Thursday, December 16, 2010
Is Top Secret America coming to Hays County?
They have a lot of unanswered questions and are seeking assurances that the quality of life they invested in will not be diminished or destroyed by a top-secret facility to be plopped down in their neighborhood
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
Note: The RoundUp has a call in to Mr. Thompson with the City of Dripping Springs to see if we can shed more light on this project.
Update, Friday Dec. 17 -- Mr. Thompson was kind enough to return our call. He said Espy's proposed site includes a 14,000 square-foot, two-story size building that will serve as the corporation's new headquarters. Thompson said, according to Espy representatives, they "assemble computer parts and write software . . . I can tell you, from their website their clients (include the CIA). If they do surveillance, that didn't come up. They said last night right now they have eight employees."
Thompson said Espy was directed by the city to hold the town hall meeting. "There's nothing wrong with meeting your neighbors. It doesn't change the approval factor but it helps the neighbors know who you are." He said Espy will have to address certain site plan changes and comments from the city, county and the public before final approval for construction is granted, most likely next month.
Charles O'Dell attended Thursday night's town hall. He sent this dispatch:
About thirty concerned homeowners attending the hour and a half long “town hall” meeting held last night in Dripping Springs City Hall had wide ranging questions and concerns for representatives of the ESPY Corporation, Hays County and Dripping Springs. Comments and questions ranged from increased traffic and road safety to the septic system, water quality and impact on property values and quality of life in the residential neighborhood.
While orderly and respectful, it was clear that at times many homeowners were frustrated by a lack of candor or understanding about why they were concerned with having this shadowy commercial operation in their backyards. A number of promises were made by the ESPY representative but not all the homeowners were convinced about the sincerity.
As one homeowner expressed afterwards, “I guess we feel a bit better about some things (lighting, trucks). Still very leery about what they do (the business they are in) and how this building will impact our quality of life.” Another homeowner was even more direct, “I think the rep from ESPY was defensive and plain doesn't get why we might be upset.”
One neighbor summed it up, “I feel a bit better about the development itself but have zero confidence in their capacity to act as ‘good neighbors.’”
According to Jon Thompson, Development Coordinator for the City of Dripping Springs, he expects to administratively approve the project in about three weeks after corrections pointed out by homeowners are made to the site plan. The ESPY representative expects construction of the new facility to be completed by the end of 2011.
One thing is clear. For good or for ill, the future of this out-of-the-way Dripping Springs ETJ residential neighborhood is now directly linked to the Top-Secret America network as ESPY Corporation moves to a rural area in Hays County.
An Exclusive RoundUp Report
When residents near the Polo Club and Sunset Canyon approached HaysCAN for help in dealing with a mysterious site development plan we weren’t prepared for what we found. It quickly became clear this was no ordinary development project in the City’s huge extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).
Jon Thompson, Development Director for the City of Dripping Springs, explained to homeowners that he was approving the project administratively, (there would be no review by Planning & Zoning Commission or approval by City Council). A cursory review of the development plan immediately raised questions about why the Plan referenced Austin ordinances instead of Dripping Springs ordinances, was incomplete and even contradictory, and why the City’s Development Director seemed ready to approve the Plan despite concerns and questions of nearby property owners about the project.
Large antennae had been erected on the 24-acre site located on Trautwein Road about a mile off US Hwy 290 West before the Plan was approved by Thompson. These antennae were not shown on the Plan presented. Nearby residents were told the antennae were for company computers that would be used when the new facility was completed. Residents were also told there would be recreational activities conducted on the property that involved ATV’s and other equipment.
See a Frontline video regarding the post 9/11 explosion of secret collaboration between the intelligence community, local law enforcement and private companies employing a million individuals engaged in gathering and analyzing information about every day Americans.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/frontline-video/
Following a two-year investigation by Washington Post reporter, Dana Priest and free lance researcher, William M. Arkin, they published the first in a series of articles, "A Hidden World, Growing Beyond Control," in which they report:
“The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”
One of those top-secret participants is Espy Corporation (listed in the Washington Post article and here), a private Austin company that is now seeking approval of its site development plan for a secret facility to be located in the middle of a residential area in the Dripping Springs ETJ.
