Posted by 235425 on August 6, 2008 at 10:03 p.m.
| ||||||
| Posts: 22 | Location: Corpus Christi | Registered: 5/31/2007 | IP: Logged | ||||||
Author: Topic: Re: Exerpts from the CC Chamber of Commerce tape... CommonSense
Member
| Posted: 8/7/2008 08:22AM |       |
| |
| Jaime Kenedeno, And this belongs in this thread because??? Why didn't you start a new one? To address the issue.... I called in the keys morning show when he was on a few months back. I told him that his timing was lousy because the issue was still fresh in a lot of minds. I also told him that his arguments were still the same and nobody was going to buy into it. I think there are more problems facing the City and this shouldn't even be discussed. McCutchon is an idiot. CS | |
Member
| Posted: 8/7/2008 12:15PM | |
| |
| Jaime Kenedeno, oy vey. As I've stated in this message board and many others as well, that it was my contention that we close the beach right in front of the condos. The visiting crowds are the greatest there and the beach funnels down to a nearly impassable strip at the far south end. I attended the early townhall meetings at the Gulf Stream condo and was right there along Scott, Chesney, Jerry G. and the mayor. I did not side with the crusty ol' geezers in allowing continued beach traffic where the beach itself did not support it. I repeat, THE BEACH ITSELF DID NOT SUPPORT VEHICLE TRAFFIC. It was when, and only then, when the city changed course, lied and attempted to grab access all the way back to the publicly-funded jetties. Where, THE BEACH ITSELF SUPPORTS VEHICLE TRAFFIC. Close some, leave the rest available, support the hotels....compromise. | |
Member
| Posted: 8/7/2008 09:23PM |   |
| |
| CommonSense, The reasons I responded under this thread are: It is the only thread where I found the term "beach access" as I was looking for a thread most apropos. Starting a new thread has always drawn the wrath of others (who were here before I was) in the CCCT Forums and is the reason I first searched for an existing entry with the issue at hand. Now back to my commentary, the beach can be maintained as exemplified in the picture above; that is if the Powers That Be want it maintained in such a fashion. As for the seawall and it's now populated state, I remember when it was a deserted and boring piece of property. I remember what made it the happening spot as well. I was an original "condo boy". Check it out "me bra"! Traffic is never a problem when the beach is maintained as it is in the picture above. Cruising the beach is a Corpus Christi thing and the people already decided to continue the tradition. | |
Member
| Posted: 8/7/2008 09:29PM | |
| |
| mustangisland16, Slippery slopes are slippery "me braa" | |
(77) User Comments:
Posted by 713231 on August 6, 2008 at 7:36 p.m.driving on this particular section of beach should be banned. it is not safe. i'm all for keeping the rest of the beach open to traffic though.
Posted by 700414 on August 6, 2008 at 8:09 p.m.in response to 713231
yeps, always felt that way.
Posted by 713263 on August 6, 2008 at 8:21 p.m.It seems Mike has forgotten just who elected him and why...
Posted by 409487 on August 6, 2008 at 8:43 p.m.here we go again with the beach i would like to know where that money goes that we pay for beach parking , can anyone show me where it is spent i thought i went to cleaning up the beach , but i dont believe that at all , so someone tell me , and closing that part of the beach is okay
Posted by 711808 on August 6, 2008 at 8:51 p.m.my goodness! How many times do we have to spend time and money on voting this stuff down?? If the beach is 'too narrow' then figure out another option but obviously this dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition! Or maybe they think we don't recognize that it is the same ole dead horse?? Were they NOT aware that when they built that 'sea wall' that the sands in front of it would erode?? Gosh what 'engineering firm' figured this one out??
Posted by 447776 on August 6, 2008 at 8:59 p.m.(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by 277072 on August 6, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.Well sir...Mr. McCutchon your change of heart / course correction is likely appropriate. Tragically, this realization was made after the international corporation that was poised to make a multi-million dollar investment in N Padre was shunned by the city. Island residents have known for decades that driving in front of the seawall is risky at best. This section of beach erodes over time much like the spirit of a community that fails to embrace the future. Shame on city leaders in Corpus for being consistently inept.
Posted by 713078 on August 6, 2008 at 9:17 p.m.Everybody needs to get off their high horses, and off their vested interest checkbooks, and realize that the narrowness of the beach is now a primary safety issue! Last thing we need is some liquored up Bubba in a Redneck Cadillac plowing through a grade school class on a field trip. Ready for that on your conscience? I'm not! Go, Doc Smurf!
Posted by 258638 on August 6, 2008 at 9:32 p.m.It is a safety issue and we are violating our own laws by continuing to allow traffic. Get the vehicles off this section, but keep the rest open.
Posted by 232395 on August 6, 2008 at 9:40 p.m."Well sir...Mr. McCutchon your change of heart / course correction is likely appropriate."
There was no change of heart, and no course correction. The stance on the seawall section has been consistent. That is a unique stretch of beach, and it is the only one appropriate for this type of treatment. You can sit on the seawall, and watch your kids, with your car right behind you. Can't do that anywhere else.
