The city council is considering the establishment of a pedestrian beach on a small portion of city-controlled beach, less than 9 percent. This pedestrian beach also will allow for a resort-quality development. This portion of the beach will not be closed to the public but will be restricted from having vehicular traffic. What is your opinion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Shilling - 07:07pm Jan 20, 2006 Central (#1 of 87)
This pedestrian beach also will allow for a resort-quality development.....
Who ever started this thread, please tell us more.
Who? What? When? and Where?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Kenedeno - 10:19pm Jan 20, 2006 Central (#2 of 87)
I have always believed the Beach would always be accessible to the citizens and this was only a vehicle access restriction.
WATT was all the talk about a parking lot and we could walk to the beach?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRusling - 08:38am Jan 21, 2006 Central (#3 of 87)
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
The problem everyone should be addressing is "BEACH DEVELOPEMENT" which, on a barrier island is sheer stupidity.
Public (government) subsidy of "insurance" for any commercial organization stupid enough to build where it KNOWS IN ADVANCE the facilities will be destroyed by the next storm, should never have existed and certainly should not be continued.
Visit the beach, work at the beach, don't try to live there. It's dangerous. Anything you build on the beach will be blown/washed away so keep it small, cheap and easily replaceable. No insurance available since the risk/cost is too high.
No construction allowed in the "dune" area (including parking lots). That creates a danger, not just for those who do so but for everyone else in the vicinity. Messing with the dunes also destroys the beach. It also violates the "Texas Open Beaches Act."
All the talk about "safety" as a reason for restricting vehicle access is a pure, unadulterated lie.
Forget the "turtles" which won't stay in a developed area anyway. They're "imported" to start with, not native wildlife...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Kenedeno - 08:49pm Jan 21, 2006 Central (#4 of 87)
Is there not a few guys on the All America City Council.... Posted on January 21, 2006 at 09:49:29 PM by Jaime Kenedeño
who are in the industry?
Loyd Steal Neal is, he is not there anymore but was very instrumental in this "stealing" of our beach.
Who else is in the insurance industry propagating this disaster waiting to happen?
BIG $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and deep pockets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hudgins - 07:43am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#5 of 87)
The Island is already ruined by the 'rich' developers. Let 'em have it. The next hurricane will blow it all to hell anyway. Good riddance. We will then have our beautiful 'raw beach' back. You will see. It's God's Will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Akers - 08:30am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#6 of 87)
Have you ever been to Florida? Or any of the Carribean islands? Or anywhere else but here? This is the only barrier island on this continent that isn't developed.
The turtles, I believe, are way south on the National Seashore. Imported? You must be talking about the little ones you see in the pet shops. You can't import a turtle, set it down and expect it to stay.
Finally, your comment about "Anything you build on the beach will be blown/washed away so keep it small, cheap and easily replaceable." Great. You want a shanty-town on the beach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Akers - 08:31am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#7 of 87)
Have you noticed the 65 miles or so of "raw beach" south of Bob Hall Pier? Isn't that enough for you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Akers - 08:32am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#8 of 87)
The parking lot is almost finished. Maybe you should go and look before you complain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRusling - 08:36am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#9 of 87)
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
The photos and map in todays paper of the proposed Padre Island development are very pretty. Here are a few more from the Florida Gulf coast that weren't included.
Hurricane Dennis
Hurricane Dennis
Hurricane Charlie
Unrepaired Florida damage from 2004, in 2005
Hurricane Charlie
The "View" from Palm Beach Florida
So what? These folks have "insurance," (if they survived) right? Guess who the "underwriter" (that's who pays) is? Some will say it's the "government" but, governments don't HAVE any money, it's TAX money so it's yours and mine and EVERYONE ELSE'S money! What could the "damage" be to a $400 BILLION resort? $500 Billion? $600 Billion? Remember, FIRST there's the "cleanup" BEFORE we all pay to "rebuild" from the foundation up, for these "private" investors!
No thanks. Leave our barrier island to the birds, the bugs and the turtles, along with the fishermen and visitors for the day, during good weather...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRusling - 09:10am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#10 of 87)
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
Jack Akers 1/22/06 9:30am
The turtles, I believe, are way south on the National Seashore. Imported? You must be talking about the little ones you see in the pet shops. You can't import a turtle, set it down and expect it to stay.
I guess you've never heard of the "Kemp's Ridley," (sea turtle). They are endangered and imported, not native to Padre Island. They also "thrive" there and return, each and every year. Maybe you need to do a little research before you start teaching...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Brown - 10:05am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#11 of 87)
Mr. Schexnailder states that the development is not economically feasible if vehicles are not restricted from the beach. CENTEX Development Corporation used a similar argument in Galveston to get vehicles restricted from 2 miles of beach. They said that 87% of the people they polled who are wealthy enough to purchase property in their proposed development would not do so if vehicles were allowed to be driven on the beach.
So the City of Galveston voted to close the two miles of beach. That was part of a section the City promised the fishermen and other beach users in 1993 that they would never close in order to avoid a fight over closing another two mile section of beach called kids beach. They did not keep their word. Once they start restricting access for development, it will spread like a cancer. Soon you will have long stretches of beach where you can't drive so other destination resort communities can be built.
Pay attention to the comment about the beach being 30 minutes away from the airport and the disbelief over it not having been built out yet. The largest developers are very eager to build out the Texas coast, but they are paying close attention to the tests of the Open Beaches Act. Once the local residents start giving in to restrictions, they will start having trouble identifying where they can get on the beach.
Just take a look at Galveston - the subject of one of the articles in this series.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Kellam - 10:57am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#12 of 87)
I for 1 am not against Corpus growth. Can the city council guarantee no further beach closures? I don't think that is possible. Close a small portion, and every developer will want their own private beach. There are peoples that come from all over America and the world, to drive on and use our pristine beaches, bringing in millions of dollars. Isn't that enough for you? Why can't you leave well enough alone? What does beach closure have to do with a golf course? It wouldn't have been so bad had the city council not LIED to us about how much closure they needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Kellam - 11:06am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#13 of 87)
Who authorized the building of the parking lot before it even became an issue. Don't you think that is putting the cart before the horse? It is no wonder that people are fighting you the way you hide what you are trying to do. Why not come out and be honest with the people about the changes that may impact all the locals? I don't know anyone who would stand in the way of Corpus growing, if you are just honest, and tell the whole story about what is going on. No wonder the people fighting your beach closure are wondering how many kick-backs are involved. Every thing is hidden in secrecy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
openletter2004 - 11:20am Jan 22, 2006 Central (#14 of 87)
The Florida developments look wonderful.. But why doesn't the Caller-Timers show the fiasco that is Virginia Beach Virginia or the beaches in California. In Virginia Beach you cannot even see the beach when you drive by it because of the condos and hotels. Yes the beach and the boardwalk,, (all built and maintained by taxes on the local citizens) is open to the local citizens but there is no free public parking less than about 12 blocks (approx 2 miles) of the beach/boardwalk. The situation in California is even worse. Visitors to the beach may not get on the "dry sand" above the mean high tide line (do a goggle search on "California beach access dispute"). They are also restricted to being on the beach only during the "daylight hours" so as to insure that the "criminals" can't get to the beach side of the houses of the "rich and famous". Since half of the daylight hours are high tide,, this means that unless you want to get wet,, there are only about 6 hours in the day when you can go to the beach and spread to a blanket and lay down ,, or be able to make a fire pit and have a bar-b-que. These are the real future of both the beach on the island and the beach/boardwalk downtown if the developers get their way..
Here is an idea.. Make the developer build the codos and hotels behind the dune line and build and maintain the walkovers so the rich people are the ones that have to take a hike when they forget the babies diapers or the mustard for the hot dogs.. Let those of us that aren't rich be able to continue to drive on the beach so if we forget something we can just hop in the car , right next to our beach spot, and run to the local convenience store to get what we forgot.
The current proposal makes the maintenance of the parking lots and the walk overs the responsibility of the people that are being inconvenienced by the development that will only benefit the rich who will only be truly satisfied when they have total control and completely private beach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From__Said - 12:18pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#15 of 87)
I did NOT vote for him - and I'm proud of it!
your big mouth will get you in trouble, Akers:
look at the statistics:
see: http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/corpuschristi.htm
Now - if you can - just remember 1980 - hurricane Bret - actually going into the King Ranch - but Corpus Christi totally deserted by people, because Bret had been announced as the worst hurricane that would hit Corpus Christi in 100 years. Thank God, it went South. But trust me, we got so much damage from it's edges, that the homebuilders and fence companies and landscape companies were busy for a very long time.
The worst that happened was: North Beach was wiped out and 2 people died in their cars on North Beach, because they couldn't go to shelters, because shelters wouldn't take their pets. So they sat in their cars and drowned. And afterwards those shanty type looking little houses and hotels and restaurants were totally destroyed by the high waves. North Beach was quarantined for more than a week after the hurricane to keep looters out.
And after several days we tried to go the Padre Island. Well, the right hand lanes going to the Island were totally blown over with the fine white sand. Nobody was able to use those 2 lanes. Traffic was re-routeed to the 2 left lanes going into town: One lane going to the Island, one coming back. When we finally got to an entry to the beach, we didn't get very far. There was no beach anymore. The water was up into the dunes, several days after the hurricane. It took weeks to go down.
Now remember: this hurricane didn't really touch Corpus Christi itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Shilling - 12:37pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#16 of 87)
Only a 60 Room Hotel? Please clarify map! How much Beach space does one need for a 60 Room Hotel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From__Said - 12:46pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#17 of 87)
I did NOT vote for him - and I'm proud of it!
RE: Galveston and hurricanes
Around 1982 hurricane Amy hit Galveston. A good friend of ours with a lot of money, owned a beach house on stilts, along with a whole row of other houses on stilts and their owners. 54 feet from the edge of the water is by nature property of the State of Texas. So these houses were built more than 60 feet aways from edge of the water. Well, when Amy was done with Galveston Beach, not one house on stilts was left, not to talk about the rows of other beach houses built behind this one row. The worst was, our friend and the other owners of the houses on stilts not only lost their houses, they also lost their land. Because the hurricane eroded the beach so much, that by the time the State of Texas claimed their 54 feet from the edge of water, their properties had dissappeared in the water. The edge of the water had moved quite inland. All the owners of the houses on stilts made a class action suits gainst the state to get their lost land back. I don't know what the outsome of theat class action suit is.
