Well folks, the election happened. I've taken the last week to try to decide what to say. At first I wanted to discuss the likely 4-4 votes that will be coming up, very interesting considering that most of the Green Team supporters complain in general about the slow pace of government action (as if that's a surprise, for government at any level). Then I wanted to write a listing of all the things I warned will happen, so down the road, I could say "I told you so." But I don't want to be able to say I told you so. I love this city and look forward to it's continued growth and success, and as such, I hope the best for the two new council-members. So instead, I've decided to remind the new council-members what got them elected, and let them know that at least this one anonymous citizen will be watching, and ready to call them out should they stray from what they've promised:
1. A divergence from politics as usual in League City
2. To not fight growth but try to ensure it's orderly and desired growth
3. To not raise taxes
4. To prevent unnecessary spending
5. To restore "civility" and "dignity" to city government
That being said, the Green Team is in for quite a ride. Their most vocal and lunatic fringe of supporters (Marc Edelman, Holly Shelden, Mick Phalen, Bill Heins, Mel & Sandra Kelley, Jay Ewend, Karl Wankowicz, Dee Scott, and the former mayors and council members with bitter grudges) are creating quite the Catch22 for Green Team. See, if the Mayor and his pals on the Green Team are TRULY committed to restoring civility and a divergence from politics as usual, they would do the following:
1. Stop butting heads with the City Manager/City Attorney, and actually try working with them. I realize the Mayor feels slighted, but the fact is he is just as much a part of creating the bad environment and relationship as the City Manager is. Someone has to take the lead on mending that relationship, and given that the Green Team has promised civility, the Mayor should lead by example. But Marc Edelman insists on trying to tie some imaginary connection to a few disgruntled people in Joplin to League City in an effort to discredit the City Manager, and given his massive support of the Green Team including hosting their victory celebration, it's doubtful he will sit quietly by while the relationship gets fixed. So appeasing their vocal core and living up to their promises can't be done for the Green Team - so which will it be, live up to what got you elected, or demonstrate that this city voted to swap one political machine for another?
2. Stop with the useless ethics committee complaints already. It was the wrong place to challenge the Mayor's lack of understanding of a council-manager form of government, and it's the wrong place to try to "fix" our city government. This ethics council is largely a joke. It's essentially toothless, and it's a big waste of time and money. Seriously, this is EXACTLY more of the same, and it's the type of stuff the citizens have spoke with their votes to get away from.
3. Figure out a way to attract businesses to be able to fund all the traffic improvements and water infrastructure upgrades that your supporters are expecting. Otherwise, you won't have any choice but to disappoint them or raise taxes.
This is a short list for now, but it's not going to be easy. Good luck, and I'll be watching!
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Monday, November 7, 2016
League City New Residents - I Told You So!
Just when I thought I was done with my last post before the election (this one: https://leaguecityoutsiders.blogspot.com/2016/11/election-eve-update-for-league-city.html) , I see this nugget of truth (Finally some truth!) out of the Green Team's twisted cheerleader, the self-professed "First Lady of League City", Janice Hallisey. Her latest get out the vote effort starts off with, "Vote for people who grew up here..." I've been saying all along that the Green Team's priority is League City for the natives. Never mind that half of this city's population didn't grow up here. Never mind the needs, thoughts, and desires of the people who have moved in and paid taxes here as this city doubled in size in the last 20 years. It's all about the old families. If you're a non-native and want to be properly represented on Council - vote for Drury, Kinsey, and Spry!
Election Eve Update for League City Council Voters
It's almost here League City! Your Facebook can turn back into food pictures and duck-faced selfies. You might even re-friend some of those people you had to cut loose in the last few months. But before we get to that wonderful post-election time-period, for those of you who haven't taken advantage of early voting, you have to make it through Election Day... running the gauntlet of candidates and surrogates outside of the polling locations (Don't worry - it sounds like they're going to be well-regulated to abandon hope of harassing you once you get 100ft from the door.) But you shouldn't need to worry about all of that - you'll do your homework BEFORE you get to the polling location.
Sadly, many have done all their research on the Presidential election, but have totally neglected local elections. Yet it's the local elections that require the most research. Unless a President declares a war, there's very little they can do that will have as substantial and direct consequence on your day-to-day life as the people on City Council will have. Furthermore, city council elections don't have the easy-button of party affiliation listing (they're "non-partisan"). So you actually have to do your research.
Some Facebook groups (League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport) would LOVE to do your "research" for you. They'll tell you all about how great their slate of Green Team candidates is, about their community service, and about how long they've lived in League City. What they won't tell you is any actual plan the Green Team has for League City. Because their plan is the impossible - they want to freeze time (seemingly sometime around the late 1980s). They want to pretend League City is "rural". They want to eliminate professional, educated, city staff who have served this city well. This group silences and shouts down anyone who disagrees with them through childish name-calling, arbitrary enforcement of "rules" for their group, and innuendo lobbed at anyone who speaks negatively about them. This group will claim that the Green Team has exclusive ownership of the moral high road, and throw out hyperbolic accusations of "serious" election rule violations. They'll do a lot of things. But the key thing they will NOT do, is offer you any sort of unbiased, educated, rational information regarding the election.
Now, I'll offer you my take and recommendations, but I highly suggest you take a while and research my rationale and claims. I'll suggest a starting point (and it is JUST a starting point) that you read through the rest of the posts I've made. I like to focus on issues (with some humor thrown in, when you're this long-winded it helps to keep people awake), and I like to provide references to support my opinions (instead of pretending to be an authority on all aspects of local governance). Then do some more research on your own, you all know how to use Google (or duckduckgo, whatever suits your fancy).
