Opinion: A Citizens Right to Know
Updated: October 19, 2012
Through a Public Information Act request, I have received and updated the litigation costs expended by the City of Alamo Heights in defending itself against the Glenn Huddleston lawsuit through last month.
With the settlement agreement signed in September, this should be the last of the legal fees relating to this case. What all taxpayers should keep in mind when looking at these numbers is that even with the settlement, Mr. Huddleston obtained none of the relief he requested from the court, and the City elected to make the case go away by making some minor non-cash concessions intended to help Mr. Huddleston enhance the value of one of his own commercial properties in Alamo Heights.
For the sake of our pocketbooks, we can only hope that next time Mr. Huddleston will think twice before he sues the City.
Updated: October 8, 2012
Through a Public Information Act request, I received and have updated the August 2012 costs for the City of Alamo Heights regarding the legal fees in the Huddleston vs. City of Alamo Heights lawsuit.
The City of Alamo Heights has now entered into an agreement (attached) with Mr. Huddleston ending the expensive and tortuous litigation initiated by Mr. Huddleston. To dispel the absurd claims by some that the hourly rate of Fred Jones was $500.00 per hour, I have also attached the final page of the September billing showing rate was $225.00 per hour (attached).
The outcome is this. Mr. Huddleston requested that the City present the case to TxDOT for the removal of the median in front of his property at 4700 Broadway to allow southbound traffic on Broadway to access his shopping center to the east. This had nothing to do with his lawsuit.
Mr. Huddleston also requested that the City Zoning Code be amended to a) deny impervious cover on commercially zoned property within 15 feet of adjoining residential property and b) to limit what are considered landscape elements, when commercial property meets commercial property.
In return for these conditions Mr. Huddleston agreed to dismiss his lawsuit and release the City from all claims. Each party will bear their own legal fees, which in the case of the City of Alamo Heights are the taxpayers.
Through August 2012, the cost to Alamo Heights taxpayers is $96, 589.11. The September bill is not yet available.
Updated: August 18, 2012
Through a Public Information Act request, I received and have updated the June and July of 2012 costs for the City of Alamo Heights regarding the legal fees in the Chase Bank/ West property and Huddleston vs. City of Alamo Heights lawsuit.
The outcome at this point is that both Huddleston's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied and the City of Alamo Heights Motion for Summary Judgment was denied. The judge has indicated through his decision that the case should be heard in full. I have attached a copy of the ruling* of Judge Price in this case to address speculation about what the ruling actually said.
The case status is "pending". The trial information describes this as a non- jury trial.
For clarification purposes, it should be noted that the firm of Goode, Casseb, Jones and Riklin are representing the City of Alamo Heights in this litigation, not City Attorney Michael Brenan. Mr. Brenan handles the day to day legal matters of a municipal nature. As with all litigation cases, all options are presented by the attorney to the Client, and the final decisions are made by the Client. In this case, the Client is the Alamo Heights City Council, not the Board of Adjustment.
Those on this blog who have suggested that Mr. Brenan is personally responsible for the course of this litigation are sadly misguided.
In order for all of City Council to meet at one time to discuss their legal options, they meet in a publicly posted Executive Session. The Executive Session is closed to the public in order to allow Council to maintain the attorney- client privilege and hopefully, to keep their adversaries from knowing their future litigation strategy. This characterization of the exchange as "hopeful" reflects the expectation of all citizens that the participants in such discussions will not share what is said with any member of the public. Recent postings on this website have led one to believe that this standard has been compromised.
The Civil Court Docket (Cause No. 2011-CI-18180) shows this timeline of the case through the 3rd of August 2012:
14 Nov 2011 – Case filed by Glenn Huddleston
21 Nov 2011 – Answer for suit filed by the City of Alamo Heights
6 Mar 2012 – (Custodian) Affidavit of Jennifer Reyna, City Secretary
20 April 2012 – Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City of Alamo Heights
20 April 2012 – Affidavit of Aaron M. Barton
18 May 2012 – Plaintiff's (Huddleston) Objection to Defendant's ( City of Alamo Heights) Summary Judgment Evidence
18 May 2012 – Response (by Huddleston) to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Summary Judgment of Glenn Huddleston.
22 May 2012 – Motion for Continuance to Motion for Summary Judgment of Glenn Huddleston
14 June 2012 – Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Objections to Motion for Summary Judgment Evidence of the City of Alamo Heights Board of Adjustment
18 June 2012 – Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Objections to motion for Summary Judgment Evidence (corrected) of the City of Alamo Heights Board of Adjustment
19 June 2012 – First Supplemental of Summary Judgment of the City of Alamo Heights Board of Adjustment
20 June 2012 – Plea of Intervention – J. P. Morgan Chase Bank NA
27 June 2012 – Judges Docket Notes; Desc(ription): Letter Judge Price and Case Law
29 June 2012 – Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiff's (Huddleston) Motion for Summary Judgment of JP Morgan Chase
29 June 2012 – Corrected Certificate of Service of Jeffrey S. Howard
29 June 2012 – Letter to Judge Price from Jeffrey S. Howard
29 June 2012 - Intervenor (Chase Bank) Brief in Support of Defendants (CofAH) Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiff's (Huddleston) Motion for Summary Judgment.
29 June 2012 – Objections and Responses to Intervenor Untimely Brief.
29 June 2012 – Letter to Judge Price from Thomas Kemmy (representing Huddleston)
11 July 2012 – Letter from Staff Attorney MAI to Thomas G. Kemmy, Fred Jones, Jeffrey S. Howard. *See Attached – Judge Price's ruling
The summary of all outside attorney litigation charges through July 2012.
Updated: June 29, 2012
Through a Public Information Act request, I received and have updated the May of 2012 costs for the City of Alamo Heights regarding the legal fees in the Chase Bank/ West property and Huddleston vs. City of Alamo Heights lawsuit. There are additions to the docket but at this time I do not have the exact language and will not speculate what has transpired.
The Civil Court Docket (Cause No. 2011-CI-18180) shows this timeline of the case:
14 Nov 2011 – Case filed by Glenn Huddleston
21 Nov 2011 – Answer for suit filed by the City of Alamo Heights
6 Mar 2012 – (Custodian) Affidavit of Jennifer Reyna, City Secretary
20 April 2012 – Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City of Alamo Heights
20 April 2012 – Affidavit of Aaron M. Barton
18 May 2012 – Planitiff's (Huddleston) Objection to Defendant's ( City of Alamo Heights) Summary Judgment Evidence
18 May 2012 – Response (by Huddleston) to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Summary Judgment of Glenn Huddleston.
22 May 2012 – Motion for Continuance to Motion for Summary Judgment of Glenn Huddleston
The summary of all litigation charges through April 2012.
| August | 28,611.00 |
| September | 6,839.50 |
| October | 5,185.00 |
| November | 3,054.50 |
| December | 2,334.00 |
| January 2012 | 1,959.50 |
| February | 7,890.80 |
| March | 2,005.04 |
| April | 1,967.90 |
| May | 6,046.85 |
| Total to date | 65,894.09 |
Updated: June 11, 2012
Through a Public Information Act (PIA) request, I received and have updated the April of 2012 costs for the City of Alamo Heights regarding the legal fees in the Chase Bank/ West property and Huddleston vs. City of Alamo Heights lawsuit. The May billing has has not been received by the City at this time.
The Civil Court Docket (Cause No. 2011-CI-18180) shows this timeline of the case:
14 Nov 2011 – Case filed by Glenn Huddleston
21 Nov 2011 – Answer for suit filed by the City of Alamo Heights
6 Mar 2012 – (Custodian) Affidavit of Jennifer Reyna, City Secretary
20 April 2012 – Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City of Alamo Heights
20 April 2012 – Affidavit of Aaron M. Barton
18 May 2012 – Plaintiff's (Huddleston) Objection to Defendant's ( City of Alamo Heights) Summary Judgment Evidence
18 May 2012 – Response (by Huddleston) to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Summary Judgment of Glenn Huddleston.
22 May 2012 – Motion for Continuance to Motion for Summary Judgment of Glenn Huddleston
| August | 28,611.00 |
| September | 6,839.50 |
| October | 5,185.00 |
| November | 3,054.50 |
| December | 2,334.00 |
| January 2012 | 1,959.50 |
| February | 7,890.80 |
| March | 2,005.04 |
| April | 1,967.90 |
| Total to date | 59,847.24 |
Updated: April 12, 2012
Through a Public Information Act request, I received and have updated the total the costs for March and April of 2012 from the City of Alamo Heights regarding the legal costs in the Chase Bank/ West property and Huddleston vs. City of Alamo Heights lawsuit.
The Civil Court Docket (Cause No. 2011-CI-18180) shows this timeline of the case:
14 Nov 2011 Case filed by Glenn Huddleston
21 Nov 2011 Answer for suit filed by the City of Alamo Heights
6 Mar 2012 (Custodian) Affidavit of Jennifer Reyna, City Secretary
No other action has been formally taken in this case. While the increase of billings in February should indicate the City was mounting some type of defense, the lack of billings in March and lack of pleadings filed shows the City has not really responded to the initial case.
It is fair to ask just how much longer will the City let Dr. and Mrs. West and Chase bank swing in the wind and just how much more taxpayer money will be wasted on this case? From the beginning, my one fear about this case is that the City would do nothing and hope that Chase bank gives up and walk away, rendering the lawsuit moot. It seems that is exactly the strategy the City has adopted.
| August | 28,611.00 |
| September | 6,839.50 |
| October | 5,185.00 |
| November | 3,054.50 |
| December | 2,334.00 |
| January 2012 | 1,959.50 |
| February | 7,890.80 |
| March | 2,005.04 |
| Total to date | 57,879.34 |
Updated: March 5, 2012
I have received a response to my PIA request of 10 February 2012 seeking additional invoices from the City of Alamo Heights on regarding the legal costs in the Chase Bank/ West property and Huddleston vs. City of Alamo Heights lawsuit. To expedite matters, I only requested the first and last pages of each statement, enabling the City to meet my request without involving the Attorney General again and delaying the release of information.
The summary of all charges through January 31, 2012 is below:
| August | 28,611.00 |
| September | 6,839.50 |
| October | 5,185.00 |
| November | 3,054.50 |
| December | 2,334.00 |
| January 2012 | 1,959.50 |
| Total to date | 47,983.50 |
February 16, 2012
A Citizens Right to Know
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot sums up the PIA process aptly in the introduction to the Public Information 2012 Handbook.
James Madison once wrote, Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. The best way for the people to arm themselves with that knowledge is for government to maintain openness in its dealings. Texas places a high priority on government openness, and the Public Information Act (PIA) is the primary law that requires it.
As a voter seeking to make informed decisions, I follow all the legal requirements to obtain information from the City of Alamo Heights for public information. Information sought and received directly from the city is more reliable than a website without attribution or word of mouth. Voters must be weary of their sources of information The August 2011 Advocate believed there should be limits to PIA requests and to what it deemed a few people s obsessions . I do not believe that a desire to be informed is an obsession on anyone s part. It is our right under the law.
Subsequent issues of the Advocate printed what we were led to believe to be all the PIA requests to the City on the dates listed, with the exception of Mr. Joseph s own PIA requests, which he said were edited to save space . But here the voter must question the Advocate as a reliable source.
I submitted a PIA request to the City of Alamo Heights on 28 October 2011 relating to the Chase Bank/ West case. I was seeking the amount of taxpayer funds spent to defend the decision of the Board of Adjustments in the Glenn Huddleston/Chase Bank litigation. I was also interested in seeing that the City was not dragging its feet and is vigorously defending our City ordinances. If the City had adopted a passive approach in hopes that Chase Bank would abandon its plans and render the lawsuit moot, we, the taxpayer, could be on the hook for far more serious and expensive litigation from the injured parties, Dr. and Mrs. West.
