We’d be well served to have full-on Public Hearings on this and every road on the county’s construction schedule, or we can expect to pay higher taxes than necessary
Note: Tuesday's April 26 commissioners court meeting agenda includes a slew of interesting items. Including the Executive Session on the Old Bastrop Highway Project (#21), there is an Executive Session pertaining to right-of-way acquisition for the RR 12 project (#20-Conley), a 10 a.m. "workshop and update" on the HTGCD from Board President Jimmy Skipton (#16-Cobb) and an Executive Session pertaining to the infamous THK L.L.C. vs Hays County lawsuit (#22-Cobb). Check us on this, but we are informed that THK (Texas Heritage Kitchens) has gone out of business and if so, why would the plaintiff's (THK) lawsuit still have justiciable standing in court?
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Brannon at sam_brannon@hotmail.com, to Judge Cobb and commissioners court members at bert.cobb@co.hays.tx.us; debbiei@co.hays.tx.us; mark.jones@co.hays.tx.us; will.conley@co.hays.tx.us; ray.whisenant@co.hays.tx.us or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the story
From Sam Brannon
Hays Citizens' Budget Project
Week before last, the RoundUp published my story regarding the Old Bastrop Highway project in Precinct 1, a $6 or so million project on a 1.8 mile stretch of lightly-traveled rural highway.
Click on the link for the story: http://hayscountyroundup.blogspot.com/2011/04/county-road-project-raises-interesting.html
Click on map to enlarge
This project, on tomorrow's commissioners court's agenda is part of the $100-plus million road bond projects that are due to begin in the coming months. It also happens to be one of the many reasons that the taxpaying public should be paying closer attention to how and where our money is spent, and demanding more thoughtful answers to our questions. Many of us believe Public Hearings are in order.I wrote to Pct. 1 Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe for more detailed justification on why this road needs to built now, and received the following list of reasons from her to publish via an article here.
Below are her responses with some of my commentary in italics:
Com. Ingalsbe
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Old Bastrop Highway Project. I’d like to share reasons I believe the project is important to our county:1. First of all, this road was part of the priority roads passed in the 2008 bond package.
I frequently hear “The people voted for this. Case closed.” Well, the people first voted “No!” in 2007. If we can be asked again in 2008, we can certainly be consulted again in 2011 as we face a very difficult economy and shrinking property tax base.
2. It is a road that has seen a tremendous increase in traffic, in part, due to the high school that was built. According to our road department, on this particular section of roadway from Center Point Rd to the Comal County line, in June and August 2009, there were approximately 2,200 vehicles per day counted.
Figuring 16 hours of use in a 24 hour day, that’s 2.3 cars per minute. I’m sure this roadway was built to safely move far more traffic than that.
3. I have seen students walking to school on this stretch of roadway.
4. The High School Athletic Department uses Old Bastrop Hwy, including this section, for practice runs. This is a huge safety issue since there are currently no shoulders on a large section of this roadway.
These reasons fail as legitimate justifications for this project. The stretch of road from Hwy 123 to Centerpoint, which runs directly in front of the high school, has only 18-inch shoulders (same as this stretch). If student/athlete safety were legitimate concerns, the county would be improving that more-heavily traveled piece of road rather than the piece that begins 1 mile south of the high school.
5. This roadway is utilized for scheduled bicycle and running races/events. Again, because the lack of shoulders, the participants are on the roadway which has blind hills. S.O. deputies and/or other agencies are contracted for these events for traffic control and safety issues.
Again, this fails as a legitimate concern for various reasons. Perhaps chief among them that bicyclists are choosing this road for its current characteristics, which include its remarkably light traffic. In any event, we don’t improve roads for occasional bicycle/running events.
6. This roadway is part of the City of SM Transportation Master Plan.
7. The city of San Marcos has elected to focus and direct growth east of IH 35 to help protect the aquifer and more sensitive areas of our county.
These answers don’t indicate any reason to widen or buy additional right-of-way in 2011, or any other point in time. What is their specific relevance to this road today?
8. There are two very large subdivisions proposed very near and on this section of roadway. The Galesteo Ranch Development, which is approximately 500 acres and has recently initiated discussions with the City of SM regarding their development. They are obtaining utility information for line sizing and discussing roadway and other improvements. They are planning for a mix use including residential, retail, commercial and office. Also, an approximately 1000 acre development at the intersection of Old Bastrop Hwy and Francis Harris. (I am currently waiting on an update from the City of SM on this project.)
