I see a whole lot of Bryan *residents* complaining about this, but I haven't heard much out of the Bryan mayor. Maybe that's due to his other issue that's being brought up in the press…?
Hornbeck said:
I see a whole lot of Bryan *residents* complaining about this, but I haven't heard much out of the Bryan mayor. Maybe that's due to his other issue that's being brought up in the press…?
Hornbeck said:
I see a whole lot of Bryan *residents* complaining about this, but I haven't heard much out of the Bryan mayor. Maybe that's due to his other issue that's being brought up in the press…?
birdman said:
Unless I've misread everything, it's not eminent domain.
There is an existing pipeline under the neighborhood in Bryan. It is there because of an easement. That's a legal document that you can read in Brazos County Clerk's office.
When the original pipeline was installed, it might have been 12 inch diameter. Now they need a 24" diameter to handle the capacity. (I've just using sample numbers).
They don't need eminent domain to widen a pipeline. They might need eminent domain to make the easement wider.
It's about 98% chance that agreement states something like "an easement for sewer in Bryan". There are no restrictions on size of pipe. There is no 20 year time limit. There will be nothing that says you can't redo the pipeline and make it bigger. It will be open ended agreement and simple.
It's 2% chance that it has restrictions.
It's an upper-class neighborhood. Why would it be unusual for them to make contributions. I can promise you that if my neighborhood was being affected, I would use whatever leverage I had to have the decision go in my favor. But regardless, there have been thousands of Bryan residents who don't live in Beverly Estates that signed petition to not allow CoCS to run the pipe through the neighborhood. I was one of them. When you grew up in Bryan, you certainly don't want to see CoCS try to run rough shod over Bryan.ConcernedCitizenofBryan said:
I've been following the TexAgs thread related to the mayor's plane incident. After seeing the connections to Rafter D and the Brazilian (Jose Augusto Schincariol) through the Partners for a Better Bryan PAC (where the mayor is the treasurer and used funds for his own campaign), I decided to look at the mayor's campaign finance report on the City of Bryan website. Interestingly enough, I saw substantial campaign contributions coming from Rosemary Street and Park Lane (also in Beverly Hills Estates). I found this website where you can search property owners by street name.
https://esearch.brazoscad.org/Search/Result?keywords=rosemary
I quickly counted over twelve names who made substantial contributions to the mayor's campaign. Two were former mayors and one was the author of the Eagle article "College Station should leave Beverly Estates Alone." Between the Partners for a Better Bryan PAC, and direct campaign donations, I was able to identify over $16,000 in campaign contributions to the mayor's campaign, all with ties to Beverly Estates. Is it possible that some of these residents are using their political influence to serve themselves?
https://docs.bryantx.gov/city_secretary/campaign_finance_reports/GUTIERREZ%20BOBBY_10112022.pdf
https://docs.bryantx.gov/city_secretary/campaign_finance_reports/GUTIERREZ%20BOBBY_01172023.pdf
https://www.transparencyusa.org/tx/committee/partners-for-a-better-bryan-political-action-committee-70166-gpac/contributions
That is absolutely not what I said. If I had the means to donate substantial funds to a candidate and they win office, then yes, I at least expect a line of communication to them when I want to discuss something important that I think they can help with. They could certainly tell me to sit and spin, but maybe I don't donate next time. Welcome to American politics.Bryanisbest said:
So, BluHorseShu, is it your argument that a citizen should only make public campaign donations to a candidate when that citizen has zero interest in the candidate acting in any way beneficial to that citizen?
Well said. The notion that "somebody has more money than I do, therefore they're corrupt" is fallacious.BluHorseShu said:That is absolutely not what I said. If I had the means to donate substantial funds to a candidate and they win office, then yes, I at least expect a line of communication to them when I want to discuss something important that I think they can help with. They could certainly tell me to sit and spin, but maybe I don't donate next time. Welcome to American politics.Bryanisbest said:
So, BluHorseShu, is it your argument that a citizen should only make public campaign donations to a candidate when that citizen has zero interest in the candidate acting in any way beneficial to that citizen?
There are over 100 residents in Beverly Estates - and now with the Inwood and Vine residents it is even more - that are asking the Bryan City Council, not just the Mayor, to support them in stopping CoCS from destroying their neighborhoods.ConcernedCitizenofBryan said:
I've been following the TexAgs thread related to the mayor's plane incident. After seeing the connections to Rafter D and the Brazilian (Jose Augusto Schincariol) through the Partners for a Better Bryan PAC (where the mayor is the treasurer and used funds for his own campaign), I decided to look at the mayor's campaign finance report on the City of Bryan website. Interestingly enough, I saw substantial campaign contributions coming from Rosemary Street and Park Lane (also in Beverly Hills Estates). I found this website where you can search property owners by street name.
https://esearch.brazoscad.org/Search/Result?keywords=rosemary
I quickly counted over twelve names who made substantial contributions to the mayor's campaign. Two were former mayors and one was the author of the Eagle article "College Station should leave Beverly Estates Alone." Between the Partners for a Better Bryan PAC, and direct campaign donations, I was able to identify over $16,000 in campaign contributions to the mayor's campaign, all with ties to Beverly Estates. Is it possible that some of these residents are using their political influence to serve themselves?
https://docs.bryantx.gov/city_secretary/campaign_finance_reports/GUTIERREZ%20BOBBY_10112022.pdf
https://docs.bryantx.gov/city_secretary/campaign_finance_reports/GUTIERREZ%20BOBBY_01172023.pdf
https://www.transparencyusa.org/tx/committee/partners-for-a-better-bryan-political-action-committee-70166-gpac/contributions
trouble said:
How did you read his post and come to that conclusion?
