A shooting range located over the Edwards Aquifer or its contributing zone would be asking for a legal challenge. Using Prop 2 funds would be double legal jeopardy for Hays County officials
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net, to Mr. O'Dell at codell@austin.rr.com, or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
www.tex-american.com/ gun-range-cleanup.html
Note: A ten-member advisory committee has been appointed to recommend the best site for a shooting range/complex in Hays County. So far, the most mentioned location is on the Dahlstrom Ranch near Buda, a 2,200-acre spread overlying the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer that is said to contain many significant & sensitive groundwater recharge features. At last report, the ranch was being acquired as a conservation easement for $9.9 million in a partnership between Hays County (utilizing parks bond money), the City of Austin, the Hill Country Conservancy and the National Park Service. Members of the advisory committee include Stephen Marlow, Tomas Mijares and Richard Gillespie of San Marcos; J.B. Kolodzey and John Sanford of Buda; Herman Waters, Willy T. Ribbs, Mark S. Bennett and Gary Conner of Dripping Springs; and Charles "Chuck" Catt of Wimberley. Funny thing, we don't see any names of women on the list. By Charles O'Dell, Ph.D.
RoundUp Contributor
Shooting ranges have practical and recreational value and should be funded by gun interest groups and private enterprise, not with any Hays County bond money. Despite what our Hays County Assistant District Attorney - Civil Division (previously known as Hays County Special Counsel) might advise, use of Proposition 2 funds for construction and/or operation of a public shooting range would be tested in court.
Shooting ranges preferably should be located indoors. If outdoors, then in non-water quality sensitive and non-wildlife habitat areas, and far, far away from any other human activity. Here is just one example why.
“In June of 2003, one of Potomac Riverkeeper’s members reported the problem to the Riverkeeper. Visits to the site revealed that piles of lead shot were six inches deep in some areas. On February 25, 2004, Potomac Riverkeeper filed a civil suit against DNR (Maryland Dept. Natural Resources) for violations of the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. They asked DNR to clean the lead pollution out of Great Seneca Creek. Potomac Riverkeeper and DNR agreed to select an environmental consultant to perform a risk assessment for the area.
"The results of the assessment proved that the lead pollution was damaging to Seneca Creek and the wildlife around it. Groundwater beneath the firing area had concentrations of lead that were 4,000 percent more than the ecological screening value to protect aquatic life and 667 percent more than the EPA’s action level for drinking water to protect human health.”
A shooting range located over the Edwards Aquifer or its contributing zone would be asking for a legal challenge. Using Prop 2 funds would be double legal jeopardy for Hays County officials.
Again, shooting ranges have practical and recreational value and should be funded by gun interest groups and private enterprise, not with Prop 2 money. In the citizen-driven Hays County Parks and Open Space Master Plan (updated 2006), Facility Priority Summary, financing of shooting ranges isn’t even remotely hinted. Nor was there any suggestion of any special interest projects included in the 2007 parks and open space bond:
PROPOSITION 2 “THE ISSUANCE OF $30,000,000 OF HAYS COUNTY TAX BONDS FOR PARKS, NATURAL AREAS, OPEN SPACE, AND RELATED PROJECTS, AND THE PRESERVATION OF WATER QUALITY, AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND THE LEVYING OF A TAX IN PAYMENT THEREOF.”
Clearly, the bond’s explicit language, “…the preservation of water quality, aquifer recharge areas, and wildlife habitat…,” means the weasel wording, “…and other related projects…,” together with the County’s Parks and Open Space Master Plan, wouldn’t pass the legal test for using bond funds to finance a shooting range that goes against the expressed intent of citizens and of Prop 2.
Many of the 2007 bond voters are disillusioned by how much of the parks and open space bond money was spent on special interest projects instead of public projects for which voters were led to believe the funds would be spent. Only a self-serving politically driven elected official could make the stretch that the 2007 bond language allows for a special interest shooting range, or that any public expenditure for this or any other special interest group project could be in keeping the public trust as expressed in the Parks and Open Space Master Plan.
There are also common sense and fairness lines to be drawn. If Prop 2 money were to be spent on a shooting range (notwithstanding subsequent legal expenses), then why not for paint ball and archery ranges, ATV and bike tracks, or any other special interest activity benefiting a select group of citizens? Parks are open to all citizens. Open space benefits everyone.
Better that commissioners’ court heed the advice of those they appointed to advise them on such matters and property owners who pay for the court’s spending. Or they can continue to create citizen advisory committees to provide political cover for the court, and then disregard the sound advice given to the court.
Let’s leave shooting ranges to gun groups and private enterprise. No freeloading on the public purse and the on the backs of taxpayers.
