Saturday, November 27, 2010
There's more than meets the eye in the county's latest contribution to Jacob's Well
The county will not qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value - but the county is about to put $1.7 million into this deal without having significant title issues resolved
Update, Nov. 29: We had a little confusion about the e-mail obtained by Mr. Davis in his Open Records request. The last three paragraphs have been revised to clarify the information.
Note: We have this insightful update sent from Driftwood area resident and attorney Bill Davis (La Ventana) with information compiled from his own research and observations of the county's funding of the Jacob's Well project. Commissioners, after a very long discussion at their Tuesday Nov. 23 meeting, finally approved additional money for the Jacob's Well Natural Area to acquire an adjacent parcel of land. Davis attended the meeting in which he said commissioners questioned his late-to-the-table interest in the project. Here he adds more background to the all the fun funding and legal hoops the project has had to jump through, and still is apparently.
Please send your comments and questions to Commissioner Conley at will.conley@co.hays.tx.us, to Commissioner Ford at karen.ford@co.hays.tx.us, and to Mr. Davis at bdavis@capital-ip.com. Otherwise send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
By Bill Davis
Guest Commentary
Both (Commissioner Will) Conley and (Commissioner Karen) Ford chose to try to engage in personal attacks rather than addressing the fundamental issues.
First of all, Conley cast this as just "purchasing 51 acres to save Jacobs Well." However, the county was free to do that at any time it wished. Instead, WVWA expected the county to pay a premium price for the 51 acres, give the WVWA 15 of the original 46 acres that the county previously paid for, give WVWA a management contract worth approximately $1 million, convey all the development rights in the land to "The Nature Conservancy" which really offered nothing of value, and pay The Nature Conservancy twice the going interest rate for a "loan." The county could have acquired the 51 acres and kept all those rights for the same prices. This was a gimme yet again to the WVWA and its affiliates.
One not-so-small problem with all of this is that the previous 46 acre purchase (that the county gave WVWA $3 million for but let WVWA retain title) was subject to a 'conservation easement'. The conservation easement absolutely prohibited subdivision of the 46 acres and required that the 46 acre parcel be conveyed in the entirety. SOS has an ownership interest in the conservation easement. In order to "make the deal work," insiders at WVWA and at SOS filed an "amendment" to the conservation easement purporting to allow the 46 acre parcel to be subdivided.
A major problem with this scheme, however, is that SOS is in bankruptcy and the conservation easement is part of the bankruptcy estate. When a debtor conveys an interest in property for less than its value during bankruptcy, such a transaction is known as a "fraudulent conveyance." Bona fide purchasers for value have some protection against a "clawback" due to a fraudulent conveyance. Although the taxpayers of the county did not know, the county, WVWA, The Nature Conservancy, and SOS were all very much aware.
The bottom line is that the county knows that SOS' ability to amend the conservation easement during bankruptcy is in question. FYI, SOS' bankruptcy claim was kicked out of the trial court and is presently on appeal to the 5th Circuit. The oral arguments for that case are going to be heard on December 7, 2010. If SOS wins, then it stays in bankruptcy and the conservation easement is part of the bankruptcy estate. Accordingly, approval from the court is required for this transaction. If SOS loses, then it is out of bankruptcy and the conservation easement is just one of a number of assets that SOS' judgment creditors have a claim superior to that of the county for. In either event, the county's "right" to the 31 acres is in doubt - yet the county commissioners insisted that this deal had to be done "now," etc.
An Open Records request resulted in the production of documents illustrating that county personnel and at least one commissioner had personal knowledge of the bankruptcy of SOS that was not addressed at any public hearings. One such document is an email from David Baker (WVWA) to Will Conley (Commissioner, Pct #3) dated July 2, 2010. This email was forwarding an email communication SOS had sent to Hays County attorney Mark Kennedy, representatives of WVWA, and others. Certainly Conley had knowledge as early as July 2, 2010 and the other commissioners were put on notice no later than November 23, 2010 that there might be problems involving the conservation easement.
Keep in mind that at present SOS' Chapter 11 petition has been thrown out by the bankruptcy court and thus the property is subject to prior claims by the existing judgment creditors. Even if SOS wins on appeal to the 5th Circuit, the bankruptcy court will have the authority to void this transaction. Any entity that does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value will have its contribution at risk of loss.