In this election for City Council, while all candidates are technically independent, you're facing a choice between two slates (and one wild-card who you likely haven't heard of because he's done much less advertising). Slate A - Debbie Drury, Todd Kinsey, and Brenton Spry. Slate B - The "Green Team", Greg Gripon, Larry Millican, and Rudy Salcedo. If you've watched any City Council meetings in the last couple of months, you've seen some of these "Green Team" folks and most of their supporters as they've lined up for 3 minutes of shame every meeting to plead for such causes as:
1 - Spending $10mil on a new animal shelter (because improving/expanding the existing one wasn't good enough for them)
2 - Acquiring an "office" for the mayor (even though we have a council-manager form of government which renders the mayor a ceremonial figurehead who is in reality just an extra and useless member of the city council, and even though the mayor had full access to the shared office for all of council), creating an unnecessary expense for the city to change the signs, and enabling the mayor to overstep his role and try to interfere with the duties which we pay the City Manager to perform (the City Manager who has a Master's Degree and is qualified to run a city versus the Mayor who has no formal training whatsoever).
3 - Complaining about the city council "disrespecting" the Mayor (despite the fact that he campaigned on a promise to fight them, creating the atmosphere of distrust and combativeness)
4 - Changing the city logo back to the old oak tree silhouette instead of the new bright sailboats (because a logo means that much to them, and it'd be worth the expense to get the drab old logo back).
5 - And finally, we get to a real issue - opposition to the city's plan to revitalize the downtown area of League City (because they don't understand the difference between investment and spending).
The Green Team will talk a lot about valuing "involvement" in the city (citing how many council meetings their favorite candidates have attended, or charity groups they're involved in). But this doesn't qualify one to make decisions regarding the operations and planning for a city of this size. What SHOULD qualify someone is how will they vote on issues that matter to you. So let's boil down the positions of the two slates.
The A Team (Drury/Kinsey/Spry) will continue the path set forth by existing council members (Becker, Bentley, Hansing, Kinsey, Long, and Gross). They will seek the advice of our trained and skilled City Manager, and measure that advice with their truly conservative views that are representative of the majority of League City residents. They will continue to seek the balance in revenue to fund infrastructure improvements while decreasing debt and working to get our taxes lowered in a responsible manner. This balance will be achieved by attracting businesses to League City, thereby driving up the retail sales tax revenue and hotel occupancy tax revenue, which will be largely funded by those from outside of our community, and enable improvements to be funded without relying on the revenue of homeowners' property taxes. They will continue the plan to implement improvements such as downtown revitalization in a manner that will maximize the federal funding of projects through grants (thereby restoring money paid out by League City residents to the Federal government back to League City).
The B Team, or so-called "Green Team" (because Gripon is an environmentalist whose primary focus seems to be on the liberal buzz-word of "sustainability" and because Pat Hallisey is Irish) of Gripon, Millican, and Salcedo, will attempt to fight growth and development. They will try to preserve "green space" and oak trees, and yet they have promised to focus on traffic improvement and increasing our water supply. If we resist growth and development, yet invest in infrastructure improvements as the B Team has promised, the only two methods to fund this are by increasing revenue (which in this case would HAVE to come from your wallet in the form of increased homeowners' property taxes) or by increasing debt. I would love to go in more depth as to what the Green Team would do, but this is literally the only thing I've heard them promise to do, besides "cleaning house" and attempting to eliminate the City Manager and City Attorney (both of which would be costly ventures and likely get our city involved in unnecessary legal battles). The B Team will have family members, old friends, and some of League City's police officers out campaigning for them on Tuesday. But keep in mind, while they may have convinced the police union which represents some of the police officers to support them, they have no different plan to support the police department than the A Team. Remember, public employee unions are about the only group that can choose who their boss is, what benefits package they are provided, and their pay scales, by influencing an election. Police unions have historically been rather short-sighted, often backing Democrats who court the union with promises of increased pay and benefits yet then fail to "back the blue" as they continue supporting anti-authority voices. Furthermore, as described in this reference regarding municipal employee unions: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~holgers/papers/sw_1_13.pdf, "Political economy reasons may prevent the city from operating efficiently since local politicians have incentives to accommodate public sector unions." While the general consensus of the League City population is decidedly supportive of our police officers, please keep in mind that the unions are often short-sighted in what they view as advantageous to the officers they represent. Do not let the police that are out to support the candidates endorsed by their union's political action committee sway your convictions. Keep in mind that higher pay and benefits may benefit the police in the short-term, but they will bankrupt the city or increase your taxes in the long-run, which will inevitably be met by decreases in compensation and worse conditions for the police officers.
Brian Brown has run a very clean (and very limited) campaign, and has been used and abused by the Green Team to try and split votes. He doesn't really have much of a shot of getting elected, and would be outnumbered by one of the two slates on every vote. As such, it's not really worth considering what positions he will support - his vote on Council would be completely inconsequential.
Don't fall for lies and tricks at the polls (such as the B Team's inflated, and void of context, claims regarding past water rate increases). Don't let anyone convince you that the A-Team is not going to support the police - the fact is ALL of the candidates this time around will fully support our police department. Given this summary, I highly recommend, if you haven't made up your mind yet, that you vote for the team with a rational path for the future of League City - Drury, Kinsey, and Spry.
The choice really is simply - do you want to embrace and shepherd in sensible growth that will decrease the tax burden on homeowners while increasing the investment in infrastructure improvements, or do you want to support a delusional quest for nostalgia that will attempt to fight growth to save a few oak trees and increase your taxes? If you want to pursue lower taxes while increasing the quality of life - vote for Drury, Kinsey, and Spry. If you want to save a few oak trees and try to fight the natural course of suburban growth at the cost of increased taxes on your property or decreased quality of life, vote Gripon, Millican, and Salcedo.
