IslandDrumz

Welcome to our little slice of paradise! Clear Lake Shores is probably one of the best kept secrets in the entire Bay Area. Yes we are an island. We are surrounded by Clear Lake, Jarbo Bayou and the Lazy Bend canals. Plug this in to Google Maps and you'll see what I mean 29.32' by 95.01' We are about half way between Galveston Island and the city of Houston and located in north Galveston county. I will try to keep us up on all the goings on that we can walk, boat, bike or drive our golf carts to. Very few things pi$$ me off but one of them is wasting my precious time. I'll try not to waste yours. Enjoy. ab

Sunday, April 15, 2012

27

"You can't fix stupid" I might not be able to fix it but I can certainly limit it's distribution. To all the rest, Enjoy your day! anon, call your Dr. your meds aren't working.

14 comments:

Craig said...

Anon, I for one would really like for you yo keep posting and I am willing to bet Allan will let you say anything you want. All you have to do do is sign your name so we know who is posting this nonsense about folks losing their houses and who it is that is so obsessed with folks drinking beer. I encourage you to speak up and sign your name. You should be proud of your words and thoughts enough to let us know who you are. Can you step up and be a man?

craig

Roselyn said...

I emailed Mike Bass who no longer lives in Clear Lake Shores but is still a property owner. He was an extremely informed councilman when he did live here.

During his term he dealt with this issue and researched it then and is our "expert" regarding Aspen and Tindel.

I told him Jackie had put an item on the agenda for the Tuesday Council Meeting and could Mike bring us up to speed on what this issue might be since Jackie gave no supporting documentation for the petition of Tindel residents he is presenting.

Mike wrote the following back to me and has given me permission to post it on the blog with his name attached. He writes:

"In regard to the questions posed in your email, the April 17, 2012 Agenda (Item 7a.) is worded as only pertaining to Tindel Street, not to the old Silver Lagoon Estates subdivision itself. I will give you my understanding of the background on this street and its status.


Back in 2006 and 2007, the Road Committee had included the repaving of this street in its improvement plans. But the question came up as to whether or not Tindel was a city owned or a private street. One of the Tindel property owners asserted that he owned part of the road. If Tindel was deemed to be a private road, then the City could not legally maintain it. So to resolve the question, City Council commissioned GeoSurv, a local survey firm, to conduct a title search. Their final report is attached. The report also provides a pretty complete history on Silver Lagoon and where it fits into the City’s history.



In summary, GeoSurv’s title research concluded that:



1. The Silver Lagoon Estates subdivision was created out of the original Clear Lake Shores plat, an area developed by Warren Smadeck starting in 1927. Mr. Smadeck sold the Silver Lagoon property to Roland Tindel and his wife in 1959, who in turn developed it.

2. In 1962, the citizens of Clear Lake Shores and Silver Lagoon Estates voted to incorporate as the Town of Clear Lake Shores. Later “Town” was changed to “City.” Silver Lagoon was never annexed. I would think it would be difficult to request to be de-annexed if the area was never “annexed” to begin with. But that would be for your City Attorney to assess.

3. After incorporation, Mr. Tindel and his wife retained title to Tindel Street in their own name and it was considered a private street, as it was prior to 1962. In May 1965, Mr. & Mrs. Tindel conveyed their ownership interest in the street to Galveston County for use as public road.

Based on the attached research and advice from the City Attorney, Tindel was formally deemed by City Council in 2008 to be a public road with the City being responsible for its on-going maintenance. As I recall, the County’s position was that since the road fell within an incorporated area, the County no longer had any responsibility or ownership interest in the road.



As to the lingering questions that seems to keep coming up regarding the possible inclusion of Tindel and/or Aspen in the Town Center District:



1) As everyone should know, the City has pretty tough zoning regulations. These are designed to protect and separate the residential areas from the commercial areas.

2) The Town Center District was formed as a combination of the existing C-1 and C-2 commercial areas; these areas were not geographically expanded.

3) It would be very difficult, and personally not very desirable, to strip Tindel and/or Aspen out of the R-1 District and include it in the Town Center District.

a. I will not go into all the court rulings but the use of Eminent Domain for economic purposes has been ruled against in several instances in Texas. I sponsored a city ordinance some years ago prohibiting such use. The EDC has no such powers.

b. If property owners object to a zoning change, the Local Government Code provides that a valid petition by 20% of the property owners affected by any such change will force a supermajority vote by City Council in order to approve any such change."

JFishing said...