But the story shows you ,what happens to barrier islands in a hurricane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 02:28pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#18 of 87)
From Jack Akers: "Have you noticed the 65 miles or so of "raw beach" south of Bob Hall Pier? Isn't that enough for you?"
So, Jack, you are like Schexnailder, who says, "You guys can use the other side of the channel. This side is for the resort." Yes, he actually told me that. Basically, it's a "go somewhere else" attitude.
The problem with his and your attitude is that we voted on building the $30 million project, with our tax dollars, based on the promise that the project was for the public. Not half the project. All of it. There are numerous documents from the GLO, Corps of Engineers, and City of Corpus Christi that back this fact.
If the city now attempts to give most of the south jetty to a private entity, it is flirting with charges of electoral fraud, based on what we were voted on in April, 2001 (the TIF election).
Go back and look at the TIF that we voted on. It designates the south jetty and the beach as public park space, not private resort. Go look at the Padre/Mustang Development Plan, approved in 2004 by this sitting City Council. It clearly states that no vehicle restrictions other than in front of the seawall will occur.
There's more, but that's enough for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 04:00pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#19 of 87)
Don't the rich deserve some beach to themselves free of beer drinking louts driving pick-ups up and down the beach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zzdog - 05:09pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#20 of 87)
ERIC <>
exactly ... anyone does that wants to go there for a day and not have to worry about dodging drunks and the old beer bottles ..
as usual, the same people are whining against development, which in turn, prevents development of the area ( Culture,, tourism with $$$$ , not the old folks from Indiana that go to the Mall once while they are here for the winter, )and a chance for Corpus to get with it ,, the beach is public ,, you will still be allowed to WALK there ,,
anyone walk in Corpus ? seems they just want to drive there, sit in the car and drink and pass gas .... seems that with hundreds of miles of beaches there ,, someof it can be reserved for a pedestrian area ......
is it really to save the open beaches , or a sour grapes mentality because they cannot afford to live there , so they don;t want others there? ,,anyone who is considering living on a beach ( think ,,MALIBU ) knows the dangers, risks and odds ,,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 05:09pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#21 of 87)
Here's the thing, Eric (and I understand your sarcasm). Schexnailder has been offered a compromise that takes all the vehicles off the beach, but allows a small public parking area where the jetties meet the beach, so we can have reasonable access to our jetty. He says it's a deal-killer. This is first-hand information. Mark Scott can confirm it.
What that means to me is, it's not about pedestrian beaches. It's about the resort clientele not having to rub shoulders with us, the citizens of CC. It's not about safety, it's about exclusivity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zzdog - 05:12pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#22 of 87)
<>
gee.... gee some bucks, and join them ,,,, offended because they don't want to " rub shoulders " with those fine people in the Coastal Bend ?
What next ? group hugs for everyone .??. pick your friends and let others do the same ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KhachTX - 05:15pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#23 of 87)
Going to church no more makes you a Christian than going swimming makes you a fish
How many restaurants have shut down in Corpus in the last few months? Drive down Staples on your way downtown next time, it's a very sad, very poor area....folks, something has to be done to bring some dollars to that town. It's a great town, but it's sliding downhill fast.
Money is needed in the cash registers in the small business areas of your town, if this isn't the answer, what is? Something has to give, folks.
I would personally hate to see beaches shut down to cars and the general public, but dog has a point, Corpus needs tourists! ones that come on vacation every year, with kids and dogs and money to spend....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 05:26pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#24 of 87)
From zzdog: "...as usual, the same people are whining against development"
I'm not against development. The resort can come, and we can still have reasonable access to the jetty, as the city council has promised us. It will happen that way. You'll see.
"...anyone walk in Corpus ? seems they just want to drive there, sit in the car..."
Yes, we walk. We also fish, and windsurf. These things require lugging a lot of gear, especially if you're bringing the kids along. If the parking lot for the public is over a quarter mile away from the jetty, that's not acceptable. That's, in Mark Scott's words, "a declaration that we really don't want you on the beach." (Oct. 18 Council meeting).
"...seems that with hundreds of miles of beaches there ,, someof (sic) it can be reserved for a pedestrian area"
Yes, but not that area. It was clearly promised to us in multiple documents, not the least of which was the TIF we voted on to fund $10 million of it. If the city changes their mind now, they're flirting with a charge of electoral fraud on that issue. The logic behind that charge is, if the city had put the TIF to a vote based on giving the south jetty to the resort, we would not have passed the TIF, and the channel would not have been dredged.
Hate to see it come to a court battle, but that may be where we're headed. If you want to see the resort go away in a hurry, just keep pushing without talking of compromise. A protracted legal battle would scare them away a lot sooner than telling them they need to let us get to our jetty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 05:37pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#25 of 87)
from zzdog: "gee.... gee some bucks, and join them ,,,, offended because they don't want to " rub shoulders " with those fine people in the Coastal Bend ?
What next ? group hugs for everyone .??. pick your friends and let others do the same ... "
Not sure what you mean. I guess you are suggesting that I'm poor. Guess again. If I want to go to a resort, I'll go to Hawaii or Costa Rica. I live here. I want to use my beaches. I want to use that section of beach specifically. I voted to help fund it based on that premise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 06:04pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#26 of 87)
The developers want to keep this between them and five city councilmembers. It is easier to bribe them than to convince the people who the beach belongs to that it is in their best interest to build a swank resort with a defacto private beach.
The fix is in. Remember who was pushing this at the next election. Think of all those minimum wage jobs this will bring here. Ya reckon ole Brent is gonna get a lifetime pass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONEITA WEST - 06:26pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#27 of 87)
LISTEN ERIC, I THINK YOUR STATEMENT THAT, DRINKING LOUTS DRIVING PICKUP UP AND DOWN THE BEACH", IS A RUDE REMARK AND TELLS ME YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHO IS ON THE BEACH.
THE PEOPLE THAT I SEE ON THE BEACH ARE FAMILIES OUT ON THE BEACH HAVING A PICNIC AND ENJOYING THEMSELVES. I ALSO SEE OUT OF TOWNERS PARKED AND CAMPING ON THE BEACH WITH A PICNIC AND A BONDFIRE.
I SEE FISHERMEN PARKED NEXT TO THE WATER WHO ARE HAVEING A WONDERFUL TIME FISHING AND THEY CERTAINLY WOULD NOT LIKE NOT HAVING TO HAUL THEIR GEAR DOWN TO THE BEACH.
I SEE SWIMMERS, WINDSURFERS, AND SURF BOARDERS HAVING A GRAND TIME AND THE WINDSURFERS AND SURFBOARDERS WOULD NOT LIKE HAULING ALL THEIR STUFF TO THE BEACH.
I SEE TEENAGERS PLAYING HORSE SHORES AND VOLLYBALL, BUT I DON'T SEE BEER DRINKING LOUTS IN PICKUPS DRIVING UP AND DOWN THE BEACH DRINKING BEER.
THIS BEACH IS PUBLIC AND THE PEOPLE OF CORPUS CHRISTI USE IT ALL THE TIM. DRIVING AND PARKING ON THIS BEACH SEEMS TO BE WHAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE REALLY WANT. THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE THE CAR WAS INVENTED SIGNED. NONEITA WEST 1/22/60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 06:57pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#28 of 87)
The poor have no business on the beach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kelly h - 08:02pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#29 of 87)
My wife and I are from Corpus but live in Panama City Beach, Florida. The sand and water here are beautiful, but it is ruined by the condos and development lining the beach. You can't even see the water due to all of the condos. There is no way to drive on the beach here! Even driving on the road next to the Gulf, the condos are all lined up between you and the water! It sucks! Corpus's beaches are a jewel. As much whining and moaning as you hear, I have never heard of anyone getting run over on the beach in Corpus. Corpus does not have pretty sugar white sand or beautiful blue/green water like Florida, but it does have a natural state and freedom. Promote this freedom. Build condos if you must, but PLEASE keep it as much like it is now so that we can enjoy it when we come home. Only the tourists who can afford the expensive condos can enjoy the beaches of Panama City Beach here, not the locals!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 08:52pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#30 of 87)
I THINK YOUR STATEMENT THAT, DRINKING LOUTS DRIVING PICKUP UP AND DOWN THE BEACH", IS A RUDE REMARK AND TELLS ME YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHO IS ON THE BEACH.
As you suggest, there are a variety of people on the beach, but the louts are definitely there also. The last time I took my family, we got there early and found out a nice place away that was less crowded. But sure enough along came a carload of noisy drunks who felt they had the right to use foul language within earshot of my small children. They also felt they had the right to blast their gansta rap music from their nearby cars.
Quite frankly, I welcome a spot where I can go and not have to deal with that. Heck I'd even pay to go to a beach that was served by a resort. Ever go to the Holiday Inn downtown? You don't have to be a guest to use the beach. Its kind of nice to have drinks served to you on the beach.
From what I understand, this proposed vehicle restricted area comprises less than 10% of all the beach, not counting the miles of beach available at the national seashore. I'm fairly certain that more than 10% of the population really wants this restricted area. In a purely democratic system, the percent of the population that wanted a vehicle restricted beach would have that percent of available beach restricted to vehicles. Wouldn't the opposition howl if, say, 30-40-50% of the beach were restricted because that same portion of the voters wanted it? The opponents of this plan are not interested in parity, or what other people want.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 08:58pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#31 of 87)
Now before you all get upset with my analogy, I'm not suggesting that the percent of restricted beach should match the percent of voters that want it. But I want to illustrate how modest the proposed 7000 feet of beach is in comparison to the rest of unrestricted beach, and in comparison to the percent of the population that wants a vehicle restricted area. I just don't believe that it is too much to ask for in the grand scheme of things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 09:16pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#32 of 87)
PB, the city council attempted to make the kind of beach you want in front of the seawall, and promised that they would stop there. I was in support of that area being a vehicle-free resort beach environment, because I agree that we should offer something like that. Then, they had to go and respond to a request from a littoral property owner to restrict vehicular access in front of his property, which is what they specifically directed the city manager not to do.
The stretch of beach between the seawall and Packery is MUCH different from the seawall area. It is...well, read my above posts.
I can promise you that the city council is embarking on an un-winnable battle if they insist on changing everything that they, and the state (GLO), and the federal government (Corps), have promised us about Packery.
Did you see the Caller-Times poll on traffic restriction before they pulled it off the website? Sixty-one percent of the first 500 respondents said their should be NO restrictions on vehicles. Another 17% said that traffic should be restricted only in some cases.
