Historical Perspective Thought for the Weekend.

As we relax this weekend and get ready for the 4th of July, I feel a little time travel thought experiment might be fun.

In a thousand years, will San Angelo be a healthy community with a continuous historic connection back through today to Ft. Concho, etc. or will it be just another archeological site being studied for why it failed to survive and thrive?

Taking it to the Streets

We're in the middle of the budget cycle right now and for the next several months when the City Council isn't talking about water they're going to be talking about streets. It's an important issues and it's overdue.

There is no doubt about it. Many (most?)  of our streets are in terrible shape. There will be lots of talk about how they got in this shape. Bad decisions were made on maintenance philosophy and priorities. We need to understand how we got here to prevent this from happening again and again. The reality is that many cities are facing the same problem with aging streets and infrastructure. It's hard to do good planning for something with a 25 year or longer life span when your only on the job for two years at a stretch. It.s easy to get hung up on finger pointing and trying to place blame. That won't fix the streets. 

It will take time, commitment, resources, and money to fix this problem. And this is where we need to pay close attention. How do we pay for these repairs. We're already hearing a lot of talk about this. City staff gave a presentation at the last City Council meeting about how to pay for this. It was really more complex than it needed to be. Here are simple basics that need to be kept in mind during this discussion.

These road repairs will be paid for by tax dollars. That's a given but it's easy to forget. It will come out of property tax, sales tax, grants from the state or federal government which are just returned tax dollars, etc.. The money can be money that's already being collected or it can be from a tax increase but fixing the roads will be your tax dollars at work.

If we use money that's already being collected we will have to spend less tax money on something else that the city is doing. Real priorities would have to be made. Some services might have to be scaled back or eliminated and roads would have to be seen as one of the basic function of our city government that they really are. I don't expect to see much of this because I doubt that many on council or staff are ready to admit that some of their pet projects don't perform as expected and shouldn't be held to the same priority as basic city services and infrastructure. They will still want to spend big bucks on things like streetscapes when the streets are bad.

 

The other way to get the money to fix the roads is to raise taxes. A lot of the presentation that staff gave was really about how do we raise taxes without actually calling it a tax increase. The slight of hand is you call the tax a fee. The one that seemed to be most favored was a "Street Maintenance User Fee" and would likely be set at a rate to collect between 2 and 3 million dollars a year. At the current tax rate, that's between 6 and 9 cents of property tax. If implemented like it's been proposed, it will also be a very regressive tax. It will be an add on to the current utility (aka water) bill and will have no real relationship to how much wear and tear you put on the roads. If you have a water bill, you will pay about $5/month even if you don't own a car while big, multimillion dollar companies with fleets of trucks that put the most wear and tear on roads will be subsidized because they will not be paying based on the damage they do to roads but how big their water meter is.

Over the past 10 or so years the City council has lowered property taxes by about $.10. They snuck in a tax increase a few years ago by adding on a storm water fee that's about equal to $.08 in property tax. They justified calling it a fee because it is somewhat tied to the amount of storm water clean up property might create because of it's impermeable surface like buildings, parking lots, and driveways. It's still a tax but at least it's somewhat based on what's causing the problem. Adding $5.00 onto the utility bill is a pure and simple tax. There is no real connection having a water bill and how much damage is done to the roads. We might have on the books a $.10 reduction in property tax but the reality we will end up with a $.05 to $.10 increase in real taxes.

San Angelo still  has one of the highest tax loads in the state, especially as a proportion of individual or family income.  Any method of paying for road repairs should do three things. It should focus on the real basic functions of the city government and recognize that some popular things need to be put lower into their proper priority. Any tax increase should designed in such a way that the people putting the hardest use on the road pay the biggest share of fixing the roads. And when taxes do go up, have the guts to call it a tax instead of hiding it behind a label of "FEE". Seems more truthful that way.

Radical

Been doing some house cleaning in emails, etc. and ran across something I wrote to a friend of mine that has some very different ideas on politics. Think it's time to share it with more people.

You asked me an interesting question the other day: Do I consider you to be radical? You seemed disappointed when I answered yes. I did tell you I didn't consider that a bad thing, but I want to give you a more complete answer.

I would be terribly disappointed in you if you weren't a radical. I
could bring up the fact that every one of our revered founding fathers
and the framers of our republic were radicals but you already know that.
I could point to countless mythical heroes and the founders of most
great religions and state that they were also radicals, at least for
their day and age. Lots of examples to show that it's okay to be
radical. Of course it's okay. That's not even the point. The question is
why be "radical?"

It's really simple. Progress doesn't happen in the middle. Growth and
change and innovation happen at the edges. Meaningful change is always
radical. You and I both want positive change for a better world. Radical
comes with the territory. We will seldom agree politically but don't
ever stop being radical. It's how we make a difference. It's how we
change the world.

Guess it's time to be radical.

