HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN

[Guest]

?anything
yet

[tyler]

I don't know what exactly it means but they did not get it by vote.

Council lacks votes to repeal beach ban ordinance
By Nick Nelson and Brandi Dean / Caller-Times
December 20, 2005

The City Council today lacked sufficient votes to repeal an October ordinance that banned traffic along 4,200 feet of beach along Padre Island’s seawall.

After listening to nearly two hours of public comment on the controversial issue, the council voted 4 to 3 to pass the ordinance but were informed that the body would need at least five votes to undo the previous ordinance. Mayor Henry Garrett and council members Mark Scott, Melody Cooper and Jerry Garcia voted to repeal the ordinance. Councilmen Brent Chesney, Jesse Noyola and John Marez voted against it. Counciman Rex Kinnison was out of town and Councilman Bill Kelly abstained because he owns property on the island near the area in question.




Following the vote, the council went into executive session, which is closed to the public, to discuss whether it would be possible to add additional beach to the 4,200 feet restricted in the original ordinance.

Council member Mark Scott had urged that the ordinance be repealed to make way for a new ordinance that would create a pedestrian-only beach north of the seawall as well.

Early this month, Austin developer Paul Schexnailder announced that a major resort development company intends to build a resort just north of the newly restricted beach. He says the project is feasible only if that area, in addition to the 4,200 feet, is vehicle-free

Today’s development means a petition against the ordinance will move forward. If successful, the issue will be put to citywide vote in a May election.

[tyler]

vote
Chesney gives council necessary five votes

By Nick Nelson and Brandi Dean / Caller-Times
December 20, 2005

The City Council today produced the necessary votes to repeal an October ordinance that banned traffic along 4,200 feet of beach along Padre Island’s seawall.

The decision won’t become binding until it passes through two more readings in future council meetings.




After listening to nearly two hours of public comment on the controversial issue, the council voted 4 to 3 to pass the ordinance but were informed that the body would need at least five votes to undo the previous ordinance.

The council went into an executive session, which was closed to the public. When they reemerged, Brent Chesney, who had initially voted not to repeal the ordinance, changed his vote - giving the council the votes it needed to do so.

Counciman Rex Kinnison was out of town and Councilman Bill Kelly abstained because he owns property on the island near the area in question.

Council member Mark Scott had urged that the ordinance be repealed to make way for a new ordinance that would create a pedestrian-only beach north of the seawall as well. "We made a mistake," he said at today’s meeting. "And I was part of that mistake."

Early this month, Austin developer Paul Schexnailder announced that a major resort development company intends to build a resort just north of the newly restricted beach. He says the project is feasible only if that area, in addition to the 4,200 feet, is vehicle-free.

If the October ordinance is repealed, it will make meaningless a petition that began shortly after the original ordinance was passed. The Beach Access Coalition, which is organizing the petition, said today they have about 8,300 of the 9,000 signatures they need to put the issue to citywide vote in May.

Following today’s second vote, Beach Access Coalition Spokesman John Kelley said the group would start another petition as soon as the council passes another ordinance. He also said the group plans to look into whether council violated Texas open meetings laws by voting in executive session.

[bryanccfshr1]

It is good to see that there are some parliamentary constraints in our city charter to prevent such bold face Gerrymandering.


I am a registered CC voter but will be out of town for an extended period. Is there anyway to get my name on the petition since I won't be physically in Corpus for quite a while? (months)

[Guest]

[tyler]

[rabbit]

I wonder how much money he held out for.
_________________
Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it.

[Johnny French]

Sat through almost 4 hours of public and councilmember comments, but had to leave the council chambers at 12:45 so I could continue accepting signatures at the Courthouse. When I left, the council had failed by one vote to get the 5 needed to pass as an emergency measure, and so put into effect immediately, an ordinance rescinding the October 18 ordinance that closed the 4200-foot portion of the beach in front of the seawall to vehicles. The flustered councilmembers regrouped enough to decide to put a third ordinance adding at least a separate 1800-foot beach closure between the seawall and the south jetty of Packery channel on the agenda of the next meeting in January.

