Slow down. Pay attention. Being in a hurry will only cause you grief.
Next time, read both the inside AND the outside of the card you buy for your next anniversary (if there is one). The message on the inside was good… but the first thing she read was bad.
I have spent considerable time pondering on the quarry item from a couple of weeks ago. The outcome is the outcome so there is no use re-hashing out the details of the meeting. The thing that I am somewhat confused about is the abstentions of two Council members from discussing and voting on the item. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest regardless of whether or not the elected official votes or discusses the item. The Mayor’s abstention is pretty straightforward. He, up until recently, owned a quarry himself. Since he received some significant income from this quarry he, by definition, was conflicted out. Councilman Schneider’s abstention is a bit more curious though. On his abstention affidavit he hand wrote that “could be a customer” in the future and “that he had previous negotiations with the land owner”. For the record I agree that he should not have participated based on his reasons and am glad he chose to abstain. It seems to me, however, that he now seems to agree with the arguments I have been making for over a year about him being conflicted on discussing or voting on ANY item that he “could” be a bidder on. It really doesn’t matter that he “might” bid as a general or sub-contractor. It is the fact that he “could” be bidding just like he “could” have become a customer of the now defunct quarry. If his logic stays consistent it appears that we have turned the corner on our disagreement and the Council will be all the better for it.
Click here to view the abstention affidavits for the Quarry agenda item.
I received the following letter this week. I think it speaks for itself.
04/18/2009
To whom it may concern of importance,
Sometime ago in the month of February I was cited for a traffic violation on Hwy 45 in route to San Antonio. The citing officer was J. Fiedler. It is my focus to write to you today that contrary to my infraction, Officer Fiedler was simply put “one of the most approachable and friendly officers I have ever come in contact with”. Yes I did receive a ticket and yes I realize it may be a bit unusual to write this letter but I must say I feel compelled to commend this officer for his extreme level of professionalism and courtesy. I believe that if our world had a few more men such as Officer Fielder our civility may prosper. Thank you for retaining such and individual in your administration and allowing him to serve the public in such a manner.
May God bless and Keep you safe
Chad Haning
Midlothian Texas 76065
After much thought I have changed my mind about not allowing comments to my posts. Readers are free to respond in any way they see fit. I will post all replys that I deem not to be over the line. This could prove to add an interesting element to this blog.
I am very disappointed with the outcome of the Council vote tonight on a Conditional Use Permit for a Quarry on HWY 36. By a 2 to 1 vote the Council has effectively denied a piece of property that has been used, off and on, as a quarry for over 50 years a permit to continue to function as a quarry. Since two Council members abstained from the vote a unanimous vote was needed to pass permit request. I sympathize with the residents from the area that worked hard to come up with any and every reason why the permit request should be denied. The dirt, noise and traffic arguments that we here fairly frequently form folks wanting to stop various kinds of development from occurring in their “backyard” were used very persuasively. I believe that these arguments were addressed in the 23 conditions that the applicants agreed to include in the permit. Many of which were way over and above what are the minimum standards set by the Feds, State and City. Never mind this fact though. Never mind that most of these residents had moved into the area knowing full well that was a quarry in their backyard. Never mind that the applicants had received regulatory approval from the EPA, TCEQ and TxDot and were willing to agree to numerous conditions that were over and above the minimum standards as set by City ordinance. Never mind that they could have started mining without even requesting a permit or voluntary annexation. Never mind that the quarry has been there for 50 years. Just never mind.
Click here to view the agenda item with supporting documentation.
Click here to view my previous post on this topic.
I have attached a report i just received concerning the mining application on the Council agenda tonight.
Click here to view the report.
Click here to view past newspaper articles referenced in the report.
My wife and I are heading up the Temple Historic District’s Bloomin 5K and Fun run. I can honesty say that this has been a lot more work than I imagined, especially for my wife. One of Shana’s jobs was to find stuff to put in the runner’s goody bags. On a lark she asked one of her fellow Junior Leaguers that works at McLanes to see if she could get some sunflower seeds and beef jerky donated. She triumphantly called me to inform me that McLanes was “on board”. When she went to pick up the goods she was met by a nice guy named Mike who helped her load…. and load…. and load… and load all kinds of great stuff into her Expedition. By the time they were done loading her truck was completely filled. What a pleasant surprise! Thanks McLanes!
Below is a question I received today from a Temple Telegram reporter in reference to house being built on North 3rd. I thought I would kill two birds with one stone by answering his question in a blog post.
Tony,
I spoke to Kim about 1014 N. 3rd St., and she said that the design plans for the site have been passed so far and that it has been issued all of its certificates of appropriateness. Do you have concerns at all about the parking designs there? The information I received seemed to make it look like you had some concerns.
I will admit I am disappointed with what will be the final product. Now don’t get me wrong I think the appearance of the house is OK. My beef is that house was not situated on the lot in such a way as to be in keeping with the rest of the homes on the block. Thus “appropriate” in appearance ala a “certificate of appropriateness”. All of the other homes on the block have side drives with additional parking in the rear. The original site plan had no side driveway but instead was going to have front parking that would resemble a commercial establishment. To me this was unacceptable. City staff tried to mitigate my concerns and got the builder to agree to not have a front drive but to instead build a side driveway. I applaud the builder for his flexibility but this change was being made after the house was already framed thus there was no moving the house. The space that is left is just not enough to afford the necessary space for a fully functional side driveway. This situation could have easily been avoided had the house been positioned on the lot similar to the other houses. The builder bears no blame in my book they got their permits and went to work. My bet is that cars will eventually end up parking on the driveway as well as on the grass in the front of the house. Which I don’t believe is in keeping with the spirit of a “certificate of appropriateness”