Mike Bass's information was correct then but the United States Supreme Court Ruling put everything in favor of the Cities and Developers. EDC is the Developer. Here is a current article on what Houston has done with Eminent Domain and how they won:

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2010

92 EMINENT DOMAIN CASES ON 3 LINES:

METRO’S LIGHT RAIL LAND ACQUISITION SCORECARD Nick Boulos’s former Shell station on the corner of MLK and Old Spanish Trail “is among 133 pieces of property [Metro] has acquired along the Southeast Corridor, including 27 in which Metro invoked eminent domain. Of those, 21 (including Boulos’) were settled by negotiation. Another 7 remain to be mediated or possibly settled in court. In the East End, METRO has obtained 135 parcels, filed 47 eminent domain cases, and settled 33 by negotiation, leaving 14 for mediation or the courtroom. On the Northside, METRO has acquired 113 total pieces of property, filed 18 eminent domain cases, and settled 16 by negotiation, leaving 2 for mediation or the courtroom.” [Fox 26] Rendering of Southeast Line on MLK between Griggs Rd. and OST: Metro

Roselyn said...

To JFishing: You also asked a question yesterday to ask Mike Bass if he was paid a commission when the properties were purchased on FM 2094 by the city and he gave me his permission to post his answer to that as well.

I hesitate putting both his posts on at one time in fear of short circuiting your thought process, but here was his answer:

"Someone asked a question on the blog as to how the Okies and the other commercial property were paid for. On the surface, this is a valid question. I am not sure, other than perhaps what people thought about the motivation behind the question, why some of the past EDC and City Council Members have not responded. By not responding the impression is created that something was done under the table. This was not the case.



The properties in question were purchased by the EDC from the monies they had accumulated from or planned to receive from the EDC sale tax revenue. No city funds property taxes or city sales taxes were used in the purchase. As I recall, the EDC had quite a bit of accumulated monies since it was finding it hard to identify projects where it could spend such money on and stay with the EDC funding regulations. Other than a park improvements, these monies must be used by the EDC for economic development or job creation. On February 7, 2008, the EDC approved the following project:



a. Motion “Creation of a Development Fund for the acquisition, including financing, of land and/or buildings within the city limits or Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of Clear Lake Shores and the subsequent planning for and re-development of such properties, such fund to be created through the allocation of $250,000 of the EDC’s existing surplus and an annual contribution of an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors but not to exceed $250,000 per year.”



The above project then went through the required Public Hearings and approval by City Council. There were no objections raised during this process so on May 27, the EDC ratified and approved the project. Each property purchase was then subsequently approved by the EDC. To my knowledge, no member of the EDC or City Council, other than Allen Cruthirds, benefited in any way from the project or subsequent purchases. Allen was the real estate broker on the deals. I believe he shared the standard 6% real estate commission with the listing agents. Given this role, Allen reclused himself from all EDC deliberations and abstained from any decisions made by the EDC. This is all covered in the EDC minutes.



There was no big conspiracy relating to this effort. The EDC was only trying to be proactive and acquire property actively on the market so these properties would not be sold and result in some undesirable development while the City was working to revise the Town Center zoning. The EDC especially wanted to have more control over the type of business that ultimately went into the corner where Okies was located.



Feel free to post this information under my name if you wish.



Mike Bass"

Uncle Sam said...

JFishing why don't you just clean up your messy yards on Tindel & Aspen rather than avoid your civic duty with all this political BS!

Roselyn said...

Another post from Mike Bass, with his permission to post(so refreshing to have someone smart, with no dog in the fight, posting):

"My comment regarding Eminent Domain was solely related to using this power in a situation where the “taking” was for economic development purposes. The City of Freeport tried to do this several years ago and the court ruled against them. The use of eminent domain to take property to serve the “public good” (which has a legal definition and includes such things as for drainage improvements, roads and mass transit projects, as described in the Metro case), is still considered by the courts to be a valid use of the power as long as the property owner is fairly compensated.

I cannot see where any “taking” of residential property, such Silver Lagoon, to build stores and shops falls within the definition of the “public good.” But this would be a question for your City Attorney. I will say again, as has been said many times before, the statutory role of an EDC is not to be a developer but only to promote such development and the creation of jobs. There is a big difference between this role and that of a developer. Nor do the statues give the EDC any right to use the power of eminent domain. The EDC did not buy the property it did to develop it but instead to find a developer that would build something that would fit with the character of the city and provide the kind of services desired by the residents. The EDC wished to control this property, especially the Okie corner lot, so they had more control over the type of business that went into the area to prevent the type of “blight” seen along other parts of FM 2974.

I wanted to reiterate that Silver Lagoon is zoned as residential property. One cannot operate a commercial enterprise within a residential zone. To commercially develop the area would require that it be rezoned as commercial property. Such a zoning change can only occur based on a recommendation by the P & Z Commission and approved by City Council. If 20 % of the property owners within the affected area object to any such change, then it takes a super majority (versus a simple majority) vote by Council to overcome the objecting petition. So where is the risk that Silver Lagoon will turn commercial? Someone is just trying to get the people that live upset over something that is not going to happen. Amazing that this is coming up before an election- typical Clear Lake Shores election shenanigans.

