corpus christi billboards: Corpus Christi Caller Times

corpus christi billboards: Eli was awesome but Manningham was spectacular, Super Mario IMHO should be Super Bowl MVP.

Corpus Christi Caller Times

Corpus Christi Caller Times Eli was awesome but Manningham was spectacular, Super Mario IMHO should be Super Bowl MVP.

C C KOS: I Hope Santa Brought B.A.C.A.L.A a Big Brown Bag Of Asbestos For Christmas!

C C KOS: I Hope Santa Brought B.A.C.A.L.A a Big Brown Bag Of Asbestos For Christmas!

Citation Nr: 0802538
Decision Date: 01/23/08 Archive Date: 01/30/08

DOCKET NO. 02-13 877 ) DATE
)
)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania



THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary disorder,
to include as due to asbestos exposure.



REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

N. Kroes, Associate Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from June 1974 to May 1978.

This case initially came before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) on appeal from the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In October 2002, the Board remanded the claim for a
videoconference hearing, but the veteran withdrew his request
for a hearing in April 2005 correspondence. The Board again
remanded the claim for additional development in May 2005 and
August 2006. Substantial compliance having been completed
the case has been returned to the Board. Since the last
supplemental statement of the case, the veteran has submitted
additional evidence. In a December 2007 informal hearing
presentation, the veteran's representative waived the RO's
consideration of this new evidence. See 38 C.F.R.
§ 20.1304(c) (2007).

In July 2006, the Board granted the veteran's motion to
advance his case on the Board's docket. See 38 U.S.C.A. §
7107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2007).


FINDING OF FACT

Competent medical evidence of record supports a finding that
a pulmonary disorder is more likely than not the result of
asbestos exposure during the veteran's active military
service.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

With resolution of reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor,
an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder was incurred during
active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107
(West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2007).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
I. Duty to Notify and Assist

As provided for by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000
(VCAA), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a
claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,
5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2007). In this case,
the Board is granting in full the benefit sought on appeal.
Accordingly, assuming, without deciding, that any error was
committed with respect to either the duty to notify or the
duty to assist, such error was harmless and will not be
further discussed.

II. Service Connection

The veteran asserts that he has an asbestos-related pulmonary
disorder caused by exposure to asbestos exposure while
serving as a machinist's mate aboard ship while on active
duty in the United States Navy.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service
connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed
after discharge when all of the evidence establishes that the
disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

To prevail on the issue of service connection, there must be
medical evidence of a current disability; medical evidence,
or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service
occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical
evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease
and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet.
App. 247, 253 (1999).

The chronicity provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) is
applicable where the evidence, regardless of its date, shows
that the veteran had a chronic condition in service or during
an applicable presumption period and still has such
condition. Such evidence must be medical unless it relates
to a condition as to which, under the Court's case law, lay
observation is competent. Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488,
498 (1997). In addition, if a condition noted during service
is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of
continuity of symptomatology after service is required for
service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

There is no specific statutory or regulatory guidance with
regard to claims for service connection for asbestosis or
other asbestos-related diseases. However, in 1988, VA issued
a circular on asbestos-related diseases that provided
guidelines for considering asbestos compensation claims. See
Department of Veterans Benefits, Veterans' Administration,
DVB Circular 21-88-8, Asbestos-Related Diseases (May 11,
1988). The information and instructions contained in the DVB
Circular have since been included in VA Adjudication
Procedure Manual, M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2,
Section C (hereinafter "M21-1MR"). Also, an opinion by
VA's Office of General Counsel discusses the development of
asbestos claims. See VAOPGCPREC 4- 2000 (April 13, 2000),
published at 65 Fed. Reg. 33422 (2000).

VA must analyze the veteran's claim of entitlement to service
connection for an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder under
these administrative protocols using the following criteria.
Ennis v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 523, 527 (1993); McGinty v.
Brown, 4 Vet. App. 428, 432 (1993). The M21-1MR contains
guidelines for the development of asbestos exposure cases.
Paragraph (a) lists common materials that may contain
asbestos including steam pipes for heating units and boilers,
ceiling tiles, roofing shingles, wallboard, fire-proofing
materials, and thermal insulation.

