Nom de Plume said:

---

I think all parties are guilty of something.

---

To include a lot of people on this thread who are guilty of jumping to conclusions.

techno-ag said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would guess that if the mayor had never called the pilot on January 3rd, that the plane would be gone by now.

---

The circumstantial evidence indeed seems very strong to support this. The pilot found out the mayor was going to submit a claim to his insurance company and then sued for nearly the same amount.

---

Also it sounds to me like the pilot was expecting a "total of the aircraft" he never got, so instead of a new plane he's gonna have to retrieve and fix the old one. He may have been wrangling with his own insurance company for 2 months before deciding to go this latest route.

EliteElectric said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would guess that if the mayor had never called the pilot on January 3rd, that the plane would be gone by now.

---

The circumstantial evidence indeed seems very strong to support this. The pilot found out the mayor was going to submit a claim to his insurance company and then sued for nearly the same amount.

---

Also it sounds to me like the pilot was expecting a "total of the aircraft" he never got, so instead of a new plane he's gonna have to retrieve and fix the old one. He may have been wrangling with his own insurance company for 2 months before deciding to go this latest route.

---

I doubt that.. The insurance would not cover the cost of a "new" airplane.

This discussion does not concern me. I would like to know is how a person "known and trusted" by the BBC would get a $1/year lease on 200 acres of land.

FYI: "known and trusted" is called the "old boy network" in the rest of the United States. I thought those days were behind us, in Bryan at least. What I have learned from this whole incident is that the "old boy network" is alive and well in the BCS area.

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would guess that if the mayor had never called the pilot on January 3rd, that the plane would be gone by now.

---

The circumstantial evidence indeed seems very strong to support this. The pilot found out the mayor was going to submit a claim to his insurance company and then sued for nearly the same amount.

---

Also it sounds to me like the pilot was expecting a "total of the aircraft" he never got, so instead of a new plane he's gonna have to retrieve and fix the old one. He may have been wrangling with his own insurance company for 2 months before deciding to go this latest route.

---

I doubt that.. The insurance would not cover the cost of a "new" airplane.

This discussion does not concern me. I would like to know how a person "known and trusted" by the BBC would get a $1/year lease on 200 acres of land.

FYI: "known and trusted" is called the "old boy network" in the rest of the United States. I thought those days were behind us, in Bryan at least. What I have learned from this whole incident is that the "old boy network" is alive and well in the BCS area.

---

Spot on, the focus needs to be on this bs with the BBC buying land and magically the mayor winds up running his cattle on it through one of his boys who has effectively a free lease.

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would guess that if the mayor had never called the pilot on January 3rd, that the plane would be gone by now.

---

The circumstantial evidence indeed seems very strong to support this. The pilot found out the mayor was going to submit a claim to his insurance company and then sued for nearly the same amount.

---

Also it sounds to me like the pilot was expecting a "total of the aircraft" he never got, so instead of a new plane he's gonna have to retrieve and fix the old one. He may have been wrangling with his own insurance company for 2 months before deciding to go this latest route.

---

I doubt that.. The insurance would not cover the cost of a "new" airplane.

This discussion does not concern me. I would like to know how a person "known and trusted" by the BBC would get a $1/year lease on 200 acres of land.

FYI: "known and trusted" is called the "old boy network" in the rest of the United States. I thought those days were behind us, in Bryan at least. What I have learned from this whole incident is that the "old boy network" is alive and well in the BCS area.

---

This has been discussed at length. There is nothing illegal about the lease. It does not have to go out to bid. It's more of a convenience thing than anything else.

We didn't get the deal because most of us here don't have a herd of cattle we can graze. And if we did, that we could evacuate quickly. And if we did, how would the BBC board know and trust us?

The lease is a nothing burger.

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would guess that if the mayor had never called the pilot on January 3rd, that the plane would be gone by now.

---

The circumstantial evidence indeed seems very strong to support this. The pilot found out the mayor was going to submit a claim to his insurance company and then sued for nearly the same amount.

