One comment in your Lajitas article [“Phoenix Rising: Lajitas Resort 6 Months Into New Ownership,” June 2008] stood out from all the others: “In July, Lajitas will offer on-site customs clearing for international passengers arriving by air” – presumably from Mexico.
Before going any further I want to emphasize that this letter is not about Lajitas. The new management has stated on several occasions that they want to be “good neighbors” and I sincerely hope in a year or two we can all say that they are. I don’t begrudge them for doing whatever they can to increase services to their guests including, somehow, getting US Customs officials to their airport.
But here’s the problem: for six years local elected officials, business and community leaders, activists and just plain residents have attended meetings with the singular purpose of finding a way to reopen the local border crossings. I attended a town hall meeting in Study Butte that included the then-superintendent of Big Bend National Park, the presidente (mayor) of San Carlos, Chihuahua, a senior US Customs official from El Paso, and other prominent folks whose affiliations I don’t remember. Another meeting in Study Butte, a semi-public affair that I was barely in the loop for, included a regional elected official (who for some unknown reason requested anonymity). Numerous other meetings have been held throughout the Big Bend over the years with every person involved pledging their support (as far as I know) for reopening the border crossings.
Considering all the time and effort expended over six years, I find it incredible that in the relative blink of an eye (six months) the new owner of Lajitas has made a deal which will bring customs officials to their private airport for the purpose of clearing wealthy tourists visiting Lajitas. Wealth notwithstanding, these people are still only tourists.
This situation raises scores of questions, the following only scratching the surface:
1. Who, exactly, has authorized the deployment of US Customs agents to Lajitas?
2. Who pays for the time and travel expenses of the agents involved? Those being cleared, Lajitas, or you and I through our federal taxes?
3. Exactly what criteria was considered in the decision to authorize the Customs presence in Lajitas?
4. How does that criteria differ from a Customs presence involving clearing middle class tourists for day trips to Paso Lajitas or Boquillas? Or for clearing Mexicans with legal immigration status who live in or frequently visit Mexico?
5. If the Customs official who signed off on the Lajitas deal does in fact have the authority to do so, then why would he/she not have the authority to allow clearing of those mentioned in question four (above)?
6. Could this possibly be the beginning of normalizing (pre-9/11 status) all the “unofficial” border crossings in the region? Or is it just another example of the elitism that has come to dominate our political process?
A related issue that occurred while I was drafting this letter is that of the Border Patrol’s new focus on the foot bridge in Candelaria. Oh, right, the law is the law. We can’t have terrorists streaming across our border, can we? On the other hand, the idea that removal of a bridge across a muddy ditch (the Rio Grande) from Nowhere, Texas to Nowhere, Chihuahua (no insult intended!) will result in anything other that a minor inconvenience is absurd. Those who believe otherwise, whether in Marfa, Alpine, or D.C. are simply not playing with a full deck. Then again, maybe someone is looking for a reason to stage another Made-For-TV-type raid in Candelaria like the absurd and embarrassing “Black Friday” raid in Lajitas in 2002.
Hey! Maybe the folks in Candelaria can just make a deal with Customs to come over and clear people using the bridge! With a 24-hour notice, of course.
Fred GossienTerlingua
There is a small groundswell of lobbyists and politicians in our area working to get the closed international bridge at La Linda, Texas, re-opened, the bridge located at FM 2627 Heath Canyon, Texas. It was closed several years ago after the guards who were taking bribes and payoffs were robbed and at least one was killed. It was already corrupt. It was not closed after 9/11 like the proponents want you to believe.
The proponents of this bridge, Tyrus Fain of the Rio Grande Institute and Alberto Garza of Mexico, are telling the public that it will create ecotourism, but there is nothing outside of the Museo Maderas mountain range in Mexico to go to and the people who operate the Maderas are not set up to or remotely interested in tourism. And, while I believe Mr. Fain’s and Mr. Garza’s intentions are honorable, there are other issues that need to be addressed before the consideration of opening another port of entry into America.