Personally, I think the citizens of Clear Lake Shores have more to worry about that this issue, which I believe is a non-issue, scare tactic. The citizens should really be concerned about how its government is going to rejuvenate its existing commercial area to provide a fall back to the Home Depot Complex. The City does not need a bigger commercial area; it needs to better use what it has and generate more revenue with it. There is too much existing commercial land that today produces no revenue. The City has seen a decline in its sales tax revenue and not all of this decline is due to the impact of Ike. Home Depot has increasing competition. If it ever closes, with no back up in place the residents will find themselves back to where they were in 2000- lousy roads, poorly maintained parks, no paid garage pickup, no subsidized pool and property taxes back at the $.27 to $.30 cents/ $100. It is only a matter of time and the City is running out of it.

Feel free to post this if you wish.

Mike Bass

JFishing said...

Roselyn or Mike Bass, I think yours is the scare tactic that the only Home Depot in the Area will close.

I believe the Houston Article shows your where 92 Homes were taken with Eminent Domain.

Now for the rest of the story about Freeport. It wasn't a home but a major employer in the area and they spend more than 450K dollars to keep that business for now:


Bulldozed by Eminent Domain
by George C. Leef, Posted August 6, 2008

Bulldozed by Carla T. Main (Encounter Books 2007); 276 pages; $27.95.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0805g.asp


Part of the Article:
City officials were not content to govern over such a mundane place. Suffering from a bad case of glitz-envy, they concocted a plan to boost the economy with a marina. It would be a privately owned enterprise, to be built by a wealthy scion of a Houston oil family, mostly with funds from the city’s meager budget. This was a classic “heads-I-win-tails-you-lose” deal from his perspective. As if that weren’t bad enough, the plans called for land along the river owned by the Western Seafood Company. Western Seafood had been founded in 1950 by the Gore family and it was truly one of those “up by the bootstraps” stories. The business, which bought from and sold to the shrimp trawlers that fish the Gulf of Mexico, was one of the largest employers and taxpayers in Freeport. City officials, however, were enamored of the idea of the marina as a catalyst for other investments, such as hotels and restaurants that would turn their town into a “destination.” They were eager to shove the Gores out so they could have their marvelous marina.

After more than three years of litigation that has cost the Gore family more than $450,000, it appears that the city has been defeated; but as Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” With eminent domain, it’s never really over.

****Buy the book it is worth the Read and it is real informative.

JFishing said...

PS: Mike Bass has a large piece of land that is undeveloped. Yes, he has a dog in the fight and don't ever think he doesn't.

Maybe Mike or a developer could get it zoned for Condos with the right board. Who knows? Anything is subject to "Change".

Roselyn said...

Your facts are wrong again JFishing....

Mike Bass sold the "dog park" land on Juniper May, 2011 and just this past Thursday he sold and closed all of the big chunk of land he owned on Oak. There is a possibility that he still owns three building lots in the 500 block of Pine, but I had heard he had sold those as well.

So, you he doesn't have a dog in this fight and you are going to have to keep "Fishing" for more political spin. You're not doing very well so far. Good luck.

Roselyn, Realtor with access to MLS closed sales.

Bryan said...

Thanks for the postings, Mike. We sure miss you around here! You are correct that by not responding in regard to how the properties were paid for may have given the impression that something was done under the table. I actually started to respond a few times, but I have a self-imposed rule of only responding to people who give their real name and not the cowards who post as ANON or some alias, so I decided against it. Even my 15 year duaghter spoke her mind on here and was not afraid to post her real name. JFishing could learn something even from a teenager it seems. Sad.

Mike, your postings are right on, as usual. Thanks again for the input and I hope you are enjoying watching this circus from afar.

DaveC. said...

The other side has no balls. They make up fake names and spout bull. Your are spineless cowards. If you had facts like Richard Sowery asked you for this matter would be resolved, your innuendo and lies are sad. You don't have any facts and keep looking for something that doesn't exist

Dave C.

Craig said...

Jfishing, Im just curious. Why are you afraid to post your name and why aren't,t you running for ouncil?

Craig

SPorter said...

Thanx a Grunch for your help, Mike Bass. SPorter

Roselyn said...

A realtor showed the beautiful house for sale at 1008 Aspen yesterday and this was the realtor's comments. The realtor is not from this area and she posted feedback that reads:

"Client LOVED the home however not interested due to neighborhood."

So some folks on Aspen DEFINITELY have a "dog in this fight" and want Jackie to clean up his two properties.