---

Also it sounds to me like the pilot was expecting a "total of the aircraft" he never got, so instead of a new plane he's gonna have to retrieve and fix the old one. He may have been wrangling with his own insurance company for 2 months before deciding to go this latest route.

---

I doubt that.. The insurance would not cover the cost of a "new" airplane.

This discussion does not concern me. I would like to know how a person "known and trusted" by the BBC would get a $1/year lease on 200 acres of land.

FYI: "known and trusted" is called the "old boy network" in the rest of the United States. I thought those days were behind us, in Bryan at least. What I have learned from this whole incident is that the "old boy network" is alive and well in the BCS area.

---

This has been discussed at length. There is nothing illegal about the lease. It does not have to go out to bid. It's more of a convenience thing than anything else.

We didn't get the deal because most of us here don't have a herd of cattle we can graze. And if we did, that we could evacuate quickly. And if we did, how would the BBC board know and trust us?

The lease is a nothing burger.

---

Not there is nothing illegal about the lease. As a convenience, that is debatable.

True most of us do not have cattle... Many of "us" do.. Why didn't they get a chance for such a good "deal"?

Know and trust? It is as you have said this is a month to month lease and can be cancelled in 30 days, this is is "knowing" someone of great concern? Landlords take this risk every day and with 12 month leases.

Why risk the appearance of favoritism...? At the very least the BBC should have leased the land at "fair market value", even to someone they "know and trust".

[We have been clear about keeping this thread clear of clutter and you have ignored that fact. -Staff]

The fact that the lawsuit was filed February 23rd means nothing because they still had to serve Gutierrez. If you go look at the lawsuit, the pilot didnt sue Rafter D, the BBC but Gutierrez and some random person that has nothing to do with the incident or the land. Clearly the pilot, the insurance company and his lawyers didnt do the slightest research on who they needed to reach to get access to the property to recover the plane.

cslifer - you and others keep referring back to that YouTube video as proof of what you think happened but Borrel doesnt ever say Gutierrez denied him access to the plane, only that he wanted money. It was Gryder who used words like "ransom" and you and others have accepted his account as if it were true. Clearly Gryder has creditability issues and if you cant see it then you have an axe to grind or agenda.

Since one poster continues to think everything was done "above board", why did Rafter D need to be involved at all? The land was/is used to hold Gutierrez's cattle, as per the Rafter D statement. Was it a "cleaner" look, to utilize a 3rd party, plus give them a remarkable deal on the lease?

Additional statements in today's Eagle story also generate more questions, than answers, on both the timeline of events, and any monetary losses by Gutierrez and Rafter D.

And no, that's not falling into "confirmation bias", that's reviewing the facts of the situation, along with many dubious statements by the three parties involved with the property.

Snoodish said:

---

You are dead wrong and clearly have no understanding on how civil claims like this are handled. Gutierrez did not have to be the owner of the property or the tenant to bring a claim against the pilot to assert a claim for damages to his cattle operation (i.e. lost profits) caused by the pilot's undisputed negligence. As far as asserting the claim, it is against the pilot and the pilot turns the claim into his insurance company which it sounds like he did except that it also sounds like his insurance company did absolutely nothing to assist the pilot in contacting the BBC or Rafter to get the plane back, assuming there was actual motivation to do so. There is no evidence that Gutierrez prevented the pilot or his insurance company from coming to get the plane--only the pilot's claim Gutierrez asked him to pay him for damages and that doesnt mean he was extorting the pilot to pay it in order to get the plane.

The BBC doesnt have to engage in competitive bidding like other governmental entities in Texas may be subject to but it has an interest in leasing the property to someone who can maintain an ag exemption to reduce the BBC's property taxes but if any of you are ranchers and are envious of the deal Rafter made, why dont you contact the BBC make a better offer. As the KBTX article notes, Gutierrez had a business deal with the tenant and it makes no difference whether he is the mayor or not---Rafter could do business with whoever they want and they are excellent at what they do.

