It's been almost a year since the last election. It seems fitting that we should review the speech that Mayor Morrison gave after he was sworn in. He made a very strong case for what needed to happen as the city moved forward during his administration. At around 3:12 in the video he emphasized the need for all decisions to be made openly and transparently before the public in the council meetings, not behind closed doors. At about 4:00 he charges staff to present complete and accurate information and be prepared to answer tough questions. At 6:34 he expresses the need for a united city to address many issues and at 9:26 he observes that there are problems that the city government doesn't have the answers to and asks for public support.
With another city election coming to an end and the half way mark of Mayor Morrison's first term fast approaching I think it is time for the citizens of San Angelo to review how well his goals and aspirations have been met. I, as my previous post probably make clear, have an opinion but this is not about my opinion. I think now is a good time for you, my friends and neighbors and your friends and neighbors to review in your own mind and your own way how well this city and its government are carrying out the vision expressed in our Mayor's speech.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Friday, May 09, 2014
Sunday, January 13, 2013
A Very New Year
We are at the beginning of a brand new year and it promises to be very different. We will end up with a new Mayor and we might just have a real election in the process. Councilman Morrison is going to run for Mayor, which means someone else will have to fill the SMD 2 seat. I will be running for that seat. This blog will still be active, and I will be posting on issues from time to time but in keeping with our policy of focusing on issues not candidates I will not be using this blog for my campaign. I will set up a separate website/blog for that purpose. This blog will not endorse candidates, even me, for office. ConchoInfo will be a part of the election because the reality is my platform and issues and reasons for running have been stated on this site since 2004. What I campaign on will include what I've been saying here from the beginning. That won't change.
This will be an exciting, eventful year and the upcoming elections promises to be very important for the future of our city. Change is in the air.
A side note to Buffalo. I didn't approve your last comment yet because I thought you might want to publish it here after a little tweaking and editing. This is where it would be the most appropriate and on topic. Let me know if you want it here or there.
Again, this promises to be an interesting and exciting new year. Have a great one.
Jim Turner
This will be an exciting, eventful year and the upcoming elections promises to be very important for the future of our city. Change is in the air.
A side note to Buffalo. I didn't approve your last comment yet because I thought you might want to publish it here after a little tweaking and editing. This is where it would be the most appropriate and on topic. Let me know if you want it here or there.
Again, this promises to be an interesting and exciting new year. Have a great one.
Jim Turner
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Sunday Free for All
Hi folks , it's been a while, I'm embarrassed for neglecting this site. Been keeping books for candidates. There is a reason I've never tried to make a living betting ponies at the track: I'd lose!
We had a low turnout, and I want to talk about that more than winners. I know Paul and Kendall and Chief Vasquez; they are good people doing a pretty good job, and I thank them for their service. Really.
That said, I don't love our new local election process. I have been a precinct election judge or alternate judge since '92: Judge/Alt goes by last election Gov. vote, and I've been on both sides of that in a minority/majority district. Really doesn't matter, my Democrat compatriots at Belmore Baptist were a joy to work with, all we wanted was an honest election.
When you go to vote, the people who process you do get paid; not a lot, I take a serious pay cut when I do it, but yes, we are paid. Promise you, nobody does it for the money.
That's background, now we move to nuts & bolts. City elections were limited to 8 polling places. Normal even with some cost-saving combinations, would have been 22 polling sites, 27 county-wide for Primary races May 29. Now we look at a process that for general (Nov) or Primary partisan elections we have the 22 places in the city limits. Then next year City, we are all supposed to remember the 8 places for Council or SAISD, and this I report of personal knowledge; SAISD is pissed!
Well think; I just found my way to a City polling place. NOW on Monday you expect me to find my way to the sort-of-usual, recently combined local precincts for the start of early voting on that race. As the late Mr. Rogers might have put it: "Children, can you spell Voter Suppression"
Tell you a short story, or I'll try to be short. Thursday I am going home a little early, rain-out. I cross that crater at Concho and Magdalen, decide to beef about it. For starts I call Street&Bridge, silly me, it is a street by a bridge, but Whoops! wrong Dept. I get kicked over to Inspections, I'm finally told "hey that was part of the sewer job, that goes to Water Utilities".
Pardon the language, but screw the hired help, I talk to Will Wilde. He tells me this is wrapped up in civil law trying to get the contractor to fulfill the obligation, please understand Mr. Ryan, these things take time.
OK, says I, but you stay up their ass, my concern is a drivable surface. BTW Mr. Wilde if it ain't happening soon here is my suggestion: We have signs all over the place promoting the Concho St. Historic Dist. Forget the expense of an actual repair (which my employer could do in oh, maybe three hours): No put up new signs designating that crater as the "Concho St. Historic Pothole". Wilde chuckles, I chuckle And I sign off thanking him for taking my call.
Now Saturday I stop by the Blues Festival on Oakes St and by accident run into a city staffer. I tell him this story and he says, " You haven't driven home yet today, have you" No, I reply but I'm about to". he continues, " I wondered where that work order came from but you will find that crater has been filled in, packed and hot-patched with paving" and God is my witness, it was. A temp job, not something I'd want to hang my name on, but it's there.
Point of today's lesson: Yes you can "fight" City Hall. Trick is to work with them, come together and get something done. Somebody downtown did not want to hear me next Tuesday at Council meeting making that wise-ass crack about "Historic Potholes" for the camera; Don't know who or what shortcuts were taken, all I give a rat's about is the crater got fixed, thank you whoever. It really isn't so much "fighting" city hall as working with them. Old, old saying: squeaky wheels get the grease.
We had a low turnout, and I want to talk about that more than winners. I know Paul and Kendall and Chief Vasquez; they are good people doing a pretty good job, and I thank them for their service. Really.
That said, I don't love our new local election process. I have been a precinct election judge or alternate judge since '92: Judge/Alt goes by last election Gov. vote, and I've been on both sides of that in a minority/majority district. Really doesn't matter, my Democrat compatriots at Belmore Baptist were a joy to work with, all we wanted was an honest election.
When you go to vote, the people who process you do get paid; not a lot, I take a serious pay cut when I do it, but yes, we are paid. Promise you, nobody does it for the money.
That's background, now we move to nuts & bolts. City elections were limited to 8 polling places. Normal even with some cost-saving combinations, would have been 22 polling sites, 27 county-wide for Primary races May 29. Now we look at a process that for general (Nov) or Primary partisan elections we have the 22 places in the city limits. Then next year City, we are all supposed to remember the 8 places for Council or SAISD, and this I report of personal knowledge; SAISD is pissed!
Well think; I just found my way to a City polling place. NOW on Monday you expect me to find my way to the sort-of-usual, recently combined local precincts for the start of early voting on that race. As the late Mr. Rogers might have put it: "Children, can you spell Voter Suppression"
Tell you a short story, or I'll try to be short. Thursday I am going home a little early, rain-out. I cross that crater at Concho and Magdalen, decide to beef about it. For starts I call Street&Bridge, silly me, it is a street by a bridge, but Whoops! wrong Dept. I get kicked over to Inspections, I'm finally told "hey that was part of the sewer job, that goes to Water Utilities".
Pardon the language, but screw the hired help, I talk to Will Wilde. He tells me this is wrapped up in civil law trying to get the contractor to fulfill the obligation, please understand Mr. Ryan, these things take time.
OK, says I, but you stay up their ass, my concern is a drivable surface. BTW Mr. Wilde if it ain't happening soon here is my suggestion: We have signs all over the place promoting the Concho St. Historic Dist. Forget the expense of an actual repair (which my employer could do in oh, maybe three hours): No put up new signs designating that crater as the "Concho St. Historic Pothole". Wilde chuckles, I chuckle And I sign off thanking him for taking my call.
Now Saturday I stop by the Blues Festival on Oakes St and by accident run into a city staffer. I tell him this story and he says, " You haven't driven home yet today, have you" No, I reply but I'm about to". he continues, " I wondered where that work order came from but you will find that crater has been filled in, packed and hot-patched with paving" and God is my witness, it was. A temp job, not something I'd want to hang my name on, but it's there.
Point of today's lesson: Yes you can "fight" City Hall. Trick is to work with them, come together and get something done. Somebody downtown did not want to hear me next Tuesday at Council meeting making that wise-ass crack about "Historic Potholes" for the camera; Don't know who or what shortcuts were taken, all I give a rat's about is the crater got fixed, thank you whoever. It really isn't so much "fighting" city hall as working with them. Old, old saying: squeaky wheels get the grease.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Redistricting for Dummies
A few stray thoughts first before I get to "Redistricting for Dummies"
I'm driving home when an SAPD marked car comes behind me on Bryant Raceway, lights and siren, northbound. I pull to the near curb; I also notice no one else in 4 lanes reacts at all. People, they are called "emergency calls" for a reason, get out of the way!
Another peeve of mine; driving S Chadbourne, I have learned to get in the center lane. On that section we have 4 lanes and parallel parking. I have had to stand on the brake to avoid tearing off an idiot's door three times this month. Driver opens the door without a glance back. I wouldn't mind taking the door and costing them instructive money, but the part where I untangle the detached left arm from my grill guard; that might give me nightmares.
Redistricting: what a FUBAR! SD 25 State Senator Jeff Wentworth has had a bill on the table since his first term on the issue. His proposal; at the decennial redistricting put 4 Rep, 4 Dems and a retired judge emeritus both parties can agree to, and that body draws lines. Legislature still has to approve or not, but coming out of such a body, Legislature is likely to approve.