Paragraph (b) in essence acknowledges that inhalation of
asbestos fibers can result in fibrosis, the most commonly
occurring of which is interstitial pulmonary fibrosis or
asbestosis. Inhaling asbestos fibers can also lead to
pleural effusions and fibrosis, pleural plaques,
mesotheliomas of the pleura and peritoneum, and cancer of the
lung, bronchus, gastrointestinal tract, larynx, pharynx, and
urogenital system (except the prostate).

Paragraph (d) notes that the latency period for development
of disease due to exposure to asbestos ranges from 10 to 45
or more years between the first exposure and the development
of the disease.

Paragraph (e) provides that a clinical diagnosis of
asbestosis requires a history of exposure and radiographic
evidence of parenchymal lung disease. Symptoms and signs
include dyspnea on exertion, end-respiratory rales over the
lower lobes, compensatory emphysema, clubbing of the fingers
at late stages, and pulmonary function impairment and cor
pulmonale that can be demonstrated by instrumental methods.

Paragraph (h) provides that VA must determine whether service
records demonstrate evidence of asbestos exposure during
service; whether there is pre-service and/or post-service
evidence of occupational or other asbestos exposure; and then
make a determination as to the relationship between asbestos
exposure and the claimed disease, keeping in mind the latency
and exposure information pertinent to the veteran.

When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for
determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in
relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either
event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against
a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. Gilbert v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

The veteran has submitted a great deal of evidence to support
his contention that he was exposed to asbestos while serving
in the Navy, including on line research, articles, training
manual excerpts, and "buddy" statements. The veteran's
service personnel records show that he was a machinist's mate
who was assigned to the engine room of the U.S.S. Neosho
during his service. Multiple letters written by fellow
sailors detail asbestos exposure by the veteran, and an
August 2005 letter from the contractor assigned with
dismantling the ship the veteran served aboard reported that
after the ship was 50 percent dismantled asbestos disposal
logs showed that 186.35 tons of asbestos had been removed.
This letter also notes that the ship had significant levels
of asbestos in certain areas, including the engine room. The
evidence of record shows that the veteran was exposed to a
significant amount of asbestos while in service.

A December 1999 CT (computed tomography) scan report prepared
by Dr. "G.S." of the Dubois Regional Medical Center was
interpreted to show the veteran with interstitial fibrotic
changes. A private physician, Dr. "A.I.," diagnosed the
veteran with mild restrictive lung disease (January 2000),
mild interstitial pulmonary fibrosis (August 2000), and
asbestosis (January 2001) based on this CT scan and pulmonary
function tests. Doctor "A.I." also indicated in his August
2000 letter that it was likely that the veteran developed
mild interstitial pulmonary fibrosis during service, possibly
related to asbestos exposure at that time. A VA examiner in
October 2000 diagnosed the veteran with mild interstitial
pulmonary fibrosis but could not state with certainty whether
the veteran had asbestos related disease. The VA examiner
and Dr. "A.I." both indicated that manifestations such as
pleural plaques would strengthen an association between
interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and exposure to asbestos, and
that a lung biopsy would provide the most definitive
diagnosis.

Further examination was requested to clarify the matter, and
in March 2006 a VA examiner concluded that the veteran had no
restrictive lung disease based on contemporaneous chest x-
rays and pulmonary function tests. The Board then remanded
the claim for another VA examiner to review the evidence and
identify the precise nature and etiology of any lung disorder
in light of all of the medical evidence, portions of which
were conflicting.

The veteran was afforded this VA examination in May 2007. A
pulmonary function test that day was reported as normal. In
explaining some of the conflicting evidence, the examiner
stated that a CT scan was more extensive than a chest x-ray
and that where there may not be any changes noted on a chest
x-ray they may still be evident on a CT scan. She also noted
that the most recent CT scan, from 2003, was negative. Given
that pulmonary function testing was normal dating back to
2003 and a CT scan dated from 2003 was reported as normal,
the examiner stated that she could not find any objective
evidence of any defined pulmonary disorder. She recommended
another CT scan.

After the examiner obtained a June 2007 CT scan and results
she added an addendum to the examination report which stated
that after review of the actual film with another physician,
she felt the veteran had very mild interstitial fibrosis in
both lungs. She noted that there was no evidence of pleural
plaques that would associate this fibrosis with the veteran's
asbestos exposure. Given that pulmonary function tests were
normal, she still felt it was more likely than not that the
veteran's current complaints were not related to interstitial
fibrosis or asbestos exposure incurred while in the military.
She stated that she could not totally rule out that
interstitial fibrosis may be associated with asbestos
exposure, and explained that she would suspect that if this
were the case there would be evidence of progression
reflected in decline of pulmonary function tests. Therefore,
it was her opinion that it is more likely than not that the
mild interstitial fibrosis is not related to asbestos
exposure incurred in the military.

