Month: September 2021

September 21st City Council Meeting

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

The big ticket item of the day was clearly Item 44: Hold discussion on not allowing the homeless to camp out or panhandle in San Marcos or in ETJ.  This was brought by Commissioner Scott, who came off looking pretty terrible.

First of all, nearly 20 people turned out to speak forcefully against this item.  They basically all said some version of, “Are you crazy? We’re trying to help homeless people gain access to social services and get out of this vicious cycle, and you’re trying to arrest them for existing. That is cruel and exacerbates all the problems these people face already.”  (Especially since a criminal record can make you ineligible for some of the housing programs, so it can directly sabotage the efforts towards transitional housing.)  And so on.

However, there was one speaker in favor: Gre/en Guy Recycling. I was kinda dismayed, because I like to see them as a progressive ally. They plainly believe that much of the property damage and vandalism they deal with is from the homeless community.

Sidenote: Clearly we are in transition from saying “homeless” to “houseless” but no one has explained why. Maybe there’s a good reason?  Idk.

The item came up for discussion roughly three hours into the meeting. Commissioner Scott spoke first. Annnnnd ….he backpedaled so hard that he nearly bulldozed his way right out of the council chambers, reverse-Kool-aid-man style.   I cannot do his mumbo-jumbo justice, but it roughly went: “Homelessness is a huge problem and we need to think outside of the box! Our current strategies aren’t working! We need a new plan.  I don’t know, maybe some sort of dormitory? Maybe some federal funding? It’s too big for one city. Have I said that we need to think outside the box yet?”

Of course, the problem is that Scott has no idea what’s actually in the box of tools for dealing with homelessness. We don’t need to think outside the box. We need to fund the solutions that are documented to work.

Furthermore, there is already an October 4th work session scheduled, where council will talk through different models for addressing homelessness, and decide how to direct the $400K from the American Rescue Funds. So the idea that Scott put “ban camps and panhandling” on the agenda in order to begin a conversation about building transitional housing is just disingenuous bullshit at its finest.  Truly a “Shane Scott, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining” moment. 

Furthermore, there is a city council committee on homelessness. It’s chaired by Councilmember Derrick, and Councilmembers Garza and Gonzalez are also on it. 

If you want to hear the full ridiculousness of the about-face, it starts at 3:13:59 on the video. I can’t do it justice.

Anyway, at that point, all the allies of homeless people – Commissioner Baker, Garza, Derrick, and Hughson – said all the normal things.  Baker called for staff and the PD to deprioritize citing and arresting homeless people.

Chief Dandridge said that he’d like to draw a distinction between citations for homeless camps and those for solicitation, since getting out into the I-35 lanes of traffic is a safety issue to both the panhandler and the drivers. He also said that so far in 2021, there have been 88 calls for service involving homeless people and only 3 arrests. Two arrests were for outstanding warrants and one for public intoxication.  So they’re not in the habit of arresting homeless people.  There have been six citations for panhandling, but that includes church groups from Austin who come down and panhandle.  So he provides evidence that the PD doesn’t automatically escalate things, and he outlined the steps that get taken before a citation would be issued.

Commissioners Gleason, Scott, and Gonzalez all say things along the lines of how much they trust and admire the police and how they don’t want to get in their way, but of COURSE they also don’t want to see anyone arrested. Of course.

In sum: “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Nothing comes of this whole thing. The October 4th work session was already on the books. If anything, this mobilized the network of advocates to be on high alert and to provide data, resources, and information to shape the conversation during the October 4th session.

How to Download City Council Meetings

by The San Marxist, posted in Blog notes, Explainer

Suppose you are an earnest city blogger, and you’d like to download last night’s meeting so that you can watch it on a plane flight.

If you go to the city’s webpage and find the city council videos, you’ll find there is a “download” button conveniently located below the video. (At least there is on the computer browser version. It doesn’t show up on my phone.)

However, the button doesn’t work. Womp-womp.

So you ask your colleague for help, and you figure it out, and you will put the instructions here for the sake of your future self.

Open the video.

Right click on the screen to get to “View Page Source”.

Once you’re there, search for “Download” using ctrl-F. On this particular meeting, this returned 22 options.

Click through them until you see one that’s near a link that ends in “.mp4”

That’s your download file! You might have to copy and paste it – clicking it took me to more source code.

Hooray!

September 7th City Council Meeting (Part 2)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

The other two most-important items are Items 14 and 34.

Item 14: Interlocal Agreement with SMCISD on School Resource Officers

Commissioner Baker has a list of concerns about SROs.