Posted by 706602 on August 6, 2008 at 9:56 p.m.in response to 409487
You asked where the money collected on Beach Parking Decals goew. It goes to Beach Maintenance, only. That includes litter, debris and trash barrel pickup and emptying, as well as the removal of the seaweed/Sargassum, and the grading/leveling of the beach.
Although I am not a City employee, I go out there nearly every morning, and I see the City trucks, bulldozer and the grader leveler every weekday morning. Plus, the bulldozer and the grader also do the same work on the weekends.
The litter trucks fill up completely, then they empty their truck and go back for more. They even pick up large debris, like a rotten old boat that washed up after hurricane Dolly.
You may still see trash out there, but please realize that trash washes in from Florida, Louisiana and all points south, even from Central America and ships at sea, too. That's just the way the shoreline currents and winds push around here. They npush the seaweed and trash right at us, the Coastal Bend of South east Texsas.
That's where the money from the Beach Parking Decals goes, with the addition, I believe only recently, of some small part of that money going to pay the lifeguards on that beach, as well.
Posted by 235425 on August 6, 2008 at 10:03 p.m.Mike, I am very disappointed in this stance from you. You were elected because you were the voice for keeping the beach open. People thought they could trust you on this issue. I cannot figure out what is the real motivation behind this change of heart, but I do not believe it has to do with safety. The ordinance is already there in the Packery Channel TIF that the beach would be replinished on a regular basis from dredge material. Most importantly, people who are foolish enough to build a cement wall next the beach, backfill behind it and build there, knowing that this structure will promote erosin of the beach in front of it, like it has everywhere else this has been done, do not deserve special treatment, or an increase in their property values from making this a quasi-private beach. Mike, remember your roots, and protect the citizen's rights, or the citizens will find someone else who will come election time.
Posted by 706602 on August 6, 2008 at 10:31 p.m.(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by 714024 on August 6, 2008 at 10:35 p.m.The issue seems to be how to ban vehicles on the beach in order to bring in $$$$ developers. This portion of the seawall should have NEVER been built so close to the high tide mark. The seawall should be rebuilt to an area which allows traffic on the beach and paid for by whomever allowed this to happen in the first place. LEAVE OUR BEACHES ALONE
Posted by 273385 on August 6, 2008 at 11:07 p.m.Mean while South Padre Island and the Rio Grande Valley is booming and the San Antonio River Walk 13 miles extension is actively under construction and corpitos is dead in the water and I say again corpitos is dead in the water. We need the San Antonio and Rio Grande Valley city councils to show corpitos how to BOOM
Thanks South Padre and San Antonio for taking the lead in South Texas. Oh one more thing, thanks Lubbock your better than corpitos,
Posted by 231171 on August 6, 2008 at 11:09 p.m.Yay for less trashy beaches! And safer beaches! Could this actually happen in Corpus Christi?
Posted by 286920 on August 6, 2008 at 11:27 p.m.in response to 273385
Not to mention, South Padre Island does not allow vehicle traffic in front of it's condo/hotel areas and it's wonderful going to the beach there. You don't have to worry about your kids being ran over by an idiot drunk. It's a shame because I would rather spend my own money in Corpus at our beaches, but I rather spend it where they upkeep the beach and provide for some sort of public safety.
Corpus, get it through your heads!
Posted by 700591 on August 6, 2008 at 11:46 p.m.If the beach here was as nice as the beaches around Cancun we would already have several billion dollar resorts. The last project would probably not have been built anyway with the economy the way it was going at the time and the way it is now. The beaches around here are only good for fishing. There is too much trash on, in, and around the beaches.
Posted by 706602 on August 7, 2008 at 12:13 a.m.Due to effects of Hurricane Dolly and Tropical Storm Eduard, to our South and North respectively, there are currently thousands of tourists packing the Motels and rental condos in Corpus Christi, at Seawall Beach. And yes, they are all enjoying the use of the beach, I hope.
The City is doing a good job of keeping everything clean and graded out there. The only thing they can't get is a big, round, rusted bouy, which broke free from somewhere South, during Hurricane Dolly. It's stuck on it's anchor chain, about 150 yards offshore from the City's Seawall Beach parking lot.
That seawall beach would definately be better, if driving was restricted from it.
Posted by 710237 on August 7, 2008 at 2:07 a.m.McCutchon just can't give it a rest, can he? I am against his idea going through and against putting it on the ballot again. I urge his fellow council people to refrain from supporting his idea.
Posted by 235469 on August 7, 2008 at 6:37 a.m.I think we should close the sea-wall section and pave a 4200ft strip wide enough for parking, and a road the length of the seawall with access to the beach at either end.
This would isolate the beach from cars, and ensure that any development isn't built to steal the beach front from the citizens of Corpus Christi.
Isn't that what the beef is? People are afraid some developer is out to stal the beach and make it private?
