San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas
Email Email | Print Print --

April 30th, 2012
Casey proposes scaled-down Sessom development



Turned back last time by the largest opposition ever assembled in San Marcos against a single development, real estate investor Darren Casey is now asking the city for approval of a scaled-down version of the high-end, mixed-use retail and residential complex he wants to build on Sessom Drive.

View San Marcos Development Map in a larger map

The new plan calls for 16,000 feet of retail space — slightly less than the proposal rejected by the San Marcos City Council in January — and a 7,000-square-foot outdoor plaza of stained and polished concrete.

The proposal allows for 742 bedrooms between 354 units, compared to 420 units and about 1,000 bedrooms in the earlier version. In addition, 10 of those units will be in the form of townhomes on individual lots backing up to Sessom Creek. Casey thinks the townhomes — and the 5.2 acres of parkland along the creek he’ll donate to the city as part of the deal — will create a transitional buffer that addresses some nearby homeowners’ concerns about noise.

If the council and planning and zoning commission again decline to approve his planned development district, Casey said he will develop the land as a small lot single-family subdivision. Because the properties are already zoned for single-family use, Casey is legally entitled to build a subdivision with 46 lots shoehorned on 14.2 acres without any parkland.

“We currently have a preliminary plant to develop 46 lots but before we go forward with that development plan, we’re going to go back through the process and see if we can get approval for what we think is a much better development and use of that land,” Casey said.

The planning and zoning commission approved the preliminary plat for that project, called Sessom Court, at a meeting in March as they were required to do by law. Casey said he has invested too much in the Sessom project plans to walk away without recouping his losses with one development or another.

“It is just our preference that we build the [multi-family] project over the one we legally have the right to develop. Both of them are viable projects but the new PDD has fewer overall units with the same stringent environmental protections as our previous one and more parkland dedication,” Casey said.

In January, the city council voted 4-3 against Casey’s earlier proposal in late January as hundreds of protesters packed City Hall and spilled outside. Opponents of the project said it will create a dangerous traffic situation on Sessom Drive, needlessly destroy wildlife habitat, pollute the San Marcos River and lower the standard of living of nearby single family households, among other concerns.

Supporters argued the Sessom properties are a short hop across the street from rapidly growing Texas State, including a new 600-bedroom residence hall. Embracing a New Urbanist ethos of walkable urban development with less sprawl, proponents say building denser developments nearer the university will ease traffic problems by encouraging biking and walking.

Casey’s newest proposal is tentatively scheduled for a planning and zoning commission vote on May 12 and a final city council vote on July 3.

All new development north of the university was recently imperiled when Texas State declined to let the city build a wastewater bypass through its campus as an alternative to the Sink Creek Interceptor. The Sink Creek interceptor project had likewise been abandoned in part because of concern that it crossed a portion of the Spring Lake Natural Area.

Instead of either the Sink Creek interceptor or the cross-campus bypass, city engineers now intend to replace and enlarge the existing wastewater main that runs up Sessom Drive.


» New Planned Development District concept map pdf]

» Parkland dedication map [pdf]

Darren Casey amended PDD

Email Email | Print Print


56 thoughts on “Casey proposes scaled-down Sessom development

  1. I figured this was coming as soon as his initial proposal was turned down.

    Let’s hope the additional concessions made in the revised plan are enough to appease the “concerned area residents.”

    The upshot of it is that the neighbors now get to pick between a smaller version of the initial plan or what sounds like a fairly unattractive residential development there.

  2. Glad to see Casey is still trying to come up with a compatible development. I’d still love to see some experts weigh in on what makes for an adequate buffer. That would be extremely helpful, not only in this case, but in future requsts, and as we revise the master plan.

    I just don’t think we know.

  3. Maybe my eyes are bad, but does anyone see a playground area, or family apartments in this plan? I ask because Council Member Porterfield has repeatedly called the 2,300 residents who signed the Rezoning Moratorium Request prejudiced and insensitive to the needs of apartment dwellers. She has specifically mentioned the families with children qualifying for free lunches. She has in her mind tied citywide concerns with the erosion of neighborhoods and watershed elitism, to racism and elitism…

    And yet – the last four big projects that have required rezoning – The Buie Tract, The Retreat, Sessom Canyon, and Hillside II – are obviously meant to house students. Only students. None of these apartment complexes have accomodations that are welcoming to the constituency that she claims worry about. It is possible to design them for families with children. I lived for many years in such a college town complex – it contained a large greenspace, with playscapes. It was a lovely community made up of people from all over the US, from all economic levels. This type of community is not what is representd by the Casey Project.