The SOS communication from SOS' president stated "Our view is that Judge Gargotta will do nothing there, pending a ruling by the Fifth Circuit on the bankruptcy appeal. It is not in the Alliance's best strategic interest and we do not believe it would be consistent with our understanding of the law to enter as though no approval were required, into any agreement that would normally require the approval of the bankruptcy court."
Nonetheless, on July 30, 2010 insiders from WVWA and SOS executed an "amendment" to the conservation easement. There was no bankruptcy court approval and no notice to creditors. If this amendment is void ab initio, then the transaction contemplated by the county runs a risk of being unraveled with no clear right to receive the money back. The county is about to put $1.7 million into this deal despite significant title issues. At the very least, surely the county could wait until after the 5th Circuit rules.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
Why is it that David Baker's name is left out of this otherwise excellent story? Isn't it about time that the environmentalist kooks in this County identify one of their own as nothing more than the very embodiment of the developer "scum" that they purport to despise? Notice that Mr. Baker is also on the despised Hays Trinity Groundwater District Board, voting all the while on business that will benefit his personal financial well-being (namely, WVWA, et al).
No, to admit one of their own is also a known and admitted eco-entrepreneur at the expense of his neighbors and the taxpayers of Hays County (and the public purse going to benefit the few...ala, the Yoga Love-In that was held at this otherwise "public" park for the everyday low price of $150 back in October) would be antithetical to their cause and thus violate their ethics.
A fraudulent conveyance, by definition, requires the conveyance be made with the intent to defraud creditors. I'm not seeing that here. That being the case, the concern would appear to be meaningless.
The commissioners rebuked anyone who dared question this "deal".
I’m no attorney, but doesn’t knowingly transferring land or anything of value that is encumbered by a bankruptcy court, amount to a Fraudulent Conveyance? It was, when I was in a similar situation, many years ago. No body went to jail but several people were financially ruined.
None of this was done in the light of day and only now is the information leaking out. You can bet there is more to come. Am I the only one that noticed David Baker’s name keeps coming up in recent investigative reports?
Thank you Bill Davis, for exposing the County and these eco-developers and their dirty little secrets. They sure tried to shut you up in court last Tuesday. I think many of us suspected that there was some hanky-panky going on in the background with these so-called “Park Funds”. I hope the taxpayers are paying attention to this as it unfolds and exposes more questionable transactions and misuse of our tax money. Too bad that there is not an effective independent print media outlet here to report on this, but thanks to your efforts and the “Hays County Roundup”, the word is finally getting out.
The definition of a “Park” has been corrupted by the actions of the Court due to the environmentalist’s special interests and their insatiable desire for our money. Who ever heard of a ‘park’ that was isolated from the public that paid for it? This is a government sponsored taking of our lands and treasure! If someone wants to donate land or the money to purchase land for a park, then okay but no more County purchases of land for that purpose.
NO MORE PARK BONDS!
re: "A fraudulent conveyance, by definition, requires the conveyance be made with the intent to defraud creditors. I'm not seeing that here. That being the case, the concern would appear to be meaningless."
First, your definition is incomplete. Fraudulent conveyance encompasses both actual fraud and constructive fraud. Intent is an element of actual fraud. Intent is not an element of constructive fraud. The courts can and will probably be called on to determine whether SOS, WVWA, Hays County, and The Nature Conservancy conspired to engage in actual fraud on the creditors.
Constructive fraud only requires that the debtor receive less than reasonably equivalent value and that the debtor was unable to pay debts either at the time of the transfer or as a result of the transfer. SOS was unable to pay debts at the time of the transfer. When there is nothing of value exchanged for the transfer of the property, the answer as to whether a constructive fraud took place is easy.
Given the million-dollar "maintenance" contract that WVWA (Baker) gets, the double market-rate interest that The Nature Conservancy gets, the release from two lawsuits that Woodcreek and WVWA get, the $1 million of property WVWA walks with, the hotel monopoly with an easement over county property that WVWA gets, etc. the modification was certainly worth more than $0.
Instead of debating the issue in Round Up, however,
Baker's name was mentioned in the article.
People should note that the very thing Baker complained of ("developers setting up a hotel operation with access to Jacobs Well") is what Baker (WVWA) expects to achieve himself. At least the other developers did not demand a monopoly.
WVWA will have the only lodging operation near Jacobs Well. The "deal" also requires that the county grant WVWA an easement across what will be county property to Jacobs Well for WVWA's hotel operation.