This FUBAR, We have the San Antonio court, drew up new lines. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) told that Court to try again. Then parties to the lawsuit appealed to the Washington, DC Circuit Court, claiming racial/ethnic discrimination. The Texas response on that: "Yes your honors, we did our best to Gerrymand districts to Republican advantage for the next ten years, but we were discriminating against Democrats, not any racial/ethnic group covered by the Civil Rights Act." This rather unique argument so surprised the Court, DC retired to chambers and might rule by this time next month.
The San Antonio Court has a hearing this Wednesday, the 15th. One can hope they have maps drawn as a fall-back, I do not expect an agreement between litigants. IF the San Antonio court puts its map in place, both major Parties can have June Conventions, with Primary elections April 17th but that is looking dicey. San Antonio has until Feb 20 to do what SCOTUS said was its job, maybe they will.
Yeah, this is "political junkie" land. Most of you have families, jobs, and hobbies. This is my hobby, I read Court rulings for fun. We may have a Texas Primary or even a "split" Primary in our lifetimes, that is now up to the Courts.
I'm driving home when an SAPD marked car comes behind me on Bryant Raceway, lights and siren, northbound. I pull to the near curb; I also notice no one else in 4 lanes reacts at all. People, they are called "emergency calls" for a reason, get out of the way!
Another peeve of mine; driving S Chadbourne, I have learned to get in the center lane. On that section we have 4 lanes and parallel parking. I have had to stand on the brake to avoid tearing off an idiot's door three times this month. Driver opens the door without a glance back. I wouldn't mind taking the door and costing them instructive money, but the part where I untangle the detached left arm from my grill guard; that might give me nightmares.
Redistricting: what a FUBAR! SD 25 State Senator Jeff Wentworth has had a bill on the table since his first term on the issue. His proposal; at the decennial redistricting put 4 Rep, 4 Dems and a retired judge emeritus both parties can agree to, and that body draws lines. Legislature still has to approve or not, but coming out of such a body, Legislature is likely to approve.
This FUBAR, We have the San Antonio court, drew up new lines. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) told that Court to try again. Then parties to the lawsuit appealed to the Washington, DC Circuit Court, claiming racial/ethnic discrimination. The Texas response on that: "Yes your honors, we did our best to Gerrymand districts to Republican advantage for the next ten years, but we were discriminating against Democrats, not any racial/ethnic group covered by the Civil Rights Act." This rather unique argument so surprised the Court, DC retired to chambers and might rule by this time next month.
The San Antonio Court has a hearing this Wednesday, the 15th. One can hope they have maps drawn as a fall-back, I do not expect an agreement between litigants. IF the San Antonio court puts its map in place, both major Parties can have June Conventions, with Primary elections April 17th but that is looking dicey. San Antonio has until Feb 20 to do what SCOTUS said was its job, maybe they will.
Yeah, this is "political junkie" land. Most of you have families, jobs, and hobbies. This is my hobby, I read Court rulings for fun. We may have a Texas Primary or even a "split" Primary in our lifetimes, that is now up to the Courts.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Jan. 17 Council Agenda
I meant to write this yesterday, but my aging vehicle had a front end problem and my aging house had a plumbing emergency, between them took up my Saturday. On the plumbing end, when I went out to cut off the water I had to dig out several inches of silt that had built up and totally covered the meter and cut-off. With a friend working top-side and me in the crawlspace all afternoon, I had plenty of time to think. I remembered getting my new water (OK, formally "Utility")bill Friday, charging me for 4,000 gallons, about normal, but I wondered, how did anyone read that meter a couple weeks ago? In fact, I had to scrape an inch or so of dirt off the meter box cover before I opened it and found the meter covered up. I don't think anyone has flipped the lid and read that meter in a while. Gentle Reader, you might want to look at your meter, a little more difficult than say, the electric on your outside wall, but if we're getting billed on a "Guess and Bigosh", might be worth your time.
I did scan the City Council Agenda packet. This has become far more inconvenient since Slideshare took it over. Hint: if you ever want to look it over, set up your account and password on Slideshare, then finally get to the Agenda Packet for the right day, then forget reading it! Slower than death; download the rascal, then it behaves as a good file should. My thanks to Mr. Turner, who taught me this trick.
First thing caught my eye was Council will order the May 12 Municipal election. Officially they will vote yes or no, but they WILL order the election, time frame being what it is, they no longer have any choice.
Two things in the Packet on this issue. City Clerk's Memo (p.178) tells Council they will be considering a May 14, 2011 election. The cost estimate in that Memo is based on last election, estimated at $40,000. This ignores the additional cost of equipment, closer to $100,000.
In the Ordinance language itself, someone got the date right. Then in Sec. 3 we are told "That voting at and on said election shall be by use of digital scan ballots". Anybody downtown hear of HAVA? According to the Help Americans Vote Act, ALL polling places WILL have at least one handicapped accessible voting station; E-Slates under the system we use, Hart Intercivic. Could be E-Slates and cost of same aren't listed because City dithered until the last moment and has not paid for the equipment because it won't be here in time.
Then under Appendix A where the election day 8 voting sites are listed, at least four precincts off top of my head simply vanish! 108, 145, 155, and 338 are not listed at all!
City missed a beautiful chance to dodge all this by moving all municipal elections to odd-numbered years where there is no conflict with Primary elections. SAISD will not share our costs or legal troubles, they moved their elections to odd years back in Sept.
Now to Item 15, a Paul Alexander special; pedestrian use of Hillside/Gun Club Rd on the north side of Lake Nasworthy. I am quite familiar with this loop around the hill. It is very popular with walkers. Fairly narrow rd. but wide enough for two-way traffic IF you and the car you are meeting aren't dodging pedestrians with dogs, kids, baby-buggies and the like. It is just scenic as all giddyup, giving an elevated view of the lake for most of the 2 mile loop.
This has been mentioned to Council at least twice, August and again Sept. 22. I, among others suggested that since it was A) popular for pedestrians and B) purely a residential loop as to vehicles an obvious, inexpensive solution came to mind. Make the road one-way for vehicles, put up some signs and paint the road, Voila! we have a pedestrian walkway. Keep the vehicles against the hill, the strollers get both the exercise and scenic view.
Far too simple. See Agenda packet, pages 134, 135, the city is proposing to spend $234,000 on a walkway at the top of the hill, with its only entrance a parking lot across from KOA Campgrounds. This ignores the fact that a majority I'm sure, of the pedestrians City is getting ready to "protect" live on the loop. What they want is to walk out the door and take a walk down their street. What a concept! Any of you ever walk down your street?
They are probably thinking; "Please, don't help me!". Query; when was the last pedestrian injury/fatality on this loop. This is no more a high-speed, high-traffic street than the one in front of my house. Why should we spend $234,000 to irritate residents who do not want to have to drive somewhere to start their walk?
Maybe the City has a new policy of building walkways where nobody wants to walk. Good thinking I guess; if nobody uses it, they won't wear it out. I mean, Red Arroyo walk/bike path. The southern part will give one a scenic view on one side of people's back fences and trash cans. Raked over scrub you want to stay out of on the other.
Enough for today, hope I haven't bored to tears already.
I did scan the City Council Agenda packet. This has become far more inconvenient since Slideshare took it over. Hint: if you ever want to look it over, set up your account and password on Slideshare, then finally get to the Agenda Packet for the right day, then forget reading it! Slower than death; download the rascal, then it behaves as a good file should. My thanks to Mr. Turner, who taught me this trick.
First thing caught my eye was Council will order the May 12 Municipal election. Officially they will vote yes or no, but they WILL order the election, time frame being what it is, they no longer have any choice.
Two things in the Packet on this issue. City Clerk's Memo (p.178) tells Council they will be considering a May 14, 2011 election. The cost estimate in that Memo is based on last election, estimated at $40,000. This ignores the additional cost of equipment, closer to $100,000.
In the Ordinance language itself, someone got the date right. Then in Sec. 3 we are told "That voting at and on said election shall be by use of digital scan ballots". Anybody downtown hear of HAVA? According to the Help Americans Vote Act, ALL polling places WILL have at least one handicapped accessible voting station; E-Slates under the system we use, Hart Intercivic. Could be E-Slates and cost of same aren't listed because City dithered until the last moment and has not paid for the equipment because it won't be here in time.
Then under Appendix A where the election day 8 voting sites are listed, at least four precincts off top of my head simply vanish! 108, 145, 155, and 338 are not listed at all!
City missed a beautiful chance to dodge all this by moving all municipal elections to odd-numbered years where there is no conflict with Primary elections. SAISD will not share our costs or legal troubles, they moved their elections to odd years back in Sept.
Now to Item 15, a Paul Alexander special; pedestrian use of Hillside/Gun Club Rd on the north side of Lake Nasworthy. I am quite familiar with this loop around the hill. It is very popular with walkers. Fairly narrow rd. but wide enough for two-way traffic IF you and the car you are meeting aren't dodging pedestrians with dogs, kids, baby-buggies and the like. It is just scenic as all giddyup, giving an elevated view of the lake for most of the 2 mile loop.
This has been mentioned to Council at least twice, August and again Sept. 22. I, among others suggested that since it was A) popular for pedestrians and B) purely a residential loop as to vehicles an obvious, inexpensive solution came to mind. Make the road one-way for vehicles, put up some signs and paint the road, Voila! we have a pedestrian walkway. Keep the vehicles against the hill, the strollers get both the exercise and scenic view.
Far too simple. See Agenda packet, pages 134, 135, the city is proposing to spend $234,000 on a walkway at the top of the hill, with its only entrance a parking lot across from KOA Campgrounds. This ignores the fact that a majority I'm sure, of the pedestrians City is getting ready to "protect" live on the loop. What they want is to walk out the door and take a walk down their street. What a concept! Any of you ever walk down your street?
They are probably thinking; "Please, don't help me!". Query; when was the last pedestrian injury/fatality on this loop. This is no more a high-speed, high-traffic street than the one in front of my house. Why should we spend $234,000 to irritate residents who do not want to have to drive somewhere to start their walk?
Maybe the City has a new policy of building walkways where nobody wants to walk. Good thinking I guess; if nobody uses it, they won't wear it out. I mean, Red Arroyo walk/bike path. The southern part will give one a scenic view on one side of people's back fences and trash cans. Raked over scrub you want to stay out of on the other.
Enough for today, hope I haven't bored to tears already.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
A Valentine's Day Message
My latest missive had to do with a Street Maintenence Tax. This year Valentine's Day coincides with another important date: Initial filing to run for City Council. Anyone running has to be doing it for love, it sure isn't the princely sum of $45 a month
All the even numbered seats and Mayor are up for challenge. Four out of seven, there is potential for change here. I do not play the endorsement game, and my SMD is not up in any case. I'm not even suggesting any particular Council member is in need of being replaced. A lot of people got a chuckle out of the accusation I was a "lap-dog" for Council, seriuosly, we have a good Council now, better than most in my opinion, BUT...
Any job is well served by competition. Wal-Mart's prices might be higher if Target weren't right around the corner and breathing down their neck.
We are fortunate we don't "get what we pay for" on Council. At $45/ month, it costs Councilmembers to serve. SAISD, we are even luckier, we have not had an election for SAISD in three cycles, nothing corrupt, but no competition.
Hey guys, May will bring on a few changes. Algore's global warming might finally kick in. Side bet: we will see a 100 degree day before May 15.
Oh yeah, back to politics, May will bring a new Council, new issues, who knows, possibly a new New. No offense Mayor, that was too good to pass up.
I would love to see contested elections all around; even if all incumbents win, they will be better for having had a challenge.
If you are bothering to read this obscure Blog, you are interested. I literally can't afford it, and my boss can't really afford to give me two Tuesdays a month off. Maybe retired, maybe independent owner, maybe you can afford this volunteer post, because God's honest, that is what it is.
All the even numbered seats and Mayor are up for challenge. Four out of seven, there is potential for change here. I do not play the endorsement game, and my SMD is not up in any case. I'm not even suggesting any particular Council member is in need of being replaced. A lot of people got a chuckle out of the accusation I was a "lap-dog" for Council, seriuosly, we have a good Council now, better than most in my opinion, BUT...
Any job is well served by competition. Wal-Mart's prices might be higher if Target weren't right around the corner and breathing down their neck.
We are fortunate we don't "get what we pay for" on Council. At $45/ month, it costs Councilmembers to serve. SAISD, we are even luckier, we have not had an election for SAISD in three cycles, nothing corrupt, but no competition.
Hey guys, May will bring on a few changes. Algore's global warming might finally kick in. Side bet: we will see a 100 degree day before May 15.
Oh yeah, back to politics, May will bring a new Council, new issues, who knows, possibly a new New. No offense Mayor, that was too good to pass up.
I would love to see contested elections all around; even if all incumbents win, they will be better for having had a challenge.
If you are bothering to read this obscure Blog, you are interested. I literally can't afford it, and my boss can't really afford to give me two Tuesdays a month off. Maybe retired, maybe independent owner, maybe you can afford this volunteer post, because God's honest, that is what it is.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
They keep on giving
The elections have been over for three months now and we will soon be seeing the impacts. In just a few days the smoking ban will go into effect, and we will finally see the impact this ban will have on local businesses. I hope the small neighborhood bars can weather this storm.
We also had a hint of the impact the Hickory water project will have on the local economy. They finally admitted in the last city council meeting that city water bills will have to go up by an average of $10 to $20 just to pay for the construction of the project. That is before they actually throw the switch and start pumping Hickory water. When that happens, if the city estimates are close, another $10 to $20 will have to be added to our water bills to pay for the utilities, people to operate the system, and everything else it takes to operate and maintain this project for the next 30 years. This doesn't take into account the fact that we're likely going to be draining the aquifer faster than it can recharge. We will probably have to fight lawsuits from the people who live over the aquifer whose wells are going dry. We might actually still have water there when we pay off the loan.
I'm sure some of you want to know who made this all possible, and the simple answer would be to check the campaign finance reports. They are on the city website under the city clerk's election section. All of Speak Out San Angelo's reports are there. Unfortunately both Smoke Free San Angelo and Citizens for San Angelo's Future are late with their required January 15 semi-annual filing. Hopefully, they will correct that ASAP. Once you check those reports, I'm sure you will know the appropriate way to thank everyone involved.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
What's at stake
There is only one sales tax measure on the ballot in November but it encompasses several major issues and concerns for San Angelo. It is first and foremost a referendum on local tax policy. Does San Angelo really need one of the several optional sales taxes that are available in Texas? Should it be a 4B economic development tax or would a street maintenance sales tax be better, or maybe a sales tax to reduce property tax? Maybe a mixture of these taxes or even none of the above? Can't at least some of these projects pay there own way? How did they decide, and is it time to rethink the decision.
This is a vote on a strategy for meeting the water needs of San Angelo and the Concho Valley for the long term. Is the Hickory Aquifer the best available option? How much will have to be added to the water bill to pay for the pipeline and to pump and process the water? Are we using our local water resources wisely? What about conservation and reuse efforts?
The vote in November will also affect our efforts to clean up the river. No doubt the river needs critical attention, but is this how we should do it? Is this about what's best for San Angelo, or just an attempt to mimic San Antonio?
This will be a referendum on how we do economic development and create jobs. Is the current use of incentives bringing us real value for the money spent? Are we spending to little or too much. Are we, perhaps, wasting time hunting snipe with handouts and industrial parks when we should be doing more to support existing businesses with strategies like Economic Gardening and Business Facilitation.
In addition, this will be a referendum on how we select, prioritize, and develop special projects. Besides water, the river, and job creation there are six special projects that aren't critical to the cities future like water, and that will never create good paying jobs. You might call them quality of life projects, but how were they selected? I don't remember any town hall meetings or recent polling on these projects like we had before the last sales tax election. I can't find where they were recommended or even looked at by any of the numerous citizen advisory boards the city has available. What was SADC's involvement? Out of the dozens of projects that have been discussed in the past and are in plans like RUDAT and the Strategic Plan, how did they decide on these?
Lastly, this will be a vote on the openness of our city government, the effectiveness of its communication, and the quality of the connections city hall has with the citizens of San Angelo. Isn't it interesting that we have been completing sales tax projects all over town for the last nine years but it wasn't until just before a new election on the sales tax that we are finally seeing signs in front of these projects telling us about it? Is this the type of communication we want with our city government? Is this openness or just an attempt to market taxes and services like hamburgers and corn flakes?
I will be writing more on all of these issues before the election, but I wanted to give you an early glimpse into where I'm going and what I see as the points that need to be covered. Lots to think about, and I may miss something so give me your feedback and ideas. I want the critical questions about the sales tax answered before we vote in November. This is an important election. The future of our city is at stake.
This is a vote on a strategy for meeting the water needs of San Angelo and the Concho Valley for the long term. Is the Hickory Aquifer the best available option? How much will have to be added to the water bill to pay for the pipeline and to pump and process the water? Are we using our local water resources wisely? What about conservation and reuse efforts?
The vote in November will also affect our efforts to clean up the river. No doubt the river needs critical attention, but is this how we should do it? Is this about what's best for San Angelo, or just an attempt to mimic San Antonio?
This will be a referendum on how we do economic development and create jobs. Is the current use of incentives bringing us real value for the money spent? Are we spending to little or too much. Are we, perhaps, wasting time hunting snipe with handouts and industrial parks when we should be doing more to support existing businesses with strategies like Economic Gardening and Business Facilitation.
In addition, this will be a referendum on how we select, prioritize, and develop special projects. Besides water, the river, and job creation there are six special projects that aren't critical to the cities future like water, and that will never create good paying jobs. You might call them quality of life projects, but how were they selected? I don't remember any town hall meetings or recent polling on these projects like we had before the last sales tax election. I can't find where they were recommended or even looked at by any of the numerous citizen advisory boards the city has available. What was SADC's involvement? Out of the dozens of projects that have been discussed in the past and are in plans like RUDAT and the Strategic Plan, how did they decide on these?
Lastly, this will be a vote on the openness of our city government, the effectiveness of its communication, and the quality of the connections city hall has with the citizens of San Angelo. Isn't it interesting that we have been completing sales tax projects all over town for the last nine years but it wasn't until just before a new election on the sales tax that we are finally seeing signs in front of these projects telling us about it? Is this the type of communication we want with our city government? Is this openness or just an attempt to market taxes and services like hamburgers and corn flakes?