But, my October 28th PIA does not appear in the January Advocate, which covered PIA requests from October 25th through December 20th. When I made a PIA request for the same time period, my October 28th submission was included. It seems that editing is more widely used than the Advocate editor has disclosed. My October 28th request was appealed to the Texas Attorney General by Alamo Heights City Attorney Michael Brenan on the 10th of November 2011 and on the 17th of January 2012 the Attorney General ruled that the information I sought had to be disclosed, with very limited redactions.
The result of my request is that I now know that the City spent a total of $35,450.50 on this case through September 16, 2011. The invoices were $28,611.00 in August 2011 and $6,890.50 in September 2011. These amounts cover the case through the TRO process but do not include legal charges related to the civil lawsuit filed in District Court on the 14th of November 2011 by Mr. Huddleston against the City of Alamo Heights.
It is important for taxpayers to be able to judge the fiscal impact of the actions of our elected officials and the ordinances they sponsored and passed. It is important for voters to understand on whose behalf Council members are working. In the interest of helping others to stay aware of the PIA requests, I am attaching every request (see pdf) as given me by the City from October 25th through January 31, 2012, unedited and without commentary.
And I have submitted yet another PIA requesting the costs of the legal fees on Huddleston versus the City of Alamo Heights from October through January 31, 2012. We will see if this gets edited out by the Advocate. ..because this is about truth, transparency and a citizen s right to know.
Comments
I just love how some elected officials just love to waste tax payers dollars - as long as it is not their personal money!
So what we have is someone using the legal system to force another business to do something that wasn't required by code and costing the taxpayers $100,000 for his pleasure. And his own property across the street does not meet those same "standards" that he forced on another. Not because he received a variance but because it was never a violation.
Huddleston rushing to CC and begging for a settlement agreement? I do not think so, bubba. It was Chase who went to Mr. Huddleston and begged for a settlement agreement. They worked it out because they had a time clock ticking. Then, Chase took the settlement to the city. The City was thrilled to get the thing over with after having wasted the taxpayers money on a law suit they brought on themselves. So, as usual you can't seem to sort things out truthfully.
Huddleston's lawsuit was about preventing Chase from using a landscape buffer less than 15 feet deep and rejecting the use of pervious pavers in said buffer. He also demanded that the entrance on Katherine Ct be one-way in. You say that Huddleston prevailed in this case but the TRUTH is that there is an 8 foot buffer (consistent with code) and a two-way drive.
The only thing that Huddleston "won" is an agreement with Council to consider changes to the landscape codes and to ask TXDOT to consider putting a cut-through on Broadway to enhance access to his property. Neither of these things had much to do with the lawsuit.
Now please tell this "blogger" what the truth is.
Granddad always said " truth will set you free"
Why you gotta be so mean?.....
I'll bet you got pushed around, somebody made you cold
But the cycle ends right now 'cause you can't lead me down that road
And you don't know what you don't know.....
Why you gotta be so mean?"
Taylor Swift - Why you gotta be so mean
Daytripper, don't you like what the bloggers are blogging? Daytripper said" You guys pick up on the least important element of each blog and carry on about it. Maybe this will help, you. It is quite elementary, The case is OVER, done, finish. I think Ms. Bettac summarized it quite well.
"Also, dudes, no one on this entire blog ever said anything about googling an attorney. Where do you come from?" Yes it came form me ..Wow that got by you. Didn't you get it? Daytripper you need to lighten up and laugh. LOL
What is sad is they do put it on resume. I have seen it on applications that I receive. It is like AHHS is more important than their RIce,UT, Baylor etc degrees. It is like a special right of passage. Never understood it, myself. And I am a second generation AHHSer as some would say. LOL.
This story isn't a cheap romantic novel. It is a sad soap opera with a back story that comes out in the end.
Mr.Huddleston serve many years and did a good job. But as you will recall Jonn Joesph and others went to the Mayor and wanted a policy that ONLY Alamo Heights residents could serve on the city's boards and commissions. This fact can be verified.
The one thing Ms Bettac, Sarah and I have in common is we show our information and sources from which our opinions are based. We do this because our own names are used. You, however, make statements and attack people without any documentation. You can do so because you are in the shadows, comforted in knowing you won't be held responsible.
If you want to influence readers then share the details of your argument with your real name. I know, you say you're afraid you might be attacked (just like you attack others). The decision is yours. But please, stop with the whining.
Daytripper are you saying Dr. West's investment in Alamo Heights is less than Mr. Huddleston or are you saying that anyone that buys a property in downtown and is new to Alamo Heights is not the same as Mr. Huddleston?
libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
• the action or crime of publishing such a statement:
• a false and malicious statement about a person.
• a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.
Not one of you has ever really gotten what this was all about. Many of you, especially Kiel, have published multiple false statements about Mr. Huddleston. All of you were negatively predisposed toward Mr. Huddleston even before his warranted law suit. Why? You do not understand anything deeper the the surface of an issue (well, there are always Kiel's conspiracy theories). You form your judgements on false premises and then run with them like a football team running to the wrong goal. You take your biased viewpoint and are closed to any other suggestion of truth. But, feel free to be pleased with yourselves and all your small minded pursuits. Some bloggers were telling you exactly what was happening and why, but you defamed them with disparaging comments. You are rude to anyone that does not adhere to the blog's viewpoint and then continue to initiate your own incredibly sightless and shallow analysis of the situation. You do not care for our city, just for yourselves and your own little spaces in the city.
For one last time and I do mean LAST: If the CC had upheld the ordinances and laws of the city and done what was correct, there would never have been a lawsuit. Throughout this saga, the CC had ample opportunity to correct their mistake. They did not. The manner in which Ms Bettac spins the settlement is false in every way. Yes, open those muy importante executive session minutes and find out what really happened. Get the court transcripts. Because you haven't a clue...Duh. I doubt you would understand if you had every piece of information possible. You would still be venerating Dr. West, defaming Mr. Huddleston, praising Chase Bank and continuing down your delusional pathways to non knowledge, never understanding any of it. What you fail to factor in is that Mr. Huddleston is a business man that has been investing in Alamo Heights for over 30 years (unlike the sainted Dr. West); he has a heart, a soul, a family and really cares about the community. His child went to AHHS. He was active in the business community until Kiel and his malcontent friends made sure he and Geis were run off. What you really seem to hate is his success. Yet, because of his activity in our community, the community is a much better place.
You would rather see the commercial area die than be a part of the solution. Every citizen for themselves is your motto. Pathetic!
On another note: the unsealing of executive sessions minutes going into next year's election would be most interesting.
Making generalizations and broad brush statements towards Ms Bettac proves nothing.
I do not think any of the people that read or write on this site are small minded. Matter of fact, Ms. Bettac's article has been widely read by our city's residents and others. It has been of great interest to many. I know my friends and business partners appreciate her hard work on this issue. Care to be more specific on the facts?
Quoting wfkiel:
"What all taxpayers should keep in mind when looking at these numbers is that even with the settlement, Mr. Huddleston obtained none of the relief he requested from the court, and the City elected to make the case go away by making some minor non-cash concessions intended to help Mr. Huddleston enhance the value of one of his own commercial properties in Alamo Heights."
EXCELLENT POINT!!!!!
Daytripper "Wonder what Huddleston's bill was?" I really don't care about Huddleston's bill. He brought this on, he filed the lawsuit. What I do care about is how much he cost the tax payers of this city. It was a waste of taxpayers money. People see it that way and are upset about it.
Bungalow Betty has a good point. You can plant hundreds of trees and put in sidewalks BUT if there is no where to go it doesn't matter how much infrastructure you build. If you don't have what people want they go elsewhere.
Middleburg Virginia is great because of all the unique shops, etc.
I actually agree with much of what you said but the resistance you detect is not toward improving and investing in downtown. It's the attitudes and methods that some of the downtown property owners have displayed in the past that I have a problem with. It is not conducive toward finding solutions with consensus.
Now if a broad-based group were formed, something like an EDC, that had commercial property owners, local business owners, residents, City officials and employees on it, then enough support might be generated to move forward. Another source to consider are board members. But reaching out is critical. I hope the Mayor, City Manager and Council consider this.
That being
I am viewing this just from my perspective. I shop Hanley Woods, Central market, the Bike shop, and used to shop in Sloan Hall until they moved. I have teenage boys, shoes and clothing stores are not offered in our city so I shop, the quarry, la cantera, the rim, and malls. We have no card or stationary stores in our city but have 4 just outside our city limits. When I shop this places I will pop in other stores that are next door. See what I am driving at?
I like Middleburg Va and Pacific Grove Ca
I think you're doubling-down on your misinformation. I'm sure Ms Bettac has an earlier invoice from a year ago with the rate. Do you think you called Jones' office a year ago? Probably not.
Maybe she'll add it to the article.
I would really appreciate it if you all would reframe from attacking all at once! I know, I know, none of you wants to invest in the commercial area. But, how short-sighted. This is about the future, not just you. We can do this and each of you will benefit in the long term. The best thing that could happen would be if those landowners who are irresponsible and do not want to improve their properties would balk at the changes and sale their projects to those who want to make AH better!
I see why you stay anonymous. You don't have to take responsibility for your misinformation, you just disappear and another name pops up.
Case in point involves the hourly rate that Fred Jones charges the City to defend itself from Glenn Huddleston. The invoice shows $225.hr. BUT
You said on comment #199
"Brennan could have selected any number of attorneys who were not his friend and who charged far less than the $500/per hour Jones did."
I said on comment #212
"What is your evidence for Jones charging $500/hr?"
You replied on comment #218
How do you think I got Jones' fee? I called their office!
Either you lied about that or Jones would charge YOU $500/hr.
Which was it?
No tax payers money should be used, it is ridiculous!
Thanks for presenting the facts and setting the record straight.
Huddleston's requests are absurd. I find it insulting.
The city, with 100,000.00 invested in the lawsuit, should have gone to trial.
We could have buried 20 feet of power lines downtown. That would have been a great improvement, right? If we matched Huddlestons legal fees with ours we would have a private- public partner ship and could have 40 feet of buried lines.
We could have paid for some of the solar panels on the new facilities. If the prices keep dropping, we might have paid for them all.
We could buy some new audio equipment for City Council. For all the noise about keeping the recordings it doesn't matter much if they don't turn on the microphones or the equipment is so sub par that it can't pick up the sound. Just try listening to the city audio.
Or we could have given employees a pay raise. This would be an investment in the community with the best return.
There should be no doubt why our downtown is the way it is.
You come back with not one item or idea of what you consider would help revitalize our downtown. Instead you ask me a question. You don't answer a question with a question.
Maybe this is what is wrong as far as garning support for downtown. There is no vision, no master plan and no clear list to tell the tax payers what it would take to revitalize our downtown. How do you expect to receive support from tax payers, if you can not even list 5 -6 items that would help revitalize our downtown.
I have a list of many small communities I have traveled to and will be glad to share the list with you and other bloggers. A list of not just of small towns and villages but what makes them unique and why I recommend people to travel to them. However, I think I will wait for you to answer my original question first.
We should load all of our downtown property owners on a tour bus and let someone give them a tour with a loudspeaker, point out each shop, who owns it, historical contribution, architectural and landscape features, and how well it represents our affluent community of beauty and charm.
Enlighten us.
#289 Patriot 09-26-2012 6:22 pm.
I have traveled to many small cities in the USA and Europe. I know what they have to offer. The most important factor and most successful formula is when ALL the property owners/develope rs work together with the city.