Earlier in her report, the examiner explained that pleural
plaques help differentiate asbestos-induced parenchymal
disease from other interstitial lung disease. Pulmonary
fibrosis with an associated pleural plaque is more likely to
support asbestosis-related fibrotic disease from other
interstitial lung disease. She also relayed that an open
lung biopsy would be the most definitive diagnosis. As noted
above, the October 2000 VA examiner and Dr. "A.I." also
both indicated that pleural plaques would strengthen an
association between interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and
exposure to asbestos, and that a lung biopsy would provide
the most definitive diagnosis.

An open lung biopsy was performed by a private physician in
October 2007. According to the report associated with this
procedure, two pleural plaques were found.

The current competent medical evidence shows interstitial
pulmonary fibrosis confirmed by a June 2007 CT scan.
Different medical professionals have on multiple occasions
stated that the presence of pleural plaques would help
differentiate asbestos-induced parenchymal disease from other
interstitial lung disease. Pleural plaques were found during
an October 2007 lung biopsy, the procedure that multiple
physicians have stated would provide the most definitive
diagnosis. Considering the above, the Board is of the
opinion that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to
whether or not the veteran's interstitial pulmonary fibrosis
is related to his in-service asbestos exposure. Therefore,
resolving reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor, service
connection for an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder is
warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102;
Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49.


ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an asbestos-related
pulmonary disorder is granted.


____________________________________________
MICHAEL D. LYON
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals




Department of Veterans Affairs

Meritorious case or Not: Who will continue the abusive, political, and malicious style of Justus?

