So this spring our council approved a 'Museum District" for a section of downtown and up through the museums and log cabin. There were articles about it in both papers I believe.
Now before these came to a vote by our council I asked Mr. Bob Burchard about this district. He very specifically told me that this was a name only designation, and would carry absolutely NO regulatory connotations to it. I told him I was concerned that this would be used to try to take away property owners rights in that district. "Absolutely not" was Mr. Burchards' response to me.
Later that night at that city council meeting Mrs Glenda Gordon told the council that this was purely a designation that would hold no regulatory connotations. There were several of the council members that weren't exactly for this designation, but felt that since it was purely in name only it would be ok. This then would go to our state legislators so that we would be designated the first "museum district" in Texas. What a great marketing campaign. That's ALL it was suppose to be, a marketing ploy!
So I'm going to just put it as clear as I can, we were lied to! Mrs. Gordon, the same person who brought this designation to the council, has since used the museum district designation to try to close down a new business in that district, the recycling center on St. Louis.
Per the Gonzales Cannon - "Eddie Escobar, an attorney representing Gonzales citizen Glenda Gordon" then followed by "“I also represent the museum district,” Escobar said. “We’re seeking a temporary injunction while this case is pending. That is the first step in this process.” - the case is the one Mrs Gordon has brought against the City of Gonzales, Mr. Lorenzo Hernandez (land owner), and the Recycle Center. Now why would Mr. Escobar represent a district that was in name only? No regulatory connotations what-so-ever? Why was it even mentioned in the lawsuit and the newspaper?
Out of curiosity this morning I decided to drive by for myself. The recycle center is a nice, clean business. Compared to the green giant that stands less than 2 blocks away, and right across from the park, this business looks like a surgical unit in it's cleanliness. Both recycling, one looks like the scrap yard, one looks like a welcome business in our community.
Then around backside of the recycling center on Darst is a house with "No Trespassing" signs, a garage that is falling down and cram packed with crap, fences down between the house and garage and their fence between them and the recycle center is falling down (I know this is their fence because I use to own that house and fence). The house has been vacant for years, and yet the ONLY person other than Mrs. Gordon that isn't paid to complain is the current owner of this house (note owner, not occupant, as they live in Smiley). Not the business that operates every day as a day care, not the apartment building across the street where people live, and the city has receive absolutely ZERO complaints on this property for any violations what so ever, nor Mr. Sam Lewis from compliance control.
So first of all I want to know what the city council plans to do about this now regulatory designation of "Museum District". Personally I believe we were lied to as to the reason for it and it should be immediately removed from our books. I'm sick and tired of being lied to and anterior motives for things coming before our council. Remove the designation and forbid it from coming back to the council. We don't like liars and we were lied to about it.
In the past we've had a lot of complaints about Gonzales and the need to recycle. We've got it, it's on St. Louis and working well. I've read recently where people are complaining that we need more work for our kids. Where do you think those come from? They come from new businesses!
We should be happy to see Mr. Peralez and his business come to town. We should be welcoming as many businesses like his, good community citizens, that are wanting to come to town.
Mrs Gordon can keep her museum district, we don't need it especially when it start infringing on property rights.
God Bless,
Dennis Nesser
I have been following this topic closely. Get your facts straight. Firstly, you complain about the city and officials not following proper protocol, but yet you are defending an illegal proceedure? The lawsuit filed by Gordon was due to the legality issues. There were complaints to code compliance about the recycling center. I am sure it all was swept under the rug just like alot of issues in this city because of who you are or who you know. As far as the fence is concerned, did you look at that property prior to the recycling center? If you had, you would have seen that the fence was damaged by junk and vehicles stored there prior up against and over the fence. Where was code compliance then? Where is code compliance for that "green giant that stands less than 2 blocks away"? Ask Bill Sheppard who lives next door to A & S Recycling about property rights.
ReplyDeleteProperty tights? What the hell is that? Oh, that must be that attitude of Gonzales...."it's Ok as long as it's not in my backyard".
ReplyDeleteDennis...you do ned to get your facts right. The lawsuit was NOT about the Museum District, it was about a faulty application. The P&Z application was faulty and even after being informed and one member even spoke on the application being faulty, it was apporved in violation of city ordinances.
ReplyDeleteI see the owner of the house at the Darst St. address property regulary. Do you even know whats going on there or did you just drive by and assume? Regardless, that property owner has rights too. I am sure if you still owned that property as you said you used to any views you may have had would be different. And where did you get that Gordon was being paid to complain?Where are you getting your so called facts?
