Wednesday, October 12, 2005

after 10/11/05 meeting

The Star Telegram report this morning was not very positive. It did not include many of the comments which were made from last nights meeting by our citizens group. It seems the Mayor asked the planning department if we would have proper services and was told after the meeting that adequate services will be provided. He stated that he planned to proceed with the full annexation on November 8th. As we suspected, they did not hear anything that was stated in our presentations and are refusing to negotiate reasonably or in good faith.
Additionally, Burdette, our future representative, refused to listen to our concerns. His remarks are an indication of the representation we can expect in the future. The message from 100+ citizens did not make it loud enough for these folks ears and hearts. The City Council appears to be bent on taking us into their city at the November meeting. It appears that nothing we do seems to make any difference.

Burdette has been extremely ugly with his remarks. He wasn't on the City Council at that time so his statements appear to be nothing less than arrogant noise.

Keep writing to these people, call them everyday, and possibly they might change their minds.

If anyone can find their home phone numbers, addresses, cell phone numbers, or pager, please publish them to the web site. I will call them everyday and leave a message for them everyday. It might not make any difference in their decision to annex us but it will bother them to know were are going to be the "watch dog group" for their current and future terms in office.

People with these characteristics of ethical and moral behaviors usually have much to hide. Hopefully, we can find something of interest for the Attorney General.

God Bless,
Stephen Ruten



Sunday, October 09, 2005

Nature of the case

Nature of the Case Hughes V. City of Rockwall, Texas
This case involves the application of a statute that expressly provides for arbitration between a landowner and a city when the city, upon the petition of a landowner, fails to act to include the landowner's property in a three year annexation plan.





fight 287 let to council

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 12:58 AM
Subject: Involuntary Annexation of Willow Springs Ranch Area

Dear Mayor and City Council,

As elected officials serving the public's interest it is extremely important for you all to listen to our concerns. The planning department management, Bob Riley, appears to not be telling you everything that happened nor even the correct timeline that occurred for notification. He apparently has a skewed agenda and has not listened to us on any level of reason nor has he reported our concerns to the City Council as promised during any of our previous meetings. I am personally upset that Mr. Riley made NO effort to report to Council as promised from our previous meeting last month. However, I am even more upset that the City Council appears unwilling to listen to the property owners concerns from the Willow Springs Ranch area.

The current peace officer availability effort is 7 officers from the Tarrant County Sheriff's Office patrol this area on a 7x24 basis and are on site within 5 to 7 minutes from any call. The city has proposed only one officer and a much larger geographical territory to patrol leaving us in an unsafe condition and a minimal waiting time of 45 minutes or longer even in a life threatening situation. The wait time could be much longer for normal police call incident reports ! If this was your family waiting for a policeman to arrive how would you vote ?

Our current fire department services arrive within 5 to 7 minutes after a call from both Saginaw and Haslet and have proven to contain any fire within a few minutes from their arrival. The City of Fort Worth has proposed one small fire truck with less than 5 minutes of on-board water ! The truck is to be located in a rented building approximately 45 minutes from our location (if no trains are blocking the crossings). Please understand, two homes have already been destroyed in Sandera Ranch because of the inadequate response time from the nearest Fort Worth Fire department. How many additional homes and lives must be ruined before the City of Fort Worth provides adequate protection services ? Why is this area not being allowed adequate fire protection services and a city owned property with the usual three trucks as in most fire stations ? It seems reasonable in my opinion that renting a temporary building will cost taxpayers much more than building now to service this area. What studies and proof have been completed to indicate paying rent for temporary building is a responsible fiscal decision that will save taxpayers money and protect their assets from destruction by fire ? How long does it take for any wood framed house to be totally engulfed in flames ? Do you think that 45 minutes waiting time is adequate response time for the safety of families ? What if this was your home ?

Additionally, in Sandera Ranch one man has already died from a heart attack while waiting over 45 minutes for ambulance service from the City of Fort Worth. Please understand the current ambulance services from both Saginaw and Haslet arrive in our neighborhood within 5 to 7 minutes when called. Saginaw and Haslet have no formal or informal agreement with the City of Fort Worth. Your City has previously tried to use brute force to control everything instead of using essential ethical management practices of courtesy and providing customer services with its neighbors from both of these communities.

If you mistakenly vote to annex our Willow Springs Ranch neighborhood our lives will be ruined from the criminals which will steal our property while waiting for your already overburdened police department to show up, your fire department to respond before our homes are completely destroyed, or even an ambulance to respond to our aged population with heart problems or stroke. You should have the ethics and morals to ensure this doesn't happen by delaying the annexation decision or vote to remove it from consideration for a few more years.

