Rule of Law, or Rule of Men? You Decide.

by Stephen on 10/12/2015


Still Waters at Catfish Bay

Still Waters at Catfish Bay

It is said that sometimes “Less is More.”  I have tried to cover the Privatization of Lake Texoma State Park as thoroughly as possible.  It is a complicated story spread over a period of almost two decades.

To summarize it, I’d say it has primarily been a public relations campaign built around a bait and switch promotional strategy.  In other words, if the park privatization was a product sold in a store, you’d have good cause to take it back and get a  refund.

There are three main problems with the proposed “Commissioners of the Land Office (CLO) v Pointe Vista” lawsuit settlement:

1)  The CLO entered the court under false pretenses of prosecuting a case for breach of contract.  While pretending to enforce the terms of the Pointe Vista Purchase Agreements, the CLO claimed the right to “rescind” these original land sales, as if they had never happened.

If the CLO won their suit, all of the 758 acres of Lake Texoma State Park sold to Pointe Vista would be returned to public ownership.

This settlement is based on Pointe Vista having won and being allowed to rescind the development requirements, while keeping over 700 acres of our park land.  They rescind Pointe Vistas contractual obligations, but not their 2008 land purchases.

This settlement does away with the Pointe Vista Development, because they would be allowed to keep the land and not have to build anything if they don’t want. The would be free to sell it all.

2)  The CLO and Pointe Vista are attempting to circumvent their history of environmental non-compliance under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.  This also violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

3)  The CLO and Pointe Vista are attempting to circumvent their history of non-compliance with Oklahoma state laws which require the replacement of park land lost when it was sold to Pointe Vista.  State law requires this replacement park land to be located on Lake Texoma.

Governor Fallin, Pointe Vista, The Oklahoman and the Madill Record have each made arguments for looking to the positive side of the “recent settlement.”  We won’t be bogged down in the courts for years and years.

These editorials obscure the fact that with this bogus settlement, the CLO and Pointe Vista and their attorneys have decided that it’s OK to to rob the state taxpayers of their day in court.

Do you want the Rule of Law, or the Rule of Men?  You decide.  Oklahoma County Court Judge Roger Stuart has not yet received or approved this settlement.  Unless he’s willing to allow his court to be used for such ends, he will order the case to go forward.  “CLO v Pointe Vista” should be tried in the court to determine the merits of the CLO’s case and Pointe Vista’s counter suit.

Previous post:

Next post: