back.

The passing of this amendment would also give us safer beaches. As parents, we would love to have the right to build sandcastles with our six-month-old daughter and not worry about vehicles.

Let's make Corpus Christi beaches more fun and safe for our families and help strengthen the economy for our future and that of our children. Vote for Charter Amendment No.1.

Luciano Salazar

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_5058148,00.html
Beach access group questions city fact sheet

Noe stands by flier; BAC says facts are left out

By Denise Malan Caller-Times
October 11, 2006


The city is distributing a fact sheet with questions and answers about the upcoming beach vehicle ban election with this month's utility bills, but groups opposed to the ban are questioning the fact sheet's honesty.

The flier contains ballot language, amenities that would be built if the ban passes and information that people may vote for or against either of two proposed charter amendments because they are independent of each other. The city sends fact sheets to educate residents before all proposition votes, City Manager Skip Noe said.

Mike McCutchon, spokesman for the Beach Access Coalition, a group that opposes the ban, said the flier leaves out important facts.

"It doesn't tell you truthfully what Charter Amendment One does," McCutchon said. "I don't think people realize that Charter Amendment One does not ban vehicles. It gives the city the authority to enact an ordinance to ban vehicles in the future. That ordinance would not be subject to referendum. The city could put whatever they want in that ordinance and we would have no say about it."

Noe said the City Attorney's Office helped draft the flier and reviewed all the language and determined it was factual. State law prohibits city staff from using taxpayer dollars to campaign.

"All we can do is provide information," Noe said. "We can't advocate for any given position."

Councilman John Marez, who voted against the vehicle ban and opposed the city's use of "pedestrian-safe beach" wording on the ballot, said he believes the flier is neutral, although he would have preferred "vehicle-free beach" wording.

"I don't have a problem with it," Marez said. "I do feel that wording does give somewhat of a slant, but I think overall the flier is very neutral and just educational."

The flier, prepared by the city's public information office, directs residents with more questions to call the city development services office, where staff are trained not to sway voters or give personal opinions, Noe said. The sheet also points to the city's Web site, where the fact sheet, full texts of the charter amendments, the resolution that would govern the ban and a map are available.

Bill Kopecky, a Beach Access Coalition member, told council members Tuesday that the fact sheet misleads voters into believing the city put the ban to a vote rather than because of the coalition's petition.

The group gathered enough signatures earlier this year to put the ban to an April vote, but the city invalidated the petition to put a charter amendment on the ballot and move the vote up from April to November.

"It never mentions the reason there's a Charter Amendment No. 1 is the city was afraid to face a referendum election in April," Kopecky told the council.

Council members and Mayor Henry Garrett said they moved up the election to Nov. 7th so the issue would not drag on until April and because November elections traditionally draw higher voter turnout.

The City Council has passed a resolution members say represents the exact ordinance to enforce the ban if voters approve it, although McCutchon is skeptical.

"There's nothing that ties the beach vehicle ban ordinance to that resolution," he said. "They could make an ordinance saying there's no fishing on that 1.4 miles of beach and we wouldn't have any say about it."

Councilman Mark Scott, who supports the ban, said the Beach Access Coalition is trying to taint the document before many residents have had a chance to read it.

"I'm very comfortable that it is an honest, accurate representation of the election," Scott said. "I think the public will certainly read it and recognize it as a direct document."

Noe and City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer have said the Texas Supreme Court has upheld cities' rights to limit residents' ability to petition for ballot referendums. Other ordinances, such as the budget or tax levy, are not subject to referendum, according to the city charter.

The possible beach ban ordinance should not be subject to referendum because the council will not approve it unless voters have signed off on the beach ban, according to city officials. Another vote on the matter would be pointless, they say.

Noe said the debate is too complicated to fit on one flier, with its a long history that reaches back several years, before a public vote to finance the dredging of Packery Channel.

"We didn't spend a lot of time explaining how we got to this position," he said. "You can't answer every question that's out there. There's a limit to how much you can put on one page, two sided."

The Beach Access Coalition is against the first proposed charter amendment on the ballot, which would ban traffic from the Packery Channel south jetty to Padre Balli Park. The group says wooden posts could be used to separate traffic from pedestrians, although developer Paul Schexnailder has said the idea is not feasible for a resort because traffic would flow between the resort and the beach. The group is campaigning for the second charter amendment on the ballot, which would allow voters to decide all future proposed vehicle bans.