The city should have stuck to their original promise. They are polarizing the majority vote against themselves even further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 09:30pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#33 of 87)
Since the beaches in Texas belong to all the citizens of Texas not just those fortunate enough to live in Corpus Christi, let's put it to a vote. You will never see this because the developers know in advance what the outcome will be. Their only hope is to bribe enough votes on the Corpus Christi city council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 09:47pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#34 of 87)
Another 17% said that traffic should be restricted only in some cases.
My point exactly. Give them their 17% of the beach. (I'm just kidding) Drive all over your 90%, they only want 10%.
The benefits to the economy far outweigh the negatives. I'd love to see a whole bunch of million dollar homes built because of the resort. 'Cause I know they'll be paying loads of taxes, and that gets spread all over the city. Ever complain about not getting potholes fixed, not enough parks, not enough police etc etc...? The solution to those city problems is TAXES. We're already taxed enough, let some rich folks move here and subsidize us for a while. If all that takes is 7000 feet of beach, then let them have it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 09:59pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#35 of 87)
Yeah, they will pay a load of taxes but it won't get spread all over the city. Ya ever see a pot hole on Ocean Drive or Hewitt Drive? If the rich folks want the beach let's at least sell it to them instead of giving it away? Oh, wait, they did sell it to them. I wonder how much they got?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 10:18pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#36 of 87)
PB, it's not about driving on the beach. It's about the city promising us Packery channel, then giving half to the developer. Sorry, but I voted for Packery because it was promised to us.
Do you really believe that one tiny section of beach will be the "make or break" for whether or not we have development on the island? I guess you haven't heard of the 42-story unit planned for Mustang Island, in the city limits. It's one of ten major projects on the drawing board. I guess you don't know of the number of building permits for single-family homes in La Concha, and all the other developments in CC city limits on Mustang.
Get real. Development is coming one way or the other. I'm not willing to sell my soul to get it. Don't need to. They're coming anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 11:39pm Jan 22, 2006 Central (#37 of 87)
It's about the city promising us Packery channel, then giving half to the developer. Sorry, but I voted for Packery because it was promised to us.
Yea but who's paying for Packery? Additional taxes from the development, that's who. It would have never been sold to the public unless the development (and its extra tax revenue) came also. No development, no Packery. No Packery, no development. They're joined at the hip.
Besides, I don't see how restricting cars constitutes "giving it away to the developer". If we can still go there, how is it being given away?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FT__TX - 03:44am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#38 of 87)
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness" ~Ronald Reagan~
"Here is an idea.. Make the developer build the codos and hotels behind the dune line and build and maintain the walkovers so the rich people are the ones that have to take a hike when they forget the babies diapers or the mustard for the hot dogs.. Let those of us that aren't rich be able to continue to drive on the beach so if we forget something we can just hop in the car , right next to our beach spot, and run to the local convenience store to get what we forgot."
Essentially, that's the program now. And all things considered, it works pretty well.
Developers have access to miles and miles and miles of beach, on equally beautiful undeveloped barrier island, well north of Corpus Christi and Port A. But the cost of doing business in such a remote location, would add tremendous cost to developing those projects.
The truth is, the only reason to choose to develop on Padre Island within or near the city limits of Corpus Christi, is to have easy and cheap access to an easily herded governmental body, in this case the city council, and an even easier and cheaper ability to tie into all the various city services. And then freely utilize the existing political and infrastructure base. With the potential to readily expand services and infrastucture, largely if not completely, at the expense of the taxpayers.
Of course any new development would add many dollars to the tax base. There's no doubt about that. But the offset is, an increased cost to the city, to provide all the needed service and infrastructure, for the new developments themselves.
In effect, most likely, those added expenses essentially will cause a net zero sum gain, certainly when spread across time.
With that in mind, the people need to consider that the true impact will only be an increase of gross tax taken in, offset by increased cost, but without much if any reduction in citizens tax bills or improvement in net tax increases, that would be generated and added by new developme
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FT__TX - 03:45am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#39 of 87)
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness" ~Ronald Reagan~
(continued)
And with that, there's little if any funds left, for any quality of life improvement.
So if you'd like to be able to drive by and stare at what would surely eventually become miles and miles of hotel and private condo entrances, before you can find an uncluttered beach location for yourself and your family, by all means support the demands of restricted and inconvienienced public beach access, by those that will make millions by this new found development friendly business environment. That is not designed or geared towards the service of the local public at large. And do so to the hilt!
But if you enjoy being able to leave home and within a very few minutes of travel, be able to surf, fish, play in the water or sand, or just enjoy a fairly secluded moment watching the birds fly by, you'd better get busy and act now.
Once the "Dam of development is breached", there will be no stopping it until Corpus beaches look just like those of Miami. Developers will file lawsuits to ensure they get their "piece of the pie". Padre Island will become packed to the gills with people, who will visit, then we'll never see most of them again.
We'll have over priced real estate everywhere and low wage paying out of state owned shops and other corporate owned vendors, jammed into every possible space, anywhere near the beach. Selling over priced goods, to a prosperous but alien throng of vacation warriors, with no connection to the community at all. And we'll also have the secluded wealthy, enjoying for themselves, what was once our easily accessable, now cloistered and out of sight "public beaches".
That's your choice. But don't allow yourself to be falsely convinced, it's anything else.
In Texas terms, I'll put it this way. You can put flowers on a stinking cow patty, but it's still a stinking cow patty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FT__TX - 03:45am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#40 of 87)
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness" ~Ronald Reagan~
(continued)
Having been to, and spent time in, many over developed beach communities, that lack any local flavor and charm at all, I'm fairly sure that Corpus would lose my interest fairly fast, if the beach development explosion ever begins.
Landry's would have been an understandably smaller but advisably better "Jolt" of "new tax revenue enhancement". And it would have only taken a small amount of space, in an area that's already filled with curious pavement dwelling tourist, with lots of people and hot concrete there already!
Oh well. What was to be... isn't. Again.
Maybe it's time to sharpen my Spanish a bit and look south. Waaaaay south... Maybe there's even room for me on Kenny Chesney's Island?
Nevermind. I just remembered. That's a "Private Island".
Maybe somewhere on the coast of Costa Rica might be good! For a while...? ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Brown - 06:36am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#41 of 87)
Texas Open Beach Advocates and the Recreational Fishing Alliance met with Land Commissioner Patterson last July and proposed the same thing; only we were proposing a constitutional amendment that would guarentee the right to drive on the beaches. He did not think we would get far with that idea, but said he would support legislative changes to the Open Beaches Act that would make it more difficult for cities to restrict traffic.
The GLO ignores their own rules writtent to support the OBA. The City of Galveston has never provided statistics, surveys or photos to show that beach usage has remained the same or increased with closing sections to vehicles. They can't because the beaches have become de facto private beaches. Resort property owners on Galveston Island advertise their rentals as having private beaches or the most exclusive beaches in Texas.
Nor does the City of Galveston provide the one parking space for every 15 linear feet of beach closed. They designate streets for beach access parking where parking is prohibited by city ordinance because the streets aren't 20' wide. The GLO ignores that part.
There is virtually no ADA access on Galveston which is now under federal mandate to provide ADA access every half mile where vehicles are restricted. The City has asked the GLO to intervene because they say they cannot afford to do that. All they have to do is open the beaches to vehicles and they will be in compliance along most of the island.
The photos in this article show geo-textile tubes on Galveston Island. They were installed illegally and the GLO ignored it. Now they are supposed to be kept covered with sand and the beaches kept at the width of adjacent beaches that don't have geo-textile tubes. Neither is happening as you can see by the pictures. The GLO refuses to have them removed because million dollar homes will become seaward of the line of natural vegetation.
Keep your city beaches as they are. Development will occur regar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 06:39am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#42 of 87)
From PB: "Yea but who's paying for Packery?"
$20 million is federal money. That's our taxes. Of the other $10 million, only $5 million has been issued, and we're about done. That's also our taxes. Those bonds will be paid back before the development you're referring to even comes. We brought in over a million of it last year! That's 40% more than budgeted.
You seem to think the resort is going to pay for Packery, so they should get half of it. That's wrong. Taxes are paid by everyone. They are a part of doing business. They don't entitle anyone to special priveleges. If I pay more taxes than you, should I get special priveleges from the police and fire departments, or solid waste services?
From PB: "Besides, I don't see how restricting cars constitutes "giving it away to the developer". If we can still go there, how is it being given away?"
I was referring mainly to the south jetty. Have you seen the TIF Final Plan? It specifies a public park on the length of the south jetty, on the 300-foot strip between Schexnailder's property and the jetty. Have you seen Schexnailder's plan? It shows a private marina cut into about half of that land.
Bait and switch. Electoral fraud. Plain and simple.
Also, yes, you can go to part of the south jetty, but only if you're willing to carry your gear more than a quarter mile. That does not "preserve and enhance" public access, which is what the Texas Open Beaches Act requires.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Brown - 06:50am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#43 of 87)
Remember, Galveston started with a small percent of beach beyond the Seawall being closed to vehicles. Then the development began to spread. Once you've approved closing a section of beach to appease one developer/subdivision, you've lost the right to deny closing more beach as development spreads.
That is what you must protect against now. By this coming summer, Galveston will not have but one stretch of island that is one mile long where you can drive. That is out of 20 miles of beach beyond the seawall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zzdog - 07:13am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#44 of 87)
I do not think that you will have to worry that CC will become another Miami beach.
as it is now ,Corpus cannot attract a steady stream of high rolling ( $$ ) tourists,, I went back there with a bunch of college buddies for a re-union ,,, most of the people hadn't been there in almost 30 years ,,, their basic impression was that it was still a place that is full of potential that will be never be achieved as long as the mindset remains the way it has been : basically fighting all incoming people with new ideas, that will " CHANGE" things.
with more people retiring and heading to the Sun BElt, Texas is a prime location ( no income taxes,cheap maids, no traffic, great weather ) perhaps they should make it not as attractive to the " outsiders" so they stay away. Without the increased tax revenue ,, even more of the city will decay and continue to deteriorate into our northern most border town. Maybe we should go back to a 2 lane Lexington BLVD and pave over SPID,, back to the swing bridges and revive Cullen Mall .. like the good old days ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONEITA WEST - 08:52am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#45 of 87)
TO DOG, GO BACK TO BED YOUR MIND IS STILL ASLEEP. FROM N.W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 08:59am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#46 of 87)
Deary, put your walker aside for a moment and turn off your caps lock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 09:00am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#47 of 87)
beach access advocate 1/23/06 7:39am
You seem to think the resort is going to pay for Packery
You misunderstood me, I meant that tax revenue from the development would be paying for Packery, through the tax increment financing district.