Sadly, many have done all their research on the Presidential election, but have totally neglected local elections. Yet it's the local elections that require the most research. Unless a President declares a war, there's very little they can do that will have as substantial and direct consequence on your day-to-day life as the people on City Council will have. Furthermore, city council elections don't have the easy-button of party affiliation listing (they're "non-partisan"). So you actually have to do your research.
Some Facebook groups (League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport) would LOVE to do your "research" for you. They'll tell you all about how great their slate of Green Team candidates is, about their community service, and about how long they've lived in League City. What they won't tell you is any actual plan the Green Team has for League City. Because their plan is the impossible - they want to freeze time (seemingly sometime around the late 1980s). They want to pretend League City is "rural". They want to eliminate professional, educated, city staff who have served this city well. This group silences and shouts down anyone who disagrees with them through childish name-calling, arbitrary enforcement of "rules" for their group, and innuendo lobbed at anyone who speaks negatively about them. This group will claim that the Green Team has exclusive ownership of the moral high road, and throw out hyperbolic accusations of "serious" election rule violations. They'll do a lot of things. But the key thing they will NOT do, is offer you any sort of unbiased, educated, rational information regarding the election.
Now, I'll offer you my take and recommendations, but I highly suggest you take a while and research my rationale and claims. I'll suggest a starting point (and it is JUST a starting point) that you read through the rest of the posts I've made. I like to focus on issues (with some humor thrown in, when you're this long-winded it helps to keep people awake), and I like to provide references to support my opinions (instead of pretending to be an authority on all aspects of local governance). Then do some more research on your own, you all know how to use Google (or duckduckgo, whatever suits your fancy).
In this election for City Council, while all candidates are technically independent, you're facing a choice between two slates (and one wild-card who you likely haven't heard of because he's done much less advertising). Slate A - Debbie Drury, Todd Kinsey, and Brenton Spry. Slate B - The "Green Team", Greg Gripon, Larry Millican, and Rudy Salcedo. If you've watched any City Council meetings in the last couple of months, you've seen some of these "Green Team" folks and most of their supporters as they've lined up for 3 minutes of shame every meeting to plead for such causes as:
1 - Spending $10mil on a new animal shelter (because improving/expanding the existing one wasn't good enough for them)
2 - Acquiring an "office" for the mayor (even though we have a council-manager form of government which renders the mayor a ceremonial figurehead who is in reality just an extra and useless member of the city council, and even though the mayor had full access to the shared office for all of council), creating an unnecessary expense for the city to change the signs, and enabling the mayor to overstep his role and try to interfere with the duties which we pay the City Manager to perform (the City Manager who has a Master's Degree and is qualified to run a city versus the Mayor who has no formal training whatsoever).
3 - Complaining about the city council "disrespecting" the Mayor (despite the fact that he campaigned on a promise to fight them, creating the atmosphere of distrust and combativeness)
4 - Changing the city logo back to the old oak tree silhouette instead of the new bright sailboats (because a logo means that much to them, and it'd be worth the expense to get the drab old logo back).
5 - And finally, we get to a real issue - opposition to the city's plan to revitalize the downtown area of League City (because they don't understand the difference between investment and spending).
The Green Team will talk a lot about valuing "involvement" in the city (citing how many council meetings their favorite candidates have attended, or charity groups they're involved in). But this doesn't qualify one to make decisions regarding the operations and planning for a city of this size. What SHOULD qualify someone is how will they vote on issues that matter to you. So let's boil down the positions of the two slates.
The A Team (Drury/Kinsey/Spry) will continue the path set forth by existing council members (Becker, Bentley, Hansing, Kinsey, Long, and Gross). They will seek the advice of our trained and skilled City Manager, and measure that advice with their truly conservative views that are representative of the majority of League City residents. They will continue to seek the balance in revenue to fund infrastructure improvements while decreasing debt and working to get our taxes lowered in a responsible manner. This balance will be achieved by attracting businesses to League City, thereby driving up the retail sales tax revenue and hotel occupancy tax revenue, which will be largely funded by those from outside of our community, and enable improvements to be funded without relying on the revenue of homeowners' property taxes. They will continue the plan to implement improvements such as downtown revitalization in a manner that will maximize the federal funding of projects through grants (thereby restoring money paid out by League City residents to the Federal government back to League City).
The B Team, or so-called "Green Team" (because Gripon is an environmentalist whose primary focus seems to be on the liberal buzz-word of "sustainability" and because Pat Hallisey is Irish) of Gripon, Millican, and Salcedo, will attempt to fight growth and development. They will try to preserve "green space" and oak trees, and yet they have promised to focus on traffic improvement and increasing our water supply. If we resist growth and development, yet invest in infrastructure improvements as the B Team has promised, the only two methods to fund this are by increasing revenue (which in this case would HAVE to come from your wallet in the form of increased homeowners' property taxes) or by increasing debt. I would love to go in more depth as to what the Green Team would do, but this is literally the only thing I've heard them promise to do, besides "cleaning house" and attempting to eliminate the City Manager and City Attorney (both of which would be costly ventures and likely get our city involved in unnecessary legal battles). The B Team will have family members, old friends, and some of League City's police officers out campaigning for them on Tuesday. But keep in mind, while they may have convinced the police union which represents some of the police officers to support them, they have no different plan to support the police department than the A Team. Remember, public employee unions are about the only group that can choose who their boss is, what benefits package they are provided, and their pay scales, by influencing an election. Police unions have historically been rather short-sighted, often backing Democrats who court the union with promises of increased pay and benefits yet then fail to "back the blue" as they continue supporting anti-authority voices. Furthermore, as described in this reference regarding municipal employee unions: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~holgers/papers/sw_1_13.pdf, "Political economy reasons may prevent the city from operating efficiently since local politicians have incentives to accommodate public sector unions." While the general consensus of the League City population is decidedly supportive of our police officers, please keep in mind that the unions are often short-sighted in what they view as advantageous to the officers they represent. Do not let the police that are out to support the candidates endorsed by their union's political action committee sway your convictions. Keep in mind that higher pay and benefits may benefit the police in the short-term, but they will bankrupt the city or increase your taxes in the long-run, which will inevitably be met by decreases in compensation and worse conditions for the police officers.
