Three familiar faces on Missouri City’s council are up for re-election this year, and candidate filing runs Feb. 6 through March 8.
The mayor and two council members are elected at large every two years in even-numbered years while four council members are elected every two years in odd-numbered years. The election is held on the second Saturday in May of each year.
Allen Owen, mayor since 1994 and former Planning and Zoning Commissioner and council member, is up for his ninth term. At-Large Position 1 Councilman Jerry Wyatt’s spot is also up for election. Wyatt has served on council intermittently since 1981, including five years as Mayor Pro-Tem.
The third spot on the May 8 ballot is At0large Position 2, held by Buddy Jimerson since 1998.
Candidates can file in person at the City Secretary’s office, 1522 Texas Parkway, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Candidates can also send their applications by mail to City Secretary, City of Missouri City, 1522 Texas Parkway, Missouri City, TX 77489.
Good point Mocity, but those with direct financial interest sitting on the council should at least recuse themselves on issues this contentious. Perhaps if they did they wouldn’t be spending tens of thousands in taxpayer dollars on the current litigation and eminent domain abuse case.
The truth will triumph once again…especially given the fact that good people are involved…and you won’t find it (the truth) written by pseudonyms writing false attacks, spewing venom, being vulgar, and spinning facts in these threads, folks…that is, if any folks even read these Missouri City threads dominated by a cowardly attacker(s?) using pseudonyms.
However, it is annoying that the good folks have to deal with the anonymous coward(s?) to begin with.
…and the sign of a *real* man or woman with any true bona fide courage is that he/she uses their own name when writing in political threads, fyi…and don’t be scared to use your real name if you type the truth…the coward(s?) that flock to the Missouri City threads repeatedly are truly no threat and literally child’s play (however boring/annoying) to debate with anyhow…I have been doing it for a number of local elections now voluntarily…and only hope I won’t be doing it well into my future golden years too…I would like to ‘retire’ permanently from utter nonsense, frankly…but I have a feeling young fools too often just age ungracefully as old fools too.
I think the outcome of a vote would be been the same as the decision made by the council. It seems to me QV turns out in force when it comes to matters of voting. This is why a number of politicians pander to the QV crowd.
Although, with that said, there are a lot of folks that do not live in QV that absolutely despise the community (for a great number of reasons) that would have turned out to vote simply to defeat anything happening in that community and to ‘stick’ it to the council and Mayor.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened.
From what I’ve read, if they recuse themselves then the vote would need to go on the ballot. I like that idea better and if an HOA falsely advertises that they are raising dues to cover these issues then why shouldn’t they give it back. It sounds like fraud.
You are correct jaghund – the City allowed a small section of the La Quinta course to be developed. It was a bust… they should have kept it as golf course. I think there are only two or three homes that were ever built and the fact that it was gated, was a joke. It is an eyesore.
From what I understand, the club owners went to the City and told them that they were losing money and wanted to off-set some of the loss by developing the land into home sites. The City allowed it and the rest is history. Interestingly, this is how this whole brouhaha got started. The club owners wanted to do that to most, if not all of the country club land and the City thankfully said no. So the club closed up shop and tried to force the City into allowing them to develop. It didn’t work and the City eminent domained the club.
The fact that 4 council members live in the community (as well as a few of the City employees) is unfortunate, but shouldn’t be held against QV. My question is, if the four council persons and the Mayor all recused themselves because they live in QV, can two remaining council members vote – or does there have to be a majority (IE: a quorum)?
As far as the HOA fees go – I didn’t realize that HOA’s reimburse for anything! Frankly, I wouldn’t mind paying higher rates, if the level of service was noticeably improved and if the HOA would show a little backbone and stick up for the residents more. I think if the HOA realized that it was there to help maintain and improve our neighborhood, rather than act as enforcers of the HOA rules and regulations, we would be better off.
But that’s just me…
I forgot to ask too, what ever happened to the raised HOA dues to cover those costs btw? Did they reimburse at any point the homeowners?
I thought the city did allow some sections to get developed? I remember driving through a new street not to long ago with garden homes on it in part of the old course. I think the fact that 4 council members lived in that community presents a clear conflict of interest. What ever happened to recusal?
Good point – the HOA was set to make an offer to purchase the QVCC from the ‘evil’ owners and the day prior to making their presentation, the City intervened and asked the HOA to pull back.
I seem to recall that the owners wanted something more like 13 million for the property, which was way more than any of the surveys dictated it was worth.
No one is claiming that the owners weren’t jerks… they were and they pouted about the fact that the City wouldn’t allow them to sell sections of the course(s) to housing developers. In retaliation, they (the owners) shut the course down and refused to keep it maintained beyond what was required by law.