A tax increment financing district works on a money feedback loop. Development in the district raises property values, which increases property tax revenues. The increased property tax revenues then go back into the district's development, which raises more tax money. According to the financial report developers used to evaluate the project, the district would raise between $90 million and $139 million over 20 years, more than enough to pay for the construction and maintenance of the channel.
So...there could be no Packery without the development, and the development would not have come without the Gulf access provided by Packery. You mentioned that the district took in over a million dollars last year, or 40% more than budgeted. Sounds to me like the deal is working!
You mentioned the federal tax dollars, which comes from all Americans not just Texans. Did you know that Texas sends to Washington more tax dollars than it receives? It's high time we got some of that back. If we don't get those dollars, they'll send it to Alaska to build a bridge to nowhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 09:03am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#48 of 87)
Yeah, we oughta be grateful that the Feds give us back anything. I want up every morning with a little prayer to Solomon for bringin' home the pork.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 09:24am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#49 of 87)
From PB: "You misunderstood me, I meant that tax revenue from the development would be paying for Packery..."
I don't misunderstand you. I am referring to the sense of entitlement that you and Schexnailder seem to have over Packery. You seem to think that, since the development is coming, and since it, like everyone else, pays taxes, it's entitled to be given the public land around it. It is not.
Yes, the TIF is working well. We don't need to worry about paying for dredging, whether or not this particular resort company develops that piece. It will be developed, as will a lot more areas in the TIF. That is inevitable, and it is proceeding with haste, as is happening with the rest of the island. That fact is independent of the channel, and does not entitle Mr. Schexnailder or the resort to our public parks.
I would like to see you respond specifically to the fact that, in its lease to the city, the state specifies that the land between Packery and Schexnailder's property be used for public purposes, yet Mark Scott and Henry Garrett have publicly stated that they intend to lease it to the developer, and the developer plans a private marina; the fact that the TIF board (city council) specifies in ordinance 025215 that that space between Packery and Schexnailder's property be a public park; that the city council, in the 2004 Mustang/Padre Development Plan, has a policy of no vehicle restrictions other than in front of the seawall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From__Said - 09:28am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#50 of 87)
I did NOT vote for him - and I'm proud of it!
PB
you're forgetting that the majority of the beach - the parts beyond Malaquite Beach - are only available to you, if you drive a four-wheel-drive vehicle.
Not everybody does - by far.
And BTW - that day that you wanted to have that nice quiet day at the beach with your family and then got rudely interrupted, you could have spent $2.00/per car and go to the Mustang Island State Park. You wouldn't have had any gangsta-rapping beerswilling louts bother you there. And the beach gets every morning cleaned of sea grass and anything floating in from the sea at night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Brown - 10:23am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#51 of 87)
Okay, so now we have read the history, the dollar-eyed intentions of the city of Galveston, developers, and that of the public's loss. I believe another story is called for. The full truth about Galveston beach access. A story that details how a beach access plan has never worked since the first plan in the early 90's and a new plan that isn't working again.Talk about the beaches that were closed illegally for years. Show the public a list of all the "private" beaches in Galveston, and yes, we have them, those that provide NO access of any kind to the public. I believe the public would then get a better picture of what happens with a beach access plan and a blatant desire by the beachside homeowners, and the city to deny the public not only vehicular access but pedestrian access, too and even the simple signage to make the public aware of access. Lets talk about hidden signs in one subdivision. After years, over 10 years, of complaints to the General Land Office, they offer no help or corrections. They are the reason Galveston has violated the public's right to access for so many years and continue to do so today. We should also discuss that one subdivision, Pirates Beach in Galveston has been trying to find a way to stop the public from parking on their streets ( these are designated public beach access points) to go over walkovers to the beach! They aren't satisfied with just getting the cars off of the beach. Let's discuss the subdivisions with no public access signs, to even let the public know they can access the beach! Or the beachfront subdivisions that say "Public access" yet there is no public access of anykind available. Let's discuss the closed Pocket Parks. Let's discuss the more than 100 homes sitting on the public beaches and get down to what it is that the beachfront interests really want-to deter the public any way possible. If they don't even want to provide parking and walkovers, it appears they would just rather the public wasn't seen on their bea
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Rodriguez - 11:45am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#52 of 87)
First, I think Corpus Christi beaches are A-1. I wish I lived closer to enjoy the beautiful water and sandy beaches there. I live in Houston and unfortunately Galveston has sold out to the highest bidder and left us high and dry. I have been visiting Galveston's West End beaches since the mid 60's.
I can tell you from firsthand experience visiting nearby Galveston Island that Corpus' attempt to close this beach to vehicular traffic WILL set a precedence for future beach closures. It WILL happen to each section of beach over time and once you lose the vehicular access, you WILL NEVER get it back. We've lost 13+ miles on Galveston's West End and are down to less than 1-2 miles now, maybe even less.
Public access is guaranteed on our Texas beaches. Alot of federal monies are spent on Texas beaches. Don't learn the hard lesson like we have here in Galveston. We can't access our beach. Here are some issues you need to address:
Parking.....do you have enough off-site parking to accommodate visitors wanting to access this portion of beach?
Accessible Routes....do you have walkways, dune walkovers that the public can travel over to access the beach? For persons with disabilities (cane users, walker users, wheelchair users) will these walkways/dune walkovers meet Americans with Disabilities (ADA) standards? Persons with disabilities include folks with heart and respiratory conditions. You probably know someone who meets this criteria or with people living longer, this will most likely be you and me in the future.
FYI, the National Park Service has jurisdiction over ADA access to public parks and beaches. If you have an access issue or know someone who does, you can send your complaint to:
Dianne Spriggs EEO Program Manager United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 1849 C Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240
or send to her e-mail address directly at: Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov
I filed a complaint back in 2001 (Dept of J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Rodriguez - 11:51am Jan 23, 2006 Central (#53 of 87)
Here's the rest of my post:
I filed a complaint back in 2001 (Dept of Justice --> Dept of Interior --> National Park Service) because we could not get my wheelchair bound grandparents to the beach. Back then my dad was able-bodied, now he is using a cane. The City of Galveston and our Texas General Land Office are passing the buck to see who should pay for public access.
Developers and most politicos will do whatever it takes to prohibit vehicular access. It's more money in their pockets and this is BIG MONEY.
What I do know is that we are steadily losing public access to our Texas beaches. Do not give the developers or the politicos an inch of it.
Neither the City of Galveston or City of Corpus have the resources to provide public access when they close the beaches to vehicular access. Ask the City of Corpus where the money will come from and ask the developer where it will come from. Nor does the State of Texas have the funds to do this. You will be amazed to see how many fingers are pointing in different directions.
The National Park Service WILL ensure the public has access to these beaches, but you have to let them know if this is not happening in your area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Miras - 12:48pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#54 of 87)
On the subject of beach access nobody seems to be able to agree on an equitable solution. Here are a few comments that may or may not be acceptable to all. 1. Texas beaches, by law, are open and “open” implies (correctly I think) that accessibility for vehicular traffic should not be restricted. 2. Accessibility does not necessarily include uncontrolled traffic. A single driving lane contiguous to specified parking space should make all beaches available to all people without any danger of traffic hazards. 3. Barrier islands are called that for a reason. Nature protects the mainland from oceanic hazards by creating a temporary land mass that protects against high seas and strong winds. 4. Construction on the seaward side of a barrier island, if allowed at all, should be regulated by building standards that will require structures to withstand the forces of a category five hurricane. 5. Access to Government subsidized windstorm and/or flood insurance should be denied to residents of barrier islands. Those who choose to live in an area known to be hazardous should assume their own risks and not depend on Government programs that are supported by the rest of society. 6. All of the above comments need to be considered before leaping into a development agreement with anyone or any organization. Corpus Christi is in the unique position of being able to dictate terms. Most of the beach areas in this country have already been victimized by developers. Job creation is NOT one of the benefits of development but an increase in the tax base could be realized if all new infrastructure costs were underwritten by the developer(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Cooksey - 01:03pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#55 of 87)
I relocated to Kentucky from Corpus Christi 5 years ago due to employment reasons and dream of the day I will return. I miss the beautiful beaches that have not been over run with condo development and subdivisions. Call me close minded, but I think Corpus Christi beaches are beautiful as they are and we need to focus on keeping it that way-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Subaru - 01:17pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#56 of 87)
If Shexnailder says it's a deal breaker if there is any vehicular traffic of any kind in front of the development, I guess call out the fat lady and let her rip, because the way I see it there is not the support from the community to get this done the way he wants it. I find it hard to believe that with all that has been done getting to this point that it's a big bluff. If it's not a bluff there are lots of othere opportunities, and I hope he doesn't let the door hit him on the a$$ on the way out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ramos1129 - 01:41pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#57 of 87)
I am in favor of economic development but in this case, it is just not possiblle for the following reasons: (1) if we do close a part of the beach to vehicular traffic, the public is forced to carry its beach items from one end to whereever.This can be a burden to some people. (2) it will not stop with the this developer. The next developer will seek equal consideration. (3) Each resort will consider "its beach" as its private property. No resort that charges high prices will want its cliente sharing a beach with homeless people, spring breakers, out of work folks, etc. This is bad economics. (4) The resort(s) will hire its own private security force to keep non-guests off "its beach". If citizens complain to city council, the council folks will simply ask both sides to work out a solution, etc. It will not quickly and efficiently enforce equal access. This has been proven time and again. We have one of the few undeveloped, but developable, stretch of beaches in the USA. It is a very valuable property. As one developer puts it, he does not need to have the beach(s) closed to be a success.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 01:51pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#58 of 87)
I am referring to the sense of entitlement that you and Schexnailder seem to have over Packery. You seem to think that, since the development is coming, and since it, like everyone else, pays taxes, it's entitled to be given the public land around it. It is not.
Don't presume to know what I'm thinking. I'm asking you hard questions because both sides have hard questions to answer. Right now I'm having a hard time understanding how this is going to comply with the Open Beaches Act. Maybe we'll get to that topic later, but right now I'm trying to understand just what is being "given" to the developer.