Brian Brown has run a very clean (and very limited) campaign, and has been used and abused by the Green Team to try and split votes. He doesn't really have much of a shot of getting elected, and would be outnumbered by one of the two slates on every vote. As such, it's not really worth considering what positions he will support - his vote on Council would be completely inconsequential.
Don't fall for lies and tricks at the polls (such as the B Team's inflated, and void of context, claims regarding past water rate increases). Don't let anyone convince you that the A-Team is not going to support the police - the fact is ALL of the candidates this time around will fully support our police department. Given this summary, I highly recommend, if you haven't made up your mind yet, that you vote for the team with a rational path for the future of League City - Drury, Kinsey, and Spry.
The choice really is simply - do you want to embrace and shepherd in sensible growth that will decrease the tax burden on homeowners while increasing the investment in infrastructure improvements, or do you want to support a delusional quest for nostalgia that will attempt to fight growth to save a few oak trees and increase your taxes? If you want to pursue lower taxes while increasing the quality of life - vote for Drury, Kinsey, and Spry. If you want to save a few oak trees and try to fight the natural course of suburban growth at the cost of increased taxes on your property or decreased quality of life, vote Gripon, Millican, and Salcedo.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Anger Management Required for League City Mayor Pat Hallisey
Mayor Hallisey,
Are you losing your cool because you are afraid your Green Team is losing this election? Perhaps you're realizing that a full-frontal assault on the city staff (particularly the manager and attorney) was a mistake. I mean, what happens if your Green Team loses? So now, you've resorted to petulant, childish, half-truth riddled posts on Facebook to try to defend yourself and rouse your base of malcontents into getting their friends to vote for you?
Here's the thing Pat, if you or the Green Team offered anything positive, ANYTHING at all positive to voters, perhaps you wouldn't be so nervous. Outside of the endorsement of the police union, have y'all accomplished anything? You've managed to get Greg Gripon's name dragged in the dirt (although, that DID get him to finally pay up his back taxes to the city/school district, so I guess that's a positive accomplishment), you've managed to get Monica Millican to show her true colors by having her attack Larry's opponent Brian's capability to serve the city (Since, you know, his wife just had a baby)... this is Brian, the ONE person who has run the most positive, clean campaign. But I guess y'all realized he was splitting the anti-"Tea Party" vote, and had to be stopped. Brian, kudos for keeping it clean, but perhaps next time you'll realize that all of the friendly words from the Green Team Goons on League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport are just empty words. I suggest you find a new forum to spread your message - perhaps start your own Facebook group to rival Chris John Mallios's. He clearly has failed at creating a place for discussion - it's a "mutual admiration society" for anti-progress NIMBY old-timers. I don't agree with your path for the future of League City, and feel the local government SHOULD take an active role in attracting businesses, but I certainly do appreciate your honesty and dedication to your principles. But back to the Green Team and anything they've contributed - outside of Greg's loopy idea to require reclaimed water lines (which is not done without a large cost and brings in it's own risks), the ONLY idea which y'all have is to oppose progress, fight development (you know, that thing that can be used to steer us to lower property taxes) and pretend that investing is the same thing as wasteful spending. You've promised to fight the city staff and the rest of the council, but they were freely elected, just as you BARELY were.
Mr. Hallisey, the Galveston Daily News was correct when it said there isn't likely to be any couples counselling for you and the city manager. And for good reason - seeing what you and your wife and your minions have spouted on Facebook, how could any reasonable person be expected to be willing to work with you? You've made no effort to hide the fact that you are out to get the city manager and city attorney for perceived slights against you. You completely fail to realize that your only real enemy is the city council (after all, the CM and CA will do as the majority of council asks); or perhaps, you just realize you can't really do anything about them. But you really should rethink your position, the fact that they've so effectively implemented the will of the council to resist you, wouldn't you want them on your side should your band of followers take control? Of course, after seeing the way you've handled it when council member Nick Long corrected your alternative history regarding your votes and positions and pointed out some of your half-truths (you handled it by calling him immature and accusing him of pounding his chest, thus revealing your own lack of decorum and professionalism), I highly doubt the CM or CA would ever work well with you, as I doubt anyone except your puppets would willingly work with you.
So I ask you to answer the following scenario-driven questions:
Scenario A - Your Green Team wins enough seats to have control of the council
1) How do you plan to pay for the golden handcuffs that are part of the contracts for the CM and CA? Will you dip into our tax revenues to pay for this? Perhaps you can tap Ralph Parr for donations, since he loves to fund your Quixotic quests for power. Be prepared that I will highlight just how much taxpayer money you waste on this childish grudge.