Race: District Attorney Posted October 9, 2010 at 4:33 p.m., updated October 9, 2010 at 4:48 p.m. Jimenez Skurka CORPUS CHRISTI — The district attorney leads an office of more than 60, including about 40 prosecutors and 20 support staff members. The office handles the prosecution of misdemeanor and felony cases in Nueces County. Republican candidate Anna Jimenez was appointed to the top spot in March by Gov. Rick Perry after the departure of longtime District Attorney Carlos Valdez. Jimenez is running against Mark Skurka, a Democrat and former longtime prosecutor, to fill the final two years of the unexpired term. The position pays about $125,00 a year with a $12,000 county supplement. Anna Jimenez Age: 41 Occupation: District attorney Experience: Jimenez, a former English teacher, spent about six years in private practice focusing on criminal defense, juvenile law, family law and probate. In 2006, she joined the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office as a special prosecutor in the child victims’ unit. While in that unit, she helped secure more than 50 convictions with prison time for child molesters and also tried various other felony cases, including capital murder along with family violence, drug, theft and gang cases. Gov. Rick Perry appointed Jimenez to lead the office in March. What makes you the best person for this office? I am the best person for this office because I have the experience, organization, leadership skills and work ethic necessary to run the office. I have made positive changes to improve production at the district attorney’s office for the benefit and safety of this community in a very short period of time. I am not afraid to be on the front line in the courtroom or in the community doing whatever is necessary to protect our citizens. Given the budget constraints of the county, what other avenues would you use to increase the starting pay for prosecutors and help with retention? In order to increase the pay for prosecutors I will use the drug forfeiture fund, the pretrial diversion fund and the income from hot check division. I am also applying for several grants that will bring more funding into the office. With fiscal responsibility it is my hope that we can shift money from areas within our current budget i.e. going paperless has saved hundreds of dollars a month that may be used for the benefit of prosecutors. What have you done to improve the district attorney’s office and what ideas do you have for the future? Since my appointment the office has reduced a backlog of 850 cases, opened hot check division, reduced the redundant paperwork in the processing of indictments, brought organization to the drug forfeiture division, introduced a training program for prosecutors, created a domestic violence unit, gone paperless, established criteria for veterans’ court, created a stronger relationship with law enforcement, and sought justice for crime victims. In the future, I will work to strengthen the team to give victims the expert legal representation they deserve. Mark Skurka Age: 51 Occupation: Attorney Experience: Skurka began working at the district attorney’s office in 1986 while waiting for his bar results. He wrote about 26 appellate briefs until his results came in showing he passed the bar on the first try. He was a trial supervisor in 1990 to 2000 and then became first assistant district attorney. He has tried about 100 jury trials including nine capital murder trials which resulted in the death penalty. He has trained prosecutors, law enforcement and crime scene technicians in all areas of criminal law. As first assistant, he was the chief administrator for 40 attorneys and 25 support staff. What makes you the best person for this office? I have the experience, dedication and qualifications for this office. I have the integrity and honesty needed. Citizens deserve a district attorney who they can trust to make the right decisions in difficult cases. I am board certified in criminal law, have over 23 years experience in prosecution, and have dedicated my entire legal career to the protection of our community. A district attorney must be an administrator, a trial attorney and an expert in criminal law. Given the budget constraints of the county, what other avenues would you use to increase the starting pay for prosecutors and help with retention? Throughout my time with the office, I have sought ways to improve salaries and help retain attorneys. I have obtained grants to fund a gang prosecutor, a drug prosecutor and a child abuse prosecutor. I did a salary survey of like sized prosecutors’ offices and adjacent counties for the Commissioners Court two years ago. It showed the office is understaffed and underfunded. I worked with some judges to use pretrial diversion funds to hire two prosecutors this year. What have you done to improve the district attorney’s office and what ideas do you have for the future? I instituted monthly legal education sessions for the prosecutors; purchased audio visual equipment for prosecutors to use in court; assisted in setting up procedures between the office and law enforcement with checklists, electronic communication, and search warrants for blood in DWI cases. I plan to update the office computers, incorporate better technology and streamline the process for criminal cases. Most of all, I plan to bring integrity, good judgment and decisions based on the law and evidence back to the office. © 2010 Corpus Christi Caller Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Email Discuss Share » Digg Facebook LinkedIn Tweet this Print Buzz up! Also in Local News More A bayfront opportunity? Controversial formula popular Couples hope wedding will be a perfect 10 Comments » 17 Hide October 9, 2010 5:53 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post Riptide writes: I'm a republican and will vote republican except for Anna Jimenez. This woman is power hungry. She want's everyone to know that she is the BOSS ! ! She came on just to strong. October 9, 2010 6:08 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post 50rider writes: Anna has got my vote! She has shown she is not afraid to step on toes and get things done. I heard nothing but good things from her subordinates and that's what I would want in voting for a leader. Skurka has had plenty of time to step up to the plate but, has never done it! Time for change in Nueces county! October 9, 2010 6:43 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post wflemley writes: in response to Riptide: I'm a republican and will vote republican except for Anna