I would like to see you respond specifically to the fact that, in its lease to the city, the state specifies that the land between Packery and Schexnailder's property be used for public purposes, yet Mark Scott and Henry Garrett have publicly stated that they intend to lease it to the developer, and the developer plans a private marina; the fact that the TIF board (city council) specifies in ordinance 025215 that that space between Packery and Schexnailder's property be a public park...
Were you aware that we already have a city-owned marina, that is designated as city park for the use of the public? We do, downtown. Does the term "private marina" bother you? At the city marina, the general public is restricted from the docks now, because you can't have just anybody wandering around some very valuable boats. So in essence the city marina is private now, you have to be a tenant with a key to get on the docks, yet the whole area is a public park.
Now on this park next to Packery, the developer will build docks, lease them, and make rent payments to the city. The city gets its lease payments, the public gets another marina, and the developer puts up a substantial bit of cash (marinas are expen$ive to build!). But in the end, the city still gets its cut of the deal because the city and is leasing the property to the developer. And even if the marina was a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acortez - 01:51pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#59 of 87)
Here is my 2 cents worth. My wife and I recently went to Florida and experienced their version of "beach access". The local governments and city fathers also caved in to the rich developers, resulting in mass production of huge condos all along the beaches. End result, very limited (and expensive) access to thr general public. In order to even find a section for public use, we had to drive miles and miles. Once we found one, we had to park several blocks away from the beach and pay a small fortune at the parking meters. Then we had to carry and lug all our stuff all those blocks until we got to the actual beach area. So, if you want limited beach access, park several hundred yards away, pay huge parking fees, and lug all your beach supplies several hundred yards (which may require several trips) then by all means, vote for "development". Me, I'd rather be able to drive up to my favorite beach spot, park my car and pull out my lawn chair. DONE!!!! ACortez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 01:52pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#60 of 87)
And even if the marina was a "public marina" like downtown, it would still be private in that the docks HAVE to be secure from the non-tenant public.
So in what way is anything being "given" to the developer? Leased yes, but given?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONEITA WEST - 02:00pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#61 of 87)
NW AS ROMAS SAID, AS ONE DEVELOPER PUTS IT, HE DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE BEACHES CLOSED TO BE A SUCCESS, OK, LETS DROP SCHNEXIE AND BRING ON THE OTHER DEVELOPERS, ESPECIALLY THE DEVELOPER WHO DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE BEACHES CLOSED. THAT WOULD SUIT EVERYONE AND THE GAMES CAN BEGIN. OK SCHNIXIE, DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 02:08pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#62 of 87)
Noneita sweetie, I see you still haven't found that "Caps Lock" key. If you will look on the left side of your keyboard just above the "Shift" key . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONEITA WEST - 02:11pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#63 of 87)
thanks eric i eill try to do better. any commens on my messages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONEITA WEST - 02:17pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#64 of 87)
Let me try that again. Thank's Eric, I WILL TRY TO DO BETTER. ANY COMMENTS ON MY MESSAGES?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONEITA WEST - 02:21pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#65 of 87)
Eric, Seems I have a real problem trying to do it right when I put it into caps lock. Bear with me if you can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 02:28pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#66 of 87)
Noneita, I pretty much agree with you. You probably hold the city council and the developers in much higher esteem than I do. I figure Schithead or whatever his name is has bribed enough of the city members to pull off his project and will be annoyed if he doesn't get what he payed for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Marshall - 02:45pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#67 of 87)
Reading this series is depressing. I'm afraid we're going the way of other coastal communities where politicians sold out to developers. We have something special here in Corpus, and a big part of that is our beach access. I don't understand giving a big chunk of that away to developers. Wait, I do understand it -- it's greed and bought public officials.
If the city council doesn't get it that we don't want to be Galveston or South Padre or Florida, then we need to MAKE them get it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Tex - 02:45pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#68 of 87)
Those who 'know' the 'truth' are blinded by their own arrogance.
unsubscribe*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 03:13pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#69 of 87)
From PB: "Were you aware that we already have a city-owned marina, that is designated as city park for the use of the public? We do, downtown. Does the term "private marina" bother you? At the city marina, the general public is restricted from the docks now, because you can't have just anybody wandering around some very valuable boats. So in essence the city marina is private now, you have to be a tenant with a key to get on the docks, yet the whole area is a public park."
I am very familiar with the city marina. People can drive right into that park, get out and go fishing. Let them try that at this resort, and watch them get run off. Only people who spend money will be allowed to park at the resort. (Not speculation--Schexnailder's words.) The general public will have to park a quarter mile or more away. Name one place that calls itself a public park, where you have to park outside the park and walk in, while the "priveleged" get to drive in. That is not what I call a public park. At the city marina, the people who pay for the park (the boat owners) park right alongside the rest of the people who use it.
Again, we have asked Schex for a parking area near the jetty, and in exchange, would allow vehicles off the beach. He refuses. The goal is clearly to keep the public out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 03:17pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#70 of 87)
From PB: "Now on this park next to Packery, the developer will build docks, lease them, and make rent payments to the city. The city gets its lease payments, the public gets another marina, and the developer puts up a substantial bit of cash (marinas are expen$ive to build!). But in the end, the city still gets its cut of the deal because the city and is leasing the property to the developer."
Do you have any way to back up your assertions? Have you been told whether or how much Schexnailder will pay the city for that land, or for the slips? Further, how could the city accept the money, when the land is state property, leased to the city? Please back up your assertions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 03:31pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#71 of 87)
Do you have any way to back up your assertions? Have you been told whether or how much Schexnailder will pay the city for that land, or for the slips? Further, how could the city accept the money, when the land is state property, leased to the city? Please back up your assertions.
I'm just going off of what you yourself said in an earlier post:
in its lease to the city, the state specifies that the land between Packery and Schexnailder's property be used for public purposes, yet Mark Scott and Henry Garrett have publicly stated that they intend to lease it to the developer, and the developer plans a private marina...
You said the state would lease to the city. You said Scott and Garrett have stated the city would then lease it to Schexwhatever. Hey, if you're not the expert, say so and I'll do my own research, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt as an expert, cause I'm just getting into investigating this...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCoplen - 03:52pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#72 of 87)
Reading this series HAS been depressing. My husband and I re-located to CC last year to enjoy the beaches, my family here and the rich culture. We didn't know that Corpus Christi has beauty but no brains. The beaches here are special but there is little in the way of good jobs (paying $40K or more a year for college degreed individuals), decent public roads, etc. and with a TOTAL average home income under $40,000 a year; that’s a whole lot of families living at what is considered to be nearly poverty level. After viewing hundreds of credit bureaus weekly, I am here to tell you the average family here is in dire need of education on bill paying, living within ones' means and a way to make the means more. Obviously, this city needs income and jobs to prevent further deterioration-and yes it is deteriorating-just look around you. It's just a simple fact. The beaches attract tourists, another simple fact. Something must be built or developed to get some decent paying jobs and support the community. Does that mean we take the first deal offered by a developer who feels it necessary to dictate exactly what will be done when? No. Corpus must learn from history and from other cities failures and successes. And there are success stories. I have been to many cities in Florida and other states and had no problem with accessing public beaches. (Keys, SanDestin,Panama City to name a few.) This is a challenge. But give and take-compromising-makes the world go around. There is always a solution but it takes a city of individuals ready to have an open mind and look for a solution that will meet our needs best. I don’t see how any of the debating back and forth about what has already happened will help any of us. Perhaps we can put our egos aside and quit arguing long enough to look at what WE ALL will gain. It would be naive to think development can be kept out. That's not even reasonable and not forward thinking. Development can be controlled. So can City Council. It’s still our
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCoplen - 03:53pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#73 of 87)
Cont' It’s still our town, voters, so it’s our responsibility to put the right people in the right places to make the right decisions for our city. Let's be smart Corpus Christi and develop a city that we can all utilize, be proud to share with tourists and flourish within! MC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 04:02pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#74 of 87)
From PB: "You said the state would lease to the city. You said Scott and Garrett have stated the city would then lease it to Schexwhatever. Hey, if you're not the expert, say so and I'll do my own research, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt as an expert, cause I'm just getting into investigating this..."
I did state that they plan to lease it to the city. Mark Scott and Henry Garrett are on record in the Caller-Times as saying it will happen. I did not say that they would be collecting any money. I anticipate that it will be a $1 a year charge, or something like that.
The state's lease to the city on the property dictates "Lessee agrees to pay the State as Rent, 37.5% of all Gross Revenues received by Lessee under this lease as a result of or arising out of its use of the Premises." "Gross Revenues" shall mean all consideration received by Lessee and derived from all operations at or from the Premises..." Yes, I've done my research. Hard to know what they haven't told us yet.
For instance, I don't know whether the city will get any money from the lease. When you said they would, I wanted to know if you knew something I didn't. That's just more of the details we haven't found out yet. They were willing to essentially pay Landry's for the right to give them the marina, so a "free" lease is what I expect. Did I just bring up Landry's? Oops.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 04:04pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#75 of 87)
Again, we have asked Schex for a parking area near the jetty, and in exchange, would allow vehicles off the beach. He refuses. The goal is clearly to keep the public out.
Help me out here, I really am trying to understand. Is the land you're talking about on the south side of the channel but away from the beach? What is it about that strip of land that is important? If not a marina what would you have put there? Surely it would make a lousy beach because you'd have to climb over rocks to get to the water.
I guess the other question would be: What would make you happy, or what situation could you live with, if we assume that there are needs on both sides - a legitimate need for beach access, and a legitimate need to not have spring breakers doing donuts in the sand in front of your multi-million dollar resort.
(yes I was a spring breaker many years ago and I did donuts on the beach in Port A, almost crashed into my buddy who was also doing donuts, so I know it happens)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRusling - 05:49pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#76 of 87)
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
From what I read in the "Galveston" experience, it appears the "locals" are not very happy with their "no-vehicle" beach. It also appears the "City" (read government) is tickled pink with its increased revenue!
What was the name of that yankee town? New London, Connecticut? How long before a piece of "private" property here becomes the "break-point" for a development deal? Can you REALLY stand up to all the pressure City Hall can bring to bear? It would be very difficult, unless you happen to be a multi-millionaire.
Looks to me like it's time to "clean house" down at Corpus Christi City Hall. It won't be any easier next year...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 05:56pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#77 of 87)
PB,
Yes, the land is the 300' wide strip along the south jetty. What to do with it? Have you ever seen pictures of people lined along a jetty fishing? That's one use. Have you seen the pavilion at Port A., near the marina entrance? Looks kind of like the old JP Luby Pavilion that was torn down to make the jetty pass. We could resurrect that public space (as it is designated by the state and city), put in a new pavilion, and add restrooms, showers, benches, shade structures. We'd need room for parking also. Make it like, you know, a public park.
