Lost Dog beware!

Item 22.1 on the Tuesday, July 23, 2019 city council agenda bears our attention:

Discussion and action on preservation costs and optimal funding sources for the permanent preservation of the approximate 1,000 acres of land owned by the City of El Paso, including Lost Dog Trail, to consist of at least three courses of action with pros and cons for each as directed by City Council on May 14, 2019.

The agenda item requires at least three courses of action to be considered.

There is no backup material posted with the item.

Does that mean that they are going to try to pull a fast one?

We deserve better

Brutus

7 Responses to Lost Dog beware!

  1. James W Peterson says:

    My vote: Fast One

    Liked by 1 person

  2. James W Peterson says:

    Looks like a presentation was made on July 17 to the Open Space Advisory Board. Who are the members of the O.S.A.B. and what do they have to say?

    Like

    • Fed Up with this City says:

      OSAB strongly recommended that a conservation easement be applied to this land, in which a certified organization such as the Frontera Land Alliance oversees the land to assure that it is never developed. Surprise! That’s not the preference of City staff who think PSB/EPWU should retain control. Can you say “development as soon as the voters aren’t looking?” Supporters of open space please try to attend the Council meeting tomorrow or send messages to your Council reps asking them to respect the strongly expressed views of the voters!

      Like

  3. archaic578 says:

    Go to the Council meeting and support the conservation easement, rezoning to Natural Open Space and rescind TIRZ 12 – this will fulfill the overwhelming support for Prop. A. by the voters on May 4. If you can’t go, email the entire Council and the Mayor with your opinion.

    Like

  4. Observations says:

    Three observations:

    1. This process is being managed by the economic development department which is aligned with special interests and was recently relocated to a developer-owned building.

    2. The City never looks for “optimal funding sources” when it is running up costs on projects that benefit special interests.

    3. It will not surprise me if they propose selling off part of the land to a developer with the rationale that the money will be used to protect the remainder of the land.

    Like

  5. archaic578 says:

    Last night I found back up info on Item 22.1 that was not there a few days ago.

    Like

Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: