A note: this is my first post since the shooting at Uvalde. Even though it’s been a few weeks, I want to say how crushingly sad and enraged I am. I know that we all are. Unsurprisingly, I have strong opinions on gun control and on the utter shitstain of a police force that dithered about, while children bled out. But I’m not going to wax on about that – I just wanted to take a moment and hold space for the storm of grief that has impounded that city for the foreseeable future.
Since I went public with this blog, there’ve been a number of major stories – the war in Ukraine, Roe v Wade being demolished, etc, – where I’ve wondered if I should say something here. Ultimately I figured that there are plenty of smart people writing smart things about state, national, and international issues, elsewhere. There aren’t many San Marcos blogs, and so this place should mostly stay specifically dedicated to San Marcos issues. The Uvalde tragedy breaks through all that, though, and needed a moment on this local blog.
At some point, every councilmember must look into the abyss and answer the following question: “Does my irritation with Max Baker outweigh my ability to evaluate the merit of his proposals?”
For many, that moment came around 3 hours, 27 minutes into Tuesday’s meeting.
The big topic of the night is the film studio to be built out in La Cima, and what kind of tax breaks they should get, and what kind of expectations should come along with it. Someone from SMRF spoke about holding them to high environmental standards. Another speaker spoke in favor of it.
Rodrigo Amaya talked about one specific police officer who is known to racially profile and harass Hispanic community members at Rio Vista.
Remember the dangerous intersection in front of the Methodist Church? That was on April 19th. There is now a stop sign, and the head of WalkSMTX came to profusively thank the city for their quick action. That is some responsive governance right there.
(Some financial reports, an annexation into La Cima which is just more houses and not the film studio.)
Item 29: ’22-’23 CBDG Grant Allocations
There is about $850K in Community Block Development Grant (CBDG) money to be allocated this August. Tuesday’s presentation gave preliminary recommendations about how to divvy it up. Applicants are the Hays-County Women’s Shelter, Habitat for Humanity, CASA, Salvation Army, about four different city programs, and Southside Community Center.
One of the city programs – the homebuyer assistance program – has been a flop, because there aren’t any affordable houses. So that is discussed, but not axed.
Max Baker tackles Southside Community Center. Basically, there are a lot of reasons to feel warmly towards Southside Community Center – they’ve been serving the homeless for a very long time, and doing so when no one else was. As Jude Prather put it, “their heart is in the right place.” There are also a lot of reasons to be critical of Southside – in recent years, it sounds like the director had his hands full with medical issues, and the management has fallen apart.
Southside asked for $115K of CBDG money, and staff is recommending $55K. However, Southside is apparently sitting on $392K, unspent, from prior years. Max Baker wants to know why we’re even considering giving them an additional 55K.
He starts by reading this bit that city staff posted to the message board, after Max asked about the $400k:
Staff: As a subrecipient, Southside is essentially a “staff extension” – they must handle a program exactly like staff would handle it. Staff is responsible for setting them up for success, ensuring they are trained. In 2019, all City staff responsible for development and oversight of the program left. In 2020, the HUD monitoring had an extensive 15 findings that included every part of the program – such as documenting whether contractors were procured competitively, whether homeowners received information appropriately, and what each expenditure included. HUD required that City staff completely rewrite the policies and procedures and retrain Southside. Staff also chose to take on some of the actions such as procuring contractors, in order to ensure it was done correctly. Southside has been on hold since, waiting for 1) policy and procedure rewrite 2) retraining 3) contractor procurement. In addition, Southside was responsible for the application intake and income verification process and that did not go well; staff has taken this over as well and is working to receive the correct income documentation from applicants.
Max goes on to say “…This is the first time I remember hearing that there is this large pot of money that is being unused because of Southside’s – I’m going to put it bluntly – incompetence in managing a program, or having the staff necessary, to deal with this. … If staff is doing so much of this work, why are we still working with Southside? My assumption is that it’s because they have the building.”
(The answer to this is supposed to be posted to the message boards, but it’s not up yet.)
As usual, Max is right, but kind of hostile and undiplomatic about it. Southside isn’t run by bad people. Staff is not bad people. Maybe we shouldn’t be awarding Southside more money at this moment, but maybe we can say it more nicely?
…
On a different note, Max Baker has an excellent suggestion that the CBDG money could be used to provide 24 hour restrooms available for homeless people and the general public. This is really important. We can ameliorate some of the worst difficulties of living on the streets, while simultaneously working to get people off the streets.
Item 31: the film studio in La Cima. It’s already entitled legally to be built. The question tonight is what kind of tax incentives should they get.
By the end of this write up, Max Baker is yelling “I AM ASHAMED THAT SOME OF YOU WOULD NOT VOTE TO ADD-” and Mark Gleason cuts him off to yell “I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THESE ACCUSATIONS ANYMORE!!”
(“Yelling” is probably overstating it, but at least seething with anger. It starts at 3:27:00 if you’re curious.)
Buckle up! It’s a long drive to get there.
First off: Apparently council-members were deluged with emails from the public. But this is not a public hearing, and so there was not a dedicated citizen comment period. And only 2-3 people spoke on this issue at the beginning of the meeting. So while many people cared enough to write in, we have no way of knowing what they said.