The county does not even appear to have reciprocal rights to enforce the conservation easement against WVWA. The county's side of the deal was so poor, at one point a speaker asked Hays County attorney Mark Kennedy "who do you work for"?
The rush to spend $1.7 million when there are numerous questions left unanswered tells me that (1) Conley is in a hurry to get his pay-off, (2) Baker is anxious to get his lucrative management agreement and (3) the county attorney is incompetent.
The county attorney, Kennedy, makes Gomer Pile look like an intellectual. Every citizen should go to court just to see his lack of ability.
I don't know who he works for, but it is not us.
If these figures are correct, that would be just about $5 million from the taxpayers to either a. Save Jacob's from going dry, b. help keep a dream alive, or c. help save a long term job and keep a B&B business open for Mr. Baker and Co. Which is it?
"This case is a message from the citizens of the state of Texas that the public officials they elect who represent them must do so honestly," said Rosemary Lehmberg, Travis County district attorney. "If not, they will be held accountable."
We NEED Ms. Lehmberg to send her Public Integrity team into Hays County. Officials & staff wouldn't be so blatant if they knew someone would hold them accountable for their actions.
I think it is despicable that David Baker, Will Conley and Mark Kennedy actually knew there was no clear title to the land and still went ahead with their request before the County Commissioner’s Court. SOSA had warned Baker about the easement problem as early as July 2, 2010 and they held off until November, when they decided to rush the purchase, regardless of the problematic title. It just had to be done now?
In my opinion, the only reason that that they decided to rush in and take the risk now is that they fear that their chances will diminish when the new court sits. The incoming Judge and Commissioners will be more careful since they will have not (yet) acquired the bad habits of the present group, e.g. rubber stamping these land deals and tax dodges disguised as conservation parks. The whole thing is now up to the 5th Circuit’s decision on the appeal in New Orleans on December 7, 2010.
Mr. Davis, SOS is in Chapter 11, commonly known as Debtor in Possession. As such, a conveyance in the normal course of business is allowed. If not in the normal course of business, it may be done with a court order. There is no big mystery or conspiracy here.
Davis says,
To the last Anonymous regarding Chapter 11 comments...
What SOS did is not in their "normal course of business" and was in express contravention of one of the emphasized provisions of the original conservation easement. Knowing that, do you see any court order? Do you see approval from the bankruptcy court? Of course not.
At the very least wouldn't you think that it would be prudent for the county to request a copy of a bankruptcy court order approving of the actions of SOS before jeopardizing another $1.7 million of taxpayer dollars?
SOS is appealing a decision that denied it the further protection of bankruptcy court. Whether SOS loses at the 5th Circuit or not, there are creditors that have superior rights to the conservation easement and to the value that its modification conveyed upon WVWA, The Nature Conservancy, and others.
If SOS loses on Dec 7th, then the developers can proceed in Hays County District Court. If SOS "prevails" on Dec 7th, then they will have to face the wrath of Judge Gargotta in bankruptcy court for what they did. Judge Gargotta will absolutely have the power to unwind this transaction.
If nothing else, wouldn't it be prudent to wait until the 5th Circuit rules before trying to rush through this "deal"?
Protecting Jacob's Well, Cypress Creek and Blue Hole are important and absolutely necessary goals, no one is disputing that, but when Will Conley is involved in anything, one would do well to look for where he or his developer connections stand to benefit.
This whole deal has stunk to high heaven from the very beginning and the stench just gets worse with each new revelation.
Who encouraged these mysterious outside developers to demand access they knew would be problematic and to threaten to build a road that would certainly be a problem for any water quality issues downstream?
This was where lawyers got involved and the whole deal went to hell from there. Lawyers beget more lawyers and next thing you know, nobody knows who is who and what is what....and the price goes up.
Whose idea was it to bring in taxpayer money to enable these developers to make a whopping profit on their investment?
This is a monstrous land speculation boondoggle and we are all fools for allowing it to unfold like this.
Who is running this sideshow? Who is pulling the strings? Who is making money? Who really believes this will save Jacob's Well?
Not the citizens of Hays County, that is for sure.
The amendment in question affects only one subparagraph of the original conservaton easement. Given that SOS is in Capter 11, and given that this is a minimal amendment of the easement and not in any way a conveyance; it is almost certainly within the scope of SOS's authority as a debtor in possession.
During Commissioners Court it was repeatedly said that the 50 acres the county was buying at more than 1.7 million dollars would protect Jacobs Well, keep it from going dry.
