"We need real reform, this takes time and candid conversation about this issue. Therefore in the mean time, I have chosen to negotiate with the developer."
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. McMeans at JRMcMeans@msn.com, to Mr. Conley at will.conley@co.hays.tx.us or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the story
Editor's note: The emails below between Pct. 3 Commissioner Will Conley and CARD (Citizens Alliance for Responsible Development) coordinator Jim McMeans have been circulating for a few days.
In a nutshell, Commissioner Conley (who is known to play outside the rules when it suits his political agenda) has decided he won't buck the system and call for an election challenging a controversial decision by the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. Conley says he would prefer to "negotiate" a solution, privately, as usual. His emailed response to McMeans reads more like a campaign flyer, taking credit for everything short of Creation.In February, the groundwater district, on a 3-2 vote, granted local developer Wimberley Springs Partners a permit to pump up to 81.5 million gallons of groundwater annually. The decision caused an uproar from Wimberley area residents who feared groundwater would be wasted on a golf course and future unsustainable development at Wimberley Springs, located a few miles west of Wimberley on FM 2325. McMeans and others have since filed a lawsuit against the groundwater district.
Another option available through the commissioners court is to call a referendum of voters inside the groundwater district to affirm or overturn the district's February decision. What better way is there to hear the will of the people? The enabling legislation (line 98-7) that created the HTGCD gives the commissioners court the authority to say yea or nay: "The Hays County Commissioners Court by resolution may require an election to affirm or reverse a decision of the board of directors of the district not later than six months after the date of the decision." Deadline for the commissioners court to address the question is fast approaching.Unfortunately, Conley's closed position will once again short circuit public input on an important public matter. Once again, Conley is playing the role of 'The Decider.' Thumbing his nose at certain constituencies and their deep concerns is a risk Conley knows he can take. The western part of his precinct – Wimberley, the Woodcreeks and all points west to the Blanco County line – is becoming increasingly irrelevant to his re-election prospects. The western valley will be made even less relevant as Precinct 3, under redistricting, is likely to absorb a bigger chunk of San Marcos to the east, Conley's long time home turf).
---------------------------------
Thanks for your detailed response on this issue raised by CARD and the 657 citizens who signed the petition. I do want you to understand CARD's position on this matter, as follows:
1. The vote to grant the permit to WSP was by a 3 to 2 vote with the two elected officials representing the area of concern (Woodcreek, Woodcreek North, and Wimberley areas) voting NO. The 150 citizens who presented their thoughts at the February 21st meeting were summarily ignored by the three members (Skipton, Key, and Nesbitt) who don't seem to have any concern about conservation of groundwater.
2. The WSP permit was approved before the District has the final Managed Available Groundwater determination from the TWDB and without any reference to a "water budget" for the District.
3. The citizens and CARD recognize that the District has a responsibility to place priorities on the allocation of precious groundwater. The huge amount of groundwater allocated for a second golf course can not be justified in light of the future demands on the Trinity Aquifer for potable use.
4. While some may think that our groundwater supply is unlimited and that surface water can be brought in readily to solve any shortage, the reality is that our groundwater supply is finite and is threatened by the increasing demands of growth in the area. And the other reality is that a long-term surface water supply has not yet been identified and when it is brought into the Wimberley area, the costs will be high.
5. The County, the city of Wimberley, State and Federal Government, and many private donors have made millions of dollars available to fund the Blue Hole Regional Park and the Jacobs Well Natural Area. Groundwater pumping by WSP as authorized by Permit #168 will very likely dry up Jacob's Well except in times of prolific rainfall and cause the closure of the Blue Hole swimming area.
6. The issuance of Permit #168 granted the right to "Municipal use" to WSP. WSP holds no CCN and can not use the water for that purpose. Their only option for "Municipal Use" is to sell the permitted wells to Aqua Texas who holds the CCN. This is an obvious circumvention of the permitting processes, fostered by WSP and by Aqua Texas with the concurrence of the three members of the HTGCD who voted for the permit.
7. The citizens have responsibly petitioned for a chance to vote on this matter, as is authorized by State Law. They should be given that opportunity. The vote could be to affirm or to reverse the decision on Permit #168.
8. If the permit decision were reversed, the HTGCD would have to go back to the drawing board with WSP and would hopefully understand (with counsel from Hays County Commissioners and others) that they made a mistake granting such a permit and would listen to and respect input from affected citizens. Additionally, the lawsuit they are currently facing would be dismissed and huge amounts of legal fees would be avoided.
