Sunday, June 3, 2012



SPACEX'S CON JOB ON BROWNSVILLE AND HOW CARLOS CASCOS, TONY MARTINEZ AND THE BEDC WERE PLAYED

[SIDE NOTE - Just to be clear - I would not endorse Jerry McHale as an ass wipe - I am shocked I have to respond to his endless lies, but apparently there are still people who read his smut and are unaware he himself admits it is all fiction. - all comments on this issue have been  rejected.  You cannot yell at me for something I  did not do.]


SpaceX has top of the line lawyers.  They know Texas law.  SpaceX used Brownsville as a tool to force other cities to outbid Brownsville.  Because of Article I Section 33 of the Texas Constitution, SpaceX would lose 3-5 years in Texas Courts before it could even move forward.  This includes the real possibility that SpaceX could lose 3-5 years in court, only to learn it cannot move forward at Boca Chica.  Article I Section 33 of the Texas Bill of Rights guarantees the people access to the beach.

Sec. 33. ACCESS AND USE OF PUBLIC BEACHES. (a) In this section, "public beach" means a state-owned beach bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico, extending from mean low tide to the landward boundary of state-owned submerged land, and any larger area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico to which the public has acquired a right of use or easement to or over the area by prescription or dedication or has established and retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public under Texas common law.
(b) The public, individually and collectively, has an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The right granted by this subsection is dedicated as a permanent easement in favor of the public.
(c) The legislature may enact laws to protect the right of the public to access and use a public beach and to protect the public beach easement from interference and encroachments.
(d) This section does not create a private right of enforcement.

Sec. 29 is key to enforcement of Sec 33.  The Texas Supreme Court in the City of Beaumont case made any violation of the Texas Bill of Rights a legal nullity, as if it never happened.

Sec. 29. PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

In the interest of full disclosure, just last month the federal court of appeals held part of the Texas Open Beaches Act unconstitutional as it relates to private land owners.  This does not impact the case of SpaceX.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Federal-court-tosses-Texas-Open-Beaches-Act-152532235.html

Sec. 61.014. DENIAL OF ACCESS BY POSTING. (a) As used in this section, "public beach" means the area extending from the line of mean low tide of the Gulf of Mexico to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, or to a line 200 feet inland from the line of mean low tide, whichever is nearer the line of mean low tide, if the public has acquired a right of use or easement to or over the area by prescription, dedication, or has retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public.

(b) No person may display or cause to be displayed on or adjacent to any public beach any sign, marker, or warning, or make or cause to be made any written or oral communication which states that the public beach is private property or represent in any other manner that the public does not have the right of access to the public beach as guaranteed by this subchapter.


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/NR/htm/NR.61.htm

Now, how the law gets enforced is unclear.  The law basically provides for enforcement by state or district/county attorneys.  This seems highly unlikely if they are the ones authorizing shutting down the public access.

The City of Beaumont case seems to create a right to seek a  declaration that any violation of the Act or Texas Constitution is a legal nullity.  In fact what it does say is, it is self executing - so a lawsuit would not be to enforce the Article I Section 33, but Article I Section 29 instead.

THE POINT, AND WHY I KNOW SPACEX NEVER INTENDED TO BUILD AT BOCA CHICA

SpaceX lawyers know the law.  They know any agreement which provides for shutting down Boca Chica on launch days would immediately end up in court.  They know their entire project would be held up 3-5 years only to learn they could never move forward.

Brownsville was never more than a ploy to get the other two cities to out bid Brownsville.

WHY DOES IT NOT SHOCK ME BEDC, TONY MARTINEZ AND CARLOS CASCOS WERE CONNED, AGAIN!!!!

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

to all the environmentalists that are against this project. keep in mind that this property is private, and that the owners can do many things...some of which may not be so desirable to beach goers. now, spacer may not be so bad compared to some other potential activities.

BobbyWC said...

Nice, but no cigar - I know of 2 land owners who have told me they will not cell at any price

Further, they can sell - but they do not own the Beach - SpaceX needs to close the beach on launch days - by law this they cannot do

Also, in Texas the state cannot force landowners to cell to private companies for the public good - such as they can do in other states

But botttom line - if SpaceX wants to close Boca Chica even for 5 minutes they will spend 3-5 years in court not knowing if they will ever be allowed to move forward.

