COUNCIL INFO
1. Shameful City Council Record
As many of you may know, members of the LH Residents for Responsible Growth fought tirelessly last year to prevent the rezoning of residential property that would allow for a subsidized multifamily housing project. The problem was not that the public didn’t actively participate, adamantly voice their opposition, or provide the Council with overwhelming proof that the citizens did not want the project … the City Council simply did not care. The City Council chose outside special interests and their own personal agendas over public interest and showed complete disregard for the desires of the citizens.
The City Council disregarded:
- petitions from the majority of neighborhood land owners against the rezoning
- petitions containing 649 signatures collected in opposition to the rezoning
- a huge turnout showing popular opposition at the city council meetings
- that all the speakers were opposed to the subsidized housing project (with the exception of Kathy Canady and a man from Leander, who may have been her relative)
The City Council then went into an Executive Session (termed as illegal by the Austin American Statesman in 2 articles, as well as by an expert that they consulted). Interestingly, the City Council was able to propose the revised resolution without any public discussion during the hearing with the outside developer.
Fuller claims that "the Council always welcomes those who are willing to work for the good of our community". The problem is that actions speak louder than words. Not only does the Council not welcome the public, they actively seek to exclude the public. The City Council:
- commonly uses inappropriate or unnecessary Executive Sessions (closed door meetings)
- cancels P & Z public hearings (in the face of public opposition)
- listed an incorrect date for the public hearing in the “official” city newspaper
- adds and removes separate addendums on agenda postings (as witnessed by Jana Duty)
- posted an “Order” by the Fire Chief (just prior to the public hearing) limiting the number of occupants allowed in the building
(The Fire Chief had not issued the order and incidentally, the Marble Falls developer and his entourage were allowed in the building, while the Liberty Hill residents sweltered outside in the excessive heat.)
The Planning & Zoning Committee (appointed members which include 3 spouses of the current city council members) held a meeting (originally designated as a public hearing) on May 21st in which the 'common public' were not allowed to comment, while an extensive discussion took place between the Marble Falls developer, the landowners and the Committee members. When citizens tried to speak, they were given quick warnings by the President of the Committee, Kathy Canady, and a few were actually escorted out by the police. The Committee and the Marble Falls developer actually whispered to each other in their further attempt to exclude the public, and a person trying to audio tape the public meeting was ordered away from the discussion.
A well-known member of the Planning and Zoning Committee actually intimidated women at the baseball game into removing a petition against the subsidized multifamily housing project, as well as destroying the signatures. There were also petitions that were stolen from various business establishments around town.
This is hardly consistent with Harkrider's vision of a Council that is "open and responsive to all citizens; that invites and encourages citizens to address the council on the issues that come before it". Again, the City Council’s own record contradicts their claims that they want to represent the wishes of the citizens.
The Mayor and the City Council claimed the “need” for the subsidized multifamily housing project when they were fully aware that not only is Liberty Hill not eligible for HUD funding, but that the Marketing Analysis used to justify the “need” was actually for the Cedar Park/Leander area rather than Liberty Hill.
LH Residents for Responsible Growth would like to know the basis of Fuller's assertion in 'The Independent' that "Forty-three percent of our teachers cannot afford the high rents in our City", since her previous statements of “need” were apparently based on the Cedar Park/Leander Market Analysis. Neither the teachers nor the elderly parents that Fuller expresses concern for in the article will necessarily be able to become residents of the housing project, because in contrast to the Council's original claim, no priority can be given to Liberty Hill citizens. If Fuller were so concerned about the elderly in the city, then why did the Council reject a previous request by Liberty Hill citizens to build a senior citizen community on the very same tract of land?