Restore the Faith

[dcb]

Council created quite a hullabaloo which it fed weekly and still
resists letting die. The Mayor's comments in the Facts article linked
above are incredulous. The Mayor now wonders if the relief requested
by the City to validate the park land purchase was denied in the
Court's judgment - a judgment which denied all requested relief. An
issue he testified on and had a big blown up exhibit showing where the
park was situated.

Some councilmembers are blaming the City's attorneys. Well, the City
has the same attorneys it had in September. So, I question whether
that is accurate -- were those councilmembers told by other
councilmembers that the attorneys said it was o.k. Only Barker and
Smith were dealing with the City Attorney before Council voted on the
purchase. . . Why didn't Council request a written legal opinion at
any time during the process before bringing in special counsel?
Council is in defense mode. Some Councilmembers probably had very
good intentions, I am not convinced all had good intentions. Those
that stood up have good intentions. It is not a good guy bad guy
debate with most of the people involved, but a difference of opinion
and exercising the democratic ideals that are the core of American
government. One of the reasons Friendswood is a top Money Magazine
City is because when push comes to shoove people rally and fight for
their convictions. We need people to be involved all the time, vote
every election, lets heed the true lesson -- we need to be actively
engaged in our City government.

How do we restore faith in council. I am hardpressed to figure out
how we do that and have to keep thinking, I know it can be done.
But, just as of last night there was more misinformation from the
dais from misrepresenting zoning issues to concerned citizens to the
Mayor's concern regarding his newspaper comments on the judgment be
taken out of context. Not to mention the heavy handed approach he
ruled the meeting. The Mayor called a break at one point and those
concerned with P&Z issues filed out to go to the P&Z meeting and
Councilmembers stood up -- all while the mayor remained perched in
his chair striking his gavel to regain control. It was an odd sight
to watch because only a few of us seemed to pay attention that he was
striking the gavel.

Council wanted to bully the people and didn't like it that the people
held their ground and refused to be bullied. How do you regain faith
in one who "abuses" you? Should you regain faith in the one who
"abuses" you - - how do you know it won't happen again. . . In my
opinion, restoring the faith in Council will be best served with the
Mayor taking a noble step and resign.

Any other thoughts are welcome!!! Lets all come together -- work
towards better streets, drainage and other public needs, develop
strategic plans, develop good documentation and reasons why certain
expenses need to be spent . . something more than council saying
"because we said so."

[David C. Cain]

I would like to know who pays Vincent and Elkins fees for all of
this? I am sure trips to Austin for this lawsuit, by one of the most
expensive law firms in Texas, ran up quite a bill.

Has earnest money been paid to the Alvin land owner? Would the ruling
now qualify the statement "that the mayor and council entered into a
contract without authorization"? If so, what happens to that earnest
money?

It would seem that there are still a lot of questions.

[paddyo]

An observation: There was a bit of vacillation on this story in the
Daily News. The original story was "Judge rules in favor of
Friendswood 5". Later in the day yesterday, it was changed to "City
to seek clarification of judge's ruling", and included Mayor Smith's
comments that still appear in the Facts article. Currently, the
tagline in the Daily News story has been changed back to the original,
and references to Mayor Smith's comments that Council would still seek
an avenue to buy the land have been removed. It will be interesting
to see if the Facts article undergoes revision as well.

I noticed on last night's agenda there appeared to be an item related
to classifcation of zoning for part of the Alvin park land. How was
this issue addressed?

Council made statements at the June 11 Town Hall that the ruling in
Austin would settle the park land issue once and for all, so that it
would be "over and done" and we cold "move on". I hope those
sentiments are are remembered and honored.

On Jul 21, 9:42 am, dcb <deirdrecbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Marcus Rives]

I too was wondering if it is truly "Over and Done" as per the Mayor's
comments.
For some reason I doubt it.

Maybe it is like the May vote when the Mayor said that "the voter's just
didn't understand and that is why they voted down the bonds", and now the
State just doesn't understand and that is why the Judge ruled against it.
Poor Judge must be one of the "Lowest common denominator's" that the mayor
has to explain things to.
It seems that everyone just doesn't understand the Mayor's purpose, or maybe
we understand all too well (and that is why we don't trust him).