I will be writing more on all of these issues before the election, but I wanted to give you an early glimpse into where I'm going and what I see as the points that need to be covered. Lots to think about, and I may miss something so give me your feedback and ideas. I want the critical questions about the sales tax answered before we vote in November. This is an important election. The future of our city is at stake.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Sales Tax Election 2010
One of the two local measures on the November election is a re-authorization of the current 1/2 cent 4B sales tax for economic development. We plan on publishing a series of articles where we look at the issues surrounding this measure in depth and get some little known and critical facts before the public. We will try to fill in some of the missing numbers to help create context and clarify real impact. We will cover subjects like what's at stake in this election, what is a 4B sales tax and what can it be used for, local water history, local tax history, the Hickory Aquifer and alternative long term water possibilities, the impact of this proposal on our water bill, and a look at the special projects that are part of the measure we will vote on in November.
A disclaimer is needed here. I actively campaigned against the previous 2 sales tax propositions. Conchoinfo grew out of the last sales tax campaign. I am not automatically against optional sales taxes such as the 4B sales tax we have today. They can be useful and do have their place. Still, I have some serious concerns about what is being put before the voters, and I keep finding problems with the Hickory Aquifer and how they are trying to fit it into a dependable long term water supply for San Angelo and the Concho valley. I will try to make it clear what is fact, what is analysis, and what is just my opinion. I also welcome your feedback, analysis, and opinions. Just keep it relevant to the topic of the post, and don't make it personal.
In my opinion, you seldom get a good election result without good information and discussion of all the issues. This isn't about selling a position to the voters. The long term water supply and economic health of our community shouldn't be marketed like just a fancy box of Cracker Jacks.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Labor Day Thoughts
I have neglected this site recently; been a little busy catching up from a 3 month lay-off due to a broken right arm. Darn the luck, didn't even happen on job, no benefits there, pretty much drew my resources to the bottom of the well. As I told one of our Councilmembers, another two weeks, you'd have seen me on a promising intersection with a sign reading "Will write ordinance amendments or editorials for food"!
I speak from experience, I'm a long-time gambler, if Boise St pulls out a one point game,I will have made a perfect week on football. That Karnak Turban, which I shamelessly stole from Johnny Carson also goes to real issues. BTW, after a break Boise St pulled a minor miracle, Karnak Rules! Karnak made more money on college ball than he did working last week.
Well that was all fun, but seriously we are talking long range water problems. I think we have a focus on Hickory that has a dubious return on investment. Hickory is not our only water option. We have an investment there and it is not to be discounted. That does not leave Hickory as our only option. Have we explored Lake Brownwood? Have we looked at deep water saline wells, below the sanded shallow wells west of here?
Yep, the shallow test wells didn't show much promise, but there are tons of production oil wells west of here yielding a barrel of oil for 10 barrels of old Permian Sea saline water. What the geologist calls a "reef" has nothing to do with photogeneic brain coral and pretty fish, but it's real as Dallas and involves a LOT of water!
Depending on one's belief, maybe it got laid down while Cowboy Bob and Barney Flintstone rode a Brontosaurus to work, or maybe a few (million) years before that, but a whole lot of the old Permian Sea is still trapped in West Texas. Desalination is getting cheaper every year, ask anyone in the Navy.
It's late, I'm tired, but think on these things. I fear Council and staff have a mind-lock on Hickory to the exclusion of all alternatives.
I speak from experience, I'm a long-time gambler, if Boise St pulls out a one point game,I will have made a perfect week on football. That Karnak Turban, which I shamelessly stole from Johnny Carson also goes to real issues. BTW, after a break Boise St pulled a minor miracle, Karnak Rules! Karnak made more money on college ball than he did working last week.
Well that was all fun, but seriously we are talking long range water problems. I think we have a focus on Hickory that has a dubious return on investment. Hickory is not our only water option. We have an investment there and it is not to be discounted. That does not leave Hickory as our only option. Have we explored Lake Brownwood? Have we looked at deep water saline wells, below the sanded shallow wells west of here?
Yep, the shallow test wells didn't show much promise, but there are tons of production oil wells west of here yielding a barrel of oil for 10 barrels of old Permian Sea saline water. What the geologist calls a "reef" has nothing to do with photogeneic brain coral and pretty fish, but it's real as Dallas and involves a LOT of water!
Depending on one's belief, maybe it got laid down while Cowboy Bob and Barney Flintstone rode a Brontosaurus to work, or maybe a few (million) years before that, but a whole lot of the old Permian Sea is still trapped in West Texas. Desalination is getting cheaper every year, ask anyone in the Navy.
It's late, I'm tired, but think on these things. I fear Council and staff have a mind-lock on Hickory to the exclusion of all alternatives.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Principled Smoking Debate
Now that we have overcome some technical details of the Smoke Free petition and are at least all arguing the same ordinance, it is evident there is some mis-understanding as to what it is we ARE arguing. To clarify at least our points here at Conchoinfo, we present the following as basic principles.
1) We agree smoking is hazardous to one's health.
2) Second hand smoke is a recognized health risk. No one should be involuntarily subjected to second hand smoke.
3) City government offices and publically accessible facilities should be smoke-free with reasonable exceptions for open air: golf courses, open parks and such to be determined by City Manager so as to limit incidental exposure to smoking fumes.
4) Businesses allowing smoking shall provide prominent signage and notification so non-smokers can easily avoid smoking establishments. Absent warning signage to the contrary, publicly accessible businesses shall be assumed to be non-smoking.
5) Businesses which allow entrance to and serve children shall not expose them to smoking or second hand smoke. Should such a business provide a smoking section, that area shall be constructed such that tobacco smoke shall not infiltrate the non-smoking section allowing children.
It is our opinion that so long as tobacco is a legal product and its use is legal, businesses catering to adults who freely choose to indulge in this less-than-healthy habit should be allowed to provide a premise comfortable to that customer base, IF such a business makes reasonable effort to assure the non-smoking majority is not offended unawares.
We agree that there are limits to property rights, but we think with reasonable accomodation, smokers and businesses catering to them can be allowed without "asaulting" the senses of non-smokers.
No one I know is in favor of unrestricted smoking anywhere, anytime. Some of the anti-smoking rhetoric strikes me the same way as though someone walked past all the signs, paid the "cover charge" at a, ahem, "gentleman's club" and then decided to be offended at the sight of tits on display.
1) We agree smoking is hazardous to one's health.
2) Second hand smoke is a recognized health risk. No one should be involuntarily subjected to second hand smoke.
3) City government offices and publically accessible facilities should be smoke-free with reasonable exceptions for open air: golf courses, open parks and such to be determined by City Manager so as to limit incidental exposure to smoking fumes.
4) Businesses allowing smoking shall provide prominent signage and notification so non-smokers can easily avoid smoking establishments. Absent warning signage to the contrary, publicly accessible businesses shall be assumed to be non-smoking.
5) Businesses which allow entrance to and serve children shall not expose them to smoking or second hand smoke. Should such a business provide a smoking section, that area shall be constructed such that tobacco smoke shall not infiltrate the non-smoking section allowing children.
It is our opinion that so long as tobacco is a legal product and its use is legal, businesses catering to adults who freely choose to indulge in this less-than-healthy habit should be allowed to provide a premise comfortable to that customer base, IF such a business makes reasonable effort to assure the non-smoking majority is not offended unawares.
We agree that there are limits to property rights, but we think with reasonable accomodation, smokers and businesses catering to them can be allowed without "asaulting" the senses of non-smokers.
No one I know is in favor of unrestricted smoking anywhere, anytime. Some of the anti-smoking rhetoric strikes me the same way as though someone walked past all the signs, paid the "cover charge" at a, ahem, "gentleman's club" and then decided to be offended at the sight of tits on display.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Smoking Ordinance and Civility
I need to apologize for my post of yesterday. I was hasty in ascribing motives to what was likely a mistake. I forgot an old adage, "Never assume a conspiracy when mere stupidity will suffice as a cause".
By this afternoon cooler heads prevailed. The proposal one now finds on the City website is the correct, original petition. City issued a press release and the valid language will be published the next two Sundays. At least next time Council meets, we will all be on the same page(es). Well, it is rather long.
In retrospect, I can think of a number of ways this substitution came about accidentally. Likely as any: I've been in a political campaign or three and it is not uncommon to have two, three "draft proposals" floating about. It's entirely possible someone inadvertantly e-mailed the wrong draft to City, one that had been considered, but rejected by the initiating committee.
Between length, time pressure and tiny type, no one catches it until the comments last Tuesday start to digress from the original language I was familiar with. When I look, sure as God made little green apples, the language published as a legal notice April 18 was at substantial variance from that originally submitted. As I say, likely came about by innocent mistake, I have been called a nitpicker by more than one person, BUT...
At least we caught this while it was correctible error. Let's suppose no one caught it, the initiative moves on and passes in November. The first person given a citation under the new ordinance has a sharp-eyed lawyer who catches this technical, but legally valid violation of Election Code. Not only does the accused walk out of the ticket, the whole ordinance gets tossed and all this effort has been for naught.
Far more important legislation has been tossed for far smaller "nits". As it was, City staff members, to their credit, reacted quickly and effectively and I'm sure great attention will be paid to the details as this moves on.
