Sunday, March 06, 2011

On a Mission

Today's Standard Times has an interesting article on the new mission statement for the city's comprehensive plan. It bothered me during the discussions the city council held, and today it finally hit me why.

First, let's look at what the mission statement is: "By the year 2027, San Angelo will be measurably the most desirable mid-sized city in the state of Texas." First, the key word here is desirable. From Websters online desirable is having pleasing qualities or properties : attractive <a desirable woman>. Desirable is about aesthetics. It's about attracting people and groups. It's about emotional responses. It's about feelings. It's about things that can't really be measured.

We need to be careful when we focus on desirable. We could have council ending up like a group of beauty pageant moms, doing whatever it takes to make the city more desirable in the hopes of winning recognition. Spending money on projects that amount to little more than expensive make up and costumes, with little thought on the basics of what make a good, healthy, safe, happy, and free community.

There has already been a lot of hype about the "desirable destinations" poll out there. Seems too much like American Idol. I don't want to see San Angelo continually competing to win Americas Favorite City Contest. I would say a healthy, safe, growing community is more important than one that is merely desirable.


  1. Clearly, desirability is a full array of aspects, including all the basics listed as well as the aesthetics. Something may no longer be desireable if one single aspect, within the vast array included, is deemed undesirable. Think dating and marriage. Its the whole package.

  2. Paul,

    Dating and marriage is a good comparison. Is what is desirable in a mate/life partner the same as what is desirable in a one night stand.

  3. Mr. Turner,

    You made a mistake, you let Mr New “get your goat.” That is OK. You made a mistake but you can regroup, learn from the experience and continue. Mr. New has been stifling input from the public for some time. I checked the Texas Open Meetings Act and found he has not violated the act. Remember he is not stupid but he is an ignorant man. The Peter Principle is in play here. Reexamine and restudy what has happened and proceed from there.


  4. A song for "bartender"


  5. Anon, sorry, I couldn't bring up the youtube link, so haven't heard the song. And yes, it is "barkeep", not bartender. To be sure not offended, been called far worse, sometimes by former Mayors

    New has shown an irritating habit of cutting people off, Council members as readily as the public! I suspect more than one Council member had an inner grin over this. Personally, I see it more as a matter of New's "style" than a concious effort to limit public input.

    Absolutely no violation of Open Meetings. Sometime ago on a different topic altogether, we corresponded with someone in Coleman with a similar problem. Coleman opened its meetings to anyone, but allowed NO public comment without special dispensation having been granted at the prior meeting. Some time ago, that may have changed.

    So long as we the people can watch (save for the limited exceptions for executive session), Staute is happy. Public comment, or the allowable duration of same is, so far as I know, entirely up to the governing body, so long as everyone is treated equally under whatever rule is adopted.

  6. Try "Simani-Bartenders Sweetheart" in the youtube search area.