2) What will you do the same and what will you do differently in this city, and how do you anticipate that impacting our taxes? Your supporters are resistant to any development, and are resistant to attracting businesses, yet they want more road and water work done. How will you fund all of this without raising our taxes?
3) If you DO get rid of the CM and CA, how do you plan to attract a skillful and professional CM in the future? Word will get out of how you handled things. Then what?
4) Many of your supporters pushed for the new animal shelter, and are pushing for a dog park. How will you give them that without utilizing eminent domain to acquire land and without raising taxes?
Scenario B - Your Green Team doesn't win enough seats to control council
1) How do you expect the city staff and council to work productively with you since you've openly insulted them during this election?
2) How will your tone change when you realize there IS no widespread mandate for the will of you and your Green Team?
Are you losing your cool because you are afraid your Green Team is losing this election? Perhaps you're realizing that a full-frontal assault on the city staff (particularly the manager and attorney) was a mistake. I mean, what happens if your Green Team loses? So now, you've resorted to petulant, childish, half-truth riddled posts on Facebook to try to defend yourself and rouse your base of malcontents into getting their friends to vote for you?
Here's the thing Pat, if you or the Green Team offered anything positive, ANYTHING at all positive to voters, perhaps you wouldn't be so nervous. Outside of the endorsement of the police union, have y'all accomplished anything? You've managed to get Greg Gripon's name dragged in the dirt (although, that DID get him to finally pay up his back taxes to the city/school district, so I guess that's a positive accomplishment), you've managed to get Monica Millican to show her true colors by having her attack Larry's opponent Brian's capability to serve the city (Since, you know, his wife just had a baby)... this is Brian, the ONE person who has run the most positive, clean campaign. But I guess y'all realized he was splitting the anti-"Tea Party" vote, and had to be stopped. Brian, kudos for keeping it clean, but perhaps next time you'll realize that all of the friendly words from the Green Team Goons on League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport are just empty words. I suggest you find a new forum to spread your message - perhaps start your own Facebook group to rival Chris John Mallios's. He clearly has failed at creating a place for discussion - it's a "mutual admiration society" for anti-progress NIMBY old-timers. I don't agree with your path for the future of League City, and feel the local government SHOULD take an active role in attracting businesses, but I certainly do appreciate your honesty and dedication to your principles. But back to the Green Team and anything they've contributed - outside of Greg's loopy idea to require reclaimed water lines (which is not done without a large cost and brings in it's own risks), the ONLY idea which y'all have is to oppose progress, fight development (you know, that thing that can be used to steer us to lower property taxes) and pretend that investing is the same thing as wasteful spending. You've promised to fight the city staff and the rest of the council, but they were freely elected, just as you BARELY were.
Mr. Hallisey, the Galveston Daily News was correct when it said there isn't likely to be any couples counselling for you and the city manager. And for good reason - seeing what you and your wife and your minions have spouted on Facebook, how could any reasonable person be expected to be willing to work with you? You've made no effort to hide the fact that you are out to get the city manager and city attorney for perceived slights against you. You completely fail to realize that your only real enemy is the city council (after all, the CM and CA will do as the majority of council asks); or perhaps, you just realize you can't really do anything about them. But you really should rethink your position, the fact that they've so effectively implemented the will of the council to resist you, wouldn't you want them on your side should your band of followers take control? Of course, after seeing the way you've handled it when council member Nick Long corrected your alternative history regarding your votes and positions and pointed out some of your half-truths (you handled it by calling him immature and accusing him of pounding his chest, thus revealing your own lack of decorum and professionalism), I highly doubt the CM or CA would ever work well with you, as I doubt anyone except your puppets would willingly work with you.
So I ask you to answer the following scenario-driven questions:
Scenario A - Your Green Team wins enough seats to have control of the council
1) How do you plan to pay for the golden handcuffs that are part of the contracts for the CM and CA? Will you dip into our tax revenues to pay for this? Perhaps you can tap Ralph Parr for donations, since he loves to fund your Quixotic quests for power. Be prepared that I will highlight just how much taxpayer money you waste on this childish grudge.
2) What will you do the same and what will you do differently in this city, and how do you anticipate that impacting our taxes? Your supporters are resistant to any development, and are resistant to attracting businesses, yet they want more road and water work done. How will you fund all of this without raising our taxes?
3) If you DO get rid of the CM and CA, how do you plan to attract a skillful and professional CM in the future? Word will get out of how you handled things. Then what?
4) Many of your supporters pushed for the new animal shelter, and are pushing for a dog park. How will you give them that without utilizing eminent domain to acquire land and without raising taxes?
Scenario B - Your Green Team doesn't win enough seats to control council
1) How do you expect the city staff and council to work productively with you since you've openly insulted them during this election?
2) How will your tone change when you realize there IS no widespread mandate for the will of you and your Green Team?
Thursday, November 3, 2016
More on the Downtown Parking Garage for League City
So the League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport forum turned into quite the crap-show over the last couple of days thanks to the antics of Jay Holley and Mel Kelly who are, to quote Mel, "Bad at being bad" and completely failed in their attempted character assassination of council candidate Debbie Drury. I was going to think of a response to all of that, but realized, a much better response would be a return to focus on current issues regarding League City. Furthermore, credit is due to Chris John Mallios for actually enforcing his rules against his fellow Green Team supporters, so no response is needed any more. So let's get back to the latest debate - the infamous Parking Garage.