Smatts 70 when you talk about the AH commercial district revitalization could you be more specific. Would you mind listing 5 or 6 items that you consider would help revitalize our downtown.
Quote
#284 Patriot 09-26-2012 8:59 am.
I agree with the Semper dude.
New Braunfels paved
Upper Broadway paved
Neigborhood streets being paved
Sidewalks on Broadway
Sidwalks by Cambridge
Castano Road repair, sidewalks and lamp post.
New water tower
Tree trimming on La Jara
New fire and police equipment
Community Garden
New Facilities coming soon.
Dog Park coming soon
the list goes on
The city (tax payers) have invested in our city. It is the private sector that is lagging. If you think downtown looks dilapidated then look to the private sector, we the tax payers have done our part.
Quote
Smatts70 - still waiting for a reply to my questions?
Sam BH - I am glad you are considering a run. Do you mind if I ask this year or next?
Patriot, the things you listed weren't done by this Council in the last four years. That credit belongs to others but not with this bunch of Councilmen.
Smatts, I get out of town a lot thanks to Uncle Sam. I guess I should be using your travel agent. You said, " It would seem all you care about is what you get out of the city coffers that benefits you" and I must agree with you.
It is politics 101. What can/ did you do for me? That is how most people judge if the government is spending their tax dollars wisely.
Smatts 70 when you talk about the AH commercial district revitalization could you be more specific. Would you mind listing 5 or 6 items that you consider would help revitalize our downtown.
Smatts, I'm a history buff and haven't found much of anything historic, or worth treasuring, in the business district, other than Dionicio Rodriguez' bus stop and the Flying Red Horse. Hmm maybe the 50/50....
You sound a little angry and bitter. Not good for the health, you know.
I'm sure we'll have a chance to review and discuss the settlement. BTW, is Huddleston, et al still pushing the walkability angle they hyped when the drive-thru ban ordinance was rammed through council? Just curious.
I don't know if the CC ever announced the outcome.
Semper and Patriot, You two will never get it! You are talking about maintenance. That is what the City is supposed to do. That is what our taxes pay for, except, of course the "new facilities". When you get some knowledge and understanding about commercial areas, let us know. Have you never seen anything outside of Alamo Heights? Have you never seen a community that has determined they want more than paved streets and a dog park? Have you never traveled and observed what other small communities have accomplished by revitalizing a commercial district. Besides, much of the business area is historic and should be treasured. Get out more, read more, be more aware of your environment, so you can see past a new firehouse, roads and dog parks! You both and most of these bloggers are biased against the business area. It would seem all you care about is what you get out of the city coffers that benefits you, not what is good for the whole community.
Sam BH, Why don't you run? You were so successful in academia. I am sure that would serve you well in a position of leadership. The three you mentioned were obstructionists . We need leaders with a vision. Do you have a vision for Alamo Heights past paved roads, tree trimming, silly little skimpy sidewalks and dog parks?
New Braunfels paved
Upper Broadway paved
Neigborhood streets being paved
Sidewalks on Broadway
Sidwalks by Cambridge
Castano Road repair, sidewalks and lamp post.
New water tower
Tree trimming on La Jara
New fire and police equipment
Community Garden
New Facilities coming soon.
Dog Park coming soon
the list goes on
The city (tax payers) have invested in our city. It is the private sector that is lagging. If you think downtown looks dilapidated then look to the private sector, we the tax payers have done our part.
Some streets need a lot of work but it looks like the budget will cover that this coming year.
Now if you are talking about the state of the buildings in the business district, that is different. Our city councilmen and the taxpayers aren't responsible for that, the property owners are.
Quoting Smatts70:
Since Kiel, Souter and Harwell have been off council there is no leadership.
We get what we vote into office.
Where do you see a judgment? (There's no "e" in judgment just as there's no "e" in summary.) There were motions for summary judgment filed in which the parties alleged that no issues of fact existed and that judgment as a matter of law was appropriate. Upon denying each request, the judge invited the parties to submit an order for him to sign that will deny both motions for summary judgment. No determination on the merits of anyone's case is indicated above. If there is a final judgment on the merits of this case, it is not reflected in anything posted in the timeline above. - RFtz
Patriot, Read carefully. There are two (2) Motions for Summary Judgement and one(1) Judgement. I have read the two (2) Motions for Summary Judgement, as well as the one (1) Judgement, which was published on this blog. It is the language in the Motions which is critical to understanding the outcome. There is no spin, just a lot of speculation on your part and most others on this blog.
#13 Smatts70 09-09-2012 1:22 pm.
Yes, I have read not only the Judgements, but also the legal briefs and the formal pleadings. So, I know what each litigant was requesting in their Summary Judgements.
www.almanac.com/content/first-day-fall-autumnal-equinox
LOL, Sarah.
After thinking about it, I think that the Council should just hang tough, man up and let the chips fall where they may. Let Huddleston put up or shut up but don’t let him hold us hostage any longer.
Quoting Ghenry:
You might want to let Smatts70, Daytripper and SAdevlawyer know about the "summery" spelling error. They have the same problem, although I'm surprised about the lawyer.
A local newsletter recently had a problem with lack of attribution and copyright infringement. You don't want that to happen.
FROM:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/summary+judgement
summary judgment n. a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled, and therefore need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact, and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving party. The opposing party will respond by counter-declara tions and legal arguments attempting to show that there are "triable issues of fact." If it is unclear whether there is a triable issue of fact in any cause of action, then summary judgment must be denied as to that cause of action. The theory behind the summary judgment process is cut down on unnecessary litigation by eliminating without trial one or more causes of action in the complaint. The pleading procedures are extremely technical and complicated, and are particularly dangerous to the party against whom the motion is made. (See: summary adjudication of issues, cause of action)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
#255 Ghenry 08-29-2012 7:47 pm.
TJW, How did you come to the conclusions you drew? On what do you base your hunch? .....
Education, experience and gut!
I know what a summary judgement is. I asked about a summery judgement.
I believe you misspoke. Their hasn't been a trial yet. The judge took the summary judgements to dismiss from both sides and dismissed both. The judge is essentially saying bring it to trial. The ball is in Huddleston's court and if I was the City I'd wait for for him. I doubt he will pursue a trial, though.
Now how is it that you seem to be getting so much apparent inside information regarding the City's position when they have only discussed it in executive session?
They keep meeting in executive committee about the lawsuit but nothing comes of it. Political football, so now it becomes a political issue in the couple of elections.
They need some political backbone and take it to trial.
The CIty of Beauty, Charm and Lawsuits!
Read this, we could learn a lot from them.
I would like to get back to the subject at hand, the frivolous lawsuit that is costing the taxpayers a ton of money.
What ordinance was violated?
Why is it not going to trial?
Did Huddleston back out?
What does Huddleston want, bottom line what is it that he is trying to achieve?
Knew you would be against the article because it addresses solutions for improvements rather than asks questions whose answers will not solve nothing and mean nothing.
Mean while back at the ranch ...the lawsuit. If it is not going to trial,as some say, then does mean Mr. Huddleston has decided to not pursue his case against the city any further. If he does what would be his next step?
Dale A. Olsen, Daniel E. Sheehy. The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music. Garland Publishing: New York and London, 1998. 825.
Conga Line: The conga line is a Cuban carnival march that was first developed in Cuba and became popular in the United States in the 1930s and 1950s. The dancers form a long, processing line. It has three shuffle steps on the beat, followed by a kick that is slightly ahead of the fourth beat.
I think the description fits perfectly.
BTW your comment reminds me of those "Jim Thompson" emails accusing people and organizations of being anti-semitic. Must be a coincidence.
Ghenry - Conga Line is not racist. Have you not ever been to Brazil, Argentina, Cuba etc., during their "Carnival" and participated in a conga line, it is a free for all and fun as hell.
Lighten up...it would help to get outside the 09 bubble once in awhile.
This whole lawsuit issue sounds like the it's Huddleston serve.
"There will NOT be a trial." Smatts has Huddleston dropped HIS case AGAINST the city?
Is this the same "founder's corner" article written by John Joseph that proposes to spend the $1,000,000 CPS CIED funds to bury power lines downtown? Are you aware of how much it will cost to bury all utility lines downtown? Check that out before we label this an erudite article.
Besides, why would we bury the lines before the flood control takes place? How much will that cost? Who will pay for that?
I'm not being anti-business, just realistic.
er.u.dite adjective
Definition : having or showing knowledge that is gained by studying.
Quoting Smatts70:
http://alamoheights.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/advocate-august-2012/#story1
Not that any of you have really answered any questions or backed up your claims, I'll try one more time. here are the old ones you've never answered:
What ordinances were broken? How was the BOA compromised?
And how about a few new ones:
Why are you attacking businesses in AH? Why did some people try to buy the West property and then when the Chase deal came along they attempted to stop the project? Are these the same people who will attack Mayor Cooper and Councilman Rosenthal next year with signs on their downtown properties? Will AHNA use their PAC money that was collected to support Cooper and Rosenthal in the last election to defeat them. Not sure all the donors will be happy about that.
Is someone on council planning to challenge Cooper? If so, who might that be?
So how do Weser and Savage and their backers avoid the consequences of their actions?
Blame the other side for what they did.
Kiel is right, the campaign has begun.
And BTW, the mayor doesn't vote for the things you said he did. The other council members did. So why aren't you going after Weser, Savage and Prassel?
Another word of caution to the residents. Keep an eye out for those who want to slow down the facility project. They will probably be with the downtown crowd, too. More on that later.
So GreenAH409 let's have this war. See you Monday night.
I checked out a few lawyer sites and they don’t list their rates. They just tell you to call. Tell us another way we can find out what attorneys charge. You must have a back door to that information.
You also said “Kiel's list of annual sales tax reports is helpful because it proves what Smatts said. We are losing as much as we take in because of non-sales tax generating businesses.”
It proves no such thing. All the sales tax report that Kiel posted shows is that our sales tax has steadily gone up every year since 2001, excepting for the crash of 2008.
This is what we mean by comments that are made but not back up with facts.
I do like your example, “For example go to the neighborhood pharmacist, instead of taking your business out of AH to Walgreen's.” I’m not sure you are aware of it but prescriptions aren’t taxable, so the pharmacy falls in the same category as a….oh my gosh... bank! And besides Walgreens has a drive- through that seniors like and we can’t have that anymore in Alamo Heights.
I hope that the national tenant isn’t planning a drive through because, if it does, they won’t be welcome here .
Two more things. What does Fred Jones charge by the hour? I still haven’t read an answer to that. Also, has anyone noticed what summery weather we have been having lately?
Welcome back to the blog. I agree with much of what you say, especially the need to cooperate and build our commercial sector. But non-sales tax generating business should not be punished. That has always been my problem with the West/Chase case.
Please explain why those that have sales tax projections won't share them. If they don't want to do it on this site they should come to the City Council and make a presentation.
No, Sarah, we do not complain about restaurants, in fact, we want more. Why? Restaurants are sales tax generating businesses. We want restaurants and shops to be attracted to lease in AH. It is time to stop complaining about people, places and things, and do something. Improve the downtown area, attract more sales-tax generating businesses, support the businesses we have. For example go to the neighborhood pharmacist, instead of taking your business out of AH to Walgreen's. When new businesses open, go to the stores, support them. There are some new national tenants just opened on Broadway. Things are beginning to happen. We need to work together. If the downtown is improved and alive, we all win. Our property values rise and our town prospers. Stop being punitive. I know the study Smatts is referencing. It is a private study and the businessmen who commissioned and funded it are not going to share it with you, given your negative predisposition to business and the commercial area. Kiel's list of annual sales tax reports is helpful because it proves what Smatts said. We are losing as much as we take in because of non-sales tax generating businesses.