Make no mistake: I oppose this measure, I sincerely hope to either amend with exemptions or defeat it if it goes to vote as written. I withdraw my comments as to motivation on the part of Smoke Free, but I withdraw none of my objections that it is an assault on property rights. Let us move on to honest debate and a clean process.
By this afternoon cooler heads prevailed. The proposal one now finds on the City website is the correct, original petition. City issued a press release and the valid language will be published the next two Sundays. At least next time Council meets, we will all be on the same page(es). Well, it is rather long.
In retrospect, I can think of a number of ways this substitution came about accidentally. Likely as any: I've been in a political campaign or three and it is not uncommon to have two, three "draft proposals" floating about. It's entirely possible someone inadvertantly e-mailed the wrong draft to City, one that had been considered, but rejected by the initiating committee.
Between length, time pressure and tiny type, no one catches it until the comments last Tuesday start to digress from the original language I was familiar with. When I look, sure as God made little green apples, the language published as a legal notice April 18 was at substantial variance from that originally submitted. As I say, likely came about by innocent mistake, I have been called a nitpicker by more than one person, BUT...
At least we caught this while it was correctible error. Let's suppose no one caught it, the initiative moves on and passes in November. The first person given a citation under the new ordinance has a sharp-eyed lawyer who catches this technical, but legally valid violation of Election Code. Not only does the accused walk out of the ticket, the whole ordinance gets tossed and all this effort has been for naught.
Far more important legislation has been tossed for far smaller "nits". As it was, City staff members, to their credit, reacted quickly and effectively and I'm sure great attention will be paid to the details as this moves on.
Make no mistake: I oppose this measure, I sincerely hope to either amend with exemptions or defeat it if it goes to vote as written. I withdraw my comments as to motivation on the part of Smoke Free, but I withdraw none of my objections that it is an assault on property rights. Let us move on to honest debate and a clean process.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Smoking Follies
Tuesday Council meeting was the Smoke-free Initiative and Referendum "no smoking" ordinance roll-out. The Smoke-free co-chair Lisa Burger opened, as expected. She promised not to be too long, "I know we have others wanting to speak. I don't know if we'll take comment from, uh the other side". Mayor New hastened to point out that we would hear from the public, even those of us so unenlightened as to disagree with our betters.
Later during comment, Burger responded to a hotelier's complaint about the restrictions on rooms he would be allowed to designate as smoking. She assurred him he could keep 20% of rooms smoking. I tried to get recognition to protest that percentage was destined to expire in 4 years, but I had already spoken, did not get the mike.
Almost glad I didn't. Silly me, that 4 year expiration was in the OLD Smoke-free proposal, the one this group filed and collected 4,500 signatures with. For convenience I will call it SmokenannieI. I went home that evening, I'm going to write about the meeting, but just for fun, I check the City of San Angelo website, they have a handy link front and center of homepage.
I must digress here; also Tuesday we got a State Comptrollers award for open records tranparency, my opinion overdue. I've been looking at City business for a long time, and the improvement on this front is awesome thanks to a lot of hard work by staff. Without that transparency, I might not have found what I was able to.
When I checked the site, imagine my surprise at discovering we had a whole NEW Smoke-free ordinance posted, I will call this changeling child SmokenannieII. Oh, it still had to do with regulating smoking in San Angelo, it still didn't cut bars any slack, but there ends the similarity. Many definitions changed, some places (tobacco shops, hotels) had restrictions removed, bars and restaurants now find even their outdoor seating "prohibited", other "modifications" which Mr. Turner put together in a convenient comparison found [here].
In short, Smoke-free "sold" a product to 4,500 signers and then felt free to substitute a substantially different product to bring before Council.
It really wasn't that hard. I'd be surprised if 1% of those signers actually read all of SmokenannieI. I confess, when the legal document was published April 18 in tiny agate type, I did not grab the magnifying glass my aging eyes would have required to read it, I just noted "OK, they complied"; after all, I had already read it. What was published was SmokenannieII, and if anyone caught it then, I haven't heard about it. SmokenannieII had been submitted e-mail, I understand to facilitate publication.
For those unfamiliar, I started sending copies of my editorial submissions e-mail a good while back. It saves the editor the labor of re-typing hard copy. It's a time-saving courtesy. In this case, someone from Smoke-free used it to substitute a whole new document and given the length, it understandably slipped by proofreading by City or Standard-Times staff or me, or anyone.
What makes this all the shabbier, once the thing hits Council and Council inevitably makes amendments, the five members of the initiating committee have full authority to accept, reject, counter-propose and generally horsetrade on behalf of the signers they represent. It's not as though they can call 4,500 people and consult on every amendment. What I do NOT find in Charter Sec 47 is the authority to collect signatures on one document and then gut and rebuild that before Council ever sees it!
Folks, there's no other way for me to put this: Smoke-free cheated, blatantly, and they almost got away with it. I'm not an attorney or a cop, I can't say (yet) if they violated law, but they certainly violated the spirit of Initiative and Referendum. It appears they violated 277.0023 of Texas Election Code, but penalty for that is not specific.I will be advising Council to rescind its acceptance of a tainted petition and tell the players to come back when they can play by the rules.
I know for sure, there are some mighty unhappy people downtown, people who gave this supposedly high-minded, well-intentioned group the benefit of trust and are feeling betrayed. Myself, until today, I disagreed with them, was prepared for an open battle of words and will, but I respected their position and intentions. I cannot say that now.
(Original ordinance, updated ordinance, changes)
Later during comment, Burger responded to a hotelier's complaint about the restrictions on rooms he would be allowed to designate as smoking. She assurred him he could keep 20% of rooms smoking. I tried to get recognition to protest that percentage was destined to expire in 4 years, but I had already spoken, did not get the mike.
Almost glad I didn't. Silly me, that 4 year expiration was in the OLD Smoke-free proposal, the one this group filed and collected 4,500 signatures with. For convenience I will call it SmokenannieI. I went home that evening, I'm going to write about the meeting, but just for fun, I check the City of San Angelo website, they have a handy link front and center of homepage.
I must digress here; also Tuesday we got a State Comptrollers award for open records tranparency, my opinion overdue. I've been looking at City business for a long time, and the improvement on this front is awesome thanks to a lot of hard work by staff. Without that transparency, I might not have found what I was able to.
When I checked the site, imagine my surprise at discovering we had a whole NEW Smoke-free ordinance posted, I will call this changeling child SmokenannieII. Oh, it still had to do with regulating smoking in San Angelo, it still didn't cut bars any slack, but there ends the similarity. Many definitions changed, some places (tobacco shops, hotels) had restrictions removed, bars and restaurants now find even their outdoor seating "prohibited", other "modifications" which Mr. Turner put together in a convenient comparison found [here].
In short, Smoke-free "sold" a product to 4,500 signers and then felt free to substitute a substantially different product to bring before Council.
It really wasn't that hard. I'd be surprised if 1% of those signers actually read all of SmokenannieI. I confess, when the legal document was published April 18 in tiny agate type, I did not grab the magnifying glass my aging eyes would have required to read it, I just noted "OK, they complied"; after all, I had already read it. What was published was SmokenannieII, and if anyone caught it then, I haven't heard about it. SmokenannieII had been submitted e-mail, I understand to facilitate publication.
For those unfamiliar, I started sending copies of my editorial submissions e-mail a good while back. It saves the editor the labor of re-typing hard copy. It's a time-saving courtesy. In this case, someone from Smoke-free used it to substitute a whole new document and given the length, it understandably slipped by proofreading by City or Standard-Times staff or me, or anyone.
What makes this all the shabbier, once the thing hits Council and Council inevitably makes amendments, the five members of the initiating committee have full authority to accept, reject, counter-propose and generally horsetrade on behalf of the signers they represent. It's not as though they can call 4,500 people and consult on every amendment. What I do NOT find in Charter Sec 47 is the authority to collect signatures on one document and then gut and rebuild that before Council ever sees it!
Folks, there's no other way for me to put this: Smoke-free cheated, blatantly, and they almost got away with it. I'm not an attorney or a cop, I can't say (yet) if they violated law, but they certainly violated the spirit of Initiative and Referendum. It appears they violated 277.0023 of Texas Election Code, but penalty for that is not specific.I will be advising Council to rescind its acceptance of a tainted petition and tell the players to come back when they can play by the rules.
I know for sure, there are some mighty unhappy people downtown, people who gave this supposedly high-minded, well-intentioned group the benefit of trust and are feeling betrayed. Myself, until today, I disagreed with them, was prepared for an open battle of words and will, but I respected their position and intentions. I cannot say that now.
(Original ordinance, updated ordinance, changes)
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Another Sunday Ramble
As I write, it is beginning to rain after a beautiful February full moon Saturday. I know it is virtually illegal to cuss rain in West Texas, but working construction, I'm on the verge of it. I suspect the folk tearing down the Carnival tonight would share my opinion, just cold enough to be miserable work in the wet. BTW, did I read it wrong or did a Grand Champion goat get a better bid than "Rock Star" the Grand Champion Steer? I know which I'd rather have in my freezer.
I have not seen much of the Olympics, but I took time to watch the hockey finals. Worth it on several levels. The IOC couldn't have scripted a better match-up, underdog USA v Canada, ratings must have been through the roof. Great game, surpisingly few penalty minutes, overtime game, Canada won, and good sportsmanship post-game by both teams. Perhaps next Winter Olympics the IOC will choose a location where they don't have to truck in snow.