The cost for our government and tax paying citizens (you and me) would be in the millions – to build the infrastructure needed to operate and maintain a point of entry annually. Think of this. If it only cost one million dollars a year to operate, and we had 100 tourists a week visiting; it would cost you and me $200 per person per tourist. This is not about tourism. There is no financial gain in it.
And, what would our communities be getting by opening another point of entry? Look at Nuevo Laredo; look at Juarez – 410 homicides so far this year. In Ojinaga a state police officer originally from Juarez was recently assassinated. These places are so full of drug cartels and smuggling that you literally risk your life to go there. The drug cartels have no value for human life. They can force good people to do illegal things.
In this part of the country our border patrol and law enforcement agencies in Marfa and El Paso make substantial drug busts regularly. If we allow this bridge to reopen we will open yet another corridor for drug smuggling, human smuggling, increased pollution to our national park and surrounding areas, and dangerous truck traffic.
The La Linda bridge was supposed to be torn down and that is exactly the right thing to do.
There are several “soft crossings” in this area that were actually closed in the border closings after 9/11. This truly hurt our community because our good neighbors in these small villages who depended on, and have family on, both sides of the border were forced out of honest ways to make a living. It is truly a sad thing that has happened here. There are three key crossings at Boquillas, Santa Elena and Paso Lajitas.
For Boquillas, the staff at Big Bend National Park could be cross-trained and there could be a camera set up to see movement, as well as paperwork forms to document and monitor the activity. They are doing this on our Canada borders and it could easily be done here. This would be a win-win situation. It would restore the tourism that crossed into these safe villages. It would give our truly good neighbors a way to make a living again, and it would be more eyes on both sides of the border to monitor anything we don’t want in this country. This idea is honest tourism for the people who need it most: opening the bridge for a few wealthy people speculating on the possibility of a port of entry is not ecotourism.
Opening the La Linda bridge will give the drug runners an entry that’s not in the news every week for some kind of killing. A safer passage route. At least for a while.
The town of Marathon is beautiful and relatively undeveloped. It is a place where you can leave your doors unlocked, a place virtually free of crime. Please do not allow the criminal aspect that comes with the opening of an international bridge. Please help me by writing to Mr. Chertoff at Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and our local and federal officials to keep the La Linda bridge closed.
James H. EvansMarathon
First off, let me thank Fran Sage for pointing out the ridiculous nature of gun control laws in this country [“Whither We Goest: the Upcoming Gun Maze,” June 2008]. To think that what’s legal in Arizona is somehow evil and must be verboten in California is irrational.
Poaching was mentioned as a cause for restriction. Is not poaching in and of itself against the law? Is possession of a gun somehow prima facie evidence of unlawful intent? Is possession of a Magic Marker prima facie evidence of an intent to deface?
I will agree with anybody that the odds of needing deadly force in self defense are quite low. That’s irrelevant, however, as the stakes are of the highest possible importance: one’s life, or the life of some third party.
But what magic occurs when one enters a park? Does some spell reduce the possibility of need? Some evil person, upon entrance to a park, instantly becomes pure as the driven snow? This does not strike me as a reasonable assumption. I thus see no reason for people in a park to have any fewer civil rights to remain unmolested there than in the rest of the state.
Texas law is quite specific as to the rights of its citizens. So long as one is engaged in lawful activities during travel in one’s vehicle, a handgun may be carried within it.
Further, we who have licenses for the concealed carry of a handgun have demonstrated that we are no danger to the rest of the honest people in our society. The FBI and the local law enforcement people have said so; we are as “pure” as any policeman or deputy. Our arrest record for felonies after receiving the license is some fraction of one percent of society at large, which should be adequate proof in itself. You trust the school bus driver with the lives of a bus load of children – so why would you not trust him with a handgun carry license? Or your doctor who does surgery? Your schoolteacher, your maid, or a storekeeper?
And if you can trust honest people to act as adults are supposed to, why would it matter one way or another what means of self defense they possess? Or where the possession occurs?
Art EatmanTerlingua
It’s time for Dave Fricker to leave the Water Company.
