Altogether, the plan estimates total expenditures topping $3.6 million. Where the money will come from is anybody's guess
Send your comments and questions to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Jeff Hauff at jeff.hauff@co.hays.tx.us or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the post
Hays
County Commissioners Court is expected to take up consideration of
the much anticipated Jacob's Well Natural Area Master Plan at either its Tuesday, April 24, meeting or its Tuesday, May 1, meeting, according to county grants administrator Jeff
Hauff.
 |
| Overall site plan (click to enlarge) |
"I can almost assure you it will be the May 1 meeting," Hauff told the RoundUp Monday.
Commissioners will vote to accept the master plan as proposed or postpone action for later consideration. Citizens may have their last opportunity to weigh in during the public comments portion of the meeting.
"Right now this is just kind of the first step for the concept, kind of a guideline," Hauf said. "We fully expect phasing (in) over the years to come, and fundraising."
The master plan includes cost estimates for development of a north tract and a south tract of the Jacob's Well Natural Area, comprising about 81 acres. The larger north tract is where most of the development would occur with a parking lot and driveways, structures (including interpretive center), hardscapes, a play scape, furnishing, signage, planting and irrigation, site work and utilities, mobilization, insurance, 10% contingency, etc., for an estimated cost of $3,374,250.00. Similar work is proposed on the smaller south tract at an estimated cost of $273,581.00. Altogether, the plan estimates total expenditures topping $3.6 million. Where the money will come from is anybody's guess. Sources say selling the voters another round of parks and open space bonds is not likely to happen any time soon and taking money from already tight county general revenues will be a hard sell on commissioners court.
Last August, commissioners hired RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture of Austin to lead the master plan effort. Commissioners placed a cap of $94,500 for the consultant's cost. Hauff, whose office is acting as overall planning coordinator for the county, said the total cost should come in just under the cap.
Two public input meetings were held this year in January and March. You can find the links here for a summary of the January meeting and the March 28 Jacob's Well Master Plan presentation.
Following are members of the JWNA stakeholder group:
Winton Porterfield, appointed by County Judge Bert Cobb; Naomi Narvaiz, appointed by Pct. 1 Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe; Jim Camp, appointed by Pct. 2 Commissioner Mark Jones; Sara Dishman, appointed by Pct. 3 Commissioner Will Conley; and Pamela McAfee, appointed by Pct. 4 Commissioner Ray Whisenant; David Baker and Jeff Vasgaard with the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association, Jimmy Skipton and Dr. Joan Jernigan with the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District, Andrew Sansom with Texas State University River Systems Institute, Rachael Ranft with The Nature Conservancy, Wimberley Mayor Bob Flocke, Eric Eskelund with the City of Woodcreek, Commissioner Will Conley (Woodcreek North), and Gary Amaon with the Hays County Parks and Open Space Advisory Board.
Bob Ochoa
45 comments:
Ochoa is again stirring up trouble, disguising his new antagonism as reporting local news.
He has become desperate to gain back some influence by continually pushing the anger at WVWA.
It's time to stop reading this on line piece of angry junk.
Will Conley recently abstained from voting on a Precinct 2 building because it was two subdivisions ,a strip shop, an animal hospital and a storage unit business away from his car wash.
Since he is on this stakeholder group, should I assume he should also abstain from voting on this item?
What the hell is Winton Porterfield doing on the stakeholder group?
Like a fox in the henhouse.
Contrary to the claims of Anon #1, this piece seems quite timely. Conley is up for election and his conduct in office is fair game.
Why does Conley continue to push for spending millions and millions of dollars for the benefit of WVWA and Baker, et al? Why did WVWA get to keep property that the taxpayers paid for? Seems like WVWA will have some prime real estate now that the county is building a multi-million dollar facility at JW. Oh let's not forget the easement to the well over county property that was given to WVWA from the property titled to the WVWA but paid for by county taxpayers.
Look at this stakeholder group. Who is representing the county taxpayers? With very few exceptions, this "stakeholder group" was heavily loaded with a pro-facilities group. Not surprising that the outcome would be the suggestion of spending several more millions of dollars on facilities.
Conley appointed people to this group, "serves" on this group, and has a history of funneling taxpayer dollars to JW and WVWA. Would taxpayers have approved spending $8 million on this in 2007?
What creative financing do you think Will Conley will use this time to avoid taxpayer approval of another $3.6 million? Look for Conley to promote borrowing money from The Nature Conservancy at twice the going interest rate (again). Hey it's not like he's spending his money. He's spending YOUR money. Can't you already feel all the "benefits" you are going to get from this?