However the County never hired an expert to inspect the 50 acre purchase to confirm that claim. Hays County Commissioners have no independent expert knowledge that the 50 acres will protect the well in any quantifiable way, if at all.
When Commissioners voted, 4 of them said eventhough they had no expert opinion and the contracts were incomplete, they were willing to take a 'leap of faith'. When I buy a pair of jeans without trying them on first, I'm taking a 'leap of faith' they will fit, well we all know how that one usually turns out. I am concerned that Commissioners are willing to take a 'leap of faith' with taxpayers dollars, any amount of taxpayers dollars.
Who does Mark Kennedy work for? He works for DA Sheri Tibbe. The question should be who does Tibbe work for?
RE: "The amendment in question affects only one subparagraph of the original conservaton easement. Given that SOS is in Capter 11, and given that this is a minimal amendment of the easement and not in any way a conveyance; it is almost certainly within the scope of SOS's authority as a debtor in possession."
If you haven't been listening, SOS has already twice lost the argument that it is entitled to bankruptcy protection. The value of the underlying property is nearly 100% tied up in the "conservation easement" which SOS and WVWA freely modify when it suits them economically.
What SOS did was not part of its "daily operations" or "regular course of business" nor did SOS receive the value (for the benefit of the creditors) for the modification. Finally, SOS did not have the consent of the court or the creditors. The modification was clearly worth $1.7 million plus a 3-5 year maintenance contract plus elimination of lawsuits and a litany of other benefits to WVWA. The modification enables Woodcreek to get out of a lawsuit that it deserved to lose. In short, there was significant value conferred on others and yet no value was received for the conveyance - hence the fraudulent conveyance claim. Virtually 100% of the land value is tied up in the conservation easement.
Instead of engaging in useless debate here, why not let the courts sort it out. If the county isn't going to seek title insurance to protect the county's interest in this transaction, then perhaps Conley should be personally on the hook to guarantee title. More likely that the county will avoid bothering with title insurance to avoid any hiccups in the process of conveying millions of tax dollars for the benefit of WVWA - again.
To Justin Thyme who said: "Who encouraged these mysterious outside developers to demand access they knew would be problematic and to threaten to build a road that would certainly be a problem for any water quality issues downstream?"
No mystery there. The developers had every right to access Jacobs Well because of the property they owned. It was WVWA that tried to deny other property owners access to Jacobs Well. Interestingly, WVWA expects their own private easement across county property for access to Jacob's Well.
Rather than paying for this out of the $30 Million Park Bond funds that the voters had approved, the commissioners did an end run around the voters and borrowed yet another $850,000 for the Jacob's Well purchase - this time at 6% interest! It all has to be payed back within 3 years.
Commissioner Conley was so concerned for the taxpayers that he stated right in the contract that he would TRY to raise funds to pay this loan off early. Perhaps we taxpayers should return the favor by TRYING to pay our taxes this year!
“During Commissioners Court it was repeatedly said that the 50 acres the county was buying at more than 1.7 million dollars would protect Jacobs Well, keep it from going dry.”
If 50 acres can protect the well from going dry, it follows that the same 50 acres could make it go dry. Frankly if that is the case the well is way too fragile and will likely go dry anyway. I believe that claim is a total Baker fantasy. He has created an industry out of protecing his hole in the ground at the expense of the taxpayers.
The biggest threat to Jacob's Well is the notorious Well 23 owned by Aqua Texas and is in Woodcreek North. Well 23 has not been officially brought online; only tested and is sucks the life out of Jacob’s Well when it pumps. It is on unrestricted private property owned by Aqua so Baker and company can’t stop them from using it. Maybe Baker can get the County to buy Well 23 to save Jacob’s Well.
Can the County buy a well and call it a conservation park? If so, what will Woodcreek North do for water? What a tangled web they weave. Is there no end to this?
This is nothing more than payback to Baker and his bunch for not opposing the last road bond. Here's the question. Did you ever seen the Watershed folks oppose the likes of Conley or Barton or Rose, even though all three of them were dedicated to paving the Hill Country? No, you never saw it and you never will. There are pockets to be lined with lucrative management agreements. You bet. The Wimberley Valley Watershed Association, aka The Green Team, if you get my drift.
And what about the 1st bond "package" of 2006? The road bond- Prop. 1. The road bond that failed. The "Parks and open spaces" people threw in with the road bond group. Remember the "Vote for Prop 1 and Prop 2" signs? In my opinion and observations there has been a David Baker - Will Conley coalition for a long time. Baker needs Conley to secure a Jacobs Well curator job.