Because of family obligations, I am hereby submitting my resignation from SBWSC effective August 1, 2008. I have informed Vice-President Bill Bourbon of my resignation.
I will be at the July 17th Water Board Meeting.
The Study Butte Water Supply Corporation has a great board of directors and an excellent manager. In fact, Manager Phillip Smith tells me that SBWSC could become a state-rated “Superior Water Company” in the near future.
SBWSC is also financially stable, with over $100,000.00 in cash reserve emergency funds. SBWSC has overcome it’s major three-phase electrical problems and substantially reduced its pipeline water leaks.
One of the most important achievements of the water board was making everyone in Brewster County feel “Welcome at the Water Company.”
On a personal note, I had the honor of working with Brewster County Judge Val Beard, Commissioner Kathy Killingsworth, Jerry Carvajal and the best CPA west of the Mississippi: Shaw Skinner. It was also my privilege to have known and worked with John Perkins and Daila McAnally of USDA-Rural Development. Without these good folks, there would be no water company.
A big thank you to Connie, Phillip, Fred, Randy Beyer, Pat Goodson and Dan Laws of RGEC for helping make my work at SBWSC so easy for more than 6 years.
Most of all, a sincere thank you to each and every SBWSC water customer for being so patient and understanding.
SBWSC
Terlingua
Where did all the money go?
The Property Owners Association of Terlingua Ranch, Inc. members will be voting on a proposed new Maintenance Agreement, which raises fees by 65% or nearly $100/year.
Here is some history. About three years ago I chaired a committee to propose a fee raise since fees had not been adjusted in any way in nearly twenty years and we were, in essence, operating on 1986 dollars. The committee asked the obvious first, “How much do we need so we don’t have to go back in five years to ask for more?” We were given a figure, to which we later added about $100,000 just to be on the safe side and to avoid the assumption that we would suddenly collect a great deal of the delinquent accounts money. Then we added a cost of living increment so we would not fall behind, at least not quickly. This agreement passed and everyone was happy that we faced clear sailing for several years.
Just two years later we were hit with a $100 so-called Non-Recurring Charge (NRC). This was to cover the cost of an unforeseen lawsuit and a Capital and a Contingency or Reserve Fund. Now, one year later we are nearly $160,000 in the hole. This, despite assurances that we are way ahead in collecting on delinquent accounts and that the resort deficit is down by tens of thousands over the last couple of years.
Where did all the money go? We are told that it went to fuel and other cost increases. Yet weren’t these covered by the great increase in collections and the great decrease in the resort deficit? They sure should have been.
The powers that be tell us that the deficit we face is from increased costs, the elimination of borrowing and some gobbledygook that reads like we will lose money in the future from the fact that we did such a good job collecting money.
What they leave out is the great deal of expenses attributed to spending on non-essential items. Of course, they don’t want to tell you that! Here are some: a new phone system (anyone out there notice that the old one was hopelessly broken, couldn’t ever get through, etc); a resort supervisor (for over 30 years the ranch manager has done this as part of his/her job and there hasn’t been a huge increase in business that may justify this expense); an office for the resort supervisor (unnecessary because the supervisor is unnecessary); a cute computer program that can overlay ranch maps on GoogleEarth (doesn’t work too well according to one user who said it doesn’t reconcile two different mapping dates and it is unnecessary as well in a time of tight money).
Costs? About $6,000 for the phones, about $25,000 for the supervisor, and $6,000 for materials for the office and who knows how many thousand for the computer program. Upshot, let’s say about $40,000. Since I’m no longer “in the loop” I figure I know about half or less of the unneeded expenses, so let’s say if we got them all we’d be at $80,000 or half the deficit. Reason 1 for voting “no” on the new agreement.
Reason 2: They want to put a lien on your property for failure to pay any special assessments levied. You have no say in these assessments but they can put a lien on? Actually, I wonder if that is even legal. It surely is not ethical or moral.
