.jpg)
The trio of legal eagles at 1000 E. Elizabeth St. had carefully couched the sale of Lincoln Park as a conveyance, transfer or gifting to avoid what the municipal code requires for the "sale" of a public park, namely, an election.
Here, once more, the municipal code:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODETITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE A. MUNICIPAL ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
CHAPTER 253. SALE OR LEASE OF PROPERTY BY MUNICIPALITIES
Sec. 253.001. SALE OF PARK LAND, MUNICIPAL BUILDING SITE, OR
ABANDONED ROADWAY. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the governing body of a municipality may sell and convey land or an interest in land that the municipality owns, holds, or claims as a public square, park, or site for the city hall or other municipal building or that is an abandoned part of a street or alley. A sale under this section may include the improvements on the property.
(b) Land owned, held, or claimed as a public square or park may not be sold unless the issue of the sale is submitted to the qualified voters of the municipality at an election and is approved by a majority of the votes received at the election;provided, however, this provision shall not apply to the sale of land or right-of-way for drainage purposes to a district, county, or corporation acting on behalf of a county or district.
Agenda item #8 contains the clever Sossi-speak that so tantalized Tony Martinez and Juliet Garcia:
8. Consideration and ACTION on Resolution Number 2014-064 concerning the negotiation, transfer, and conveyance of Lincoln Park to the University of Texas System, and authorizing City of Brownsville staff to undertake such matter. (Charlie Cabler—City Manager)
Unfortunately, the same devious legalese used in the actual agenda item was not used in the binder supporting the item. The binder, like the agenda, is made routinely public by the City of Brownsville, so is part of the public record.
Notice how the "binder" describes the proposed transfer of Lincoln Park:
c) The City of Brownsville City Commission further authorizes City of Brownsville staff to commence negotiation with the University of Texas System for the sale of the 47.96 Acre Tract currently known as Lincoln Park.
c) The City of Brownsville City Commission further authorizes City of Brownsville staff to commence negotiation with the University of Texas System for the sale of the 47.96 Acre Tract currently known as Lincoln Park.
 |
| Lincoln Park entrance with our vintage red Ford F-150 parked inside |
But, there is yet another approach to blocking this foolish sale.
Blogger Bobby Wightman-Cervantes emailed me October 31, 2014:
bobbywc58@yahoo.com
Oct 31 (2 days ago)
to rvpark645
Tuesdays meeting violates open meetings act. Iam filing formal compmaint. Lawyer ready to sue on wednesday. Term conveyance too vague. Must say gift if not sale
bobbywc58@yahoo.com
Oct 31 (2 days ago)
to rvpark645Tuesdays meeting violates open meetings act. Iam filing formal compmaint. Lawyer ready to sue on wednesday. Term conveyance too vague. Must say gift if not sale
Wightman asserts that the vague, actually inaccurate, wording of the agenda item violates the Open Meetings Act. While he does not expect Tony Martinez or the City Attorney to grasp this principle, he anticipates UT's legal staff will see the problem.
So, Luis, you have two options to save Lincoln Park for current and future generations. Exercise either or both options and win the gratitude of a citizenry frustrated by an inept, non-democratic mayor and city commission.
Boring. There's LIFE out there, jim.
ReplyDeleteSubsection (a) has an "except as provided by Subsection (b) - which refers specifically to a public park. (see below). Under Section (a), the wording of "sell or convey land or an interest in land" appears to cover all types of conveyances of public land. The intent of this law is pretty clear to me. A city can sell or convey or an interest in land - which covers "conveyance" EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY SUBSECTION (b) - where public parks are concerned. It doesn't matter what type of "conveyance" they are contemplating. And a District Court can stop the City from selling/conveying the land until an election is held. They can, however, do what they want with municipal owned buildings or land meant for municipal buildings or abandoned streets and alleys. But NOT public parks or public squares.
ReplyDelete(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the governing body of a municipality may sell and convey land or an interest in land that the municipality owns, holds, or claims as a public square, park, or site for the city hall or other municipal building or that is an abandoned part of a street or alley. A sale under this section may include the improvements on the property.
(b) Land owned, held, or claimed as a public square or park may not be sold unless the issue of the sale is submitted to the qualified voters of the municipality at an election and is approved by a majority of the votes received at the election;provided, however, this provision shall not apply to the sale of land or right-of-way for drainage purposes to a district, county, or corporation acting on behalf of a county or district.
LS
ReplyDeletePon el cerebro en funcionamiento
Y no la lengua en movimiento.
Obviously Mark Sossi, the city attorney, has designed a way to hire outside counsel to keep this action in the hands of attorneys if Saenz challenges. Tony Martinez, as an attorney, is surely aware of this limitation and has not gone to ballot because he knows he would lose....so he puts it in the hands of attorney's....who will make lots of money and a decision will be made to those with the biggest pockets. And, remember that Julieta is behind Tony, nudging him forward like a fat lineman pushes a runner to gain another yard.
ReplyDeleteTony Martinez is a member of the bar and knows that "the law" means what the courts say it means, not what the law itself says.
ReplyDeleteThey are shaking in their boots. They know the law. They just didn't figure on anyone else noticing it.
ReplyDeleteits not being sold.
ReplyDelete