    Ms. Porterfield, please do not insult us with this argument anymore! People from all over San Marcos, house and apartment dwellers alike, have expressed their concerns and worries for the future, and have asked – no begged – you to stop the rezoning until the Master Plan review is finished. It’s obvious that you don’t like what you hear, but please respect the dignity and responsibility if your position and set your personal agenda aside. Thank you.

    (Now, before I get flamed – No, not every project needs to be for families, but that is what Ms. Porterfield has fixated on as the big Evil in the Room, and I am simply pointing out that her argument doesn’t fit the facts.)

  4. Brad Rollins spins the following from the article above “Casey is legally entitled to build a subdivision with 46 lots shoehorned on 14.2 acres without any parkland.”
    Yes, there is legally entitled and legally rezoned and legally applied land development code requirements that protect, the quality of the environment (extreme run off of rain water), the interests of the community with regard to infrastructure that The City Of San Marcos would be obligated to provide (that makes it the community’s right to reproach any development), the compatibility of any development with regard to the existing neighborhoods (which should be protected according to The City of San Marcos Charter), the safety of the individuals that we do all of this for (called citizens in most places) whose travel whether pedestrian or by auto would be considered (the traffic impact analysis shows that any more build up of Multi family would be detrimental to the North side and increase the danger to pedestrians and increase obstruction to auto traffic flow).

    So far the exuberance of the planning department at the City of San Marcos for multi family (meaning multi keggers not really family), has allowed them to approve a round-a-bout for the Hillside Ranch phase two. No pedestrians would go near a round-a-bout.

    Just do the right planning for the citizens of San Marcos. We don’t need out of towner developers or their cousultants (Ed Theriot/ Thomas Rhodes aka ETR Consultants) to dictate to our planning department, Matthew Lewis, and city manager, Jim Nuse.

  5. Cori,

    I see two areas marked “pool & amenities” and four marked “landscape court”. Also, there is the matter of the 5+ acres of parkland being donated.

    I think it’s reasonable to assume that there might be a playscape somewhere in all of that….but then I don’t see Darren Casey as the “big bad wolf” like some here seem to either.

  6. Dano,

    If you like multi-family soo much, why don’t you move into one! It would add to your credentials as a commentator. Your theories on planning and needs of the citizens are much to question. What are your theories on planning?

  7. To cut to the chase, this is nothing but another apartment complex with added potential for bars, etc, that will create absolute degradation of the surrounding neighborhoods. A park, so 700 to 900 STUDENTS can wander through and into our neighborhoods at all hours of the day and night. A noise barrier??? The townhomes( apartments) will be looking directly into the yards of the neighborhoods, and the noise will be floating into our once semi-quiet homes until 3-4 am. There is absolutely nothing nice about a developers blind desire to profit from the damages forced on those near and surrounding his planned greed driven, multi-family project ( student housing, actually void of families) . Once again, re-zoning is not a requirement/ mandate under the laws of Texas, and spot-zoning is illegal. This is surely only phase one of what will be the destruction of everything west of Sessom Dr. I hope the city attorney is ready for round 2 on this, the lesser of 2 evils is not acceptable, along with the veiled threat of SF-6 housing per current LDC allowances. Only a monster would attempt such an outright destructive objective, in one of the last untouched, pristine canyons in SM, that flows directly into the SM river. May God have mercy on us all, if our city leaders should condone this debacle. JLB 🙂

  8. The third option, leave it like it is, forget about developing it, and set your sights on an appropriate location that does not destroy our environment and neighborhoods. Simple as that! JLB

  9. Dano,

    A landscape court is not a play area, but let’s not get picky. If you have kids, you can see for yourself that this development is not at all oriented to families. My point is that one of our council members has seen fit to make families her rallying cry against the citizens’ clear wishes regarding an interim zoning plan, and she is either not looking closely at these plans, or she doesn’t understand what it’s like to live in an apartment with a family. I do, because I have. So -let’s just stop calling these monstrosities “multi- family” and dry the crocodile tears, OK?

    Mr. Casey is also perfectly capable of developing this property in an environmentally and neighborhood sensitive way as SF-6 -with a park! – if he so chooses. He doesn’t. If he doesn’t get his way and get a zoning exemption (and by extension, *maximum* profits, he’s made it clear that he will do the bare minimum required by law and that’s it. Heck, at this point I’m not sure I’d trust him to do that. That is NOT the mature reaction of a developer who claims to have San Marcos’ best interests at heart. I don’t see him as the “big bad wolf”, but in my opinion he hasn’t demonstrated any conscience where our community is concerned.