9. I believe a permit with a responsible allocation of groundwater for WSP would be supported by CARD and area citizens. A second golf course will not be supported when sewage disposal for the future development in Woodcreek North can be done on open space rather than a golf course. However, any allocation of groundwater for municipal use within the CCN's of this area should be sought by the licensed water companies - WWSC or Aqua Texas.
Will, I appreciate your ongoing concern for our area's development and our water resources. I especially appreciate your leadership in so many critical areas. CARD pledges to work with you, Judge Cobb, and all members of the Court to build a sustainable future for our area.
Thanks.
Jim McMeans 847-6578
---------------------------
To All Concerned,
I want to thank you for your emails and concerns. I share many of your concerns about water in our community. As most of you know my family uses the same water. We enjoy and love the same natural assets we all fight to protect. I have personally led on many issues in regard to water and conservation in our area. Just some of these include: Aqua TX (who is fixing their water lines that lose 50 percent of their water), new parks and conservation land for the Valley, the development of water and waste water plans (which a new committee is about to be formed to see how we move forward with the recommendations), funding the groundwater district, working on new legislation for the Trinity Groundwater District that makes sense for our community and actually manages ground water resources (we had legislation that was really close to a good solution but it wasn’t supported by many other elected officials in the West, so it died this session), promoting rainwater solutions (both by personal example and in policy), writing new rules for development for Hays County, and serving on state water planning boards. I know this issue very well and understand the challenges our community is facing.
What I don’t agree with or understand is CARDS proposal on how to deal with the issue. If I convinced three of my colleagues to call for an election, and if an election was called, and if this permit was voted down, then two things would happen after all this effort and expense. First Wimberley Springs would have two options. They could move forward pumping water without a permit, like Dripping Springs Water Supply and Aqua TX or they could go back to the District and just lower the permit some small amount and start this process all over again. Either way nothing is accomplished that would actually change any real conditions on the ground. I would also like to note that these are elected officials who made a decision. There are conditions on this permit for drought and seasonal use that is better than the alternative for now. In short, the law of the land at this point in time doesn’t support what you would like to see happen in our community. We need real reform, this takes time and candid conversation about this issue.
Therefore in the mean time, I have chosen to negotiate with the developer. I have made my position clear that I don’t support a new golf course. I have made it clear that we need to do something more responsible for our area. We continue to have discussions and I am hopeful a better solution will be found. I will continue to work on new legislation to reform our poorly designed ground water district. I will continue to work on parks and conservation. I will continue to work on short term, mid term, and long term solutions to our water needs. It is the most important issue we face as a county and I will continue to do what I can, within my authority as your Commissioner, in order to ensure long term sustainability for our community and our environment.
Sincerely,
Will Conley
36 comments:
McMeans says he got 657 people to sign a petition. He should of gotten 657 people to vote against Greg Nesbitt. But instead Nesbitt got 62% of the vote and now Captain McMeans is crying to big daddy Conley.
According to TCEQ regulations, only one water supplier can be issued a CCN (Certificate of Convenience and Necessity) to provide water/wastewater to a given area. The CCN for both Woodcreeks and for some nearby territory (for example, Jacob's Well Elementary School) is held by
Aqua Texas. Therefore, Wimberley Springs Partners (WSP), according to my understanding, should not have been issued a permit by HTGCD to pump water in Aqua's CCN.
WSP does not actually wish to be a water supplier, but it does want assurance of water and wastewater service to its many lots -- especially those in their planned subdivision next to J. Well Elem. So somehow or other WSP plans to give or sell its permit to Aqua, but it is a permit that was given illegally to WSP to begin with.
Secondly, WSP is not truly a water supplier. It does still own some wells (mostly unused at present) and some pipelines, but they do not distribute the water nor do they bill customers or receive payment from customers nor do they repair and renovate existing lines and wells. All those latter things are done by the real water supplier - Aqua Texas.
Haven't the other members of the commissioners court got a say in this or is it just up to The Decider? What a bunch of wusses. I want my option to vote and I don't want Conley deciding that for me.
I just want to have my property in Woodcreek North to be sellable again so I can get out from "over" Aqua Texas and all the developer/politician brown nosing that goes on between Conley, WSP, WPOA, and whoever the hell else is jockeying for all this petty subdivision bullshit.
Frankly, I'm tired of reading about it and everyone involved in this disguised pro-development nonsense.
Response to Barbara Hopson:
Barbara, one does not need a CCN to pump water. This is the "tin foil hat" logic utilized by Jim McMeans and his followers.