Reason 3: If you want to overlook the irresponsible spending and the lien, all you have to do is get to what I’ve heard termed the blackmail, intimation, threats or extortion page of the ballot package – you know, the one that tells what will happen if this doesn’t pass. It’s nasty. Whoever wrote it has no sense of PR or marketing skills. It’s straight in your face. In fact, it’s from the Cheney/Bush/McCain school of “win through fear.”
Problem? The main points are very unlikely to happen. Instead, as I believe the newsletter hints or even states, we’d be in for another NRC or special assessment of another name like: We Really Truly Mean This is a One Time Only Thing this Time, You Must Believe Us. That one page would turn my vote from yes to no in an eye blink.
The choices? Vote yes and I’ll bet you two years down the way after this passes you’ll see another series of special assessments. Vote no and you’ll see special assessments this year and on and on.
Or, maybe the place should just go belly up, bankrupt. BAD, BAD you say? Well, consider that the court would probably appoint a receiver or administrator or whatever. This person would reorganize the corporation. The person would be politically neutral and fiscally competent (two things totally lacking at the moment).
With a neutral person who was concerned with financial stability redoing things, we may be free of the two nut-case parties who don’t really represent anyone but a few “true believers” (about 9-12% of the electorate for each party; this is less than half of George Bush’s popularity rating. Even combined they are less than half as popular as Dubya.). Yet both claim to represent the owners. Clearly, this is not the case. If you put a box on the ballot that read “Why don’t you all go away and leave us alone?” I’ll bet voter turnout would double and that little box would win by a landslide.
As someone said to me the other day. “Once they get their hand in your wallet they just dig deeper and deeper, and it will never end.” The powers that be are certainly proving that statement true.
By the way, a nice aside: the phone system has a “red light” feature; you get to program in the phone numbers of those folks you don’t like and when they phone in, a red light comes on, allowing you to duck a call, switch to voicemail, or whatever. A new wrinkle on the Richard Nixon Enemies List. And, I may add, totally discriminatory.
I can only hope my name is on that list.
Jack Hennessy, Terlingua RanchHere we go yet again. I did my level best to stay away from these Terlingua Ranch issues in hopes that they would iron themselves out. It appears that was a false hope. The same very small, very vocal minority of owners (less than 1%) are still at it, even though they lost the lawsuit. They are still bound and determined to destroy the Ranch. They have merely changed their tactics.
They say the ranch does not need more money to operate. I very strongly disagree. Fuel prices alone have gone through the roof; when fuel prices go up, there is a domino effect and everything that is delivered, shipped, or otherwise moved from one place to another is effected.
Then there is the price of your dues. I encourage you to do just a small bit of research and compare what we pay at Terlingua Ranch on an annual basis against almost any other HOA/POA you care to name of comparable size and see what you would pay if you belonged to one of those. I'm sure some of you DO belong to other HOA/POA's. And then compare the restrictions imposed on you in those other systems.
I did not write the following letter, but I do wholeheartedly endorse it. Those of you who know me know that I am a straight shooter and many of you have expressed your trust in my judgment. I really appreciate that very much. In that vein, I am willing to give this POA of ours one more chance to get things back on an even keel. I think they deserve this consideration after all the trials and tribulations of the past few years. There has been nothing but turmoil and dissension amongst owners and it has all been generated by that very vocal minority whose sole desire is to shut down our ranch and drive it into bankruptcy. Please take that into consideration when you vote.
Please vote yes to the ballot you received. If you have any doubts, please do not hesitate to contact one of the people at the end of the letter or contact the board members directly at their contact information on the ballot.
DB SmithTerlingua Ranch
Dear fellow Terlingua Ranch Property Owner:
Recently you received a packet with information about proposed changes to the Terlingua Ranch Maintenance Association agreement (TRMA). Judging from the percentage of folks who have participated in past Terlingua Ranch elections, that packet may be at the bottom of a pile of papers on you kitchen table or by this time in your town’s landfill. We hope that when you finish reading this letter you will find that packet (or order a new one) and vote “yes” on the proposed changes. Here’s why:
The Property Owners Association of Terlingua Ranch for many years has operated on the assumption that the landowners wanted low fees, even at the expense of adequate road work and timely maintenance of the valuable assets that constitute Terlingua Lodge. In this time of increasing costs this assumption has finally caught up with us and brought us to a crossroads situation. Do we recognize that circumstances require us to change, or do we abandon any hope for a positive future for Terlingua Ranch and the protection of the investment each of us has in our property?
The members of the Board of Directors are not some alien group who has invaded the Ranch. They are property owners just like the rest of us. They have committed their precious time and undergo considerable personal expense to work for the Ranch’s future.
After much consideration, they have given us the opportunity to make the decision for a positive future by proposing changes in the TRMA. These changes will make it possible to operate the Association on a business-like basis, yet will insure that there are limits beyond which the board may not go without approval of the ownership.
Yes, we will all be paying more. Anyone who thinks that Terlingua Ranch can provide, in this economy, the services that landowners expect without increased income is just not recognizing reality.
Everyone will be paying the same amount. Every owner, no matter how little land he or she owns, has a vote equal to every other landowner. However much land we own and wherever on the Ranch our property is located, we all have equal access to the Ranch’s roads and the facilities at the Lodge
We believe the Board has made an excellent case for the changes they propose. We hope that you will join us in voting “Yes.”
Alan Baker, Tom Williams, Ed MarcatoTerlingua Ranch
I am a new subscriber to the Gazette, just received my first copy in today’s mail. I have not read all the articles yet, but I wanted to compliment you on your interview with Mr. Edwin Leslie, new head of Lajitas Resort!
This really answered a lot of questions that I have had since the resort had sold. Thank God it now looks “promising” for Lajitas Resort. What a special place in a magic location!
We saw it in 1999, when it was a sleepy little spot. Then we came back in 2004 and saw the new direction with The Ultimate Hideout and all the money being spent & all the big ideas; we just could not feel right about what was happening…. It had a bit of a Hollywood/phony exterior about it.
It seems from your interview that Lajitas is on the correct path. We shall see what honest, creative thought & planning & cooperation with the entire community can do to make Lajitas Resort a success!
Great article and I will look forward to each paper!
Monroe SilverPollack, Louisiana
Terlingua Ranch Property Owners:
I am writing to inform you that I will be voting "no" to the upcoming ballot REPLACING the entire TRMA which includes a highly exaggerated increase in Annual Maintenance Fees and I will campaign against it. I do not agree with, appreciate or respond well to the blackmail, ultimatums and scare tactics which POATRI has resorted to in order to shove the "negotiated TRMA" down the throats of the individual property owners. POATRI BOD has threatened to cut off services if we do not pass the replacement TRMA as written. If in fact, a fact of which I am very skeptical, we are in an emergency situation for funds requiring an increase in fees POATRI should have reacted to the perceived emergency and had an election for only the fees increase with out inclusion of the TRMA election, this is the proper way to accomplish getting any necessary emergency fees.
Immediate implementation of the replacement TRMA is not an emergency it can be brought before the property owners for a vote next January as is customary. There is no mandate from the courts and there is no longer a lawsuit pending as I said it is BLACKMAIL.
POATRI is using this opportunity to shove through a document that will open the door to nearly unlimited assessment of fees with out any protection for the individual property owner, as written, it removes our protection not enhances it as they claim. The replacement TRMA appears to protect the individual land owner however on scrutiny it does nothing but camouflage the real intent, legalizing unlimited assessment with the authority, voluntarily granted by the land owners, to foreclose on our land.
One thing which has been conveniently kept quiet is that the document (Proposed Article VII) will allow foreclosure even for the nonpayment of any additional Board assessed charges to cover any short falls in a prior year's budget for any routine repairs or unpaid Capital Improvements (Proposed Article XI). These items must be funded by the budget before the job is undertaken. Special Assessments should be for emergency situations only and not to prop up over spending.