I won't trouble City Council this Tuesday, I will be busy at the primary elections, been in the election-judging business for a long time. I do read Council Agenda. Conspicuous in its absence is an agenda item Accepting the Smoke-Free San Angelo petition. I was at last meeting, Council and City staff were assuming this pro-forma bit of business would be done March 2. I have to assume the item was pulled at request of the initiating committee, I also have to wonder why.
Two Agenda items that are there: #19 would give Council members access to the City's insurance plan as a Charter Amendment, subject to voter approval. There is a rather tangled history here. I was on Charter Review Committee a bit over two years ago, Prop 5 would have modestly increased Council pay, but it failed, by a small margin. Only then did it occur to City Legal staff that an obscure provision of state statute made it illegal for us to give Council members the same health insurance all other employees get, something they had received since the memory of man runneth not. I hope we can correct that error, if it takes another Charter Election, so be it. The vote will be on a regular election date, not much extra expense to City.
Since there is a two year period between Charter elections, if we are to have one, let's cover any other Charter items while we are at it. One that comes to mind would be amending Sec 47 on Initiative and Referendum to comply with case law we recently had pointed out to us so as to avoid future confusion.
I also look forward to #18, Work Session Criteria for Council and Boards. San Angelo has over 20 Boards and commissions, a good thing. These bodies range from Animal Services to Zoning, and give the average citizen a means to be heard. Over time they have grown without much oversight. All of these are volunteer appointees, and they are to be commended for their service. Still, City ought to look in on what they are doing every couple of years, just to stay in touch.
Some Boards are doing a great job, some are not doing much at all. Most of them could improve their accessibility by brushing up the website provided by the City. A list of who is on a board would be a good start, a clear statement of long-term goals wouldn't hurt. Most of these boards could benefit by regularly looking back and re-focusing on the original mission of the Board and how well they are doing in that mission.
No one wants to make it hard on Board volunteers. A once every two year joint session with Council would help both bodies understand one another, and what is expected and what has been done. There are a lot of details to be worked out, but that is what agenda item 18 hopes to start doing.
Remember to vote Tuesday, if you're really interested, don't forget the precinct convention at 7:15 after the polls close. If you don't vote, a five dollar fine for whining about the results. Voting, win or lose is your license to bitch about it.
I have not seen much of the Olympics, but I took time to watch the hockey finals. Worth it on several levels. The IOC couldn't have scripted a better match-up, underdog USA v Canada, ratings must have been through the roof. Great game, surpisingly few penalty minutes, overtime game, Canada won, and good sportsmanship post-game by both teams. Perhaps next Winter Olympics the IOC will choose a location where they don't have to truck in snow.
I won't trouble City Council this Tuesday, I will be busy at the primary elections, been in the election-judging business for a long time. I do read Council Agenda. Conspicuous in its absence is an agenda item Accepting the Smoke-Free San Angelo petition. I was at last meeting, Council and City staff were assuming this pro-forma bit of business would be done March 2. I have to assume the item was pulled at request of the initiating committee, I also have to wonder why.
Two Agenda items that are there: #19 would give Council members access to the City's insurance plan as a Charter Amendment, subject to voter approval. There is a rather tangled history here. I was on Charter Review Committee a bit over two years ago, Prop 5 would have modestly increased Council pay, but it failed, by a small margin. Only then did it occur to City Legal staff that an obscure provision of state statute made it illegal for us to give Council members the same health insurance all other employees get, something they had received since the memory of man runneth not. I hope we can correct that error, if it takes another Charter Election, so be it. The vote will be on a regular election date, not much extra expense to City.
Since there is a two year period between Charter elections, if we are to have one, let's cover any other Charter items while we are at it. One that comes to mind would be amending Sec 47 on Initiative and Referendum to comply with case law we recently had pointed out to us so as to avoid future confusion.
I also look forward to #18, Work Session Criteria for Council and Boards. San Angelo has over 20 Boards and commissions, a good thing. These bodies range from Animal Services to Zoning, and give the average citizen a means to be heard. Over time they have grown without much oversight. All of these are volunteer appointees, and they are to be commended for their service. Still, City ought to look in on what they are doing every couple of years, just to stay in touch.
Some Boards are doing a great job, some are not doing much at all. Most of them could improve their accessibility by brushing up the website provided by the City. A list of who is on a board would be a good start, a clear statement of long-term goals wouldn't hurt. Most of these boards could benefit by regularly looking back and re-focusing on the original mission of the Board and how well they are doing in that mission.
No one wants to make it hard on Board volunteers. A once every two year joint session with Council would help both bodies understand one another, and what is expected and what has been done. There are a lot of details to be worked out, but that is what agenda item 18 hopes to start doing.
Remember to vote Tuesday, if you're really interested, don't forget the precinct convention at 7:15 after the polls close. If you don't vote, a five dollar fine for whining about the results. Voting, win or lose is your license to bitch about it.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Lotta "Smoke" over Smoking Proposal (Updated)
There has been, and continues to be, considerable confusion over the process and fate of the "No Smoking" petition. One thing is certain, it will not be on the May 8 ballot as supporters had hoped for. Another is nearly certain; the petition itself is not "dead", just delayed until the November election. Despite some confusion over controlling legal language, petitioners had sufficient case law to override black-letter Charter and State Statute language: the signatures were legally validated and sufficient in number.
The "Special agenda" raised some Council hackles. It was legal, but it was also "irregular". No one I spoke to recalls the last special agenda. More importantly, as City Manager Dominguez explained today, with the procedural steps involved, it was simply too late, even had Council taken delivery of petition today, to get it on the May ballot.
A nit-picky procedural point, but of importance; success of the petition does NOT mean voters will ever see the issue. Under Charter rules (so far unchallenged) there are two other possible outcomes. After acceptance of the petition, publication in the newspaper, and a regular agenda hearing for public comment, Council can look at the whole 12 page proposal, agree with it, approve it as submitted, then it is law.
Council can also offer amendments, after which the referring committee (NOT the 4421 signers, just the 5 committee members) can agree to the amended version, Council approves, then it is law. No frisky, unpredictable voters involved in either scenario. If any media outlet in town has mentioned this point, I missed it.
I would like to "clear the air", metaphorically on a point many people seem to be confused on. The use of the term "public place" is defined in petition, but few people appear to have read the 12 pages of proposal. Some have mentioned "not wanting to be subjected to smoke while waiting to renew my license", or buying groceries, or going to the Mall, at the movies, one even included going to church! I want to know about this church which allows smoking in the pews, I may start attending!
Point is, I don't know if they are going by old memories or just don't get out much, but all these places already prohibit smoking. No gov't office allows smoking. Most of these bans have been in place for 10-20 years. I won't claim numbers, but a "doorway" survey, looks like about half of restaurants are completely smoke-free, and that number is growing by the owners' free choice. While most bars still allow smoking, we have at least three that are smoke-free, and seem to be thriving. That success may encourage more bars to follow suit, depending on the owners' judgement of what the customers want.
I could see supporting some form of this law if there were an actual problem avoiding second-hand smoke. Truth is, a body can live a long and full life in San Angelo without ever entering an establishment which allows smoking.
The parts of this proposal I object are: it unneccessarily overrides the right of a PRIVATE business owner; it fails to make the public health case, as the smoke is easily avoided; and if one reads all of it, it imposes uncalled for burdens even on businesses which already prohibit smoking.
It doesn't take 12 pages to say "no smoking". The proposed ordinance requires new record keeping and continuing education by Board of Health, all places would have to post "no smoking" signs and remove all ashtrays. Better pull that "paraphenalia" off the shelves, Wal-Mart! The Colonels Pipe Shop can just close, he's not allowed to "share a common wall", nor is he allowed to move! Sports venues; can't smoke in the "seating area", but presumably the coach and players can indulge on the field. Forget that they petition a "San Angelo City Commission" which doesn't exist, hasn't since at least 1917. My guess, this will take a bit of amending.
This has not been defeated or undone. Petitioners' errors and the set-back to Nov. will allow for a clearer understanding of the details, amendment, perhaps reasonable exceptions, possibly defeat at the polls. To be sure, everyone has time to step back, take a deep breath, maybe even look at the particulars.
P.S. Link to proposed ordinance on Standard Times or on ConchoInfo. City charter and code of ordinances can be found here and chapter 47 on I&R here.
The "Special agenda" raised some Council hackles. It was legal, but it was also "irregular". No one I spoke to recalls the last special agenda. More importantly, as City Manager Dominguez explained today, with the procedural steps involved, it was simply too late, even had Council taken delivery of petition today, to get it on the May ballot.
A nit-picky procedural point, but of importance; success of the petition does NOT mean voters will ever see the issue. Under Charter rules (so far unchallenged) there are two other possible outcomes. After acceptance of the petition, publication in the newspaper, and a regular agenda hearing for public comment, Council can look at the whole 12 page proposal, agree with it, approve it as submitted, then it is law.
Council can also offer amendments, after which the referring committee (NOT the 4421 signers, just the 5 committee members) can agree to the amended version, Council approves, then it is law. No frisky, unpredictable voters involved in either scenario. If any media outlet in town has mentioned this point, I missed it.