Was celebrating with burgers at the signing table when Bill Kopecki walked in and told me what had happened after I left. Nearly lost my lunch!

Seems that at the City Attorney's urging, the council went into closed session. On their return to the open meeting, Brent Chesney reversed his vote, so the first ordinance was rescinded, nullifying the petition, after all.

Bill took away all the filled petition sheets, and I packed the rest of the petition equipment in the back of my car. Anyone wanting their clipboards and such, let me know.

I sure wish someone with legal background would look into what just happened. I'm not that conversant with the Texas Open Meetings Act, but I thought that only matters relating to personnel actions or significant expenditures such as competitive bids could be discussed in closed session. Secondly, as I read what is posted in Section G of this agenda, the same motion, once voted upon, cannot be reconsidered sooner than the next regular or special scheduled meeting; in other words, no two bites of the apple are allowed at the same meeting.

Despite all of today's fancy language about honoring the rights of the petitioners and living up to the council's emphatic promises not to expand the vehicle closure, five councilmembers went out on thin ice when their actions spoke louder than their words. What they don't seem to have realized is that the voters are far more opposed to the loss of vehicular access to the south side of Packery Channel and the undeveloped beach between it and the seawall than they were about the beach in front of the seawall. It's clearly going to be simpler to get signatures to overturn the next ordinance for an expanded closure than it was to boot the first one.

At the last minute, I spoke on something other than the written request I handed to the council this morning. Maybe Channel 10 will carry one or the other. Watch the re-runs of the council meeting on the city government channel if you can, or ask me about Playa del Rio later.

I believe I had the council pegged when I handed them this:

Dear Mayor and City Council of Corpus Christi:

I have no objection to the rescission of Ordinance No. 026526, so long as vehicular access in front of the seawall is permanently restored. However, it would be a shame to have to ask more than 7000 citizens who just signed one referendum petition to start signing again on a similar petition because you nullified their efforts before they got their lawful opportunity to vote.

I’m sure the time and gas money those folks spent finding and signing the first one was valuable to them. Nonetheless, having met a lot of them face-to-face as they signed, it also seems no stretch of the imagination to think that, if you pass another ordinance to eliminate vehicular traffic on even more than just the area in front of the seawall, those same folks would want to take the trouble to sign another petition. That’s why I’m requesting that you instruct the City Secretary to make a copy of all the names and addresses collected on the first petition and, should you pass another vehicular traffic elimination ordinance affecting at least in part the seawall beach, have him mail those people a copy of the inevitable next referendum petition and a City-addressed, City-franked envelope. That way, each citizen you just disenfranchised after signing the first petition won’t have to leave home or spend another penny to sign the second.

In case you have any doubt that Ordinance No. 026526 and similar attempts to restrict beach access are contrary to the spirit and intent of the Texas Open Beaches Act, please consider the enclosed copy of the petition signed by former State Senator A.R. “Babe” Schwartz. Also, please be sure to send him a SASE and a copy of that next petition, should you make one necessary.

Johnny French

[rabbit]

I would imagine that the next ploy would be to hire some one to run over someone else so they can use the unsafe driving gambit.
_________________
Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it.

[rabbit]

Thanks for all your hard work johnny I hope it wont be necessary to do it over again. But knowing the baldfaced liers we have on the council then we probably will When this happens we will need two petitions one for a recall of the city council and one for the beach.
_________________
Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it.

[Dexter]

Amen Rabbit. Ya'll get tougher. I live in Houston and cannot do too much about it.
Dexter

[BeachBum]

I used to go to church with Brent Chesney. He is about as fake as it comes.
_________________
FISH ON!!,

BUM

Coastal Shark Fishing

[Guest]

Johnny French mentioned getting a legal mind.

Attorney David Dunn in Corpus Christ is an avid fisherman, and one hell of a good lawyer. He probably knows of others that might want to look into this.