Quote:

---

Bryan voters may get a chance this November to vote on 10 wide-ranging proposed amendments to the city charter.

The "Bryan New Directions" political action committee began a petition drive Friday to push for the 10 propositions to appear on the November ballot. If the PAC successfully gathers signatures from 5 percent of the city's qualified voters, Bryan residents will get to vote on each potential charter amendment individually.

Several of the propositions stem from hot-button issues in the city, including so-called stealth dorms in residential neighborhoods, the recent move of the Hear Citizens portion of City Council meetings to 5:30 p.m., and ongoing discussions on affordable housing and upgrades to the city's drainage and sewer system.

District 4 Councilman Mike Southerland, who drafted the propositions, said a recent City Council vote for a contentious conditional-use permit for an apartment complex was the tipping point that inspired the charter amendments.

---

http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/pac-pushes-to-amend-bryan-city-charter/article_48eca58b-f637-50e7-a5a6-4b9d3b313534.html

He can't get anything done on the council, so he's going to try an end run.

Quote:

---

Another housing-related proposition would require the city to conduct an annual needs analysis for low- to moderate-income housing and develop a plan to address 15 percent of the needs each year. A companion proposition would partly generate the funding to address those needs by levying fees on permits issued for new construction -- up to 5 percent of the estimated valuation for commercial and up to 10 percent of the estimated valuation for single-family homes.

---

Am I reading this right? They want to add a 10% fee for new home construction in Bryan (who already has the highest property taxes in the area)? So, that new $300k house will now cost $330k so they can take the extra $30k and use it to build low income housing?

Midtown SAHD said:

---

I don't live in Bryan, so no dog in this fight, but is it really an "end run" if a proposition is put before the voters to decide a law? Seems to me to just be good democracy.

---

You are correct, it is not an "end run" but it might be a complete waste of time that only costs the city time and money. Sort of reminds me of the whole Wellborn fiasco we had to endure in College Station a few years back.

The common mantra around both cities is that homes under about 270,000 lose money for the city.
City services provided are not cost recovered on taxes for houses under the ~270K point.
That's about the break even point for builders as well, thus the local shortage of first time home buyer and young professional housing.
Then you have a large contingent of old residents that are flat opposed to growth period, and wish they could roll things back to the mid 70s-80s.
At least they are trying to hide it, some cities just charge a flat $50,000 new meter charge.
There could be a few drivers to this, take your pick which you think might be behind it.

Wow. It never ends.

No it doesn't. Southerland-bashing is as time honored here as trashing new restaurants!

Anyone attend the first meeting and care to give a summary.

https://www.bryantx.gov/2017charterreview/

What's scary to me about this petition is that while almost all of the items are well intentioned but flawed, 3 of the items would be absolutely disastrous to the city of Bryan. The people who support the petition say "well then don't vote for those three", but this is an off year election and turnout is likely to be very small. Chances are that people who do turn out to vote will be mostly those in support of all the items.

gus1390 said:

---

https://www.bryantx.gov/2017charterreview/

What's scary to me about this petition is that while almost all of the items are well intentioned but flawed, 3 of the items would be absolutely disastrous to the city of Bryan. The people who support the petition say "well then don't vote for those three", but this is an off year election and turnout is likely to be very small. Chances are that people who do turn out to vote will be mostly those in support of all the items.

---

Sad to say, Southerland had some success in stopping development of the Bryan golf course a while back via petition, so he and his group are at it again.

Quote:

---

Southerland had some success in stopping development of the Bryan golf course a while back via petition, so he and his group are at it again.

---

but I am sure this independent panel and independent lawyer are wrong in Southerland's eyes just like the independent auditor was about Traditions .

Quote:

---

Committee Note: The Committee reviewed the ten propositions appearing in the petition that is currently being circulated among the community for signatures. We evaluated each of the proposals openly and objectively. However, no support arose among the Committee members for any of the propositions. While there may have been support for some of the objectives the petition sought to achieve, most of the opposition that was voiced questioned whether the charter was the proper means of pursuing those goals (see Appendix "G" on home-rule charters). Additionally, there were many legal and practical impediments with implementing some of the propositions.

According to Special Counsel to the Committee, a home-rule municipality "is empowered to adopt or amend its charter in any manner in which it may desire, consistent and in accordance with the state constitution and the general laws of this State." Burch v. City of San Antonio, 518 S.W.2d 540,543 (Tex. 1975). Generally speaking, if a valid petition calling for a charter election is presented to the City, the proposed charter amendments typically must go before the voters. Under the process provided in Texas, the legality of the individual charter amendments is determined later (i.e., upon passage after the election). In re Robinson 175 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) citing In re Roof, 130 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. App-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004). If a charter provision conflicts with a state law, the state law controls. Any action taken pursuant to the illegal proposition is void ab initio (municipal laws inconsistent with state law are void ab initio). City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co., 100 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex. 1936).)

The Committee simply cannot in good faith recommend to the City Council that the City of Bryan put items before the voters when we have good reason to conclude in advance that certain items are impractical, inappropriate, or unlawful (and thus not legally enforceable). Therefore, the Committee rejects each proposition, and recommends against the petition.

---

On the Next Door site, representatives of the New Directions group stated "it is because of the realtor group on City Council that we have to resort to Charter Amendments". I asked what realtor group exists on council and received no reply.

Later in response to several others raising the issue of the independent groups recommendation and questioning the appropriateness of amending the city charter and some of the specific petition items, another of their representatives posted the following

"Here are some facts about the Charter Review Committee:

Everyone of these men were appointed by the City Council, but Mike Southerland's choices were overruled by the remainder of the Council! Not one of these men, as far as I know, lives in North Bryan, Castle Heights, or any other area with flooding issues. Most of these men were large contributors to the Mayor and his cronies. They did absolutely no research such as visiting with city staff or residents! They claim their meetings were open meetings, but no one knew when they were held!"

So apparently the secret realtor cabal on council and the mayor's cronies are some kind of conspiracy group against them. This would be funny if it weren't such a serious issue.

gus1390 said:

---

On the Next Door site, representatives of the New Directions group stated "it is because of the realtor group on City Council that we have to resort to Charter Amendments". I asked what realtor group exists on council and received no reply.

Later in response to several others raising the issue of the independent groups recommendation and questioning the appropriateness of amending the city charter and some of the specific petition items, another of their representatives posted the following

"Here are some facts about the Charter Review Committee:

Everyone of these men were appointed by the City Council, but Mike Southerland's choices were overruled by the remainder of the Council! Not one of these men, as far as I know, lives in North Bryan, Castle Heights, or any other area with flooding issues. Most of these men were large contributors to the Mayor and his cronies. They did absolutely no research such as visiting with city staff or residents! They claim their meetings were open meetings, but no one knew when they were held!"

So apparently the secret realtor cabal on council and the mayor's cronies are some kind of conspiracy group against them. This would be funny if it weren't such a serious issue.

---

What's next the Earth is flat? We faked the moon landing? 9/11 was a hoax? It's pathetic

Sounds like one of you fine citizens should run against Southerland.

I nominate techno.

FlyRod said:

---

Sounds like one of you fine citizens should run against Southerland.

I nominate techno.

---

I'd have to move to SMD-4 , no thanks.

Nice. Insult my SMD...SMH.

Why is that an insult?

I like my home and it's close to my office, and it's paid for

S