Posted by 295476 on August 7, 2008 at 6:42 a.m.When the powers that be were anticipating a "Privatized Beach" the Beach in front of the seawall was at least 50 yds wide (probably 75 yds) anyhow it was wider than it has ever been in the last 20 years. One other anticipatory preparation was the traffic sign which directed traffic towards the jetty only (no right turn or left turn only????). In a nutshell the maintenance on that portion of the right of way (at that time) was designed to create a spacious widened version of beach real estate adjacent to and extended from the seawall flamboyantly in anticipation of a demanding elite influx of human flesh. The maintenance has been once again downgraded so the beach front will recede and disallow vehicle passage as exemplified and used as argument to once again blockade our access to our beach. If we cant drive our vehicles on the beach we are effectually restricted from that portion regardless of assurances, handshakes or blueprints. Mc Cutchon just cut his own throat. He must be seeing dollar signs or has vested interests.
Posted by 238145 on August 7, 2008 at 6:56 a.m.in response to 706602
I agree, the city does debris and sargassum removal. However, they do not adequately clean the portable bathrooms (skidocans) or have enough of them. I wrote to the Parks&Rec dept weeks ago and they told me that they placed 12 new restrooms between Packery and beach marker 206. They have not. I go to the beach every weekend, no improvements, it's just getting worst. They are paying employees to enforce the beach sticker program at the entrance of Zahn and walking patrols. Not sure if they do the same on the southern part of the beach. If they pay these employees, I saw at least three or four, $10 an hour, 8 hours a day, that's $2240 a week, if its patroled every day on just that part of the beach.. They would have to sell about 150 tickets to break even.. Whats the point? Let the cops enforce it. The beaches are the biggest asset we have in this town by far. Its our biggest tourist draw. Kick more money into permament bathrooms, and rinse off stations. Thats all we are asking.
Posted by 706602 on August 7, 2008 at 7:11 a.m.---->"I think we should close the sea-wall section and pave a 4200ft strip wide enough for parking, and a road the length of the seawall with access to the beach at either end."<----
That road already exists. It's called Windward Drive, and it's extra wide throughout the majority of its length, to facilitate lots of street parking. Plus, there's the 300 space free City parking lot, right up to the seawall, accessable from Windward Drive. It's located about the midpoint of the seawall, between the north and south ends (just North of the Holiday Inn.
There's so much parking available at the seawall beach, other than the beach sand itself, that it makes sense to make it just a people safe beach - a beach safe for people and kids to walk on, lay on and play on, without fear of being disturbed or possibly run over by somebody trying to drive there.
Posted by 313072 on August 7, 2008 at 7:16 a.m.Do it Long as its just that section.
Posted by 706602 on August 7, 2008 at 7:39 a.m.in response to 238145
----->"between Packery and beach marker 206"<----
That's the North side of the channel (opposite side from the seawall), right? Those Beach Marker numbers are easy to forget which is where, but I'm pretty sure you're talking about the undeveloped north side of Packery Channel, right? You mention entering at Zahn Road, which is the first access road, north of Packery Channel, so I figure marker 206 is about what, a half mile or so north of Packery Channel?
I do know that on the South side of the Packery Channel, the City did put what's probably about a dozen total portable restrooms, between Packery Channel and about Beach marker 226. I wonder if whoever you talked to got it wrong and told you 206, or if perhaps it sounded like that over the phone. Seems pretty easy to cross up.
But that's the thing about driving on the undeveloped north side of the Channel, JP Luby Surf park and all that. It's fine. Everybody laying and playing on the beach there has their vehicle to lay next to for protection, unlike the way people go down to the beach from the seawall, unprotected.
The beach in front of the seawall needs to be people-only, for safety.
Posted by 420894 on August 7, 2008 at 7:53 a.m.how many people have been run over in that section since the wall has been up for over 2 decades? Now, how many gang bangers have killed and robbed others in 2 decades in our lovely city? Nice to know where our city council priorities are.
Posted by 322991 on August 7, 2008 at 7:59 a.m.Why do people think everyone driving on the beach is a redneck drunk? More children are ran over in this city on thier way to school than get ran over on the beach but we don't hear people wanting to close ALL streets around schools everyday. Parents just don't want to have to watch thier kids on the beach. Everytime I drive down PINS I have kids run in front of me because they NEVER look for cars because thier parents are to stupid or lazy to educate them on beach safety. Why should I have to lose my beach driving rights just because you are to lazy to teach your kids to watch for cars. Wait....I forgot where I live, a city where kids do what they want and parents expect the education system to raise thier kids.
Posted by 420495 on August 7, 2008 at 8:02 a.m.***
Yes, it's way over due ! Please close our beach to TRAFFIC !
Yes, we lost out on a project most cities would pay a TIF to get !
We can fix this Beach Issue, close the beach ASAP. Then maybe I can go back to the beach.
*****
Posted by 238212 on August 7, 2008 at 8:10 a.m.in response to 706602
PERFECT
Posted by 711094 on August 7, 2008 at 8:12 a.m.I see no problem banning cars on this portion of beach. Should have done this two years ago. We should have an option to go to a pedestrian-friendly beach. The rest can stay open to traffic.