With all of that said, the City has a really bad habit of jumping into things before doing the research needed to make an informed decision has been done. This is why they purchase a Tennis Center and THEN get bids to see how much it will cost to fix it up. This is why they hold a meeting of residents that live around the E9, tell them what their plans are, but then mention that they have no budget plans because they haven’t received any quotes about what their plans will cost… Unbelievable!
As far as courtroom costs, I don’t believe (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that the City can use bond money to pay for legal fees.
Why doesn’t anyone calculate the cost of the case already to this point and what taxpayers are picking up. I remember reading that residence of the subdivision and their MUD and HOA could have picked it up for between 5 & 8 million at the time, but I guess passing the cost to the city is better? This case is far from over. I predict more legal costs for the citizens and many, many appeals.
Too bad they didn’t consider all this before. Is the mayor and council going to focus this much funding and taxpayer money on any other neighborhood in the city?
The original price the City estimated QVCC was worth has already been submitted to the court. 3.2 or 3.5 million, I believe was the figure – however this amount did not come from the bond package.
The tennis and fitness center has matching funds of 1 million dollars from a state agency. The price of the tennis and fitness center was something like 1.1 million. I have no clue as to whether the funds for that came from the bond package or not, but that leaves them with $900,000 or so to play with from the matching funds pot.
The last I had heard, the halfway house was going to get torn down and not replaced. I may be wrong on that, but the plans for the E9 don’t show a new halfway house… just a pavilion and restrooms.
The 2 golf courses should be done at this point. I have not heard whether the City is planning on renovating the La Quinta course. If they did, there would be a riot on the steps of City Hall.
So that leaves the E9, Clubhouse, and the Par3 (which will likely have some external funds donated or contributed to from outside organizations).
By all accounts, the eminent domain case will determine a more ‘fair’ value of the acquisition – which means more money. I am guessing at least an additional 3-4 million, but who knows…
Dos – You make a good point. Let’s do a little second grade math, shall we?
17.5 minus 9 = 8.5
Total items to be purchased and renovated with 17.5M Bond = 9 (2 Golf Courses, 1 Clubhouse, 1 driving range, 1 cart barn, 1 halfway house, 1 park (exec 9), 1 training facility (Par 3), and 1 tennis and fitness center)
Soooo kids, we have spent a little over half of the funds on the total acquisition and construction of 1 of 9 properties. And! Bonus! We haven’t gotten the final price from the courts yet!!
Wow, we have a brilliant group of men who obviously know their math – thanks Allen, Frank and Scott!
Probably for the same reason why people think they won’t be affected monetarily by what Washington does.
‘Health care for everyone?! Super! Who is going to have to pay for it? No clue… not me! I’m getting it for free! Oh, and Obama is going to pay my rent, car payment, and buy me a new LCD TV!’
I wonder why the public seems to think bonds don’t impact their property taxes? The debt service portion of the operations budget is always affected by large bond debt that our elected officials obligate us to pay.
Yeah, no – I’m sorry… my sarcasm wasn’t as evident in this one. This whole bond package has really bothered me for some time.
I remember hearing from an HOA member prior to the November election that the City was going to try to pass a ‘Park Bond’ that was really more for the QV golf course than anything else. In fact, the person went as far as to say, if the City didn’t term it like that, the public wouldn’t vote for it. (An ‘if they only knew’ type bond.) Pretty crooked, if you ask me.
I, being a QV resident voted for it because frankly it did benefit me, however I am sure it would not have garnered 70 plus percent favor from the entire community if people would have know exactly what they were voting for.
On the flip side, I feel as though I should say, shame on those who didn’t research the bond prior to voting for it. That is like voting across party lines: ‘Well, all these guys are republicans and I consider myself a republican, so I am going to vote for all of them without knowing a single thing about any of them.” Really? That’s lazy and you are only hurting yourself and your party by voting that way.
The funny thing is that the Mayor and Frank Simpson were both quoted a few months back as saying that that bond was indeed for EVERY park in Missouri City, not just for ones in QV. They must have said it about a dozen times, ‘…we have 19 parks and they all need improvements…’ So they realize that it was sold as a ‘park bond’.
You are correct Dos – our elected officials believe that they have license to do whatever they want… not just in matters of bonds, but across the board.
We see this frequently that MoCity officials believe that the 72% vote gives them license to do whatever they want with the Bond Issue money. The public voted that way expecting large scale park improvements but what we got so far is a $10 million investment in an incredibly risky venture (no legal ownership yet)that has lost somewhere between 1/2 to $1 million so far. My boldness stems from talking to a great many voters who are absolutely and totally against the Golf Course because it does the City no good at all. We are unitedly against Council Members risking public monies (our taxes) and putting the City’s financial future in jeopardy. Current Council Members will see our outrage reflected in our votes in the coming elections. City officials should put this whole matter on the ballot if they are so confident about what they’re doing.