I would like to "clear the air", metaphorically on a point many people seem to be confused on. The use of the term "public place" is defined in petition, but few people appear to have read the 12 pages of proposal. Some have mentioned "not wanting to be subjected to smoke while waiting to renew my license", or buying groceries, or going to the Mall, at the movies, one even included going to church! I want to know about this church which allows smoking in the pews, I may start attending!
Point is, I don't know if they are going by old memories or just don't get out much, but all these places already prohibit smoking. No gov't office allows smoking. Most of these bans have been in place for 10-20 years. I won't claim numbers, but a "doorway" survey, looks like about half of restaurants are completely smoke-free, and that number is growing by the owners' free choice. While most bars still allow smoking, we have at least three that are smoke-free, and seem to be thriving. That success may encourage more bars to follow suit, depending on the owners' judgement of what the customers want.
I could see supporting some form of this law if there were an actual problem avoiding second-hand smoke. Truth is, a body can live a long and full life in San Angelo without ever entering an establishment which allows smoking.
The parts of this proposal I object are: it unneccessarily overrides the right of a PRIVATE business owner; it fails to make the public health case, as the smoke is easily avoided; and if one reads all of it, it imposes uncalled for burdens even on businesses which already prohibit smoking.
It doesn't take 12 pages to say "no smoking". The proposed ordinance requires new record keeping and continuing education by Board of Health, all places would have to post "no smoking" signs and remove all ashtrays. Better pull that "paraphenalia" off the shelves, Wal-Mart! The Colonels Pipe Shop can just close, he's not allowed to "share a common wall", nor is he allowed to move! Sports venues; can't smoke in the "seating area", but presumably the coach and players can indulge on the field. Forget that they petition a "San Angelo City Commission" which doesn't exist, hasn't since at least 1917. My guess, this will take a bit of amending.
This has not been defeated or undone. Petitioners' errors and the set-back to Nov. will allow for a clearer understanding of the details, amendment, perhaps reasonable exceptions, possibly defeat at the polls. To be sure, everyone has time to step back, take a deep breath, maybe even look at the particulars.
P.S. Link to proposed ordinance on Standard Times or on ConchoInfo. City charter and code of ordinances can be found here and chapter 47 on I&R here.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Crystal Ball Time
ConchoInfo has been up and operational for just over 5 years. At this time of year we seem to have too much time on our hands and attend too many festivities so we have a habit of firing up the crystal balls to see what we can see from the past and maybe the future.
Five years ago, water rates and sources were definitely major concerns. Water rates were going up. No way to stop it. Luckily, the City Council managed to eliminate a roughly $1,000,000 drain from the water fund to the general fund called Pilot. They also implemented a tiered meter fee which more equitably spread the cost across all the users. The major search for long term water was still in the future, but one of the few justifiable parts of the half cent sales tax was money for a long term water source. Water has been pretty constantly in the news since then and will continue to be as far as we can see in the future. We have started a capital improvement plan that prevented a recent 16” main break from being a major catastrophe like it was in 2006. This time instead of killing 2/3rds of the city's water and the majority of retail businesses, we mostly heard complaints that a mostly precautionary boil notice wasn't seen by absolutely everyone in the area. The outage was confined to a smaller area for about half a day. Infrastructure is still a major problem, and the city still needs to improve, but we are much better today than we were 3 years ago. Our city will have to keep spending major money to fix our infrastructure. Besides water, most of the utility services in the city, including those of private utilities, need work. Lots of work.
Our searches for water sources have made major progress in the last few years. Probably a million dollars of sales tax money has been spent testing various well fields and possible drilling sites. The ones west of here are not usable so far. Everyone expected the water to be brackish (i.e. salty) but no one expected the very fine sand/silt that makes pumping this water in any volume infeasible today. We are moving forward with the Hickory field but I don't see this a complete long term solution. Hickory already has a number of other users and is likely being lusted after by San Antonio. In addition, the recharge rate of Hickory is not all that fast. Hickory is a good resource but not a complete solution. We need to keep looking. We also need to work on area partnerships. Water is not just a San Angelo problem. All of our neighbors are in the same boat, and if they are hurt by water shortages so are we.
Elections have changed a lot in the last few years. In 2006 we got a new elections administrator and new equipment. Problems started early and continued for the rest of the year. After some bad international publicity over a poorly run election and recount, the election administrator resigned under fire. The new one, Vona McKerley started with basically a clean slate and a new year. She provided leadership and sought outside help from a number of citizens of all parties and political persuasions. The improvements have been steady, impressive, and largely taken for granted. She has recruited a wonderful staff, improved procedures for all election workers, and recruited a citizens committee that grew up to be the Tom Green County Elections Support Association, a one of a kind advisory committee with members of all political persuasions that work together for great elections. The process is now working so well and people are working so hard that from the outsides the elections look easy. I have heard several reporters praising the fact they could get the results in time for the 10:00pm New broadcasts. The last complaint I heard was that the early results cut the election night party too short. Watch closely or you won't notice the incremental upgrades that are being made to the system. In the future expect to be able to cast your vote at any polling place.
The lack of problems in the election system has been made up for by recent elections themselves. Voters turned down the first school bond in the history of the city. Wasn't even close. The boards campaign that focused on maintenance failures was the best campaign material the opposition could have hoped for. The major shift from the beloved downtown campus to a southern site that no one seemed to like or understand. It took about a year to get a plan that the voters could support, and even there only one of the two issues passed. I will have much more to say on this in the future but quite frankly I have been frustrated by the current board. I'm waiting for some new blood to show up, but it will likely be a long wait.
We had a successful charter review and most of the needed changes were passed. The appointed chief proposal was defeated again and I am happy with that result. The previous attempt at an appointed chief hadn't even been pushed by the people that put it on the ballot. It was, in reality, a maneuver to delay charter review. After we presented the information to the voters on the various needed changes they made their decisions with much better information than was available before, including a televised debate. There was an unintentional side effect of one of the defeated measures that council members lost insurance coverage but for the most part we passed needed updates to the charter. Best part: We made capital improvements a permanent part of the budget process. They can still ignore capital maintenance, but it will be much harder now.
The last chiefs election was very interesting. If you like politics as theater, then this was your election. There were a large number of candidates, strong language, flame wars on the Standard Times readers comments, and various hints of scandal including one minor ethics violation fine. In the end, Chief Vasquez won the race without needing a recount. A case for study in grass roots politcs.
The last Mayors race continued the trend. The election itself was almost a non-event with neither of his opponents a serious threat. The count was done early, the process was going along smoothly until JW resigned from Mexico instead of showing up to take the oath of office. Still don't understand what he was thinking, but the special election it caused gave us the longest, most expensive Mayors race this city has ever had. Thankfully we will be able to start the new year with a full council. We will wait and see how this Christmas present to the city plays out in the long run.
Public safety has been in constant motion over the past few years. When ConchoInfo started, a faith based prison was being proposed. We still think that Faith Based programs and Prison Industry have a significant place programs that reduce recidivism and prison crowding. We still don't understand why we have the highest incarceration rate on the planet. On the other hand we were smart not to buy into the snake oil that was being peddled by CCI. Our community is better off for dodging that bullet.
There is one trend in public safety we need to take a close look at. Tom Green County had 9 murders in 2009, up from 5 in 2008 and 1 in 2007. I have to agree with Chief Vasquez: this is not a failure of law enforcement and the police department. There little the police could do except cleanup the mess after the fact and help bring the guilty to justice. At the same time, these crimes are the canaries in the coal mine. There is something problematic in the social atmosphere. Most were senseless acts. There were warnings of a sort for some of the cases. A history of erratic or nasty behavior that wasn't seen as more than annoying and slightly crazy. Nothing that police or courts could act on. It's not illegal to be crazy, thank God. Still, we need to really stop and sample the community atmosphere. There is something in the air. We need to find out what it is.
There is much more on the Crystal Ball, but the low battery signal is flashing so I need to stop here. These are my observations for this time of year. Jim Ryans are already up as well. We both agree that it will be an interesting future and San Angelo is a great place to spend it.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Why?
Tomorrow is the runoff election that will decide who is our next mayor. We had a relatively strong turn out for the special election, and it looks like a good but much smaller turn out for the runoff. I would love to see an 80% to 95% turnout, but we will be lucky to get 15%. When the final tally is in, our next Mayor will have been elected by the minority of eligible voters that put out the effort to make a difference.
As some of you probably know, I have been involved with the TGC Election Support Association from its beginning. Greater voter turnout and participation is one of our major goals, and I have been doing a lot of reading, researching, and thinking on the problem. There are lots of theories and opinions on why people don't vote. If you look at it from an individual perspective with tools like game theory or cost benefit analysis, it's a wonder anyone votes at all. The question that needs to be answered is "Why do people vote?" As a society, we do need people to vote, but really why do individuals vote? I would really like your thoughts on this. It can be as simple as why you vote (or don't) or a broader philosophical answer or whatever you think might help. I would appreciate you ideas and input.
Tell me Why.
As some of you probably know, I have been involved with the TGC Election Support Association from its beginning. Greater voter turnout and participation is one of our major goals, and I have been doing a lot of reading, researching, and thinking on the problem. There are lots of theories and opinions on why people don't vote. If you look at it from an individual perspective with tools like game theory or cost benefit analysis, it's a wonder anyone votes at all. The question that needs to be answered is "Why do people vote?" As a society, we do need people to vote, but really why do individuals vote? I would really like your thoughts on this. It can be as simple as why you vote (or don't) or a broader philosophical answer or whatever you think might help. I would appreciate you ideas and input.