Okay, now we’re onto something. But when is the plan likely to be approved? When are utilities scheduled to be installed? What year would home/office/etc. construction begin? What is the anticipated build-out plan? (Question from the RoundUp: Is anyone currently doing business with Hays County, planning consultant, engineer, etc., involved in ownership or any other aspect of these two planned developments?)
Given the economy and the extreme contraction of private sector investment homes, retail and office space, as well as the lack of population growth in San Marcos in recent years, these projects would be considered highly speculative at this point.
In short, I still don’t see any case for improvements to this road in the near future. And again, if we could revisit the road bond in 2008 after defeating it in 2007, there’s no reason that we shouldn’t be re-justifying each road in today’s difficult economy.
We’d be well-served to have full-on Public Hearings on this and every road on the county’s construction schedule, or we can expect to pay higher taxes than necessary.
Hays County residents have already asked our elected officials to halt all new projects until Public Hearings are held. I encourage readers to share your thoughts with all of our elected officials at Hays County.
12 comments:
I sent these same comments to Debbie Ingalsbe on Monday the 18th. I have not heard from her on these since, but we'll be talking about them in court tomorrow.
And yes, Will Conley's RR12 right-of-way purchases are on deck, too. There is not even construction money allocated for the parkway that is planned, so if this goes through, we can tack untold millions in debt on to the $357 million that we'll have within 11 months.
The LCRA purchase, the new Pct 2 building they want to build, and more projects waiting in the wings. Their projects (necessary or not), your money. Its a good gig if you can get it.
This "conservative" court is going to spend us in to poverty if we let them.
2.3 cars per minute?
Well shucks, that's only .038333333 car per second. You right, that ain't much car at all!
Mr B, you need to go to traffic engineering school to learn what 2200 ADT would represent.
And by the way----you are a bit of a mystery man. Would you name your former employers?
"we are informed that THK (Texas Heritage Kitchens) has gone out of business"
Point of information:
THK, LLC (Texas Heritage Kitchens) lost its incorporation February 8, 2008, but there has never been a legal operating business associated with that limited liability corporation.
Phil Owenby of Middltown, CA, 95461, who had advanced Ramus money and knew first hand that Texas Heritage Kitchens was a fraud, befriended his Totlec shaman at commissioners’ court in hopes of sharing in a suit settlement. The only assets of THK, LLC were two acres where Ramus still resides. There has never been an operating business, just a business name and a phone number.
The only documented Ramus “business” was clandestine catering that involved cooking in his residence---and commercial cooking in your residence is unlawful. Tom Pope issued Ramus a Food Establishment permit and renewed it twice---despite knowing that Ramus cooking for the public in his home was unlawful.
charlie what does that have to do with anything being discussed
AO 1:28 pm CAN YOU READ? Try that before mouthing off!
"charlie what does that have to do with anything being discussed"
Anonymous,
See Note by editor at beginning of the article.
Does O'Dell have to spell everything out for you to make sense of such a simple conflict of interest? Duh!
O'Dell, you are such a funny fibber!! Ramus or THK was never issued any food permits by the county.
I think that Mr brannon and odell clearly cannot fathom the idea of safety for our kids in our community. There is a definitive need for the improvement of this stretch of road and both of yalls personal vendetta against Commissioner Ingalsbe is clouding the validity of your arguments. This piece of roadway has not had major reconstruction in 10 years and with the new high school being moved right down the street, now is the time! Hip hip hooray for forward thinking commissioners like Ingalsbe!
"Ramus or THK was never issued any food permits by the county."
You don't suppose Pope has destroyed official documents---do you?
That would be against the law.
We can document any claim we make.
Seriously, if it were for the kids...
They would perhaps widen the part of the road in FRONT OF the high school, not 1-3 miles down the road.
And if it were for the kids...
They'd force Ramus to move. This dangerous 3-time convicted criminal lives right next to the high school, and both his septic and his behavior constitute a risk to the kids and everyone else in the neighborhood.
A $6 million road 1 mile away and out of the traffic stream of the school is not "for the kids".
@ Anonymous (Mommy) of April 26, 2011 5:24 PM
This is the same old canard of, “safety for our kids” that you Mommy types always use to get your way, rather than shouldering your responsibility to care for your own sprouts. Why does the School District always want to build on a highway; why not on a side street. The biggest danger around a high school is the students themselves as they drive around texting. The County roads weren’t built and maintained for the schools to use as running tracks. I’d be willing to bet the school has a super track around its super football field that we have already paid for. Enough is enough!
Post a Comment