What would make me happy?
1. A city council we can trust not to change the game once an agreement is made. They promised us no more vehicle restrictions. They even specifically said they would not respond to requests from adjacent land owners. Then six weeks later, a majority of them changed their story.
2. Access to that south jetty. We paid for it. It was promised to us. I have already said that we have offered a deal in which all the cars go off the beach, but we still are able to have a parking area where the jetties meet the beach. They turned it down. Ideally, the access to that parking area would be a 2-lane drive at the seaward edge of the dunes, with some head-in parking along the way. Not enough room for donuts. The vast majority of the beach would be vehicle-free.
3. This vehicle restriction should be, as Mark Scott has suggested, contingent upon passing a charter amendment that says that any future beach closure would come to a vote of the general public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONEITA WEST - 06:16pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#78 of 87)
Eric, the city council, (some of them) and the mayor are the problem. Seems like they got a pocket full and they are deteremined to see that they win. However, the protest group and the people in general do not see it their way and they are willing to give all they have to try and stop them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONEITA WEST - 06:21pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#79 of 87)
pb Do you honestly believe that if we let the developer win, that mark will get with the council and will ever pass a charter amendment that says that any future beach closure would cme to a vote of the general public.
If he feelS confident he is doing right why not let the people vote NOW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda320 - 06:25pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#80 of 87)
We love going to beach and taking our daughter and nieces. We take them fishing and camp over night sometimes and oh how they love making sand castles and looking for shells. If we can no longer drive our truck on the beach all those good family times will end...... Think about caring all that stuff to where we want to set up, then to carry it back and if we catch fish, it will be too much of an inconvience. I remember when my parents use to take us what fun we had and I want that to continue for my kids and generations to come.... the beach is a trip they will never forget!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB - 07:16pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#81 of 87)
Have you seen the pavilion at Port A., near the marina entrance? Looks kind of like the old JP Luby Pavilion that was torn down to make the jetty pass. We could resurrect that public space (as it is designated by the state and city), put in a new pavilion, and add restrooms, showers, benches, shade structures. We'd need room for parking also. Make it like, you know, a public park.
I certainly like the idea of a pavilion. Beach Advocate, I believe you mentioned earlier that the developer wants half of that piece of land for a marina. Is there room for a marina on half and a pavilion on the other half?
It does sound like there's room for negotiation, at least from some people. Maybe Shexhisname and the City Council will read this and get the hint, but both sides need to come to the table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 07:33pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#82 of 87)
PB, I agree they need to come to the table and compromise. So far, we have gotten nowhere with the council or the property owner. The developer can't talk yet. That will change at the end of the 90-day expiration of the letter of intent, which was signed at the end of November.
The council would do well to listen to the joint resolution of the Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Council, and CVB. They said, "the City should engage in discussions with the various interest groups to examine the broadest range of options for assuring public access to these Pedestrian Beach areas tailored to meet the particular needs of each segment of the Beach described above."
Haven't seen them reaching out to us yet. They have one goal. Close the beach to vehicles, before we even know the outcome of the letter of intent!
I hope that, as I educate you and the rest of those reading this, you will begin to see why I'm so upset at the way this is being handled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RT - 08:25pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#83 of 87)
Belinda, You paint a pretty picture of a nice family outing at the beach with your daughters and nieces making sand castles and looking for shells. As a mother and an aunt, I would think that you would be concerned about the safety of the girls. Can you always have your eye on them? This wonderful day could easily be shattered by a child running out in front of a car or a car veering over and accidently hitting the child. And to trade their safety for the convenience of not having to carry stuff from the truck to the beach? We all know accidents such as this do not occur on a daily basis, but once is enough. For those who are safety cautious, give them the proposed 7500 linear feet of accessible beach to use that is free of vehicles and does not cost anything to go to. And for those who would like to continue to drive on the beach, there would still be 80,000 linear feet of drivable beach in the city of Corpus Christ's city limits. The currently proposed development plan let's us all have a choice of the type of beach experience we want on any given day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beach access advocate - 09:29pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#84 of 87)
RT, the city has already addressed the issue of safety concerns in the Padre/Mustang Area Development Plan, passed in 2004. It states that "Except for in front of the seawall, the City will not pursue closure of any portion of the public beach to vehicular traffic without an overwhelming public safety concern. However, protected pedestrian and beach user areas may be provided on the beach, only as considered necessary for public safety. The purpose of the protected areas is to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian and beach user areas while also providing through movement of traffic."
If there were an overwhelming public safety concern (and there is not), protected areas would not, according to the city, fully restrict vehicles from the beach, but would provide through movement of traffic. This is done as I described earlier--by separating cars from people with wooden posts, or bollards.
The fact that the city council (or at least some of them) is attempting to cram a total vehicle restriction down our throats, in the face of all the documents that THEY have created saying that they wouldn't do it, is reprehensible. Please do not pretend that safety has something to do with it. It doesn't. They are pandering to a developer's request.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. - 09:38pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#85 of 87)
It would be interesting to see the history of the Galveston beach development. I can just hear 'em, "But is will only be a few hundred feet!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
daviddawson - 11:02pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#86 of 87)
Galveston started with just a few hundred feet of closed beach. Now it is virtually all closed. Almost no one even goes there anymore. It's just the wealthy enjoying the views from their homes that were once enjoyed by all the people of Galveston. Public safety? That's the greedy developer's smoke screen to get their properties valued at top dollar. Exactly how many little children have you heard of being run over while building their sand castles on our 15mph beaches? It may have occurred at sometime or another, but I've never heard of a single incident in 50 years. You are more likely to be struck by lightning walking on a closed-to-traffic beach. The city council needs to realize that Corpus Christi isn't Malibu and if you want a beach like Malibu, just go to Malibu! Our free beaches are what make this the place to be for local residents and middle class tourists. Here in Corpus Christi there are the jobs at the base and refinery jobs. But by far, most of our locals have service jobs. It is after all a "tourist town". So what do they do for enjoyment on their free time? Why they drive out to the beach and whip out a lawn chair. Easily accessible right next to them is their car, stocked with that ice chest full of beer, sun tan lotion, towels, snacks and ect. It's okay for regular folks to enjoy life on a beach. Are we so desperate for tax dollars that we need to take that away? I don't think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson David P - 11:28pm Jan 23, 2006 Central (#87 of 87)
I am not a lawyer, but I like to play one on the net. It seems to me that if vehicles are restricted from beach useage on the proposed 7100' for this developer, the city is an open shot for a lawsuit by any other developer for like treatment. Costs for defense of such lawsuits would be borne by the taxpayers, not by the individual Ciy Council members. Also, if it is imperative to restrict vehicles from the beach to make the developement feasable, the developer of the $1.5 bil. project should be willing to pay, say, $250 mil. for that easement right. Give half of that to CCISD and keep half for city street maintenance. The maps in the Caller-Times show Whitecap Park, at the eastern terminus of Whitecap Blvd,and part of Whitecap Blvd, to no longer be in existence after beach developement; the area being included in the developement. How much is the developer going to pay for this land? One last thing: THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THE BEACH BY VEHICLE NORTH OF WHITECAP PARK RIGHT NOW. In effect, the city has already made it a done deal!
daviddawson - 01:26am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#88 of 129)
Fact is, if this first mile and a quarter of beach is given up, we will eventually lose it all. The only access the locals will have to the new resort area will be in the form of maids, gardeners and window cleaners. Listen to what these people are saying, listen to them twice if you need to...
CLICK HERE
LJ444 - 05:48am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#89 of 129)
I would like to reiterate on ddawson's comment on msg 86. I've have lived here all my life. My parents took me to the beach CONSTANTLY when I was growing up. I make it a point to take my family to the beach to this day. The strip of beach that is being threatened of being taken away is a part of the beach where I noticed that families like to hang out. It's not the part of the beach where the party crowds like to hang out, on the north side of packery or south of Bob Hall Pier. These families like to go to this part of the beach so they have a more peaceful time with their children. Taking that part of the beach away would cause them go to a place where they aren't going to enjoy their time as much and they would most likely find something else to do on the weekend. If that happens, chalk up another one for money and politics taking things from Joe Public.
Thomas Brown - 06:21am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#90 of 129)
The most recent beach closures in Galveston were the result of a request by a property owner and an association of property owners associations to remove vehicles so the property owner could more easily sell his land. CENTEX Development Corporation then came into the picture and said it would put in a $600million development if cars were removed. Their representative stood in front of city council and threatened to pull the project if the company's demands were not met.
The pictures of horses you saw in yesterday's article are the only horses you'll see on the island. They are banned everywhere except where two rental stables are located. You can not camp on Galveston beaches. You can not have a camp fire on Galveston beaches. You will be told by hotel owners that you can fish at fishing piers or rock groins, but not on the beach in front of their hotels (which is wrong).
Today's article refers to large chuncks of land being annexed by the City of South Padre Island resulting in more area falling under the no vehicle ordinance. Should only tourists be able to easily access our beaches?
Thomas Brown - 06:34am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#91 of 129)
One other thing your city council needs to take into consideration - the Americans with Disabilities Act. Particularly, 28 CFR Part 35, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services. The City of Galveston is under an order from the U.S. Department of Interior to correct violations of 28 CFR Part 35 at every public access point on the island (40 access points). The City has until September of this year to install ADA compliant dune walkovers, beach wheel chairs, etc. I noticed that the pictures in today's article of the dune walkover do not meet the ADA standards. There is no lower hand rail, for instance. If a governmental entity is going to restrict vehicular traffic on beaches within its jurisdiction, it must ensure the ADA is enforced including the ongoing expenses incurred with providing beach wheelchairs and possibly mats that allow people with disabilities to get to the water.
GRusling - 06:45am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#92 of 129) If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
The point that impressed me most was the part about long-time residents of Galveston being forced out by rising taxes they simply can't afford. This is a problem statewide, not just along our beaches. People don't think about it until it's too late.
Every government entity in the world wants more money. In Texas there are only two ways to get it, increase sales taxes or increase property taxes. The way property taxes are increased is by increasing the value of that property since the "rate" isn't allowed to go up very much.