A CCN gives a utility the authority to preclude other retail water service providers from selling potable water in the territory of the CCN holder without the permission of the CCN holder, period. A CCN holder does not have any right to prohibit production of water. Moreover, if a producer wanted to go into retail sales of potable water it could always do so with the consent of the CCN holder.
WSP's permit from HTGCD indicates that it is using the water to build up a grass field. The grass field will be a golf course for recreational and aesthetic purposes and will also serve the utilitarian function of a septic field for disposing of gray water. None of these involves anything that would give a CCN holder any say over the activities.
The only potentially illegal conduct witnessed by HTGCD meeting attendees was David Baker's active voting on permits that he claims his employer is directly affected by. I invite you to attend meetings rather than making unfounded accusations based upon gossip and strained legal theories from the tin foil hat crowd.
The previous Anonymous really nailed it and shut Barb Hopson down. This subject is just too complicated for her mind to comprehend. I love the way she thinks she understand the issues but apparently only reads the words.
I wish WSP the best and hope to play on their course very soon. It is really amazing that so many people in this little valley still buy into Jim McMeans' lies. I may buy some Alcoa stock if the foil hat crowd continues to grow.
Skipton, Key, and Nesbitt are only puppets controlled by the Conley Corporation. Wake up people the stooges won't move unless "the boss" approves it. Get rid of Conley and the whole thing falls apart.
I sometimes picture Will Conley dressed as a gangster with a pin striped suit, mirrored shoes, and a fedora. I see him coming to court with his own theme music. "Damn it's good to be a gangster."
I picture McMeans as a 70 year old baby with a bonnet, a large diaper with a huge bobby pin, and a binki in his mouth, sort of like those old Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Hey McMeans,
The editor got it partially right. The only thing that an election can do is disprove the permit as issued. The HTGCD board can issue a different permit.
For example, so long as the conditions, term, or amount changes the election has no impact. In other words, the district could simply increase the amount.
You also got it wrong when you misrepresented the number of board members representng the Wimberley area. Three (not two) of the single member districts cover the Wimberley and Woodcreek areas.
By the way, thanks for pointing out again that David Baker - paid agent of WVWA - voted to try to deny that permit. His employer has since sued the district claiming it was directly affected by the permit decision. If his employer is to be believed, then Baker was required by law to abstain from voting. If Baker had not operated in an unlawful manner the vote ratio would have been at least 3 to 1 for the permit. Even when you cheat you can't win.
All you development goobers are no smarter than McMeans, Baker, or Hopson. You all just lie to yourselves with your twisted country resentment.
Jesus and the Republicans betrayed you, so you take it out on us readers.
Go start your own blog. Call it the "Hays County Fog".
McWimpie rebuttal:
1. Not one person requested a contested case at the Feb 21 hearing. The rules (created by prior boards) provide for the board to approve an uncontested application at the permit application hearing. The permit was uncontested and thus subsequently approved. The number of citizens is irrelevant - they are but lemmings. The applicant has rights too.
2. The MAG and imaginary "water budget" are irrelevant. The implication is that a MAG would somehow limit the permit amount. But the lack of a MAG would mean there is no evidence supporting a cap on the permit level. In addition, a MAG is not an upper limit on what the district allocates. The MAG is a minimum required allocation. The HTGCD must allocate up to the MAG limit as requested. Anything above that is discretionary.
3. Says who? "CARD" isn't anything but a facade of a few cacaphonic ne'er-do-wells trying give the appearance that they are larger than they actually are or something other than their "steering committee".
4. and this is relevant because...
5. Many taxpayers are not pleased about the amount of money dumped into these water amenities. Certainly they have no obligation to throw good money after bad. However, there is no evidence to support CARD's claim in any event.
6. Apparently you don't have the same definition for "municipal use" as the applicant. The rest of your argument is meritless.
7. The "citizens" were given the opportunity to petition as you have requested. However, robo-signing allegedly on behalf of others kinda makes the petition a worthless forgery
8. First, the district only needs to alter some aspect of the permit. For example the district can increase the permitted amount. Second, the "offer" to drop the lawsuit is worthless since no one perceives it as the threat you intended. You are correct that "huge amounts of legal fees" could be avoided if it were dropped - but you forgot to mention that the plaintiffs (like you) are the ones that will be paying those legal fees. No one is interested in "helping you" avoid those fees so long as you continue in your attacks on homeowners, residents, property owners, and businesses. Go ahead, make our day.