By the way, what will be the ongoing maintenance costs out there?
Commissioners Court approved the Master Plan for all county parks and open spaces. You can see it at www.co.hays.tx.us.
Approval of the overall plan was logical before the particular Master Plan for JWNA is approved either on April 24 or May 1. You can view the final draft for JWNA at the same website.
Throw in the $94,000 for the consultant fee and you have close to four million that could have been spent on a public water park along the Blanco River somewhere in the Wimberley environs. A much more useful and fun thing to do rather than over build Jacob's Well. How did JW become a runaway train with the taxpayers money?? Please explain how spending so much on one project is a fair use for all the people of the Wimberley valley. HOw will this "preserve" water? Will visitors be allowed to jump into the spring creek or whatever and have fun in the water at least??? Will people be charged at the gate or what?
So I hear the county is hiring 2 more park department employees to work at Jacob's Well. Any truth to that?
1st anonymous: People who want to wipe away critical views are themselves the biggest threat to free speech. I say defend yourselves. If you can not successfully defend your position and project before the court of public opinion then you have no right to the public's money. Nuff said.
Yes, everything is "Free speech" when you want to continually attack and spew hate. It is a bogus rationale.
Just like the gun nuts who kill under the guise of outdated amendments.
In the list of stakeholders at the end of the article, Will Conley is listed as representing Woodcreek North. Why? No other commissioner nor the judge is in the bunch. Conley shouldn't be either.
Liz Sumter should have been the rep from Woodcreek North. She is the president of WPOA. Conley is not even on the Board there.
That "stakeholder" group, not unlike the "citizens advisory group" for the new transportation plan is full of people who will spend too much money and do not "represent" anyone but themselves.
This is ridiculous.
Will Conley should not be allowed any enhanced ability to control this spending situation and why in the world would Winton Porterfield be an asset to anything having to do with an environmental issue?
@ What now?
" Liz Sumter should have been the rep from Woodcreek North. She is the president of WPOA. Conley is not even on the Board there."
CORRECTION, Liz Sumter is not the President of the WPOA, she is the Vice President over there. The actual President wouldn't be a good choice to attend any meeting of that caliber. She has a hard enough time just presiding over the WPOA Board meetings.
I agree that Liz would be a much better choice for the Stakeholders Group and the WPOA President as well.
Draft Sumter.
They need adult supervision.
Get Conley OUT of the Jacob's Well funding and planning process.
He is pushing projects that are not in keeping with the scale of Wimberley/Woodcreek or the County budget.
Leave the natural beauty of Wimberley and Woodcreek alone!
@ anonymous 6:07pm
What is your problem? While I agree that Liz Sumter would make a great addition to the stakeholder group the current WPOA President is not the subject of this blog. I think you used poor taste in putting her down.
Stick to the subject Sir!
Hmm. The WPOA and its president's involvement seem like fair game to me. Hasn't she also been involved in gifting (or forcing property owners to gift) property belonging to property owners over to the WVWA? Weren't property owners threatened with or subjected to foreclosure in order to get those properties into the hands of the WVWA? Didn't the WPOA board sign a resolution excusing Baker, et al. from paying assessments on those properties? Isn't the lack of payment of assessments the very reason WPOA threatened or actually foreclosed on property owners?
You know this new lawsuit WPOA filed against WSP seems like a collateral attack on WSP so that the president of the WPOA can help out her good buddy, David Baker and his WVWA. The WVWA as everyone should know, filed suit against the HTGCD in an effort to thwart WSP's groundwater permit.
Interesting that the WPOA finds it appropriate to excuse Baker/WVWA from paying assessments but files suit threatening foreclosure against WSP for failure to pay assessments. Even more amazing that WSP previously paid WPOA hundreds of thousands of dollars as part of a prior settlement which both gave the WPOA something it wasn't really entitled to AND precluded the WPOA from taking the action is has now taken.
The contrast in treatment WSP received from the WPOA vs that received by WVWA mirrors the the contrast in treatment that Conley has given the taxpayers vs WVWA. WSP is going to get to claim "arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory", demand return of the hundreds of thousands of dollars, AND demand that the WPOA give WSP the same treatment it is giving members such as Baker's WVWA - i.e., excusing WSP from paying assessments on all but one lot.
That should pretty much be the end of the WPOA.
