City council and the mayor are all smiles in recognizing a young man's efforts in making America beautiful. Oscar Medina IV won the Ruthe Jackson Youth Leadership Award last year. For that he gets his picture taken with the residents of city hall.
Just prior to this, our city leaders all had a palpable disdain for Laredoans wanting to protect green spaces near Lake Casa Blanca. The mayor in the past has spoken disappointingly about the lack of local participation at the polls. Here we have many people active in the democratic process and he doesn't want any part of it, not while the clock is ticking.
21 comments:
Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
For Ms. Cortez to be effective, she must learn to be a realist, and stop being inflammatory in her stances and forms of communications with issues. Although some will get riled-up, much of the public can see through this - especially where kids and students are used to further politicize a situation. It's disappointing to hear our discuss the issue, but it is just as disappointing to see environmental guardians (such as Ms. Cortez) not be more strategic and be able to represent the interest because they have chosen extremist communication tactics that most people can see through - and that those at power will continue avoiding and/or fighting. In any dispute, much of how we resolve matters is about our approach and good faith in resolving them (and compromising). As a leader and with this project, she fails to do this, and as a result will likely continue to fail in truly representing and serving the environmental interest she wants to serve. Change your inflammatory approach and tactics so you can be at the table more often.
I did not like that she used the word "pounding." Nevertheless, she was there, along with a lot of people, to further a cause. That council and the mayor are annoyed by people who care is another thing.
And talk about using kids to further politicize a situation, what was up with Charlie San Miguel saying that a child will go hungry if the Town Center is not built? Talk about drama.
I agree with some councilmen that a lot could've been done in the last five years to come to some sort of an agreement, but we have to realize who we're dealing with here - the people who brought us El Portal.
KeyRose, I agree that the city council does not have enough of an open forum for these types of discussions.
However, there has to be some kind of limit on the amount of time that can be spent on any one issue. Otherwise, there would never be a conclusion.
I would suggest to those that have an issue backed with a large group of people willing to speak out, that they petition their city council person that the single issue be addressed in a special city council meeting (happens all the time0>
And Anon 05:33, you nailed it. The RGISC missed an opportunity (AGAIN) to be viewed by the business community in a positive light. Charlie San Miguel was wrong to use children in his speech, but RGISC was way out of bounds in the manner in which they collected the petition to "save the lake" a few years back.
Its funny how Charlie San Miguel pretends to care about families looking for work when he lied for the nephew of his very rich friend and business partner for a job he was not even qualified for....
Charlie already named the new swimming pool being built at North Central park after his parents so he could care less about any more parks or wildlife...
pseudo environmentalists are not taken seriously because they IGNORE basic rights of private property owners.
many groups wanting to utilize land for the use that they see fit BUY the land..
otherwise these blow hards are pathetically irrelevant,,
nothing different than if I thought their private homes
should be bull dozed to put up tree houses.
and shame on them for using children in a scheme
to influence public opinion.
Agree with Keyrose's last statement. Maybe if El Portal, Plaza Theatre, and the Downtown revitalization project showed ANY signs of success, I might be on board with the Town Center.
As for the Wetlands, what's the big worry? I was under the impression the Corps of Engineers had asked the developers to keep it preserved.
The permit issued by the Corps of Engineers gives the developer permission to drain, fill and pave over the current retention pond and build a new pond a few feet east of it, along with keeping some other acres preserved.
I'm curious as to how far the developers will go in working with RGISC and others to incorporate existing greenspaces into the mall's development. From a PR standpoint I think it would be foolish not to. I can just imagine protesters holding up signs "Do you want to shop on top of Tommy Turtle's and Billy Beaver's tombs"?
[url=http://buyclomiddirectly.com/#abiis]clomid online[/url] - cheap clomid online , http://buyclomiddirectly.com/#tkcuv clomid online
Mayor just wants to be fair, or so he claims.
The mayor allowed 4 people to speak for and 4 people to speak against the city selling airport property for an outdoor mall. He argued that he thought it was the fair thing to do.