  • They are reassigned to different schools for failure to do their job, instead of being removed as SROs all together
  • While training is required to be an SRO, officers get placed on campuses that are not trained as SROs
  • There is language about how SROs will “promote the concept of punishment for criminal acts”. How is this useful in our schools? Some people extend this concept to undocumented community members. This is destructive.
  • “Increase students’ knowledge and respect of the law” – what about when officers aren’t due that respect?
  • May we identify the funding sources of this study?
  • Why are we putting protection of property above protection of students?
  • Why aren’t we surveying students to see how the officers are doing and if they feel safer?
  • We put a pro-SRO video on YouTube featuring an officer whose actions have raised concerns.

Commissioner Derrick weighs in with points about SROs needing mental health training. She’s had particularly negative eperienc

Broadly, I agree with all of Baker’s points. However: Chief Dandridge is consistently great when he talks to City Council. I don’t know what he’s like on the job, and I know that there are community members who are frustrated with our police. All I am saying is that Dandridge’s performance at council meetings is very good. So far, this is what I’ve seen:

  • He generally does not respond adversarily to aggressive questions from Baker.
  • He often agrees partially or completely.
  • He backs up his statements with information and data,
  • He admits when he doesn’t know something, and offers to find the information.
  • He does not offer pat solutions and does not reduce the complexity of issues.

Again, maybe he’s a jerk on the force! I don’t know! But he’s good at council meetings.

Chief Dandridge responds to all of these points, one by one. On the questions about statistics and data, he pledges to write a memorandum compiling his data and that he will send it out to council. He lists the classes that the SROs are trained in. It includes restorative justice, mental health, developmental psychology, suicide prevention, and many more. He doesn’t try to dispute Baker’s points per se, but provides context for how these things play out in San Marcos. And he’s supportive of ideas like surveying students.

In the end, they vote to postpone and have work session. So nothing is resolved here, but I’m glad to see these issues discussed.

Item 34: Greater San Marcos Partnership, GSMP

GSMP is a pro-business organization that works across the entire county to bring business in and support existing businesses. San Marcos kicks in $400k/year. Several issues are raised:

Does GSMP make life better for San Marcos residents? Commissioner Baker wants GSMP to conduct a survey to quantify the impact of GSMP on San Marcos residents.

Mayor Hughson seems rather obtuse on this one, repeating several times that San Marcos already conducts a detailed quality of life survey and there is no need for GSMP to duplicate this. The difference is that the city survey is attempting to ascertain the benefits brought by the city, and the GSMP survey would attempt to measure benefits brought by GSMP. One does not substitute for the other.

Amendment for a mandatory survey passes, 4-3.
In favor: Derrick, Gonzalez, Garza, and Baker
Opposed: Hughson, Scott, Gleason

Next issue up is the Environmental Social Grievance reports, or ESG. These are third party reports compiled on the externalities that a business imposes on the community. City Council has asked for information from GSMP on wages, environmental impact, and other externalities. GSMP says that for $10K, they’ll buy an ESG from a third party company.

Baker would like to read one before agreeing that this suffices. But there isn’t one to read, because they cost money and they’re proprietary. It’s a very frustrating business-y solution. “We’ve contracted out with a niche business, and obviously they aren’t motivated by the public good. What’s the problem?” It’s not exactly corrupt, but it’s annoying and full of middlemen.

Baker moves to postpone until they can see a sample ESG report and see if it is satisfactory, but the motion fails.

In favor: Derrick, Garza, Baker
Opposed: Hughson, Scott, Gleason, Gonzalez

Councilmember Derrick makes an amendment to add mental health providers as a targeted industry. This passes 6-1, with Scott voting no, like a dillweed.

A representative speaks up about how intractable the problem of attracting mental health providers is. He promises that they’ll target, but not that they’ll be successful.

This last part is the BEST. Now, Councilmember Baker has been furious since he was at the GSMP Summit last spring, and nobody was wearing masks. Baker makes an amendment to the agreement that the GSMP will have to follow CDC guidelines on safety.

This passes 5-2:
For: Mayor Hughson, Derrick, Garza, Gonzalez, and Baker
Opposed: Just Gleason and Scott.

The whole discussion takes FOREVER, but the poetic justice of Max getting to force GSMP to wear masks is so sweet and worth every last bit.

(Finally, the actual agreement with GSMP passes unanimously.)

September 7th City Council Meeting (Part 1)

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

This was a big, important meeting. Here are the items I’m categorizing as Top Tier Importance:

  • The 21-22 budget
  • Rate increases for various utilities and setting the property tax rate for the next year
  • School Resource Officers
  • GSMP

I’ll start tackling these, and split it into separate posts if need be.

As an aside: this meeting ran until 1:05 AM on Wednesday morning. Wouldn’t it be nice if they adjourned at 10 pm, and reconvened on Wednesday evening for the last three hours? A well-rested councilmember is a happy councilmember, maybe?

