commentary on Garcia

Mr. Garcia stated last night that the resident was in error by saying that only 6 Springs kids use the pool. That is NOT what the resident said. Check the video and you will see that the resident said there are only 6 Springs kids on the MDAC team. While it is probably true, as Mr Garcia said, that hundreds of kids use the pool, the majority of those kids use it during the Summer, probably over 90%, not during the off-season. If Mr Garcia wants to debate whether there are more than 6 kids on the MDAC team he should present verifiable numbers to that effect. If he cant, or wont, produce such numbers perhaps he should calm down, and get his facts straight first. He doesnt seem to have ANY objections to the taxpayers subsidizing a private business and taking a 300k loss to do it. Is it possible that he has NO CLUE as to what is going on at the pool? or perhaps he just doesnt care- its NOT like its HIS money thats being wasted, right? As long as its OUR money going down the drain to subsidize a private business, he OKAY with that! Why would public tax dollars go to support a private enterprise? Do we NOT have enough to support with Mr Santana, his 100k in electricity, the $600 a square foot CC addition, and the $200k+ for EACH bathroom? Get a grip, Mr Garcia! Or, at the very least, get your facts straight.

Obama signs disappearing

I am really not offended by the Springs for Obama or McCain signs because I know that only one speaks for me and if I want to show my support for either candidate I will put a sign in my front yard, for ALl the world to see- and some to steal. Apparently the sign stealers are back (didnt we get enough of this childishness before?) and the sign stealers are McCain backers, bacause only Obama signs are disappearing. Does John McCain support this illegal activity? It would be interesting to know what the Mayor and Council thinks about this activity, particularly Mr. Garcia, since he has experience in this area.

fools gold

The editor of the Gazette has once again lost any credibility he may have had with his latest editorial. As he frequently does, he uses his position and platform as a bully pulpit to disparage those who don't agree with him. He fairly frequently comes to conclusions that have NO basis in fact. One example might be his defense of Garcia's pulling up opponents signs during a campaign. That flimsy and transparent attempt to defend those actions were laughable. In the latest installment he admits that he is a lazy journalist at times. It is also easy to see one who is very biased and not interested in fairness or a balance approach to reporting. He suggests that annexation is a done deal but, at last count, 9 of the County commissioners were NOT in favor of allowing ANY annexation. IF the Council was doing there job and had done ANYTHING close to due diligence about annexation this petition would NOT be necessary. Like they did with the new gym project, they looked at a few numbers and ruled out any other possible alternatives before deciding. In the case of annexation they looked at some implausible numbers at best, and decided that the zoning, pollution, mitigation fees, and boundary concerns were not important issues to be discussed or debated. The numbers they quote are from the City Manager- the same guy who told us the CC addition was going to cost 150k (and would up costing 500k); he also told us the bathrooms would cost 200k (even tho they can be built for 140k easily). That bathroom's costs are now close to 500k. WHO would trust his numbers to be anywhere close in THIS instance, when they weren't anywhere close before? That would be ridiculous, right? show us where and how you came up with those numbers so we can investigate them for ourselves. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me..

one small step...

The special meeting tonight was an important step towards the possibility of actually doing due diligence about the annexation issues. The posible tax revenues of each potential parcel of annexable land were discussed in some detail, although they were not complete or completely current. What was NOT discussed is perhaps JUST as important as what was discussed- there was little discussion of possible mitigation fees and NO talk of potential pollution problems or zoning concerns. The numbers required for the policing of area 9 seemed to be low. Somehow VG has become the entity that is setting the tone and making demands. For example, VG seems to believe that if we get area 9 they should get 6 plum parcels of property on the North side of 36 st where Milam dairy meets 72nd ave. They seem to think that is a fair trade. If that IS a fair trade then we should cede the rights to area 9 to them and just take the 6 parcels for MS. We can, and will, support their rights to annex area 9 in exchange for those 6 parcels! Fair enough! That would equal it out some, because at this point VG is wanting some 55 million dollars in taxable revenues more than MS. Garcia has taken the " a-little-of-the-pie-is better-than-NO pie", "lets be grateful for any little crumb thrown our way" approach. It is right to take the current tax value of all the land because it allows the comparison of apples-to-apples, for the most part. Youngs was the best informed of the lot and offerred some helpful summaries of these complicated proceedings. They agreed to look further into this annexation process. After all is said and done, its a productive first step in this process of finally, perhaps, doing real, rational, concrete due diligence. The revenue issues are relatively straightforward. It is the other issues that further complicate the process.

riding along

While riding along with the cops and the garbage guys might be a decent idea to help a city official get a feel for that type of work and those issues, what are our liability issues on these ride-alongs, if somehow he gets injured in some way?