Jimenez. This woman is power hungry. She want's everyone to know that she is the BOSS ! ! She came on just to strong. Wife and I are new to CC. We trust your judgment on this. Be sure to bring a tea bag to the voting location. October 9, 2010 7:06 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post wflemley writes: Does the C-T publish the ballot in time for early voting? October 9, 2010 7:32 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post boardwalk writes: The right choice is Mark Skurka! October 9, 2010 7:49 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post FunSucker writes: in response to 50rider: Anna has got my vote! She has shown she is not afraid to step on toes and get things done. I heard nothing but good things from her subordinates and that's what I would want in voting for a leader. Skurka has had plenty of time to step up to the plate but, has never done it! Time for change in Nueces county! I agree. Everyone complains about the good ole boy system here in Corpus, well, now is your chance to get rid of one of them once and for all. Jimenez may have come on strong and probably should have gone about some of the changes she made in a different way, but at least she has the guts to make those changes and is not afraid of rocking the boat. Jimenez has my vote. October 9, 2010 8:07 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post secedetexas writes: in response to FunSucker: I agree. Everyone complains about the good ole boy system here in Corpus, well, now is your chance to get rid of one of them once and for all. Jimenez may have come on strong and probably should have gone about some of the changes she made in a different way, but at least she has the guts to make those changes and is not afraid of rocking the boat. Jimenez has my vote. me three. I don't claim she is perfect, she is still a lawyer after all, but definitely a step in the right direction. I love to see all the strong women stepping up to leadership positions. October 9, 2010 8:20 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post kiki2010 writes: in response to wflemley: Wife and I are new to CC. We trust your judgment on this. Be sure to bring a tea bag to the voting location. "Power hungry"..no..I had the privilege of watching her in action back in July. Not only did she have me at the edge of my seat, she had me in tears. She is a great attorney and stands for what she believes, and that makes her a POWERFUL WOMAN! She has my vote 100%! October 9, 2010 9:08 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post erreyes writes: in response to 50rider: Anna has got my vote! She has shown she is not afraid to step on toes and get things done. I heard nothing but good things from her subordinates and that's what I would want in voting for a leader. Skurka has had plenty of time to step up to the plate but, has never done it! Time for change in Nueces county! I agree with you! A vote for Mark will not bring change to the DA's office. Anna has done a great job of cleaning house. October 9, 2010 9:20 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post ridley writes: I think the woman who cleared up the backlog for her resigned because Jimenez had totally politicized the office. October 9, 2010 9:44 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post erreyes writes: in response to Riptide: I'm a republican and will vote republican except for Anna Jimenez. This woman is power hungry. She want's everyone to know that she is the BOSS ! ! She came on just to strong. Sounds like you have a problem with women in a leadership position. I want a District Attorney that acts like a boss and is in charge! October 9, 2010 9:47 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post Gatekeeper writes: May the Best person Win... October 9, 2010 10:06 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post DrJackShepherd writes: With all of the corruption in Corpus Christi politics, it is refreshing to see someone who is willing to go against the flow and hold politicians and city workers accountable to Texas law. Jimenez has my vote. October 9, 2010 10:40 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post southtexas1 writes: Go Anna Go! October 9, 2010 10:41 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post PlanoDealer writes: I know three attorneys who have either been let go or resigned from the DA office and two others still on staff there. Jimenez is a freakin' nightmare. She got rid of those who might rival her politically (take the job she did not win) and threw mud trying to discredit them. These attorneys are fine prosecutors and had GREAT track records in the courts. Jimenez is one GOP candidate who does not get my vote...and I vote vastly republican. I recognize political maneuvers when I see them...and she's been pulling them since Perry appointed her. October 9, 2010 11:01 p.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post punk_rawk_grrl writes: in response to erreyes: Sounds like you have a problem with women in a leadership position. I want a District Attorney that acts like a boss and is in charge! Sounds like you're making assumptions about Riptide's valid opinion. This is not an issue of feminism, it is an issue of who is the best candidate for district attorney. As a woman, I am all about QUALIFIED, COMPETENT women being in leadership positions, not power hungry nut jobs like Anna Jimenez. I want a DA who leads by earning the respect of his or her team, not someone who "acts like a boss", ie, bossy. Bossiness does not equal leadership October 10, 2010 12:45 a.m. Suggest removal Reply to this post wowitsme writes: in response to punk_rawk_grrl: Sounds like you're making assumptions about Riptide's valid opinion. This is not an issue of feminism, it is an issue of who is the best candidate for district attorney. As a woman, I am all about QUALIFIED, COMPETENT women being in leadership positions, not power hungry nut jobs like Anna Jimenez. I want a DA who leads by earning the respect of his or her team, not someone who "acts like a boss", ie, bossy. Bossiness does not equal leadership And here I am again. Agreeing with you. No way will she get my vote, I have watched her single handed tear the DAs office apart. I have also watched Mark Skurka in action over the years and have seen what he can do. I will take him anyday over her. Come to think of it...I would take anyone over her. Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group 2010 The E.W. Scripps Co. More news from our local partners » Privacy Policy | User Agreement | About Our Ads

