Edited by Audrey Duff, with contributions this week from Roseana Auten, Andrea Barnett, and Louisa C. Brinsmade
Tardiness is one thing, but Circle C doesn't want to pay at all. The company is claiming that the land in question now belongs to someone else, and that the other company owes the money. Turns out, Circle C and that other company share the same executives, who may have just swapped land with themselves to pick off the best parts of the Circle C Ranch for their new company, appropriately named Phoenix Holdings, Ltd., and are now simply delaying payment to Travis County. Travis Central Appraisal documents show that Circle C Land Corp. sold the 220 acres to Phoenix Holdings, which offices at 1111 W. 11th Street, the same address as Circle C Development, part of Circle C Land Corp. A call to Circle C Development asking for Phoenix Holdings, Ltd., revealed that they do indeed office out of the same space, and that any questions regarding Phoenix Holdings, Ltd. should be directed to Steven Bartlett, president of Circle C Development, according to the receptionist at 1111 W. 11th.
The Secretary of State records show that Circle C Development partner James Gressett is also the agent for Phoenix Holdings, Ltd., and its parent company, Phoenix Holdings, G.P., Inc. The new companies were formed August 31, 1995, just before the sale of the property.
Despite it being apparent that the same people who owned the land before own it now, "Circle C is telling me it should be in another name," Cerda says, and since there is a dispute, he is waiting for a re-certification from the Travis Central Appraisal District showing that the property in question has indeed been sold to another party.
Travis Central Appraisal spokesperson Art Cory confirms that Circle C sold the property to a company called Phoenix Holdings, Ltd. in September, 1995. "But we only certify once a year in January." In other words, he says, Circle C should have pro-rated the taxes owed at the time of the sale, and paid them as part of the transaction.
Calls to Circle C Development/Phoenix Holdings, Ltd. were not returned. -- L.C.B.
At a small gathering of Christian law students at the University of Texas last week, McBee read from Genesis: "Then God said, `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,'" and later "God blessed them, and God said to them, `Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it,'" finishing with "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to keep and till it."
After Adam and Eve muck things up, McBee explained, God eventually gets around to flooding the earth during Noah's time, then makes a covenant with everyone left -- humans and nonhumans alike -- not to let it rain so long ever again. That covenant, McBee said, along with "man's" original charge of global groundskeeping, is the basis for one version of modern-day Christian environmentalism.
McBee added that this idea of "man" having "dominion" over the earth can make things sticky for Christians, politically speaking. "That choice of word accounts for a lot of controversy you all are probably beginning to encounter," he told the Christian law students over punch and cookies. In his daily work, McBee said, those general ideas come down to some very concrete applications. "The fundamental mission of our agency is to protect human health and natural resources, which is consistent with respecting that covenant," he says. "But also, I have looked at scriptures which say that man has a unique position in creation... and when you begin to translate that into public policy, you're not thinking about setting aside resources never to be touched. It's to have resources with some utility... I think I agree with that. The simple idea of resource is that it's a resource for utilization, not because nature deserves preservation for its own sake," he said.
He acknowledged that there are more liberal theologians who find at least some inherent value in nature, but McBee, who as head of Texas' primary environmental protection agency has led efforts to soften governmental regulations on industry, counted himself among the conservatives. "Government agencies ought not be in the middle trying to resolve things," he said. "Government has a right to set the framework and parameters, but then should get out of the way and let the market decide the details." -- A.B.
"We need to understand that this proposal to issue an RFP (request for proposals) for our utility is an out-and-out attempt by our mayor to sell the utility and an attempt by Texas Utilities [TU Electric] to buy it," said AAMP member Peter Altman, state director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition. "This is about a private company wanting to gain [the] control and profit potential of a public entity that works very well. Selling our utility will mean higher bills, higher taxes, and higher pollution." (Mayor Bruce Todd has been the driving force behind issuing the RFPs -- the first step toward a possible sale. Just a reminder: Todd's former campaign consultant, Don Martin, is lobbying for the utility's sale on TU's behalf, and Todd's father-in-law George Christian is TU's lobbyist.)
Altman displayed a chart based on statistics from the Public Utility Commission that showed that the electric bills for an average home in Austin were lower than those in the service areas of San Antonio, Bluebonnet Electric, Texas Utilities Electric, and Houston Lighting & Power. He pointed out that the utility not only delivers a "high-quality" product at the lowest cost, but also that the $60 million profit it made last year went back to the shareholders in the form of transfers to the city's general fund, which pays for police and fire protection, EMS, roads, parks, etc. "There is no way any private company is going to say at the end of a year, `Hey Austin, we made $60 million this year and our shareholders decided that we should give it all back to you," Altman said.
AAMP spokesperson and longtime environmentalist Shudde Fath, who has been an Electric Utility Commissioner since 1977, warned that in order for Austin's Utility to become more competitive, it must be allowed to retain more of its earnings to invest in capital assets that would increase equity and decrease debt. Fath suggested that one way to keep industrial ratepayers from jumping to a cheaper utility in the future is for city leaders to become "marketing experts" to inform high-tech companies of the consequences of abandoning the city's utility in the event the power industry is deregulated. "The net result could be higher property taxes [for the industrial ratepayers] as well as higher payroll costs due to cost-of-living wage increases triggered by higher residential electric rates charged to its employees," Fath said. -- A.D.
On the other hand, his contributions for this campaign indicate a willingness to listen to several special-interest parties: $9,300 of the $42,839 he has raised comes from political action committees for special interests, including: Texas Phillips Petroleum Co. PAC; Texas Aggregates & Concrete PAC; Texas Association of Realtors PAC; and Texaco Political Involvement Committee. Other notable contributions include $250 from Freeport-McMoRan engineer Paul Linehan, and $500 from attorney Robert Kleeman. -- L.C.B.