Month: January 2022

January 18th City Council Meeting

by The San Marxist, posted in Meetings

Holy moly you guys, a 90 minute council meeting? This is so do-able that I probably could have attempted it in real time. (But I didn’t! Oh well.)

However, since the last meeting, there have been two 4-hour “visioning” workshops. I guess if I’m desperate enough to get your attention, I could attempt 8 hours of discussion which may or may not be limited to: “growth, quality of life, economic development policies, transportation, community partners, outreach, future infrastructure and facility needs, beautification and community enhancement, enhancement of core services including future staffing and personnel needs, flood mitigation strategies, and provide direction to Staff.” via

You know, riveting stuff.

Anyway, onto this week’s meeting:

HOURS 1-2

In which Chief Dandridge expounds on the subtleties of seating grand juries.

Video, Agenda, Packet

Hours 1-2, 1/18/22

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

What made this meeting so short is the lack of public presentations. Mayor Hughson implied that the next meeting may be grueling, though.

First up, Citizen Comment:

  • Richard Amaya slams SMPD. Biden Bus, Ryan Hartman, other issues that have come up. (The very next day, actually, it was announced that Ryan Hartmann has been terminated. Activism making a difference.)
  • Darlene Starr speaks about the Animal Shelter and how dismally it’s being run, and how admin is driving away volunteers. This is the latest in a steady stream of speakers painting a totally dysfunctional picture of the Animal Shelter. It sounds demoralizing. I gather that we’re finally trying to hire a director, although the position has been vacant for over a year.

Non-consent Agenda

  • they tweaked the homestead exemption for disabled people and people 65 and over.
  • They created the Animal Services Committee, with Mayor Hughson, Shane Scott, and Alyssa Garza joining whichever community members are on it.
  • Packet meetings have a Do Not Resuscitate order placed on them. (No one but me can possibly be following this deathly dull story line.)

And then: Body Cameras. This was brought by Alyssa Garza, asking about the city policy around body cameras. Namely, what is it?

First, Chief Dandridge says there are state laws governing release of footage, and that SMPD follows those policies. It wasn’t clear to me if San Marcos has other, additional policies, or if the state code is the sum total.

Next, Chief Dandridge makes his main point: Police bodycam footage can’t be automatically released because it would taint all legal proceedings. It would make it very hard to seat a grand jury to get an indictment. To me, this didn’t land as quite as big a bombshell as he seemed to think it would land, because I immediately wanted to know, “Okay fine. What about after the trial is over?”

Dandridge answers that all footage is available, under FOIA, after all adjudication has ended. Fair enough.

Apparently Texas Municipal League is a resource everyone respects. Commissioner Garza has gone and found best practices for body camera footage release according to TML. She begins to go through it with Chief Dandridge, and then suggests that he just send the SMPD body camera footage policy over to council and she can read it for herself.

(Why couldn’t the policy have been included in the packet? Your guess is as good as mine.)

So that’s about where it wrapped up. Everyone professed themselves a little more informed and enlightened on body camera footage release policies. I’m interested to see if anything comes of the review of the official policy.

Post-Script: In Q&A from the press and public, LMC asked if the public has access to the body camera footage policy. Chief Dandridge says that it’s not up on their website, but that it can be FOIA’d.

Grumble, Whine

by The San Marxist, posted in Blog notes

That was a bummer. I got myself all psyched up to share the site. I joined the “No Hate in the 78666!” facebook group. I wrote a post there, and shared the link!

…and got banned by Facebook. No one in the group ever saw anything. I’m not allowed to post there until February 5th now.

I’m not banned from Facebook altogether, but just from the group. Still, establishing credibility is a slow process, especially when council only meets twice a month.

Hour 2-3, 1/4/22

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Item 7 – Animal Advisory Committee

First off is this Animal Advisory Committee. For some background, there has been a steady drip of speakers over the past six months who have expressed grave concern over the vacuum of leadership at the Animal Shelter. The director position has been open for over a year. This item expands the committee’s scope. The committee just makes recommendations to City Council, though.

Immediately, Shane Scott moves to postpone this agenda item until March. It’s a weird move. He feels that this should wait until a director is hired, so that the new director can come in and forge a path.

If there was a new director starting in a week or two? Then sure. For a position which has been unfilled since October 2020? This makes no sense.

Anyway, postponement failed 6-1, and the expansion of the committee passed.

Item 22 – Setting the Agenda

The last 90 minutes of the meeting is occupied with this question of who sets the agenda for meetings. This gets into the weeds a bit. Basically, council meetings have a habit of going 6+ hours lately. They sometimes run until 2 or 3 am. It’s completely insane. (Frankly, I don’t understand why they don’t just meet weekly.)

I had a long, detailed post, and I deleted it for being ungodly boring. Setting the agenda is complicated and political. I am happy to share details if any of you want a long, boring read.

Hour 1+, 1/4/22

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Some of the citizen comments:
– In favor of a committee for animal services. (Which is on the agenda tonight. Spoiler: it passes.)
– Problems with SMPD: Namely, Chief Stapp’s complicity in the negligence during the Biden Bus emergency calls, and how we continue to employ him. We need SMPD oversight by external community members, instead of recycling the same individuals to guard the henhouse, so to speak.

Public Hearings:

1. There’s going to be a gas station at the corner of 123 and Clovis Barker. Eventually. This is just before you get to the McCarty overpass, heading south.

2. Renewing some low income tax credits for a housing complex (Champion’s Crossing), right at the entrance to Blanco Vista, at Yarrington Road. It’s been there for a long time, 156 apartments.