  10. Just to be clear, my personal preference – because I believe it is best for the City and the River – is Jaimy’s: LEAVE IT AS OPEN SPACE.

  11. Casey does not apparently have any desire to work with our community. I attempted to contact him last week, no answer. He apparently feels that he can do whatever he wants, regardless of the damages that it causes to our city. You would think that after round 1, he would realize that his developement is unwanted at this location, and that there are many that will contest it. This will be his downfall…JLB

  12. Aside from the beautiful piece of land that Casey is proposing destroying (I don’t know maybe it will be lovely bit of development), I don’t understand where he or P&Z or City Council thinks that traffic will go. Yes, students will walk to campus, I know, I only live a few blocks from it. But they will drive everywhere else. As it stands now at certain times of day, it takes me anywhere from 10-20 minutes to make the left off LBJ and head down Sessoms to Aquarena. So now they want to add however many more cars to the mix- it is just ridiculous.

  13. A center turn lane on Sessom would help traffic on that street. The backup on LBJ is unlikely to improve without a connector from Craddock to 35, on the north side of town.

  14. Maybe they should try reconstructing our roads around here first and enact the moratorium on development as the City Councils employers have requested (yes I mean the voting public who signed the petition) and rework the master plan. Then if they can actually figure out traffic let the community make thoughtful decisions about how we would like San Marcos to appear in the future and if Casey’s development or some other one seems viable at that point so be it. Honestly Ted, not to seem argumentative, but I don’t think that those changes are going to make a huge impact on traffic around here. It would divert the ones headed to Austin, but not the ones who are doing things around town which is the bulk of it.

  15. There’s a lot going out Post, as well. Depending on where they are going, they might use a connector as well, although many of those folks are going out Lime Kiln, and probably could use a connector, but also probably oppose one.

    The city recently re-striped Aquarena at 35, to get two left-turn lanes onto the northbound feeder, because of the volume of traffic going that way, backing up Aquarena.

    At the other end, Sessom at Aquarena sees about 27,000 cars per day. The two left turn lanes onto Aquarena (as well as the dedicated right turn lane from Aquarena to Sessom) give an indication of the primary flow of traffic.

  16. Some of the traffic counts are on the city website. A lot more are (theoretically) in the meeting minutes/packages for the old Transportation Advisory Board meetings. Still more are probably just sitting on file with Sabas Avila, at Public Services.

    You really need to put a bunch of them together, to get a clear picture, although the stuff on the city site gives a rough idea of some of what is going on.

  17. Anyone opposed to this development and other’s of it’s type in town should go check out our website

    We represent all elements of our community; Tea Party to Occupy; White, Latin American African American and all types in-between. What we have in common is our love for our town, love for our river and our desire to ensure that we leave this place better than we found it. We believe in intelligent growth; not no growth as we understand that growth is inevitable.

    Just sayin’ 🙂 I’ve talked till I’m blue in the face and typed my fingers numb on Casey plan a,b, c and d and now we are back to square one. Stop spot zoning, that is all we can do when our city ignores us.

  18. Ted,

    You stated that a center lane on Sessoms would help reduce the traffic constriction, but can we widen the road on Sessoms? How about walking across the wider Sessoms? If the students are going to walk to school, like we all believe that they will, won’t the students slow the traffic even more. Do the projections include the increased populations? So far, everything that has been proposed here is not working. Even with a pedestrian bridge angle, the increase in auto traffic would be horrible.

    No, this is about greed of egotistical developers wanting $1000 per room. The project is in no way multi-family, it should be re-designated multi student. No family would want to live in these proposed apartments. I wonder if San Marcos is meeting their requirements for affordable housing in order to get FHA funding?

  19. I actually don’t know if Sessom can be widened or not. I believe it can, but I can’t swear to that. I never got a clear answer in the past.

    We’d already benefit from a bike/ped path and crossing at Comanche and Sessom. This development would make that a more pressing need, for sure.