As for Conley, the taxpayers can't sue him but they can vote him out of office. The taxpayers are a little disadvantaged in that Conley has been gifting so much of their money to entities that get excused/exempted with respect to the taxes paid. The beneficiaries of his largesse at taxpayer expense aren't likely to vote against him. You can assume that when Conley robs Peter to pay Paul, then Conley can count on the vote of Paul. Fortunately, the WVWA corporation can't vote.
Predictions:
a) the WVWA will lose its suit against the HTGCD (and WSP) and all the plaintiffs will be forced to pay the HTGCD's legal fees in accordance with statute;
b) the WPOA will lose its suit against WSP, be forced to pay WSP's legal expenses due to breach of contract, potentially be forced to disgorge several hundred thousand dollars of previously paid assessment monies, and possibly forever lose any ability to demand assessments on all but one WSP lot;
c) if Conley stays in office he will be even more emboldened to further indebt taxpayers and to gift taxpayer money to WVWA's and Friends of Blue Hole's benefit all the while he is lobbying to deny taxpayers out here access to their own groundwater.
@Anonmyous 1:59pm
Wow that is one busy lady! How does she ever find the time to do all that and still accompany Snidely Whiplash to foreclose on the widow's and orphan's homes! ROFL
Who is Sara Dishman?
Will Conley appointed her to the
JWNA Stakeholders Group. What are
her qualifications?
Sara Dishman? Could one guess at her
qualifications given who appointed her to the position???
Why is Winton Porterfield on the stakeholders group? He does not live here. He is just a shill for the Black's and they have publicly stated that they want to destroy the WPOA and Wimberley. They then plan to sell the property to a dense housing developer, like KB Homes, and make a bundle. This has been their pattern in other places. Wimberley does not need a developer outsider on the stakeholder group.
We need local people who live here and have a vested interest in sustaining our way of life for now and for future generations. Not someone with a hidden agenda.
I don't know David Baker and he has done somethings I don't agree with but I admire his standing up and doing what he feels is right for our community. At least he is trying to be constructive for the community. Not like some people.
I agree with Anon Apr 17, 9:11 AM (4th post). The JNWA stakeholder bunch is top-heavy with people who will over-develop JNWA: Porterfield, Conley, Dishman, Baker, Hollon, Vasgaard, and probably mayors Flocke and Eskelund.
WVWA members in the group (Baker, Hollon, Vasgaard) may not favor development in their hearts, but they will go along with adding "attractions" to JNWA to gain favor with Conley, their sugar daddy.
Why are Conley and Baker in the stakeholder group at all? No other person on Commissioners Court is on the panel. Plus Dishman will vote exactly as Conley tells her to, and so Conley actually has 2 votes. As for Baker, he has a conflict of interest; "attractions" will bring more visitors to his Dancing Waters Inn.
Conley + Jacob's Well + $8 million = Vote Buying (with YOUR money).
Dishman+Conley+Porterfield
Quite the cozy menage a trois.
Some of these comments are hilarous! Thanks for the laughs.
The 37-page Hays County Park, Open Space & Natural Areas Master Plan was finalized this month. Each of six areas of the county has a prioritized listing of the types of park facilities it wants; one area may give a high priority to "Camping," for example, while another area may not.
Since the Jacob's Well Natural Area (JWNA) Master Plan will be finalized soon, it seems logical to view in the overall County plan the Wimberley area's priorities for parks, open space, and natural areas. On p.29 there is this summary of Wimberley desires:
"Wimberley Planning Area
The Wimberley area preferences indicate mostly passive recreation and outdoor activities. There was a strong emphasis in the Wimberley area on general nature enjoyment and education. There was also overall DISSATISFACTION AND LACK OF DESIRE FOR ACTIVE RECREATION IN THE AREA. As in all planning areas, trail and river and creek access were high priorities/preferences. The location of the Wimberley area in the Hill Country provides opportunities for open space and passive activities that can also provide conservation benefits. Due to these factors, the following are priorities/preferences for the Wimberley Planning Area:
1. River and Creek Access
2. Multi-Use Trails
3. General Nature Enjoyment Lands
4. Nature Center
5. Camping."
As you see, most people in/around Wimberley want trails and general nature enjoyoment -- not "active recreation." We want, for example, a JWNA that is left almost completely natural, with perhaps (#4) a Nature Center for education.
Playgrounds and sports fields can already be found at the public schools. Swimming is provided for at Blue Hole. Let JWNA be a place where children (and their parents) can learn to be contemplative and enjoy nature.