How Much To Buy This Mexican Tony? Think They Are Close Personal Friends? No, I Mean Close Personal Friends! I'm Sure Celis Couldn't Attend,... It Was

Definitely Past His Curfew? The Judge appears to be caught in the headlights?

CORPUS CHRISTI - District Attorney Carlos Valdez has filed a motion asking that Judge Manuel Banales be removed from the Mauricio Celis case.

Mauricio Celis was convicted in February 14 counts of falsely claiming to be a lawyer.

The judge in that case, Mark Luitjen, decided on a one-year jail sentence and a $1.35 million fine.

However, Judge Luitjen was removed from the case before the sentence became official. The judge was removed on a defense motion.

Judge Banales took over the case and sentenced Celis to 10 years probation with no jail time. Banales also assigned Judge Richard Terrell out of Alice to handle the cases still pending against Celis. Banales left himself as the judge of record in the first Celis case.

A total of five judges have now handled the Celis case.

The motion filed by the District Attorney raises concerns over what Valdez said are conflicts of interest between Celis and Judge Banales.

In a picture on from the Caller Times, standing side-by-side are Judge Banales, his wife Peggy, Tony Canales and his wife Yolanda at a reception.

Canales represented Celis in his first trial.

According to court documents filed by Carlos Valdez, Judge Banales has had long-standing financial and other relationships, not only with Celis' trial counsel, but also various lawyers and law firms whose conduct is directly at issue in the criminal cases.

According to court documents signed by Valdez, the attorneys and law firms would benefit if Judge Banales were to consider granting new trials in cases in which Celis has been convicted.

In May, Judge Banales granted a request from Celis to remove Judge Luitjen from his first trial, and bring himself to the trial.

According to court documents, Judge Banales stated, I will assign myself the case for "the purpose of the rendition of judgement." Whether I continue after that, "I will determine later on."

According to court documents, in 1993, Judge Banales unsuccessfully sought the appointment to a federal district judge position in Corpus Christi.

Recommendations for appointments are made through a judicial selection committee and Celis' Attorney Tony Canales has been appointed to the committee.

The documents state that a federal judge vacancy will occur in the Corpus Christi Division in the near future.

Judge Banales has two options: to recuse himself from participating in the disputed cases or to refer the District Attorney's complaint to the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court to make a decision.

Court staff said Judge Banales hasn't had a chance to read the motion to recuse himself from the Celis case.

You can read Carlos Valdez's motion to recuse Judge Banales here (Adobe Acrobat .pdf format, 7MB).

Online Reporter: Thomas Piland

The Mistake Occurred When Celis' Name Replaced Lawyer Raul Tapia

Monday, December 31, 2007

I Hope Santa Brought B.A.C.A.L.A a Big Brown Bag Of Asbestos For Christmas!

The Exact Science of Junk Science: Brown Bags, Asbestos, Silicosis

On 10/29/07, J Kenedeno <kenedeno@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack BLACK or is it Black Jack......

It is Judge Jack

And Lungs Black

in twenty or thirty

it will be hard to breathe

and a constant hack hack hack

and that junk science is just a bunch of smack

and for any who claim no harm is done

for you guys by all means let us help to a sack

Silica or Asbestos take one and past the rest to the back

inhale and enjoy

today is today and you are only an employ

Now as the years go by the Golden Years are full of joy

Pleural Thickening, Mesothelioma, Silicosis OH BOY!

If you worked around with the shit flying round in the air

It dont take a rocket scientist to figure it out

U R Screwed because no matter how hard you breathe, you cant get no frickin air.

Pay the damn bill!

WATT is your Corruptor of Choice?

From the menu above, I will take a full order of the Brown Bag Wake Up Services. As far as the asbestos I am protected. I religiously wear the respirator made by Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company.

We wont know until 30 or 40 years later those mask were nothing but JUNK SCIENCE.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ping Lee <CPing.211@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2007 3:03 AM
Subject: Immigration / Amnesty : Is Raul Tapia in Cahoots with Thomas J Henry
To: kenedeno@gmail.com

Ping Lee has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Immigration / Amnesty
Post: Is Raul Tapia in Cahoots with Thomas J Henry
Link: http://immigration-ping.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-raul-tapia-in-cahoots-with-thomas-j.html

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Is Raul Tapia in Cahoots with Thomas J Henry

Gloria Murat; Nando Gómez; Lencho Rendón, de LR Global; el embajador mexicano Arturo Sarukhan y Raúl Tapia, de C2 Group y anfitrión de la recepción. Con ellos a la derecha, Solomón Ortíz , congresista de Texas.