Posted by 241057 on August 7, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.Close the Beach!
Posted by 700294 on August 7, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.With flip-flopping and political blunders like this, McCutchon is now at the top of the list for Obama's VP.....
Posted by 316350 on August 7, 2008 at 8:21 a.m.I was happy with the results regarding access to Packery beach area.
Although I understand that the seawall was illegally built where it is, I think MM is showing good judgement on working to accomodate the existing resorts on the seawall (and the safety and enjoyment of the beach users).
The seawall was initially built long ago and to my understanding, no apparent recent misleading of the public has been going on like with the Packery development.
Although it does set a scary precedent, it is a very unique and challenging situation and I support MM on this one.
Posted by 340633 on August 7, 2008 at 8:34 a.m.I cant wait to move to Austin leave a city that does not want to grow i would love to stay here in corpus but people are to busy bickering among them selves and I get paid a lot more in Austin then i would here and large business keep on getting past over.
Posted by 708464 on August 7, 2008 at 8:34 a.m.The beach in front of the seawall should be replenished to 200 feet and the bollard system like they have in Port Aransas installed. The system works and is a fair solution for everyone.
Posted by 264189 on August 7, 2008 at 8:37 a.m.Wouldn't be easier to just take the seawall out and give the beach back to Mother Nature? She's going to retake it someday anyway. Maybe they could use the concrete as a artificial reef offshore somewhere.
Posted by 352597 on August 7, 2008 at 8:44 a.m.The citizens of Corpus voted already. If you don't like cars on the beach move someplace else. Tear the stupid beach wall down. It was built illegally in the first place. By the by, I have a copy of a letter from the US government to the Mayor which indicates if they close any part of the beach down, they will be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and they will have to provide wheelchairs with skis on them and people to push them. All this arguing because the Holiday Inn wants their "private beach". To heck with them.
Posted by 705049 on August 7, 2008 at 8:49 a.m.in response to 713078
lol....funny post.
I've been out there a few times and it is dangerous. But the timing and people behind this irks me quite a bit. That resort could have brought in some good revenues for the city and county. Mike Hummell's opinion on this was suspiciously absent from the article.
Posted by 248620 on August 7, 2008 at 8:53 a.m.McCutchon has not flip-flopped. He has consistently said (in writing) that he supports a vehicle-free beach in front of the seawall. Evidence was posted above, but was deleted by staff, probably because of a link to a website where the article is (ccwindsurfing site). McCutchon has cited other letters written well before the last beach vote and they are consistent on this topic.
As for setting a precedent, remember that no beach can be closed to vehicles without a vote of the public. The only way to change that, since it's in our charter, is with a vote of the public. What's so scary about that?
Posted by 241667 on August 7, 2008 at 9:04 a.m.Just like the past!! we've already lost a resort and God knows how many jobs that we needed! we need to get these people out of office!! these are the people that are keeping our city from growing and jobs from coming in! then they complain about unemployment!!
Posted by 710514 on August 7, 2008 at 9:09 a.m.I'm thinking of this great place where there is a place to park your car. Then you walk right up to the beach and lay out your things. If you get hungry or thirsty (for anything) there are restaurant right there on the beach. You don't have to get dressed to go in because they have a bar right there on the beach side. You can get frozen drinks, buckets of beer, food...anything you want really. It's really very convenient.
But then the city that I'm thinking of actually cares about bringing in money through tourists and not simply about "how it's been for the last 100 years." It's sad really. It doesn't matter how much everyone argues with each other on here. As has already been stated, the issue of bringing greatness to a PORTION of our beach was voted down 55% to 45% in 2006. Also, this article has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's just another chance for the close minded people in this city to beat their dead horse. Hopefully, one day things will change. Until then? We wait patiently.
Posted by 235655 on August 7, 2008 at 9:11 a.m.Submitted this LTTE last month:
"After the City tried in early 2007 to restrict driving on the beach in front of the seawall to one-way north, on June 4, 2007, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson wrote City Manager George Noe a letter (attached) refusing to allow enforcement of a City ordinance this way because it did not provide equal or better public access. Noe referred briefly to the letter during a presentation to the City Council on June 24, 2008, but didn't mention the letter was not only contrary in principle to the driving restrictions the Council directed the City staff enforce that day, but also called on the City to restore the beach in accordance with its lease with the GLO instead of restricting vehicular access.
When I found out at least one council member hadn't seen that letter, I emailed copies to each member and to the Caller-Times on July 8.
Then, at the July 22, 2008 Council meeting, I asked if they knew what had occurred in a discussion in Austin between City staff and the GLO on July 18, 2007 regarding the Council's latest proposed enforcement of its beach driving ordinances. Each member present professed to know nothing about the discussion, and, when Noe acknowledged it had taken place, none asked him to elaborate.
There may be some plausible reason why the Council wasn't curious, but why has the Caller-Times not investigated and presented a story about the content and significance of the June 4, 2007 letter, nor published the details of what occurred on July 18, 2008? Was the GLO's response another refusal, and what was the reason? More to the point, did the GLO refuse the City the authority to restrict driving in front of the seawall altogether?"
