Where exactly is Point Blank?
San Jacinto Newstimes , October 2007

POINT BLANK – The exact location of Point Blank is as confusing as the spelling of the city (Pointblank or Point Blank) and county records add little to its clarification.
According to Point Blank Mayor Lillian Bratton, part of Northwoods Subdivision was annexed into the city limits about four year ago. However, the only record on file in the county courthouse is an order by commissioners’ court declaring the results of an election for Point Blank’s incorporation in 1975, setting out the original boundaries of the incorporated area. Attached to the court minutes is a map of the newly incorporated area. Maps from the Secretary of State’s office and from the 2002 Federal Census records show no deviation from the original map of 1975’s incorporation.
If more land was annexed about four years ago, as Bratton contends, where was the information filed and was it given pre-clearance by the U.S. Justice Department, under the Federal Voting Rights Act?
With these questions unanswered, Bratton and other city council members are considering annexing up to one and one-half miles along Hwy. 190 towards the Lake Livingston Bridge.
During a recent public meeting in Point Blank, Bratton and other council members said they need to annex in that direction because, “Onalaska wants to come across the Lake Livingston Bridge and take our property.”
Onalaska Mayor Lou Vail said he doesn’t know what started that rumor again.
“We have no intentions or plans to annex into San Jacinto County. We have no reason to go there,” Vail said.
“This is obviously their (councils) own agenda,” Vail added.
Before adjourning last week’s public meeting, council members passed a motion to table a survey of the city until the next monthly meeting.
Bratton said Tuesday that after the meeting was adjourned she and council members went into executive session and decided to wait until after the first of next year to have a survey done because no money is budgeted in this year’s city budget to cover the proposed $5,000 cost.
If the city went into executive session after the regular meeting was adjourned, it was done so without regards to the Texas Open Meetings Act. The agenda simply stated: “Adjourn into executive session if needed.” The agenda should have stated in simple language what the council would be discussing in executive session so that taxpayers of the area could keep informed of what their elected officials are doing.