I agree Barbara that is just what the majority of Wimberley residents want. As a long time property owner in the Wookcreek area I have witnessed the large amount of growth that has occurred over the past 30 years. We need to protect our natural resources they are going away to fast. My children swam in a strong flowing Jacobs Well and I want my grandchildren to have that same joy. The Passive activities put forward by the master plan suites the slow moving pace of life we all have come to love here. There are wonderful state parks close at hand for the more structured recreational activities.
Jacob's Well NATURAL Area.
Natural, natural, natural.
Rinse and repeat.
Turning Blue Hole into a regional park was a nod toward homespun grandiosity and the same mistake should NOT be made with Jacob's Well.
Any money should be spent buying up land around The Well in order to reduce runoff and other impacts from development, but little else.
Restore the surrounding land, protect the creekbanks, educate the populace about how to conserve and protect the aquifer and the streams, but do not turn this fragile treasure into another Blue Hole overreach.
There is no need to put sports fields or tennis courts in or near a watering hole. In fact, nothing could be worse. Oh, maybe houses or strip malls, but one does tend to breed the other.
Stop buying into overdeveloped parks in Wimberley. Go someplace else to play tennis or soccer or have a 500-person gathering (there is a perfectly wonderful event location behind the Cypress Creek Cafe, you know?).
Not Jacob's Well.
Not Blue Hole.
Not Cypress Creek.
One of the aspects of the drive to develop big parks is the companies that do this full-time.
Along with looking into Conley's connections with Winton Porterfield and other housing developers, somebody should be looking into the relationships he and the County have with the landscape architecture firms that have been awarded these contracts.
One only has to look at the website for Design Workshop, the firm that developed Blue Hole to see why the final product is out of scale with Wimberley. These people develop big resorts/hotels all over the world and they brought that kind of thinking to the table in Wimberley, much to the chagrin of many who loved Blue Hole the way it was.
DesignWorkshop.com
The same thing is on tap to happen over at Jacob's Well, if someone doesn't put the brakes to that.
I believe someone asked earlier, how are these grandiose plans and lavish spending supposed to save Jacobs Well from becoming a dry hole in the ground. All it would take is for WSP to start building out and one more mother drought. I have yet to see a response from a single WVWA wise person or from the county. As a county taxpayer, I demand an answer directly from Mr. Conley, or Mr. Baker or Mr. Hollon. Please come out of your private meeting rooms where you seem most comfortable working your deals and ANSWER THE QUESTION! Thank you
http://ridge-runner.org/
Take a look at what Wimberley Springs Partners thinks about our environment.
Conley doesn't give a flip about protecting anything but his own back pocket. Why else would he appoint Winton Porterfield to the JWNA Stakeholders Group?
Conley has managed to play so many sides of the issues in Precinct 3, he must be dizzy.
It is time to send him home to his wife and children.
And that car wash business.
Get him out of my pocket!
@Barbara Hopson 04/21/2012 7:51 PM
You claimed
"The Wimberley area preferences indicate mostly passive recreation and outdoor activities. There was a strong emphasis in the Wimberley area on general nature enjoyment and education. There was also overall DISSATISFACTION AND LACK OF DESIRE FOR ACTIVE RECREATION IN THE AREA.
.....
As you see, most people in/around Wimberley want trails and general nature enjoyoment -- not "active recreation." We want, for example, a JWNA that is left almost completely natural, with perhaps (#4) a Nature Center for education."
What a crock. The people that show up to these "stakeholder meetings" do not represent a "majority" of Wimberley citizens. The "stakeholders" are usually heavily skewed towards a pre-determined outcome. For the most part it is the WVWA crowd trying to skew results towards their agenda. The WVWA crowd represents a small minority of citizens in Wimberley or Hays County.
Younger families are not represented at these meetings which are dominated by the older, retired crowd whose kids (if any) are long out of the house.
What you are really trying to say is one of the things that the people that have time to show up to the meetings don't want is trappings of youth. These folks aren't young any more and haven't been in a long time. They don't want things that remind them of youth or associated with youth or growth.
The young active families don't have time to attend these "stakeholder" meetings. They have kids in school and activities after school. Instead of relying upon the WVWA biased publications or the "independent living" crowd, how about putting the matter to an actual vote?
In fact why is it that the matter isn't being put to a vote in the first place? You make these broad claims of what people in Wimberley want but for the most part they've had little or no say in the matter.
