From the Heart

Here is my e-letter sent out today. There are several main issues. First, I am responding to those who say that my e-letter and blog are official words from OSAB - something far from the truth. Second, I wish to wrap-up for now my discoveries about Johnson Basin. Finally, I want to call attention to the upcoming charrettes and an item on tomorrow's City Council agenda which would seem to threaten the advantages the City has gained through its Open Space Advisory Board. Here goes:

There are three main parts to this e-letter: personal comments, the Johnson Basin and, finally, open space issues and how you can help with them. It will make the letter longer than usual; but I hope that you will take the time to read through it.

First some personal comments. It has gotten back to me that some consider this letter and my blog as the official mouthpiece of the Open Space Advisory Board in spite of the fact that far more subjects are covered than just open space issues. I don’t believe for a moment that anyone truly believes that my blog or e-letter are official pieces of OSAB except that creating that kind of perception helps a particular agenda. Nevertheless, perceptions are realities and the fact that I have allowed my passion and love for natural open spaces and ecosystems to be clouded by personalities have allowed for the creation of such perceptions. For that I’m sorry; for my love and defense of this earth, I am not and never will be.

I do not write for the Open Space Advisory Board. I am a member of that Board. I have been the Co-Chairman of that Board only because of my gold stars for good attendance. I can be counted on to call the meeting to order if the Chairman cannot be present. Being Co-Chairman makes no difference to me. Seeking the Chair has never been my ambition nor is it now. OSAB has given me the opportunity to work with others on open space issues. Because of my love for the natural environment, I have also been active with Celebration of Our Mountains, the El Paso Hiking community, the West Texas Urban Forestry Council, the Texas Master Naturalists and other organizations. I am not the mouthpiece for any of those other organizations either even though I am an officer in some of them. As my disclaimer says at the bottom of every e-letter: “Elpasonaturally© is written and published by Jim Tolbert who takes sole responsibility for the content of the letter”, I take sole responsibility.

I am not dispassionate about these issues and that may be the greatest understatement ever. However, too often in the heat of polemics I have resorted to the dark satire of personal attacks forgetting that a good look in the mirror would instantly rectify any such rhetoric. I’ll try to do better. I faulted PSB member Richard Shoephoerster for doing the very same thing that I was guilty of doing and probably more so: failing to do my homework, failing to really see what the facts were. I apologize to Dr. Shoephoerster for my vitriol. As a member of OSAB, it was my responsibility to see for myself what all the various projects were that were on our lists. I did not. I just accepted what I was being told. I do feel as if the situation at Johnson Basin was misrepresented as natural open space (and not just to me, or OSAB, but even to Council). Nevertheless, I never questioned what was being told to me in EPWU presentations at OSAB.

So here comes the transition: a few words about Johnson Basin. I have the advantage now of having spent over two hours the other day at EPWU poring through some documents that I requested under the Texas Open Records laws. A few points:

First, it’s too bad that EPWU felt that they had to misrepresent matters at Johnson Basin. The fact that they did is an organizational matter that should be dealt with. Organizations get cagey when they feel a need to be defensive. It’s too bad that they felt as if they had no choice.

The records show that EPWU was most probably operating on the belief that they had their marching orders from the City and stormwater and open space priorities. Their several presentations over the space of a couple of years showed that they were trying to do their job. They were probably quite surprised when there was pushback about the land acquisition known as Johnson Basin. Better than a Yankee bargainer, they had skillfully negotiated good sales prices on the land. Nevertheless they never did account for any of the Johnson Basin purchases when asked to do so by an advisory Board to City Council or in response to an earlier Open Records Request. Why not? They also continued to misrepresent that land as natural open space. Why?

The land was never open space – a good place for a park and for a park pond maybe, but not open space. It was never considered open space. At one point the land was looked at for a housing opportunity because it was developed land in a developed neighborhood. When it came time to purchase the land in the Basin, there was a discussion about using open space funds to purchase it. Not all at the EPWU saw it as fitting that criteria. (Later I’ll publish the pictures of the email exchanges that show this internal debate.)