This is a blog, not a court of law. How can you make demands of some and not others. Not everyone backs up blog posts with sources. Actually, only Kiel does and he generally chooses source material that will support his viewpoint. And then, everyone on the blogs blindly follows him no matter what he says. It is baffling. When I read this thread I am amazed at the disregard for truth and the biased spin that is dispensed. It is not a difficult task to find out what an attorney, any attorney, charges. Of course the CC approves the recommendation of the City Attorney. That is not a mystery of closed executive sessions, that is just a reality. You cannot assume anything about the law case you toss around unless you know what the Summery Judgements were about. Simply saying Mr. Huddleston's was denied does not mean anything. It is probably complex and complicated. You may not get the conclusion you want. But you will get no where making uninformed assumptions.
Let me make a suggestion. If you want to influence the discussion, back up what you say with facts and information, including sources. It wouldn't hurt to use your real name, either. Statements like "the truth will set you free" won't cut it. So let's start again. What is your evidence for the City compromising the BOA? Second, why do you think (emphatically) that there will NOT be a trial? Why would the City's sales tax be $500,000 higher if we didn't have all the banks? What analysis shows that? What is your evidence for Jones charging $500/hr? and that the City Attorney picked and approved Mr. Jones? From my experience with the City during executive sessions regarding potential lawsuits the Council approved everything including the retention of legal counsel.
I take it, that you do not know that some of us bloggers are hard workers, successful business/ranchi ng/oil/investor types?
To me Kiel has been very forthright. He appears to want transparency in government. Isn't that what we all want from government.
High rise buildings, wasn't that what many in Alamo Heights were concern with in the neighborhood, MacMansions, neighbors building on top of their neighbors and effecting their privacy. As far as downtown high rises, not in my life time. The commercial property owners have owned these buildings for years and have lacked the ability to develop or redevelop their properties.
How are banks bad for the commercial area? Why do people insist on blaming banks for their own inability to act. Banks seem to be the whipping boy of a handful of people.
The 500k statement is false, just another unproven broad brush statement. See the State site that Kiel put in his post.
I know this, the City obviously did a good job, because Mr. Huddleston's motion for a summary judgement was denied.
I am sure when a certain person I know finishes reading the docs we will all know.
How do you know Mr. Brennan and Mr. Jones are friends? Do you have proof of that? Do you know Mr. Jones billing rate? Just as FYI, the entire Council approves who they (Council) will use for outside counsel, not Mr. Brennan.
I would like to suggest you review the video and see how much of the design Geis and Council changed. The architect's original design was changed! Watch the video.
There will NOT be a trial.
I haven't seen the final budget revenue numbers but sales tax is approximately 11-12% of the total general fund budget. That includes the 1/4 cent tax for street maintenance which will be up for a vote to extend this November. There is apparently a budget category for lawsuits in the 2012-13 budget. but I'm not sure what it is. I don't remember the City ever having that before.
One interesting comparison - The amount the City has paid fighting the Huddleston lawsuit to date is already about half what the 1/4 cent sales tax for streets will raise in a year, and we haven't even gone to trial yet.
How much money does the city budget every year for lawsuits? This is a lot of wasted money.
Year Sales Tax
2001 610,514
2002 606,321
2003 612,206
2004 743,272
2005 743,548
2006 745,589
2007 810,429
2008 791,759
2009 838,855
2010 921,735
2011 960,583
2012 725,025 Thru July (YTD 8.8% above 2011)
source:
https://ourcpa.cpa.state.tx.us/allocation/AllocDetail.jsp
I agree the $500K number is not credible. The City raises about 1 million in sales tax a year (including the 1/4 cent street tax). Smatts must be assuming that if we replaced all the banks with strip centers we would gain another 50%. We can probably get strip centers on the Broadway Bank, Frost and Bank of America locations. Not sure about the smaller ones like Amegy. Problem is we already have a lot of vacant store space. Let's hear some more about Smatts' plan.
Smatts 70- Do you have some hard proof the 500K in lost sales tax was due to the proliferation of banks. I would like to read your findings. To be specific I am very interested in how you go from 500K lost sales tax to the lost was caused by the banks. Thanks
Sarah, How will you finish reading 800 pages of legal documents if you think my post was legalese and didn't finish reading it?? I am very calm and very collected. Bill, I have no emotion whatsoever regarding you. I do care about AH and about the businesses there and about the steep decline of the city center.
No, they were given an 8 ft. buffer by the BOA, when the BOA compromised themselves into saying that ATMs. drive-thru lanes and automobiles were landscape elements. Kiel, you were there and know this. That was what the whole case was about. As soon as Sarah finishes reading the 800 pages of documents and posts her findings, perhaps, and that is a BIG perhaps, you will see the city did really poorly. However, I am confident the you all will be able to spin it a different way in favor of anyone, but Huddleston. Again, if the CC had adhered to and insisted West/Chase adhere to the City's ordinances and codes, there would not have been a lawsuit. It is the City's fault . Can you not understand that maintenance of City law, codes and ordinances by the leaders is critical? The fees for the City's lawyer are absurd. Brennan selected one of the highest paid in the city and also a friend. Brennan could have selected any number of attorneys who were not his friend and who charged far less than the $500/per hour Jones did. The City and Jones also knows they were out-lawyered. If blame is to be placed, it should be on the City for their caving into threats and then making bad decision, after bad decision and NOT maintaining the codes and ordinances.
Mr. Geis could only do so much to that monstrosity; he made limited changes to the original plans. Anyone with eyes can see it is out of scale and out of sync with the adjoining neighborhood. The only ones to blame will be Chase architects or builder.
I do not care if they are from out of town or in town. I do care about the waste of tax payers monies by frivolous lawsuits.
The money the city spent defending itself could have been put to better and more constructive use.
To parody a great line from "BLAZING SADDLES"
Mexican Bandit: Minutes? We don't need no stinkin' minutes.
Oh Kiel, a man of my heart. One of my favorite movies. I am glad someone still has some humor. Like I said these boys have a big bur under their saddles. They are just plum riled up.
No, you haven't explained this accusation at all.
I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong but Chase had a 15 foot landscape buffer when all this started 2 years ago and they still do. I don't think they compromised anything because nothing has changed.
The building isn't going to be a "branded building" because our City Council redesigned it for them. You forgot that part. If it turns out to look ugly we know who to hold responsible.
I can also point put that the West's don't live in AH so we on the blog don't have a bias to out of towners. We just don't care for out of towners who sue us and waste our tax dollars.
And as for the question why the neighbor changed his mind, he did it to get to the other side.
I got my bank, now I don't want anyone else to have a bank - rule change is order, notify everyone.
Boy when I woke up this morning I thought I was still in America. You know home of democracy and free enterprise. When does a city have the right to regulate how many banks, salons hamburger joints they allow? Pretty scary.
Mexican Bandit: Minutes? We don't need no stinkin' minutes.
Kiel, what are you talking about? Sandboxes? I don't care where West comes from. I don't consider him an outsider or an insider. Apparently, he was pretty "inside" with our CC, though. Where do you get this stuff? A bit conspiratorial, don't you think? He just didn't want to play by our city's rules or standards. That is not right. He thought he could bully his way through it with a high paid lobbyist lawyer and threats. He was right.
If there is any good ole boy business, look to the CC and Brennan. Sorry, you have not been around long enough to talk about long histories. You are the newcomer. Your example of a compromise makes no sense. Mr. Geis was just being transparent, like everybody wants. He said what he thought and how he could get there. The very fact he didn't care if it was recorded proves my point. I have already explained in detail on this blog how the BOA was compromised. You were at that meeting. You heard and saw what went on. In fact, didn't you even have a little speech? It was a railroaded meeting. I do not have to back up anything and I do not care if you take me seriously. I could care less about meeting minutes. They prove or disprove nothing. This is about nothing more than keeping the standards of our city. So stop the conspiracy theories, the questions that lead to no where and carrying on about Mr. Huddleston's variance. West and Chase got their bank branch and their drive thru, with a 15 foot landscape buffer.
I'm still waiting for you to backup your claims about compromising the BOA. If you want anyone to take you seriously you have to backup what you say.
I think, Keil, Roger and Sarah have made some very good points. I agree we should thank Mrs. Bettac for the information, very educational.
So Huddleston didn't really obtain the same kind of variance that he says West/Chase should have had but never could have obtained because they "agreed" not to seek any variances.
Here is the language from the 1995 BOA minutes:
Application of Glenn Huddleston to construct a retail business building with parking lot on the property at 4700 Broadway … The permit was denied on the grounds that the landscaping along the property lines on 3 side does not meet the requirements of Section 15.1(D) (2) (a) as follows: (1) south side – 46% landscaped instead of 60% (2) west side – 21% landscaped instead of 60% and north side – 46% landscaped instead of 60% required by the Zoning Ordinance.
… The Board voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested.
Some bloggers are very concern about leaks out of the City's executive session meetings and well they should be.
GHenry thinks Dr. West and Chase did not honor conditions for being granted concessions, but GHenry refuses to state what those conditions and concessions are. Plus he claims that they (Dr. West) did not adhere to our city codes but does not say how so. He thinks BOA was compromised. He also thinks our Council has no spine. He says the "answers lie with Brennan". Brennan takes his orders from council. Let us be clear Savage and Weser pushed for the drive through ban not Brennan. Also GHenry thinks that because both summary judgements were tossed out, the case is settled for some reason not stated.
Smatts70 feels that the City (not sure who that is) compromised the BOA, and continued their deceit and corruption. Calls our Council "weak- willed". Uses the phrase "hate-filled" due to various bloggers questioning the law suit. Next Smatts70 says "Jobes Burney and Brennan" compromised the the BOA. He does not say how or why. He accuses the City's attorney of being a slow reader and running up the billing hours, with no proof or facts. Sarah does state that the docs are 800 pages, a lot of work on both sides.
Enter Daytripper. He starts with words like hateful, and feels the blog is bias.
What GHenry, Smatts70 and Daytripper are forgetting is that the citizens of AH are upset about the lawsuit. Most see the lawsuit as frivolous with no one winning and a big waste of taxpayers money. And yes unfortunately is causing a back lash on our commercial district, which I hate to see.
They feel the city is in a pickle. I do not see that way. Summary judgements for both parties were thrown out. That is a draw. The next move is up to Huddleston. The City can just wait and see what his next move will be. I just hope Mr. Huddleston will drop the suit and move on.
NOTE:
The Email regarding Savage requesting the Drive through ban.The partial minutes of the EDC meeting 5-31-05
Are both major red flags.
I think we should all be grateful to Ms. Bettac for sharing her PIA requests and posting this story. For her follow up and keeping the public informed. All of us need to have a watchful eye on Government. Now more than ever.
Thank you Ms. Bettac.
GO SA little leaguers....gre at win yesterday!
Ok, if the site administrator is willing to post the pdf of the minutes I sent to him. Alternatively, you can submit a PIA for the minutes. My previous comment contains all the info you'll need.
#19 Matt D 08-19-2012 3:39 pm.
Smatts70 can you give examples of how they " contribute and invest " in our city. Interesting words that you choose.
Quote
PS I am still waiting for you to answer what you mean by revitalization on another thread.
Minutes From The EDC/City Council 5/31/2005
Attendees:
Mayor Louis Cooper
Mayor Pro Tem Glo Kehl
Alderman Cappy Lawton
Alderwoman Mary Beth Gilliland
Alderman Stan McCormick
Committee Member Glenn Huddleston
Committee member George Geis
Public Works Director Les McMahan
City Administrator Susan rash
Administrative Assistant Linda Gill
"The meeting began with discussions of a memo Ms. Rash sent the committee members on May 30th regarding the remodeling of 5400 Broadway where Citibank will be opened. The memo indicated that the Architectural Review Board approved Ed Kopplow's plans for remodeling the building, which is in the floodway, as long as the footprint of the building doesn't change; but Mr. Geis said plans for a drive-through behind the building would have to be taken to the Board of Adjustment for approval. He asked how the committee could let the BOA know they did not want another drive-through in Alamo Heights, as drive-through lanes are not in keeping with the plans for downtown."