Hornbeck said:
LOL. And give up all that tax revenue? I guarantee if they did, Bryan would be digging up streets for sewage expansion, because they want the tax revenue of that high rise.
Not just streets - College Station will have to take via eminent domain easements through private property -Bryanisbest said:Hornbeck said:
LOL. And give up all that tax revenue? I guarantee if they did, Bryan would be digging up streets for sewage expansion, because they want the tax revenue of that high rise.
But, at least then, the digging up would be benefiting Bryanites. College Sta is trying to dig up Bryan streets to benefit CS.
Yeah it's silly to me as well. I own property in both cities, live in Bryan but my business is in CS and I have always seen it as "Two cities one community".doubledog said:
This us/them philosophy always amuses me.
You would not think it petty if it destroyed your neighborhood.doubledog said:
This us/them philosophy always amuses me. Bryan is deeply connected to College Station. Many citizens of Bryan work at TAMU. They travel CoCS streets, use CoCS sewer lines etc. College Station is connected to Bryan as well. We are two cities almost in the same place. What is good for one is good for the other. What is bad for one is bad for the other. Get over this pettiness people, it looks foolish to the rest of Texas.
doubledog said:
This us/them philosophy always amuses me. Bryan is deeply connected to College Station. Many citizens of Bryan work at TAMU. They travel CoCS streets, use CoCS sewer lines etc. College Station is connected to Bryan as well. We are two cities almost in the same place. What is good for one is good for the other. What is bad for one is bad for the other. Get over this pettiness people, it looks foolish to the rest of Texas.
Agreed. And in this instance, perhaps more than any time I've seen in my lifetime, College Station is completely in the wrong here, and is the one acting extraordinarily petty.doubledog said:
This us/them philosophy always amuses me. Bryan is deeply connected to College Station. Many citizens of Bryan work at TAMU. They travel CoCS streets, use CoCS sewer lines etc. College Station is connected to Bryan as well. We are two cities almost in the same place. What is good for one is good for the other. What is bad for one is bad for the other. Get over this pettiness people, it looks foolish to the rest of Texas.
My comments are directed at both cities and their occupants, not only over this but many other "issues". CoCS/CoB could be much more than the sum of their parts. If we could only get over our pettiness.Roxie146 said:You would not think it petty if it destroyed your neighborhood.doubledog said:
This us/them philosophy always amuses me. Bryan is deeply connected to College Station. Many citizens of Bryan work at TAMU. They travel CoCS streets, use CoCS sewer lines etc. College Station is connected to Bryan as well. We are two cities almost in the same place. What is good for one is good for the other. What is bad for one is bad for the other. Get over this pettiness people, it looks foolish to the rest of Texas.
You would not be amused to go through eminent domain.
AND it is PETTY when you have a choice not to do it.
It is PETTY to benefit your citizens at the expense of another city's citizens.
And College Station would not exist without TAMU - so don't preach to Bryan.
Bryan wouldn't exist as it is without A&M, either.Roxie146 said:You would not think it petty if it destroyed your neighborhood.doubledog said:
This us/them philosophy always amuses me. Bryan is deeply connected to College Station. Many citizens of Bryan work at TAMU. They travel CoCS streets, use CoCS sewer lines etc. College Station is connected to Bryan as well. We are two cities almost in the same place. What is good for one is good for the other. What is bad for one is bad for the other. Get over this pettiness people, it looks foolish to the rest of Texas.
You would not be amused to go through eminent domain.
AND it is PETTY when you have a choice not to do it.
It is PETTY to benefit your citizens at the expense of another city's citizens.
And College Station would not exist without TAMU - so don't preach to Bryan.
Stupe said:Bryan wouldn't exist as it is without A&M, either.Roxie146 said:You would not think it petty if it destroyed your neighborhood.doubledog said:
This us/them philosophy always amuses me. Bryan is deeply connected to College Station. Many citizens of Bryan work at TAMU. They travel CoCS streets, use CoCS sewer lines etc. College Station is connected to Bryan as well. We are two cities almost in the same place. What is good for one is good for the other. What is bad for one is bad for the other. Get over this pettiness people, it looks foolish to the rest of Texas.
You would not be amused to go through eminent domain.
AND it is PETTY when you have a choice not to do it.
It is PETTY to benefit your citizens at the expense of another city's citizens.
And College Station would not exist without TAMU - so don't preach to Bryan.
It would be another Hearne or Calvert on a two lane Highway 6 between 290 and Waco.
This is sort of interesting - the tail wagging the dog sort of thing.threecatcorner said:
Have you seen this? https://wtaw.com/opponents-college-station-sewer-trunk-line-through-south-bryan-neighborhoods-appear-last-weeks-bryan-college-station-city-council-meetings/
Yancy (I think he was the most recently elected member of CS city council, or maybe there are 2 that new) asked why it's not on a city council agenda through May 24 and city manager said it will appear on an agenda once city staff feels they have something to present to council.
CS City Council members aren't allowed to put stuff on the agenda?