9. You have adopted a definition of municipal use that others are not required to adopt or recognize. Your understanding of the CCN process is flawed at best.
Jim McMeans' e-mail is littered with untruths and misleading statements, too numerous to list and address in this forum. One piece of misinformation he presented really got my attention;
"A second golf course will not be supported when sewage disposal for the future development in Woodcreek North can be done on open space rather than a golf course."
Jim, what difference does it make whether the treated effluent is "disposed of" on a Golf Course or "on open space"? Are you volunteering to have your property become the repository of the subdivision's effluent? Now, that's community spirit!
If you would study rather than listen to your tribal advisors, you would know that it is against State law to "dispose" of the effluent in the way you suggest. Using it to fertigate a Golf Course, on the other hand is considered a legal "beneficial use" by the State.
You ignore the science involved here as you usually do. The treated effluent has to be mixed with about 20% fresh water to prevent poisoning the soil with metallic salts and turning it into a barren desert. An alternative would be to pour it into the Blanco River, as it is done nearly everywhere else in the Country and State. You and your tribe would never stand for that, would you?
Jim, I wish you would research your claims before misinforming the public, or was that your intent? False claims by you and your bunch have been repeated so much, that the general public now believes them to be fact. Aren't you proud?
Is that a recent photo of Will? Is he ill? He seems to have put on a few pounds.
I'm with LK. The other Commissioners get a vote in this matter. Let the entire Commissioners Court decide.
Who elected Conley County Judge ????
To CARD Watchdog,
You state that McMeans' email "is
littered with untruths," and yet you can cite only ONE example from his lengthy letter? And that one statement is an unclear statement by McMeans.
And when are you guys going to drop the tiresome gibes about "tinfoil hats" and "tribes?"
When are Skipton and Key (and possibly Nesbitt, if he can string a few sentences together) going to
write on this blog under their own names, instead of hiding behind "Anonymous?" McMeans, Boschert, Stern, Hopson, Brannon, and others put themselves on the line as targets by signing their names to posts.
You can hear Skipton and Key in their posts.
Anonymous,Plese re-read my post,I said;
"Jim McMeans' e-mail is littered with untruths and misleading statements, too numerous to list and address in this forum."
If you would like I can quote more of his untruths when I have time but you would probably just ignore them while you drink your Kool-Aid.
WSP will not use the additional water allotted to it by HTGCD to water a second golf course (which would merely lose money as their current Quicksand golf course does). They will SELL the water to Aqua Texas (and maybe others) at a profit, and Aqua will sell it in turn to people who build homes in WSP's developments (a sweet money-making arrangement for both of them).
The second "golf course" will not be watered by the additional allotment of water from HTGCD, but by spray effluent. (WSP has an agreement with Aqua, that runs to 2037, for WSP to accept hundreds of thousands of gallons of effluent daily on the two golf courses.) WSP told HTGCD that it will use the water for the second golf course because they thought that would be "grandfathered," so to speak. That is, the second golf course is already platted, and so water should be allowed for it. If WSP had applied for water for a totally new subdivision, near the new elementary school (their true intended use of the water), HTGCD probably would have had to engage in a more lengthy permitting process.
In the letter quoted in the article, Conley says, "I have chosen to negotiate with the developer."
When did Conley ever FAIL to negotiate with the developer (WSP)? The developer is whom Conley serves. Conley just listens to his marching orders and then replies, "Yes sir, Boss!"
To Anon, July 6, 10:53 PM, who said:
"I wish WSP the best and hope to play on their course very soon."
You have strange tastes, then. That
second course (in Woodcreek North) will be accepting spray effluent, probably around the clock.
Aqua Texas' wastewater treatment plant is already at or near its capacity to process sewage, and so
Aqua will be spraying it on both of WSP's golf courses -- but mostly on the second one.
Let's say an election was held. Would the result be binding upon the ground water district? I mean, if the voters said NO to the decision, is it final or could the district revisit and again grant the permit in a different form?
To Democratizer:
If the voters said NO to the HTGCD permit, SOMEONE could reapply for something, but the applicant probably wouldn't be WSP -- who are not a water supplier -- the next time. More likely Aqua Texas -- a true water supplier who does have a CCN for the area in question-- would be the applicant.
And Aqua Texas could not claim -- as WSP deceitfully has done -- that they wanted additional water for a golf course they owned.