From looking at the audience (those with similar T-shirts), it looked like there were many more people present to speak against the sale. The mayor actually used his power to make it appear like there was equal support on both sides thereby making it easier for council to approve the sale.
4 people for and 4 people against (+4-4=0). If there were 10 people for and 20 against (+10-20=-10) then there is heavy opposition and if council still approves unanimously it would be more clear that their minds were made up in advance and they simply so through the motions for the sake of procedure.
Its not the first time we've seen him do this. I recall that he did the same thing when the city approved the refrigerated contract at the bridge.
Sadly, its business as usual at city hall.
Did you ever think that there are tens of thousands of Laredo
Citizens who believe in minding their own business?
Interfering with private property transactions whether by trespassing or other means is a big problem in Laredo
It's not that they mind their business. It's that they don't care enough to pay attention.
The characterization of "for" and "against" groups regarding the sale of city land is all wrong. The RGISG was merely asking the City Council to table the vote to proceed with the sale to buy a little time to iron out some details to save the Casa Blanca Wetland. We are all for the development of the shopping mall. We are not against the sale. All we are trying to do is save the wetland and the wholesale destruction of this beautiful area. Once it's gone, it's gone. Moving it (how do you move a wetland?) won't bring back the flora and fauna that exists there. Since some of our City Councilmen have a propensity for naming public places after themselves or their families, perhaps after the wetland is gone, and a tiny little space of land that the city will save remains, we can erect at the site a nice marker with the names of the City Council seated on February, 4, 2013 recognizing them as the people who singlehandedly ignored their constituents and proceeded to destroy a beautiful site for us and future generations to enjoy.
And incidentally, Tricia Cortez is not being inflammatory. She is just passionate about the environment.
I'm being facetious now, but it's good that these council persons are not in Austin because they would immediately call the exterminator to kill all the beautiful bats who put on a show at the 6th St. Bridge nightly.
do not know Tricia or members of RGISC,, but I doubt
there is a developer or PRIVATE SECTOR business
person among them.. (government employees do not count as private sector)
I do develop and take risk, pay huge amounts of property taxes and employ people with higher than
average wages.
demonizing development and interfering with private property rights is a no win game..Yes you will all feel good at your monthly meetings sitting at a big round table telling each other how wonderful you are, but respect will never come until you respect the rights of others.
Has anyone representing the developer said why couldn't they change the plans for the development to keep the existing pond intact?
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."- Sir Edmund Burke
A couple of mentions were made about private property rights. You are missing the most important point. RGISC was talking about PUBLIC property and about a sale as about to take place but had NOT taken place yet. So, it was PUBLIC property and they had every right to speak out.
So, your argument is wrong.
Also, in a discussion on Tricia's FB page, she corrected Roque Vela's statement about the 404 permit. Vela indicated the permit means there is no turning back from destroying the existing pond. Tricia said while the 404 ALLOWS them to destroy the pond, it doesn't require them to do so. As the Anon poster above mentioned, has the developer explained why destroying the pond is absolutely necessary? They can't design/build it in such a way as to keep the pond and integrate it into the shopping experience?
I would like to address some comments made by an anonymous poster who wrote of "demonizing development and interfering with property rights". At no time have we been disrespectful to anyone. If you call being disrespectful speaking up to save a tax-payer owned wetland, then excuse our offense for the disrespect. We do not interfere with private property rights, only OUR rights. You say you do not know Tricia Cortez, or any member of the RGISC, but yet, you describe our group as telling each other how wonderful we all are. We are not a mutual admiration society. We do not pat each other on the back. We are simply a group of people who care about our environment. We are a diverse group of people (young and old) who pay taxes and we are law-abiding citizens who do not trespass, as some city councilman would have you believe. Again, we were stifled from making a plea to delay the vote to sell without stipulations. We were not against the sale for the development (sans the wetland). Developers and real estate agents are our friends too.
Gotta stand for something or you will fall for anything. Fight the good fight.
Glad to know if a private citizen was selling the land
The obstructionists would be silent...
Yea right
Post a Comment