Most City Council members and a group called It's About Time Corpus Christi support the ban, saying it has the potential to boost Corpus Christi into international resort status and boost the economy. The Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce and the Corpus Christi Hispanic Chamber of Commerce also support the ban.

Contact Denise Malan at 886-4334

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_5058149,00.html
Council OKs idea for tram at beach

If closure approved by voters, parking lot also to be open 24/7

By Denise Malan Caller-Times
October 11, 2006


Three stipulations the General Land Office wanted to ensure the public's access to the beach now are included in the city's plan to enforce a beach vehicle ban if voters approve the proposal.

The General Land Office ruled Sept. 26 that the city's plan to ban vehicles on a stretch of Padre Island beach provides adequate beach access, but Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson outlined three changes he wanted in the plan.

One of the three changes the City Council approved Tuesday specifies that a tram system would take people and their belongings to and from the parking lot near the Padre Island seawall to the Packery Channel south jetty. The council also clarified that the tram would operate at all hours except when demand is negligible. However, neither the land office nor the City Council defined negligible demand.

The third change the council approved was the land office's request that the city ensure the 30-space parking lot next to the south jetty be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Voters will decide Nov. 7 whether to close 7,200 feet of beach to vehicles, from the south jetty to Padre Balli Park. Developer Paul Schexnailder said the traffic ban is necessary to attract a $1.5 billion resort that includes hotels, homes, restaurants and shops.

If voters approve the ban, the plan still would be subject to a public comment period before receiving final approval from the land office and becoming law. The city could enforce the ban after the approval process, likely in early 2007.

Contact Denise Malan at 886-4334
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[mastergunner]

It seems all politicians are doing it today. Still haven't seen anyone running for any office take a side on this issue. Like they all say "we need to fix education", "we need to fix taxes", "we need to fix this or that". We all know these things need fixed, why can't any of them tell us how they plan on doing it. Not a single politician running can tell you their step by step plan on how to fix education or taxes because they don't have one. They all talk about what great leaders they are, great leaders have plans and can show them to you. I still see the beach being closed no matter what it takes to include voter fraud and I am now beleiving this $1.5 billion resort will never happen. I'm sure there will be some development there but nothing like has been promised because those who have made these promises have no integrity so I don't beleive anything they say.
_________________
Mastergunner, supporter of hardheads for state fish of Texas

[TP]

Channel 3 did an extremely biased piece on vehicular free beaches. Joe Gazin got a trip to Destin to shuffle around in the white sand and interview some drunk chicks who said it was no big deal to carry a towel from their car to the sand. Access was not a problem........... well except for the summer........and maybe on the weekends..........They looked like they were there during the middle of week day.

He did interview a lawbreaker who was on some one else's private beach. He had tattoos and looked scummy.

Joe did not interview anyone fishing. He may have been too busy paling around with Mark Scott and the local developers.

[rabbit]

[Tyler]

What you may not know is Gazin is behind the Seashore Marketplace that goes on monthly out on the island so I am sure he's all for the closure. Once again someone who stands to profit by restricting access.

[mastergunner]

I think we should plan a redneck day the same day as the grand opening of whatever finally gets built. We will just get there early and spread our fishing poles out and take up the whole beach.
_________________
Mastergunner, supporter of hardheads for state fish of Texas

[FB PHIL]

I saw that Chnl 3 story by Joe Gazin last night and had to laugh how one side the report was and the second half is tonight. I went to Destin beach, exactly where he was last Dec. I did walk out on one fishing pier to look around while my wife was shopping(costs like $6 if you are going to fish). There is NO ONE fishing from the beach, because there is very little access, a sidewalk between somebodies house or hotel thru the fencing every 1/4 of a mile or so. Signs saying KEEP OUT everywhere. The sugar colored sand and swimming pool colored water is beautiful to look at, but that's all your going to do there(FROM THE FOUR LANE DIVIDED HIWAY THAT RUNS THE LENGTH OF THE BEACH). Joe just wrangled himself a free boondogle vacation to fla. to send back a bias story for no beach use by fishermen.