"Mayor Cooper inquired whether all of the City boards could be dissolved, but Ms Rash answered that it would take a charter election to dissolve the Boards of Adjustment and the Planning and Zoning Commission.Mr. Geis expressed his feeling that, if the committee could let the chair person of the BOA, Ms Barbara Wenger, know what they want, she would not grant the variance for a drive-through."
If you want to see a full copy of the minutes I can send it to the Site administrator and maybe he'll post it
Now this is how you attempt to compromise a City board. Just tell the chairperson what we want and she'll reject it. Mr. Geis refers to the "committee" as if it's some larger diverse group of City citizens when in fact it made up of Geis and Huddleston and neither live in Alamo Heights. He also refers to "plans for downtown" but it's just his and Huddleston's plans.
Examples like this have made me mistrustful. I'll post a few more examples later. I hope this answers your question.
Now, tell me how the current BOA was compromised.
Again, how was the BOA compromised in your view? I can give you real examples of attempts to do this from 2005 if you'd like and we'll see how they compare. In fact, my example involves some of the same people we've been talking about and amazingly and attempt to stop a bank. It's all in the minutes.
G Henry - Ball is in Huddleston court. If he does not go the next step, that my friend is throwing in the towel. Maybe he has finally realized he can not prevail, and is wasting time and money.
Smatts - how was BOA compromised?
As for lawyers, isn't it smart to get one who can win the case for you as you have apparently accepted?
Not sure what he expects to accomplish but from the way you talk I suspect this is the beginning of the campaign to throw out the council again. I guess your guys couldn't come through for you.
AHNA still has a political war chest of a few thousand dollars in their PAC so you should be able to get off to a fast start if you can find more "dependable" candidates. That's the real legacy you guys provide for the City.
20 April 2012 – Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City of Alamo Heights
18 May 2012 – Response (by Huddleston) to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Summary Judgment of Glenn Huddleston.
29 June 2012 – Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiff's (Huddleston) Motion for Summary Judgment of JP Morgan Chase
Maybe the voters will have forgotten all this when these same out-of-town property owners want us to fund improvements for downtown. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
case itself was public record. Okay I'll go downtown and get a copy for everybody. Where do I go?
For the trial we should have Kiel video and post it up on the blog. That way we would all know the facts and out come.
You are saying "They submitted a plan that was not in accordance to code. The CC did not have the spine to tell them to resign the plan to adhere to code"
First what part of the submitted plan did not adhere to our city codes? Specifically what part of the plan and what codes.
Second, my recollections is, the City Council and George Geis help redesign the plan. See video.
As it turns out they DID adhere to all ordinances. The landscape buffer violation didn't really exist so it never should have gone to the BOA and the whole thing should have ended with the judge's ruling on Huddleston's TRO that he had no standing.
And why would the council make an agreement that required West/Chase to follow the laws of the City? Doesn't everyone have to do that? If they did make such a deal it would have been part of an executive session meeting and I wonder how you know about it.
So here we are folks (taxpayers) picking up a nearly $100,000 legal tab for what?
" ...Unfortunatel y there were conditions to that concession. Chase and West did not honor those conditions and a perfectly valid lawsuit ensued.."
GHenry, what conditions did Chase and Dr. West not honor?
Thanks
I think there is a more efficient way to handle this. The City Council should just invite Huddleston to all executive sessions.
That way you could cut out the middle man saving the swiss cheese Council member(s) time spent having to repeat the discussions the law is supposed to protect.
I can see the letter to Dr. West in the making.
Dear Dr. West,
What do I owe you? You didn't finance my campaign and you aren't my landlord. Why shouldn't I tell my friends what I know. I won't cost me anything.
My three year old grand daughter is better at keeping a secret than these Council guys. This gives transparency a whole new meaning.
Let me be clear. There was nothing wrong with proposing a prohibition on drive-thrus unless it was to intentionally stop a project. The actions following Savages's proposal indicate there might have been such an intent. If this lawsuit ever goes to trial I suspect this will be scrutinized closely.
I noticed the email is dated June 8 2010. If my recollection is correct, that is only 2 or 3 weeks after Mr. Savage and Mr. Weser took office. Astonishing!
#142 wfkiel 08-01-2012 11:30 am.
Just Curious,
Since no one wants to come forward and answer that question I'll tell you what I know.
Councilman John Savage initiated the the drive-thru ordinance shortly after he was elected in 2010. The e-mail below provides the documentation.
From: Shawn Eddy
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:54 PM
To: Brian Chandler
Cc: Ann McGlone
Subject: Drive-Thrus
Brian,
Councilman Savage called and said that he would like to see if we could consider prohibiting drive-thrus in AH. I told him that I thought we already had some zoning restrictions on drive-thrus but could not recall for certain. Could you please provide him with what is currently prohibited and consider bringing this issue to NCCR for their consideration. Thanks,
Shawn P. Eddy
Assistant City Manager/
Director of Public Works
City of Alamo Heights
(210) 882-1506
(obtained by W.F. Kiel thru a PIA 11/7/2011)
Savages's proposal to prohibit drive-thrus went to NCCR and Councilmen Weser and McCormick formulated an ordinance that was sent to P&Z. When P&Z recommended something other than a complete prohibition the NCCR committee immediately rejected their proposal and forwarded Savage's total prohibition proposal to Council for a vote the following Monday.
To place this in a context, Glenn Huddleston and George Geis were the main supporters of the drive-thru ban with John Joseph and the AHNA as cheerleaders (see videos). It is interesting to note that Savage was (and still is) a tenant of Geis and was backed by Geis, Huddleston and AHNA in his election.
It seems strange that a newly elected council person who had no record of even voting in City elections would conclude that prohibition of drive-thrus were such an important issue on his own. No mention had been made during the campaigns.
But this is more than a possible case of crony politics because it is costing the taxpayers lots of money - I predict $100,000 or more before its over. Maybe if it goes to trial all the "players" and the roles they played will come out but from what I know it doesn't smell very good.
Maybe it is time to revisit "Anatomy of an Election".
Quote
Leaks out of Executive Sessions is serious stuff folks. Ask the guy who lost his job in Dunwoody Ga. Better yet how about the two cities in Texas under investigation and now the Texas General Land Office in the Galveston (it is becoming fiasco).
Hello AG and Texas Rangers.
https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/agency/customer/pia.html
Since no one wants to come forward and answer that question I'll tell you what I know.
Councilman John Savage initiated the the drive-thru ordinance shortly after he was elected in 2010. The e-mail below provides the documentation.
From: Shawn Eddy
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:54 PM
To: Brian Chandler
Cc: Ann McGlone
Subject: Drive-Thrus
Brian,
Councilman Savage called and said that he would like to see if we could consider prohibiting drive-thrus in AH. I told him that I thought we already had some zoning restrictions on drive-thrus but could not recall for certain. Could you please provide him with what is currently prohibited and consider bringing this issue to NCCR for their consideration. Thanks,
Shawn P. Eddy
Assistant City Manager/
Director of Public Works
City of Alamo Heights
(210) 882-1506
(obtained by W.F. Kiel thru a PIA 11/7/2011)
Savages's proposal to prohibit drive-thrus went to NCCR and Councilmen Weser and McCormick formulated an ordinance that was sent to P&Z. When P&Z recommended something other than a complete prohibition the NCCR committee immediately rejected their proposal and forwarded Savage's total prohibition proposal to Council for a vote the following Monday.
To place this in a context, Glenn Huddleston and George Geis were the main supporters of the drive-thru ban with John Joseph and the AHNA as cheerleaders (see videos). It is interesting to note that Savage was (and still is) a tenant of Geis and was backed by Geis, Huddleston and AHNA in his election.
It seems strange that a newly elected council person who had no record of even voting in City elections would conclude that prohibition of drive-thrus were such an important issue on his own. No mention had been made during the campaigns.
But this is more than a possible case of crony politics because it is costing the taxpayers lots of money - I predict $100,000 or more before its over. Maybe if it goes to trial all the "players" and the roles they played will come out but from what I know it doesn't smell very good.
Maybe it is time to revisit "Anatomy of an Election".
I believe two council members initiated this whole thing. Shameful.
Why have a Planning and Zoning Commission if you are not going to take their advice?
I agree with Kiel regarding things coming out of the executive sessions.
So which councilman initiated the ordinance? Could question!
Ghenry, in college my business classes always treated Banking as commerce.
La Fonda is a hot spot on Sunday evening. I hope everyone will continue to support La Fonda and the Whites. Great family tradition.
Smatts said "You and your uninformed, biased group? Sorry, that does not carry much weight. " Smatts for your information
many of our former Mayors go to La Fonda. They always have a drink up at the bar area. There is always large groups of people sharing information, ideas and talking about issues.
No bias with this diverse group. No hidden agendas. Just people visiting. People are glad the facilities are moving forward, they talk positive about the Mayor and our City Manager. They are annoyed with the lawsuit Huddleston filed on our City. You should come by sometime. Everyone seems to enjoy the company and food.
Roger P.....The talk of the evening was the Huddleston lawsuit against the city of AH. It appears people are tired of it and sounds like people attitudes are splash back on the entire commercial area..
Smatts70...The talk among whom?! You and your uninformed, biased group? Sorry, that does not carry much weight. Everyone is weary of it because of the amount of taxpayer money spent to defend a case of their own making! The "splash back" is on a muddled and mistaken CC!
#116 wfkiel 07-28-2012 12:17 pm.
I wonder when the Chase Bank lease with Huddleston expires. Filing lawsuits that hurt one's tenant doesn't seem like a great business strategy.
Could all of this REALLY be about landscape buffers and "walkability as Huddleston states"?
Broadway is 8 lanes in that area of Broadway !
It's a major thoroughfare - a State Hwy, in fact.
Cutting a drivethru lane is going to make it walkable? What a joke.
No, this about something bigger that probably involves a lot of money.
The key to understanding this is the drivethru ban ordinance that was passed by council two years ago..
Here are a few questions to consider:
Which councilperson(s ) initiated it and when?
What was his relationship with the chief proponents of the drivethru ban ordinance - Huddleston and Geis.
Why was the P&Z recommendation ignored?
AND why was a P&Z hearing following their recommendation not held as required by State law?
Why was the drivethru ban rushed through and how did that relate to the timing of the Chase/West project?
Why was the Chase/West replat held up unlawfully?
Who would benefit the most from stopping the Chase/West Project?
What part of our budget is suffering because of the legal expenses for the Huddleston lawsuit?
Looks like street maintenance to me.
Hopefully we'll get to the bottom of this.
Quote
Let's start with which councilman initiated the ordinance.
I never implied what they had to do or should do. I merely stated the fact that it was never their intent to sell it to IW or anyone else. Therefore your parking lot theory is invalid.
Patriot, "jobs" are not "commercial activity" it appears you are confused by the business terminology. "Commercial activity" is commerce ie. retail, restaurants, businesses that create sales. The more retail/restaura nt/sales generating businesses there are, the larger the tax revenue for the city. Obviously, banks are important and necessary components in a city's economic landscape. This is not a mystery. Cashing checks, getting loans, buying CDs and every other bank activity are not generating any revenue. We need banks; we just do not need thirteen. The loss in sales tax revenue in a year for all the banks in AH is over a half million dollars. Wouldn't be more beneficial to have some of that revenue coming in to enhance the city budget? Can you not open your minds and understand this simple economic principal? There has been some very positive retail activity going on along Broadway. Several new shops has opened, others are being finished out. This is great news. We need to work together to encourage economic development. This will enhance our community and our coffers.