Please help me understand your personal reasoning in this process and I hope you are willing to listen to ours. Why would you ever consider full annexation of our homes at this time instead of taking a more reasonable approach and waiting a few years until the health and welfare infrastructure is available to justify the annexation ? Why the unreasonable timeline of NOW instead of simply waiting a few years ? We simply want to protect our families from harm's way. Allowing us some additional time would make us feel like we need to belong to the Fort Worth community instead of hating the thought of it because we are left in an unsafe condition. If you make the decision to force full annexation on us based upon the skewed misinformation, bad judgment, and false budget projections from your planning staff then you must be ignorant of our concerns and the financial facts. Mr. Riley must have intentionally kept our conversations and information from the City Council even though he has promised to convey our anxiety and concerns about full annexation in such a short time frame. His reported dates are incorrect as the first any of us property owners heard about the Limited Purpose Annexation was after our homes were already built in 2004 and in the spring of 2005 ! MR. Riley claims the limited purpose annexation took place five days after the Plat was made ! This should raise someone's eyebrows on the potential ethical behavior of such an individual. Additionally, the planning department and members of the City Council signed that Plat ! Why sign it if your intentions were to not live up to the agreement ?

Please understand that if you plan to vote for our neighborhood to be fully annexed in November then we have nothing else to lose. It will be a life threatening situation for us homeowners and I just do not understand how you can ignore our voices and sleep at night. We cannot afford to become part of the City of Fort Worth right now but will gladly welcome them as friends and neighbors in a few more years. Why would you want us as an enemy for your future instead of a friend ? Why is this the only home sub-division that is being attacked by Fort Worth at this time ? Is this a retribution response to losing a law suit from this developer in 2002 ? Why will you not listen to reason and is their anything we can do or provide you which will allow you to hear our combined voices ? Our voices have not changed since we first heard about the Limited Propose Annexation last spring (not as Bob Riley stated as 2003). When the Plat was made and when our Title policies were issued it stated "Unincorporated Tarrant County" not "Limited purpose annexed by the City of Fort Worth."

I sincerely hope you are not unreasonable and are willing to discuss this further with our home owners before considering or making such a unfavorable vote. I will be at your City Council meeting to help you better understand our position and our concerns. None of us want to feel unsafe or forced into a life threatening situation and I am sure you can understand how strongly we feel about this issue.

Sincerely,
Stephen Ruten
Haslet, Texas





Hughes v. contact ATTY GENL 10-05

CAFA Members, Concerned Public

Contact Attorney General Greg Abbott (TEXAS)


remind him of how important this case
Hughes v. Rockwall
is to the rights of property owners, and request he
file a brief in support of Hughes' position.

By U.S. Mail:

Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548

Physical Address:

Office of the Attorney General
300 W. 15th Street
Austin, TX 78701

Consumer Protection Regional Offices
Child Support Field Offices.
By e-mail:

For Public Information & Assistance, E-mail your questions and comments to: cac@oag.state.tx.us click here
Write to Attorney General Greg Abbott

-----Original Message-----
Ventura, Misty
To: rahobbsj@aol.com *NEW* RAHobbsJ@charter.net Darlia Hobbs- Cafa President e-mail RAHobbsJ@charter.net;
TexasPetron@aol.com Sent: Mon, 3 Oct 2005

Please encourage Citizens Against Forced Annexation members to contact the Attorney General, remind him of how important this case is to the rights of property owners, and request he file a brief in support of Hughes' position. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Contact me with questions or concerns. Misty

-----Original Message-----
Ventura, Misty Monday, October 03, 2005
excerpted from letter to Matt.Stowe@oag.state.tx.us
Subject: Hughes v. Rockwall


Matt is working in the Attorney General Office of Texas oag.state.tx.us -
Hughes v. Rockwall

is an important case affecting property owners rights with respect to municipal annexation now pending before the Texas Supreme Court. Given the impact this case will have on the rights of property owners, we request the Attorney General prepare an amicus brief in support of Hughes' position in this matter. We anticipate oral arguments will be scheduled for November 2005. An amicus brief, to have the most value, would need to be filed before the end of October. If it would increase our chances of gaining AG support for this amicus brief, I am available to answer questions and discuss concerns.

Contact me with questions or concerns or if additional information is required before a decision can be made. Misty

Misty M. Ventura
Hughes & Luce, LLP
Dallas, Texas
214.939.5462 telephone



PREVIOUS POSTS
2007 Annual Meeting
7/19 after lake park meeting
help em tpwd park July 06
Good Meet Cand
VOTE for CPicht WB
EMANO meet cand 4-12
opening 2006 letter
March 7, 2006 Meeting @ 7pm
join now
Mar 7 meeting

ARCHIVES


December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

December 2005

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

July 2006

August 2006

December 2006