The Port area needs to be looked at as a viable alternative - if possible

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Bobby
I don't think it fair to say that Cascos and martinez were conned. The city and county have worked with this company in good faith. They have taken the information they have and made the best decisions they can. This is not a fly by night company. It would be nice to attract that type of job to this area. There are still many questions to be answered. One is who's project is this? The city's or the counties? If it's the county's (because it is not even in the city's etj) then who will offer incentives to this company? If they are using Brownsville to get better offers from other sites then so be it. It won't bee the first time a company has done that. Either way lets stay at the table and do our best to get them here.

Fucking idiots like Jerry "whale shit" mchale love to use words like boondoggle and bring up mistakes that were made many years ago. The BEDC has learned a lot since then. TMobile being the perfect example. In addition, titan has brought more positive to this community (in the form of taxes to the LF school district and utility charges to PUB) than mchale has in his whole pathetic life. Hopefully some day someone will put him out of his considerable misery. I digress. Give Brownsville a break Bobby. No one is looking to make money off Space X nor is anyone trying to throw money away. People just want to attract jobs and tourism. Help "us" out. Dont help scumbags like whale shit tear everything down.

BobbyWC said...

Look, I understand that where ever SpaceX builds there will be an environmental impact - at some point progress must occur regardless. This is why many people are saying - look to the port area - the environmental impact will be significantly less.

There is no getting around that Cascos and Martinez were played - Cascos is the county judge and he should have known about legal problems associated with shutting down Boca Chica on launch days - Tony Martinez is a lawyer - he should have known.

SpaceX never intended to bring the project to Brownsville/Cameron County - we were and remain nothing more than a ploy to get the other cities to give SpaceX a better deal.

In case you have not noticed - Cascos, Martinez, and Oliviera are not saying much anymore about the project. This con is needlessly dividing the community and SpaceX does not care.

When we do not get it the pro environment people will be blamed when in fact SpaceX never intended to come to the area. This is sad that our elected officials are allowing this needless divide to happen in our community.

From my initial post I made clear I expect SpaceX to be a successful company - as I noted this will become a trillion dollar industry.

They are not the only company in the business - what our leaders need to do is their due diligence on the viability of the port area and if it is viable then market it to the other companies

How about our leaders be smart and force the companies to compete against one another to locate in Brownsville - Brownsville is one of only a few areas where a space port can be built - why not use it to our advantage

Finally I agree that there is no boondoggle in the works - this company will make money.

But the BEDC never does it due diligence - look to Fly Frontera - they were ready to give the money away to a company not even registered to do business in Texas and without the proper permits to fly commercial flights between the US and Mexico - only a public battle forced the city to do its due diligence and then the truth came out

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

To the first comment: Yes it is private property but that doesn't mean the owner can do anything they like on the property. You can't sell alcohol without a permit, you can't turn it into a dump without a permit, you can't make a development without a permit and the list goes on.
In regards to the legality of closing the beach for a launch, despite the citations, I suspect there is an exception for the "public good" and that avoiding being hit on the head by a rocket would fall under this catagory. As it is now, the beaches are sometimes closed when someone determines that the waves are to rough or the beach is in to bad a shape to be driven (this bugs the devil out of me-- I prefer my own judgement and what's the deal with those warning flags anyway, they are worthless as warnings because they are left red when conditions do not warrant it. They cry wolf and so are ignored)
Mescalero

BobbyWC said...

there is nothing in the Texas Constitution or Statute which makes an exception - does not exist - if the courts were to create such an exception for corporate need the people would be up in arms

Also just because no one has every challenged the closing of the beach for public safety does not mean if they did they would not win.

I remember my mother telling us a story about how in the mid-to late forties my dad took her to the shore back east to see a hurricane.

Just look to the hurricanes and manditory evacuations - does not work

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Also it would take teh courts 3-5 years for a decision which states in the interest of public safety the county can close the beach - remember this would be incident to the actions of a corporation creating the public safety problem

SpaceX never intended to come here - they know they have no intensions of waiting 3-5 years for such a decision

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

as for what the property owner can or cannot do, just go into cameron park..or drive way down into southmost...there are illicit businesses...junk yards...illegal landfills, etc. the county is not the best enforcement agency around. i know its surrounded by a national wildlife area , but without any real presence out there by national park rangers, who's going to say anything? no one says anything about all the people who illegally drive atv's into the dunes..or for that matter the people who literally shit all over the dunes.

Anonymous said...

You are correct . The BEDC and the City's Planning department did not bring up issues that would cause problems for Space X's proposed launch site.

These individuals are well compensated and should have known these issues before the local yocals brought up these issues.

Also, what does this tell you about United Brownsville. You have an administrator who also does not know sh_t. How much of public money was spent to promote Space X?