The potential abandonment of public easements on Porretto Beach will head to Galveston City Council on Jan. 25, but the deciding factor could fall on how the council members approach the vote.

Is the abandonment about a controversial planned development on the land, or is it about the easements themselves and whether the city has any use for them?

City Manager Brian Maxwell said it should be the latter.

“You’re not supposed to use the abandonment process to dictate development,” Maxwell said.

Instead, Maxwell said it should be decided “solely on whether or not the city has an intended use of the property.”

Not everyone agrees. Galveston Planning Commission voted 4-3 on Tuesday to recommend that city council doesn’t abandon dozens of rights of way on Porretto Beach, between Sixth and 10th streets. Several of the people who voted not to abandon the rights of way cited their reasoning as being more about the public interest and the development that could result after an abandonment.

The rights of way on Porretto Beach have been the subject of community interest for more than a year. Sonya Porretto’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee Randy Williams is trying to sell the beach to pay off debtors and has signed an agreement with a private company for $6 million to purchase the land, with the rights of way included.

The city owns those rights of way but has said those were never intended to be used and that there is no intended use in the future.

The developer, WRCB L.P., is planning a multiuse boardwalk on the land. Some people have opposed the development’s potential environmental effects and because it might block beach views.

The city council should look at two steps when determining abandonment, City Attorney Don Glywasky said. Does the abandonment impede the traveling public and does the public have any use for this land? And does the abandonment have a community benefit?

The Planning Commission ultimately made its recommendation on the second question, Glywasky said.

“There has to be some evidence,” Glywasky said. “There was testimony about how this would benefit the public. They used their discretion to make a determination whether it was in the best interest.”

Maxwell said the community benefit aspect should deal with the rights of way themselves, not the planned development. Rights of way exist for the purpose of placing utilities or roads, he said.

“It’s getting mired up in community desire,” Maxwell said. “But in my mind, an abandonment should be based on whether a city needs that property for some intended use in the future.”

Michael Gaertner, the architect who is designing the development, said he felt the planning commissioners were subjective in their decision-making process.

“I guess to my way of thinking, the other commissioners voted their opinion of the project and not whether it falls in the criteria,” Gaertner said. “I think that your own personal opinion and your personal preference should not be a factor.”

Councilman Craig Brown, of District 2, was present for the planning commission vote and said that he doesn’t feel the commission voted in an incorrect manner.

“It seems like the planning commission was not against development,” Brown said. “It seemed that those planning commission members who were against the abandonment felt that location on the beach and on the sand required special attention other than just looking at normal development.”

Councilwoman Terrilyn Tarlton-Shannon, a nonvoting ex officio member of the planning commission, said she has always understood abandonment should be separate from conversations about development.

“Clearly, one side of the argument was about the development and the other side of the argument was about the abandonment,” Tarlton-Shannon said. “That’s the way I’ve been taught when you’re on planning commission. You’re supposed to look at the abandonment.”

The planning commission’s Tuesday decision has no bearing on the ultimate abandonment decision, which falls to Galveston City Council. The council will meet Jan. 25.

Samantha Ketterer: 409-683-5241; or on Twitter at @sam_kett


(5) comments

Caleb Crocker

This is off topic, but I would appreciate an explanation of the following from someone with an understanding of the processes. The potential release of the easement is referred to as an abandonment. I assume the city purchased this easement at some time, so if it was determined that they didn't want it, why would they not market it to the current owners? Just fiscal responsibility with tax dollars is my thought?

Lisa Blair

Caleb, these easements are not real property. The property is owned by private individuals. The easements are only the right to access someone’s private property for utilities etc.

Caleb Crocker

Lisa, thanks for the response. Yes, the property is owned by the private individuals, I understand that. But easements do limit the property owners rights with respect to what they can do on said easement. So, generally, when an easement is acquired, it is purchased. My understanding is that other than in the process of development, property owners rarely give easements without direct compensation. So, I'm making the assumption that the property owners sold the easement at some point to the city. My question is, if the city at some point bought the easement, and then later decides that it is no longer needed, instead of abandoning it, why wouldn't they market it to the property owner? Although it is not real property, it is an encumbrance on said real property, thus limiting the use of the property, and ultimately, reducing the value of said property.

Another was to look at my question is if the police department determines it no longer needs a patrol vehicle (an asset to the city, just like the easement), they auction it, they don't abandon it and give it away?

City Manager

These easements were probably part of the original plat of the city.....very old. State law is clear on how these should be disposed of, and it includes a fair market appraisal and whomever is requesting and qualifies for the abandonment must pay that amount in order to consummate the transaction.

Caleb Crocker

Very interesting. Thanks for the info Lisa and City Manager. Kuddos to informed people taking the time to explain.

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.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.