The purpose of the stakeholder process is to disenfranchise the affected groups for the benefit of a few special interest groups. Instead of ignoring the vast majority of the local population or using a "stakeholder process" this matter should be put to an actual vote. Those families will be paying the taxes to support this place - shouldn't this park reflect their desires as well?
In fact since the money is county money, and the park a "county treasure" (Conley's words) shouldn't the vote be a county-wide vote? Otherwise you can get your money from someone other than the county taxpayers.
Did Conley EVEN think about reviewing Dishman's arrest record, my gosh she has a lengthly history, seems to be pretty active all here in Hays County
To Anon April 25, 7:12 AM:
You say,"You make these broad claims of what people in Wimberley want but for the most part they've had little or no say in the matter."
They've been given the same chance as anyone else if they will but bestir themselves to do so. The County Parks Dept. holds separate meetings all over the county to get citizen input (after work hours). Few people show up. Same is true for commissioners' meetings about water issues. You pay attention to things that matter to you.
You say, "For the most part it is the WVWA crowd trying to skew results towards their agenda."
The JWNA Stakeholder Group is composed of 17 people. Only 3 of them (Baker, Hollon,& Vasgaard) are associated with WVWA. They hardly constitute a voting majority.
You: "Those families will be the ones paying the taxes to support this place [JWNA] - shouldn't this park reflect their desires as well?"
Wimberley youth have plenty of other places in which to be rowdy -- on astroturf football fields, tennis courts, school playgrounds, Blue Hole, etc. And seniors are not the only Wimberley residents who would like a Natural area. Younger people like to walk or hike in natural settings, too -- as witness the throngs of young hikers in national parks. San Marcos has 5 natural areas (with no development in them). Can't Wimberley have even one?
You: "...this matter should be put to an actual vote."
Okay, let's do have a vote. In fact, let's have two. We can vote on your idea to have development in JWNA. Then we can vote on whether seniors should pay school taxes unless they have children in school. I've paid school taxes for my child, for you, and for your children. There is plenty of money flowing from seniors for the benefit of youngsters.
Remember: you'll be old one day, and then you just might cherish a peaceful walk in JWNA -- which the current seniors whom you vilify will have preserved for you.
@ Barbara Hopson said...
In response to"You make these broad claims of what people in Wimberley want but for the most part they've had little or no say in the matter."
You said: They've been given the same chance as anyone else if they will but bestir themselves to do so. The County Parks Dept. holds separate meetings all over the county to get citizen input (after work hours). Few people show up. Same is true for commissioners' meetings about water issues. You pay attention to things that matter to you.
Complete BS. The "meetings" are part of a process known as the Delphi technique. The meetings are designed to give the APPEARANCE of citizen participation but the objective is to ensure that the "conclusions" reached are in accordance with the plan chosen by those who called the meeting. For starters note that "none of the above" is not an option for the park choices presented by the facilitators. The little games, clickers, and solicitations are part of the show. .
Learn more about the Delphi Technique
In response to "For the most part it is the WVWA crowd trying to skew results towards their agenda."
You said: The JWNA Stakeholder Group is composed of 17 people. Only 3 of them (Baker, Hollon,& Vasgaard) are associated with WVWA. They hardly constitute a voting majority.
The meetings are held across the county ostensibly to give a "cross section" input. You'll find that WVWA was at each of the meetings to skew "results" regardless of where held. The JWNA stakeholder group is not representative of the citizens of the county at all.
In response to: "Those families will be the ones paying the taxes to support this place [JWNA] - shouldn't this park reflect their desires as well?"
You said: Wimberley youth have plenty of other places in which to be rowdy -- on astroturf football fields, tennis courts, school playgrounds, Blue Hole, etc. And seniors are not the only Wimberley residents who would like a Natural area. Younger people like to walk or hike in natural settings, too -- as witness the throngs of young hikers in national parks. San Marcos has 5 natural areas (with no development in them). Can't Wimberley have even one?
Then you shouldn't be worried about a vote - especially since those Wimberley youth aren't old enough to vote. Perhaps you are more concerned that their parents might not agree with you?
You say: Okay, let's do have a vote. In fact, let's have two. We can vote on your idea to have development in JWNA. Then we can vote on whether seniors should pay school taxes unless they have children in school. I've paid school taxes for my child, for you, and for your children. There is plenty of money flowing from seniors for the benefit of youngsters.