If an election were to be held and it resulted in overturing the permit, the HTGCD would have to approve any other permit for even more pumping if it were requested by WSP, time after time, etc. The whole time this process is going on, WSP can pump away without any permit.
That's the rules that McMeans chooses to ignore or is unable to understand.
@ The Real Use
You have let your hate for WSP and Aqua Texas blind you to the facts. The Quicksand course over in the City of Woodcreek is not loosing money. Where are your figures?
How do you know that WSP will sell the water to anybody? Why would they, they will make plenty of money from developing the subdivision and they can sell the water themselves to the homeowners or even give it to them. It's theirs they can do pretty much what the want to with it as long as they account for it and don't waste it.
The second course will be watered just like the present one with a 4:1 mix of treated effluent and groundwater. Then present one is using 200,000 gallons per day of treated effluent. The resurrected one in Wimberley Springs (formerly Woodcreek North) will use about the same amount when built out.
Any more conspiracy theories from the peanut gallery?
To Democratizer:
You are of course correct. The election that McMeanieweenie seeks (if it were to pass constitutional muster to begin with) would have one of two outcomes: 1) permit affirmed as is, or 2) decision reversed - meaning only that approval of that specific permit on those terms is rejected.
The HTGCD is free to grant the permit again as long as the terms are different. Upping the permit amount would be one good example of a fitting change.
The "election" process is not really designed for permit issues. Instead, the "election" process is better suited to address onerous property rights incursions such as those promoted by previous boards through "rule changes".
The use of governmental processes to take away privately owned property is a "taking" that will require compensation. The McMeanieweenie crowd likes to gloss over pesky constitutional concerns. Voting to take away property that belongs to someone else will necessarily require that the county compensate WSP for the taking.
I have an idea. Those that vote to take away the permit bear sole financial responsibility for compensating WSP for the loss of the permit.
To Anon, July 7,11:51 AM, who said:
"...the HTGCD would have to approve any other permit for even more pumping if it were requested by WSP, time after time...."
WHY would HTGCD have to? What's the point of having a GCD if it's just going to rubber stamp everything that's presented to it?
To: July 7, 2011 10:01 PM
I misspoke and should have said "approve or disapprove any other permit". Thanks for the correction.
The point was, that the WSP can come back as many times as they want, and request even higher pumping numbers or just dispense with the permitting process altogether and pump as much as they want without a permit. It is important to know that the WSP voluntarily came before the HTGCD over 2 years ago to request a permit when they could have just kept on pumping without one. They were trying to be good citizens and you can see how well that was received ;)
Anon, July 7,11:51 AM
Jim McMeans' e-mail said... "4. While some may think that our groundwater supply is unlimited and that surface water can be brought in readily to solve any shortage, the reality is that our groundwater supply is finite and is threatened by the increasing demands of growth in the area. And the other reality is that a long-term surface water supply has not yet been identified and when it is brought into the Wimberley area, the costs will be high."
This one paragraph summarizes the REAL REASON for CARDs existence and their continued protests. It's all about their fear of GROWTH in the Wimberley Valley! The only solution they will accept is to stop people from coming here.
McMeans and his crew have told so many lies that they are starting to believe them. While they carp about aquifer depletion and Jacob's Well or Blue Hole running dry they try to dissuade anyone form considering any viable alternative to ground water such as surface water.
They sometimes claim to support rainwater harvesting even though they know it can only be partial solution in this drought prone area. Notice how lately, they are starting to deemphasize that alternative. As more people embrace rainwater they think it will enable more newcomers and the associated rainwater business to come here.
Ask anyone on rainwater how they are doing right now. Notice how many 10,000 gallon water trucks you see running up and down RM 12 these days.
To deny surface water to our area is indicative of CARDs single issue agenda and their selfish disconnect with the people of this area. If they can convince you that the "aquifer is running dry", destroy your property values and stop the influx of newcomers they will have succeeded.
McMeans and his motley tribe simply don't want any more people to move here. It is not about water, it never has never been about water, it is about their growthophobia. They hope their ignoring common sense and lying about the science will help them to arrive at their ultimate goal of having this area all to themselves.
Conley is a crony capitalist. One of his main cronies is Winton Porterfield. Wimberley Spring can write their own rules. Get used o it.
I, and many others on this blog, are not necessarily against our area's use of surface water. Our
questions concerning the LCRA purchase are because of the SECRECY of the negotiations. We don't want to finally be told one day -- when the deal is already done -- that there are many parts of the deal that we taxpayers of the county would not have approved.