By the way, Chase has named their new branch, University Branch. They are at the West location for the purpose of attracting and catering to IW and Trinity students. They (Chase or West) have no interest in our community. Just give Jamie Diamond in NYC and ask!
Yes, West has every right to do whatever he chooses. He and his lobbyist even got grandfathered for the drive thru lanes. Unfortunately there were conditions to that concession. Chase and West did not honor those conditions and a perfectly valid lawsuit ensued. Also, unfortunately, we have a CC without a spine, who can not or will admit what a grand mess they have made and who are willing to keep on paying an inept attorney to continue to litigate after already paying him $80,000 for a job not well done.
GHenry you are kidding, right? The West are going to pay property taxes that is revenue for the city. If the 12 Banks in AH are not generating commercial activity then I doubt they would stay here. Ask all the AH banks how they are doing! Banks are a good indication how vibrant a community has become. I would rather have Banks than no banks. There are a lot of impoverish neighborhoods that would love to have neighborhood banks. Banks also give back to the community where they are located, through jobs,lending, volunteer work and through philanthropy. Would you rather we keep our money under the mattress?
As far as cookie cutter, who can thank Geis and Council for changing the design. The original design was great, but then Geis and company got involved, they are not architects.
Some of you are too hung up on landscape and landscape buffers, both do not necessarily guarantee of a successful development.
Dr. and Mrs. West have a right to lawfully develop and use their property as they wish, whether it be a bank, parking lot or restaurant. Apparently you don't see it this way.
He had opportunities to sale. He did not want to sale. He does care about what is or is not good for AH. Sorry, Patriot, a 13th bank in the city,is not good for the city. Might as well have been a parking lot.
Mr. Kiel your post #116 asks some excellent questions.
For all those who bemoaned another bank coming into the City, how does a parking lot with NO tax revenues sound?
Could all of this REALLY be about landscape buffers and "walkability as Huddleston states"?
Broadway is 8 lanes in that area of Broadway !
It's a major thoroughfare - a State Hwy, in fact.
Cutting a drivethru lane is going to make it walkable? What a joke.
No, this about something bigger that probably involves a lot of money.
The key to understanding this is the drivethru ban ordinance that was passed by council two years ago..
Here are a few questions to consider:
Which councilperson(s ) initiated it and when?
What was his relationship with the chief proponents of the drivethru ban ordinance - Huddleston and Geis.
Why was the P&Z recommendation ignored?
AND why was a P&Z hearing following their recommendation not held as required by State law?
Why was the drivethru ban rushed through and how did that relate to the timing of the Chase/West project?
Why was the Chase/West replat held up unlawfully?
Who would benefit the most from stopping the Chase/West Project?
What part of our budget is suffering because of the legal expenses for the Huddleston lawsuit?
Looks like street maintenance to me.
Hopefully we'll get to the bottom of this.
Your understanding Is incomplete and incorrect. How can you possibly determine who lost the case when you do not know what was requested and denied by a judge??? You are unable to make that determination without more knowledge.
Daytripper says: " The city can and should refuse to continue to litigate the case. It is not going to a jury. Live with the ruling!"
Smatts70 says: "...it is as simple as just say no, no more attorney's fees! The City can do that, but I doubt they have the character to do it. We have paid enough!"
Huddleston filed the lawsuit against the BOA, and as I understand it, wanted the City to rescind the building permit for Chase Bank. We know that won't happen and Chase Bank will likely be built and open for business before this case is settled.
The implication of the "simple answer" is for the City to let the case go into limbo and not pursue further litigation. But what about Huddleston? Does he do the same? Why not acknowledge he has lost this case and move on? Is it pride or some other reason?
I'm sorry but the "simple answer" doesn't really make sense. The party that needs to withdraw is the one that filed the lawsuit. That would be Glenn Huddleston.
Matt D has a very good point, why doesn't HUDDLESTON just drop the law suit.
The Bank is going to be good for Alamo Heights.
Smatts 70 said "What we need is for the City to stop the money hemmorage and end it here and now".
This is so too funny! I feel like I have been time warped back into " Laugh-in" with Rowan and Martin or even the Smother Brothers. Daytripper and Smatts seemed to think that no one this blog knew 2 weeks ago the outcome of the baby steps of the lawsuit, much less the Judges ruling.
Plus, they have it wrong on who can stop the lawsuit....let' s see who filed this lawsuit...oh yea, I remember it was GLEN HUDDLESTON!
Let's be clear, crystal clear, the person who can stop the lawsuit is none other then Glen Huddleston - he is the one suing the city. All he has to do is withdraw his case. The city can not stop it, they are being sued....HUDDLES TON has to stop it.
Kiel has asked a vert good question, waiting to see the response.
And exactly do you want the City to do?
When you said "BBetty, It will be decided by a judge and has been. The ruling is in." actually means BB it was decided by the judge to accept neither summary judgment and his ruling was to let a jury decide.
If you knew what the Summery Judgements were about you would be less likely to dispense this bogus information. It could go to trial, but the City Council has the authority to stop it all now and quit spending tax payers money on this. They have known about the decision for 2 weeks. We can only hope...
Judgement was asking for? If you did have klnowledge of that, you would know that the rulings favored Mr. Huddleston over the city. Again, what misinformation. ..perhaps, more a difference in perspective.
What we need is for the City to stop the money hemmorage and end it here and now.
Sorry to hear about Perry and the man in the tuxedo. :(
Semper, are you available?
Smatts has filled up our little blog with a great deal of misinformation while I've been away. The judge told both sides forget about summary judgments, it is going to jury trial.
Cause Number: 2011CI18180
GLENN HUDDLESTON
vs ALAMO HEIGHTS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
Court: 150
11/14/2011
PENDING as of July 25
Where is Lawyer Lucy and Judge Judy when you need them.
I don't need to ask. What is done is done. West has his permits and is building his building. Huddleston and the City can keep hammering at each other. It is just costing the tax payers big time.
$80K.
"We should ask Council to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost because they were the ones who caused it. If we take the amount spent and divide it 5 ways - each Councilman owes us $11,575.86"
How much do they owe us now? They are the ones who caused it.
Cowgirl said in plain English, the same month: "When cronyism seeps in two things always happen sooner or later. First the government loses it's transparency and the trust of the people. Second those who are willful participants, 90% of the time end up losing."
Well, cronyism seeped in. None of us has any reason to trust this Council. All of the transparency, if there was any, is opaque. Let us watch carefully.
Back to the subject of this blog, what was the verdict. What did the Judge rule....anyone?
Flip Wilson
#24 SMATTS70 said " 4. Mr Geis is known for his interest in architecture"
Like 1221 Broadway?
Just a Texas gal, born and bred, rancher, UT grad Hook'em. Hope that makes GH feel better.
I agree with Tom T waiting for GH to respond to Mr. Kiel, I guess I will just slack up on the reins.
#68 wfkiel 07-03-2012 8:53 pm.
"Ghenry,
There are lots of factual errors in your posts. You mentioned earlier that there were two public meetings, implying there was plenty of opportunity to be heard. I assume you are talking about the two council meetings. Were you there? Was it intended by the council to have two hearings? No. They wanted to pass the ordinance at the first meeting. Because of a legal question in the first meeting they delayed the vote to the next council meeting. This was always intended to be rushed through. We can go into that some more if you want. In fact, there are videos available in the archives on this site.
Dr. West showed up at the council meeting following the vote. According to Dr. West he was never contacted about the ordinance. Are you sure that all commercial property owners were contacted?
A commercially zoned property adjacent to a property on Broadway CAN be used commercially. But this is irrelevant to the landscape buffer ordinance.
Since both properties are zoned B-1 commercial only an 8 ft buffer is required by Chase Bank. They are providing more than that. One more time - THERE WAS NO LANDSCAPE BUFFER VIOLATION.
As for what the neighbor behind Chase feels about this I can quote Smatts70 in an earlier post:
" It is all a mute point because the next door neighbor hastily changed his mind (oh my, wonder why? Some sort of beneficial pay off, no doubt) and has decided he would adore having a drive through next door practically in his bedroom."
Could it be that he's happy to have his property zoned B-1 because the value may be higher? Who knows but Smatts70 seems pretty knowledgable about this case.
The Wests and Chase Bank have followed all the laws of Alamo Heights and have patiently put up with a campaign to stop and delay their project for nearly two years. This behavior has happened before. CitiBank had similar problems as did the Sleep Center at 5921 Broadway. Lots to be said about those cases."
Quote
"When you find yourself in a hole, stop diggin'." or "How many flies have you caught with that barrel of vinegar?"
Cowgirlsup love the humor, and quick wit. Keep posting.
I don't think Cowgirl's perception of the issue is shallow at all. Exactly what paradigm were you referring to?
I do not believe we have ever met. For your information, I am very well versed on this issue and understand all the stake holders positions. Bottom line Dr. West has all the permits he needs to build his project. Mr. H did not get his way and has a big burr under his saddle. As far as the court of public opinion goes, that dog is done huntin'. It don't make no never mind, because it is now in the hands of a court of law.
Mama always says if you ain't got nothin' nice to say then don't say it. I have found that to be sound advice. So in the future you might want to keep a tight hold on the whoa reins of your key board.
Ain't America Great!
It doesn't matter how the City discovered the zoning error. I observed it by looking at an "official" zoning map on the City website and the City confirmed it by responding to my PIA request. I suspect the Chase Bank representatives discovered it as well.
I don't know when the judge's ruling is expected but I look forward to this being over.
Comments have been made in the past suggesting the City should seek payment from Huddleston for it's legal costs. I don't support that view if the case is dismissed because of the zoning error. The error was the City's, not Huddleston's. This is a weird case where an error can allow a party to win; usually doesn't happen that way. I also believe that the error was simply a mistake that anyone could have made. The coding for the property in the Incode system was MFD, not B-1 as the map says. That's where the error took place. Someone populated the database with incorrect information.
Unfortunately nobody really wins. Huddleston, Chase Bank, the Wests and the taxpayers all have legal expenses to pay and the project has been delayed more than a year because of this legal fight.
The City's reputation regarding commercial development has also taken a hit. It's time to come back together and support our downtown before it's completely lost.
Have a Happy 4th and let's relax a little.
It was only recently that city lawyers were able to dig up with the aid a of City paid intern an obscure city map showing the questionable partial commercial zoning on poor neighbors property. Until that came into play, West /Chase were fighting a residential landscape buffer, or trying to get around it. That is when BOA/City delivered by saying cars and pavers were landscape elements!
And, thanks for your commercial code update. Maybe Article X refers to stores rather than offices. Glad to get that imput.
By the way, when is this case going to trial? Happy 4th!
The back of the building appears less than 8 ft from the property line. There is no landscape buffer. The trees are on the property of the neighbor. You can see this on Google Map.
Type in 103 Katherine Ct. San Antonio.
As for the Denny's, there was no landscape buffer next to the neighbor. Cars were parked up against the fence. The dumpster was also next to the property line. You can see this is the same Google Map image.
There are several ways to use those properties commercially. First off they can be combined with an adjacent property and replatted. Second they can apply for an SUP. Both of these methods have been used in Alamo Heights. Recently a house on Montclair next to Cooper's Meat Market was rezoned and is now used commercially by an architect. It faces Montclair.
Denny's respected the City ordinances and the neighbors with the required setbacks and landscape buffers. So between the restaurant and the residence was the buffer and a parking lot. But, whatever...I think Ghenry's right if some one put drive lanes in your drive way, you would be at the BOA and the Court house. You would will never admit it.