Lady most of us pay the school tax and I don't share your view about who those taxes benefit. I pay for my kids to go to private school. You haven't contributed a dime to my kids' education nor mine. On the other hand I pay for both their private school AND public school for everyone else. To add insult to injury I don't get exemptions or reductions for being over 65 or proclaiming myself to be a "non-profit".
If you want to have the "second" vote you're talking about then let's also vote to prohibit you from expecting my kids to pay for your social security - a pyramid scheme if there ever was one.
I'm not "promoting development" but rather rebutting the nonsensical claims you've made that this JWNA plan was somehow overwhelmingly approved by residents through this bogus stakeholder process. When your plans involve taxpayer dollars of this magnitude for such a local amenity the taxpayers should get a vote.
Barbara,
Brava!
If you are so afraid of The Delphi Technique, then don't go along with the suggestions made at these meetings.
You can only be hoodwinked by these collaboration techniques if you stay silent and refuse to speak up.
There is nothing magical about The Delphi Technique. It is just a way to get your way in a meeting.
Just say no, but in order to do that, first you have to show up.
To Anon April 26, 9:51 AM:
No, I'm not afraid of a vote. Bring it on. Plenty of non-seniors in the Wimberley area want to keep JWNA natural, as I do.
You've chosen to educate your children in private school. Don't complain about that extra cost. And, no, I did not pay for your education specifically, but I've paid school taxes wherever I've lived, for many years, benefitting many children.
And you're right, Social Security could rightly be called a pyramid scheme, but it's one our society has agreed on. Young workers pay into Social Security to help fund currently retired people, and even younger workers will be paying to help fund the next wave of retirees. It's not perfect, but it's what we as a society have agreed on so far. If that vexes you, try to get an election on that. I strongly doubt that you will turn down a Social Security check when you are eligible for it.
Jacob's Well will flow only intermittently from now on. We can't "save" the Well. Even though Jacob's Well may not be as much of a wonder in the future, there is no reason not to have a Jacob's Well Natural Area. Most of us are renewed when we've spent time in nature without music plugged into our ears or texting going on in our hands.
That's why we must keep JWNA natural. It's not the purpose of JWNA to furnish jobs to anyone or become a minor Disneyland.
from Glossary, Wimberley Parks and Recreation Board:
"Natural Area: An area of land or water with predominantly native vegetation or natural geologic features that is allowed to respond to the forces of nature with minimal human influence."
Actually, it looks as if there are only 15 members (not 17) in the JWNA Stakeholders Group. I can't find an official list anywhere.
WVWA has 2 (not 3) members in the group (David Baker & Jeff Vasgaard), and The Nature Conservancy has 2 members (Rachael Ranft & Gary Amaon).
Regarding the "stakeholders" - who represents the taxpayers? All I see are the beneficiaries of the current scheme, not the people that get the bill.
Let's see, TNC received virtually 100% of the development rights to the property PLUS ended up with a Note from the county paying about twice market rate. No one appointed TNC to the committee.
Baker and WVWA wound up retaining title to quite a chunk of property paid for by the taxpayers. In addition they've received a monopoly on "tours" plus a hefty multi-year "maintenance contract". No one appointed WVWA to the committee.
Conley has facilitated moving money from the taxpayers to the benefit of these two groups. Conley was not appointed to the committee by any commissioners and he already appointed someone else to the committee.
Flocke and Eskelund are little more than proxies for WVWA. WVWA relies upon them for testimony wherever possible. JWNA is not within the limits of either city/village. Neither was appointed by any county commissioner.
Andy Sansom has often acted as a proxy for WVWA. Why is he a "stakeholder" in this matter?
Other than the HTGCD directors and perhaps some persons appointed directly by the commissioners, the rest of this group is just a WVWA lovefest. This is designed to give the appearance of a cross-section of various interested parties yet the taxpayers are left out of the loop.
The only way to preserve the water levels in the aquifer that will save Cypress Creek is to stop pumping so much water out of the ground.
We need to stop encouraging people to move to this area, we need to encourage more people to collect their rainwater and we need to take seriously the task of living lightly on this beautiful land.
I have not seen a citizens group convened in this County that was not composed of insiders and sycophants.
Participation in these advisory groups is not done fairly, never has been.
If you have voiced opposition to transportation, parks or whatever the cause du jour might be, you will not be asked to be on a group having to do with these issues.
They don't cotton to opposition and effectively bar what they consider troublemakers from these groups.
Post a Comment