Replies

Flower Mound is overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. But...

A few years ago the development outpaced infrastructure. In nearby Plano, TX for example, the roads precede the houses. In Flower Mound, there was no preparation so the congestion was awful. In just one example, the water contacts were about to be insufficient for the town's needs. The town was facing some significant tax hikes to pay to catch up the infrastructure with the population.

For many, the worst aspect was the town's P&Z routinely rubber stamped any development that came along. A nice neighborhood of upper income homes finds apartments going in next door. Nothing against apartments, but they weren't supposed to be there and the property values of the neighborhood next to the apartments gets affected.

So... this strange coalition of anti-tax types and tree-huggers voted out the town council, replacing them with their picks, stopped handing out building permits until a new master plan could be developed (about a year delay), and generally did a reasonable job running the town. The anti-tax types stopped paying attention and went back to living their lives. When there was a minor scandal, all but one of the council were swept out of office.

The coalition is now comprised of activist, connected tree huggers. The new council seems to fear them.

Flower Mound has a population of 60,000. Two thirds are eligible voters. A big election turnout is 2,500 voters. A small group of motivated tree huggers can control the town because the rest of us spend time with our jobs and kids. You've seen a similar result nationally when the left is motivated and the right doesn't vote. It's called "Madame Speaker."

The Market Street project is typical. This isn't like the time the town blocked a K-Mart, but accepted a Target. Market Street builds a couple of stores a year. People from Flower Mound drive 15 to 20 miles to visit the closest.

Okay, we keep shopping at Kroger. So what? Here's the flip side. At the same time the council is blocking attractive development, they're talking about the need for a property tax hike! We get the worst of all worlds, no growth and higher taxes.

To whomever talked about he 31" tree, I don't know where that is, unless they're talking about circumfrance. Fifteen trees are considered "specimen" trees. Of those, 13 were to be preserved.

I can take a picture of the vacant lot if anyone cares. Again, this is not Yosemite. It's not Muir Woods. It's not even the Piney Woods. It's a vacant lot with some trees, located between other developments along a busy road.

Read the pdf link in the original and you'll get the other side. You'll be shocked shocked to learn that the tree huggers misstate and exaggerate.

Okay, if you wonder what the relevance is, think about the property owner. There's another parcel of land, in another part of town, that friends of mine own. A developer wanted to buy it for some purpose and the town blocked it because of this urban forest, that no one knew existed before this year. Heck, this is North Texas prairie. We don't have ANY "forests."

Anyway, my friends cannot sell their property. They can't develop it themselves. They'll go to jail if they cut down or damage their trees on their property. Yet, it's taxable value has esclated 2.5 times in recent years because of development next door on a parcel with fewer trees.

Think this could never happen in your town? Flower Mound voted 70% for Bush!

This seems dangerously close to the unfair takings provision. Now, before you say, "sue 'em," think about how you would act if it was you? Would you be willing to fork out untold amounts to attorneys and embark upon litigation that would last years with the various appeals? Or, would you cut your losses and try to get out as fast as possible, by any means possible?

If you're a developer with a quality project, why bother with the expense and irritation of Flower Mound? Locate five or ten miles away where you'll be welcomed. You'll get the Flower Mound traffic anyway because we'll have no choice. We won't have options locally, so we'll hop in our Lexus, Acura, BMW, and Humvee SUVs and spit out some CO2 to help acclerate the growth of the urban forest we don't recognize, while we drive to neighboring communities.

When the taxes get bad enough, a few people might wake up long enough to bother to vote in a local election and we can get some sanity back.

"Anyway, my friends cannot sell their property. They can't develop it themselves. They'll go to jail if they cut down or damage their trees on their property."

Sounds like a "taking" to me. Your friends need to look at the exaction the city council is exerting on their property. Also check out any arbitrary or capricious demands.

Try looking up Tigard v Dolan where the USSC strictly outlines where, when and how property may be exacted. Personally, I think Dolan is a POS ruling, but it might provide the ammo your friends need to use their property. If nothing else, mentioning Dolan at a city council meeting might be sufficient to scare the eco-fascists to release control of the property to your friends. Be sure to mention - in public - the amount of punitive damages ( in the millions) taxpayers may face if the illegal confiscation of this property continues.

If that doesn't work try demanding your common law rights in your property. You need an attorney well-versed in property law to do this. The right questions must be asked in the correct court.

Type in Hage + property rights to get the scoop on this one. There are a number of Freepers familiar with Hage who can help out.

You might also want to contact the Institute for Justice.

If you need more info, freep-mail me.