Daniel in the Lyin Den or Welcome to our new City Manager

Our new City Manager has been here not quite a month, made it through two city council meetings and hasn't snuck back to Eagle Pass yet. He hasn't said much and seems to be taking it all in waiting until he knows the local landscape. I hope that's a sign of good things and that he is just waiting for the right time because there are some major issues he has to deal with.

I'm sure he knew that water would be a major issue when he got here. Bet he thought that reliable water sources would be his number one challenge. Instead we seem to have a number of very public failures with the water department at the center. At Mr. Valenzuela's very first council meeting they tried to sneak by $100,000 for new furniture for the water department. This is in addition to the $200,000 already spent on top of what was budgeted for the city hall renovation. And it doesn't appear that this furniture was to make up for a shortfall of partitions and filing cabinets and a few needed desks. It was a major wholesale replacement with the old furniture, which was obviously still serviceable, spread hither and yon with no accountability throughout other city departments to make up for shortfalls in other offices. Sounds very much to me like staff underestimated their furniture needs several times, and the last time tried to pull a fast one with the water department paying the bill this time. On top of that, required procurement procedures were mostly ignored. This high dollar purchase went forward without required council approval and like kids on a playground, no senior staff personnel saw what happened. We still don't know who signed the purchase order or if it was ever signed. Nice start for your first council meeting wasn't it Daniel?

By the second meeting things were getting even more interesting. Seems there was (maybe still is) a problem with water quality. It's bad that they found the THM levels in our water too high, although the actual health threat is probably not that great. What's more disturbing to me is that it was outside testing that found the problem, not our own testing procedures. The problem sample was from several months ago and just recently were corrective actions taken. Add on the fact that our temporary use of chlorine instead of chloramine probably made the problem worse and we don't really know what affect it had makes me wonder just how good our in-house testing really is. Needs to be looked at closely.

A bit of a side show to the last council meeting, still tied to the water department, is just starting to surface. Seems that an engineer on city staff was relieved for cause with no option for rehire and after a bit of slight of hand to become a private company/subcontractor was back at work as an inspector on the Hickory Pipeline, the city's main long range water project. Doesn't help that the subcontractor is the son of the water department director. Sounds like a problem of ethics and a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed.

As a long term accompaniment to all this there are problems with water bills which start with the new remote reading water meters. There were a lot of advantages claimed for the remote meters including more efficient and accurate results and near real time water usage readings that could alert a customer to potential leaks or other unusual usage patterns. Looking at how well this had worked in other cities (most of which used private contractors to make the switch) we had high hopes that this would be good for our city. Instead we have heard a fairly constant drumbeat of complaints and excuses. In 2005 the city had a chance to get a remote meter system installed for free by Siemens. Their profit, if any, would have come out of operational savings. They would have been on the hook to make the system work right. Instead  our water department has been before the city council asking for big bucks to do the whole project in house. They currently have 2 or 3 years left on the projects and the results so far have been a mixture of confusion, unrealistic water bills, rate increases, excuses and terrible customer service. The much mentioned capability of flagging usage problems doesn't seem to exist yet. Many current bills seem to be "estimates." The transition from an old meter to a new one frequently leads to a usage spike that makes one believe that either meters hadn't been read for a while or that nobody noticed that the meter had been replaced so a new starting reading should have been used instead of the last reading from the old meter. What ever the cause, our citizens and water customers are not being treated right and there are systemic problems that need to be fixed.

Which brings me to another big issue. One that hurts our economic growth and prosperity. Our city government does a lousy job at customer service. The problems in water billing are making news. Look at what happens in planning, permitting, code enforcement and inspections. I've been told that the process is like being in a pinball machine, being bounced around from desk to desk and department to department. Getting close to the end of the process only to be flipped back to another round of bouncing off desks. A process that takes one to maybe two weeks in other cities in the region takes months here. And I frequently hear that projects will almost get completed and an inspector will come out and change the rules. The plans for a roof or a wall that were approved by everyone in city hall before the project even started will get changed at the last minute by some inspector in the field which causes major added expenses and delays. Cheaper to make the changes (even major ones) then to delay business too long and pay a bunch of money to lawyers. Word of this spreads around and keeps business away. And some within city hall will say that used to happen in the past but we have changed. All I can say is what I'm hearing about are recent incidents. The Friday meeting results don't seem to be filtering down to the people on the desks and in the field.

I have been rambling on a bit here and still have only brushed on some of the high points so let me finish by saying again Welcome Daniel. Enjoy your time here in San Angelo. I hope you brought your Kevlar. You just might need it.

Trash talk

Been a while since we posted here. Time to get back to work. Going to start off with excerpts from an email we received on the pilot program on automated trash collection.

First off, here are some key facts that are not widely known that our email writer thought were important.