Gutierrez is likely not commenting because it is not in his interest to do so. You folks whining about this deal got a statement from the BBC and Rafter as well as news coverage and it didnt satisfy you. It is clear some of you have made up your mind based on the limited information you have and nothing Gutierrez says or subsequently is released to the public is going to change your mind about your conspiracy theory, or you only commenting in this forum because you have an axe to grind with Gutierrez and using this forum to stir up controversy for him.

---

It's a definite ethics problem or very least optics problems and reeks of the "old Bryan mafia/good ol' boy" network. It's not a coincidence that Rafter D has a relationship with the new mayor and got this property basically handed to him by the BBC (which the new mayor was on). Now the mayor may be a good person but this reeks and definitely sours me on him.

And if you can't see that, then you are too close the cabal.

EliteElectric said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Which as a private citizen makes complete sense, the rub that we all have here is he is also the mayor. The mayor needs to clear some very murky looking things up to his constituents

---

But this is private business between Rafter D, La Pistola and the airplane owner and it's surety. You can want all you want to but you will probably be left wanting.


There is good reason the youtube click seller is taking down and editing the videos, he's probably going to be a defendant in suit. This will all play out in the courts and I am guessing all parties will be forced to keep quiet during that time.


***eta****

By forced I mean urged by counsel

---

It's not just private business when you are the mayor and former BBC member running the business on land connected to both. Spin some more.

Since I posted the 1st thread that got this all going, can I get that $1/year lease for 200 acres? I run cattle on leased land in Brazos County and would pay much more, take better care of the fences, be more responsive when cattle get out, not employ known cattle rustlers nor run someone else's cattle on the land to include City of a Bryan officials/employees or BBC members? And unlike techno thinks, I can get my herd off the property in 1 day, by myself. Well, there might be 1 or 2 teenagers involved.

Dan Gryder removes most of his videos after 1-2 weeks due to YouTube monetizing rules. I've been a longtime follower of Dan Gryder's YouTube channel, primarily for my own aviation safety education. Most of his videos are post accident reviews in which no one survives. He does sometimes interview pilots that didn't have fatal events. Thank the Lord that was the case here. I've not seen him back down in any instance in which someone threatens legal proceedings.

I work for a Fortune 50, and one part of my role is reviewing potential conflicts of interest of our employees as well as helping ensure we are clean when it comes to any potential govt relationships. Based on that, all I can say is this -> Pretty much every aspect of this scenario reeks to high heaven.

techno-ag said:

---

Moy said:

---

Since I posted the 1st thread that got this all going, can I get that $1/year lease for 200 acres? I run cattle on leased land in Brazos County and would pay much more, take better care of the fences, be more responsive when cattle get out, not employ known cattle rustlers nor run someone else's cattle on the land to include City of a Bryan officials/employees or BBC members? And unlike techno thinks, I can get my herd off the property in 1 day, by myself. Well, there might be 1 or 2 teenagers involved.

Dan Gryder removes most of his videos after 1-2 weeks due to YouTube monetizing rules. I've been a longtime follower of Dan Gryder's YouTube channel, primarily for my own aviation safety education. Most of his videos are post accident reviews in which no one survives. He does sometimes interview pilots that didn't have fatal events. Thank the Lord that was the case here. I've not seen him back down in any instance in which someone threatens legal proceedings.

---

Well so far the pilot is the only person who has sued.

I never said one could not quickly remove the cattle. I did say it's inconvenient. I've worked cattle and I can assure you that rounding them up and moving them is not convenient.

---

I assure you.... it ain't THAT hard unless you have a bunch of feral cattle, crappy infrastructure, and half-assed "cowboys."

woodiewood1 said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would guess that if the mayor had never called the pilot on January 3rd, that the plane would be gone by now.

---

The circumstantial evidence indeed seems very strong to support this. The pilot found out the mayor was going to submit a claim to his insurance company and then sued for nearly the same amount.