  20. The more I think about the new plan the more infuriating it becomes. Casey really seems like a child who is not getting his way. It appears he is threatening that if he doesn’t get his way that he has an “I’ll show you” type of mentality. I would like to hope that if he doesn’t spot zone that he will build decent single family homes, but I fear that we will get instead is either some form of Sagewood or maybe a “Hometown Kyle” where oversized ugly houses sit on too small lots. Hopefully this is not his intent and if he does build single family that he builds a quality neighborhood that benefits San Marcos. I understand that Casey is a developer and he has a right to make money but it shouldn’t be at the expense of San Marcos citizens quality of life.

    Back to the traffic, it seems that this issue must be addressed before any development can be realistically done not to mention addressing environmental impact. A temporary moratorium on development until this issues can be thoroughly addressed in my opinion does seem to be a reasonable option. If Casey is so eager to make money right at this very moment then why doesn’t he find another place to invest that actually wants what he has to offer? Or he could wait and come to a true compromise with the citizens here….

  21. I’ve always wondered why people who don’t like students buy houses near universities… with exception to those who rent the houses out to students.

  22. Just pave / fill in the river with concrete, and forget about the homeowners that have made the biggest investment of their lives, they really don’t matter, as long as more student housing is built, the developer makes money, bars and other important facilities are placed 1500 ft from my house, who cares, some idiots actually have considered a double decker idea for Sessom Dr., really, taxpayers subsidizing the needs of multi-family( student) developements. This is getting really silly now, and I hate to be bullied by silly bullies! JLB 🙂

  23. Right JLB, because the state lets people fill in rivers with concrete/paving/remotely even consider effecting the water flow. You can’t even put a small damn on a completely dry creek on your own private property.

  24. I like students. I was a student until very recently. Many of my friends still are. From time to time, students live with us. Some of our neighbors are students.

    I don’t like apartments. If you are asking why people who don’t like apartments buy houses near apartments, well, they generally don’t.

    I recognize that we need more apartments. I’d just like them to be compatible with their surroundings. I’m even pretty open to what that might mean. It doesn’t mean leaving home ownership to people who should “know better,” because that leads to people buying elsewhere, like they do now.

  25. Garth: the argument here isn’t about liking or not liking students.

    It’s about respecting the Master Plan of the city, which clearly shows where single family and high density housing belong. As it stands today, the location on Sessom is designated single family. In the opinion of MANY, that should be upheld until the Master Plan revision is complete – which takes into account growth pattern changes, infrastructure needs, and environmental concerns. What is being asked for in this zoning change is very likely illegal spot zoning.

    The University is much more than just the students, and people who work there buy nearby for the same reasons others live near their place of employment – a shorter commute, or proximity to social functions on campus etc. There is no need to gut existing family neighborhoods to construct student housing. In this case though, a powerful and very wealthy construction company has pinpointed the north side of campus as a place ripe for development – whether San Marcos wants it or not.

  26. Also, as I have mentioned before, a lot of renters (student and non-student) don’t like apartments, either. That’s why they rent houses.

    The difference, is that they are not locked into 15-30 year leases. If an apartment goes in next door, and causes all kinds of problems, they can fairly easily pack up and rent a house somewhere else.

    The homeowner has to find someone who does not “know better,” to buy their place, and they may get less money than they owe, particularly after paying the realtor. That means moving out may not even be an option.

    If we want people making that kind of commitment to San Marcos, we need to do what we can to minimize the risk, or at least not add to the risk.

    Of course, maybe we don’t care if people make that kind of commitment. If so, we should just say that, and move on.

  27. Garth: We didn’t purchase this house because we don’t like students. My husband purchased this house while he was an undergrad because he liked the location and all that San Marcos had to offer at the time (late 90’s). My husband is now in a Phd program there- so still a student. I attended school here as well. Obviously, students need places to live. The problem is that there is already an inordinate amount of traffic in the area he wants to develop and that the river is going to be damaged by more development. There are other locations that are likely better suited to this project. For instance, Casey at one time stated he was going to build a very similar project on the other side of campus down town. For whatever reason he did not follow through with this. Maybe it would make traffic worse there. If a desirable plan can be found to mediate traffic and environmental concerns well then develop away. I would actually prefer that this not happen because I would like to see more park land preserved, but I know realistically that San Marcos is growing and development will continue to occur- just hope it is in sensible way.

  28. Deed restricted neighborhoods like Willow Creek, Blanco Vista, Franklin Square, Greenpoint, Paso Robles etc. minimize that risk and protect property values. Why shouldn’t existing neighborhoods in the same city be protected to some degree by its elected leaders?

  29. To take the Devil’s Advocate standpoint to your question, Watson: Why didn’t existing neighborhoods think to impose deed restrictions?