14 comments:
Charles, what about the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on bike lanes and trails or hiking trails? The Lance Armstrong wannabes are a select special interest group that I have not heard you criticize. The lead contamination issue is a red herring that has all kinds of work-arounds to mitigate contamination. I think your objection is from deep in your liberal soul. Stirring up gun enthusiasts in this way has always been loosing strategy for the left. I can’t wait for the range to open so I can take my assault rifle out for a spin.
Wow! A liberal like Charles agreeing with a conservative perspective! No freeloading on the public purse and the on the backs of taxpayers." Charles, let's make a deal - you keep that mantra up and you might yet make a good County Commissioner. Just remember though, that mantra MUST include ALL liberal programs as well!
So, what do you say Charles? Great idea, no "freeloading" on taxpayers' nickels. That includes universal healthcare, bailouts, cash-for-clunkers, and most of your cheesy federal programs that have nothing to do with the strict interpretation of the Constitution's powers enumerated to the federal government. Unless you buy into the idea of the "weasel words" of a "living document" meaning it is open to interpretation of anyone to mean anything that suits their agenda.
Hmmm...maybe that's how the Prop 2 money was spent preserving PRIVATE property - Jacobs Well - with PUBLIC money! Sounds like a freeloading deal to me. Is that area publicly accessible? Or is that something that is only open to the special interests?
Actually, there are few facts within this so called "story".
First, the Shooting Sports Center will be leasing the property from the county, and it will be a revenue positive project for the county. A baseball field, hike and bike, or any other standard type of county park, is a COST to the county. The shooting sports center will maintain its own area, thus a shooting sports park would be a revenue positive. It will also bring in a tremendous amount of money (via sales tax revenue and hotel revenu) to business within the county. Can someone tell me what is wrong with a revenue positive sports park, which actually brings money into the county coffers, and county businesses?
Oh, that's right. You can't, because there isn't anything wrong with it. The only thing wrong, is the method in which this so called "story" was written. It is simply not true, that it will "cost" the county, or that the county is buying land for the shooting sports center. It would be purchasing land which the center would build improvements on, it would include approximately vireo and warbler habitat conservation, along with a hike and bike area.
The shooting sports center, is but a small part of the park, and it by the way, would be the ONLY portion of the park which actually create revenue for area business, and for the county itself.
The bird habitat area could allow a federal "banking credit scheme in which the so called envoironmentalists could allow themselves to feel good about themselves by selling "credits" so developers can ruin other bird habit on other ranches by developing it, but that is another issue. The fact is, the shooting sports center would MAKE money for the county, while any other type of sport (football, baseball, etc.) costs money to maintain.
Just a shame this story was written, since no research at all seems to have gone into it.
I believe Charles quickly wrote this “story” when he heard it was about guns. Guns are like Kryptonite to liberals. The left is busy running around trying to prevent the creation of new shooting ranges and pushing to close existing ones. As usual, they use the environment as an excuse. They believe shooting ranges are breeding grounds for the dreaded militia movement.
Some of you raise misleading arguments to distract from what is likely an inside deal with a preselected shooting range operator, a sweetheart lease and campaign contributions already distributed. Wanna bet? Mr. O'Dell raises good questions. Good on him. I certainly never imagined a shooting range would be paid for, even if indirectly, by the park bonds that I voted for in '07. I'm not opposed to a shooting range (might use it my liberal self), but this begs the question that if one is so sorely needed in Hays County, why couldn't a private operator have purchased his own property and set up shop with his/her own capital? I'll be interested in learning if the county takes bids (and picks the bid with the highest lease income) for this future shooting range. I don't appreciate the county playing loose with my tax money, much less making inside deals with it.
Good for you Anon # 5, "but this begs the question that if one is so sorely needed in Hays County, why couldn't a private operator have purchased his own property and set up shop with his/her own capital? I'll be interested in learning if the county takes bids (and picks the bid with the highest lease income) for this future shooting range. I don't appreciate the county playing loose with my tax money, much less making inside deals with it."
Do you realize you just made the argument for WHY Government SHOULD NOT be in health care? Or banking? Or automotive business? Etc.? Because for just the very reason you state, that someone took their OWN PRIVATE capital and opened shop means that they took the risk of success, and with high risk comes high reward, with low risk comes low reward. Where does the Government get involved? Taking away from those who are willing to risk and give it to those who are too lazy to try, or take a risk. Want health care? Earn it. Where is it in the Constitution that health care is a right that the Government guarantees? Guess what? It isn't there. Private enterprise offers the best opportunity for providing the best health care the world has. Does it come at a cost? Yes, but there is no guarantee or promise to equal health care when you certainly move beyond the basics, and even the basics while not guaranteed is something that a great country like America should offer to even the least of these. But beyond the basics? If you can afford it, you can have it, but with that comes the reward of earning the privilege of having it.