Local residents seeking straight answers from City officials and from ESPY will gather at a 7pm town hall meeting tonight in the Dripping Springs City Hall.
They have a lot of unanswered questions and are seeking assurances that the quality of life they invested in will not be diminished or destroyed by a top-secret facility to be plopped down in their neighborhood. As one neighbor put it, “A top-secret facility involved in electronic spying shouldn’t be located near homes with personal computers and other communication devices.”
The public is invited to attend tonight’s town hall meeting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
It was purchased by Time Warner.
No conspiracy here.
But the property you want to control does not belong to you. If you want to control it then why don't you buy it?
Municipalities have zoning (land use) authority to protect property owners from each other and to promote safe and responsible development.
Areas of properties are zoned single family residential, multi-family, commercial, high-rise, industrial, etc. so that you can purchase a home and not wake up one morning to find a gas station being build next door, or a manufacturing facility, or a rock quarry, etc..
Counties don't have that land use (zoning) authority so you just take your chances that someone doesn't come along, purchase the property next door to your home---your biggest investment and where your children play---and build something that is dangerous to your children or diminishes the market value of your home.
If you believe property rights trump a civilized and sustainable community where there are responsible trade-offs among property owners, then we part ways on this subject.
Sorry for having missed the Roundup's call today. Didn't check my messages after lunch. Interesting information though. Hopefully the town hall meeting tonight was informative to any and all who attended.
Good work Anon1.
Is 24 acres enough land for the balck helicopters?
Not enough room for the SR-71's (Blackbirds) though. I think I also heard that this was going to be the new Cape Canavaral for launching spy satellites!
Guess we're on opposite sides of the fence Charles.
Absolutely property rights trump and the communitarian philosophy itself is wholly "unsustainable". From your own position you acknowledge that that there was no prohibition against building the facility in the location indicated. So where's the beef?
Consider two adjacent parcels A and B. Owner A has full rights to use and enjoy parcel A. Owner B has full rights to use and enjoy parcel B.
Owner B develops parcel B into a residential subdivision complete with residual income streams into perpetuity for "management", a kickback off of a central propane gas system, and a central groundwater system.
Under your theory property owner A should now be prohibited from uses of his property that the residents of property B find "offensive"? Were you planning to compensate property owner A or is your argument that A should just give it up for the good of the 'community'?
Now to add a little fuel to the fire, if you try to create a regime that only allows "use and enjoyment" in the form of developing another residential subdivision - then you shouldn't be surprised at the resulting proliferation of high density residential development. Isn't this contrary to your "sustainable" (i.e., anti-growth) platform?
Perhaps a better outcome is to recognize individual rights and to quit trying to steal them from property owners under the meaningless pretext of "community".
You start off with using laws to "protect property owners from each other" and yet have no problem with laws that achieve completely the opposite effect - giving one property owner the right to dictate the other property owner's use and enjoyment of property. You had no reasonable expectation of anything beyond the borders of your subdivision.
Communitarians want expanded government authority over individuals. Communitarians rely upon meaningless, undefinable terms such as "community" because your position is indefensible. You want to grant unrestricted government powers over other individuals and their property in order to serve the interests of a minority of malcontents. The communitarian philosophy is to destroy constitutional rights and protections rather than to preserve them. I prefer to preserve those rights and have no problem with parting ways with you Charles.
I love the word "communitarian" - I think it is a positive concept.
But somehow some anti-communitarian has hijacked the word to spread his or her 17th century "guns-a-blazing, my rights or your grave" concept of living together.
Its too bad. Its like making a child the problem for wanting the parents to love each other and have a productive family life together.
@Proud Communitarian:
"But somehow some anti-communitarian has hijacked the word to spread his or her 17th century "guns-a-blazing, my rights or your grave" concept of living together. "
You have it backwards. It is the communitarians that seek the elimination of property and property rights in order to force their [false] view of a "better society" on everyone else. Communitarians do not recognize individual rights. Devotion to "community" is nothing more than a "rule by herd" mentality.
"Its like making a child the problem for wanting the parents to love each other and have a productive family life together."
Not really. It's more like a stalker demanding that the target needs to give into the demands of the stalker to feed delusions of "community". The target is not interested in having anything to do with the stalker.