  30. To answer your question, Watson: One of our elected leaders, John Thomaides, is trying to protect those of us who don’t live in restricted neighborhoods. I believe he wants to keep single family neighborhoods safe from being turned into high density developments. Unfortunately, the others are more interested in playing politics by voting against one development but for another so that they never have to reveal where they truly stand. And then there is Kim Porterfield who really does her best to protect families living in poverty (and admirably so) but who, in her passion, mistakenly accused homeowners against high density developments as being elitist.

    Zoning issues aside, I’m just shocked and amazed that any of our leaders would consider building anything anywhere that has a chance of harming the San Marcos River and the endangered species that live there. That river is a big reason that people want to live in San Marcos. Once its gone, then what? We must collectively have the foresight to protect the natural areas at all costs. It makes me real sad to think our leaders just don’t get it. We need someone in San Marcos to run for city council this fall who is not part of the ridiculous establishment that is in charge now. Someone who can begin to turn the tides in the favor of our precious natural resources.

  31. The deed restrictions are doing us no good in Franklin Square. We have the Retreat, and when the Buie Tract was rezoned we got a mixed use parcel of land right on our door step before the monuments to our neighborhood, and MF12 All down Craddock to the Wonder World Extension and in the vast expanse of former ranch land behind as well.

    So we are safe in our little hood while the city is planning to surround us with multi-family from every side it possibly can.

    Thank goodness there is single family development in our area being proposed tonight, w/ 36 acres of additional park space reserved at Purgatory Creek. With the additional acreage maybe we can get some more parking.

  32. Dano, Regarding why other neighborhoods in town do not have deed restrictions: in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s I don’t believe these issues were in play – the university was much, much smaller. That is the era when most of these neighborhoods north of the University were built. Most of the deed restrictive neighborhoods were built at a later date….

  33. Per deed restrictions: Personally I would not want to live in a neighborhood where someone could tell me what color I could paint my mailbox or if I were free to grow tomatoes in my front yard if I wanted. That would pretty much be my definition of living in the 9th Circle of Hell. But, that doesn’t mean I don’t want my city to protect the infrastructure, traffic flow, environment, and zoning restrictions that impact us citizens…indeed, this is about the only thing I wish the city would do and let the rest of us figure out the rest as we see best…

  34. To answer the question of deed restricted neighborhoods, it is extremely difficult to do this after the fact, obtaining 100% participation from homeowners is a difficult benchmark to achieve. This does not mean that our Planning and Developement Dept has a free pass to ignore the existing master plan, etc., and indiscriminately spot zone single family parcels to appease realtors and developers. JLB 🙂

  35. The city’s traffic engineer answered the question about widening Sessom at University Drive very clearly at a meeting where Casey 1 was discussed. It isn’t going to happen. That spot in the river is the most well populated area of several endangered species. The RIP folks are trying to improve that part of the river with better protection from sediment buildup from construction projects and other pollution that flows from the University and Sessom watershed. Paving would make the pollution worse. The road is already a problem, can’t be wider.

    We have to think about traffic flow in a smarter way, plan our community and the University in ways that are sustainable. More buses for students, better access through other points around campus, like Comanche. And we are already improving (finally with bond funds that have sat around for years) bike and pedestrian paths. This intersection at Sessom and University is already a serious problem for pedestrians, that needs to be dealt with sensibly. We certainly can’t widen the road and make the pedestrian situation even more dangerous. That intersection is also heavily used by families with children who have to cross it to get to the river, at a traditionally very busy swimming hole. The pedestrian component is as important as the car traffic. DW

  36. I was talking about widening Sessom from just below LBJ (the center turn lane is still not long enough), to Academy at Holland. That would provide center turn lanes to get onto campus at several high-traffic spots, as well as into this new development.

    This would also, theoretically, solve the dangerous sidewalk issue on Sessom (below LBJ), by moving pedestrians off the roadside, and onto campus (uphill from the road).

    The question was always whether there was enough right of way available.

  37. Taking Watson’s argument further, why doesn’t the city declare exactly what they want to do with all of the desirable land that happens to be inside neighborhoods, and just come on out and say we will be taking those parcels if in the future the tax dollar return will be high. Just say that the imminent domain of the city, when it comes to tax return with infrastructure, will preside over the values of any protected neighborhood. Then the game would be more honest and transparent. Let the city council come out with that declaration.

