My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
12-05-1983 Public Hearing (2)
LaPorte
>
City Secretary
>
Minutes
>
City Council
>
1980's
>
1983
>
12-05-1983 Public Hearing (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2016 12:06:57 PM
Creation date
3/21/2025 1:38:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
City Council
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
12/5/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Minutes, Public H•ring, La Porte City Counc~~ <br />December 5, 1983, Page 3 <br />su~una.rize it all. First of all, though, I'd like to clear <br />• up one point. The hearing that Mr. Burnley spoke of, Knox, <br />with Pasadena, there wasn't any way--and correct me if I'm <br />wrong--that Pasadena could ever have come here and annexed <br />Brookglen with them being in our ETJ. <br />Mr. Burnley: Without the approval of La Porte <br />Mayor Cline: But La Porte had never indicated they were ever <br />going to turn it loose, Cary. <br />Some discussion was then held on various time periods that <br />College View had been involved in public hearings for different: <br />annexations involving Pasadena. <br />Mayor Cline: Mr. Burnley, what-I'm speaking to is when I was <br />in City Hall and Mr. Askins was the attorney, and the City <br />Council of La Porte made the agreement with the City of Pasadena <br />then about the college district, and that was back in 1969 and '70. <br />Councilperson Ed Matuszak: May I ask just what bearing this <br />has on this action? It's past history. <br />Mayor Cline: You have some questions here that want to be <br />answered, Ed, and that's what we're here for. <br />City Attorney Askins: I think it's important to point out to <br />the residents, Mayor, that there is no dispute of any kind <br />between Pasadena and La Porte over territory. Those .who have <br />lived in this City a long time know that there were annexation <br />wars in the early '60's--fights, as you pointed out--between <br />Pasadena, La Porte and Houston. La Porte lost the lawsuit to <br />Houston, Pasadena won a lawsuit from Houston on the Bayport <br />Industrial District. In '69 and '70, as the Mayor pointed out, <br />the City of La Porte and Pasadena officials negotiated a formal <br />contract, just drawing a line--it was called an extraterritorial <br />jurisdiction division--and the line went down a common boundary <br />between College View .and the college and then went down into <br />Bayport and divided up that area. Here a few years ago, Pasadena <br />bought the rodeo tract from Friendswood. It turned out the tract <br />of land they bought was on La Porte's side of the line. It would <br />have been embarrassing for Pasadena to have their Civic center <br />in La Porte, and we didn't want it, because you don't get any. <br />taxes off an exempt piece of property. So they said would you <br />amend the agreement to give us that acreage, and we paid fine, <br />if you'll give us a similar .amount of acreage off your land, <br />then we'll just swap. And we did, and we amended the contract. <br />I can only imagine that if Pasadena, including College View <br />in a recent annexation who has annexation 3urisdiction, <br />so to speak. La Porte supervised the creation of the College <br />View district. I flew to Austin with the bond attorneys and <br />the .people who formed the district, to the Legislative hearings <br />in the 1960's. La Porte had written into the Bill the supervision <br />of the College View district for planning purposes. And the same <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.