I am willing to bet there is already plenty of top secret stuff floating around among our local elected officials, never mind the ESPY project. I guess Dripping now has a new designation for "ETJ", extra-terrestrial jurisdiction. Thanks for this report. I hope no one gets "erased" because of it. I actually think it's kind of intriguing. looking forward to ESPY's housewarming.
Methinks you doth protest to much. The only secrets are those which our federal government hides from us within the confines of laws that they pass to the detriment of our nation in violation of their promise to let the people review them before the President signed them. Where is the "hope and change we can be believe in" Mr. President?
ESPY comes to town builds a facility that is none of the neighbors business as long as they are non-polluting and act within the established laws and codes, yet the natives are restless. I would be more concerned with the urban sprawl of Belterra, HiPoint, HEB and Home Depot and their resultant traffic problems.
Who can say what ESPY is doing if they are national defense related, but it sure gets the likes of O’Dell and other busybody conspiracy theorist’s panties in a bunch. Is there so little to talk about that this becomes news? I believe that HEB and Home Depot have more of an impact on Drippin’ than ESPY ever would, except for the tax revenue they provide.
The fact that Dripping Springs Water Supply does not have a pumping permit might be more newsworthy. Apparently the former HTGCD Board never got around issuing them one. How about the bank robbery case involving the HTGCD’s account with the Dripping Springs Wells Fargo Bank, David Baker, and some Nigerian scam?
Actually, the Extra-Terrestrial (ala - "alien") Juridiction is downtown Drippin' with the ILLEGAL ALIENS hanging around. More people seem to be upset with a business dealing with our NATIONAL SECURITY than they are with ILLEGAL aliens from a FOREIGN country! What gives?
Last anonymous, maybe your question should be put to the Dripping merchants, contractors and legal citizens who hire the illegals for menial work and chores. I'll bet you ten bucks this project gets constructed by the hands of illegal aliens. Bet?
Several posters have made comments that warrant discussion.
For example:
“You start off with using laws to "protect property owners from each other" and yet have no problem with laws that achieve completely the opposite effect - giving one property owner the right to dictate the other property owner's use and enjoyment of property. You had no reasonable expectation of anything beyond the borders of your subdivision.”
The premise of no one having a “ reasonable expectation of anything beyond the borders of your subdivision” is a false premise, and asserting that some (unspecified) “laws give one property owner the right to dictate the other property owner’s use and enjoyment of property” is a false assertion.
There are no laws giving one property owner the right to dictate another property owner’s use and enjoyment of property. Our laws govern specified actions of all citizens and are to be enforced so as to protect the health, safety and welfare of all individuals.
In a society governed by the rule of law, all property owners are given reasonable expectations beyond the borders of their property lines, and collectively beyond the borders of their subdivision, including even public property.
There are laws against being a public nuisance on our own property. These laws protect the public health (pollution), safety (dangerous conditions) and welfare (property values). There are laws requiring separation of water wells and septic systems, set backs from property lines, control of stormwater runoff, building codes, fire codes and other codes of behavior deemed to impact others. With property rights come property responsibilities.
The egocentric mentality of absolute property rights stems from the “might makes right” and “law of the jungle” philosophy of those who are ruled by their insecurities. To deny our community responsibilities is to deny our personal responsibilities.
@Charles:
"The premise of no one having a 'reasonable expectation of anything beyond the borders of your subdivision' is a false premise, and asserting that some (unspecified) 'laws give one property owner the right to dictate the other property owner’s use and enjoyment of property' is a false assertion.
No it isn't a false premise. You've clearly indicated that folks from "the neighborhood" should have the right to dictate limitations on property outside of their subdivision under the pretext of "community". It is you that is seeking to impose your whims on Espy and other landowners by the very nature of this story.
"Our laws govern specified actions of all citizens and are to be enforced so as to protect the health, safety and welfare of all individuals."
There are plenty examples of laws designed to enrich one group at the expense of another - and plenty of examples of public officials (e.g., Conley) circumventing laws (bankruptcy, open meetings, etc) to funnel tax dollars onto projects for the exclusive benefit of a very few (e.g., David Baker, et al.). Even though we disagree about the law, you still can't point to a law that provides you any standing to complain about what Espy is doing. Espy was playing nice to show up as evidenced by the statement that the meeting wasn't going to change the approval factor.