It's silly to demonize us as having
"growthophobia" simply because we
believe citizens should have input on the decisions of Boards, Commissioners Court, City Councils, etc.
Mr. Conley is afraid to support an election because he knows the voters in their common wisdom will vote down the district's WSP permit. He and his blowhard right wing partners want us all to believe in the Willy Clayton model -- just lay back and enjoy getting screwed by the overzealous development real estate chamber of commerce so-called property rights water marketing crowd. A bunch of straw men is what they are. Hooey on them.
Anyone who tells you we have plenty of groundwater to last another generation with the explosive growth we are experiencing and under a non functioning groundwater conservation district is simply lying to you.
The Trinity Aquifer in our region is as susceptible to depletion, at much faster rates during droughts and climate warming, as the once plentiful Ogallala Aquifer in North Texas and the High Plains. At best, recovery is very slow. Research it and see for yourself. It is obvious the Clayton brothers on the groundwater district are doing no research of their own.
Conley and the Clayton brothers and their handlers want you to believe there is no point in resisting.
I say to resist and fight back is the only thing that stands between 30,000 people in western hays and a dried up Trinity Aquifer.
Barbara Hopson said... "I, and many others on this blog, are not necessarily against our area's use of surface water. Our questions concerning the LCRA purchase are because of the SECRECY of the negotiations. We don't want to finally be told one day -- when the deal is already done -- that there are many parts of the deal that we taxpayers of the county would not have approved."
Barbara, I am glad to hear "you" are not against growth nor surface water, that being the case, I was not talking about "you". I do think it is somewhat presumptuous though, to speak for others on this Blog.
Your questions about the negotiations for the LCRA purchase going on in secrecy is a common mistake that citizens often make who do not understand our representative form of government as opposed to a pure democracy which has never existed in this country. We elect representatives to do these sorts of things for us because we lack the ability or the time to do it ourselves. Sometimes negotiations have to be secret so as not to unduly alarm the citizenry or divulge information to competitors before the details are agreed upon. We don't get to agree on the parts, we had our chance when we voted, that's the American way. If we did have to agree on every part it would be chaos, much like some of the meetings of the GroundWater Dist.
I too, am curious but I remember we elected our representatives to do these sorts of things for us as a vote of trust. Life is not like CNN or Fox News.
@ Barbara
You said, "It's silly to demonize us as having "growthophobia" simply because we believe citizens should have input on the decisions of Boards, Commissioners Court, City Councils, etc."
Growthophobia was not the reason, and you were not demonized, it was the reason some zealots object to surface water. You do have input to all those organizations you mention but you do not have the right to make the decisions. Run for office and you may. It's a lot like prayer, just because it appears that they are not answered does not meant that the prayer was not heard. It may mean that God just said NO. I guess if those organizations don't agree with you, they're just not listening. Talk about silly.
The problem is Will Conley is too big for Hays County. He needs to be congressman or senator Conley. The he won't have to put up with all you little people that ruin his grand plans.
Run Will Run
To The Bogus "Truth," July 8, 11:52 AM:
I would not presume to speak for others (whom I did not name) on this blog if I did not know them, and know their opinions.
Believe me, my fine tiny mind has long understood that ours is (meant to be) a representative democracy. The trouble is that the sell-outs whom we elect rarely represent our opinions -- they don't even know or care about our opinions!
You say, "Sometimes negotiations have to be secret so as not to unduly alarm the citizenry...." That is such a patronizing attitude! We're not infants, and if something IS alarming, we should know about it.
BEFORE Hays County adopted (in Feb. 2011) a Water and Wastewater Plan, public informational meetings were held in all precincts by the commissioners. And so my suggesting that they do so before signing us on to a mountain of LCRA-related debt is hardly a novel idea. I believe it is a good idea for our commissioners and other governmental representatives to allow us input on major programs and expenditures. If they are doing nothing wrong or underhanded, they shouldn't balk at letting us in on the info.
Citizens vote on whether bond issues should pass, and the planned LCRA-related purchases involve much more money than most Hays County bond issues.
I am not seeking a public meeting on something such as whether "Choose Life" license plates should be offered, for crying out loud.
Where is Cobb on this? Why doesn't he put it on the agenda and then let the court decide whether citizens should have a voice in the matter. Surely, he can't believe Conley should make this decision all by himself. Who is running that court afterall - Cobb who is elected by all of Hays County or a commissioner that is elected by 1/4th of the county? If Conley is the problem then so is Cobb if he refuses to resolve the issue by putting it on the agenda.
Post a Comment