Posted by 713064 on August 7, 2008 at 9:18 a.m.in response to 700294
Get your facts straight. I was also upset with Doc Mike when this first came up a couple of years ago. I then got my facts straight. He was never opposed to a partial closing, he was opposed to the “all or nothing” attitude the city leaders at the time had. I do not know Doc Mike personally and my only ‘contact’ with him now, as was then, is when I see him on the news or hear him on the radio. I still think he is arrogant and rather pompous, but he was as correct then as he is now.
I also think the city council at the time stepped on there selves in the way they handled the issue. It was a blunder that may or may not have cost the city some future needed revenue. We need to start thinking about tomorrow and what we will leave the future residents of this town. The people with the attitude that driving on the beach is a God given right is just as full of BS as the city council that wanted to close 7200 feet two years ago.
Posted by 342632 on August 7, 2008 at 9:48 a.m.It wouldn't surprise me if our Mayor & City Council members decide to hire a consultants regarding this matter. Here we go again, spending taxpayers monies.
Posted by 236387 on August 7, 2008 at 9:50 a.m.As a fifth generation Nueces County resident, it sickens me to read of people who are ready to give up "just a little" of our rights. What makes you think anyone would stop with "just a little" beach closure? As for those of you who want this to become like "other" resorts, you fail to recognize that our beaches remain distinct strictly because we ALLOW traffic on them. If you want to go to the other beaches, please go as quickly as possible. It is all about the tourist dollars and big development deals to most of you. To me, it's about freedom and having our freedoms taken away a piece at a time, like being pecked to death by a little bird. In the meantime, Mother Nature will always have her say with a big storm someday. The answer...tear down the sea wall, and allow the beach to go back to its natural shore.
Posted by 420543 on August 7, 2008 at 10:11 a.m.OMg this is the fifth time i heard this crap! PLease stop wasting our time with this beach ban. That must be all you talk about for the 5 hour city meetings u carry out. I cant believe u are still trying this. why didnt u try this hard for seaworld or slichterbhan?
Posted by 699874 on August 7, 2008 at 10:16 a.m.Re: Councilman John Marez said the community already considered this issue. "Two years is too soon for the community to have to deal with this issue again," he said. "The voters spoke loud and clear about this." Councilwoman Melody Cooper remains in favor of restricting traffic there, but said she's confused by McCutchon's timing on this issue. "It seems rather inconsistent," she said. "The voters having voted to not close the beach and we're turning around trying to close it again two years later. I'm not sure what kind of message we're sending."
The above says it all..........OUR CITY COUNCIL AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE FULL OF INCONSISTENCIES AND INCOMPETENTS. And they seem to continuously ignore public opinion and do their own thing. Just please please do not waste our money hiring another worthless consultant about this issue too.
But I too am torn about this issue. It probably really should be closed, because there is just a thin line of sand there. But then, once this is closed, just WHERE DOES IT STOP? Suddenly every development out there would want the beach closed, and voters spoke loud and clear on this issue. I've been to some places where you can't even get access to beaches, unless you are staying at a hotel that has their own private beach. Do we really want that here ?
~b~
Posted by 709427 on August 7, 2008 at 10:18 a.m.in response to 241667
oh yeah, like theres a shortage of minimum wage jobs in this area - give me a break!! i am so sick of hearing this crap about jobs - the industry jobs related to this are bartenders, maids, bell hops, life guards and so on so QUIT making it sound like there will be this growth in the city and real jobs coming in. go to SPI and see who fills these jobs, mainly mexican nationals because they are more reliable than the only other people who want them - our teenagers and college students. So, really, do we want to be like SPI???
Posted by 232662 on August 7, 2008 at 10:28 a.m.So much hype, so little logic.
A strip of beach 75 feet wide is not a good place for a "family picnic" to start with, but if the public insists on going there for that purpose (and the choice surely is theirs) then traffic certainly should be routed off the beach and behind the seawall, with parking allowed on public property at any point along that seawall. Public "access" is thereby maintained while public "safety" issues are also addressed. Problem solved.
There are many, many miles of public beach in Texas that no one can drive down because of rocks/cuts/poor soil conditions and people have no problem driving "off the beach" to get past those areas. I don't see how this, in and of itself can be considered a problem.
The former problem was one of restricting "public access" for the benefit of private business. This is a different matter entirely and everyone should be able to comprehend the difference. If done properly, with a well-written city ordinance, such a restriction should pose no problem at all and would probably be well received by the general public...
Posted by 699873 on August 7, 2008 at 10:33 a.m.Keep your mitts off the beaches and fix the streets. How much longer do we have Skippy for the Council to blame for everything?
Posted by 704925 on August 7, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.in response to 709427
Do you really think that a development that costs a billion and a half dollars to construct will only have minimum wage jobs? Just think of the engineers, construction crews, concrete & steel workers, truck drivers etc just for the building process. Then get into the Corporate level of management, mid level management and so forth on down to the dreaded minimum wage workers. There would have been thousands of jobs, not just in this business but in the satellite businesses created to support this business and some of them would have paid REALLY good money.