It is you, Charles, that is seeking to stick your nose into other people's businesses and property. You haven't identified any law prohibiting this business and let's be honest that the entire hoopla was about busybodies that want to dictate what "they" would permit on the property as if their opinion was relevant.
The county is not some giant HOA corp that you are in control of. The Espy corp is not subject to your private architectural committee approval. You don't even live in the residential area identified. You have no standing to complain.
The point is the etj authority is illegal. (didn't we fight a revolution over taxation without due representation?)
This is truly what the etj is......the landowners within the etj have absolutely no say about anything within Dripping Springs elections. We are taxed for the school, ems, hays county and roads, and our sales tax refund $$ goes to Dripping Springs.
It's so dialectic....Dripping Springs etj doesn't apply because We aren't represented!
@Charles:
"There are laws against being a public nuisance on our own property. These laws protect the public health (pollution), safety (dangerous conditions) and welfare (property values)."
Go look up nuisance law. "Property values" is not "nuisance" law.
You might be interested in the Texas appellate case of Rankin v FPL Energy. "Homeowners" decided they didn't like looking at a windmill farm and tried to enjoin the windmill farm from construction and operation under a similarly flawed "nuisance" theory. They lost despite their "aesthetic nuisance" claims and so will you. At least they had a theory. What is your basis for "nuisance"? Seems to me that the real "nuisance" here is yourself and a few other homeowners that fail to respect the property rights of others.
If your version of value depends upon not only your property but also the property next to you, then the "value" wasn't yours to begin with and you have no right to take from your neighbor (by taking value from his property to prop up your own) to maintain your inflated sense of value. Perhaps you would do better to focus on your own property instead of coveting the use and control of property that is not yours.
You have a history of misapplication of the Health & Safety Code (e.g., recall the Ramos story) to attack things that you have a personal nit with.
"Welfare" is not defined as "property values" and certainly not equivalent to trading your perception of property value to justify removing value from someone else's property.
Charles, you have no standing to complain - hence the label "busybody".
When Texas counties are granted Land Use Regulation Authority, won't the current etj laws transfer to counties as well?
If so, we all should be working for County Land Use Regulation Autority NOW.
If not, Hays County will surely end up a funky place to live.
County Land Use Authority? Why? What is the county providing in return? What you are really proposing is "control" to shift control from owners to special interests. This county already overstepped its bounds on "land use authority" with the new subdivision regulations. How about returning to recognizing the constitutional limits of authority?
No, it's about keeping our rights to legislate ourselves through the democratic process. Counties under 500,000 do not have authority to regulate themselves and thus we do not have fair representation within the Dripping Springs ETJ.
With land use regs we would, through our elective process, be able to govern who we want for neighbors and who we do not, with our vote. I do not want to live next to a prison, gun shop, event center, stadium, or espy. I choose to live next to other small landowners who treasure the rural way of life.
Counties currently can not regulate:
Building/fire/safety codes. Who do you call to report a violation? Are businesses visited by the fire department? Are their buildings required to meet minimum building safety standards? Not that I know of.
Currently anyone can open a business and invite the public. No one from any governmental (federal/state/county) agency comes to see if there is adequate septic or water service. No one comes to see if any public health and safety issue is investigated or addressed. At least with Land Use Regs a permit process would be required and someone would then check the location for health and safety codes.
An example is a neighbor who did not fence their very large pool/spa before opening to the public (open for 1 year; thankfully no one was hurt). This is in direct violation of federal and state regulations for pool/spa safety. We called the Sheriff's dept. to report this extreme hazard. The Sheriff's dept. called the county's health department, who gave them 30 days to come up to compliance. Why was it up to the neighbors to patrol and report this health and safety issue?
Just an example of why we need someone from some county department to require some kind of permitting process when the public is concerned.
I'm for county land use regulation' especially when my neighbor has more rights to make offensive noise than I have to maintain peace in my home. Just another example.
We have grown tremendously in population. We all live here and we all have to find some way to get along, while the health and safety of the public and neighbors is concerned.
