HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN

[Johnny French]

There's to be a press conference by the petitioners around the petition-signing table at the Nueces County Courthouse this morning. I think the Channel 3 news mentioned the press conference this morning, but I didn't hear them give the time or place.

Noticed while listening to the public comments at yesterday's Corpus Christi City Council meeting that one person spoke in favor of the beach closing extension because, she said, unless the Council grants it to the developer, he won't bring in that billion-dollar resort, and the city's TIF won't be able to support maintenance of Packery Channel. Nice of her to be the first to connect the dots publicly like that. However, you also gotta wonder where in all the secret negotiations about the closure extension the words "tax abatement" have been lurking. Has anyone ever seen a billion-dollar development coaxed into coming to an area w/o a multi-year tax abatement? Surely we'll never see a world-class beach resort w/o a world-class tax break, but, unless we don't, the TIF balloon deflates faster than the Hindenburg, and the channel the resort would sit next to stays plugged up with the sand needed to renourish the eroding beaches it wants closed to vehicles. Catch-22.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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_4314154,00.html
Group wants more beach
Council to consider limiting 7,400 feet

By Brandi Dean Caller-Times
December 14, 2005


Council poll
How members said they would vote on lengthening the stretch of Padre Island beach that would be closed to traffic.
For: Mark Scott
Undecided: Henry Garrett, Brent Chesney, Melody Cooper, Jerry Garcia
Against: Rex Kinnison, John Marez, Jesse Noyola
Abstaining: Bill Kelly

Council members are again under pressure to reconsider closing a stretch of Padre Island beach to traffic, but this time the pressure is on to include more beachfront.

On Tuesday, more than a dozen Padre Island homeowners and business people asked the council to take back their vote that closed 4,200 feet of beach to traffic, just as opponents to the plan had requested in October. But unlike those opponents, this group does want car-free beaches - 4,200 feet just isn't enough.

Instead, they asked the council to prohibit vehicles on 7,400 feet of beach. That's the amount Austin developer Paul Schexnailder said needs to be car-free to make a $500 million resort community feasible.

"We're all human, we all make mistakes," Linda Walsh, an island resident and business owner, said of the council's previous decision. "But we can come back and do tremendous things."

However, the council may have the same answer for this group that they did for the last one. When the opponents to the restriction asked them to reconsider, the council did nothing, clearing the way for a petition to put the issue before voters. It hasn't been decided whether they'll do anything this time.

To reconsider the issue, it will have to be put on the council's agenda again by City Manager Skip Noe, Mayor Henry Garrett or a request from the majority of the council. Noe said he will not put it on the agenda without instructions from Garrett or the council, and council members said they won't try to do it themselves.

"We all look to Henry for guidance," Councilman Mark Scott said.

Garrett hasn't decided on his answer. He said he doesn't want to turn his back on the 1,500 jobs the resort may create, but at the same time, he recognizes that the council made a commitment not to restrict traffic on any additional beach - though the commitment was made without all the information available now.

"It's a tough decision and I want to make sure I do it right," he said. "I'm going to do what I think is in the best interest of the community. But at the same time, I want to protect the credibility of the council."

If the question is put on the council's agenda, Scott said he would vote to restrict traffic on the additional 3,200 feet because the council didn't realize how much beach was needed.

Of the remaining council members, Rex Kinnison, Jesse Noyola and John Marez all say they would vote against the addition because of the commitment the council made.

"It's not that I'm opposed to the deal that's being discussed," Kinnison said. "When I sat up there and made that vote, I fully recognized that another situation could come up, and I factored that into my vote."

Bill Kelly is abstaining, and Jerry Garcia, Melody Cooper and Brent Chesney are undecided. Chesney wants to vote for the addition, but is not sure he is willing to go against the council's commitment. Cooper said she has not seen enough community support to warrant voting for the addition, but would if support increases. And Garcia wants more information on what the developers have planned.

"I need to see some facts and figures and hard numbers, not hypotheticals," Garcia said. "We're the leadership, and we need to find out."

Contact Brandi Dean at 886-3778 or HYPERLINK mailto:deanb@caller.com deanb@caller.com

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_4314162,00.html
Letters to the Editor: 12.14.05

December 14, 2005

Beach bandwagon

Well, it's begun; just six months ago the City Council decided to close 4,500 feet of beach to help the hotels on the beach and keep the tourists safe.

Now we hear of 1,500 jobs, in trade for 7,500 feet of beach. Isn't that just the greatest news? In five years after all this is built, and we concede another 2,500 feet of beach, we get 60 high-level jobs and 1,440 dishwashers, busboys, waiters, gardeners, handymen, and so forth.

Mr. Scott and Mr. Schexnailder are touting all the work this will develop. What they don't talk about is the illegals who will be taking these crummy jobs.

Check out the hotel and motel jobs and see for yourself just who works these low-level jobs. I am sure these people pay their share of taxes and so forth, so who will this really benefit? The developers, and maybe the campaign chests of the council members.

Now, shortly after this happens, another developer will show up, and guess what?

Another council will grant him another 2,500 feet of beach closed. Then, in 10 to 15 years, we will have another South Padre Island, with no beach access.

Think of this before you jump on this bandwagon.

Gene Bruner

[Dr.]

After viewing the petition locations around town I noticed they all seem to be on the south side. Any other parts of town getting petitions?

[Johnny French]

We're about maxed out on volunteers to run around picking up and replacing petitions at the 40 places we have now. If you want to volunteer at the courthouse, or take and tend petitions at other locations, call Pat Suter at 852-7938, or come to the courthouse during weekdays, 0800-1530.

[mastergunner]

How many signatures do we have now? I can't beleive there are people in Corpus and other areas of the state that think we will beleive them when residents and council members say they had no clue about this resort developement. People just don't wake up one morning and call a couple of friends and say lets build a 1.5 billion dollar resort. Maybe if you are Bill Gates you could do that. You build resorts all on the island and residentual areas will go to crap just like they do everytime. The people who live there now will get tired of all the people and traffic and move, the value of their homes will go down, nobody will want to buy there so investors will buy them and then rent them cheap to the illegal immigrants who will work 95% of those jobs. Then the need for cheap housing will go across the JFK and affect the bluff. If you go to "5 star" resorts around the world how for do you usually have to go away from them before you are in a slum? Usually just a couple of blocks.
_________________
Hardheads should be the state fish of Texas

[Johnny French]

Before the conference began, there were 5,939 confirmed signatures out of approximately 7,400 collected. At least another 10 pages (approx. 14 signatures per page) had been turned in or actually signed this morning at the courthouse, but had yet to be counted. The confirmed number is 2/3 of the coalition's conservative goal of 9000, chosen to be sure to have enough.