What do these two, Baker and Conley, bring to the party? It is simple, Conley brings the (our) money and Baker brings his collection of liberal supporters to Conley’s side. Not exactly a marriage made in heaven but it has worked for years. Maybe now some of us are waking up to the reality of this unholy alliance and might even remember it when we go to the polls in November of 2011.
I have not seem the word "liberal" thrown around so much in a Comments section since LLoyd Doggett made his last appearance at a Hays County Democratic Party fundraiser.
Which makes me wonder: Where was all this conservative indignation during the last decade when all the private developers used our tax dollars for massive infrastructure projects so they could built their ticky tacky subdivisions and their clone corporate strip malls to enrich their pockets?
So now, when some politically connected non-profit group wants to use their business skills to establish a water conservation land grab, all the right wing tax haters come out of the closet.
I would rather have my taxes go to pay above average interest to the Nature Conservancy and for David Baker's Org as a water conservation non-profit than to have my taxes pilfered by ATI, the local subdivision hustlers and all the other for-profit crony business scams we rubber stamp in the name of free markets.
If I am going to have to choose between WVWA getting my money through taxes for a clear benefit - or some local phony patriotism hate-focused business who puts up white crosses with flags to ignorantly trash our 2nd Amendment, I will chose WVWA any day.
By the way, I'm liberal because I am smarter and make more money than you rednecks who think every conservation project is a fool's hustle - not unlike the entire Republican Party.
Hate the haters:
You are truly the ugly caricature of liberal politics. May God bless you for being so ignorant and so generous in sharing your ignorance with us. Obviously, your intelligence is wasted on the likes of us low-brow folk. Maybe you could run for governor or president and help enlighten us as to how we should live.
You are such a fool to not recognize the sheer hypocrisy upon which you stand. David Baker is scandalouly close to jail time for his position on the Hays Trinity Groundwater District's board determining policy that directly affects his business without recusing himself; acting in a manner that does violate State law by the giving of public funds to private entities (the public funds spent on infrastructure for development was for the creation of public improvements, what does Mr. Baker's project bring to the table in the way of public improvements that are accessible to all and not the select elite few?)
I think that the honest men and women of this County awoke on November 2nd and told your kind to go find a new home in Europe among the rest of the euro-trash.
To the two haters above, please go back to your sand boxes until you become mature enough to debate without resorting to tearing down people. People make mistakes, often with their eyes wide open. This is only one project of many that our county commissioners have made a BIG mistake in passing, and passing by a great majority of the taxpaying public. Closed-circle policy making is the thing to be disdainful of here, not the people. Demand better of your commissioners and your new commissioners court which will be seated the first of the new year.
Thank you "Hate the Hate the Haters." Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.
Of course your viewpoint is one of "corruption" as defined by the fascist business interests and crony politicians who run the legal system. Legal corruption is still corruption, whether you Republican Party buffoons and mindless free markets nuts see it or not.
As you continue to allow yourself to be monetarily incested by your own legal definition of what is and is not corruption, the rest of us have to pay the price for your political and economic ignorance.
No one group is more corrupt or economically destructive for our nation than the Republican Party, of which your labels show you to be one of their lemmings.
Love Angel: Your positive thinking is charming, but naive, in my opinion. If you think the new County Commissioner's Court is going to make much difference regarding Hays County, I have a bridge to sell you in Bangladesh.
Americans think political change is the solution to our problems - which is the big self-delusion in our lives and one of the reasons our country is in big trouble.
The only change that will make a difference is lifestyle and consumer change, which means the average individual American (in fact, all world citizens) must sacrifice and choose smart personal austerity measures in their day to day lives.
Such as: Consume less and save or reinvest the difference; eat less -and more healthy foods; pray to your chosen higher power; shun unnecessary debt; actively volunteer with community charities; boycott undeserving businesses and shop at economically and socially enhancing businesses.
And thank God for our ability to still be able to make these lifestyle choices and our sacred ability to write about our chosen solutions.
The whole conservative-liberal paradigm is a hoax. In truth, there are insiders benefiting on the backs of the majority of tax payers, and that crosses ideological classes at the local, state and federal level.
The key is that we have to become more involved in the process, or risk continued fleecing at the hands of those we elect - and their for-profit and non-profit friends.
The answer, as always, is in the mirror you hold.
