I’d agree with Bill Broussard, but then we’d both be wrong.
In Broussard’s commentary concerning the coastal spine (“The point of the barrier was safety, not money,” The Daily News, Jan. 11), his core idea is that he desires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to disregard any suggestions from the public about the coastal spine and “build it in any way you see fit to make it as safe as possible.”
Well now, does Bill Broussard not understand that the corps labeled their presentation in October a “Tentatively Selected Plan?” What does he think is the reason for a “Public Comment Period?” Is he suggesting the corps should be or is lying when they tell us that their present plan is only a first step, and they’re requesting the maximum public input so that they can incorporate suggestions of change?
And, how insulting Broussard is to the hundreds of individual residents from Galveston, Bolivar and the mainland, and to organizations like the Houston Audubon Society, the Galveston Bay Association, University of Texas Medical Branch, the turtle rescue group, etc. All of these and many more have given their ideas for modification and change to the corps to maintain the plan’s safety, but also to fit it better to our needs.
Yet, Broussard believes the corps should disregard all of us? Hard to conceive of such a wrong-headed, undemocratic idea.
Broussard also gets personal. He implies that my sole motive in supporting the coastal spine for the last decade has been “money.” His specific implication is that the city somehow paid for my personal travel expenses to Amsterdam in a research trip a group of us took in 2012 to see the Dutch coastal spine system for ourselves. Or as he puts it, “…Council can donate massive amounts of money for Ike Dike promotional tours to Amsterdam for our famous and wealthy…”
Nope. I paid for my trip to the Netherlands out of my own pocket with no recompense from any source. I have received no monetary benefit from city funds during the near decade that I have supported the Ike Dike. Broussard is wrong, again.
Usually I think it best when personally attacked by those with whom I disagree to disregard it and focus, as I did in the first paragraph, on the core arguments of those who are attacking. But in this case, it’s not just my character attributes Broussard is attacking. He’s also making a false implication of personal behavior, which I find is quite possibly libelous. Because of that, and the fact that this implication found its way into print, I felt a response was necessary this time.