Max Baker points out that the income percentiles are based on Austin median income, not San Marcos median income. According to this, Austin median income for a family of 4 is $99K. And hooboy, those are not San Marcos numbers at all. Having apartments priced to be affordable at 40% of the median Austin income is just a regular San Marcos market rate, and yet the city is subsidizing this.

It passes unanimously. Baker basically holds his nose and votes to grandfather it in, but points out that new projects need to clear a higher bar.

3. Transportation Master Plan
Mostly they hashed these details out at the last meeting; see here. Mayor Hughson raised one last issue for discussion: reduction of driving lanes on Sessom and Craddock.

Shane Scott and Mark Gleason come out against this. Scott is pro-speed bumps in order to calm traffic, although the engineer says that Craddock and Sessom are busier thoroughfares than what you’d normally stick a speedbump on. Gleason points out that there already is a crushed granite path on Craddock, from Bishop to Old RR 12.

(Does it really extend all the way to Bishop? In my memory, the crushed granite path starts out strong on the Old 12, and then dribbles to extinction somewhere along the way. Google maps agrees with me! I win. The existing path appears to end at Ramona street, and then turn into a sidewalk till Archie, and then it peters out.)

Gleason also makes an impassioned plea to future growth. Won’t the ghost residents of tomorrow resent our bike lanes? Max Baker points out that they might also prefer the bike lanes.

Mayor Hughson asks the engineer, Richard Reynosa, some of the key questions: how much does it cost to put the bike lanes in? how reversible is the decision? what are the traffic studies showing?

Reynosa says: It’s just the cost of striping. It can easily be un-striped. The traffic studies show that these streets can handle being reduced to one lane. He points out that Sessom already has been reduced to one lane for the past year, due to construction, and will continue to be reduced for the next year.

Gleason makes another semi-nonsensical plea – what will we do in the case of natural disasters? If there is a tornado or a fire, aren’t we courting danger by reducing these roads to one lane? (Nobody responded with the obvious response: Bro, we’re just re-striping the lanes. Cars can drive over stripes, especially to flee a forest fire.) Whenever Gleason stops making sense, I start to wonder who is whispering in his ear.

Gleason makes a motion to keep Sessom and Craddock as they are.

Max Baker makes the appropriate arguments in favor: bike lanes can actually reduce the number of cars on the road. Traffic congestion is often due to speeding, and not the sheer quantity of cars on the road. Craddock in particular is like a 1950’s drag-racing avenue, just yearning to be sped down, with its wide unfettered lanes. It needs to be calmed.

Jane Hughson is persuaded mostly because this is such a cheap, easily reversible investment. Why not try it out and see how it does?

In the end, Gleason’s amendment fails:
Yes: Gleason, Scott, Gonzalez
No: Garza, Baker, Prather, Hughson

The vote on the entire transportation plan passes.
Yes: Everyone besides Shane Scott and Saul Gonzalez.
No: Those two.

Honestly, Saul Gonzalez plays his cards so close to the vest that it’s impossible to know what his game is. What didn’t he like? I have no idea!

Going Public, but softly

by The San Marxist, posted in Blog notes

I decided the new year is a good time to start sharing this blog. I’ve successfully kept it going since May.

Before I actively promote it, though (how? I’m not sure), the easy part is to stop all this silly google-proofing, and to add links where appropriate. Done & done.

As for the backposts, I’ll de-google-proof them over time, when I have reason to revisit them. It seems tedious to condemn myself to go fix them all. And it’s always a little mortifying to read one’s own writing.

[Update: Most of the google-proofing has been removed as of 8/11/22]

Hours 2-3, 12/15/21

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

A couple small items here:

  • Eminent domain for two properties (or two parts of the same property?) involved in the Blanco Riverine Flood Mitigation project.

This is tricky. Eminent domain can be so exploitative, but once in a great while, it is needed for actual public safety. If public safety is truly on the line, then voting for it is more responsible. If there is another way to accomplish the goal, then voting against it is more responsible. Here we’re talking about flooding, so maybe this is a legitimate public safety issue. Eminent domain is obviously toxic in Texas, and it seemed like everyone was very uncomfortable with the idea. (Or at least performing discomfort.)

Mayor Hughson was clear that the city is still negotiating, and eminent domain may not ever be needed. My take: the city must feel that the property owner won’t ever negotiate until eminent domain is on the table. And then, once the threat of eminent domain is available, you’ve removed the property owner’s ability to freely enter or decline the contract.

In the end, everyone except for Max Baker and Alyssa Garza voted in favor of it. I just don’t know enough details to know if the city has worked hard enough to locate a workaround or not.

  • This one is kind of funny. Apparently the city owns the land under the Chamber of Commerce building to the Chamber, and charges them $1/year in rent. The Chamber built and owns the building on this land.

Then city’s Main Street office rents some space inside the Chamber building. The Chamber of Commerce turns around and charges the city $28,760/year in rent.

Max and Alyssa felt this was bullshit, or at least needed to be called out. I tend to agree. I don’t remember exactly how much money that we give to the Chamber, but my memory is that it’s on the order of 250K/year? They probably do help the business community, especially during Covid, but it’s hard not to suspect that business-types running a nonprofit may run it more like a business than a nonprofit.

The upshot: Max & Alyssa voted against it, and everyone else voted for it.

  • A number of items that received basically no discussion, and I don’t have enough context to evaluate: more Whisper tract things, a final vote on School Resource Officers, some Animal Advisory Committee details, and some Ethics Review Board disclosure details, and trying to locate some money for First Baptist NBC to compensate for the money that had gotten redirected PALS.

The Ethics Review Board one was regarding the financial disclosure forms that City Council and P&Z members have to fill out each year. The ERB wants more specificity. (Shane Scott balked, but it wasn’t clear that he was necessarily hiding anything. He’s generally contrarian when it comes to the ERB.)