It is absolutely incredible that anyone would think you could operate a billion and a half dollar business with some minimum wage Mexican nationals running it.
Posted by 702988 on August 7, 2008 at 10:45 a.m.Close the beaches to traffic. When I moved down here I could not believe the traffic on the beaches. It looks like hoosier city. If you talk to some Vacation planners they will not even suggest coming here. Why because they drive on the beach. Wouldnt it be nice to have that tax money? To the Council - Just make a decision quit talking about it and just do it. Finally make a decision on something maybe next you can make a decision on the ugliest building I have ever seen the Memorial Coliseum. Now that would be something to put in the paper The Coucil finally makes a decision!
Posted by 447776 on August 7, 2008 at 10:52 a.m.Don't forget the added tax revenue that it would have provided. See the article about property taxes going up. What a joke. As far as the driving ban goes there should be an area for people to go where they don't have to worry about some Jack A** doing donuts in his F350 Duelly. I've seen this personally and not just once. I would also like an ordinance requiring a minimum parking distance from shore. It's extremely annoying when you are enjoying the beach and someone drives their huge truck and parks right next to you 3 feet from the water. Seen this also several times.
Posted by 709973 on August 7, 2008 at 10:53 a.m.I think that driving on the beach should be banned. It only attracts troublemakers and people that are picking fights from the backs of trucks. It attracts trash, both the stuff we throw out and the people themselves. This city pathetic. I have never seen such poor leadership anywhere else.
Posted by 705049 on August 7, 2008 at 11:19 a.m.in response to 709427
There's more to it than the jobs that would have been at the resort itself. Some of the resort users would have flown in - airport traffic, car rentals, taxis. All users would have patronized a local eatery or 2. Some would have rented kayaks, surfboards, jet skis, hired local fishing guides, visited the lexington, aquarium, etc. The resort itself would have had contracts for AC repairs, cable repairs and installations, maybe computer maintenance, local food distributors, fedex/ups deliveries, eletrical needs, water & sewage fees, garbage collection fees & services, local bands for entertainment....
The list could go on and on. I don't remember much from finance but I vaguely remember that for every dollar that is spent and circulated, it generates another $7, or something to that effect. The resort would have been a boost for the city without a doubt.
Posted by 711094 on August 7, 2008 at 11:31 a.m.in response to 340633
I guarantee you, if Austin had a beach, this would be a hot topic there as well. This is an issue that matters to a lot of people. I don't understand why you think it would be any different in Austin.
And Austin isn't everything it's cracked up to be. You've got a whole other set of problems to deal with there. Good luck with all that. You'll miss CC within the first 3 months.
And my vote is to close that portion of the beach. It should've been done already. They're not talking about closing it to the public...just closing it to vehicles.
Posted by 709427 on August 7, 2008 at 11:32 a.m.in response to 704925
those are short term jobs for the most part and those will be with the construction and design companies that bring their own head guys in. The same goes for the mgmt of these resorts - brought from other areas. Sorry, you wont sell me with your misleading post. I do respect the other post(er) about the infrastructure that will benefit and jobs related to that - That was a good post, but yours is far fetched ---- ABSOLUTELY a develepment that costs billions (should read millions unless you've been smoking) of dollars will only offer low wage jobs to our locals...ABSOLUTELY....just go look at our Omni hotels downtown... And, by the way, what does this have to do with closing the beach...see how they automatically go together....beach closure, new development - right!
Posted by 455322 on August 7, 2008 at 11:39 a.m.Before I make up my mind, I have a question. How long has the seawall been there and how many people have been injured or even killed at this area? Anyone know?
Posted by 272666 on August 7, 2008 at 11:51 a.m.Don't you just love our council--I should hope we never have a real crisis in this city just listen to them:
Cooper is "confused"--so what's new
Elizondo & Leal -- "too early" need more information--like this is
something totally new
and Marez & McCutchon--"not my job man" give it back to the voters, let them decide AGAIN
The only one that makes any sense is the City Manager and we just fired him
O God help this city
Posted by 237826 on August 7, 2008 at 12:03 p.m.Hey, Mike, why don't you just step up and lead? Look at the facts and make the best decision for the public good, whether or not you think it will be popular. You have staff and consultants who can give you all the info you need on the subject. If it goes to a vote, it will be muddled by the loudest voices with the deepest pockets.
Posted by 235655 on August 7, 2008 at 12:12 p.m.The beach closure ballot measure has been posted on-line at the City's website as Agenda Item 22 for the August 12 Council Meeting, but there are as yet no attachments in the agenda packet to describe the details of this item.
Considering that this is the second-to-last item in an enormous agenda, I hope someone prevails upon the Mayor to bring it before the council early so they and the public may address it, especially the draft ballot language, before noon.
Posted by 238145 on August 7, 2008 at 12:13 p.m.in response to 706602
That's correct, between 206 and 196 north of Packery channel. I wouldn't know much about the southside of Packery, the width of the area is a lot smaller and I have also noticed its not kept as well as the north side. Check out the map..