Dear Hater of Hate Haters, how will new Precinct 4 Commissioner avoid conflict of interest when voting on new subdivisions that will be served by wells he drills?
To the last anonymous, there is nothing giving a monopoly for drilling wells. Drilling residential wells and the selection of a particular licensed driller is a personal choice of the individual lot owners - not something than can be imposed by a county commissioner. The people in his precinct got rid of the former commissioner (Ford) in part because they wanted someone who would protect their rights instead of a commissioner (like Ford) who believed that mythological "stakeholders" should have superior rights to the actual landowners.
Note to Ford: You can keep the voters out of the "stakeholder process" but only the voters get to vote at the polls. Next time recognize that. Property owners expect the county to recognize the property owners use and enjoyment of their own property. At the very least the property owner should be the most important stakeholder when it comes to saddling them with new taxes or restricting their use of their land.
Rock-O, not sure who is "love angel", but maybe it's me - Hating the Hater who hates haters...(man that gets overly repetitious...). Good points, coming from someone who usually makes good points.
Hate the haters - you are such a freak! Me a Republicrat? Not hardly, no more than I am a Democan.
Your supposed superiority is sincerely about a hundred years out of date; your people died with the Victorian Age or in World War I, the war to end all wars. (You know the high ideals of liberal theology and politics that government - or man - can make the world a better place and that we were on the evolutionary path to peace and prosperity forever! BS - what that war exposed is the fallacy of the idea that man can save himself; and that the namby-pamby intellectuals are able to do more than gaze at their navels and come up with anything more than navel lint. People like you just make me and my wine-swilling buddy Charles O'Dell wanna puke!
Wine before Noon or die: What the hell are you talking about?
And yes, drinking wine before Noon will certainly make you puke. But maybe this is why you finally made a point at the end after all the trash talk nonsense.
My feelings are so hurt that you are puking because of the truth. Sorry I popped your self delusion bubble.
Last Anon, commissioner elect Whisenant's financial security is directly tied to development in areas under the control of Hays County. It has nothing to do with the County requiring his company to do the job, just that he is conflicted.
@Hate Mad Hatters (Haters?)
"And yes, drinking wine before Noon will certainly make you puke."
Drinking too much wine anytime will make you puke, but what's with the not drinking before noon?
We ordered lunch at 11:30am and at 11:45am it was served to us---hot and tasty. Why can't I drink wine (or beer) whenever I choose?
That should be another one of my personal freedoms. If I'm an alcoholic or drink too much and drive and endanger others, what difference does it make if before or after noon? I exceed my legitimate freedom.
We accept unnecessary restrictions on our personal freedoms, while some complain about responsible limitations (seat belts, speed limits, well permits, OSSF regulations, development ordinances, universal health care, civil rights, etc.).
A civilized society strikes a balance between personal and community interests. On that score we aren't anywhere near a civilized society in Hays County. That's because elected officials and their supporters play one group off the other while stealing all of us blind.
Puhlease. The whole county's fiscal well-being depends upon the taxes voted by the commissioners. Why don't we conflict all the commissioners out of taxing? Won't it affect them personally - each and every one of them?
Your argument is as poor as the argument Andrew Backus presented at a previous HTGCD meeting in Wimberley. Backus claimed that one of the board members would be "conflicted" on any vote affecting a particular resident because that resident wouldn't allow Andrew Backus to post a sign and thus there must be a conflict. As another participant noted: "Maybe they just didn't like you Andrew". Similarly, your idea of "conflict" is in your own mind.
I support preserving the right to individual wells and I am happy to be booting off commissioners that think property owners should have no say in taxation or use and enjoyment of their own property. Perhaps we can boot a few more off this next go round. At least now we have one new commissioner and a new judge that do not advocate wholesale stripping of property owners rights. Let's see where we can go from there.
Are we going to judge the newly elected commissioners before they even take a seat? How absurd it is, in light of the fact that all precincts voted for these guys over their opponents. If your candidate didn’t make the cut you should shut-up until you have something substantial to complain about. Sour grapes make lousy wine no matter when you drink it. I prefer a good Scotch or an American Beer.
Hey people, clearly paying taxes for your life infrastructure is driving many of you to drink. Instead of writing about your tax puking, try the AA Fellowship in town.
If you are sitting on a thorn and it hurts, move.
Fortunately "conservation easements" don't apply to elected officials. Prune the rest of the thorns.