The so-called "commercial" property next door to West's will never be used as commercial according to this:
Article X Sec.3-81 (5) Special Regulations
Any property hereafter used for business purposes in the B Districts shall face and have its main entrance on Broadway or the Austin Highway according to which street provides the main access to such property.
You trippin' each other up.
Bottom line the West guy is building his building. Time to quit this childs play and put all the horses back in the barn.
Ain't America GREAT! Happy Independence DAy
I like where I live now but I'd rather live next to Chase Bank than the former Denny's which had more traffic, longer hours and more smells. An I certainly would rather not live next to high rise buildings. But you already know that.
Let's see what the judge has to say.
The question Ghenry asked you, one more time is you YOU would like to live in the house next to West's project? Would YOU like to live next to a drive through lanes? Can you answer that truthfully???
I believe someone else already explained this to you. When two commercial properties are adjacent to one another, 8 feet must come out of each one, making the buffer 16 feet. So, there just might be a violation there. The city may be hoist on it's own petard with the neighborly deal.
It is a mystery to hear you say the city caused delays, that is bit conspiratorial, when it appears the city is willing to sacrifice taxpayer money, integrity, honesty, to lie and do, about anything to deliver this project. West is not the victim here.
There are lots of factual errors in your posts. You mentioned earlier that there were two public meetings, implying there was plenty of opportunity to be heard. I assume you are talking about the two council meetings. Were you there? Was it intended by the council to have two hearings? No. They wanted to pass the ordinance at the first meeting. Because of a legal question in the first meeting they delayed the vote to the next council meeting. This was always intended to be rushed through. We can go into that some more if you want. In fact, there are videos available in the archives on this site.
Dr. West showed up at the council meeting following the vote. According to Dr. West he was never contacted about the ordinance. Are you sure that all commercial property owners were contacted?
A commercially zoned property adjacent to a property on Broadway CAN be used commercially. But this is irrelevant to the landscape buffer ordinance.
Since both properties are zoned B-1 commercial only an 8 ft buffer is required by Chase Bank. They are providing more than that. One more time - THERE WAS NO LANDSCAPE BUFFER VIOLATION.
As for what the neighbor behind Chase feels about this I can quote Smatts70 in an earlier post:
" It is all a mute point because the next door neighbor hastily changed his mind (oh my, wonder why? Some sort of beneficial pay off, no doubt) and has decided he would adore having a drive through next door practically in his bedroom."
Could it be that he's happy to have his property zoned B-1 because the value may be higher? Who knows but Smatts70 seems pretty knowledgable about this case.
The Wests and Chase Bank have followed all the laws of Alamo Heights and have patiently put up with a campaign to stop and delay their project for nearly two years. This behavior has happened before. CitiBank had similar problems as did the Sleep Center at 5921 Broadway. Lots to be said about those cases.
There was no need for a variance since there wasn't a code violation. get over it. You and Huddleston are mad because Dr. West and Chase Bank wouldn't let you bully them into walking away from the project. Again, get over it.
Have you seen how close the rear of Huddleston's strip center at 4700 Broadway is to the house behind it?
To the Bettac gal: thanks for keep us posted on the City's cost of this lawsuit. This is important information please keep it coming. In my opinion Mr. Huddleston frivolous lawsuit against the City is costing the taxpayers big time.
The reason our DT is in the shape it is in, is not because of banks, don't you think it is due to the lack of ability to develop?
Look, the same people have owned these properties for years and nothing has happen. I will be the first to agree it is their right to rent to who they want. But don't cry Banks don't pay sales tax and then turn around and rent to other non sales tax service companies. If they want to revitalize the commerical district then do it privately, it is not the city's job nor should the taxpayers of AH be asked to flip the bills for private development. The landowners need to all pitch in and hire a first class developer to help them (the landowners) bring downtown back. Planting a few trees or hundreds of trees in not development. Trees don't bring people to stores, great stores and restaurants do, a happening place and a place called THERE. THERE IS NO THERE IN AH.
As far as narrowing Broadway, well that would be a disaster. Cut down the lanes, traffic becomes more back up and slow moving, worse then it is now. Guess what happens, people stop using that stretch of Broadway and start cutting through the neighborhood to afford the traffic jams. No thanks.
Don't forget the sleep center, insurance companies, and Dentists.
Now look at where all these service, non sales tax folks are located and who the landlords are. Hmmmm
Broadway and Austin Hwy are controlled by TXDOT and I doubt they will turn them over to AH so we can cut them back to two lanes. Besides, we couldn't afford the maintenance.
Council tried to vote on it at the same meeting when they made it public which they learned was not legal because it didn’t give proper notice to the property owners who would be affected. My guess is that the Wests were one of those property owners who didn’t get a notice and would be affected.
So to me, the Wests should have been exempt. They were in the pipeline and the City knew it. The City has to honor that no matter what law they passed afterward.
Huddleston has a right to sue if he feels he was harmed somehow but I can’t figure out where there is any harm to him. Both Huddleston and West have property behind them that is zoned business and the Chase bank has a landscape buffer that I think is even more than the 8 feet. That is all legal so where is the harm?.
If the City needs more sales tax revenue then we need to get rid of all those places that only provide services. Get rid of nail salons, hair salons, spas, the minor emergency clinic, doctor offices, architects offices, insurance offices and yes, banks. Wouldn’t that would be a killer for our downtown?
And as for the walk ability topic. Is anyone going to wear their tutu down Broadway as they stroll to the ballet studio in 100 degree heat? No, they are going to drive, just like the rest of us.
Do you think Broadway will ever be walkable and pedestrian-frie ndly. It is so wide. With all the strip centers having the parking in the front instead of the back I have a hard time envisioning walking. What I am thinking of , is something like Fredericksburg' s Main street. Wide street, sidewalks, and the buildings are next to the side walks. Parking in the rear, or pull in parking out front. What do you think? Is this at all possible?
I understand about drive-throughs having wide curb cuts, that makes sense. Any curb cut causes traffic to snarl. I am thinking the northside....so me streets have way too many curb cuts.
Smatts70 one thing I disagree with is your comments about the Mayor. From what I understand the Mayor does not vote. I think you have to put this issue on all of Council. There are 6 men on Council, 5 of them vote and ALL of them are supposed to lead!
Mr. Huddleston doesn't seem to have shown any disrespect to anyone by getting a variance. Did West try to get a variance? No, West never sought a variance. Maybe he should have. That would have savedi us all alot of taxpayer money. How long ago did Mr Huudleston get his variance? Seems like a long time ago - maybe 10 or 12 years ago . Had you moved here yet, Kiel? Seems like Mr Huddleston did everything he said he would do in connection with the variance. I remember that property well. I live near it. There was not one tree on it. Mr. Huddleston did plant every tree. He didn't take credit for something he did not do. He did it. I remember watching that building go up. The nuns live in the house behind there. No matter what it is zoned, it is still a residence and has been for as long as I can remember. I bet those drive through lanes at Chase will really bother those sisters!
Your details about the BOA variance Huddleston received is incorrect according to the Minutes of Case 1159 Sept. 6, 1995.
Specifically, there was no mention of a topographical hardship. Huddleston's case was based on "working with a very small lot and in order to get enough parking he is forced to cut back on some of the landscape areas."
Below is the complete entry for the Minutes of Case 1159.
"CASE No. 1159"
"Application of Glenn Huddleston to construct a retail business building with parking lot on the property at 4700 Broadway, being Lots 20, 21, & W 25' of Lot 22, Block 2, county Block 5600. The permit was denied on the grounds that the landscaping along the property lines on 3 sides does not meet the requirements of Section 15.1 (D) (2) (a) as follows: (1) south side - 46% landscaped instead of 60% (2) west side - 21% landscaped instead of 60% and north side - 46% landscaped instead of the 60% required by the zoning ordinance."
"The case had been duly published and property owners within 200 ft. had been notified. There were no communications received concerning the case."
"Chairman Wenger requested those present to state their name and address for the record."
"There was present:"
" Glenn Huddleston 4061 Broadway, appellant"
" Mr. Huddleston presented his case to the board using colored illustrations and architectural drawings of the proposed building and the landscaping. He pointed out that though he was somewhat short on landscaping by percentage, he was offering a site with fully mature trees across the back of the property that currently exist much higher than the roof of the proposed building."
"Mr. Huddleston showed the board how he is working with a very small lot and in order to get enough parking he is forced to cut back on some of the landscaped areas.
The Board voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested."
Topography is an issue behind the building (east side) but that wasn't part of the variance request. The mature trees mentioned in the BOA hearing appear to belong to the property behind Huddleston's building yet he appears to take credit for them.
When I first read this case I was surprised that the rear of the building, which is only a few feet from the property line of a house, wasn't a landscape violation. We now find out that the house is zoned B-1 commercial, just like the property behind the West's property.
I am not questioning Mr. Huddleston's right to seek and be granted a BOA variance. I am concerned that he doesn't respect other property owner's rights to do the same.
According to records, Mr. Huddleston developed the Chase bank you are referring to 26 years ago. I believe that was long before you even lived here, Kiel. I suspect it was long before he knew, as well as others in his business, how destructive drive through lanes are to small communities. People live and grow in knowledge and change their mind over time, especially as they see what is good and not so good for a community. It was also long before there was a proliferation of bank branches in the community. Bank branches do not stimulate economic activity or generate sales taxes. They are not good for economic development.
On the other issue, you are correct, according to public record, Mr. Huddleston legally applied for and was granted a variance on a landscape buffer due to a topographical "hardship" on the other property you are referring to. Topography is something you just cannot change, so you apply for a variance. It is legal. There is nothing wrong in doing that. It is done not only for topographical reasons, but also, for many other reasons. West and Chase could have changed the configuration of the drive throughs in order to be in compliance with the landscape ordinances. They chose not to.
The City knows that the choices it has made are very wrong. They should have adhered to it own ordinances: No drive through and their own landscape ordinances that have been adhered to for decades. It has cost the taxpayers big time.
Huddleston's plea to ban drive throughs for a "pedistrian friendly" environment would be more believable if he didn't have his own bank with a drive through. Same thing with the landscape buffer where he acquired a BOA variance.
!) According to research I found that Community Development Director Brian Chandler said: "limiting drive-through facilities would promote a more pedestrian-frie ndly environment. The main impetus behind the proposed ordinance revision is to control development types, particularly preventing an influx of uses running counter to the city's comprehensive plan. " (CC meeting 9/2/09) Two and a half years later and Alamo Heights is still no less in a real decline. Drive through lanes make an area common and unattractive, unsafe for bike riders and pedestrians. They produce fumes and, at night, light pollution. They can be a traffic flow problem and a vehicle queue problem. They do not proliferate coast to coast, only where land is abundant and less valued, because it takes a lot of land to put in a drive-through. Many, many communities have banned them.
2) The cost to the city - The huge attorney's bill! If the City Council had not backed down and stood by the ordinance, none of this would have happened. Also. there is a cost in integrity. At Every opportunity, the City had, they made a bad decision. My research shows that there were two well-publicized public meetings regarding the drive through ordinance, as is routine. Dr. West DID NOT attend either meeting. A Chase representative did attend. West did receive a letter in advance of both meetings as a land owner announcing the meetings, as is routine. He still did not chose to attend the meetings. He could have applied for a permit or plat before the drive through ordinance was voted on and passed and he would have been "grandfathered" He did not. Not until after the No drive-through ordinance was in place did he come forward with his very public speech. According to my legal research/counci l, he had no standing for a legal case, because he did not go to the meetings or file anything. His attorney just blustered.
3) No one delayed them.