1 Cause Number: 0762218000-1 Case Status: Pending Cause of Action: ACCOUNTS, CONTRACTS, NOTES

Date Filed: 10/08/2007 Date Disposed: //0

STEELE, PALOMA
vs. CGT LAW GROUP INTERNATIONAL, L.L.P., ET AL

Num.	Litigant	Def/Pln	Lit. Seq. # |
1	PALOMA STEELE	Plaintiff	0001
2	RAUL TAPIA	Defendant	5002
3	MAURICIO R. CELIS	Defendant	5003
4	T. CHRISTOPHER PINEDO	Defendant	5004
5	D.R. GWYTHER, JR.	Defendant	5005
6	CGT LAW GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLP	Defendant	5006

--

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: P Cohen < cping.211@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 4, 2007 3:00 AM
Subject: Fwd: [The Right Hand of Solomon] Solomon Ortiz is operating with increasing bravad...
To: lencho@lrglobal.net , rick@ricknoriega.com , greg.abbott@oag.state.tx.us, mindy.cohen@oag.state.tx.us
Cc: arleen.navarro@oag.state.tx.us , elizabeth.jones@oag.state.tx.us, paula.harris@oag.state.tx.us

GOD knew that Lencho Rendon would be reaching into everyone's pockets, so he punished him with the birth defect of shorter arms.

Ernesto Gomez, the man who would be queen, and Ricardo Longoria, the man who is a pawn, consummated their dirty act by replacing Cris Valadez with Manny Vasquez on the PUB board. The Treacherous Trio of Bill Hudson, Renato Cardenas and Neil Simmons applauded the action as they don't want their impact fees raised from $300 to $3,000, the developers enamored with the sweetheart deal that has provided them with $40 million in profits at the expense of the utility company's ratepayers. Vasquez recently resigned in disgrace from the Brownsville Housing Authority when his suspicious activities compromised the entity's reputation, his underhanded antics, nevertheless, catching the attention of the insiders who need Ernie Hernandez clones to facilitate the shady transactions that enrich the few and cost the many. "This is a sad day for the common man," said Father Jesus P. Cadissimo. "Our council has sinned against the community again. Vasquez is a willing tool content in his role of playing the fool." Vasquez is part of Congressman Solomon Ortiz's machine. Repudiated by the Corpus Christi Caller on numerous occasions for his unethical conduct, Ortiz is operating with increasing bravado in Cameron County since The Brownsville Herald chooses to ignore his antics. "How much did he pocket on the $21 million heist at the port?" asked Cadissimo. "He is convinced that we're nothing but pendejos and he is going to plunder us." Lencho Rendon, Ortiz's former aide and longtime henchman who resigned from the congressman's office when his dealings were attracting excessive scrutiny, has descended upon Brownsville like a vulture who has spotted fresh carrion. "God works in mysterious ways," continued Cadissimo. "He knew that Rendon would be reaching into everyone's pockets, so he punished him with the birth defect of shorter arms. His life has been a living purgatory because he can't masturbate, but that hasn't stopped him from screwing the border's denizens. Like other felons, he has returned to the scene of the crime. He figures that he can match his take on the $21 million port sting by monopolizing the lobbying contracts of the public entities. Why have we let this fox back into the chicken coop? Our politicians must rest easily at night knowing that we're a stupid people."

B.A.C.A.L.A.: Abel Herrero has proven himself and his record is there for all to see; he is a fine representative



Abel Herrero has proven himself and his record is there for all to see. I am proud of Abel, he is a fine representative.

There is a natural law I always like to follow, "If it isnt broke , then it don't need fixin".

On the other hand,


















Velacrat is making friends with the Federal Entrapment gang and sycophants up to the ones he believes will elevate his Rose to a Federal Judicial Bench.




Is Fil Vela going into the fraud abuse prosecution racket & the manufacturing of fraud abuse prosecutions?

Inroads (for GOP) into South Texas?
















Hurt? Injured? Need a Lawyer? Too Bad!



















TLR?? ..................................three little bitty letters;















nah, I wouldnt worry bout em.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Los Kenedenos' Election Edition: Please remember to vote tomorrow

Monday, March 03, 2008. Hegemony: Power, Culture & Ideology: Lencho Rendon: The Pimping Out Of The President & Hillary. Hegemony: Power, Culture & Ideology: Lencho Rendon: The Pimping Out Of The President & Hillary ...

Posted by Ping at 7:25 AM

fwd: [nueces democrats] notice: nueces county citizens please ...

tip of the iceberg. corpus christi watchdog authority kenedeno and his army join our blog! welcome and he brings out the truth! why do we hand lencho rendon san patricio shores along our port ... ccwatchdog.blogspot.com/ - 188k - cached ...

