Will the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee Do Its Work?

Although the PSB's land management role has now been rescued at the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee, it would seem that the PSB now would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. Yet, not everyone is happy with the resolution and the continuing issue that a reasonable condition for declaring property inexpedient is its intrinsic value as open space. 

The Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee on Land Management Practices and Policies of the PSB was created by resolution of the El Paso City Council on June 12, 2012. Item 4 of the Resolution clearly states what the purview of the committee is:


"The Committee will review the following items, but not be limited to these items [emphasis mine], in providing recommendations on the land management practices and policies of the PSB:

Land use,
Revenue sharing practices and policies,
Designation of real estate as inexpedient to the System, 
Processes for selling real estate,
Open space,
Growth,
Water resource management, and 
Asset management"


One Committee member, Charlie Wakeem (who is also the Chairman of the City's Open Space Advisory Board) in an email to the Mayor's Executive Assistant, Diana Nuñez, requested that the following items be added to the September 17, 2012 Blue Ribbon agenda:

1. Review and amend the MOU resolution of August 22 [see link above]
2. Independent audit to determine cost and benefits between PSB and City [consistent with review of "revenue sharing practices and policies" of June 12th resolution above]
3. Open Space funding policy and procedures under the Ordinance Establishing the Municipal Drainage Utility [consistent with "Open space" and "revenue sharing" items
4. Create a sustainable water budget [consistent and critical to "water resource management and asset management" in the resolution]

What was the Mayor's response? Ms. Nuñez emailed Mr. Wakeem:

"I presented your request to Mayor Cook and he believes that your agenda items are not part of the list of items that the advisory committee was tasked to provide a recommendation on. Also, in my humble opinion, I doubt that there will be time available to discuss any additional matters as we only have one more meeting before the joint meeting on September 26th where the recommendations will be presented to Council and the PSB."

When were we in such a hurry? Re-scheduling never occurs? Determining inexpediency is just one issue. And, as I have said, the response is not entirely satisfactory. There is more here than meets the eye. Or, to use one of Mayor Cook's favorite expressions: "No good deed goes unpunished." Now that the PSB/EPWU have gotten help from the environmental/conservation community, they are prepared to turn on them with a vengeance. It's Hitler reassuring Chamberlain. Wait and see. More later.

By the way, here's a copy of the Resolution creating the Blue Ribbon Committee signed by Mayor John Cook:

Advisory Committee on Public Service Board Land Management
To enlarge, click on title or icon on bottom right above.

"I'm Not a Plumber"

Last week as El Pasoans endured rolling blackout after rolling blackout, lack of natural gas and broken pipes and near empty water reservoirs, it became blatantly apparent that one person was missing: the supposed "people's" Mayor, "Guitar" Johnny Cook. So where was he? Watch this video from Hector H. Lopez of Talk Radio KHRO to find out:

Cook Opposes Natural Open Space

"Warmest regards" from John Cook. Click to enlarge.

After my October 21^st e-letter, I received more positive responses than I have ever before. “That’s awesome!” “Your newsletters on this issue are brilliant.” “You rock.” “Here! Here! Great work!” These were just a few of the very positive and encouraging messages that I got. I did get one negative response however:

“Jim:

Thanks for including me on your e-mail so I can follow how you continue to insult me and other members of the Public Service Board.

So now you've become an expert on land valuations too? Figures don't lie, Jim, but in your case liars figure.

Warmest regards,

John F. Cook
Mayor of El Paso, Texas

To say that message is beneath the office and dignity of the Mayor of the great City of El Paso just about goes without saying. Warmest regards?

Elpasonaturally has learned that Mayor John Cook has changed his position on the rezoning of land along Trans Mountain. As a member of the Public Service Board, he voted with the PSB resolution not to rezone land in the Northwest Master Plan to natural open space – a resolution which urges him to veto any attempt at rezoning by Council. The resolution was adopted at last Friday’s PSB strategic planning meeting. The vote for the resolution opposing re-zoning was 6-1. Only Dr. Richard Bonart opposed it.

I suggest that all of you email John Cook and let him know how you feel.

You can try emailing him at mayor@elpasotexas.gov but that probably goes to an assistant and not directly to him and probably never will. Instead email him at johnfcook@sbcglobal.net – the email address from which he wrote me his “dignified” message. Better yet, email one address and copy the other.

Remember that the City Plan Commission will take up the proposal at its November 4^th meeting at 1:30 p.m. Please send your comments now to Maria Acosta -AcostaMD@elpasotexas.gov. If you can, please plan to go to the meeting. Meeting information is here. You can sign up to speak.

If you haven’t, please also sign the petition and gather more signatures. Go to www.franklinmountains.org to download the hard copy of the petition or ask others to sign online at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-el-pasos-franklin-mountains/. There are now 1,025 online responses – and many more hard copy signatures!