Yes, We should all be furious at the City Council for allowing this and wasting the taxpayers money. It should never of happened. Any strong mayor/leader would have said "NO, this is not going to happen." Put the blame where it belongs.
Now if we could just get a drive through liquor store, that would bring people out to get rid of the ban.
"Your rantings about several businessmen in the community are worthy of libel cases" Daytripper how so?
BB has asked a good question. What is so bad about drive thru's? Drive Thru's is piece of Americana coast to coast!
Day Tripper said "Maybe there are some people on City Council with leadership who can see how negative drive throughs are". Why do some on Council think Drive Throughs are negative. Why DT's negative ?
Smatts70 said "I hope the Wests profit l greatly from what they have done because it has come at a great cost." Smatts I followed you up until this last statement. What great cost, how is this project a great cost to the city? Just trying to understand.
Kiel said "In fact, they had been delayed by the City until after the ordinance was passed.....But the City's delay tactic prevented that from happening." Who at the City delayed DR. West? Staff?
Semper Fi I am glad someone has a sense of humor. Awesome shoe analysis. I guess I need to quit wearing my flip flops, that will make my parents happy.
Well-Stated! Your footwear analysis is the best! Well done!
I checked the piece and admit the recap was replete with ladjectives. The body of it, not so much. Look, youk asked me to post what I knew; to fill you in. I am sorry you do not like it. Every person who has tried to bulid a project in Alamo Heights lor anywhere else for that matter has had difficulties and obstacles, P&Z problems, replat issues, BOA obstacles, ARB adjustments, etc. It is just part of owning land, building, leasing and developing. It is hard work and frustrating. I suspect West had no idea how complicated it wouldl be. Most businessmen or women deal with it and get through it, move on, build their project and life goes on. If you do not believe me, go ask the men who have built Alamo Heights who are living: Charles Noble, George Geis, Billy Atwell, Glenn Huddleston, George Ames,Ed Kopplow and others. No one feels sorry for them or carries on for them or blogs about their hardships if things don't go their way! West's behavior and the city's response has been illegal at best, strange at the least. In the end, does it matter? Who cares? West gets what he wants. No one can prove anything. There are more facts that will never come out. Kiel thinks Brennan hung the moon, and he didn't. He should be fired, in my opinion. I am sorry my opinions offended you. I do not think much of this CC. I do not see any vision or leadership. Can you tell me what their vision for our city is? Do they have a Vision statement ? Mission statement? Where is AH going? All we have are the next elections to change anything.
You are really right, no one cares about "the check" and you missed the point. I won't bother with the point because you will not like the point. Envy is not one of my many faults and there is no need for envy in my life. I am thrilled for their success. Most land owners can get to success without such a wide wake. I hope the Wests profit l greatly from what they have done because it has come at a great cost.
If we believe what you wrote, and that is a big if, this would have to be the biggest conspiracy in the history of our tiny town. The Wests, Council, BOA, the neighbor near the property and 3 attorneys are a lot of people to get in line or buy off for a single project. How many people is that?
Who cares how much the West’s rent check is? It is their property and their right to get as much for it as the market will bear. Don’t envy them for being business smart. Capitalism is still alive and well the last time I checked and I am sure that other property owners get the most that they can in rent too. I don’t blame or envy them for that.
I never really considered footwear as a measure of a man but maybe we should. Shine is what matters to me. I see the Mayor and Rosenthal as wing tip men, stiff and very straight laced. Hasslocher is definitely boots, hard working and tough. Prassel and Weser are the SAS crowd. That leaves Savage as a loafer.
Chase Bank and the Wests were trying to move forward on their project BEFORE the ordinance was passed. In fact, they had been delayed by the City until after the ordinance was passed.
If they had been able to file for a demolition or even a replat State law would have grandfathered them. But the City's delay tactic prevented that from happening. The recommendation from P&Z was to allow drive throughs with a Special Use Permit. Certain members on Council were so hot to ban drive throughs that they ignored P&Zs recommendation. There is even a question if P&Z was finished with the case since a public hearing on their recommendation was never held. I suspect the ordinance could be challenged on that ground.
So the problem Council faced was a probable lawsuit they would likely lose.
If you are going to continue making claims against people about corruption have the courage to use your real name.
And Smatts, that goes for your near slanderous comments regarding the Wests and their legal representative. Remember, there's no such thing as anonymous on the internet.
This is not about property rights dude. It is about leadership and responsibilty and corruption.
Sometimes the facts and truth are insulting. It is time someone had the courage to speak up. Do you really think the Mayor wants to investigate this??? Doubtful....
If we take at face value what you state as fact, then we have a Council member who is leaking the details of a closed Council Executive Session.
I think the Mayor should launch a full investigation and get to the bottom of this.
Smatts70 is right the city council should develop some back bone and ask the court for the city's legal fees be paid by Mr. Huddleston.
Not trying to be rude or funny but can anyone name me one quality project that has been developed?
Personally I liked the original design, I guess each to their own. oh my the way, Geis is not ARCHITECT!
Here are some facts: 1. Mr Huddleston and Mr Geis are the LAST people this City Council would listen too. They did back the no drive through ordinance, But long before (for 10 years) West was on the scene with his wife's property. They endorsed it because it is best in the big picture for the commercial area, not to delay West. 2. West hired a big gun lobbyist/lawyer with a dubious and duplicitious reputation to go into a closed City Council Session and threaten a lawsuit unless they gave an exception to the just new ordinance. No surprise, our city council, whom are neither men of strength or conviction or standards, caved, shaking in their loavers, immediately! 3. The city's long delay is a mystery. 4. Mr Geis is known for his interest in architecture. The design Chase submitted was so offensive, gratitude is the only response we can have for Mr Geis' changes. He had no intent for delay. I perceive you all are very concerned with the appearance of the city hall, homes in your neighborhoods, etc. Certainly, you may want a stake in the commercial area also. 5. BOA was absolutely illegally comprised. One of its own members admitted to that fact. City lawyers illegally prepared them ahead of the meeting and told them what to say and how to vote. In a most irregular manner, the documents were preprepared for their signatures immediately. 6. So, Mr. Huddleston was illegally sabotaged.
Do you blame him for taking it to a higher court when the BOA declares that cars, lanes and anything else is "an element of landscape"?
6. You are correct, Kiel, there is newly discovered (found by a city paid intern)...hmmm. ..1938 or 1948 commercial zoning ordinance on the next door property. But, it is technically inadmissable since it is not part of the BOA evidence and the hearing was to be about the compromised BOA hearing. 7. It is all a mute point because the next door neighbor hastily changed his mind (oh my, wonder why? Some sort of beneficial pay off, no doubt) and has decided he would adore having a drive through next door practically in his bedroom. 8. So, the sainted and beautified West, who has contributed nothing to our community wins, and Mr Huddleston, who has dedicated a lifetime developing qualty projects, planting trees and serving this community loses.
8. The city will not be recovering the corrupt city attorney's fees - wrong kind of case.
So let's recap: 2 corrupt and dishonest city attorneys; one extemely high-priced bully lobbyist/attorn ey; one spoiled women with a Dr husband who will stop at nothing to get their enormous rent check each month, who care nothing about Alamo Heights or any of you who so venerate them; a city council with no vision, no backbone, no standards and no strength; a businessman/dev eloper who has been around working to make this a successful community for over 30 years who none of you know, but who all of you are willing to trash! With all of this going on no wonder this city is in such decline....
Thanks
Happy Independence to Day to all!
I agree with Roger P, our elected officials should tell the city lawyers to recover all of the city's cost from Huddleston.
Sarah you are correct Mrs. Bettac was asking for the City's
fees in the case Huddleston vs. COAH
Smatts70 nowhere does Mrs Bettac ask for Huddlstons fees! the request is fees on the case Huddleston vs COAH....where does she ask for Huddleston fees.
I don't think anyone cares a flip about Huddlston's fees. What we do care about is what it is costing the tax payers.
What I would like to know is if the city will request of the court for Huddleston to reimburse the city for the cost city's legal fees. If the City of Alamo Heights prevails they should request Huddleston pay for the city's legal fees!
Let's revisit how we got here.
More that two years ago Dr. and Mrs. West were considering an offer from Chase Bank to build on their Denny's lot.
Shortly after that Glenn Huddleston, George Geis and John Joseph pushed hard to get a Drive Thru Ban ordinance that would stop the Chase Bank project in it's tracks. They succeeded in getting the Ban but failed to stop the project which was grandfathered after threat of a lawsuit.
Then the City delayed the replat request for six months when it should have been issued after 30 days. I wonder how that happened.
Then they tried to stop the design approval with ARB. That failed.
Then Geis forced a change of design in a council meeting thereby delaying the project a few weeks.
Finally the council approves the building permit conditional on a satisfactory solution for a pervious driveway to deal with an issue Weser brings up regarding a violation of a landscape ordinance. (more on that later)
Then Huddleston files a Temporary Restraining Order with the court to stop the project. That failed because he had no standing.
Then Huddleston forces the City to take the case to the BOA.
The BOA voted 5-0 in favor of the City. But now Huddleston had "standing" to go back to court and delay the project indefinitely.
Now it gets interesting. The landscape violation never occurred. Normally an 8 ft landscape buffer is required if the adjacent property in zoned commercial. If the property is residential a 15 ft buffer is needed. The adjacent property behind the Chase Bank project is B-1 commercial, as is the property across the street behind Huddleston's strip center.
So there was NO landscape violation. It never should have gone to the BOA and it shouldn't be in court now. And in a couple of weeks the case will be dismissed. Huddleston can continue to appeal and run up the legal costs for the taxpayers but eventually he will lose and we will be ~$100,000 poorer.
Smatts70, in reference to your comment
"Do your homework or at the very least try to be objective."
I did my homework three months ago when I asked for a PIA about the zoning of the adjacent properties, and the City confirmed the commercial zoning status. Unfortunately it will have taken almost four months to get a dismissal.
Chase Bank deserves a lot of credit for hanging in there on this project. Full speed ahead.
Bill Kiel
Can you explain how you "compromise" a Board of Adjustment. Are you suggesting that they are crooked?
Who hired a lobbyist? Did I miss something? An expensive notorious one?
We'll find out in a couple of weeks that this court case should never have been filed.
We'll find out that there wasn't any violation of the landscaping code and never should have gone to the Board of Adjustments.
We'll find out that ~$100,000 was wasted because some people wanted to delay or kill a lawful building project.
The big question is why?
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot sums up the PIA process aptly in the introduction to the Public Information 2012 Handbook.
“James Madison once wrote, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” The best way for the people to arm themselves with that knowledge is for government to maintain openness in its dealings. Texas places a high priority on government openness, and the Public Information Act (PIA) is the primary law that requires it.”
Yes Semper Fi ,there is no place in a transparent government for cronyism and patronage.
When cronyism seeps in two things always happen sooner or later. First government loses it's transparency and the trust of the people. Second those who are willful participants, 90% of the time end up losing.
Turn this over to a women. Women are able and ready. We can iron all day in high heels for a cold iron! WE would get er done!
We should ask Council to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost because they were the ones who caused it. If we take the amount spent and divide it 5 ways - each Councilman owes us $11,575.86.
I would shutter to know what the West's and Chase have spent.
1. Shame on Mr. Huddleston for a very frivolous lawsuit against our city, and for tying up a good project in the courts.
2. The city should act and act fast. I would say if this is not resolved soon both Dr. West and Chase Bank would have a good case against the city for damages.
3. Member all this started because Weser introduced the no drive through ordinance. I feel for Dr. West.
4. I would not worry about the Advocate, It is what it is. They do not print the entire police blotter. What is with that?
RSS feed for comments to this post