Dear editor:

This summer, TxDOT and/or the City of Rockport replaced the traffic signal at Business 35 and Traylor with a traffic-automated signal that provides controlled left turn signals for traffic on both 35 and Traylor.  As a nearby resident, I am so grateful for this change and for the high quality of the signal. Too often many people don’t bother to use turn signals when approaching the intersection, and one never knows which way they are going, so the new light helps alleviate this problem by giving protection with the left turn signal.

Thanks very much to whoever made the decision to put a first-class light in place. You probably have helped to prevent some accidents.

David Murrah

Dear editor:

I will be voting against Proposition C for several reasons. We need medical care in the county. This is a fact we can all agree.

The new ER is the first step to bringing that care back to us. It is being funded by a for profit heath system - Corpus Christi Medical Center, part of HCA Healthcare. They are in the business of providing healthcare. Our county leaders are not in this business.

A micro hospital is typically an independent licensed facility with acuity comparable to a community hospital at a fraction of the size - about eight to 15 beds. I love this concept and support it for our community, but the county hasn’t shared enough information for me to support this bond. Do we have a partner? Are they going to be in direct competition with CCMC? This may be a recipe of failure for both entities failing. What level of services are planned? Where will it be built? My list of questions are too many for this post!

We are being told if we say No to this bond, the matching grant money goes away. Where is that in writing? The grant details haven’t been shared despite several individuals asking for it.

I’m not a fan of incurring debt without a solid plan with clear direction and goals. I’m not a fan of threats - if you don’t play my way, I’ll take my toys and go home. I will vote against Prop C as a message to our county leaders - share the plan with details and ask me again in May.

Katherine L. Kane

Dear editor:

Our county has been turned on its head because more than 10% of the electorate exercised their rights under State Law to petition for the right to vote on a large amount of debt presented to them as a certificates of obligation. The success of the petition concerned the county enough to convert the Certificates of Obligation into a General Bond and placed on the Nov. 3, 2020 ballot as three propositions.  The most contentious of these three propositions, A, is for $17.235 million to be issued for the building of a 55,424-sq.-ft., three story courthouse.

The issue is the size and cost of the courthouse to replace the old courthouse destroyed during Hurricane Harvey. Neither side stated the county does not need a new courthouse.  It is the only thing on which both sides agree.

The Yes side says “we” must vote for Proposition A because the county government has brought a plan with a cost estimate to the table, which the people should accept, as is.

The Against side says “we” should not vote for Proposition A because the people have been brought an estimate on cost and preliminary drawings.  This leaves taxpayers subject to much higher cost impacts due to an ever-changing market on supply and demand of materials.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the basic, unbiased argument for and against Proposition A.

Katy Jackson

Dear editor:

(This is) why I oppose Proposition A.

1. I have asked supporters of the courthouse bond why we need such a large courthouse. Their response has solely been to defer to authorities who say we need it rather than explain the basis for this conclusion. I even posted this sincere question as a comment to a post on the Vote Yes Facebook page, and unfortunately, received no response.

2. I have come to genuinely suspect that the hands promoting the oversized courthouse extend beyond well-meaning government officials to include people who have a stake in the outcome. I do not know from whence the non-governmental organization (Aransas County Partnership Economic Development Corporation) arose, but their disproportional role in our local governmental decision-making gives me pause.

3. Though the proponents for the courthouse bond say taxes won’t increase, they can only speak for this year. Also, they overlook how increases in property values lead to increased property taxes. I am struggling to make ends meet; many others are as well. Higher taxes mean higher rents for residents and businesses alike.

4. Do we, as a community, really want to become like Port Aransas? During their boom, there was great contention within the community. The density of homes increased dramatically, leaving little natural green space. Traffic on thoroughfares became difficult to navigate. Wouldn’t it be better to grow slowly, and proactively manage these issues rather than reacting to them? There are still areas within Rockport that need sewage lines.


Mary Christine Ritter

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.