The City of Corpus Christi has no desire to force "old-timers" off property that has been in their family for generations. It's just a side effect, one of the "unintended consequences" such government activities cause time after time. Nothing of this sort ever "stops" once it begins. No City Council "resolution" is binding on the next City Council.
Does Corpus Christi want Padre Island to become a ritzy tourist trap? Are you tired of driving down the beach until you find a good site, then setting up camp and spending the weekend (or a week)? If so, move this development forward and restrict traffic. If not, shut it down and give your children and grandchildren the same opportunity you've enjoyed...
Eric W. - 07:36am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#93 of 129)
The award winning Caller-Times is trying hard to get us to swallow a bitter pill. What they do now will essentially be forever. The fix is in but the race has not be run. It is not too late.
zzdog - 08:19am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#94 of 129)
<>
you make it sound like they are entitled to one to get there ,,,, that's like saying not everyone can swim ,, so no one can go in the water ,,or if they do ,,everyone else should feel guilty about it ,, just like people can learn to swim ,, they can learn to work and make the choice to spend their bucks on a 4 wheel drive, or not ....
zzdog - 08:27am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#95 of 129)
< (3) Each resort will consider "its beach" as its private property. No resort that charges high prices will want its cliente sharing a beach with homeless people, spring breakers, out of work folks, etc. This is bad economics. (4) The resort(s) will hire its own private security force to keep non-guests off "its beach">
guess you folks don't get out much ,,,
there are many areas ( San Juan Puerto Rico, Miami, Mailbu, Santa Barbara , etc. ) where there are large resorts built on the beaches ... they own a certain amount of land that approaches the water line .. but not the actual beaches ,,,anyone can walk along those beaches ( like will be allowed in CC ), but they restrict others from walking up to their hotels and pools and freeloading and using their faciliates, and chairs etc. The do allow the public in many cases to go in and eat at their restaurants and drink at their bars....
zzdog - 08:33am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#96 of 129)
<>
Belinda are there are lots of miles of beaches that you can drive on ...what makes you think that ALL of the beach is being closed ?... It just appears that you want the kids to be running around in traffic ,,, what a fun outing.
zzdog - 08:42am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#97 of 129)
<>
fine ,, that's nice and there are still MANY MILES of beaches to do just that ,,, everyone is claiming the same strech of beach for themselves and willing to fight over it just to have their booze ten feet away from them in the car .....
and the tourist dollars ARE needed ,,look at the condition of the roads, the empty, non-taxable empty lots, and all poor people in COrpus .. no jobs for the kids coming up ,, they will all leave town ,,is that want, you parents and grandparents ? ,, with all the sun belt states competing for all the $$ from retirees and tourism ,, Corpus is just missing a great opportunity .all they have to do is look at this board, or the newspaper and they take their money and run to another state where they are welcome ..
zzdog - 08:45am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#98 of 129)
<>
see , then the poor will not lose access ! ...
. you will still be able to walk in front of these places .... oh, i forgot ,, no one wants to walk along a beach ,, they just want to drive on them ,, dripping oil and transmission fluid into the enviorment ,,, just wait until the enviormentalists get hold of this issue and close all the beaches ,,, careful what you wish for !!!
kelly h - 08:46am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#99 of 129)
Any beach closed to traffic is too much. I have never seen a problem with kids and traffic on the beach. If someone is driving drunk on the beach they should be arrested. Closing the beach because someone did a donut is stupid.
Panama City, Florida has only 50 yards of beach, from the water to the condos! Sure, you can walk in front of the condos, but it is like you are in a big city, not like you are out in nature. You have to go a long way to find a public access point to the beach to cross the condos. Then you have to pay for parking and lug stuff around. Then, once getting on the beach, you have a freakin' big condo right above you!
Get real! Don't let the condo's build right on top of the beach and DO NOT pander to the tourists and close the beach to driving. I want to return home and enjoy the beaches as I did growing up!
kelly h - 08:49am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#100 of 129)
Listening to flaming liberals such as this guy will only get us into more trouble. Corpus is a jewel just like it is and like it has been, and if the tourists don't like it, let them go RUIN the rest of the gulf states, but leave Corpus alone!!!!
zzdog - 08:53am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#101 of 129)
Seems that there is still plenty of beach left other than that area in question ,, does everyone always go to that same place, and do you all really want to crowd together at the Pavillion ?
and just how far away from others do you have to be to enjoy the company of the people you came with ? 1/4 mile ,, 1/2 mile ?
zzdog - 08:57am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#102 of 129)
corpus has done a good job ruining its beaches and city itself for many years. Tourists have been running to other states , creating jobs and opportunities for those who live there , while it retains it's title as the only Border Town not on the border ,,
,there is great potential for Corpus ,, always has been and still is ,, it just needs to develop that potential while learning that compromise is not necessarily wrong, or fatal
crc01 - 09:15am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#103 of 129)
I could not agree with you more. That’s who use it are the families, people walking their dogs, camping out, fishing, playing ball or just enjoying sunrise and sunsets. Starting around Spring Break, we need our City Council to go to this section of the beach every day starting at 7am, leave at 10, come back at 11, leave at 2, come back at 4 and stay until 10. Perhaps after 6 months they will have an idea! They will see people just enjoying the beach for what it is. And if they look around, they will see a lot of Latin Americans using this beach with their families. There will also see a lot of people from outlying areas such as Robstown, Alice, Sinton and others out of town. They do not vote, so their beach pleasure is not important to our City Council. And by all appearances, they do not seem wealthy, just enjoying a day at the beach with their families at minimal cost. What puzzles me is why LULAC is not all over this issue!
Eric W. - 09:21am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#104 of 129)
The beaches don't belong to Corpus Christi. The beaches of Texas belong to the people of Texas, all the people of Texas. We need to decide if we will keep them available to all the people or exploit them for the benefit of the folks who come to luxury resorts. There is big money involved. Some folks who sit on the Corpus Christ city council stand to get their pockets lined. This is a hard sell, the fix is in. They are gonna do it unless they realize they will pay the ultimate penality, not being re-elected.
John L. Sullivan - 09:36am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#105 of 129) Native Corpus Christian
The police can only recall one accident on our beaches ever happening. Obviously safety is not an issue. If it is, then drive another mile to Balli Park and crowd in there next to Bob Hall Pier, where driving is not permitted, or to Mustang Island State Park, or Malaquite Beach, or into Corpus Christi to one of the beaches along Shoreline Drive or Ocean Drive. Drive to the beaches on "North Beach." There's an additional 10 miles or so of beach protected by bollards in Port Aransas. There are miles of beaches already available to those who do not wish to share a beach with vehicles. The public beaches in our area that are navigable by cars have 15 mph speed limits posted. Slower than most school speed limits in the city of 20mph, where there are many, many more children and many, many more cars. Besides, if you are not watching YOUR children carefully enough to make sure they do not run in front of a slow moving car, you surely are not watching them close enough to make sure some demented PSYCHO does not abduct YOUR child. If you have not taught your children not to run in front of a moving car anywhere, you better stop letting them play in your front yards, walk to the park or ride their bicycles in the street. How about being a responsible parent? This area will be different though. Try walking on the "public beach" in front of condos or expensive homes on Galveston Island, then set-up camp for the day with a radio and fishing gear you have lugged 1/2 mile or more. Then wait and see how long it is before security from the condos or an angry home owner is harassing you to get off "their" beach." Just look at our own letters to the editor. Some lady actually thinks she owns the dunes in front of here home! The dunes and everything to the water is public property. It is public property that a developer wants made quasi-private for his benefit, not the public's. Just look at the Florida expo. The beaches were taken away bit by bit until al
Eric W. - 09:51am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#106 of 129)
What are the names of the Corpus Christ councilmen supporting the beach closure issue. The names should be associated with this issue everytime it is brought up. We need to hang this around their necks like the proverbial albatross. I know Brent is one, but since he now lives in Dallas . . .Mark Scott seem to be carrying the water for Chitsnynder. Who are the others? How much do you reckon this vote will cost him.
crc01 - 10:01am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#107 of 129)
I disagree. You obviously do not live on the Island or do not spend 6 days a week at it and have never been to one of these resorts before. If you did, your eyes were closed. Trying going to the Holiday Inn bar on the beach during summer and once they find out you are a local, the Patel’s (owners) will kick your butt out so fast your eyes will spin! If you think the resort owners will not do that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Yes, you are right about them not owning the beaches, but just try to bring your lounge chair and put it on the beach where their lounge chairs are. You will soon get the message you are not wanted there! Nor will there be any room for one to grill, as they will put theirs chairs so close together to ensure that is not possible. Or, just try to put your fishing bucket and bait near the lounge chairs, that will not happen either. BTW, ask Mr. Schexnailder these questions along with types of jobs, wages, insurance, paid vacation etc and see if you get an answer (you will not).
crc01 - 10:08am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#108 of 129)
Boy, these last three days of Caller and Beach is Propaganda in its best form. One ever get the idea they are selling this!!! I thought our local fish wrap was supposed to stay neutral and just report the facts. Guess I was wrong. Just like living under Communism. "You Vill Read What Ve give You” . Perhaps tomorrow they will give us the other side (not).
KhachTX - 10:13am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#109 of 129) Going to church no more makes you a Christian than going swimming makes you a fish
This is a great discussion, and thanks to all who are participating in it.
I'm from Corpus, now living in Austin, and I agree that those beaches belong to all Texans...and one of the things that I do on every visit down there is see that water, it's uplifting and brings memories and peace to me. I also see the terrible condition that miles and miles of that town is now in, and cannot see why it has been allowed to deteriorate like that. There has to be a compromise here, something to bring in those dollars but hold on to our town.
Like EW, I'd like to see the positions taken by each council member, and what some see as personal benefits to each one. There have been some objective voices on this forum, do any of you have an insight on this? Who would have the voice of compromise, and what would lead to a better CC?
Eric W. - 10:15am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#110 of 129)
Can you compromise with evil and corruption?
John L. Sullivan - 10:25am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#111 of 129) Native Corpus Christian
You must be plain ignorant.
John L. Sullivan - 10:31am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#112 of 129) Native Corpus Christian
There is plenty of beach available to you already. Go visit McGee beach over Harbour Bridge. Go downtown to the city beaches. Go to Balli Park at Bob Hall Pier. Go to Malaquite Beach or Mustang State Park. Go to Port Arasas, where miles upon miles are bollarded off now. Am I getting through to you? There is more than enough beach for you to go to where cars are not allowed.
