tony jeter dot com

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 agree but”. I am not sure what it is about those three words that drive me crazy. It could be that they are three of the most common words associated with a cop-out. At the council meeting last night we were appointing people to various City boards when we came to the Temple Economic Development Corporation “TEDC.” One of the individuals that the TEDC Board “approved” for us to appoint had already been serving consecutively on the board since 12/02. When I raised the point that reappointing someone to a third term would effectively circumvent our two term limit policy I got the good old reliable “I agree but.”, I agree but the TEDC Board voted for him, I agree but he has done a great job for the City, I agree but we are gonna pull our typical contortionist act of bending every which way we can to break our own rules to accommodate an individual.

Never mind that this person is now serving on a total of three City boards. Never mind that this person will be on the TEDC board for 9 years straight. Never mind that we had a stack of applications of well qualified citizens wanting to serve. Never mind that we deviated from our own term limits policy for the umpteenth time. Never mind that our appointments often smack of favoritism and undermine our credibility. Never mind. It all boils down to “I agree BUT.”

I want to go on record saying that my objections to this appointment have nothing to do with the individual. This particular person has been of great benefit to this community having served tirelessly for many years. My issue is why have term limits if we are not going to follow them?

The board appointment process is one of the most difficult tasks we have on the Council. It is a process that, in my opinion, lacks both transparency and objectivity. It is a topic that I plan to write more about over the next few weeks.