No one has more rights than another and this is why I'm for County Land Use Regulations. It will level the playing field for all of us.
To continue to allow the fox to guard our hens isn't going to work anymore. We've outgrown our henhouse.
Texas Counties currently have sufficient authority to manage land use within their borders. I refer you to the City of Houston; the fourth largest City in the nation and it has no zoning authority which has been voted down numerous times by its citizens. That is the main reason that Houston leads Texas and the USA in economic and job growth. Regulation is highly overrated by the liberal busybodies. If you like regulation try Europe, it has tons of it.
"With land use regs we would, through our elective process, be able to govern who we want for neighbors and who we do not, with our vote. I do not want to live next to a prison, gun shop, event center, stadium, or espy. I choose to live next to other small landowners who treasure the rural way of life."
Well that's not a "choice" that you necessarily have the right to enforce against the rest of the world and "majority rule" does not give you the authority to take away the rights of others. This mentality is what was used to justify racial covenants for a very long time. Are such restrictions "okay" just because a majority of voters approve of them? Of course not.
It's frankly quite offensive that you believe you have the right to decide who can own land near you or what they can do on their land. Apparently you want the whole county to be a collection of residential subdivisions and you still want to be able to control land use outside of the subdivision based upon your minimal investment.
"I'm for county land use regulation' especially when my neighbor has more rights to make offensive noise than I have to maintain peace in my home. "
Noise is a traditional nuisance issue. If the noise is of a sufficient threshold, then you have a viable cause of action. If it is not, then you don't. However, with respect to this article it does not appear that noise is an issue - you just don't want a specific person to locate near you.
"We have grown tremendously in population. We all live here and we all have to find some way to get along, while the health and safety of the public and neighbors is concerned."
Except that your version of "getting along" is doing what you say. You aren't interested in "letting alone" the other property owner.
You are hardly interested in the "rural" lifestyle. Sounds like you the typical busybody looking to impose your expectations on everyone else - hardly neighborly and certainly not associated with any "rural" lifestyle.
To the individual who thinks that there are no regulations for adequate septic and water provision, Hays County enforces these items now through their permitting process.
As for Fire Departments investigating fire safety - Hays County has had the ability to adopt a County wide fire code for nearly a decade if not longer, but have not due to the Commissioners Court's reluctance to adopt it without the Fire Marshall's office being properly staffed with enough inspectors (which costs more money, which the same Court over the past two administrations have not seen fit to fund for various reasons).
With a County wide fire code, the Fire Marshall's office along with the corresponding ESD's could do a good job of covering a lot of the minimal health and safety code issues related directly to construction through the NFPA 101 safety regs that apply statewide now.
Some of the County's ESD's have already adopted a Fire Code for their respective districts to my understanding (Buda's ESD specifically to my understanding.)
As for the enforcement of the one scenario with the swimming pool - even in a community with building permits, people seem bent on avoiding getting permits that they know that are required until they are caught. It just so happens that to be able to watch everybody all the time would require more government employees than the general public would want to pay for (rightfully so). What ever happened to the idea of self-responsibility?
Anyway, not so sure about the ability of counties with populations of more than 500,000 having any more authority for land use regulations than counties with less than 500,000. Though I will stand corrected should someone point me towards that particular statute.
Lastly, with an ETJ such as Dripping Springs' there is some oversight on projects that would otherwise have little or no oversight or coordination of reviews by County, State, and ESD. The City reviews and enforces site development for stormwater, safe placement of improvements, access to and from the public roads (in coordination with the County and State), water quality in coordination with the TCEQ, and works towards ensuring or achieving for neighbors the opportunity to speak to those who are coming to their neighborhoods, and to work cooperatively with developers to be aware of concerns neighbors have and the desire of neighbors to have some measure of compatibility with the surrounding properties in areas of lighting, architectural standards, etc. Land use compatibility at present is such that the restrictive covenants of a tract of land, or subdivision CCR's, or the market controls what goes in on certain tracts of land.
The process is imperfect, yet at the same time provides some measure of giving neighbors an idea of what is going on, and gives them a voice where without an ETJ, their voice would be limited to septic and driveway concerns with the County due to their limited authority as presently granted them by the State by statute.