ReplyDeleteI too, see it as a ploy, the "Historical Commission" of Gonzales is there to promote thier idea of history and erase others. The takeover of the Riverside school is a perfect example. It's history is completely ignored and replaced by a, of all things, "High and Jr High school Rodeo Museum". No mention whatsoever on the entire edifice to it's real history. They have even placed a granit monument pertaining to German migration at it's entrance. Gonzales at it's finest. Sign, Fed-up
ReplyDelete"I too, see it as a ploy, the "Historical Commission" of Gonzales is there to promote thier idea of history and erase others"
ReplyDeleteThat is a very true statement. The historical committee "forgets" some of the local history they don't care for, but history is history. Fort Wahl is a perfect example.
I VOTE Nesser for Mayor
ReplyDeleteTrue or not, I'm not a historical buff, but that is not what the suit is about. The Museum District is NOT the issue nor has it ever been. A concerned citizen is mearly standing up for all citizens to keep the City from running it's citizens over, holding them accountable for not following the laws and guidelines in place, and the City's blatent disreguard for what the majority of citizens want. The citizens want to be heard and are only falling on deaf ears. Time and time again the City votes on something whether it be this or spending without researching or listening (not just hearing) the people or seeing the whole picture or the ramifications of their actions. The application was not correctly filed to begin with and should have NEVER went to the ZBOA in the first place. Chairman Frenzel checked other towns and NONE provide recycling in a C-1 (light commercial zone). The only catagory this business fits under in current ordinances is under salvage and we already have an ordinance for that and its in M-1 (Industrial zone). It was inappropriately catagorized as storage (look up the definitions of storage, salvage and recycling, it is NOT storage)In which the legality of that was also brought to the boards attention by an attorney. A Chairman even stated that it was contrary to what the citizens want. It was mentioned as well as to the legality of it to even be heard in the first place. In addition, there ARE documented complaints about that property not only with City Council, Compliance Control and the TCEQ and filing a suit in court is a form of complaint as well before and after the recycling center. So what happened, why wasn't those complaints disclosed during the determination of the recycling centers probationary period? So whos lying now?! The ZBOA went against their own ordinances in approving the Special Exception and why? I believe it is because Lorenzo Hernandez is the property owner AND a City Councilman. So let's debate the real issue here and not make up other false accusations to excuse the illegal conduct of the ZBOA and the City! Ask for copies of the meeting minutes, ask for a copy of the tape recordings of the minutes (see just how accurate the minutes really are), ask for copies of the complaints, it's open records, ask for it all and see for yourself. Dennis, do your research and get your facts straight before you go shooting off at the mouth uninformed or based on hearsay.
ReplyDeleteYeah, either the issue has corrected itself or people feel passionate about something enough to make changes. Not sure which, but glad to see comments again.
ReplyDeleteI've got a list of replies, so hopefully will get through them all.
1) I want to make clear that Mr. Escobar is the ONLY person I know of being paid to be supporting this cause. I'm not suggesting anyone else is.
2) Yes, I know all about the house on Darst, it's owned now by my ex-wife. My comment is don't bitch about the problems on the corner that haven't happened when I'd MUCH rather live next to the recycle center than the house on Darst in it's present condition. I have no problems with the house on Darst being that way, again property rights, but I am saying that she should clean up her mess before complaining about someone who HAS cleaned up the mess that was on that corner.
3) The "Museum District" is mentioned both in the lawsuit and by Mr. Escobar - "I also represent the museum district,” Escobar said"
4) Note Mrs. Gordons comment - "this was simply a matter of location and how the GZBoA went about getting the location approved." - LOCATION is first, the procedure is simply the avenue she's trying to use to prevent this from going in. This location is in her "Museum District" and she's not liking it.
5) Our zoning had NO slot for Mr. Peralez business. Our ZBOA had to decide if the C1 that was there would fit, and they, the board, decided that it did fit in the C1. Admittedly, many, and maybe even most choose to put it in M1 instead. But there are other cities that have it as C1. This was an oversight when the original zoning was in place. We've had to make the same type of decisions with sand in the last year too. If I recall it too was approved in a zone that many disagreed with the decision of the board on.
6) The primary procedural complaint is that Mr. Hernandezs' signature is not on the form requesting the adjustment. There are several other cases that the zboa have approved when the occupant, not the owner requested the variance. I'm not sure (note uncertainty either way) as to whether or not the laws require any signature other than the occupants.
7) As for the ZBOA favoring Mr. Hernandez, I think you will see where they have denied Mr. Hernandez request in the past when he wanted to make modifications to his location at Lo's Auto Sales. There are several on the ZBOA that have no love lost for Mr. Hernandez, and have made it clear. Yet they've voted unanimously on this issue (though 1 did abstain from voting last time).