Anon #6-
Private enterprise is the solution to everything! We should have privatized social security when we had the change. Oh wait, if we had invested our social security money in our wonderful private enterprise stock market we would be in even worse shape than we are now.
Yes, but if the individual had wanted to invest it in the market that would have been THEIR choice, not the nanny-state's. Then if THEY failed, they could have applied for food stamps and welfare like the others who are belly-up to the federal slop trough. But if they SUCCEEDED by smart investment, wherever they might have invested it (like in GOLD - which is well over $1100 per oz. in value now) they would have had MORE money than those who put all of their eggs in one basket.
Please don't bring your liberal patronizing comments if you can't understand basic human initiative and drive. You make it sound as if everyone is so stupid that they wouldn't know better than to invest in more than one stock, or to diversify their portfolio. And if done properly, the feds should allow for its citizens to opt in or out of Social Security. But, I guess if they do that then they lose their slush fund that they use for everything but funding retirement income for seniors. (Guess who has been doing that for the last sixty years? Yes, my friends Democrats, who controlled Congress for FORTY YEARS from the 1950's until 1995. Now the Social Security Bank is failing because their vaults are full of worthless Federal IOU's that can't be paid back because they would have to BORROW MORE MONEY! Or hope that there are more workers to help fund their shortfall.
How some of you fossil heads can go from a crucial local matter of misapplication of county parks bond funds to national health care reform and privatizing social security is beyond me. Let's not lose sight of the manipulation of the voters and our tax dollars right here under our noses in Hays County. If you can't get your own house in order, your pontificating on national politics and ideology is meaningless.
Dear Fossil Head (your favorite word apparently):
The problem with Dems is that they think that there is a disconnect between local misapplication of public funds and the federal misapplication of funds. If you can't trust someone with a little why would you trust them with a lot? (Yes, Virginia, that is biblical, so color me a Bible-thumping fundamentalist - even though I am not, but just saving you the trouble since that is what you will do anyway.)
So, if AGAIN, the misapplication of public funds locally in the purchase of Jacobs Well for a PRIVATE land owner, which makes this property not available to the public is a problem, then the similarities between the local Democratic Party and the national Democratic Party are relevant and worth expounding to keep anyone from forgetting.
If you let the locals (where the REAL power of the federal government resides) only focus on the local frauds, then how much easier is it that the feds can pull the wool over the eyes of everyone to force their takeover of the economy - health care, automotive, financial sector, etc.?
No, keeping one's eye on the whole picture - local (Hays County), regional (Texas), and national is crucial to keep the liberal wolves at bay.
That my friend is why it is important to focus and refocus and tie together not only local fraud and misapplication but also the fraud and misapplication of federal monies as well. That reminds people next year of the dire need to elect representatives locally, regionally, and nationally to represent the local interests, and to abide by the Constitution of the U.S. and Texas.
Any comers to challenge this idea of local fraud vs. national fraud idea? And, oh yes, Mr. O'Dell where is your expose on the Jacob's Well misapplication of park funds? Forgotten about that one? Public funds purchasing private land for private benefit? Sounds kind of fishy if you ask me. Can we count on your in-depth investigative reporting to expose this fraud and misapplication of public funds? Or is that being swept under the rug for the sake of exposure of liberal malfeasance for the sake of liberal agenda?
I believe the Jacobs Well grant was brokered by one of your favorite neo-fossil heads, Precinct 3 Republican County Commissioner Will Conley. I too would not mind learning more about that deal. It was worth a couple million dollars. I can see some of its value in helping preserve an historic and important geologic feature. But who knows what else was agreed to on a handshake. In the end, I believe the deal would expose the not so uncommon specie, the two-headed fossil head! I say again, unless you jump into the trenches and help clean up your own backyard of political greed, favoritism and manipulation (all party loyalties parked at the door, please), your monologues on national politics are about as relevant as a court jester's performance at the king's evening banquet.
Then let's agree (dearest fossil head) that let's begin at home to find out just what did happen with the Jacob's Well purchase, and why did public money get used to purchase private property? But, I will not relent on the need to continue beatin the drum regarding the local-national relevance. You might call it the jester's dance at the king's feast, but I call it the right of the local citizen to hold accountable those at the highest level of government (and the localest level of government) for how they spend our money.
I will defend the right to gun ownership and the skills and practice that go with it. This boils down to the right place for safety and least impact on our ecological environment. I will not defend misuse of our tax dollars and under the table, insider deals, no matter the "official" justification and the spin. Our elected people simply need to be more open and honest about their actions and expenditures. If not, they should quit their jobs or be voted out.
Can anyone here state a law that is being violated by this action? If so, get a hold of the AG and get satisfaction there. If not, call your rep. and ask for new laws or just continue to bitch about something you can do nothing about.
Post a Comment