A lot of theories regarding downtown revitalization have been thrown out by the Green Team propagandists in the League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport forum. These amateur urban planners have centered their complaints regarding League City's downtown revitalization plan around the parking garage which the city would like to build across from League Park. I've already made numerous posts that mentioned some of the benefits (all residents able to take advantage of events at League Park such as the 4th of July celebration, costs will be shifted to the Feds through grant money, etc), but let's address some specific ideas and concerns which have been raised (and with some actual research and references, instead of relying on the opinion of some random person on Facebook), namely:
1) There's no need for a parking garage, a parking lot would be sufficient for the amount of traffic the area sees
2) A parking garage wouldn't address the biggest problem, that the area would still not be pedestrian friendly
3) There isn't enough business there to justify the expense
4) The money could be better spent on other projects
So let's talk about the "need" for a parking garage, as we have a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. The fact is, when you add parking, you attract more businesses. After all, especially in a downtown area (which, despite some claims, the historic area of 518 DOES qualify as a downtown area) where you already have buildings packed closely together, and you only have street parking available, it is hard for a business to open that needs parking (they'd need to buy a large enough lot for their business plus parking. Now, we could just put in a lot, and this would certainly accommodate more activities and more businesses than present; however, it's setting yourself up to plateau in growth. Once the parking lots are constantly full, people will stop crowding in, and additional businesses can't be accommodated. At this point, it's probably too late to start a garage - the businesses already there will be negatively affected as the lot is torn down to put up a garage. However, if you build the garage first (and ring it smartly with storefronts, providing a quick move-in opportunity for new or relocated businesses) then other businesses will fill in and drive up the retail sales tax, liquor tax, and other outside revenue that will help fund other improvements in this city. In other words, this is an INVESTMENT in something which will bring in additional revenue, which will help fund all the other projects which the Green Team has stated this money should be spent on (road improvements, water infrastructure, etc). Here's just one example of a similar town that saw a massive amount of retail growth, all spurned on because of the garage (in other words, through proactive planning instead of reactive construction): http://buildabetterburb.org/financing-parking-garages-qa-with-parking-consultant-gerard-giosa/ . Here's another city facing similar issues, and a quote that applies to League City as well, "An exciting downtown is part of what attracts CEOs and entrepreneurs ": http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2005/01/31/Mayor-pushes-downtown-projects-to-attract-new-people-businesses.html
Of course, the Green Team isn't really opposed to a parking garage. What they're opposed to is anything that Mark Rohr has ever suggested, because they wish to promote Pat Hallisey to dictator and restore League City to the ineffective, turbulent, cronyism of a Strong-Mayor form of government, and they are opposed to retail and business growth ruining their nostalgic idea of some mythological "rural" League City (thanks George Turski). Meanwhile, the rest of us just want a way to get our property taxes lowered, and investing in something that will attract businesses is EXACTLY the way to accomplish that. Ironically, the Green Team has spoken about smart or managed growth, and this is EXACTLY what the Council and City Manager have been proposing, that Hallisey's minions are opposed to. The downtown revitalization plan implements most of the suggested practises laid out in this guide for communities: https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/rebuilding-downtown.pdf . But again, "smart" growth is just a Green Team euphemism for resisting development at all costs (since it's your tax dollars, not theirs, after all, Hallisey has property below the city average in value, and Greg Gripon doesn't bother paying his taxes anyway until he's called out by his opposition as he runs for office).
A parking garage actually creates a more walkable and beautiful downtown area by preventing the on-street parking mess that is the current downtown. It would enable wider sidewalks and other conveniences that would make for a safer more pedestrian-friendly downtown, which is exactly the trend that the younger generation is seeking as they choose where to live and start businesses. But again, the Green Team isn't after that, they just want to keep their old city for their old families.
Now onto the costs of a parking garage vs. a parking lot. A parking lot likely won't be big enough to accommodate the transit center which is required to get Federal grant money. As such, the burden for funding would be entirely on the city. Based on this site: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6EB981D2-6A67-449F-9808-5B4F950F7B01/0/Parking_Management_where_it_can_take_you.pdf The cost per space to build a 2 or 3 story parking garage is roughly 4 times the cost to build a surface parking spot. Since the plan involves the city funding 20% of the cost, and money from grants covering 80% of the cost, then we're essentially getting the garage for the same cost as the parking lot. Now, obviously, the ongoing maintenance costs will be higher, but the businesses which will be attracted will bring in more revenue to offset this cost (and then some). So a surface lot isn't useful as a solution at all.
So the question is - do you believe the spin from the Green Team which is seeking to fight growth (which is a losing fight - the area is GOING to grow, like it or not), or do you want our city to invest in it's future to be able to provide improved infrastructure while shifting tax burden to retail that will enable the city to provide better services while lowering property taxes? THAT is the question - not "Do you want a $10mil parking garage?" as the Green Team likes to ask. PS - that cost is for the ENTIRE downtown revitalization, not just the parking garage, and only serves to demonstrate the hyperbole the Green Team is prone to employ as it seeks to trick voters into supporting their anti-business agenda.