My primary point still stands, we were lied to about this "Museum District". We were told it was not in any way shape or form anything other than a way to sell the city to outsiders, not regulatory. If that were the case, then Mrs. Gordon and Mr. Escobar would not be using this in any lawsuits or any discussions about the recycle center. But it is in both!
Now note, Mrs. Gordon has every right to throw her money into legal fees. It's her right, and she can. But don't feed me a line of crap and tell me it's all about procedure. The procedure is her method to get what she wants, and she wants the recycle center out of her "Museum District", the first ever in Texas as they are quick to point out.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to know why Mrs. Gordon would in one breath state - “I am a concerned citizen and I am sustaining injuries from it (the business),” and then when asked "whether she has become ill or received medical treatment for anything relating to the recycling center’s operation since the business opened in the Spring. Gordon said, “No.”" Did she lie on the stand? Either she did or she didn't sustained injuries. So one of the two answers she gave was a lie, which was it? Judge Peschel decided Mrs. Gordons first statement that she had received injury was the lie and denied her motion for an injunction.
Mrs. Gordon would never be in this fight, signature or not, if it weren't for the fact that this recycle center is across the street from the monument.
Now do I think the ZBOA need to get their stuff together and make some decisions on how they are going to process request? You bet, consistency is always the best policy and they haven't been in the past on this procedural issue.
I'm sure I've missed some things I wanted to bring up, but this is not 'misinformed' or 'hearsay'. I personally spoke with Bob Burchard and was there when Mrs. Gordon told the council that the "Museum District" was just a name only designation. Want to talk about listening to tapes, go ahead please. Fact two, this "Museum District" is in the center of this lawsuit. Mr. Escobar even told us he's representing it. So bottom line, we were lied to and this Museum District needs to go because of it!
Dennis Nesser
(Tonight I found out just over 4000 characters are accepted at a time for a comment, hence the break up of this comment)
You really should think about running for mayor, It's time to clean house
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like someone is misrepresenting their idea of what this so called "Museum District" is and I don't believe that someone is Dennis. Even if he is misinformed about certain procedures involved this idea of "Museum District" is starting to smell like an open can of sardines left out in the sun too long. I am starting to feel like the person who said "Who am I suppose to believe, you or my lying eyes!"
ReplyDeleteB.J.
Just to clarify - MUSEUM DISTRICT DID NOT LIE
ReplyDeleteThe NAMING of The Texas History Museum District DID NOT impose any additional ordinances. There were no ordinances adopted due to the approval of this. Ordinances have already been in place to protect Historical Structures and Districts since the 1995 Code of Ordinances even if the district wasn’t given a specific name. Ordinances haven’t been enforced as they should. Just look at Craven’s property, how long has that been sitting there and the city hasn’t done anything?
The City Council approved the naming of this district and S.C.R. No 18 was adopted by the Senate on 3/31/2011; adopted by the House on 5/19/2011 and approved by the Governor on 6/17/11.
Read the Ordinances. They are on the City website and are current to adoptions as of 7/18/2011.
In reading documents I obtained that were filed with the court system does not mention The Museum District. The suit reads Glenda Gordon, Plaintiff VS The City of Gonzales, Texas Board of Adjustment, Rogelio S. Peralez and Lorenzo Hernandez, Defendant.
I don’t see any relevance of whether Ms Gordon said location or how the ZBOA getting the location approved first matters in her statement. The application and procedures approving the special exception and/or specific use permit was illegal doesn’t matter how you word it. Don’t believe everything you hear in the papers either.
There was a zoning slot for Peralez, it’s called Salvage. If there was an oversight of the original zoning then the proper procedure to provide a legal category should have been suggested, voted on and adopted into the ordinances legally. Then afterwards he could have submitted a new application. Instead it was put into a category that it doesn’t belong in. According to what he is allowed to do by his special permit, he is a salvage facility and that is a problem. The Zoning Board Should have heard this to begin with not the Adjustments Board.
Regardless of your opinions about the Darst Street property, she has a right just like everyone to complain and stand up for her rights too. Last time I checked this was a free country. I have seen ALOT of worse properties.
Bottom line, even if you take away the name of The Texas History Museum District the same ordinances will still apply regardless.
When Mr. Hernandez wanted to remodel his location on St. Joseph, he caught hell from the zoning board because some didn't want that type of business at that location. He was already operating at that location and wanted to fix it up. He and the city council prevailed over these useless objections. I think that Ms Gordon and all these other objectors should worry about the shacks that visitors traveling 183 Bypass see. And drive St. Andrew and see the shacks. I would bet that most of these are owned by landlords who won't spend any money to fix them up. Also check some of the yards and homes in the GVEC area. Really trashy.