Is that sarcasm mocty? Most voters don’t read the bond details and when they see “Parks Bond” they vote for it. Most city insiders know that and that’s why they give it a nice title.
Just say four as the owners appeal, appeal and appeal as city taxpayers pay and pay and pay.
I predict more tax increases for the city and school district given current outlays and budgets, making Missouri City a harder place for many average citizens to call home.
From a Fort Bend Now article entitled, Missouri City Voter Say Yest To Park Bond Proposal, dated November 5, 2008:
‘Bond proceeds will be used to repay city funds used to acquire the Quail Valley golf property, a new community center, improvements to two 18-hole golf courses, passive and active green space improvements, a community and golf development learning center and a tennis, fitness and multipurpose recreation center.’
I guess I don’t understand why Dos feels that the bond was ‘…supposed to go toward parks improvements…’ Are we talking about the same bond package?
these are all great comments.
Conservative, you hit it right on the head. We need a Statesman! From what I can tell Danny has a dog in the hunt, his property on Tx. Pkwy.
Also,I would be interested in getting some opinions on the City manager Frank Simpson. He seems to struggle with the budget. Why does he and his team always result in a tax increase? Can he run City P&L? Is he a Conservative? It does not seem that way.
Finally, Jan 26th is the Court date for the Eminent Domain case. THE SHOW ME officials VS. the original property owner. Many are saying SHOW ME will SHELL OUT more money. There goes the bond money DOS Centavos. SHOW ME THE MONEY will be the Headliner!
patriot, you are correct. Taxes must come down if the size of gov’t does. Here are some examples of government abuses that involve both the conservatives and liberals.
The banking sector entering commerce ( huge mistake )and then forcing banks to lend to unqualified people ( Barney Frank ). Requiring me to use less groundwater and charge me extra for normal usage, instead of contracting for surface water! Taxing me and then making me pay for constable patrol for my neighborhood. Taxing me and making me pay a toll to use a public right of way. And to top it off taxing me on the value of my property and then exempting property examples that are in my favor.
( foreclosures, short sales and so called unconfirmed sales ). And to top it off again…allowing government to lobby against its people. ( Texas Municipal League acting as a proxy to lobby against populist legislation that would cut my tax burden ).
Lets hope limited government also means constitutional government and an end to rule by the special interest and their lobbyist.
Limited government does NOT mean taxing the he$$ out of the people and privatizing government responsibilities like roads, parks, police, and even military etc.
A little bank regulation would have kept the government out of the biggest financial mess of the century!
Remember everyone, a conservative believes largely in a limited government whereas a liberal believes in a large government. It is a philosophy that drives decisions. If the government becomes too powerful, it begins to harm the citizens it serves. Such is the case as many of you claim in your current representation. So..get a true conservative and you will be happier. Most importantly, get a STATESMAN. Statesmen are there to serve and will have no dog in the hunt for money making schemes.
Excellent points dos! Watch the voting, budget and donations lists and you pretty much get the story. I’m sure conservative you will see challenges in those races. They have been hotly contested over the past few years.
If any of our vocal FBN posters don’t like the candidates, now is your time to back a canididate that you like or run yourself. No term limits needed if you can mount an aggressive campaign.
Over the next few months I predict that there will be a considerable shake up and direction change by several elected officials as the downside and this past year’s loss figures come out for the operation for the QVGC. Remember, these figures are for QVGC with the El Dorado course not operating and that even two courses operating won’t double QVGC’s gross income (figure about a 20% increase). How will MoCity voters stomach a steady million loss from QVGC every year?
Also, what are MoCity voters going to do when they find out that QVGC is going to cost about $7 million more than what has already invested by the City and that will use up most of this past Bond Issue, supposed to go toward parks improvements?
That is the first I had heard of Robyn or Cynthia making the switch to an at-large position. I think they would both have a hard time accomplishing that at this point, although I can understand why they might want to do that.
Now that Allen and Jerry got their Golf Course it is time for them to move on. The City will get a new Vision and 2 Golfers for the new Course.
As for the upcoming ballot, it appears we have Danny for At- Large, which seems like a conflict of interest since he is looking out for his Commercial property on TX PWY. We have Tax Exemption on the Ballot. term limits and other items. There is also all kind of rumors out there. Robyn Elackett for At Large, Cynthia for At large,and a very tight secret for Mayor. Looking forward to February! Come on SHOW ME City – SHow ME in 2010 that we can bring new team and a new vision to the City.
Good grief we need some freaking term limits…