  38. Deed restrictions may only be imposed by the owners of the land. Not sure what the City says, but last time I checked the County had to go along with the restrictions. Well, that’s what the law says, the County has seen fit to do otherwise,

  39. Casey is bluffing. He can’t make the numbers work building little houses on little lots. That is just an threat that he can’t follow up on.

  40. I agree with Charles Sims. Threatening to cover this beautiful property with low-end rental “homes” will likely work with some individuals and bolster his argument with the public. He might even do it out of spite for not getting his way. He has the distinction of having the only Multi-Family development turned down by council in the last 10 years.

  41. It seems to be a huge double standard that some who enjoy property value protection in neighborhoods with deed restrictions would deny similar protection to those who chose to live in older established areas without them and accuse those that ask as being elitist.

  42. I guess they’re elitist over by River Road, too.

    The folks in Blanco Vista, who objected to the proposed relocation of apartments in their PDD must also be elitist.

    I suppose the students piled up in rental houses, because they can’t stand apartment living, are also elitist.

    Everyone outside of Willow Creek is elitist, it seems.

  43. In a city with such a large population of renters, I’d just like to see some expertise brought to bear, to determine what truly compatible developments look like. There is no indication that we, as a city, have any idea today.

  44. I truly believe that DC is hoping the opposition will wear down, and that he can push this through without resistance. he is bringing it back to the plate when he knows school will be out/ changing to summer clsases, etc, and when families are all travelling, all part of his plan to force his way. These people think that their plans can be forced upon us. Let the games begin, our citizens must once again come to the table, and fight this tooth and nail. They (developers) went on like this for 15 years to get the Retreat, and now look at what a disgusting eyesore we have! jlb 🙂

  45. OK folks, if you’d like to keep the Sessom Drive rezoning from happening, Round One takes place Tuesday night at the Parks and Rec Meeting. The Parks Board will vote that night whether or not to accept the parkland dedication proposal for this project. (*The meeting time is at 5:45 in the ACTIVITY CENTER multipurpose room.* This is a change in venue…)

    Take note that this new proposal has changed the boundaries of the park and main project compared to his original plan last fall. This keeps the rezoning boundary far enough away from the opposing landowners to effectively prevent them from getting enough signatures to trigger a required super majority vote at Council.

    Remember that Council voted recently to prevent boundary changes in ongoing rezoning requests in order to prevent a repeat of the Buie Tract mess. While this latest move by Casey may be legal, it is clearly an attempt to circumvent the citizen’s right to protest. Highly unethical in my book.

    Word has it that the city manager and staff are going to recommend that the Parks board *approve * this plan, so send emails to the board or come down to the meeting on Tuesday night to speak your piece. Thanks!!

  46. Yes it’s back, but it will be awhile b/4 anything happens. The PDD expired so ….maybe another 6 weeks before any action can take place after he resubmits…I’m not really sure on the time line.

    Also, I’ve been told the Scheib property shrink issue won’t be an issue the next go round, but I guess we’ll all just have to wait and see. There’s a lot of talk about this proposed development for the last 9 months, I do hope what I’ve heard is true and citizens will have the option for a super majority vote should they want one.

  47. My sword glistens , honed to a razor sharp edge, this tyrant will fall hard and sure,you have my solemn pledge. 7-5-2012, For My wonderful friend DC, what a beautiful partner ( Greater San Marcos Partnership: Chair-Will Conley, Vice Chair-Patrick Rose, Secretary-Jim Nuse, Treasurer- John Schott of Frost Bank ) How aboput that folks, do you have any questions now as to why their was such a fortified front at city hall when we questioned this whole quagmire? Time to look under the sheets and see what lurks there ! 🙂 jlb

  48. February 27, 2012, Darren, On behalf of the Greater San Marcos Partnership, thank you for your recent payment of $ 1,500.00 towards your investment. Your participation will help us collaboratively promote economic developement in the greater San MArcos region. Our community remains one of the most economically prosperous in the nation because of your commitment to diversifying our economy, educating our workforceand improving our overall quality of place. As part of your investment, you will help us : Diversify the area economy through enhanced programatic. marketing and infrastructure capacity;Create a workforce developement system that allows regional businesses to be globally competitive and enhances economic oppurtunity for workers ; continue aggressive and ongoing efforts to make the greater San Marcos area one of Texas’most compelling destinations to live,learn, work and play. We deeply appreciate your support.If you have any questions or comments about developement in the greater San Marcos area, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerly, Amy Madison-President/CEO Greater San Marcos Partnership . This letter I recently found is intriguing, no doubt. JLB 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *