Regional Partnership Agreement

[Storm]

Ever since the announcement was made that the Regional Partnership Agreement (RPA) with Houston wouldn't be delivered prior to voting, the proponents of the propositions have been working overtime to get the word out that it's no big deal. I've been told that it is not necessary for the voters to see it :confused:; the vote by Houston City Council is just a formality :confused:; The Woodlands will have better bargaining power with Houston if we wait until after the election to finalize it :confused::confused:; and why don't we trust the Mayor of Houston and the City Council?

I'm generally a trusting person, to a fault sometimes. But I've also been around long enough to know how politics works. The citizens of The Woodlands have been told since December 2006 that the details of this agreement were being worked out, there would be no problem with the City Council approving it, and it should be available "soon". In August and September, TCID was still telling us it would be available "soon". Now we find out it won't be available until after voting starts, if then. I don't care what kind of excuses are being offered, THIS IS NOT OK.

And I know I'll be slammed for this because I cannot offer my sources as "proof", but I've been told the hold up on the RPA is more involved than just inserting the legal language in it to make sure it conforms to law as some would like for us to believe. There is real negotiating still going on. Again, I cannot confirm this for myself, but due to the fact that the RPA is still not ready after 10 months I tend to believe it is true.

Pleeeeeease do not vote for the propositions until you know what you are voting for. Contrary to what the proponents are saying, it is a big deal. I lose a lot of respect for them when they tell the citizens that we have no right to see it before we vote on it and down right resentful when they try to turn our very reasonable request into a message that we are paranoid and accusing the mayor and TCID of being liars. I have been a party to many contracts and agreements in my life and it didn't have anything to do with my belief that the other party was a liar. It's rational, prudent, responsible decision making. That's all I'm asking for here - a chance to look at the cornerstone of our future governance before I step into the voting booth. Really, is that too much to ask?

[IndianSpringsGuy]

There will be a current draft next week to peruse before the meeting. Everyone believes it is the same but with k,egal jargon. Since Mdonn's wife is a lawyer, he should know this.

[Wilson]

A draft? A draft that can be altered after the election?

[Storm]

There will be a current draft next week to peruse before the meeting. Everyone believes it is the same but with k,egal jargon. Since Mdonn's wife is a lawyer, he should know this.

A draft? 10 months after the announcement and a few days before voting begins and we're still talking about a draft?

Great. We voters are going to have a NON-BINDING memo of understanding with TCID and a DRAFT agreement with Houston on which to base one of the most important decisions we'll make regarding how we are governed and how we are taxed.

If this is a preview of how our potential new leaders (TCID) plan to take care of our community, well it's pretty darn scary.:eek:

[mdonn76405]

It is OK Storm, the prerequisite for all politicians is that they can not lie or mislead the voters. I got that from a good source. THE FBI!

[mdonn76405]

What I know is that every ethical lawyer tells their clients not to sign a contract until everything is done.

Business law 101, if you start performance before a contract is finalized, you are stuck with the final outcome. In lay terms: If you vote yes, the contract terms can be changed to what ever without consequences.

If you vote yes now, you have in effect started performance and you are stuck with the final outcome. Thank god there are people like ISG around or my wife would be out of work.

[Storm]

Speaking of Houston, can someone remind me why Houston won't allow TCID to even consider calling the vote for incorporation until 2014? I believe I was told it's because 2014 is the earliest the current moratorium agreement would have allowed it. But why wouldn't the new regional partnership agreement void the moratorium agreement? If Houston is getting their money and in exchange has agreed not to annex The Woodlands, what dog do they still have in the fight that would have them dictating to us when we can decide to incorporate? It makes me wonder if it's Houston that wants this provision in there or is it TCID?

[mdonn76405]

First of all it isn't 2014, Tommy changed during the Forum, but wait in the past he did say it was 2014, but then they said it was 2011, Ah hell what matter does it make as long as we get a kiss after wards.

[IndianSpringsGuy]

A draft? 10 months after the announcement and a few days before voting begins and we're still talking about a draft?

Great. We voters are going to have a NON-BINDING memo of understanding with TCID and a DRAFT agreement with Houston on which to base one of the most important decisions we'll make regarding how we are governed and how we are taxed.

If this is a preview of how our potential new leaders (TCID) plan to take care of our community, well it's pretty darn scary.:eek:

It is a draft until finalyzed and signed. This is normal. Really, you are placing way too much emphasis on words here. The concept is very easy to understand. It is not scary at all to me. I believe our legislators when they say something where they have high stakes especially. Don't you think our senator is trying to keep his job? The agreement was finalyzed in concept and value long ago. An agreement is when two or more parties agree to something, is it not? Now we must have formal contracts before someone believes the words of a person representing them. Well, it is certainly comforting to have all the Is dotted and all the Ts crossed, but the substance of the agreement is not in the legal process. It is in the agreed value and terms. He has been assured by the mayor of Houston that the council is in agreement and that the only thing holding it back is legal appoval in wordsmithing. The council are on their schedule, not The Woodlands and in reality, do not need to approve it before the election. They are actually doing us a favor by trying to get it approved beforehand. We do not need the agreement wordsmithed before we decide for self government. ... oh maybe a few people do, those who do not want this to pass. Sure the council can ax the agreement if they fail to approve it afterwards, but we are not voting on the agreement. If it does not contain proper provisions, then we do not need to sign. Risk? Very very small. I am not concerned at all.

[mdonn76405]

If I didn't know better I would think the board made the same promise to you that they made to me if I backed off.

[mdonn76405]

:rolleyes:But you took that lower representative position until they were ready to move you up.

[Storm]

An agreement is when two or more parties agree to something, is it not? Now we must have formal contracts before someone believes the words of a person representing them.


My dictionary offers the following definition for the word "agreement":
A properly executed and legally binding contract.

I thought when the big announcement was made back in December 2006, the Regional Partnership Agreement was going to be more than "two or more parties agreeing to something". I thought it was going to be more along those lines of that definition above. You make it sound as if we're asking for something totally unreasonable. Legal agreements and contracts exist EVERYWHERE. Not because the parties don't trust each other at the time they are entering into the agreement, but because it is prudent, responsible decision making. I've been told TCID usually won't sneeze without one. But an agreement for $16 million up front and $45 million over the next ?? years and one that is supposed to guarantee our freedom from annexation isn't important enough for the voters to see?

[mdonn76405]

You are both right according to Blacks Law dictionary. In business agreements are put together usually with a letter of intent. The problem is that these agreements usually have a clause to protect against unforeseen circumstances that may arise before a contract is done. After the contract is signed it is binding unless there is a clause covering a problem. What TCID is asking us to do, is to give them permission to enter into an agreement with no clauses to protect the residents against something we do not agree on. If we were allowed to see the finished agreement before the vote, we could decide if it is what we want, This has not happened and no ethical attorney would advise his client to enter into an agreement without an out if he was to be unhappy with the offer.

[Publius]

Absolutely not. An agreement is when two or more parties sign a document to which they are legally bound, period. A "draft" is a proposal, nothing more, nothing less. Do you do any business, ISG? I figured you might know this.

[IndianSpringsGuy]

My dictionary offers the following definition for the word "agreement":
A properly executed and legally binding contract.

I thought when the big announcement was made back in December 2006, the Regional Partnership Agreement was going to be more than "two or more parties agreeing to something". I thought it was going to be more along those lines of that definition above. You make it sound as if we're asking for something totally unreasonable. Legal agreements and contracts exist EVERYWHERE. Not because the parties don't trust each other at the time they are entering into the agreement, but because it is prudent, responsible decision making. I've been told TCID usually won't sneeze without one. But an agreement for $16 million up front and $45 million over the next ?? years and one that is supposed to guarantee our freedom from annexation isn't important enough for the voters to see?

That is exactly what is being developed now. Do you think they want to go through this process before we have our elections? We are not voting on the agreement. I see that nowhere on the ballot. Do you? We are fortunate they are working on this for us.

[Storm]

That is exactly what is being developed now. Do you think they want to go through this process before we have our elections? We are not voting on the agreement. I see that nowhere on the ballot. Do you? We are fortunate they are working on this for us.

Tommy Williams and Mike Page have said along that the agreement would be available. I don't recall them saying it would be a draft and I don't recall them saying it would be if Houston got around to it. When the question was asked at TCID's public forum if the RPA would be ready before the election, the answer was yes. Not maybe; yes. I would like to see what they promised before I vote on it. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

Why do you think Houston is willing to work on its agreement with TCID if, as you claim, TCID and their proponents do not even think it is necessary to have it in place prior to the election? Why would Houston be willing to work so hard to please those two or three of us (as you claim) who think it is? Do you really believe the City of Houston is responding to what you claim is a few of us paranoid, idiotic, misguided animals that are opposed to the current plan? (And by the way, I'm not opposed to the RPA with Houston as announced; I'm opposed to the way TCID's legislation is structured.) Or is maybe putting all this last minute effort into the agreement worth it to them because they realize the opposition is more than just a few of us and because they don't want to miss out on an opportunity for a good deal? Could this perhaps be an indication that they would much rather have some type of agreement than annex us? And if so, don't you think they would be willing to negotiate with us again after we fix some of the problems with TCID's enabling legislation?

[little_dog_too]

www.houstontx.gov this is where I go to keep checking the agendas for the Houston City Council - it's not on the 16th agenda currently posted, as far as I can tell. At the Thursday Forum meeting, Senator Williams boasted that anything the Mayor puts on the agenda is approved. Geez, what's the council for? Is that why the RPA hasn't been placed on the agenda? I agree with Storm, they must be re-negotiating; after 10 months, whats the hang up?

Love to hear your thoughts...

Remember tell your friends and neighbors - vote no to TCID propositions 1, 2 & 3. How can you get into a "marriage" of $$$$ sorts...without a signed pre-nuptial agreement?

[IndianSpringsGuy]

You guys have your folly. Believe what you want. The end result will not be as you hope either way.

[mdonn76405]

Life is a TWO way street. Crow taste like chicken.