This beach is being closed for developers to exclude me and you, yes you will be excluded too, from that beach so he can get $350 sq ft for his condos instead of $200 a sq ft.
crc01 - 10:56am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#113 of 129)
Compromise, it is easy, they can build the resort. Just leave the beaches alone!
sceptic - 10:59am Jan 24, 2006 Central (#114 of 129)
Thirty years ago I took a valley tour which included South Parde Island. It was very easy to drive on the beach from any point in the small town.
About 10 years ago I took my visiting brother on a valley tour and we were still able to drive on the South Padre beaches with ease.
Last year, my wife and I took our grand daughter to the Brownsville Zoo, and then wanted to show her the beach at South Padre. We drove the full length of the town of South Padre Island and could find nowhere to gain driving access to the beach, and because of the continuous line of condos and hotels, it appeared that walking access would be difficult because parking was severely restricted.
Our City Council plans to pass a replacement ordinance prohibiting driving on 7100 ft. of beach in front of the condos and new developements. That is 1&1/3 mile! Do they expect folks to haul their beach and fishing gear on their backs that distance? Let's face it; this is a scheme to privatize the beach. It will end up like South Padre Island.
John Miras - 12:03pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#115 of 129)
Some type of development is undoubtedly inevitable but Corpus Christi voters must be given an opportunity to express their will at the polls. That being said, there is no reason why an equitable compromise can't be reached. Pedestrian-only beaches are NOT AN OPTION but unregulated cruising and objectionable boom boxes can and should be controlled. Beaches don't have to be privatized in order to attract developers to one of the few remaining coastal areas in the U.S. that hasn't been destroyed by indiscriminate over-building. In fact, if development can't be stopped it should at least be controlled. Building Codes for any structure to be built on a barrier island should require it to withstand the forces of a Category Five hurricane. In addition, all incremental infrastructure requirements should be billed to the developer. A final comment ---
John Miras - 12:11pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#116 of 129)
A final comment --- (again) The Corpus Christi City Council cannot control this factor but the thought is worth mentioning. Anyone who is dumb enough - or courageous enough - depending on your point of view, to live on a barrier island, knowing in advance of the inherent hazards, should be denied Government subsidized flood and/or windstorm insurance. They should be willing to assume their own risks without asking all of society to help them.
crc01 - 01:01pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#117 of 129)
Here is what will happen later. Just the the Houston Chronicle today and read. "Free parking may end along Bolivar beaches".
Tyrone Subaru - 02:44pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#118 of 129)
I'm just waiting for Libby Averyt to delete this thread just like she deleted the poll they were running last week. Reading this thread is reinforcing the idea that, just like the poll clearly showed, there is a resounding sentiment in the community that the support is not there for a pedestrian only beach. If it gets to the voters, and it will if there is another ordinance passed, it will go down in flames. I'm not opposed to pedestrian beaches, in front of the condominiums would be fine. Blocking vehicular access to the jetty area is another issue altogether. Bring out the fat lady Paul Shexnailder, let her rip because this ain't happening.
NONEITA WEST - 03:15pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#119 of 129)
to rt: Are you trying to use the scare tactic on Belinda? I think she has a clear view of how it is and how most of chrpus christi feels about our beach remaining just the way it is. Check out that 80,000 linear feet and you will find out that not all of it is drivable. in ant case it is a public beach and have been one for at least a century,and eventually the state made it that way
What we want is all of our beach for the use of everyone just as it is today. Boolards can be put up and then vehicles and pedestrians will be happy. The only ones who will not be are some of the city council, you and the mayor. After all what kind of deal did they do with shickie that caused them to go to the bat for him at the expense of the desires of most of Corpus Christi Citizens.
NONEITA WEST - 03:54pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#120 of 129)
TO PB,your note Jan 22@p:47 pm. You are living in the land of OZ if you think that any of the money will help the down town problems. Some how it always turns out that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That money will go out of town to corp. headquarters,
Have you thought about who is going to pay for the infrastructure of that land? Us, the taxpayers. That means streets, water pipes, and electric connection and all the things it costs to get the needed items on the land for Schnixie. More police, more fireman, additions carbage trucks, AND MORE TERRIBLE TRAFFIC ON OUR STREETS AND OUR BRIDGE.Then we don't even know whether they will pay the amount of taxes that they should. There are loads of ways that BIG RICH PEOPLE LIKE SCHNIXIE, figure out ways that they don't have to pay what they should. Now take the average person in corpus who don't have a business they pay, most times, more than they should because they don't have any tricky ways to avoid paying their taxes.
THIS IS NOT REALLY THE GOD SEND THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK. AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY SHNIXIE WANTS TO REMOVE OUR VEHICLES FROM THE BEACH. WE LIVE HERE AND REMEMBER HE IS THE OUTSIDER
HC - 06:54pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#121 of 129)
I agree,vehicle access to both sides of the jetties denied, kills the whole deal. Lets vote and the citizens will show the city council what they think of this outrageous plan. The packery project was built with tax money for the people, not for Mark Scott and gang to give away.
Eric W. - 07:05pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#122 of 129)
Mark Scott knows what's best for the little people.
H.H. Islander - 07:33pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#123 of 129)
Ok, 1st. Incoming tax dollars will help the whole community in general. Problems in the Downtown area will get better when those Downtown, impacted most get together and change it! That means, business people who are seeking change will work together to improve the situation Downtown. In regards to the Beach, Tax Dollars generated will pay for infrastructure of the area. Yes, this is growth, Yes, this is progress. I'm sorry, if this rocks your world !! Corpus is bound to get larger. Did you really think Corpus would stay the same forever???We should go after Developers to share in costs for city parks and infrastructure. We should create Special Tax Districts so the Island is sure carry it weight. Now as for Traffic on the Beach. I don't like Traffic in general! I sure as heck don't like it on CITY BEACHS IN THE CITY LIMITS! As for out of town, well that's a differant story. I like to walk on the Beach in town. If you want to drive on the Beach outside of City Limits at say 20 MPH or less, I think thats OK! There is someting about dodging Dune Buggies & Trucks at 50, 60 or 70 MPH I find a little hard to accept. WARM REGARDS, H.H. Islander
Eric W. - 07:53pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#124 of 129)
The speed limit on the beach is 15mph set by state law.
beach access advocate - 09:25pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#125 of 129)
HH, the issue is not about development or no development. It's about how development happens. This piece of property will be developed very soon, whether or not we give up reasonable access to the jetty we paid for. The tax dollars will come in. That's inevitable.
Traffic on the beach is a necessity for access to that jetty, unless you want to put a road through the dunes to the jetty, or unless Schex/Intrawest will allow a public passage through the resort to the jetty. We just need to limit vehicle access to 2 lanes. No donuts on the beach. No getting run over. Just reasonable access to the jetty. Both development and access for the public can (and will) happen together.
If you don't see the value of that jetty; if you are content to go elsewhere; fine. You can go elsewhere. I see tremendous value in having that jetty there. That's why I voted for the project. That's why I have watched as the plans to make a park next to it have progressed. That's why I'm extremely upset with Mark Scott, Henry Garrett, Brent Chesney, Melody Cooper and Jerry Garcia for promising me one thing, then proving themselves to be untrustworthy. I will see this thing through to the end. There is plenty of ammo to fight them. You'll see.
Eric W. - 09:39pm Jan 24, 2006 Central (#126 of 129)
Ya reckon Henry is gettin' a new Harley out of the deal?
John L. Sullivan - 12:01am Jan 25, 2006 Central (#127 of 129) Native Corpus Christian
I think you miss the point. We, well most of us, are not against development. We are against giving up the public's right to the beaches and Packery channel jetties in order to get that development. You are right, the city counsil shouldn't buy the first horse that comes their way. This horse is lame and needs to be put down. They need to wait for the right horse to come along. Then we get developemnt and keep our access. As far as bringing in the jobs paying enough to bring a household income over $40k per year, tourism does not do this in general. Look at any 4 or 5 star hotel, including our native son's chain the Omni's. There are a few, and very few management jobs that pay okay for the skill set required. I was shocked to find out that the General Manager of the Omni's here (back several years ago) only made $50k per year. A person in charge of a profit center with 300 plus employees in any other industry would have been making twice that, at minimum. By and large, hotels, resorts, and the like, provide mostly minimum wage or a little higher paying jobs. At the Omni, there were 300 plus employees. 200 plus were part time, another 70 were seasonal, and a wopping 30 were fulltime. 12 were paid salary. 10 below $30k per year. Only 1 made more than your $40k per year ideal. This won't be any different, other than a larger percentage will be seasonal.
H.H. Islander - 12:53am Jan 25, 2006 Central (#128 of 129)
Re:Native Corpus Christian. John, I respectfully disagree with your wage projection. While I agree the hotel business may not be high paying, I think we need to look at the big picture here. Many people stand to gain here. An example would be any service and Tech people, Plumbers, Realtors, Auto sales, Landscapers, Bankers and Signage people all gain. Plus many, many more related fields. I know there are many issues involved here. I sense some people here do not want any progress, they have one issue, driving on the Beach. Sir, that is not how you came across to me. I sense your concern that the Development come, as long as its done correct. I share that concern. Corpus will grow, that we can't change. I would like to see us grow in a responsible manor. As for driving on the Beach, I just don't want to be hit by a car, while I spend my childrens inheritance hanging out at our new tax generating resort.
Rich Barlow - 01:44am Jan 25, 2006 Central (#129 of 129)
I lived on the east coast of Florida for years. One condo by one condo the access to the beaches has been cut off till the common folks have a very hard time getting to the beach from Cape Canaveral south. The state holds title from the mean high tide mark seaward so there can be no "private beaches" but the developers and the homeowners associations control access and they do not want the unwashed masses cluttering their view. There are miles of "gated" developments in Indian River county blocking the beaches. Try to get to the beach behind the Kennedy family compound at West Palm. Or the walled high rises in Bevard County.
Volusa County has wisely kept the beaches open to vehicular traffic for historical & traditional reasons inspite of the demands of developers. Now people come from all over to enjoy the beach that they can drive to while other areas suffer a loss of tourisim. The question needs to be asked "Are our beaches for everybody or the few privalaged to afford a million dollar condo?"
If the City does not reserve access rights-of-way AND land for parking we can kiss the in town beach goodbye. Go talk to the people on both coasts of Florida before letting the developers have their way in Texas.
http://forums.caller.com/cgi-bin/WebX?caller-128@16.gx2saQQsfO4^2@.ee74640
No comments:
Post a Comment