1. The cans must be aligned precisely with the curb, or they will not be picked up.
2. The approach to the cans must not be blocked, or they will not be picked up.
3. you must use the cans provided by the trash company, no other cans will be picked up.
4. you will be charged a monthly "rental" of $12-15 for your can, in perpetuity, you will never pay it off, and the city keeps the profit from the fees, not the trash company. (this one really ***** me off)

Our writer goes on to say: " now in (my neighborhood) there is currently a pilot program with the automated system. The automated truck drives down the street, and picks up the cans. If there is a obstruction or the can is not aligned properly, a assistant hops out and fixes the issue, moves the can, etc.. Further, a regular trash truck FOLLOWS the automated truck, picking up odd-sized garbage, leaves, branches, etc, that does not get picked up by the automated truck. The kicker is that when the program is implemented, there will be NO ASSISTANT to the automated truck (IE there will be skipped cans) and obviously no truck following behind to pick up the leftover trash. this factor has not been announced to the general public, and the city plans to just spring it on everybody when the automated system is in place."

I think our writer is legitimately concerned. Two things stand out. First, even though this will likely save the  collection company and the city a considerable amount of money, there could be a net INCREASE in your trash collection bill for the "rental" of the special trash cans. As a consumer my total bill is what matters. It does me no good that my "trash collection" bill is lower if I have to pay more for a "rental fee." This is no good for me unless my ENTIRE bill is less.

The next point that stands out is that the pilot test, as the writer reports, is not currently being done the same way it would be implemented. I can understand them gradually shifting from the current system to the fully automated system. By now, they should have made all the pilot projects as close as possible to the way they will be if and when implemented. We need several weeks, at least, of collections where there are not extra hands or trucks following on. We, the citizens of San Angelo and the people who pay for this service, need to see in these pilot projects exactly what it will be like in the future. No smoke and mirrors. No additional fine print and "adjustments" after the deal is done. I'm not saying that Trashaway and the City Council won't do that but I've watched local politics long enough to know that we, the people, need to make sure it's done.

Problems with the Proposed Water Rate Hike

I did a simple analysis of the proposed rate increases for residential users from the agenda packet currently online. I noticed something very disturbing. The percent increase on the usage rate for the lower water users is dramatically higher than on the larger water users. The usage rate at the bottom rung increases by 129.7%, while at the highest rate increases by only 37.3%.

Back in 2007, when the city was considering its first base rate increase in almost a decade, the initial proposal was for a flat rate increase of $15 per meter. A lot of discussion and a quick analysis showed that that type of increase was not equitable and placed too much of the burden on those using the least water and those least likely to be able to afford such an increase. That was replaced with a series of tiered increases, where the smallest meter size got a much smaller increase than the large users with big meters. Doing a flat, $1.31, increase is also inequitable, and regressive. It puts a higher burden on the small water users, those actually conserving. It gives the big water users a quantity discount, which is exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing. A much better solution is to do a percentage increase on the current rates of around 60%. That would still bring in about the same revenue (I might be off in my estimates) and shift the increased costs of water more evenly and fairly across all the water users. What ever rate increase is finally adopted it needs to be a percentage increase, not a flat rate.

Just to be complete and fair, the increases proposed to the base rates are roughly 29% across the board. That is the right way to do a water rate increase. Now lets do the same thing to the usage rate increases.

Building Meter	Current Rate	Proposed Rate	Proposed Increase	Proposed		Fairer Increase	Fairer Rate	Fair % inc
				% Increase
0–2,000 gallons	$1.01	$2.32	$1.31	129.70%		$0.61	$1.62	60.40%
Next 3,000 gallons	$2.15	$3.46	$1.31	60.93%		$1.30	$3.45	60.40%
Next 10,000 gallons	$2.76	$4.07	$1.31	47.46%		$1.67	$4.43	60.40%
Next 50,000 gallons	$3.06	$4.37	$1.31	42.81%		$1.85	$4.91	60.40%
Next 35,000 gallons	$3.21	$4.52	$1.31	40.81%		$1.94	$5.15	60.40%
Next 100,000 gallons	$3.51	$4.82	$1.31	37.32%		$2.12	$5.63	60.40%

On a Mission

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

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

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

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

What about the Sales Tax

If you have been following me on FaceBook lately, you probably noticed that I don't favor the approach presented at the last council meeting for removing the end date on the ½ cent 4B economic development sales tax. I have even called it pandering pork barrel politics as usual. It's time for me to explain this in more detail.

Some of you may remember I was part of the opposition to the 4B sales tax for a long time. I worked against its passage in 1999, and started the site that became ConchoInfo.org as part of the campaign against the 2004 proposal. In the end we ended up with a much better sales tax than what was originally proposed and they have done a better than expected job of sticking to what they promised the voters. Some parts have not worked out well, but it has been a useful tool in at least a few cases. We have made better use of this economic development tax than the average city does.

