Thanks for visiting.
Stone Creek-Part One, What you haven't been told.
The issues surrounding Stone Creek have been emotional from the very start. It is well known and even understandable, that
people who move into a development would be prone to seek that the rest of their development be of larger homes and
larger lots with higher standards than those they purchased. It is understandable for people to want their neighbor's
property to be more expensive because it improves their own investment. Often there
are valid issues concerning traffic, noise, quality of life, and safety that need addressed as additional phases of a development
are built. However, it is human nature
to assume the worst, and combining this natural tendency with misinformation can lead to a very volatile situation.
Stone Creek proved to be no exception.
While the goals of some extremely vocal Stone Creek residents may have been understandable, the problem is that it had
long been against the law in Texas for a City to involuntarily force a developer to make changes concerning
lot size, home size, lot coverage and other non-safety related criteria after a development had been approved by that City.
Stone Creek had been approved back in 1986 by a previous City Council and the water lines, roads, and design of Phase One
had been built according to the approved plan. For years,
this law, called the "Texas Vesting Law" had been in effect and while it had expiration dates, it was overwhelmingly renewed each legislative
session. In 1996, the Vesting Law was not renewed due to a procedural move made which caused
several bills, that would surely have passed, to be dropped in the waning hours of the legislature.
The original zoning plan for Stone Creek had been
approved in 19 8 6 and Phase One, which consisted of about 20% of the approved development, was soon completed.
In 19 9 7, the failure of this law to be renewed opened the door for the City to forcefully increase the
zoning criteria concerning lot size and home size in Stone Creek and the City did so. Under the exact wording of the expired law,
it was debatable whether it would have prevented the City's actions. With the uncertainty of how other laws would be
interpreted to apply to the City's actions and wanting to stay out
of the legal system, both the developer and responsible City leaders began negotiations to make an improved development with larger
lots, larger homes, and other quality of life and safety items. However,
a minority of Council members pushed too far with their ever changing demands and the developer, who initially was willing
to compromise, felt compelled to sue. He eventually won a Judgment against the City for $485,000 plus 10% per year interest. If
calculated from the date of the damage occurring this would add up about $600,000 not counting over $200,000 in legal fees
from this one suit alone.
Unfortunately for Glenn Heights' Tax Payers, against the efforts of me, our City's Law Firm, the Texas Municipal League, and
representatives from a few other Texas Cities, the "Texas Vesting Law" was not only reinstated but it also contained a
retroactive clause
and wording that was much more restrictive than previous Vesting Laws had contained. It was signed into law shortly after
the
close of the last legislative session but the retroactive clause made it apply to the time period in which we had rezoned Stone Creek.
It was at that point that your City Council should have exercised their duty by
ending
the City's liability and suing for settlement. I expended tremendous efforts trying to get the Planning Commission,
neighborhood leaders, and the Council to immediately start settlement talks, but instead a Council led public relations war
against my name and reputation was waged. I admit, and regret, that I failed to frame
the discussion at City Hall as well as in the "Town Meetings" on the single relevant issue, that being that the
"Vesting Law" being re-instated meant we would have to be willing to
compromise in order to get any improvement from the original Stone Creek plan at all. I also failed to fully investigate what
type of density reduction we could have negotiated with no asphalt roads being allowed. Nevertheless,
doing the right thing for
Stone Creek Residents and all Glenn Heights taxpayers was not even seriously considered by the City Council.
Due to the Councils
failing to act responsibly, a second suit was soon filed, argued,
and lost based solely on the "Texas Vesting Law". A second Judgment was awarded to the developer repealing the more
restrictive
zoning on Stone Creek and re-instating the 1986 Zoning. Upon appeal, this
Judgment was upheld by a State District Judge just last month. Currently the only thing keeping the
development from
continuing is that the City Council, once again, is appealing the State Court's decision. If not settled by compromise,
I am convinced that
the original zoning will remain re-instated and all the negotiated improvements previously available with custom homes,
estate lots, aesthetic controls, traffic being routed around the existing neighborhood, land for a neighborhood park, and
much larger home minimums will all go away. As if
that is not enough, the Judgment also orders the City to pay the developer's attorney fees as well.
Is there any doubt why the Council does not want you to know these things? Why have three members of the Council
(Jesus T. Humphrey, June Johnson, and Mary Coffman) constantly orchestrated, participated in, or encouraged attacks on
the name and
reputation of anyone that disagreed with them on their handling of Stone Creek? Why did the current Council order the
City Attorney to write a threatening letter to the Editor of the City's Official Newspaper? Why won't they talk directly
to or
respond to the editor themselves? Was this an attempt to scare him away from writing about the City's legal losses? Were
they successful since the latest Judgment against the City went unreported? More importantly, how much will the tax
increases be to enable payment of damages to the developer and what services are going to be cut? It is time for the
Council, not the City Attorney, to provide some answers! What do you expect the Council to do next? Keep in mind that the Original
Zoning has been ordered re-instated and upon the completion of all appeals, the developer will lose all incentive to compromise.
Even though I realized there was a natural bias against the Stone Creek developer, I still advocated giving the people most
affected by this development a direct line to the truthful information and asking them to help resolve the situation.
My plan was to appoint a committee made up of the most vocal of the neighborhood and let them be briefed by our attorney
on the "Texas Vesting Law" and the actual consequences and risks of continuing to fight. I felt that the Council had
become deaf to the facts and that even the most bias people in town would be able to see that we had to compromise.
When I tried
to establish this neighborhood group, I was ridiculed by the Council minority for my
efforts.
My proposal to inform the neighborhood about the actual improvements we could obtain and our realistic legal predicament were
vigorously opposed because the above three Council members would have lost their power base and credibility had the complete truth become known. Now
when over 900 lots, with homes starting at 1350 square feet in size (and with maximums restricting how large they can be),
are "crammed into" (using their words) the 240 remaining acres
of the Stone Creek Development will the compromise number of 725 lots with mostly concrete roads (or 695 lots with all
asphalt roads), with homes starting at a mix of 1550,
1800, 2000 and 2100 square
feet (with no maximum size), still be unpopular? Will these Council Members still be
given the "unconditional support" (also using their words) they have been seeking? For the sake of this City, I hope not.
It is time for concerned citizens from Stone Creek and all over Glenn Heights to push for the best compromise we can get and
end this hemorrhage of our tax money pouring into the court system. They are trying vainly to fight the construction of
houses
like ours and to keep people like us
from moving to Glenn Heights. They think we have enough good people but they are wrong.
I think
a compromise with larger homes, larger lots, higher building standards, and aesthetic controls is still possible if, and only
if,
reasonable people are allowed to do reasonable things. But, what are your elected officials doing? The answer is
NOTHING, unless you count spending truck loads of tax money on attorneys (ours and theirs) that
could be used for the City Park, the Police Department, the Fire
Department, for much needed Street Improvements, for Utility System Improvements (or rate reductions), all more worthy of the
funds, but which have
been recklessly pitted
against each other by this years City Council leadership.
You have not read this in the paper, but your City Council broke the law and, to this day, has refused to make amends.
You and the
rest of the tax payers in Glenn Heights are going to be paying the penalty for several years through compromised
services and increased taxes. Any chance of a win/win compromise becomes fainter and fainter with each day and with each loss
in the courts. I know you care and I hope you will demand action from the officials you have elected.
Coming next-----"Stone Creek-Part Two, Warning Signs and Missed Opportunities."
Email your comments and questions Direct to all City Council Members, our City Manager and Me.