All of this caginess and defensiveness builds a credibility gap. Why cover-up something so easily resolved by using other funds? What other agendas are involved? Why are we so quick to build so many park ponds so quickly? Yes, it eats up open space money in a strictly cash account. Moreover, park ponds are at the bottom of the priority list for open space acquisitions. However, there is still a fair amount of cash flow to be effective if some other sources of funding can be found – a discussion we should have as citizens and government and as people who love our community, its natural assets and ecotourism, health and recreational opportunities. Disbursements are made as bills come due. The funding budgeted for park ponds is not automatically expended. There is cash in the open space account and more coming in. It’s not as bleak as it may look but then again the cash flow still doesn’t have the oomph that it could have if there were other ways to finance open space acquisitions. That is a good conversation for government and its citizens to have.  However, to have a good conversation, you’ve got to go beyond personal and institutional comfort zones and lay cards on the table.

There are other conversations about much more valuable open space issues that are coming up quickly. So here’s my last transition.

First, what we discussed as a way to move forward with our petition to preserve the Scenic Transmountain Corridor was the participation in a process led by Dover Kohl and the City’s Planning and Development staff. This process recognizes working together to preserve our natural environment while furthering the economic progress of our City. It begins next week, January 23^rd – 27^th. Dates and events are here and here. Please plan to attend. Being there in spirit won’t cut it.

Second, there is an item on tomorrow’s City Council agenda of some concern: what seems to be an attempt to cut back OSAB’s overview. Hopefully, it presents an opportunity for the City to re-affirm its commitments to open space and Smart Growth and keep going in positive directions more effectively. Item 7A on the agenda is an attempt “to amend the provisions concerning  the Open Space Advisory Board membership, rules, duties, and ability to appoint subcommittees. . .” The wording of this discussion actually exposes some of what is behind it. There is a call to “[m]ove the Tree Board responsibilities to the jurisdiction of the City Plan Commission along with review of the landscape ordinance as a development related issue.” In point of fact there has not been a Tree Board for two or so years now. It was reduced to a Sub-committee of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Its addition in tomorrow’s City Council discussion shows that the real architects of the plan are businesses still bitter about the new Landscape Ordinance. Let me make this plain: I am not anti-development or anti-business. Quite the contrary, I’m quite pro. As a member of OSAB, I have spoken out for developers wanting to get park credits when they do something to preserve natural open space. Ordinance gives the final okay about such credits to the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. Rather than helping to foster open space values, she continually says “no”. The Parks and Recreation budget has nothing in it for trails, open spaces or connectivity of any kind. I’d like to see them spend more on open space from their own budget and I’d like to see developers and builders get a break. It’s all about all of us pitching in together.

If you can make City Council tomorrow, please do so. Council begins at 8:30 a.m. and you must sign up to speak before then. You can sign-up online. Do call or email your Representative and tell them that you hope that the ordinance will stay the same but that weaknesses in the overall system can be rectified. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.  Don’t cut off your nose so spite your face.  A glaring weakness, for example, is not having  PSB/EPWU’s maximum input on park pond designs when it comes to water conservation.  We also may need to listen more to the PSB when it comes to not having free water at our parks (if that is what I’m hearing that they are saying). Want to know why Soviet bread lines were so long? Free bread. It’s supply and demand. They didn’t have enough wheat and we sure don’t have enough water.

Finally, one last personal note and an invitation. Anyone can comment on my blog entries and anyone can respond to these emails. I have published opinions differing from mine before. I do monitor comments on the blog so that such posts are not automatic. I weed out profanity and psychosis. I invite comment and discussion. I will continue to take sole responsibility for the content of this letter and my blog. It’s mine . . . not OSAB’s or anyone else’s.

Click on image to enlarge.

Under the Open Records laws of the State of Texas I requested some information about the land sales at Johnson Basin: appraisals, sales records, minutes and agenda of the PSB showing approval of the sales, email to and from Mr. Archuleta and so forth. I have been given a cost associated with compiling and copying the records. Click to enlarge the picture above of the letter to me from Mr. Bob Andron, EPWU attorney, outlining the associated costs. It is obvious that the EPWU/PSB does not want me to see the records. So much for open government and transparency. What are they afraid of? What really happened with the acquisition of the Johnson Basin? Why were procedures not followed? 


I did ask by email today to simply view the records. I've been told that they will get back to me. 


Last year, as a member of the Open Space Advisory Board, I requested a financial statement of our Open Space Fund - the 10% of your stormwater fee that goes for acquiring natural open space. I wanted to see income and expenses - a bank account statement basically. Never, ever was there any mention of property purchased as part of the Johnson Basin acquisition even though the El Paso Inc. story by David Crowder reveals that Joseph and Irene Dunn were paid $370,000 on January 9, 2011. That purchase was even hidden from the PSB contrary to the EPWU/PSB Policies and Procedures 31-03 signed by Mr. Archuleta on December 22, 2003.