The back-and-forth debates and whining about taxes, ethics, etc... on this blog reminds me of the men of Easter Island arguing about whose stone head is superior in aesthetic and structural principles.
Look: the island is dying.
The Hill Country is drying up.
Go ahead and keep blaming Baker. I'm sure he'd love to pack his bags and go live his life in peace instead of fighting every day a losing battle against the racist, materialist, and sexist developer war-lords who see land as silver and water as gold.
The Hill Country was once a virgin incarnation of mother earth, and thanks to all the big roads, big wells, I-35 corridor big TV creeps, look what has happened: raping, beating and pissing on of our virgin daughter.
Baker is at least trying to comfort this broken child. All of you nay-sayers continue to piss on her, laughing at her bruises, ridiculing her now dirtied spring.
Choose a side.
Either you fight for what is good on this earth and what is good of the human heart, or you defend the continuing destruction of the land and partake in the devil's communion of lust and greed.
The Jackalope hath spoken.
The public money being spent is buying land around the Well. Some of this land is accessible to the public, and some of it is to be privately controlled with a restricted access.
To assure that it is never developed, there are deed restrictions put on it, w/ a third party enlisted for the enforcement.
That isn't enough by itself to secure the Well area for posterity. You need on-the-ground managers to maintain even a [pruned] wild land. Someone who knows and plainly cares about this land was hired to be manager.
Conflating a tiny bed-and-breakfast establishment already there with the scale of the possible Holiday Inns and the like that would otherwise have been placed there seems a bit silly. If that's all that ever gets built there, then looming runoff pollution problems from the adjoining sites are pretty much resolved.
One can pick apart the myriad details of a deal like this; raise some [perhaps] justified issues about how exactly it was done and who benefited; attack w/ dark innuendo and ugly names the persons involved -- but it's plain that the essential outlines of the deal were what had to be done. This to save the Well from development surrounding and adjoining it. It's a hell of an accomplishment. There are clear positives in this.
If there were any OTHER way to do that job -- do those who are commenting critically here feel confident that THEY could navigate all the complexities of a deal that could accomplish those objectives? Did you volunteer for that task?? Did you raise or donate your personal money or time for that? No wonder there were lots of odd bedfellows and squirrel-y arrangements to get this done -- its got more moving parts than a Rubik's cube.
Where would Wimberley be w/o water? Isn't the Well the source water for Cypress Creek and the Blue Hole?
The days when an unregulated rural private land regime could preserve the asset of the wells, springs, and streams w/o any special actions are over.
The 'accidental preservation' enjoyed up until now can't be sustained with urban, suburban, and resort development activity happening there. Continued laissez-faire is impossible. Something in traditional govt and social practices has to change to meet these new pressures.
Of all the alternatives, land acquisition and preservation is the least controversial, intrusive and offensive to private property -- although NOT generally the least expensive.
Buying land to preserve it is more attractive than regulating a private person, micromanaging their activities, and telling them that they can't build or pump whatever they want.
I don't know if David Baker ever represented to the public that buying land around the Well is all that is needed to preserve it. I extremely doubt it. But if he did, then he's wrong.
Everyone realizes that buying this land, whatever you do or don't do with it, is really only a bare beginning on the problem of permanent protection. The main problem that is the killer is overpumping in the face of prolonged drought that is probably a local symptom of global changes.
To deal with that, you have to limit overall pumping in a large area to some measured level that is reasonable or sustainable (whatever that is).
If that level can be found and enforced, w/ shares allocated in proportion to land and/or population -- then property owners will have the incentive to save water so they can sell an excess.
Developers will have to buy the water they need from surrounding landowners before they can build. But the water can't be so completely allocated that springs and streams dry up, however.
This is the key to getting the job done of saving Hays County and other water scarce Hill Country areas. Not sideshows and contrived scandals like this attack on the park deals.
Y'all are unfairly attacking people who are trying to do something constructive -- however imperfect or self-interested they might be (as if you're NOT self-interested)...
@don't get it...
"Some of this land is accessible to the public, and some of it is to be privately controlled with a restricted access"
The $4.7 million plus future $1 million to Baker, et al. of taxpayer money was collected from taxpayers under threat of foreclosure. None of the "conserved" property should remain titled to WVWA and WVWA should not be given an exclusive right to sell access to public property.
