Travis County Commissioners Court
August 2, 2005
Item 26
(Captions begin at 11:54 am, 56 minutes into this item.)
...of either party getting high enough that the conflict would create the sort of safety environment that he's talking about. So I really don't understand the need for the 50-foot barrier at least as far as wind surfer easy go. I think -- uferbers go. I think the park covered the red and green buoys thing. I won't go into that. His fourth item was to designate an area exclusively for use in turning and backing. I think that we would really like to make sure that that is clearly denoted in any of the signage that only during backing -- only during the launch of a boat, we don't want to see that area be excluded because wind surfers use that area for rigging and that type of thing. Happy to clear out of the way when a boat needs to come, but I’d hate to give up public use of the park. The fifth item is he requested the county relocate the boat ramp to the north side of windy point. The other thing that's really nice about that park is that cove is a terrific venue for learning to wind surf. It's not an area where advanced wind surfers go, but it is a great area for beginning wind surfers. If we're launching boats into that corridor, we're putting beginners at significant risk. Basically to launch into that cove you would have to make the whole cove a non-swim area dedicated to boats. And then -- he's complaining that the current grade of the ramp is unacceptable, and before the park set up a ramp and designated this ramp for him, he would come and figure out wherever it was on the park, where people were using the park and then try to go interrupt their use in order to launch. So I understand the park's need to dedicate him to a specific launch point.
>> that's simply not true. That's what he thinks. And please disregard it.
>> but he had the right to say it.
>> he certainly did not have the right to say I have a place to put in where I can interrupt people -- I look for a place where it's safe to put in.
>> I’m not saying he's got to be right.
>> I just want to make that objection.
>> I think that's the summary. Is there anything -- okay. I think that's the summary from the local club.
>> yes, sir.
>> we'll give you one minute to wrap up, mr. Barstow.
>> I’m the vice-president of the club, and I came here today to see what this chapter is in this long book that was never finished, I think.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> the Austin wind surfing club.
>> I wanted to verify that for the record.
>> I’ve interacted with the county a number of times the last 10 years. On this matter with democracy and the first amendment is a great deal to keep the spice of life going. We'll be here next year and the year after, I imagine. One thing that's been here consistently is this court judgment. I’ve read this and reread it and reread it and I’ve read it again 10 times in the last hour or so. And it's very -- I think charles read it, but I want to read it one more time. Three lines, two sentences, I believe. Notwithstanding paragraph 3 of this judgment, and in the event Travis County in its sole discretion -- that means sole I interpret to mean Travis County can do this without any input and use their discretion to construct a boat launching ramp on the lcra land. It doesn't say where, it just says on the land, the lcra land. And then and only in that event those launching boats in connection with plaintiffs' easement rates on the lcra land shall be limited to launching those boats from the ramp. It can't get much clearer. And I really want to reiterate what Ron said, that if you do anything to make a concession because you feel obligated to make a concession, it sets a precedence. And here we go, it's like if you let more of the camel into the tent, do you really want the whole camel into the tent. You have to figure that out now before -- you've got at least one of the two humps inside the tent and you've got the rest coming. So that's all I’ve got to say.
>> are you guys okay with the signage in terms of making people better aware of what's going on out there?
>> the signs always seem like a good thing. The proper signage -- signage is a way to say people do the right thing. Well, I’m thinking about the signage and thinking about comments I heard a little bit ago. I’ve got children. I don't get to wind surf as much as I’d like to. If you have children they've got to be taken to that park with parents or a guardian. If the parents and guardian are doing what they're supposed to do and minding their children, they will be instructing them and guarding them against hazards, stay away from her, johnnie, don't go there, that kind of thing which parents should do, take responsibility. To assume that a particular design of a park will prevent a problem, to assume that a sign will prevent a problem is secondary to the responsibility that a parent has for the children or the parents or the assigned guardian. Don't overlook that here. That could carry anywhere in the united states, not just this park.
>> mr. Barstow, we will give you a minute or two to wrap up.
>> I’ll do my best.
>> okay.
>> first of all, I own property and I volunteered to put it into public service. And the public service I perform is to give the public a place to enter the lake. They can use my property to swim from the easement, to fish from the easement, to launch boats from the easement, all without paying your park fee. Now, I own the property right to do these things and the sign, drive the boat, reach the water's edge, anywhere from the water's edge. If you don't like that and you want to operate your park in some other way, you can't regulate my property rights away. That's not constitutional. The constitutional way to get what you want is to file condemnation proceedings and compensate me if you don't want me to use my property. Otherwise, manage your property around my property rights. They are the superior right to use the lcra land. That's why they call my right the dominant property and they call the lcra tract the serve yent estate. That's why the district court ordered you not to interfere in any way with easement uses. If you can't manage your park that way, find another way to manage it. I think the best thing to do is somehow we need to -- one of us has to give up putting people in the water. We need to find a way to mublghts r. Merge these diverse managements under one management so we don't create these situations. Certainly condemnation proceedings would do that. I don't know that they would be necessary, you know. There are lots of other options and there are licenses, there are leases, there are joint ventures. There are many things that could be considered with this. And whenever I’ve mentioned any of these things, I get no responses. You folks seem to want the situation to exist as it is until I file a lawsuit. It seems to be a thing that the government does if they get into a situation that they ought not to have gotten into in the first place. If they make a mistake, they make the other guy suffer the consequences, make him sue them. I don't want to sue you. I told you, I’m too old. I wouldn't live to see the benefit of it. I want to see this thing solved now. I don't like the situation. It not a safe situation. And it's a situation that should have been addressed before you contracted for the property. My property rights have not changed. They existed when you leased the property, and you leased the property subject to my property rights and agreed to honor it. Do so.
>> thank you very much, mr. Barstow. And to the others who came down today, we appreciate your input. As you know, this is a very, very complicated matter that's getting more complicated all the time. Now, the question is what do we do on the legislative item? Do we want to talk to our consultants about coming back this afternoon?
>> five minutes.
>> because otherwise they're stuck and I don't want to make them come back.
>> we can do five minute.
>> you can do it in five minutes, but can we?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> can the county court do it in five minutes. Let see.
>> I read the report.
>> are we through with this argument?
>> yes, sir.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, August 2, 2005 10:01 AM