One of my main objections to this type of sales tax is how it frequently becomes a “ candy store”. Projects are proposed and handed out on the basis of political factors such as getting the proposal passed or returning favors instead of what is good for economic development and community needs. It frequently amounts to pandering to local special interests in exchange for support and donations. The current projects added to the proposed extension come across that way to me.

The core reason for an economic development sales tax is to aid in the creation and retention of long term good paying jobs. Without an adequate water supply, jobs will not be created or retained, and paying for all the development costs out of property taxes or the water bill is also going to hurt economic and community development. The 4B sales tax is a good way to pay for at least part of that. In those cases where primary jobs that pay above average wages are created or retained, the city has good guidelines and procedures in place for using these 4B funds. Still needs work, and needs more local focus on stage 2 companies, but overall the city has seen benefit from these economic development investments.

There are uses authorized under a 4B tax that do not create primary jobs or high paying jobs. These include sports facilities, open space development, affordable housing, and some related retail developments and infrastructure projects. These don't create good paying or primary jobs. I can see that some projects of this type should be done, but these projects need to be prioritized so that the community as a whole gets the benefits where needed. And truthfully, many of these projects could and should become self sustaining or at least help pay their way. We should look at creating a public facilities corporation to help make that possible.

Looking long term, there are legitimate uses for the 4B sales tax besides developing water resources and creating high paying primary jobs. The short term goal of picking a couple projects to help get it passed does a disservice to the voters and our community. I'm not saying these projects are unworthy of consideration. Instead these projects need to compete against other similar projects on a level playing field based on the long term benefits they bring to the community as a whole. We should fund projects that can show benefit to the city for the long term. We need to think further than just until the next election cycle.

Speak Out

It's final and official. The original language for the smoking ban is what will be on the ballot in November. They decided not to correct any of the faults of the original including addressing the petition to a non-existent City Commission.

The opposition is getting organized and has formed an SPAC called Speak Out San Angelo. Speak Out Amarillo defeated basically the same petition in Amarillo twice (2005 & 2008) and we need to continue the success here.

More information can be found on the Speak Out San Angelo blog and on their facebook group. They can really use your support.

Census Time

The ten year census is upon us. With it come employment opportunities, always a plus. Also comes the decennial deluge of questions and misinformation.

The Census has Constitutional roots in Article 1, Sec. 2. Crafted in a time with slavery, and exempting "untaxed Indians", the Constitutional language is hardly an exact guide. Its original purpose was to apportion the members of the House of Representatives in Congress according to reasonably accurate population the members represented.

The debate over what this Constitutional "enumeration" ought to contain goes back to the beginning. The Census was Statute 2 of the very first Congress in 1790. This gives us a clue it is of great importance. Even then, the questions to be asked were debated. Livermore of New Hampshire complained that questions as to "profession" would be hard on his constituents, as many held more than one, changing seasonally. Sedgewick, of the more industrial Connecticut, wanted the questions to "extend further" and give a better picture of the economy.

I actually worked evenings on the 1980 Census in North Carolina, so though a bit dated, I have seen both sides. I hear the complaints of the right wing as to intrusive none-of-your-business questions. I understand the fear of residents whose legal status may be questionable. I strongly advise both: Fill out the form!

As to the first question, if you get the "long form" it will have questions about bathrooms, vehicles, all sorts of nonsense that you might consider none of the government's concern. The cover letter will tell you it must be completed under penalties of 13 USC 221. PLEASE go ahead and respond to the first ten or so questions (I have not seen the current questionaire) and if you choose, leave the nosy questions blank. It may well be a violation, but I have been unable to find any case where failure to complete everything resulted in criminal or even civil action. The Census Bureau itself describes the penalty section as "psychological encouragement".

On the second, one part of the Federal Government I trust is Census in this respect. They want numbers. The information, the names and addresses will be bundled into district info, but NOTHING you send Census will be shared with Homeland Security, ICE, INS, La Migra, whatever you want to call it.

It is very important that everyone gets counted. This Census result will determine each state's number of Congressmen, for instance, Texas will gain 2-3; California will lose at least that many. Also, the Census numbers will be used in determining grants and federal aid for all sorts of programs, everything from housing to education to health care, to public safety, to libraries, ad infinitum.

We know from reasonable "eyeball surveys" that San Angelo was under-counted in 2000. We lost tens of millions of dollars over a decade due to that undercount. We will not get another chance for ten years, we must make the best of this one. We want to count EVERYONE! You live under a bridge; I want you counted. You are "undocumented?"; on this I don't care, if you live here, I want you counted. Folks, on this states and even intrastate districts go to court and fight over which body gets to count prisoners, one group claiming they count where sentenced, another that they count where they serve the sentence!

Census has been a nuisance of some degree for at least as long as one forced the baby Jesus to be born in a manger in Bethlehem. Ours is considerably less troublesome than that of Mary and Joseph. Please follow their biblical example and respond to this Census. It is good for our city, and long run, good for you.