I hope that this perspective is informative and useful. Whether or not you agree me, this information is based on my eleven years of working at the County (Hays) and City (Dripping Springs) levels of government. I am always glad to discuss these matters with anyone who wishes to have constructive dialogue about the development process and framework that the State has created for local governments to work within.
‘You haven't identified any law prohibiting this business and let's be honest that the entire hoopla was about busybodies that want to dictate what "they" would permit on the property as if their opinion was relevant.’
No one claimed there is any law prohibiting this business. Like so many other home owners throughout Hays County, these neighbors thought they were investing in a residential community when they purchased their homes, not in a business community. Why dismiss their distress and concerns on finding out the hard way there is no zoning authority in the ETJ or unincorporated areas of the county?
“There are plenty examples of laws designed to enrich one group at the expense of another…”
If you mean our officials choose when to enforce or not to enforce the law then we are in agreement.
“It is you, Charles, that is seeking to stick your nose into other people's businesses and property.”
This sentiment overlooks two important elements: HaysCAN is an organization dedicated to helping the citizens of Hays County and, we were asked by the citizens to assist them.
From the HaysCAN website: “Our mission is to observe and participate in governmental decision processes that impact the public interest, and to inform, educate and assist those citizens wishing to participate more fully in the public decisions that impact their daily lives, their property values, and the quality of life in their communities.
We strive to provide clear and accurate information to help Hays County residents understand the actions taken by their elected officials.”
You write, "Welfare" is not defined as "property values" and certainly not equivalent to trading your perception of property value to justify removing value from someone else's property.
In a more general sense, welfare also means the well-being of individuals or a group, in other words their health, happiness, safety, prosperity, and fortunes.
As for, “…not justify removing value from someone else’s property,” I agree with you that no one should have the right to “remove value” from the existing homeowners’ properties. Unfortunately, ESPY does have a legal right to locate its business in a residential community and diminish the homeowners’ property values because there are no zoning ordinances to protect these homeowners’ property values from confiscation by ESPY.
“You have a history of misapplication of the Health & Safety Code (e.g., recall the Ramos story) to attack things that you have a personal nit with.”
The correct reference is Ramus, and your assertion of misapplication of the Health & Safety Code in the case is totally incorrect. You recognized in your earlier comment that,
“There are plenty examples of laws designed to enrich one group at the expense of another - and plenty of examples of public officials (e.g., Conley) circumventing laws…”
The “Ramus story” is a prime example of Commissioners Conley, Barton and their minions not only circumventing laws and protecting those in the Environmental Health Department who were breaking laws, but also promoting Ramus for the purpose of creating a political weapon to use against the county judge.
Ramus has been charged three or four times and convicted twice of being a public nuisance, and has appealed his conviction of deadly conduct. Conley got Ramus to run against Commissioner Ingalsbe and Barton’s newspaper supported Ramus. Both knew Ramus is a convicted criminal but he served their nefarious purpose.
Ramus is a much bigger story involving numerous elected and public officials.
Charles said: As for, “…not justify removing value from someone else’s property,” I agree with you that no one should have the right to “remove value” from the existing homeowners’ properties. Unfortunately, ESPY does have a legal right to locate its business in a residential community and diminish the homeowners’ property values because there are no zoning ordinances to protect these homeowners’ property values from confiscation by ESPY.
Cute but contrary to the point. The homeowners should not and do not have the right to remove value from property they don't own by dictating use limitations on the property. The "homeowners value without commercial interests nearby" is not a "value" that belongs to the homeowners.
You don't need a zoning ordinance. The homeowners were free to purchase the property, right? Instead a few malcontents want to control property owned by others.
Your definition of "community" means "only people we allow here". The prospective community was defined well before the homeowners arrived and commercial "people" were always a possibility. That mentality ends at the edge of the subdivision, period.
Anonymous wrote: "The homeowners should not and do not have the right to remove value from property they don't own by dictating use limitations on the property."
So its a one way deal?
Existing homeowners have no right to remove value from property they don't own---but a new property owner has a right to remove value from existing homeowners properties?
Professing such an attitude I suppose you oppose counties having the land-use authority municipalities have to protect property values by ensuring orderly growth.
You must be a true "Buyer beware" proponent.
Post a Comment