---

Also it sounds to me like the pilot was expecting a "total of the aircraft" he never got, so instead of a new plane he's gonna have to retrieve and fix the old one. He may have been wrangling with his own insurance company for 2 months before deciding to go this latest route.

---

I doubt that.. The insurance would not cover the cost of a "new" airplane.

This discussion does not concern me. I would like to know how a person "known and trusted" by the BBC would get a $1/year lease on 200 acres of land.

FYI: "known and trusted" is called the "old boy network" in the rest of the United States. I thought those days were behind us, in Bryan at least. What I have learned from this whole incident is that the "old boy network" is alive and well in the BCS area.

---

Spot on, the focus needs to be on this bs with the BBC buying land and magically the mayor winds up running his cattle on it through one of his boys who has effectively a free lease.

---

$1 an acre leases are not uncommon. The money is "made" due to the Ag tax exemption savings for the owner. The 196 acres tract of land has a market value of Market Value of $5,314,383 and an Ag use value of
$29,721.

---

If it was a private owner then I would agree.
A private owner can do what they want with their land.
This land is in the "public" trust (indirectly through the BBC) and therefor precautions should be made to show that the BBC is a fair and equitable steward of the land.

trouble said:

---

In this case, since the owner is a non profit, there is no monetary gain for the owner beyond the $1/year

---

The issue is not the dollar amount. The issue is who gets the deal and how did they get it. Was it fair and equitable, or was it, as has been said, a "who you know" or "know and trust" deal?

There is a common misperception that nonprofit organizations cannot make a profit. They can. It is what they do with those profits that are restricted. For example, they could donate them to another nonprofit; like, maybe The City of Bryan, Habitat For Humanity, or The United Way. Their charter might place limits on where the profits go.

This ma be the wrong thread, but is there a difference between Bryan creating the BBC to buy land for resale to future developers and College Station buying Macy's to resale to a future business?

That is also an issue

So the lawsuit is posted on kbtx. Attached is a letter sent by the attorney retained by the insurance company. He specifically says the mayor was contacted several times but refused to allow recovery unless his demands were met. Didn't he deny ever hearing from them? He REALLY needs to get his story straight. It really makes you wonder what else he hasn't been entirely forthcoming about.

There's also an extra layer of hilarity here... The 2 most active threads on this board in months and on one you've got people thumping their chest about how proud they are to live in Bryan because unlike those incompetent and corrupt COCS officials, Bryan has its act together and is above reproach.

Then you open up this thread.

Wrong. The BBC, the landowner, and Rafter D, the tenant, never heard from the pilot, his lawyers or insurance company. Maybe if you read Gutierrez's lawyers response you could get a better handle on the situation. Clearly the pilot's lawyers didn't do any due diligence when they sued because they didn't contact the right people and sued a total uninvolved person who has nothing to do with the land or the retrieval process.

But stay mad and fumbling in your search for a legitimate controversy.

IF the pilot is to be believed, he claims that the mayor contacted him first, and identified himself as the mayor of Bryan. IF true, it is possible that he gave them a "this is my town, so you go thru me" response. The fact that the letter sent to the YouTuber states that the mayor is the leasee, kind of reinforces that.

Lmao a nerve got touched now

Snoodish said:

---

Wrong. The BBC, the landowner, and Rafter D, the tenant, never heard from the pilot, his lawyers or insurance company. Maybe if you read Gutierrez's lawyers response you could get a better handle on the situation. Clearly the pilot's lawyers didn't do any due diligence when they sued because they didn't contact the right people and sued a total uninvolved person who has nothing to do with the land or the retrieval process.

But stay mad and fumbling in your search for a legitimate controversy.

---

It does add a whole new twist to this that the insurance company sent a demand letter to the wrong landowner. I think the problem is if you drop a pin in Google maps it tells you the address is 8679 Jones Road. They then sent a letter to the person on file for that address. The lawyer should've used the county appraisal district's interactive map to identify the land owner and not google.