Storm over storm water rates

Tuesday's Council meeting was a long day, much of it taken up with the storm water program rate structure. I have been following this as closely as I can since the public meetings last March. It ain't perfect, but I like what we have now a whole lot better than what I was looking at in March. I like it better than what was first presented Tuesday morning.

First let me explain "tiers". The original back in March was going to go by straight square footage, each property paying flat 15 cents per. The tiers group properties by size, for instance, tier three commercial is 15001-50,000sq ft. It has right at a quarter of all commercial lots. They use Dairy Queen on Sherwood as an example. There are 4 residential tiers and six non-residential tiers.

On residential, the highest rate will be $5/month, for houses with over 3,000 sq. ft. OF ROOF. In fact if you have a 3200 Sq ft two story and get a tier 4 $5 billing, call and tell them. They have a Google-like system and can check that from the desk and adjust your tier. Over 55% of residences will be in tiers 1 or 2, at $2 and $3 respectively. The bill will go to the owner, it will not be a tack-on to residential water bills. If you rent a house, as I do, the owner gets the bill. Unlike property taxes, this will apply to non-profits, churches, it will apply to vacant buildings, virtually everything except the federal building downtown. Yes, as usual the feds exempt themselves from that which they impose on us. Apartments are in "non-residential", which sounds absurd and accounts for my preference for the term "commercial".

In the commercial tiers, the first three contain 87% of all affected properties. The tier 3 rate is $30/month, pretty close to the average for that tier. Likewise tiers 4 and 5 are very close to the average for their tiers. Then we come to tier 6 over 500,000 sq. ft.: the $500/mo is nowhere close to the average of $1400 they would pay in straight sq. footage billing. How can this be?

Well frankly, tiers 1 and 2 at $7.50 and $15 respectively are getting hosed. Any business at the low end of the first 5 tiers is getting hosed a bit too. How can this be fair? Best answer I can give you is; it really isn't.

Let me fall back to the public hearings in March. I had made comment that there were unmandated capital projects we could live without and in fact, those projects have been scaled back some. As we were walking out I ended up talking to, well, one of the major car dealers in town. He had already computed his sq footage times 15 cents and I was talking to a genuinely frightened man. He told me bluntly that if he got hit with the full sq. footage charge contemplated then, he was out of business. Given the state of the auto industry, I don't think he was exaggerating at all.

There are only 22 tier 6 properties. They include the asphalt intensive businesses of car dealers and Sunset Mall for instance. The city website uses Wal-Mart Supercenter West as an example, and they could probably pay full freight and only marginally raise prices on each of the tens of thousands of items they sell. The sense of Council, was that the tier 6 full freight fee could break a good many tier 6 businesses, with accompanying loss of jobs. Other hand, the higher-than-sq-footage fees for the lower 3 tiers were unlikely to break businesses.

Some public comment before the lunch break, including yours truly, suggested the presented fees for the lower three tiers, the $10, $20, and $50 was too much burden and too much subsidy. After the break, 5 and 6 had gone up, and the first four down. The $10, $20 and $50 ended up as $7.50, $15 and $30. Still a subsidy package, which does not tickle my libertarian soul, but neither does higher unemployment.

The city website has all the numbers, if you care to look. Opening page click Stormwater information, next page click, rate facts and stormwater facts.

Understand, this is not yet a done deal. The $500 for tier 6 is not only way under the average, it is below the minimum in real sq footage for that tier. If you think this is out of line, show up and stand on your hind legs and say so, but time is short.

It has been said, and I would agree, this should have been started many years ago. Now think back 5, 10 years. How many voters would have howled at the moon about unnecessary taxes? Fiscally responsible, yes; but I don't believe it would have been politically possible. Reality now is, we are staring at a short deadline. If we don't have something going by the New Year, it's likely TCEQ and EPA will move us from 305B (watch list) to 303B. Then they just walk in and tell us "You will do X, Y, and Z". They might let us decide how to pay for it. If they're in a good mood, but they seldom are. If you have a better plan, share it with us quickly.

Animal Control Legislation

While we have been struggling with animal control issues here, a new legislative session has convened and numerous bills related to animals have been introduced. ( Check the Texas Legislature Online.) Some of them relate directly to our ongoing problems.

HB 3180 and its companion SB 1910 cover commercial dog and cat breeders and dog and cat dealers. There are some good points to the bill, but there is likely to be some confusion because the definition of a commercial breeder is different than the federal definition of a commercial breeder. It also includes a definition of hobby breeder which is different than what I would prefer, but will work in my recommendations. Our current zoning ordinance definition of animal kennel would include commercial breeders and dealers by implication. If this bill passes, we need to either update the animal kennel definition to include commercial breeders and dealers, or specifically reference commercial breeders and dealers in the code of ordinances. There are also new requirements on buyers rights, which are probably overdue and requirements for veterinarian inspections which are needed. I think that setting 11 unaltered females as the threshold for a commercial breeder may not be the best way to separate commercial breeders from hobby breeders but it's probably the most likely to succeed politically. The difference in the Federal and proposed Texas definitions is not likely to have much effect on our local animal control issues.

