Go Windcrest Texas

   A recall petition in the  city of Windcrest  seeking to remove the mayor and two council members have been called into question and prompted a criminal investigation. Among the suspect signatures are those of a deceased couple and those of the mayor being targeted in the recall drive!  Yep, Dead People Signed the Petition!  John Gretz, Ron Armes, Michael Eyhorn form the petition committee that is responsible for the petition signatures.  To assist in gather signatures, Councilman James McFall and Gerd Jacobi has volunteered their respective Wives to travel about Windcrest in a Golf Cart gathering signatures for the Recall Petition.  Yes, you heard it correct. Edith Jacobi and Evelinda "Bell" McFall, wives of current Windcrest City Councilman are working hard for the recall petition.   Fake signatures on election-related petitions are costly to the taxpayers and mar the election process. Express-News Editorial Board   Published 5:07 pm CDT, Friday, July 27, 2018

 Many Windcrest Citizens have been approached by visitors seeking signatures for a Recall Petition.   A $1,000,000 lawsuit is mentioned as well as legal fees.    On January 22nd, 2018  Mr. Busby made a presentation on the Springbrook Senior Living Project  to city council,  and introduced Robert Colunga as his assistant.  Mr. Busby also strongly cautioned council,  saying his  investors did not like political 'noise,' they liked it quiet.            Mr. Colunga completely disregarded that warning and filed a law suit against the Mayor and Council Person.  Mr. Colunga  claims that during a meeting in Jan or Feb 2018 the Mayor and Council Person made statements to two developers (developers not named) which then  cancelled Mr. Colunga's consulting contracts.     Mr. Colunga claimed his contracts were for 15% of incentives generated, which would in all likelihood exceed $1,000,000.  As a result of being removed from the projects the Plaintiff will lose in excess of

  The information below is from a Recall Petition.  The grammar is that of the petitioners.  All errors in the document are the error and duly recorded and filed at City Hall.  The Name(s) and his/her references have been replaced with an “X.”  These charges must be attached to each Petition Signature Page.  Read the charges, they really sound like sour grapes and child hood squabbling.  If a signature seeker mentions anything but these charges they are not telling you the truth. Petitioners Committee: John P. Gretz ,  Michael A. Eyhorn  and  Ronald w. Arms Recall Petition on x, Windcrest City Council Place X Council Person X’s specific acts include, but are not limited to the following: MALFEASANCE - Council Person X failed in X’s duties of fiduciary responsibility by X’s actions of requesting the use of public funds for complains made against X personally.   X further wished to abuse public funds by requesting wasteful spending, even after X was informed that i

  Remember the $5 Million figure during the Rackspace deal?  Now we have another $5 Million figure in an MEIA.  Sounds much like a con or a repeat fiasco.      Reads:  If BCAD denies Springbrook Senior Living Development Investors tax abatement request, Windcrest will pay it for them !      Reads: If deemed appropriate by the city for "service to and protection of the occupants of the project, Springbrook Developers will pay up to $5 million.  Lots of holes in that little statement.  You might think it says something, but there is nothing concrete at all.  This "Resolution" is bad for Windcrest.  The Springbrook Senior Living Development Investors need to just build the project all by themselves. 

  This is the Resolution that Irv Gerro and Sue Alexande claimed they did not publish because it was far from complete.  This was received from a wedc person that wishes to remain anonymous.   The second Whereas is very important: Says Project described in attached Exhibit A.  Where is Exhibt A?     Item 6 states what Irv attempted to relay during his city council comments.  Irv left out "such that all possible local sales taxes related to the project..."    Another $5 million is mentioned in this resolution. (item8)  There is a Special Use Permit mentioned but P&Z already addressed that issue, so why is it mentioned again? (item9) Item 4: Senior center available for use by all Windcrest residents aged 55 or more.  There is NO  mention of the cost involved, do you think this will be free?  It should be so why not mention that it will be free to residents unless??