14 thoughts on “Buie tract plan conjures criticism”

1. Good job, Andy.

2. Susan couldn’t be happier that they’re about to pave over the wildlife and the cave. Gaffe #2 this week.

3. They already did, Dan.

4. My mother lives in the Franklin Square neighborhood, adjacent to the Buie tract. The first neighborhood meeting concerning the development was not until November, and at that meeting the board presented this as a done deal which thay had already negotiated on the neighborhood’s behalf. I knew something was being planed for the Buie tract, however I’m sure most in the neighborhood did not. The neighborhood as a whole was not given a chance to take part in the negotiation process.

   Now granted, the meeting was very sparcely attended, so part of the problem is the apathy we have just seen on display in the recent elections. Still, it is a mistake to say everyone in the neighborhood is in agreement with this deal, or is even aware it is happening.

5. How are they going to keep residents of Oak Heights out of the park?

6. Amred Guards!

7. Oops, should have been ARMED Guards!

8. Another disgusting project that will get council’s approval because of the mayor and her minions. Water is San Marcos’ gold, yet we do nothing to protect it. Such a catastrophe.
   I heard Anita Fuller, also spoke in support of this project as a Franklin Square representative, and she mentioned the pleas from members of the other neighborhoods should be taken with a grain of salt because this development wasn’t in their backyard. But her neighborhood’s fence line touched the development property, therefore her plea in support of the project carried more weight.
   If Anita said that to council, then I’m glad she lost the city council seat with an embarrassing showing. This woman is a joke, and is clearly easily manipulated! disgusting.

9. So this developer has confessed to covering one cave during the clearing of the tract. A cave well documented by the studies for the Wonder World drive. What sort of sensitive karst features were covered by the more than 50 other very large piles of rock that were made during the bullodzer clearing of this land ? are we to take this developers word that no other karst features are hidden beneath them ? If they told the TCEQ in 2007 that they were bulldozing this land for agriculture and had no intention of developing it, how long must they keep it in ag ? How long after the clearing did baker-aklin engineering start work on this tract ? Did they do a detailed topographic and tree survey of the site, and when ? The expense of those types of surveys means they are never done on ag land, only on land that is going to be developed.

   The buffers that Mr Harper proposed for the caves and recharge features are very far from complying with TCEQ standards. He drew his buffers around the cave entrances and not around the cave footprint. This can be seen on the map submitted to the city. In one case he has the edge of the buffer comming right to the edge of one of the known cave passages. It should be 150′ away. How well did Mr Harper verify that the cave maps he was given are accurate and that their locations are actually placed correctly on the map ? Did he use a cave radio to check the location, like was done for the cave on McCarty lane when the city of San Marcos put in their utility line out there ?

10. Many in the community distrust the developers and have apparently spoken out in opposition to this plan, yet city council moves forward? What a gross representation of government for the people. It appears to me that this city government has a recent history of disregarding the pleas of its citizens and moving towards a developer friendly facilitator. Not only, is city council slapping the citizens in the face by not listening to them, but also potentially drastically affecting the Edwards Aquifer recharge area, that is completely irresponsible.

    I think our governmental officials need to receive phone calls, letters and emails from all of us concerned. And we all need to look into this situation at hand. We cannot allow a developer to come in and damage a precious resource like our water.

    We should also write letters to TCEQ voicing our disapproval of this project and expressing all our concerns. Lets help them help us.

11. It’s just that handy magic cloak again. You can hide a great deal of malfeasance, skullduggery, and just plain half-assed or fraudulent science, IF you wish, And Lord, help the poor soul who asks too many questions, or raises quibbles, or, heaven forbid, outright opposes a piece of development that has the Official Seal of Personal Approval. One could face terrible humiliation and badgering for not being with the program–good planning, environmental, engineering, and structural work or not.

    “Economic development” and “jobs” are to be regarded as right up there with motherhood and the flag. And the terms themselves are adjustable, so that one size can fit all. (Caves and sinkholes and faultlines can be concreted over, if that’s a big deal to you water-drinkers.)

    Only a fool would question the work of big, certified engineering companies with all that homemade spelunking information. The CAD program never lies, in the right hands. And affected neighbors? Aaahhhh, they’ll live through it and go away.

    In most cases, cities release pending plans for zoning and subdivision for citizen review and comment. zNor all that often does the discussion drift toward benefits to the CITY, as well as the developer, real estate firm, builder, etc. Seldom is clear reference made to the existing and approved plans and regulations, exce[t to request exceptions and variances.

    And worst, it seems, is the reluctance to lose (or even improve, for that matter), a project by pursuing the two “sunlight” questions: is this really desirable economic DEVELOPMENT? And, in the end, after the dust has terminally settled, will it actually be ECONOMIC for the City in any real way? Or will the community have to pay later to “fix a few things”? Like roads, traffic signals, utility service, sidewalks, drainage–the areas where the bargains are usually struck by our earnest Statespersons. Fail these questions, and your project is on its way to become another example of unsustainability,
    the most costly mistake a community can make.

    Or, we might just use the people, processes and resources we do have, to make sure it is done acceptably in the first place. Most of the Council (hope not the Staff) has no more idea of how a site-specific plan and Environmental Impact Statement look, or what all they contain, than a (perhaps well-trained) goose.

    But feelings of helping someone out, cutting a “deal,” and getting in the limelight are warm, comfortable experiences. Add spring to one’s step, at the approval.

12. Unfortunately, San Marcos has a history of elected officials in bed with developers. Literally, back in the days of the Morrises! Then officials with ties to the University of which I believe is a conflict of interest as the goal of SWT was to physically grow at the expense of city land being pulled off the tax rolls.

    Our City Council seems to embrace a patronizing, authoritarian model. Once elected, they believe that since we trusted them enough to elect them, then we need to trust them enough not to question their actions. Showing up at City Council meetings is futile – they have already made their decisions behind closed dooors and the citizens’ speak time is for show only.

    I e-mailed Mayor Narvaiz back when she embraced Hammond’s idea of moving the convention center over to Lime Kilm Rd. Her e-mail was short and condensending “You don’t understand all the facts.” I did, only too well.

13. Just got back in town and starting to catch up on current events. Wow. The information conveyed in this article is disheartening. Certainly gives me more to think about during chemotherapy day on Tuesday.

14. Steve I wouldn’t mortify myself over this during chemo. I wish you a speedy recovery, and will have you in my prayers. Now, San Marcos citizens need to really lobby our council members and let them know what we think. This is a disgusting project that has been marred with dishonesty since the beginning. I’m sure some of our city government official in bed with developers (we all know who they are) will gladly and quickly approve this, but we need to make any and all efforts to protect our environment and make sure we have sound and reasonable development in our community. We cannot just say “yes” to anyone wanting to come and build here, then we would be giving up our charm and sense of self in a metropolizing corridor.
    We’ve stopped bad development before, lets not let this go forward without a fight.