A lot of theories regarding downtown revitalization have been thrown out by the Green Team propagandists in the League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport forum. These amateur urban planners have centered their complaints regarding League City's downtown revitalization plan around the parking garage which the city would like to build across from League Park. I've already made numerous posts that mentioned some of the benefits (all residents able to take advantage of events at League Park such as the 4th of July celebration, costs will be shifted to the Feds through grant money, etc), but let's address some specific ideas and concerns which have been raised (and with some actual research and references, instead of relying on the opinion of some random person on Facebook), namely:
1) There's no need for a parking garage, a parking lot would be sufficient for the amount of traffic the area sees
2) A parking garage wouldn't address the biggest problem, that the area would still not be pedestrian friendly
3) There isn't enough business there to justify the expense
4) The money could be better spent on other projects
So let's talk about the "need" for a parking garage, as we have a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. The fact is, when you add parking, you attract more businesses. After all, especially in a downtown area (which, despite some claims, the historic area of 518 DOES qualify as a downtown area) where you already have buildings packed closely together, and you only have street parking available, it is hard for a business to open that needs parking (they'd need to buy a large enough lot for their business plus parking. Now, we could just put in a lot, and this would certainly accommodate more activities and more businesses than present; however, it's setting yourself up to plateau in growth. Once the parking lots are constantly full, people will stop crowding in, and additional businesses can't be accommodated. At this point, it's probably too late to start a garage - the businesses already there will be negatively affected as the lot is torn down to put up a garage. However, if you build the garage first (and ring it smartly with storefronts, providing a quick move-in opportunity for new or relocated businesses) then other businesses will fill in and drive up the retail sales tax, liquor tax, and other outside revenue that will help fund other improvements in this city. In other words, this is an INVESTMENT in something which will bring in additional revenue, which will help fund all the other projects which the Green Team has stated this money should be spent on (road improvements, water infrastructure, etc). Here's just one example of a similar town that saw a massive amount of retail growth, all spurned on because of the garage (in other words, through proactive planning instead of reactive construction): http://buildabetterburb.org/financing-parking-garages-qa-with-parking-consultant-gerard-giosa/ . Here's another city facing similar issues, and a quote that applies to League City as well, "An exciting downtown is part of what attracts CEOs and entrepreneurs ": http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2005/01/31/Mayor-pushes-downtown-projects-to-attract-new-people-businesses.html
Of course, the Green Team isn't really opposed to a parking garage. What they're opposed to is anything that Mark Rohr has ever suggested, because they wish to promote Pat Hallisey to dictator and restore League City to the ineffective, turbulent, cronyism of a Strong-Mayor form of government, and they are opposed to retail and business growth ruining their nostalgic idea of some mythological "rural" League City (thanks George Turski). Meanwhile, the rest of us just want a way to get our property taxes lowered, and investing in something that will attract businesses is EXACTLY the way to accomplish that. Ironically, the Green Team has spoken about smart or managed growth, and this is EXACTLY what the Council and City Manager have been proposing, that Hallisey's minions are opposed to. The downtown revitalization plan implements most of the suggested practises laid out in this guide for communities: https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/rebuilding-downtown.pdf . But again, "smart" growth is just a Green Team euphemism for resisting development at all costs (since it's your tax dollars, not theirs, after all, Hallisey has property below the city average in value, and Greg Gripon doesn't bother paying his taxes anyway until he's called out by his opposition as he runs for office).
A parking garage actually creates a more walkable and beautiful downtown area by preventing the on-street parking mess that is the current downtown. It would enable wider sidewalks and other conveniences that would make for a safer more pedestrian-friendly downtown, which is exactly the trend that the younger generation is seeking as they choose where to live and start businesses. But again, the Green Team isn't after that, they just want to keep their old city for their old families.
Now onto the costs of a parking garage vs. a parking lot. A parking lot likely won't be big enough to accommodate the transit center which is required to get Federal grant money. As such, the burden for funding would be entirely on the city. Based on this site: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6EB981D2-6A67-449F-9808-5B4F950F7B01/0/Parking_Management_where_it_can_take_you.pdf The cost per space to build a 2 or 3 story parking garage is roughly 4 times the cost to build a surface parking spot. Since the plan involves the city funding 20% of the cost, and money from grants covering 80% of the cost, then we're essentially getting the garage for the same cost as the parking lot. Now, obviously, the ongoing maintenance costs will be higher, but the businesses which will be attracted will bring in more revenue to offset this cost (and then some). So a surface lot isn't useful as a solution at all.
So the question is - do you believe the spin from the Green Team which is seeking to fight growth (which is a losing fight - the area is GOING to grow, like it or not), or do you want our city to invest in it's future to be able to provide improved infrastructure while shifting tax burden to retail that will enable the city to provide better services while lowering property taxes? THAT is the question - not "Do you want a $10mil parking garage?" as the Green Team likes to ask. PS - that cost is for the ENTIRE downtown revitalization, not just the parking garage, and only serves to demonstrate the hyperbole the Green Team is prone to employ as it seeks to trick voters into supporting their anti-business agenda.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Attention League City Mayor Pat Hallisey (or his Public Affairs Assistant Janice)
Mayor Hallisey claimed he was a uniter, and while campaigning posted messages such as "Bring Unity to Our Community". Mayor Hallisey complained about unfair treatment and nasty politics. The Green Team supporters complain that this campaign has turned nasty with things taken out of context. And then, the Mayor's Wife, the self-proclaimed 1st Lady of League City, hops on Facebook and starts liking comments that people should vote Greg Gripon because he will fight our City Manager. (But he supports our staff, supposedly). The Green Team hypocrisy was on full display this week following the Ethics Board meeting on Saturday. Here's a summary:
At a council meeting months ago, Mayor Hallisey referred to a female council-member with "the B-word". The council (excluding Hank Dugie) all sent a letter to the Mayor expressing their displeasure with such behavior. Instead of responding with a simple "sorry, heat of the moment", he brought in a line of his supporters to the next council meeting to profess that the Mayor would NEVER say such a thing. However, the statement was heard by more than one member of the city staff. These supporters are essentially saying that these people are liars, and complaining that the Mayor was being persecuted for what amounts to hearsay.