As it is now it is only the nonpayment of annual fees that can be used as grounds for foreclosure and it should remain so for protection of the individual property owner. When I bought I agreed to pay fees per my deed restrictions which only grant foreclosure authority for non payment of annual maintenance fees. In my opinion you cannot change this any more than you can change "exempt" status of a property owner because of these same deed restrictions.
I also feel that there has been much misinformation circulated concerning our need for a 66% increase in fees, $245-148=$98 additional increase for this year after getting an extra $100 in 2007. We are told that we have a $159,255 shortfall due to income, which I question, it is estimated that the number of paying accounts this year will be 3,153 this comes to $50.51 per account ($159,255 / 3,153) that leaves $47.49 which is per account over the perceived budget shortfall a total of $149,736.
One of the things cited is a government mandated pay increase for our workers, this only applies to minimum pay workers we have none so this does not apply to Terlingua Ranch at this time. Per the 2007 Audit, last year our payroll and benefits cost us $267,926. The Board of Directors has budgeted $406,016 for 2008 an increase of $138,090, this is a 52% increase in payroll and benefits.
Our money pit of an office is running away with the funds. If you were to add up all the functions which are funded by the 08 budget for activities in the office the total comes to $179,800 and this does not include Payroll.
If in fact we are in such bad need for money then why did we hire a Resort Manager the resort is within 10 to 15% of breaking even, the lodge and Resort Operation netted $227,835 last year, oh incidentally we just spent I would guess $5,000 + making a new office for him.
They tell us that we are in such bad shape that if this whole TRMA, doesn't pass as written then they will have to sell a motor grader and fire the operator. Did you know that since the last board meeting they have gone out and bought a dump truck?
They have just put on line a new internet mapping system to the tune of a couple of thousand combining our maps with Google maps. The Google map they are using is from 2002 and the overlay maps are the original maps some 30 years old. Guess what tract 1705 POATRI's new water well tract isn't even on the maps. I have 3 tracts and part owner of a 4th and only one tract is right.
They have just spent $6000 for a new phone system, we now have over $90,000 tied up in the Tripod Computer system that is supposed to last us a life time and yet we have $15,000 budgeted for upgrades this year, and this list goes on. After all this unnecessary spending after reporting just how bad a shape we are in financially, I cannot help but wonder if they already know the outcome of the election or they are very arrogant or very stupid.
I have been in contact with the BOD and the corporate attorney concerning the criteria they will use to tabulate the results of the election and they are planning on using Article X which requires only a simple majority of votes cast to shove it past the membership. I have also told them my thoughts on their skullduggery. I also pointed out what our Corporate Attorney, the main author of the NEW TRMA said at the April Meeting, he said that he is the corporate attorney and not an attorney for the membership as it was the corporation that hired him. What this means to me is that he will not look after the rights of the membership his only interest is the corporation.
I also pointed out to the Board that I feel they are, not fulfilling their duty; Article 4.02 of the By-Laws (Authority of Directors) charges them to: "exercise such powers as may be necessary or proper to ensure that the property rights and interests of all POATRI Members are protected".
Each and every section and Article has been changed with the new Association effective date November 1 2007 and expiration changed from 30 to 20 years. On the New TRMA, in the introduction, it even says that the old one will be superseded, by voting for this, what they wish to call amendment which changes 100% of the articles and sections we are also voting to supersede the old one. The way I read it they must use the criteria in Article IX for tabulating the results which says: an absolute majority of the members in good standing of the association will be required to terminate this agreement.
Please Vote and vote no, we need every vote we can get. If they are successful in using the criteria for passing a simple amendment then all they will need is a simple majority to implement this dangerous document, you can figure on about 400 voters following the Board without question. If you do not have your ballot by now check the POATRI Web site to see if you are eligible it is listed there this year.
Jim Dunn
May, TX & Terlingua Ranch
Editor’s Note: We welcome feedback. Letters must include your name, address and phone number (for verification). Please be as succinct as possible and avoid comments that might be deemed slanderous, libelous or in poor taste. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Thanks!
– Marlys Hersey, editor@bigbendgazette.com