In addition, the purchase of property acquisitions with open space money made before 2011 was even hidden from me in an earlier open records request that I made about the same income and expenses. Again, nothing about the purchase of property to acquire the Johnson Basin with open space funds even though such an expense was germane to my request.


Finally, in the 12/07/11 minutes of the Open Space Advisory Board, Mr. John Balliew of the EPWU said publicly that he would provide me with a copy of the PSB minutes regarding the Johnson Basin project discussion. This was separate from my open records request.  To date, I have received nothing from Mr. Balliew and emailed him today asking him to send me that information. Mr. Balliew made his promise at the same OSAB meeting in which  he identified the Johnson Basin as natural open space. I'm sure that the black top at the northwest corner of the "basin" is the natural asphalt pavement - a creative act of God.


Again, what are they afraid of? What really happened with the acquisition of the Johnson Basin? Why were procedures not followed? What is this cover-up all about?

"Looks like a natural arroyo to me"

"Looks like a natural arroyo to me."

"Looks like a natural arroyo to me." Thus spake Richard Shoephoerster, PSB member and Dean of Engineering at the University of Texas at El Paso at the PSB meeting when Ed Archuleta defended the purchase of property referred to as the Johnson Basin. Archuleta tried to justify the purchase using open space money because the land is located near the mountain. (So is the rest of El Paso.) When quizzed by Board member Rick Bonart regarding the cost of the land ($100,000 per acre), Archuleta tried to suggest that it was purchased at $293,000. When pressed about the real cost of $393,000, he said: "I think I've got that spread sheet." No other Board members questioned him about the price, the fact that the purchase was never brought to the Board for approval, a seeming lack of appraisals, and the inane suggestion that once the "facility" (Johnson Basin) is developed, there would be access to the mountain. Really? Sure, walk up a concrete sidewalk along a paved street, Pierce to Alabama - a 4 lane divided road, jaywalk, walk over some more commercial property and, yes, you will come to the entrance of McKelligon Canyon. Or, hop the rock wall onto William Beaumont Property, walk past the old Piedras exit, a retention pond, paved parking lots, hop another wall, trespass through some residential and commercial properties, jaywalk Alabama, etc. The bobbing heads bobbed.


You can see new pictures from Johnson Basin. EPWU is plowing land as fast as it can like the perp in a film noir movie burying the body in the woods.

New sign at Johnson Basin should read: 
"Do Not Take Pictures or Videos of Our Boondoggle or We Will Prosecute"

Schoephoserster's "Perfect Example of Natural Open Space"

Here are pictures of PSB member and UTEP Dean of Engineering, Richard "Dick" Schoephoerster's "perfect example of natural open space":

View from Piedras and Pierce, the old William Beaumont gate. 

Click, of course, to enlarge this and the following photos.

El Pasoans have this beautiful view along Pierce Avenue of Schoephoerster's perfect example of natural open space.

Rock climbing at Johnson Basin, a part of Schoephoerster's perfect example of natural open space.

A Special Invitation: Hike and Mountain Bike the Johnson Basin

Johnson Basin as seen from William Beaumont. Click to enlarge.

Hard Core Hikers, Mountain Bikers and Outdoor Enthusiasts,

Come help make a video for You Tube of the gorgeous Johnson Basin leading into the Schoephoerster Trash Preserve. PSB Board Member, Richard (“Dick” to those who know him best) Schoephoerster, called this land “a perfect example of natural open space” during a public meeting of the PSB on Wednesday. Nestled between the Cemex Quarry, the concrete and asphalt of the Alabama corridor, commercial buildings, residences, the William Beaumont complex and a Lower Dyer neighborhood near Assumption Church and Travis Elementary, this lovely 4 acres of open space was purchased with $400,000 of your Open Space money (without having to trouble anyone by going through the Open Space Advisory Board – or even, as it now seems, the PSB itself). You can see some pictures of this “perfect example of natural open space” here.

Help us make a video that will showcase what will surely become the premier new natural, recreational open space (referred to as the Johnson Basin).

Please do join us this Saturday at 1:30 p.m.  Meet at Truman and Copia. Please do bring your back pack. Bring solid, ankle high or higher boots. I’ve heard something is really piled high here. Do bring very high-powered binoculars so you can spot the wildlife.  Maps, gps, and compass are optional in case you might want to try orienteering.  