  1. Item 21: Proposed Fiscal Year 21-22 Budget

The budget is one of these items which is very difficult for me to weigh in on and analyze. I don’t have years experience to compare this to. I did not watch the workshop in August where they sliced and diced it more finely.  So for now, I’m mostly observing and not analyzing.  The total city budget is $259 million.

There not many substantial questions. Shall we make the budget available to the public in infographic form?   Should departments notify council for budget adjustments? Sure, sure. Controversial details were hashed out already.  Aside from one: there are a number of rate increases which will be voted on in the next few items, however.

2. Items 22-25: Rate hikes for waterwastewater, electric, drainage, and solid waste.

Several rate increases for the utility funds: water, electric,  drainage utility solid waste. All votes passed the hikes with a 4-3 vote, with Commissioners Scott, Garza, and Gonzalez voting against the hikes.

The total rates average $100/year increase per household. Commissioner Scott made the case that this is a pandemic year and we should wait and double the rate increase next year. Gleason sensibly points out that these projects desperately need funding. Mayor Hughson also pointed out that saving the hike for a year and having to hit households with a doubly large hike isn’t necessarily best for anyone, either.

In my opinion, this is an “ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” situation. Keep your utilities maintained and running smoothly, lest ye run up a boatload of catastrophic expenses when a disaster strikes.

Of course I’m sympathetic to people in poverty being asked to contribute an extra $10/month. I would much prefer it if we had a progressive tax code instead of regressive one. But with utilities, it is scaled by usage, and it is worthwhile to incentivize reduction of water and electricity. Let’s keep utilities solvent via rate hikes, and then be generous with a social safety net. (Granted, we are depressingly stingy with the social safety net. But still. This is not the place to make up the difference.)

Item 26: Overall property tax rate for the coming year.

So, this is a bit math-heavy. Let’s see if I can keep it simple. The state of Texas caps how much a city can raise it’s property tax rate. By that, our upper bound tax rate is $0.7554 per $100 of property value. We are staying well below that, no worries.

Next up is the No New Revenue rate, where the city brings in the same amount as last year. This is set at $0.603 per $100. Now, the city has a bunch of properties that weren’t taxed last year. Those new properties will bring in $1.4 million under this tax rate, and so all existing properties actually get a tax break, which totals about $300K less than last year.

Finally there’s a penny deduction, which is discussed at length. Can we run the city on a tax rate of $0.593, instead of $0.603? On average, this will save each household $17. It costs the city about $600K to drop down.

They’ve prepared both a $0.593 and a $0.603 budget. So what gets cut? Six new positions for the police department. The city tells us that the extra $600K will pay for three traffic officers and three 911 dispatchers. So there’s the rub: lower taxes or fund the police? (As a dedicated lefty, I took a moment to relish the sheer poetry of making conservative commissioners pick between these choices.)

Commissioner Gleason was the first to wring his hands over this. He tries to find the $600K out of the CIP budget, but those projects aren’t actually paid for out of the current year, and so next year’s budget doesn’t do us any good right now. Commissioner Gonzalez tries to raid development impact fees, but that also can’t be redistributed for this use.

Commissioner Scott suggests that we use traffic ticket revenue, which pisses me off. That is exactly the kind of counter-incentive that leads to aggressive over-policing of minority communities. (Commissioner Baker makes that point in rebuttal.)

Chief Dandridge is invited to weigh in. I find him to be measured and thoughtful at these meetings. He says that we have 3200 car crashes per year, and a high number of young drivers, and every crash is time-consuming. Most cities have dedicated traffic officers to deal with accidents. As to the 911 dispatchers, we are covering a larger area than just the city and the staffing hasn’t increased since 2013, but our calls have gone up a lot.

Commissioner Baker weighs in. He’s okay with the 911 dispatchers but questions the need for more police officers, and points out that this is not the best way to reduce car crashes. He advocates for redesigning dangerous intersections and implementing a Slow Streets project, where streets are designed in a way that drivers automatically reduce their speed. (I am also a fan of these solutions.)

Commissioner Gleason again wrings his hand over this choice: Safety! But lower taxes! But safety! But lower taxes! You can see the smoke coming out his ears.

Commissioner Derrick speaks up. She agrees with Baker on the alternate solutions for safety, but points out that those take years, and we need to provide health, safety, and welfare now. (This is basically where I land, too. Traffic cops can be abusive or they can be a benefit to society. I don’t know which they will be, but the solution is not necessarily not to have officers available for car crashes.)

Finally it’s time. Mayor Hughson makes a motion to lower the tax rate to $0.593 …and no one seconds it! I was not expecting that! Exciting times.

So they vote on the original proposal of $0.603, which would fund the traffic cops and dispatchers.

For: Baker, Derrick, Gonzalez, Gleason, and Mayor Hughson.
Against: Garza, Scott.

……..

Let’s stop here, and we can save SROs and GSMP for the next post.