It's A New Year And Beach Battle Still Rages!
The Packery Channel On
Padre Island, Still A Boondoggle!
(Click on pic for larger image)
In todays issue of the Caller/Times(Thursday, Jan.5, '06) there is more of interest concernming the ongoing battle between beach developers and beach preservationists.
Austin developer Paul Shexnailder has now revealed that not only does he want the beach adjacent to his proposed development closed to traffic, thus limiting the area set aside for the public , but he also claims control of a wider corridor along the length of the Packery Channel.
This corridor, which is 300 feet wide, would be reduced to 100 feet for public access. The remaining footage would then be leased out to private businesses.
This area had previously been considered as a possible public park.
Shexnailder is full of "surprises!"
Michael McCutchon, a local anesthesiologist and a member of Surfriders said this latest "surprise" amounts to a case of "bait and switch" by the city.
Unfazed, Mayor Henry Garrett, apparently ever ready to do the bidding of beach developers, said "It's going to happen."
This is yet another "surprise" after the sudden about face by the council on beach restrictions. How many more "surprises" are waiting?
The following is a response I sent in to the paper concerning a piece in today's op-ed page by Gladys Choyke, a beach give-away proponent.
Dear Editor,
There is an op-ed piece in today’s paper by an advocate of the Packery Channel beach resort development.
“Give people a choice of the beach they want,” read the headlines over her piece.
“There are those of us who choose to go to the beach, set up a chair and enjoy the beach without worrying that we are going to be in the path of one of those who choose to drive along the beach,” she says, in an argument that has no merit at all.
If she has her way she will have to carry her chair and what ever else she uses at the beach for maybe a quarter of a mile or more from the parking lots which will have to be built, at a great environmental cost, maintained and have security provided.
At this moment anyone who wants to go to a beach that has no traffic has a number of choices in the city controlled beach area, the Mustang Island State Park, the National Sea Shore and in the Port Aransas city beach park. Also the beach in the Port Aransas city limits allows cars to drive on the beach but separates the traffic from the area immediately along the beach.
For most of the year anyone can go to long stretches of beach where there are no cars, and no people and permit all types of beach use in complete freedom and relaxation.
The author of the piece in question says, “I have lived here for almost 16 years...” as though she has a proprietary right to dictate to others how the island should be used. There are many of us who have lived here a heck of a lot longer than that, does our proprietary rights trump hers? Of course not! That is the point. What is in question has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money and the giving away of public assets to private interests.
The developer in this case is playing a game of trying to dictate to the public his terms, which now include a taking of even more beach area land alongside the channel which will provide his resort with a private marina and private access to the Gulf.
He reminds one of the subject of an old blues number, “He has a hand full of gimmee and a mouth full of much obliged!”
Sincerely,
Dicky Neely
4141 Whiteley Dr. #201
Corpus Christi, Tx. 78418
361-937-3768
Padre Island, Still A Boondoggle!
(Click on pic for larger image)
In todays issue of the Caller/Times(Thursday, Jan.5, '06) there is more of interest concernming the ongoing battle between beach developers and beach preservationists.
Austin developer Paul Shexnailder has now revealed that not only does he want the beach adjacent to his proposed development closed to traffic, thus limiting the area set aside for the public , but he also claims control of a wider corridor along the length of the Packery Channel.
This corridor, which is 300 feet wide, would be reduced to 100 feet for public access. The remaining footage would then be leased out to private businesses.
This area had previously been considered as a possible public park.
Shexnailder is full of "surprises!"
Michael McCutchon, a local anesthesiologist and a member of Surfriders said this latest "surprise" amounts to a case of "bait and switch" by the city.
Unfazed, Mayor Henry Garrett, apparently ever ready to do the bidding of beach developers, said "It's going to happen."
This is yet another "surprise" after the sudden about face by the council on beach restrictions. How many more "surprises" are waiting?
The following is a response I sent in to the paper concerning a piece in today's op-ed page by Gladys Choyke, a beach give-away proponent.
Dear Editor,
There is an op-ed piece in today’s paper by an advocate of the Packery Channel beach resort development.
“Give people a choice of the beach they want,” read the headlines over her piece.
“There are those of us who choose to go to the beach, set up a chair and enjoy the beach without worrying that we are going to be in the path of one of those who choose to drive along the beach,” she says, in an argument that has no merit at all.
If she has her way she will have to carry her chair and what ever else she uses at the beach for maybe a quarter of a mile or more from the parking lots which will have to be built, at a great environmental cost, maintained and have security provided.
At this moment anyone who wants to go to a beach that has no traffic has a number of choices in the city controlled beach area, the Mustang Island State Park, the National Sea Shore and in the Port Aransas city beach park. Also the beach in the Port Aransas city limits allows cars to drive on the beach but separates the traffic from the area immediately along the beach.
For most of the year anyone can go to long stretches of beach where there are no cars, and no people and permit all types of beach use in complete freedom and relaxation.
The author of the piece in question says, “I have lived here for almost 16 years...” as though she has a proprietary right to dictate to others how the island should be used. There are many of us who have lived here a heck of a lot longer than that, does our proprietary rights trump hers? Of course not! That is the point. What is in question has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money and the giving away of public assets to private interests.
The developer in this case is playing a game of trying to dictate to the public his terms, which now include a taking of even more beach area land alongside the channel which will provide his resort with a private marina and private access to the Gulf.
He reminds one of the subject of an old blues number, “He has a hand full of gimmee and a mouth full of much obliged!”
Sincerely,
Dicky Neely
4141 Whiteley Dr. #201
Corpus Christi, Tx. 78418
361-937-3768
posted by Unknown at
8:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home