Posted by 710826 on August 7, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.Y'all just keep on worrying about being able to drive your trucks on the beach and then come on back and complain some more about our taxes. Can't remember how it goes but it was something about having your cake and eating it too........it just ain't gonna happen.
Posted by 710826 on August 7, 2008 at 12:32 p.m."Council members Larry Elizondo and Priscilla Leal said it is too early to say where they stand and expect to hear more information on the topic."
Ms. Leal had no comment because she had not yet discussed the issue with her private consultant.
Posted by 326063 on August 7, 2008 at 12:37 p.m.in response to 713263
i voted for him to get humvees off the narrow strip of sand where my kids are building sandcastles. Hopefully he pushes it thru.
Posted by 267132 on August 7, 2008 at 1:23 p.m.in response to 705049
What a refreshing post to read. You must not be from here, eh? I've been here only 7 years and shake my head reading about low-wage jobs. They just don't get the big picture. Grrrr... The same people crying about closing the beach to new development are crying about tax hikes. Hello? Anyone home? Let tourists pay the taxes!!!!
Again, great post. Could you rent a billboard around here somewhere?
Posted by 243159 on August 7, 2008 at 1:33 p.m.Being a Texan means not getting crushed by local and state gov't. So much for that. Accepting these crazy policies are like living in the liberal left wing, granola eating cities like San Fran, Seattle and other great cities that are being taken over by these left nut jobs.
Posted by 711094 on August 7, 2008 at 1:34 p.m.in response to 267132
I've been here my entire life and have been saying the same thing the entire time. Let the tourists pay for everything. That's how we get better streets, better schools, etc. Not to mention the better entertainment that comes with tourism.
I agree, some people around here just don't get it. But I think a majority of us do. It's just a shame the majority doesn't always get heard because they aren't as vocal and committed as the "anti-development, against everything" crowd. Hopefully that is beginning to change. There have been more developments here in the last 5 years than there were in the 15-20 years before that. I think (I hope) the tides are finally beginning to change.
Posted by 243159 on August 7, 2008 at 1:35 p.m.El Paso doesn't count as real Texan by the way...look at their taxes.
Posted by 238212 on August 7, 2008 at 2:12 p.m.in response to 711094
From your mouth to g-ds ears.
Posted by 310101 on August 7, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.in response to 709427
With a high school dropout rate of over 25% what kind of jobs do you think a lot of the citizens of Corpus Christi qualify for? In other tourism based cities(such as those along the coast on the East coast, lakes in the midwest) the unemployment rate is much lower than the state and national average because there are minimum wage jobs for those who want them. It's minimum wage but it's still more than they would receive on welfare so most choose to work. In the hotel/restaurant industry there are ways to move up the ladder once you have a job--whether it's as a bellhop, maid, check-in clerk, etc. This would be more jobs for undereducated people than we have now. Look beyond tomorrow, please!
Posted by 310101 on August 7, 2008 at 2:34 p.m.in response to 243159
Being a Texan doesn't mean letting the rest of the world pass us by either! San Antonio, South Padre, Fredericksburg are all in Texas and manage to maintain a vibrant tourism industry that keeps a lot of their population employed, and its citizens happy that they live there.
Posted by 342632 on August 7, 2008 at 2:50 p.m.What this city needs is a strong leader. Our Mayor is not a strong leader. When election comes up for a new Mayor we must get a strong Mayor. To get the problems of this city corrected we do need a strong person and Mayor Henry Garrett is not that person.
Posted by 710826 on August 7, 2008 at 2:54 p.m.Orlando, FL went from being an orange grove intersection, a place in the middle of the state where cars would stop and gas up and take a bag of oranges back up north with them, . An area filled with Stuckey's and other orange juice stands (don't know if you ever saw those signs "all the orange juice you can drink for....",) to the bustling metropolis it is today on the back of tourist dollars.
The difference...., they had leadership that took a chance, sold what they had, which was plenty of wide open spaces and brought in Disney. We lack that leadership, either that or it has not yet evidenced itself. How much longer can we afford to wait. Disney type solutions have passed us by and we did not respond.
We can't afford to keep hiring people that will not work for us and by working for us I don't mean hire them to make sure my street gets paved, I mean someone that will work for me "big picture" so that we will never have to be in a "to pave or not to pave" situation.
By the way, speaking of hiring, that is what we do when we elect someone to City Council, we hire them to work for us. ALL OF US.
Posted by 709427 on August 7, 2008 at 3:17 p.m.in response to 310101
point well made....which leads to the question, should we really be so excited about that possibility. Heck, with your perspective on jobs, we might as well continue to open taco huts on the remaining corners of each street that doesn't have them. Yep, lets just keep creating minimum wage jobs so we can also continue to attract the type of minimum wage worker that you describe (you describe them as undereducated). Yep, thats thinking beyond tomorrow.