ReplyDeleteCouple of questions:
ReplyDeleteIsn't the Museum District an entity of the City of Gonzales? If so, how can it sue the City of Gonzales and how can the city attorney represent the city against the Museum District if it is an entity of the city? And how can an attorney, not on the city payroll(hired by the city council) represent the city or a part of the city?
As far as what the attorney stated, you have to remember attornys say a lot of things. Plus you read it in the newspaper, and every one knows that may or may not be fact.
Bill - The "Museum District" is a designation, not an entity. Those claiming the "Museum District" to be anything else is just using the name to further their purpose. So Mr. Escobars statement that he is representing the "Museum District" is those (read Mrs. Gordon) that is financing his actions AND his trying to use the connotation of that name to get the ZBOA decision overturned.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - You need to reread the paperwork filed by Mrs. Gordon. Read Page 6 A. The harm to Plaintiff is imminent because the operation of a recycling center in a residential area an museum district is contrary to the public interest; (I'm more than happy to scan and post it if you'd like)
Now I very specifically see the words "museum district" in that paragraph. So at that point Mrs. Gordon has change the designation of "museum district" and trying to use the connotation of it's name to imply and apply regulatory action based on that name.
Remember Mrs. Gordon was the SAME person who pushed with numerous emails to council to get this passed and then immediately followed it up with the lawsuit once it was passed.
The ZBOA has decided that the salvage/recycling/storage question has been answered. They are the underlining authority, and final approval by the council, which has approved these variances. This wasn't even a case of ZBOA going one way and the council another as has in the past.
So once again, as soon as Mrs. Gordon filed this suit, and Mr. Escobar (her lawyer) used stated he represented and brought up the "museum district" in court (which he did many times in the injunction hearing) they made turned the museum district into a lie!
You know the sad part in all this? I actually liked the idea of being the first Texas Museum District. It's a great PR campaign. But it appears that some have personal agendas and have to abuse it.
So let's take the regulatory portion (the connotation of the name) and remove it from our books. Sad we have to do that to keep some from abusing a good thing.
God Bless,
Dennis Nesser
"The harm to Plaintiff" exactly the plaintiff which is Ms Gordon, an individual NOT the Museum District.
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons as to the suit, and they were brought to the zoning boards attention by many individuals and not just because of the Museum District OR Museum District members.
"The ZBOA has decided that the salvage/recycling/storage question has been answered." Any decisions the ZBOA made was wrong and unlawful according to city ordinances! Haven't you in the past said that the city needed to follow procedures, etc.?
CITY ORDINANCES:
Sec. 14.505 Special Exceptions; Scope
(a) A special exception is permission given in special cases for an applicant to use their property in a manner contrary to the provisions of this article, provided that such use shall serve the general welfare and preserve the community interest.
(b) Special exceptions shall not be granted if such exception:
(1) Is contrary to the public interest. (More people spoke out against it than for it)
(2) Will adversely affect public health and safety. (Serious risks associated with a salvage facility)
(3) Will substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property in the same district. (Salvage facility next to a child day care center, residential property, schools, museum district)
(4) Will alter the essential character of the zoning district within which the property is located. (Historical District, Museum District, whatever you want to call it, Residential area, etc.)
(d) Procedures. All procedures for requesting a special exception shall follow exactly the procedures provided in Sections 14.901 and 14.902 for variances and shall be acted upon by the board. (Did not follow proper procedure or proper documentation according to the ordinances)
The agenda here is they did not follow the rules, regulations and ordinances, period!
The rest of your ramblings doesn't mean anything or have any relevance. Though your agenda seems to try to confuse people of the real facts and issues.
Think outside of the box! Look towards our future!
1) it is NOT contrary to public interest. It is in our public interest. It provides recycling, and cleaned up a corner of St. Louis that use to look trashy.
ReplyDelete2) No serious health effects. This is what the judge decided in the injunction hearing.
3) The one occupied neighbor wrote and is on the record as to considering the recycling center a great neighbor. They didn't consider it any harm what so ever. The Darst property is and has been vacant for years. Not much harm there.
4) The place has been a garage, auto sales, and a storage lot for at least 15 years (when I moved next door to it on Darst). The general feel of the place is the same as it always has been the entire time I've been here, through now it's cleaner and more maintained.
So which did they not follow?
No, the rest of my 'rambling' is my point. That Mrs. Gordon had an agenda. What do I get from this staying as it is? I get a recycle center that I can drop off cans at. What does Mrs. Gordon get? She gets to create laws and run people out of town she doesn't like. Who has the agenda?
Dennis
It's obvious you don't know all the facts.
ReplyDeleteAnd from here it's obvious you won't admit the truth.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Yes, I've deleted your comments 2x and will continue. Read the rules.
ReplyDelete