[Tyler]

[Bluffer]

Why cant the media report ANYTHING unbiased? Just tell stories like it is with no SLANT. They really fool the uneducated people out there to vote thier way. Same crap goes on in politics to.
_________________
-STAY THIRSTY MY FRIENDS!-

[Rudy]

The Rand Corporation in the early 1960s developed the Delphi technique for the purpose of maneuvering segments of the public into accepting predetermined government policies. In the 1970s and '80s, it was ideally used to convince land owners of the merits of accepting joining and general plan maps. Now it is being employed to persuade the public to accept outcome-based education and the licensing of all employees, via endorsements in the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) and Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) programs, a.k.a. school-to-work.

The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public. For the Delphi to work, it is critical that the targeted group be kept away from knowledgeable people who could lead them away from the Delphier's predetermined outcome.

One variation on the Delphi technique is to use a series of meetings. The attendees are often given a number or a colored card when they enter the room, to determine at which table they are to sit. The purpose of this is to break up the groups of potentially knowledgeable people who arrive together so that they will be sitting with strangers and therefore be subdued.

Typically, at each table is a facilitator, someone who will know which way to help "steer" the group. Usually the people at each table are instructed to answer among themselves some of the questions and arrive at a table consensus. Someone is chosen to speak for the table, most of the time it is the person who has been secretly pre-briefed about the desired Delphi outcome. The table spokesperson is the only one allowed to address the podium and the others have little opportunity to address the podium or the crowd directly.

Anyone knowledgeable enough, or brave enough, to speak out in opposition will not be welcomed. Often they are told from the podium, "We don't have time to discuss that now," or "We discussed that on another date," or “We can discuss that after the meeting.” They will attempt to quiet, isolate, and discredit dissenters. After attending the Delphi meeting, participants may feel uneasy that they are in disagreement with the apparent majority. The Delphi technique is often successful in bluffing people into submission. Don't let them succeed. Call their bluff.

The Delphi technique often uses a series of surveys to bring about "consensus." The surveys are promoted as information gathering regarding the wishes of the targeted public, but in reality they are designed to manipulate the desired outcome. The survey will sometimes use a grading like, "agree all of the time," "agree most of the time," "agree some of the time," "agree not much," "agree never." Or, the survey grading will ask the respondents to use ratings like "most important," "moderately important," "least important."

The questions are typically "loaded" questions. An example is the question asked of Oregon teachers on a Delphi technique survey: "Do you agree or disagree that the following elements of H.B. 3565 [Oregon's Education Act for the 21st Century] will lead to improved student learning if implemented?" The survey listed such items for the teachers to agree or disagree with; "site councils," "increased accountability for school site and districts," "full funding for preschool programs to enable all students to enter school ready to learn," "extended school year," "certificate of initial mastery," etc. The question is patently "loaded." For example, site councils are not charged with improving student learning. Their function is to implement the state law, dole out professional development courses and money to selected teachers, and apply for grants from foundations and the federal government. For the teachers to answer, "agree" or "disagree", that the site councils will lead to improved student learning is misdirecting the respondent.

The Delphi surveys serve to "educate" the people taking the survey. After the first survey is taken, the respondents are given an analysis and told that most people agreed or somewhat agreed on the predetermined outcome. Then usually they are given another survey and asked if they can be flexible and try to rethink the "few remaining" areas of disagreement. When the series of surveys are accomplished, the respondents are told that the majority of respondents achieved "consensus" with whatever direction the pollers wanted in the first place.

These techniques were developed decades ago. The Rand Corporation has more recently been developing games that groups of business people, site council members, organizations, etc., can use to help "sell" people on collectivism, consensus vs. majority rule, etc.

Never, ever compromise when it comes to "right and wrong." With the right attitude you shouldn't care what people think, as long as you are standing up for what is right. Accept persecution gratefully.



Sound familiar?

[TexasJohnny]

One of my favorite professors I ever had once told the class, "There is nothing wrong with being ignorant that means you just don't know, but stupid you'll never know." Most people are just ignorant on this subject, thank God for this site, Johnny French, Tyler and others for keeping us (me) enlightened. Not only does this site help me form my own opinion, but helps me educate those who aren't aware of all the facets. My vote has been won over by the BAC. I just worry about all those who could care less or don't know.
John

[rabbit]