HB 2001 and its companion SB 634 covers the restraint of dogs. It effectively eliminates the tieing out of dogs, (exceptions for camping, agriculture, training) and it adds a 150 sq ft minimum enclosure size. For reasons I stated in " Enclosing a Problem", I think this bill will cause more problems than it solves. It would eliminate the need for the original enclosure proposal that was brought before council, but I really can't support it.

We need to keep following these bills. They will impact how the city does animal control, but they really don't have that much impact on my recommendations. The breeders bill will give us a definition of "Hobby Breeder", and will add some record keeping, notification, and buyers rights requirements that fit in well with a "Know your seller" campaign. It does appear that some space requirements will be created if the breeders bill passes, but those will only apply to commercial breeders and dealers.

Overall, there are currently 70 bills dealing with animals before the Texas Legislature. There are about 11 that I will be following that might be relevant to our local animal control. There are others I am likely to be commenting on in the future, but click on the Check the Texas Legislature Online link I provided earlier, and see for your self.

Positive Blues

Friday night Barkeep went to the Rich DelGrasso event, the season finale of the Cactus Music Series. While I was in North Carolina in the 70s I got to know a lot of mandolin players in the bluegrass field. Between that, and a real love of blues, I had to catch this act. Folks, it was time and money well spent, my thanks to everyone who made it happen.

DelGrasso is not only a master of his art, he was a communicator par excellance. Mixing music with history, playing a variety of mandolins and guitars, by show's end one felt a personal bond with the man. His years as a teacher showed, and a world class teacher he was. I hope we can make this man at least an annual visitor.

Along with the concert, a term that doesn't really do justice to the experience, DelGrasso spent time at Central with music students from Central and Lakeview High Schools earlier in the day. His website, www.mandolinblues.com describes this "Blues in the Schools" program in more detail, but it is a loose organization of musicians willing to share their passion and time with students.

In what turned into a two-way treat, he invited three high school students he had just met that day to sit in during the second set. No rehearsal, no music sheets, just jamming. We saw Greg Ponder on trumpet, Tom Blackwood on sax, and Brianna Velasquez on bass. Tentative for a couple bars, these kids settled in and played right back at DelGrasso. The applause was not just polite noise for the "home team", these guys were good! I was able to speak to them afterwards, and they were lit up, I doubt any of them will ever forget this event. My personal history was as a high school thespian, and I can tell you, when we got a standing O for "Zoo Story", well, that was a rush I can remember like it was yesterday even though it was back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

The students gave an enthusiastic thanks to their music teachers, Adam Chappell and Mike Berry. We are blessed to have these teachers.

DelGrosso, who recently moved to Texas from Los Angeles, made a point of telling us how much he appreciated an active arts program here. As part of California's budget crunch, there is no arts curriculum there anymore in public schools.

Just in case I have made the impression that I am all about budget in the school district, let me correct that. Yes, I want to see high school graduates who can read and make change without a calculator, and I want it done within a responsible budget, but arts are an important part of becoming a well-rounded adult. Fortunately, we have a good program here, as demonstrated Friday night. We want to make sure we keep it that way in the face of an economic downturn.

Texas is nowhere close to the budget debacle California is facing. The Legislature will have less income to play with this term, but within the limits of our "Rainy Day fund"...this time. I personally predict they will find away to extend the bond guarantee program that districts with new bonds were counting on, and continue EDA support for school bonds. As voters, we need to keep those cards and letters coming, so to speak, that we don't regard arts programs as frills subject to cutting in the education budget.

I stress, no one on SAISD Board is making any noise about eliminating or cutting arts, I don't expect it anytime soon. Going back a few years and a different Board, I would not have expected cuts in Vocational Ed, but we got them. One particular item to watch; the new Admin/Science Lab building at Central will necessarily displace the existing home of the arts depatment. This will need to be done in a way that allows for continued participation in arts programs by as many students as we can interest in them.

Extra-curricular does not translate to irrelevant. Aside from the well-rounded part, any program that grabs a student's interest will help keep that kid in school. I remember a guy in high school, very good auto mechanic, this kid was making a grown man's wage after school and weekends working on cars, had a better reputation than men twice his age. He was ready to drop out, work full time in his sophomore year. My Drama teacher, Mrs. Richards (who coincidentally spent two years in San Angelo while her military husband learned Russian at Goodfellow-small world) detected something more than class clown in him and talked him into a part in a comedy we put on. Turned out, he had a comedic presence that came across the footlights, got the most laughs of anyone in this little farce, and he was hooked. I really believe he hung in and graduated high school because he was having a ball in drama. That degree probably didn't enhance his earnings much, he went on to own his own garage, but I know he still treasures the time he spent on stage.