Tell me Why.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Darby on the Proposed Constitutional Amendments
Texas State Representative Drew Darby on the proposed Constitutional Amendments from the Oct 14th forum.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Mayor Forum 10-5-09 Question 5
Fifth question from the 10-5-09 Mayor candidates forum. How can you increase revenue from the outside and living wage jobs.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
The Un-Mayor Race
Thanks to Mr. Turner for the video of the Democrat Club sponsored Q&A from Monday. Despite going heads up against the highest rated Monday Night NFL game in history, an SRO audience attended. Tells me we have high interest in a very open special election to replace Mayor Lown.
I am referring here to the "Un-Mayor" portion of the Nov. 3 election, the State Constitutional Amendments. I can tell you, election clerks and judges regularly get more questions on these measures than nearly any other item on a ballot: by law, come election day, about all we can do is read what is on the ballot. FYI, while I still can, let me run these Amendments down by the numbers.
Amendment One will give cities with military bases the option to use bonds or tax increment zones to buy buffer land between the base and local development, cutting down on complaints. This would apply more to a base such as Dyess in Abliene with an active and noisy flight line. Goodfellow's training mission is quieter, we have residences cheerfully building right up to the perimeter fence. Our local effect is close to zero, but I will vote yes. It will help cities with a noise problem deal with that and keep good relations with the local base
Amendments 2,3 and 5 are related to property tax appraisals. I hear often from people who first read of an ad valorem reduction, as San Angelo has done five years in a row, but then find their tax bill has not gone down, or has even increased due to a higher appraisal of the property. Amendments Two and Three are on the same issue: On Two, current common standard is "highest and best use". In English, if you live near a commercial establishment with a high evaluation, the Appraial District can evaluate your property as though it were worth the same. Amendment Two will require the District to evaluate that residence property on its residential value. The companion Amendment Three will give State Comptrollers office authority to write a fairer standard than "highest and best use". Amendment Five allows appraisal review boards (equalization boards in ballot language) to consolidate as the appraisal districts have. Two and Three are crucial, Five is housekeeping with a possible lowering of expense. I vote "yea" on all three.
Amendment Four would create a National Research University Fund designed to help major Texas Universities become Tier One research institutions. Though ASU is not one of the seven named schools, we could see some local benefit to ASU through its affiliation with Texas Tech, which is specified in the measure.
Amendment Six will allow the Texas Veterans' Land Board to issue bonds if needed to assure our veterans the Land Board benefits of lower-interest loans for home buying. In the past, each bond request required separate voter approval, the last in 2001. I don't think voters have ever turned down a bond request. This program is self-funding, with a default rate under 0.5%. In a state with 2 million veterans and no cost to taxpayers, I see this as a solid "yes".
Amendment Seven adds the Texas State Guard to others exempt from the rule against "holding two paid civil offices". Many voters are unaware of the Texas State Guard. It is an all volunteer group, separate from the National Guard. Its function is to supplement the Texas National Guard if it is unable to respond due to say, deployment overseas. See hurricane Ike. If we could allow LBJ to run for Senate and VP on the same ballot, surely we can allow a State Guard reservist to be a Councilman or County Commissioner without resigning his/her State Guard position.
Amendment Eight is the diciest. It would allow the State to support and build VA hospitals. HB 2217 has already been passed, and there is valid debate whether Amendment Eight is truly needed to support 2217. I'm probably wouldn't have supported HB 2217. Slight digression here, but I have long supported laws that would eventually replace the separate VA Hospital system with cards/vouchers allowing vets to recieve the care we owe them at the same hospitals we use. Local care, gov't funded. This is going to be my "NO" vote in November.
Amendment Nine is called "Open Beaches". Obviously little local impact unless you vacation at our Texas beaches. Since 1959 the legal definition of Public Beach is the area between the water and the line of vegetation bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In short, if you choose to "build thy house on shifting sand", your property rights depend on the vagaries of aforementiond shifting sand. Even if you have the grandest house on the waterfront, you can't keep us commoners off the beach between your manse and the beach. Hurricane Ike again; some homeowners found their houses to be a "public beach" due to storm related erosion. I am not completely without sympathy, BUT...Homeowners knew they were building on sand. Nine merely gives Constitutional standing to a law that has been on the books since Eisenhower was President.
Amendment 10 is the sort of housekeeping another state would have had decided by Commissioner's court or some county review board. No local interest I know of, if I bother to vote it, I will vote in favor.
Amendment Eleven on eminent domain. It moves us in the right direction, post the infamous Kelo decision. I would have preferred stronger, more informed debate. With Gov. Perry backing the TTC and its huge appetite for eminent domain, it's hardly a secret he opposes this Amendment. That's OK Gov. Perry, I don't like Amendment 11 either. I think it should have been even stronger. Definite "yes" vote on this. It may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
There it is, my personal guide to the "un-mayor" issues. Regardless of how the gentle reader votes, I hope you will vote on the Amendments. I hope this helps make it an informed vote.
I am referring here to the "Un-Mayor" portion of the Nov. 3 election, the State Constitutional Amendments. I can tell you, election clerks and judges regularly get more questions on these measures than nearly any other item on a ballot: by law, come election day, about all we can do is read what is on the ballot. FYI, while I still can, let me run these Amendments down by the numbers.
Amendment One will give cities with military bases the option to use bonds or tax increment zones to buy buffer land between the base and local development, cutting down on complaints. This would apply more to a base such as Dyess in Abliene with an active and noisy flight line. Goodfellow's training mission is quieter, we have residences cheerfully building right up to the perimeter fence. Our local effect is close to zero, but I will vote yes. It will help cities with a noise problem deal with that and keep good relations with the local base
Amendments 2,3 and 5 are related to property tax appraisals. I hear often from people who first read of an ad valorem reduction, as San Angelo has done five years in a row, but then find their tax bill has not gone down, or has even increased due to a higher appraisal of the property. Amendments Two and Three are on the same issue: On Two, current common standard is "highest and best use". In English, if you live near a commercial establishment with a high evaluation, the Appraial District can evaluate your property as though it were worth the same. Amendment Two will require the District to evaluate that residence property on its residential value. The companion Amendment Three will give State Comptrollers office authority to write a fairer standard than "highest and best use". Amendment Five allows appraisal review boards (equalization boards in ballot language) to consolidate as the appraisal districts have. Two and Three are crucial, Five is housekeeping with a possible lowering of expense. I vote "yea" on all three.
Amendment Four would create a National Research University Fund designed to help major Texas Universities become Tier One research institutions. Though ASU is not one of the seven named schools, we could see some local benefit to ASU through its affiliation with Texas Tech, which is specified in the measure.
Amendment Six will allow the Texas Veterans' Land Board to issue bonds if needed to assure our veterans the Land Board benefits of lower-interest loans for home buying. In the past, each bond request required separate voter approval, the last in 2001. I don't think voters have ever turned down a bond request. This program is self-funding, with a default rate under 0.5%. In a state with 2 million veterans and no cost to taxpayers, I see this as a solid "yes".
Amendment Seven adds the Texas State Guard to others exempt from the rule against "holding two paid civil offices". Many voters are unaware of the Texas State Guard. It is an all volunteer group, separate from the National Guard. Its function is to supplement the Texas National Guard if it is unable to respond due to say, deployment overseas. See hurricane Ike. If we could allow LBJ to run for Senate and VP on the same ballot, surely we can allow a State Guard reservist to be a Councilman or County Commissioner without resigning his/her State Guard position.
Amendment Eight is the diciest. It would allow the State to support and build VA hospitals. HB 2217 has already been passed, and there is valid debate whether Amendment Eight is truly needed to support 2217. I'm probably wouldn't have supported HB 2217. Slight digression here, but I have long supported laws that would eventually replace the separate VA Hospital system with cards/vouchers allowing vets to recieve the care we owe them at the same hospitals we use. Local care, gov't funded. This is going to be my "NO" vote in November.
Amendment Nine is called "Open Beaches". Obviously little local impact unless you vacation at our Texas beaches. Since 1959 the legal definition of Public Beach is the area between the water and the line of vegetation bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In short, if you choose to "build thy house on shifting sand", your property rights depend on the vagaries of aforementiond shifting sand. Even if you have the grandest house on the waterfront, you can't keep us commoners off the beach between your manse and the beach. Hurricane Ike again; some homeowners found their houses to be a "public beach" due to storm related erosion. I am not completely without sympathy, BUT...Homeowners knew they were building on sand. Nine merely gives Constitutional standing to a law that has been on the books since Eisenhower was President.
Amendment 10 is the sort of housekeeping another state would have had decided by Commissioner's court or some county review board. No local interest I know of, if I bother to vote it, I will vote in favor.
Amendment Eleven on eminent domain. It moves us in the right direction, post the infamous Kelo decision. I would have preferred stronger, more informed debate. With Gov. Perry backing the TTC and its huge appetite for eminent domain, it's hardly a secret he opposes this Amendment. That's OK Gov. Perry, I don't like Amendment 11 either. I think it should have been even stronger. Definite "yes" vote on this. It may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
There it is, my personal guide to the "un-mayor" issues. Regardless of how the gentle reader votes, I hope you will vote on the Amendments. I hope this helps make it an informed vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)