Posted on 08/01/2002 9:37:43 AM PDT by mercy
The PGA in a letter to the city council has announced that they do not want to be involved in what has become such a divisive issue.
They are backing out after years of negotiations.
Due to a small mainority of nogrowth folks in SA who managed to place the whole issue up to a vote of the pupulace through an initiative process ... the city will now not have three new golf courses and a beautiful planned development surrounding the courses.
The development was on privately owned county land. Outside the city of San Antonio. The PGA had agreed however to go along with nearly every environmental and development restriction placed on them.
But they have balked at bowing to total control. Granted they wanted a big tax break but even with the tax break the amount of money flowing into the area through nearly innumerable sources connected with the building and operation of this huge subdivision would have been massive.
This would have been nothing but an immense boon to the city of SA and an added jewel to the area's tourist industry. SA bills itself as a tourist mecca and is a major convention center. This is a huge black eye for the city.
A few years ago they blew away Dell Computer in a similar fashion and have been kicking themselves ever since. Now once again they have proven themselves to be a backward third rate cow town only posturing as a major metropolitan center. What a shame.
I'm sorry, but your post is not very clear.
It ain't the rednecks. It's the politicians.
Not even thinking about the property taxes, greens fees, sales taxes, and other tourist related dollars that would have come in.
PGA pullout rumors fly as scheduling of vote looms By William Pack San Antonio Express-News Web Posted : 08/01/2002 12:00 AM The City Council is primed to call for a public vote today on the controversial PGA Village golf resort — unless persistent rumors that the Professional Golfers' Association of America is dropping out of the deal prove true. Forced to consider additional action on the 2,861-acre resort by a successful petition drive and its 77,419 supporters, Mayor Ed Garza and most of his council colleagues have said they back a public vote on the development plan for the resort rather than rescinding the ordinance that established the plan in April.
But much if not all of that backing could disappear if the PGA backs out, as some council members say they have been told will happen.
PGA officials have been mum on the subject; they haven't returned repeated calls for comment.
Garza again said Wednesday that PGA officials have not told him they are pulling out.
"It's all rumors now. None of those rumors are confirmed," the mayor said. "We can't act until there is something official."
If the golfers' association does withdraw, however, rescinding the agreement could be the city's only option, Garza said.
The rumors gained strength Tuesday when Councilman David Carpenter and attorney Bill Kaufman, who has represented resort developer Lumbermen's Investment Corp., said they were concerned that PGA would pull out of the resort rather than face a public vote.
Wednesday, Carpenter again said that, while PGA officials had provided no official confirmation, he remained convinced the association would withdraw its support before the public has an opportunity to vote on the matter.
If that's the case, he said, he would support a motion to repeal the development ordinance so the council could work with the developer on an alternate plan to keep PGA in San Antonio.
"I think we're under a very narrow window to make that happen," Carpenter said.
He was, however, the only council member certain enough about PGA's plans to say Wednesday that he would vote to rescind the enabling ordinance for the resort.
Councilman Bobby Perez said he had heard from an official representing Lumbermen's that PGA intended to get out of the current deal and look at other sites. But he said that information must be confirmed before he would vote against sending the matter to a public vote.
Councilman Julián Castro, a longtime opponent of the development deal, wants to see it sent to the voters.
"I think that's the more fair thing to do," Castro said. "Let's see what San Antonians want to do with it."
But Castro acknowledged he would be forced to reassess his support for an election if PGA drops out.
In the past, PGA has said it is committed to the project and would stay on board as long as Lumbermen's believed the resort was a viable project.
However, many believe that PGA is reconsidering that support after watching the strong opposition to the project, which could lead to a fierce battle at the ballot box.
Wednesday, a spokeswoman for the association said PGA executives were in Reno, Nev., for an association-sponsored golf expo and hadn't responded to her inquiry about any changes in PGA's position.
Kaufman also said he has tried to get an official comment from the PGA without success.
"I have nothing to report other than we don't know anything," Kaufman said Wednesday evening.
He said he remained concerned that PGA would chose to look elsewhere to build its second complex of golf courses and golf teaching facilities because San Antonio had not reached a consensus that showed PGA its plans were welcome.
The resort has become a powder keg politically because it concerns development over an environmentally sensitive area where water seeps into the underground aquifer that provides the city with most of its drinking water and because taxing authority would be granted to developers to help build the project.
Supporters of the resort contend it includes state-of-the-art environmental controls to protect the aquifer and will improve the city's standing as a resort city. Opponents argue that the controls are inadequate and the taxing authority unnecessary.
wpack@express-news.net
08/01/2002
I don't know any of the details, but the minute I see something about the PGA asking for a big tax break I tend not to sympathize with them too much.
More info can be found at the following link:
SA could annex it after 13 years and yes they were going to hook into city water. And they would not have to comply with drought restrictions that every one else in SA has to deal with every year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.