July 10, 2006 City Council meeting

Well folks...what did you think about Monday's council meeting?! You really should not miss those meetings. You learn some very interesting things.

Let's start with Ms Dennie. In response to a citizen request regarding Ms Dennie's residence status, Mr Mayor reported that TML (Tx Municipal League) and the city attorney say that the address on her driver's license is in the city limits and some mumbo-jumbo about lots of people who serve on government boards have more than one address (...one would HOPE at least ONE of those addresses is within that board's jurisdiction) and basically there is "nothing I can do." So it is obvious the council is not going to do the right thing and replace her. But that dl address is EDWARD SEXTON'S ADDRESS and everybody in town KNOWS Betsy is NOT living at Edward Sexton's house. Plleeeeaassee.....And besides she happens to be looking for a lot within city limits to build another house on (you should call her if you have something to sell...) and as long as she intends to be in the city limits she doesn't plan on stepping down. But wait....isn't that her admitting she isn't living in the city limits??!!! Please don't insult our intelligence. The GOOD news is at least we can all hope she won't be able to run again next time!

And then there is Mr. Norman. He commented that the "crisis has passed" as far as the animal ordinance goes. The cat owners have moved and are supposedly renting/selling their property on Hwy 1389. Gee, they should have rented to Betsy....Anyway, he is quite perturbed that his private property rights were suddenly changed when the February animal ordinance to prohibit dangerous wild animals was passed. It is his contention that before the ordinance was passed, he had the right to harbor any animal he wanted to have (...think he mentioned bears...) and now he does not have that right. Admittedly this writer's knowledge of constitutional rights might not be as sophisticated as Mr Norman's, but it seems pretty simple and basic to me. Any 'rights' I might have (personal or property) stop at the exact point they begin to infringe on someone else's 'rights' particularly in cases of public safety. I guess Mr Norman thinks he should have the 'right' to mount a 50 caliber cannon on the top of his trailer. His neighbor's would think otherwise and the council might be asked to pass an ordinance prohibiting 50 caliber cannons I guess.
And later in the meeting Mr Norman started talking about what could be done about the abondonded property up the street from him. There is very tall grass and a two story house that is about to cave in. He had no hesitation whatsoever in assuming the city should do something to that person's private property. Is it just me or does anyone else see this correlation??

That's enough for this post. Look for more to be posted about Mr Tunnell, the city budget and the ROADS.