When the Ethics Board met, the ethics compliance officer hired to look into the complaint found that, "The mayor's actions were not because the employees were female". Now, the Green Team's most vocal supporters hopped on Facebook to celebrate with, "Mayor Exonerated". But here's the problem - the Green Team supporters seem to be incapable of actually reading the entire article and stopped on the headlines. See, the board and compliance officer found no ETHICS violation. They didn't find that the Mayor never did anything that he was accused of doing (in fact, as the editorial in the GDN pointed out, it "found the mayor probably did refer to Position 3 Councilwoman Heidi Hansing with a gender slur, which was neither professional nor productive"), just that the actions themselves weren't ethics violations. In other words, this wasn't the right place to complain about it. But the compliance officer went on (and was RIGHTLY praised by the Galveston Daily News in an editorial by Michael A. Smith) to point out that the Mayor HAS acted outside of his role as the Mayor. Pat Hallisey simply does not comprehend or accept what a council-manager form of government is. Pat Hallisey is mayor of a City and does not understand or follow the charter. The ethics officer stated, "His actions were, I believe, because of the conflict concerning his role as mayor in a city manager form of government. This is the elephant in the room." Pat Hallisey - your EGO is the elephant in the room, and it's gigantic.
Did the council waste time sending this to the Ethics Board? For sure. Is the Mayor a jerk, definitely. So do you want to vote to get the Mayor's cronies on the Council? I sure don't. The worst thing for a jerk on an ego trip is to surround them with yes-men. Here's a thought - vote down the Green Team, and let's talk about changing the charter again, to eliminate the position of Mayor. After all, and even number is never a good thing when taking votes (ties become no votes for all intents and purposes), and the Mayor is just a figurehead for ceremonial purposes in a Council-Manager form of government. We could simply have the rotating Mayor Pro Tem position (or even let the Council elect their "Head") handle any ceremonious duties. It'd be one less stipend we'd have to pay (hey, that'd save the city $12k/year), and it'd prevent these power struggles when elected members don't understand the charter.
And while we're on hypocrisy, here's a couple side notes that are amusing:
Byram Lass STILL likes to complain about people from neighboring Dickinson commenting on their precious little Facebook group; yet has NO problem whatsoever with people from Arizona, Louisiana, and La Grange commenting (since, you know, they're Green Team supporters).
The Green Team complains about dirty "gotcha" politics (as Ralph Parr mentions in his letter to the editor which GDN carried, and Pat Hallisey shared with his supporters) - yet then spreads hearsay about something not so nice that Debbie Drury allegedly was overheard saying. So which is it, is the Green Team taking the high road or not? And if it is, you should put a gag order on Mel Kelly and Jay Holley.
At a council meeting months ago, Mayor Hallisey referred to a female council-member with "the B-word". The council (excluding Hank Dugie) all sent a letter to the Mayor expressing their displeasure with such behavior. Instead of responding with a simple "sorry, heat of the moment", he brought in a line of his supporters to the next council meeting to profess that the Mayor would NEVER say such a thing. However, the statement was heard by more than one member of the city staff. These supporters are essentially saying that these people are liars, and complaining that the Mayor was being persecuted for what amounts to hearsay.
When the Ethics Board met, the ethics compliance officer hired to look into the complaint found that, "The mayor's actions were not because the employees were female". Now, the Green Team's most vocal supporters hopped on Facebook to celebrate with, "Mayor Exonerated". But here's the problem - the Green Team supporters seem to be incapable of actually reading the entire article and stopped on the headlines. See, the board and compliance officer found no ETHICS violation. They didn't find that the Mayor never did anything that he was accused of doing (in fact, as the editorial in the GDN pointed out, it "found the mayor probably did refer to Position 3 Councilwoman Heidi Hansing with a gender slur, which was neither professional nor productive"), just that the actions themselves weren't ethics violations. In other words, this wasn't the right place to complain about it. But the compliance officer went on (and was RIGHTLY praised by the Galveston Daily News in an editorial by Michael A. Smith) to point out that the Mayor HAS acted outside of his role as the Mayor. Pat Hallisey simply does not comprehend or accept what a council-manager form of government is. Pat Hallisey is mayor of a City and does not understand or follow the charter. The ethics officer stated, "His actions were, I believe, because of the conflict concerning his role as mayor in a city manager form of government. This is the elephant in the room." Pat Hallisey - your EGO is the elephant in the room, and it's gigantic.
Did the council waste time sending this to the Ethics Board? For sure. Is the Mayor a jerk, definitely. So do you want to vote to get the Mayor's cronies on the Council? I sure don't. The worst thing for a jerk on an ego trip is to surround them with yes-men. Here's a thought - vote down the Green Team, and let's talk about changing the charter again, to eliminate the position of Mayor. After all, and even number is never a good thing when taking votes (ties become no votes for all intents and purposes), and the Mayor is just a figurehead for ceremonial purposes in a Council-Manager form of government. We could simply have the rotating Mayor Pro Tem position (or even let the Council elect their "Head") handle any ceremonious duties. It'd be one less stipend we'd have to pay (hey, that'd save the city $12k/year), and it'd prevent these power struggles when elected members don't understand the charter.
And while we're on hypocrisy, here's a couple side notes that are amusing:
Byram Lass STILL likes to complain about people from neighboring Dickinson commenting on their precious little Facebook group; yet has NO problem whatsoever with people from Arizona, Louisiana, and La Grange commenting (since, you know, they're Green Team supporters).
The Green Team complains about dirty "gotcha" politics (as Ralph Parr mentions in his letter to the editor which GDN carried, and Pat Hallisey shared with his supporters) - yet then spreads hearsay about something not so nice that Debbie Drury allegedly was overheard saying. So which is it, is the Green Team taking the high road or not? And if it is, you should put a gag order on Mel Kelly and Jay Holley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)