Let’s just take a moment to go over what we can expect the “other side” to say about us and what their arguments are:

I had not expected the ad hominem attack of being called a “liar”. Some have however questioned my estimate of the land value and suggested that my estimate was too low. Their statements are certainly reasonable. Even if comparables on the land in question are higher, run the numbers and you still get very little back in the way of public benefit or monetarily as a private rate payer. In fact, it is what you pay as a rate payer month after month that really finances the operations of the El Paso Water Utility. Also, paying down the bond debt can never be done simply by selling land over a period of time. Simply put, bond ratings are not affected by zoning.

But, let’s say that, in the case of the Trans Mountain land in question in the Northwest Master Plan, the rate payer does get something financially significant in return. Two things: First, the City has to increase services to this area and that’s additional tax dollars to support that portion of development that can even run in the red (as seen recently) not to mention all of the additional costs to you as an EPWU rate payer to maintain the infrastructure in the area! Preserving beautiful open space is always much cheaper than developing and accruing ongoing responsibilities for services (you know – fire, police, streets, parks, schools, etc. – all the things you pay for with your tax dollars.)

More to the point is what one of you said in an email to me: any of us would pay much more to preserve this beautiful natural space. Cost of a new water tank and lift station: $6 million. Cost of services: millions of dollars more. Cost of preserving the beautiful Trans Mountain scenic corridor: Priceless.

My comparables may have been low. (Or maybe not. The real value of the land – and we are dealing with averages among commercial and residential properties – is what someone is willing to pay on the day you need to sell.) The beauty of the land along Trans Mountain in the Northwest Master Plan is incomparable!

The PSB will say that the Master Plan preserves arroyos and open space, etc. If that’s a value, then let’s preserve it all. What we get back for sales just doesn’t justify developing any of it. Besides, we have all seen how arroyos get preserved – in concrete! Over a year ago I participated in a cactus rescue for land above Redd Road. We were told not to harvest cacti in one area because the developer was going to keep that natural. What really happened? It all got bulldozed away.

Besides, the Northwest Master Plan wasn’t really derived from a consensus of stakeholders; and, even if it had been, that consensus is now gone and new ways of doing development and preserving natural open space really cry out for revising any plan. That the PSB paid $700,000 for the plan is no reason to pursue a bad plan. (Note that, if all the land is rezoned as Natural Open Space, there will be no need to do another master plan.)

Byrd’s proposal of preserving just 900 acres of the NW Master Plan as NOS is a good compromise. Unfortunately, the PSB is intransigent about giving up one single acre. They want the power to tell us how our land is used – and that power they now cling to.

Expect the PSB to marginalize you and me as misfits and “tree huggers” – not a mainstream of regular folk. I know many of those who have signed the petition and some of those who are on my email lists. Demographics come from all areas of the City, all professions and all political persuasions. Copies of emails written by many of you were included in yesterday’s packet of materials for the regular Open Space Advisory Board meeting. There were emails from PhD’s, business owners, home owners, business administrators, educators, architects, professors, etc. This is hardly a group of misfits.

Expect them to say that they are the only experts and should alone be trusted. What is the adage? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A few more of their arguments:

1. It’s unnecessary to rezone any of the land as NOS as their plan preserves open space (as concrete).

2. There will be a $20,000,000 revenue loss (about $1/month/ratepayer over 10 years not accounting for additional costs of infrastructure, maintenance, other taxable services to the tax payer – and this assumes only today’s number of rate payers of 177,000.)

3. Development will go to NM and we will lose $12,000,000/year in taxable revenue (but won’t accrue the higher service costs – besides didn’t NM already preserve all that land north as open space? Also, so what? Where is it written that we must always expand to get more revenue to pay for more services? There are plenty of people who live in New Mexico and work in El Paso. We benefit as they pay sales tax and we don’t pay for additional services.)

4. There will not be water and sewer service for adjacent lands. (Sure there can be – easements for added water tanks and pumping stations can always be worked out without building office buildings, houses, big box stores and more.)

Mayor Cook Meets with Jerry Patterson

So, while Texas Land Commissioner, Jerry Patterson, was in El Paso on Monday for his big fundraiser hosted by pal, Stanley Jobe, he met with Mayor John Cook and other El Paso officials. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss communication with the General Land Office. The context for the meeting was a suggestion made by the Open Space Advisory Board to write a letter to Commissioner Patterson encouraging better communication especially when it comes to leasing critical naturally-important property such as that leased by Jobe near Avispa Canyon and Arroyo 41 A next to the Franklin Mountains State Park.