Jim Tolbert

Publisher of the elpasonaturally blog

P.S. Seriously. Please do come and be part of this video! Pass the word to others. 

The Johnson Basin Scam

PSB took nearly $400,000 of your money set aside to purchase valuable, natural open space to buy 4 acres of vacant land along with a few houses in the lower Dyer area of the City. Johnson Basin is situated near Assumption Church and school and west of Travis Elementary. It abuts William Beaumont military land on the west. It is roughly between Pierce and Lincoln Avenues on the south and north and Copia and Justus on the east and west.  Here is a picture of the area from a URS study:

Click on picture to enlarge.

Between the Johnson Basin and William Beaumont is a tall rock wall with barbed wire in some places and an iron grate where an almost 2 block fragment of what once was an arroyo flows onto the basin, narrowing to a mere ditch, bending to the north where it abruptly dead ends without a culvert at Lincoln Avenue.

The purchase of the Johnson Basin was never approved by the Open Space Advisory Board. It suddenly appeared last month in a handout "Open Space and Park/Ponds" along with its acquisition price of $394,247. OSAB never vetted it in contradiction to Mr. Ed Archuleta's claim to the PSB at their meeting this past Wednesday. More egregiously, it seems now that PSB never vetted or approved any of the purchases making up the Johnson Basin. Nevertheless, PSB members let is slide in spite of the fact that Mr. Archuleta dismissively confessed that he may not have brought the purchase or purchases before the Board. (Purchases over $25,000 must be brought to the PSB. Elpasonaturally has an Open Records Request for documents that show the agenda and minutes of meetings when the purchases were discussed and approved.)

At the last PSB meeting, member Richard Schoephoerster pontificated that the Basin was a "perfect example of natural open space." Really, Dick? Let's take a look at it shall we.

Click the above to enlarge. The questions were asked by the person who got this Google map. I can best answer the questions by simply describing what happens from the Basin to the mountain. A tall rock wall divides the basin from William Beaumont, the military medical campus that owns the property along Pierce Avenue  to above Louisiana. An iron grate divides the ditch in the Basin from the wider arroyo on William Beaumont property. That "arroyo" ends less than 2 blocks west where the old Piedras entrance to the hospital exists. West of Piedras is a retention pond which sits below parking lots on the north and to the west. Run-off from these lots feed into the retention pond. There is no connectivity between that pond and the arroyo fragment to the east. There is no connectivity between that retention pond and any natural feature to the west. A spillover is constructed at the east end of the pond and there is one across Piedras at the beginning of the arroyo fragment. It would take quite a rain event to spill any water over from one side to the other. In essence, there just isn't any connectivity. Beyond the retention pond to the west toward the mountain is the paved parking lot of Beaumont, a residential area, a commercial area, the cement and asphalt of the Alabama Street corridor and then Cemex. Where the mouth of McKelligon Canyon once cut down through this area there is only a large culvert that crosses under Alabama and comes out across the street from someone's garage door. Looking at that door and house one can see the Beaumont campus to the east. 

You can see pictures of all of this including the Johnson Basin by going here.

Certainly Johnson Basin probably is the site of some flooding during rains. Johnson Street runs down toward Dyer. A ditch with culverts pass under Travis Elementary and then to the Pershing Dam. Streets in this neighborhood were often designed to be the stormwater passageways. Haphazard development meant that drainage and neighborhoods didn't always fit together. Nevertheless, the money to fix the Johnson Basin should have come from some other place than money to buy natural open space as well. 

The mere 2 block arroyo fragment along the south side of William Beaumont has no connectivity, is cut-off in fact from non-military El Pasoans, is not ecologically sensitive, has no aesthetic value, and is, in fact,  a trash dump and trash collector. Since Mr. Schoephoerster calls it a "perfect example of natural open space", let's name it for him: the Schoephoerster Trash Preserve.

Question: will PSB do the right thing and give the money back to Open Space and take it out of some other part of their budget? Keep in mind that Open Space money is a cash account. After Parks and Recreation made-off with nearly $3,000,000 of it and Ed and Company took $400,000 for their Johnson Basin Scam, there may be less than $600,000 in that account today. Should the opportunity arise to buy a special piece of natural open space property, the money won't be there until slowly replenished by the 10% of your stormwater fee - replenished unless dipped into again with no regard to the process, of course.

More to report on all of this for sure as well as the Park/Ponds boondoggle.