Annexation? Your thoughts?

[Pat ORear]

Even if Friendswood were to annex the Alvin land as now proposed, this
still would not reoslve the issues regarding the legality of the
original contract. Would Council be looking to let a new contract at
this point, or continue under the original questionable agreement?

Wight has stated he is continuing to improve the land on his own
nickel. If Wight is currently not under authorization from the City
of Friendswood, would the City be discounted costs for improvements
until the time when an Authorization to Proceed is given? Should the
original contract stand but be withdrawn from by the City, the City
should not be liable for any improvements Wight has made without
authorization. It will assuredly be a debate over when he did and did
not have the City's blessing to be conducting improvments if the
assertion is made that the Austin ruling simply said certificates of
obligation could not be used.

The legailty of the original contract needs to be resolved!

[DeborahWC]

Wight should have stopped making any improvements to his property, as
soon as the Ex Parte hearing in Austin was opposed by the Friendswood
5. That should have immediately triggered to him that there was a
problem regarding the contract he had with the City.

[Marcus Rives]

I am still wondering what happened to the mayor's comment at the "town hall"
meeting where he referred to the court's ruling being the final word on the
matter and that there would be no further action if ruled against.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.100/2374 - Release Date: 09/15/09
20:00:00