Following that meeting, Mayor Cook sent this letter to Patterson:

Letter to Commissioner Patterson From Texas General Land Office - Scanned

The letter is a well-crafted, tactful and champions El Paso’s environmental interests. In very polite terms, the Mayor firmly suggests that Mr. Patterson would do himself and El Paso a huge disservice not to consider El Paso's interests and and advises the GLO to be more open and forthcoming.

That letter speaks volumes about Mayor Cook's leadership and stewardship.

Speaking of 41A, Representative Ann Lilly met with Mr. Jobe and Mr. Ed Archuleta of the PSB this past Monday and agreed on the survey conducted by Cutts Land Surveying Inc. that Jobe had paid for so that there can be a buffer between the quarry and the important mountain to river arroyo. Apparently Mr. Jobe spent some valuable time with Commissioner Patterson to get the document moved forward. Representative Lilly calls it a win.

The issue of accepting an easement designated by the survey will be on the Public Service Board's May 26th agenda.

Is Sustainability a Goal or Just Words?

The City Council of El Paso recently approved a sustainability plan. The mission plan is:

"By 2014, El Paso will be a model of sustainability and smart growth by building on its roots as an international hub, promoting sustainable enterprises and wisely using natural resources."

2014 may be too far away. Judging by the overuse of rock and gravel in private and public landscapes all over the City, the possible overbuilding of public facilities and Jobe's plan to quarry next to the largest intra-urban State Park in the country, El Paso is far from wisely using natural resources.

One wonders whether master plans such as the Sustainability document are not just words. After all, Arroyo 41A was designated to be preserved as the Mountain to River corridor. Once the General Land Office leased property containing a portion of that arroyo to Jobe Materials, public officials acted much like ostriches with their heads in the ground. Now that Stanley Jobe has made it abundantly clear that he intends to quarry all 480 acres, City officials say that there is nothing that they can do - City zoning laws apparently do not apply to State of Texas land managed by the GLO even if that land is within the city's limits.

Recently, Public Service Board/EPWU officials proposed an Alternative route for the Mountain to River Trail. One of the top officials of the EPWU told me that they had decided on the route once they realized that Jobe intended to mine limestone in Arroyo 41A. The implication was that the realization was fairly recent. However, they must have known that he would do so when they gave him access to the land. By law you can't landlock someone else and so El Paso Water Utilities had to grant Jobe an easement through their property to the GLO land and did so on May 20, 2005.

It would appear that EPWU/PSB officials have known for a number of years now that a portion of the proposed Mountain to River corridor could very well be mined. If they knew, then shouldn't the City Council also have known? After all, Mayor Cook is a board member of the PSB. If City Council knew so early on, what was the point of accepting in its entirety the January 2007 Open Space plan ("Towards a Bright Future: A Green Infrastructure Plan for El Paso, Texas") that called for preserving all of Arroyo 41A?

Click on image to enlarge

The alternative route is the light blue line on the map above. Note that only a small - yet critical - portion of 41A goes through the very bottom of the GLO land leased to Jobe. One wonders why pressure cannot be applied from elected and other officials and the public at large to make Jobe forsake that small portion of land. If sustainability and the wise use of resources is the goal, why not start right here?

Of course, there is yet another threat to Arroyo 41A a bit west of the GLO/Jobe Quarry: the Desert Springs development currently plans reducing the 1200 foot arroyo to just 120 feet, concreting the sides and building some roads over it in several places. To say that the developer's plans may be grandfathered so that he doesn't have to comply to codes requiring keeping the arroyo to at least 300 feet, is still missing the larger point that El Paso envisions one thing and does another.

An insider recently informed me:

"Individual City staff may or may not be in favor of "economic development" as exemplified by Jobe and the homebuilders' style of growth. The staff is mainly concerned with staying out of trouble, and the developers can make big trouble if any legal boundaries are crossed.

"The zoning and subdivision codes are the legal tools that have to be followed. The developers worked very hard to ensure that those codes were "vetted" by their own lawyers, lobbyists and friends before they were adopted by the City. If the land is zoned for whatever the developer wants, the law allows them to do it. If it's not zoned for what they want the law allows them to request a zone change and the Council can grant it.

"The Open Space plan and the General Land Use Plan are legally just "guides" to decision making by the Council, so they can approve zoning that is not in conformity with the Plans. (There is actually some legal precedent for holding Councils more accountable to such plans, but it is rare in Texas. There may be some precedent on the GLO immunity issue as well, but of course not from Texas.)

"Botttom line- the developers have the law on their side in most cases and there is too much apathy to try to change the laws again. (Look at the all the fighting over the subdivision code rewrite last year that resulted in nothing more than some very minor changes.)"

If El Paso wants to make sustainability and the wise use of resources its goal, it must begin to stand up and, at the very least, use the bully pulpit, or even more, grow a backbone and start standing up legally to those who would destroy riparian corridors and thus cheapen all of our lives and fortunes.