I have good expectations of the Legislature, but if need be, we should be prepared to support the arts in our schools locally, a public/private effort if needed. My Drama club in high school, we had an auditorium and the faculty advisor, but for costumes and scenery and travel to competitions, we washed cars, sold tickets, begged, borrowed and stole (a little bit). If SAISD can find $6 million for athletic showers, we can fund a lively arts program.

Farming Perspective

From Allie Devereaux

My perspective of conventional farming practices shifted entirely some years ago when I took a drive through the Midwest with the intention of seeing some remnant of the Great Plains, the intensely productive and resilient ocean of grassland stretching from Texas to Canada that once supported 60 million bison and 100’s of millions of other ruminants. Instead what I saw in one state after another, for mile after mile after mile, was nothing but corn. It was then that I learned that most of this corn was grown not to feed people, but to feed cows in massive feedlots, or to make a cheap sweetener for processed foods, or nowadays for fuel. The truth concerning what is required to produce such a vast monoculture began to reveal itself: millions of tons of chemical inputs applied every year, which are often toxic blends of industrial waste products permitted for disposal on crop lands in amounts deemed “safe” by the EPA, federal subsidies that cost tax payers up to $35 billion annually and tie farmers in a knot of unproductive regulations, losses of top soils, biodiversity, water and water quality...

The deeper I dug into the realities of conventional farming, the more I was convinced that the benefits of “organic” farming, which is professed to be "an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity,” go much deeper than simply keeping carcinogenic chemicals out of the food supply. But now, with multinational food corporations cashing in on the organic food trend, the focus of production is turning back towards quantity and bottom lines, and in many cases the “organic” farm can be difficult to distinguish from the factory farm. Certainly the notion of “sustainability” is being reassessed as goods are flooding into the US from as far away as China and New Zealand to meet the consumer demand for “organic” food.

In response, the world is seeing a massive movement into small scale, regional food production and re-localization, a strategy to build societies based on local production of food, energy and goods. But, long before there was any notion of carbon footprints or ‘organic’ farming, there were visionaries who could see that industrialized farming was corrosive to human society.

One of the first to pioneer conversationalist thought in America was Aldo Leopold, an internationally known ecologist who recognized the great need for wise use of land and water resources in the early part of the 20th century. Leopold devoted his life to planting seeds of thought about how farming should be productive but not interfere with natural systems. He called us to determine what is ethically and aesthetically right in regard to land use, in addition to what is economically expedient. The ethic he envisioned simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals; collectively, the land.

Leopold’s land ethic has inspired several generations of farmers and ranchers, like Fred Kirschenmann, third generation farmer, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University and a leader of the organic/sustainable agriculture movement. His father passed on a love for the land and a sense of wonder for the miracle of the soil's productivity, as well as a profound sense of responsibility to care for it. Of Kirschenmann’s 3,500 acres, 1/3 is native prairie used for grazing livestock, and the rest is managed in a diversified operation where eight to nine crops are organically raised each year including durum and hard red spring wheat, rye, buckwheat, millet, flax, canola, also alfalfa and sweet clover for forage and green manure crops.

Kirschenmann has said, “local community economies are healthiest when they are as self-reliant as possible, especially where food and agriculture are concerned. Self-reliant communities are healthiest because they are free to pursue their own course, shaped by cultural norms which evolved in those communities to maintain the local public good… More important is our failure to recognize that farms are not factories and that the effort to impose these principles on farms has created an agriculture that is headed for collapse.”

When Karl Kupers took over his fathers 5,400 acres he followed the conventional wheat/fallow rotation that was common in the dryland wheat region of Washington. He eventually learned that he was not content as a highly subsidized wheat producer. He set a goal to create a farm in 10 years that would not depend on the subsidies that he felt promoted irresponsible and wasteful farming practices. When he quit tilling and began to direct seed he found the resulting improvement of soil tilth over the years provides a healthier environment for more diverse crops. Soil loses most of it carbon content during plowing, which releases carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. No-till farming helps soil retain carbon. Healthy topsoil contains carbon-enriched humus – decaying organic matter that provides nutrients to plants. Soils low in humus are more susceptible to erosion and cannot maintain the carbon-dependent nutrients essential to healthy crop production, resulting in the need to use more fertilizers.

Kupers says weeds arise when nature tries to add diversity to a weakened and fragile landscape. “We tell people, don't try to eliminate the diversity by killing the weed. Put a crop in to fill that need for diversity. The majority of the people in the world are going to demand a cleaner environment. You use crop rotations, not chemicals, which also reduces cost. That is a key component to making a sustainable agricultural system work.” He says subsidized wheat is very difficult to compete with. “Today, when you take that subsidy away, and make wheat stand on its own--these other crops start working. Recognize that soil is what you're shooting for, it's not the crop, it's not the 1997 to 1998 income."