Posted by 352597 on August 7, 2008 at 3:37 p.m.in response to 711094
You stated "more developments in the last 5 years". Notice how taxes have skyrocketed in the last 5 years?? If you want development on the island so bad, move to South Padre. Any new development will get so many tax incentives, they will provide SO many good jobs at minimum wage and it's more of the same. You want to look at concrete and high rises so bad, move to Miami, Houston, South Padre, California, etc., etc., etc.
Posted by 711521 on August 7, 2008 at 3:44 p.m.let them drive on this section of beach if they wish. This is one of the longest drivable sections of beach in the country. The beach is public property and not that of Holiday INN or Corpus Christi city Council. This is not a good section to play on the beach for kids.
Posted by 710826 on August 7, 2008 at 4:01 p.m.in response to 352597
This is addressing your response to a previous poster
"You stated "more developments in the last 5 years". Notice how taxes have skyrocketed in the last 5 years?? "
You are absolutely correct, question is, why? Answer, bills came due from all the stuff that did not happen in the previous 20.
"If you want development on the island so bad, move to South Padre. Any new development will get so many tax incentives, they will provide SO many good jobs at minimum wage and it's more of the same. "
Why can't we have development here? First, jobs is jobs. Good jobs, bad jobs, but jobs are jobs and provide people with spending money. When people spend money, it provides sales tax income, when there is sales tax income there is a lesser need to cover with strictly property tax increases. Second, the only way that we will ever have any real development here is with manufacturing relocation and/or becoming a tourist destination and they both require activities, restaurants, shopping and attractions otherwise why leave Ames, Iowa.
"You want to look at concrete and high rises so bad, move to Miami, Houston, South Padre, California, etc., etc., etc."
The issue here is not the love for concrete and high rises. The issue is affordability, real affordability. We need to expand our tax base and we need to do it now. City employees need raises, where is the money going to come from? We need more cops, where is the money going to come from? It is a well known fact that our firefighters are not making what they should, where is the money going to come from? The streets need paving, where is the money going to come from? We need more parks, better golf courses, cleaner beaches, better infrastructure and I ask again, WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM?
You have deep pockets, then it's no problem for you, well I don't have deep pockets and it is a problem for me.
2 comments:
Jaime Kenedeno,
Eh, brah, no slippery slope already.
Why you no post one recent kine picture of dakine beach down by the Island House already...almost no beach there, eh, brah?
Da beach always changing. Here today, gone tamale.
mustangisland16,
So that is the way you spell it eh, brah?
LOL!!!
":Why you no post one recent kine picture of dakine beach down by the Island House already...almost no beach there, eh, brah"?
My point exactly; why is there no beach right now? Well the obvious answer is the erosion phenomena associated with the erection of a concrete seawall. However, the Pro Beach Blockaders dare to insult the intelligence of our community as a whole. I am unfamiliar with the details set out in the Packery Channel TIF but if it contains wording and specifications as one of our engaged contributors asserts "The ordinance is already there in the Packery Channel TIF that the beach would be replenished on a regular basis from dredge material", then somebody is not performing the tasks as directed by City ordinance or requirement. Then it becomes a group organizing to deteriorate our beach front. Vandalism or criminal mischief at a minimum that is,....... if that is what is being carried out. You see,when our beach front erodes it narrows and we cannot drive on it and a Pro Development Guru would implement the narrowing into a statutory standard prohibiting vehicle access "as long as the width remains too narrow" and once established the beach front would remain in it's narrow state until an effective permanent law or ordinance can be established. Once the blockade is in place the beach would be replenished on a regular basis from dredge material.
The replenishment is all we need to make things hunky dory!
OK now on the idea of the 4200 feet "rope off" from vehicle access,..... the people have already spoken and we said NO WAY JOSE!
All of us surely understand that No means NO right?
The Council Persons would be braindead to affirm such idiocy.
WHEW, did anyone else notice the exodus of YANQUIS and the for sale signs of what was once prime island property reserved for development now being sold off like a blue light special at KMART.
PqnGzw [url=http://www.outletmonclerspacciopiumini.com/]Piumini Moncler[/url] XzwNjy http://www.outletmonclerspacciopiumini.com/
NczVlq [url=http://www.nikefreevnikefree.com/]Nike Sko[/url] YdiWvg http://www.nikefreevnikefree.com/
BdkIor [url=http://www.outletmonclerspaccio.com/] Moncler Spaccio[/url] ZncFxv http://www.outletmonclerspaccio.com/
YzwIvv [url=http://www.Jakker2canadagoose.com/]Goose Jakker[/url] HogIoq http://www.Jakker2canadagoose.com/
DboUfi [url=http://www.parkajakker4canadagoose.com/]Canada Goose Jakker[/url] UalEwz http://www.parkajakker4canadagoose.com/
XqyEvh [url=http://www.jakke2canadagoose.com/]Canada Goose Canada[/url] UwrPrg http://www.jakke2canadagoose.com/
CokZen [url=http://www.canadagoosefromcanada.com/]Canada Goose Jakker[/url] AvfOmm http://www.canadagoosefromcanada.com/
Post a Comment