Posted by Ping at 4:23 PM

Threats to affect & harm one's livelihood so as to censor free speech

Solomon P. Ortiz: 71, will chair the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee

U.S. Rep. Ortiz remains head of military subcommittee

Local leaders say his position important for area military bases

By Jaime Powell (Contact)
Thursday, January 15, 2009

p-9legislature0110ty ñ Caller-Times Photo by Todd Yates ñ State Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz Jr.(center) shows his father, U.S. Rep. Solomon P.Ortiz, and mother, Irme Roldan, to their seats next to his on the house floor Tuesday January 09, 2007 before his swearing in to the 80th Texas legislative session in Austin.

During his 14th term, U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Robstown, will continue to lead a military subcommittee that local leaders say is beneficial to area military bases.

Ortiz, 71, will chair the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, a position he has held for two years. The subcommittee authorizes a $160 billion budget and has oversight over military training, logistics, industrial operations, environmental policy, depot policy, military construction and base realignment and closure.

"He is chairman of the lead authorization committee for military construction, and it also gives him the added stroke in appropriations," said Dick Messbarger, executive director of the Greater Kingsville Economic Development Council. "It's good for the whole area down here. He has been in that position for years, and his influence and stature just keeps increasing in D.C."

In addition, Ortiz will serve on the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, which has oversight on Navy research and procurement programs.

As a first-term member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Ortiz will sit on both the Highways and Transit and the Water Resources and Environment subcommittees, which as a combination oversee federal surface transportation projects, Army Corps of Engineers' projects, the Water Resources Development Act and many infrastructure improvement bills.

"South Texas continues to grow, and these new assignments will allow me to stress our need for better roads, ports, waterways and infrastructure projects," Ortiz said in a statement. "During these times of economic struggle, we can emphasize how these projects will create good paying jobs in the region."

Kenedeno's Texas Monthly: B.A.C.A.L.A.: Velacrat is making friends with the Federal Entrapment gang and sycophants up to the ones he believes will elevate his Rose

Kenedeno's Texas Monthly: TLR?? ..................................three little bitty letters;

nah, I wouldnt worry bout em
.

Corpus Christi Daily Digital: www.google.com/search "peggy banales"

Corpus Christi Daily Digital: www.google.com/search "peggy banales"

Cruising the beach is a Corpus Christi thing and the people already decided to continue the tradition.

The ordinance is already there in the Packery Channel TIF that the beach would be replinished on a regular basis from dredge material.
Posted by 235425 on August 6, 2008 at 10:03 p.m.

Posted: 8/7/2008 07:23AM mustangisland16, When the powers that be were anticipating a "Privatized Beach"....... Posted on August 7, 2008 at 06:51:41 AM by Jaime Kenedeno 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. Councilman Michael McCutchon wants to pass the issue to voters, but needs at least four of his fellow council members to agree.

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

Posts: 214 | Location: Sandia, Texas | Registered: 2/9/2008 | IP: Logged Author: Topic: Re: Exerpts from the CC Chamber of Commerce tape... mustangisland16
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.

Posts: 84 | Location: CC | Registered: 2/10/2008 | IP: Logged Author: Topic: Re: Exerpts from the CC Chamber of Commerce tape... Jaime Kenedeno
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.

Posts: 22 | Location: Corpus Christi | Registered: 5/31/2007 | IP: Logged Author: Topic: Re: Exerpts from the CC Chamber of Commerce tape... Jaime Kenedeno
Member

Posted: 8/7/2008 09:29PM
mustangisland16, Slippery slopes are slippery "me braa"

(77) User Comments:

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

Posted by 700414 on August 6, 2008 at 8:09 p.m.

in response to 713231

yeps, always felt that way.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

Posted by 713263 on August 6, 2008 at 8:21 p.m.

It seems Mike has forgotten just who elected him and why...

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.)

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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!

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.)

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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,

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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?

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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!

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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?

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

Posted by 313072 on August 7, 2008 at 7:16 a.m.

Do it Long as its just that section.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

*****

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

Posted by 238212 on August 7, 2008 at 8:10 a.m.

in response to 706602

PERFECT

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

Posted by 241057 on August 7, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.

Close the Beach!

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.....

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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?

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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!!

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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?"

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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?

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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~

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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???

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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...

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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?

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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!

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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!

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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?

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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..

http://www.cctexas.com/files/g33/Beac...

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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?

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

Posted by 238212 on August 7, 2008 at 2:12 p.m.

in response to 711094

From your mouth to g-ds ears.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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!

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.

Reply to this Post | Suggest removal

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.