"but it's plain that the essential outlines of the deal were what had to be done. This to save the Well from development surrounding and adjoining it. It's a hell of an accomplishment"
Major disagreement that this "deal" had to be done. Current commissioners did not trust subsequent commissioners or taxpayers would feel the same way. If pissing $4.7 million of taxpayer money down the drain is an 'accomplishment' then you might have something. Don't forget the other $1 million + that will be showered on Baker, et al. Yoga love-ins aren't included.
"Buying land to preserve it is more attractive than regulating a private person, micromanaging their activities, and telling them that they can't build or pump whatever they want."
Has there been some rush to sell off other parklands? No. So why this approach? The county paid a premium for land w/o deed restrictions and then recklessly used deed restrictions to destroy the value of the land purchased with taxpayer dollars. The deed restrictions enable private entities to micromanage the county.
"Where would Wimberley be w/o water? Isn't the Well the source water for Cypress Creek and the Blue Hole?"
Isn't Cypress Creek the Wimberley alternate septic system? Concerned you won't have enough water to "flush" things downstream?
"Y'all are unfairly attacking people who are trying to do something constructive -- however imperfect or self-interested they might be (as if you're NOT self-interested)"
Baker & Conley earned taxpayer disgust and loathing. RoundUp - the deal changed again contrary to Conley's representations made at the 11/23/2010 hearing.
@jackalope jackass:
"Go ahead and keep blaming Baker. I'm sure he'd love to pack his bags and go live his life in peace instead of fighting every day a losing battle against the racist, materialist, and sexist developer war-lords who see land as silver and water as gold."
Racist developers? How ignorant. Developers didn't care what race a buyer is. By comparison, care to perform a demographic study of the directors and officers of Baker's WVWA organization? You won't find much racial diversity among the WVWA Board & Staff.
So who is the materialist - Baker trying to make off with taxpayer money or taxpayers objecting to having their property taken from them and showered upon Baker? Why would Baker "pack his bags" as long as the county keeps dumping taxpayer money in his lap?
"Sexist" developer warlords? What is this supposed to mean? Take some notes: the "Executive Director" and all other directors of WVWA are male. What does $150 buy at the WVWA "love-in"?
Baker's organization will wind up with $1 million of land paid for by taxpayer dollars. He also pulled about $6 million total out of the county for the purchase of land around Jacob's Well and for a "management fee". Seems like Baker has gotten plenty of gold for water and silver for land - none of which he paid for to begin with and the water was never his to own or sell at any time since surface water belongs to the State of Texas.
Jackalope you are obviously one of the blind members of the WVWA flock.
I hope everyone realizes that the
ONLY one on Hays Commissioner's Court to vote AGAINST funding this
purchase was COUNTY JUDGE ELIZABETH
SUMTER - so 'here's a big knot on the head" to those who saw fit to
vote against her...check it out folks.
@ Mr. Anonymous
"Jackalope you are obviously one of the blind members of the WVWA flock."
Well, Mr Anonymous, I see you have obviously mistaken me for my good friend the Blind Salamander that lives inside of Jacobs's Well. Making fun of the blind is not only rude but it also reflects poorly on your character and reveals just how weak your squirrel-like mind must be as you clamor feverishly for nuts of logic that are really only hollow shells.
Sir, are not the animals of the wood and the fish in the water to be regarded as a race of their own? And when the Developer-Barons continue their march of destruction stripping the land and draining the springs are they not in many ways gentrifying the community of its natural diversity?
And when these men seek to build condo after condo (RiverRock) beside Jacob's Well, are they not placing their material interests above that of the community and her natural beauty? If you think that Baker is "making off with taxpayer money", then you really ought to place the blame on the hundreds of people of Wimberley who support the WVWA, the JWNA and those who donate freely out of their own pocket to keep the WVWA alive. Maybe you should join the WVWA and then your input would actually mean something, instead of just ranting against fictional rabbits on a blog that most people don't care about.
And, sir, sexist indeed are the developer-lords. In that they disregard the sanctity of the pacha-mama mother earth and spoil her natural beauty with their slash and burn and suck approach to development. Take a look at what the WVWA had done around the well: peeled up thousands of square feet of concrete. That's what I consider progress: undoing the touch of man upon the land.
Mr. Anonymous, clearly we have different points of view. I can only hope that you might release the fear from your heart and quench your angry thirst with the cool water of forgiveness that flows from that spring which you seem to disdain so much. Perhaps you should spend a little time at one of these "Love-ins" that I keep hearing about.
The Jackalope hath rebutted.
Post a Comment