Wes Jackson survived the Dustbowl as a child in Kansas and went on to found The Land Institute, an organization devoted to research and development of agricultural systems with the ecological stability of the prairie and a grain yield comparable to that from annual crops. He has coined the term Natural Systems Agriculture which involves perennial cropping systems that mimic the permanent ground covers and root systems of the perennial plants of the prairie. They are having success developing strains of wheat, sorghum, sunflower and flax at the University of Minnesota that return annually from an established rootstock of up to 10 feet deep, helping to protect, conserve and even “re-grow” living soil.

In the mid 1970s, two Australians, Dr. Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, started to develop ideas that they hoped could be used to create stable permanent agricultural systems in response to a rapidly growing use of destructive industrial-agricultural methods which were poisoning the land and water, turning rivers into stagnant holes of brine, reducing biodiversity, removing billions of tons of soil from previously fertile landscapes, and causing desertification. The principles they espouse have been applied to a wide range of environments - from dense urban settlements to individual homes and large farms.

Ultimately, their vision has spread, transforming lands that were once totally depleted and barren into edible, self perpetuating ecosystems. It is inspiring to see aerial photos of the green webs of interconnected life established in barren or desertified landscapes yielding diverse arrays of fruits, vegetables, grains, herbs, fodder, and seed, for villages, homesteads and communities around the globe. By utilizing this bio-intensive method of food production we would not only use 90% less mechanical and manual labor and consume 60-80% less water than is used in conventional methods, but by producing 2 to 6 times more food per square foot, it would be possible to feed the US population in the space that is currently established as high maintenance lawns.

Masanobu Fukuoka, a farmer trained in microbiology and soil science, sees in a conventional farmland landscape a vast desert lurking under a thin façade. He discovered his own route to a diverse small-scale farming operation that requires no plowing or tillage, no chemicals or fertilizer and no weeding - and the condition of the soil in his orchards and fields improves each year. Fukuoka observed that nature is quite efficient at reseeding. Similarly, he simply spreads the seed of one grain in a stand of another, and after the standing crop is harvested, the straw from that crop is laid down on top the seed from the next crop. In this manner his yields of rye, barley and rice compare favorably with the most productive conventional Japanese farms. By intercropping various kinds of vegetables and herbs among the natural vegetation in his orchards, there is no need to mitigate pest population in any way.

Fukuoka considers the healing of the land and the purification of the human spirit to be one process, and he proposes a way of life and a way of farming in which this process can take place. "…farming is not just for growing crops, it is for the cultivation and perfection of human beings.”

In his writings on agriculture, Thomas Jefferson has not only expressed a shared belief with this 95 year old Japanese farmer in diversification and cover cropping as techniques to conserve water and protect the crop, the soil, and the organisms living in the soil, but he also recognized the deep connection between farming and man, saw farming as humanity’s wisest pursuit, and believed that small landholders working their land into production without coercion from the state were the most precious part of our society. It is unfortunate that federal farm and trade policies imposed by governments acting in the interests of multinational food and chemical corporations have nearly eradicated small and middle sized farms and depleted the environment upon which we all depend; but, thankfully, wisdom does manage to find a way to surface through all the red tape.

The way we live on and with the land, that is, the way we produce food, build homes, exist in our space and interrelate as a community of human beings, will ultimately determine the quality and duration of our society. There is no doubt that with the coming of $200-a-barrel oil we will have to reassess the viability of farming schemes that are heavily dependent on this diminishing resource for production and distribution. And while we may be approaching the day that the “organic” label outgrows its usefulness, the principle of growing food without dangerous chemicals, in a balance with nature, in or near the community in which it is to be consumed, is, and will always be, the soundest approach to procuring the sustenance upon which civilizations depend.

Links

http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/

http://www.managingwholes.com/--ranching-farming.htm

http://wincustomersusa.com/stockman/index.php

http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/drupal/node/140

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/perma.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W15RRvKyJSk

http://www.coopamerica.org/pubs/realmoney/articles/organiccotton.cfm

http://www.fao.org/docrep/W2598E/w2598e07.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/farmaid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWyduWsoy8o&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=permaculture&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&clie

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8960194180325234816&ei=SnBaSIXQO4vQ4AKEneiuDw&hl=en

A glimpse at our future.

We now have a small scale test of what I hope ConchoInfo will look like up. It may be a little slow and up and down a bit as I'm running it on a test server under my desk. Anonymous browsing and some commenting is allowed, but full features won't be available unless you register. News feeds, forums, stories and comments along with a calendar are all in the works. We are also working on an appropriate theme. Special purpose and private forums are also possible.

Take a look at the testbed and tell me what you think.