Here’s my best guess:
First, I suspect a lot of people wrote in against the whole idea. The city staff presenter went on for a bit about how the studio itself is not up for debate tonight.
Second, I’m guessing that a number of letter writers took their cue from SMRF, and wrote in based on the SMRF recommended points:
That’s taken from the SMRF newsletter. Those seem reasonable to me.
The staff presentation goes like this:
Please stop discussing whether or not there should BE a studio. Focus on the tax incentive agreement.
All of La Cima is limited to 19% impervious cover.
This will bring in 22 jobs at 100K, on average, and “up to 1,400 contract workers with an average of 1,200 on production projects at $80k average salary”
Note: “average” is a really bad way to describe salaries. If you have one person making $400k/year and four people making $25k/year, then the average salary is $100k. Averages don’t tell you when your distribution is wonky.
What you actually want is the range and the median. The range tells you the highest and lowest salary. The median works like this: if you lined up all the employees according to what they earn, who is standing in the middle? How much does the middle person earn? That is the median salary. If I tell you that the range is $25K-$500K, and the person in the middle earns $40K, then you can tell there is a lot of inequality and a lot of low salaries. Whereas if the range is $60K-$100K and the median is $80K, then the salaries are distributed more fairly.
With a film studio, it’s very easy to imagine a wonky distribution of salaries.
The city says that the proper comparison is with commercial development like you’d see with big box stores, etc, since this project will come out of the allotted commercial zoning.
The aesthetics of a studio will be much better than the aesthetics of commercial strip mall, because the studio will be set back much further and have much more landscaping.
“Landscaping”, of course, is a term that gives me the willies – do we mean golf course green lawns? Or do we mean swoles and natural grasses and things which slow down water sheet run-off?
The environmental impact. Compared to a strip mall, this will have 89% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) instead of 85% TSS, and impervious cover will go from 80% to 48%.
The TSS increase is meaningful! It’s very important to get all the pollution out of the water before it runs into the ground.
The impervious cover is a red herring, though. Overall, La Cima will be 19% impervious cover. If they save some ground cover here, they’ll use it elsewhere. (The presenter does acknowledge this.)
City Council digs in
Max Baker talks first. There are two articles that one community member sent to City Council, questioning whether the economic predictions are overly optimistic. (This is why it would be nice if emails could be available somewhere! I’d like to see these articles.) My best guess is that it’s maybe this one or maybe this one?
Max Baker comes out of the gate swinging: Why hasn’t staff prepared a response to these articles? Staff doesn’t have a response. It comes out that Max emailed staff at 2 pm that day. I’m guessing that Max himself only got the email that day.
There’s no reason for Max to be so aggressive at this point. Everyone is behaving reasonably. This is how you burn bridges. I agree with him – most likely, the economic predictions are overly rosy. But are they exaggerated enough to tank the project? Not necessarily. (I have no idea.)
Jude Prather, Mark Gleason, and Shane Scott all weigh in to champion the whole project. The economy! The creative class! The bragging rights! Listen, I’m not necessarily opposed to a film studio, either. I’m mostly neutral on it.
Max Baker brings up some technical budget issues – MNO and INS? – which catches Mayor Hughson’s attention, and they work together to untangle it. I didn’t really follow this part, but I bring it up to note that both Max and Jane Hughson are behaving in good faith at this point.
Shane Scott moves to call the question. This is super big bullshit. The discussion has only been going on for about 30 minutes. Shane is basically trying to shut Max up. He doesn’t get a second, though, so the motion dies.
Next, Max makes the SMRF amendment. As best I can tell, this should be a slam dunk. Everybody has said that they got millions of emails from concerned citizens. Either this is a slam dunk, or it should be explained to the public what the issue is.
But instead…crickets. No one seconds Max’s amendment.
Mayor Hughson even snaps, “I might second it if I could only find the language in the code!” but since she can’t quickly find the language in the code in time, she declares the motion dead without a second. Max tells her that she has the email, and yelps for staff to bring up the language, and Jane gets mad at him for that.
Honestly: this is supremely dysfunctional. Max has alienated his colleagues, and colleagues are refusing to grant him any grace when he has a legitimate point.
Next Max starts throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. He’s concerned about:
Environmental spills and hazards
Extra strain on security and police
Creating a food desert for the residents of La Cima
That we are claiming to be comparing this to community commercial development, but in fact we approved measures in November that allowed for this kind of use.
The first two are vague and seem to apply to nearly any industry. The third is something I’d idly wondered as well. The last is true, but not an argument against the studio.
Throughout all this, Max frequently implies that his coworkers don’t bother to read their emails and come prepared, don’t actually care about the aquifer, are hypocritical, and so on. If he limited himself to just one of these accusations, it could sound grounded and would maybe pack a punch. But the relentless stream comes across as antagonistic drivel.
Alyssa Garza now has had time to read the articles that Max brought up at the beginning. She weighs in that they aren’t terribly generalizable – these articles don’t fit with our unique culture and situation. They use different key terms and different levels of analysis. They don’t include a policy recommendation. They’re good articles for what they are, but not terribly compelling as evidence one way or the other for San Marcos.
Mark Gleason gently asks the studio if they’d be willing to consider any extra environmental concessions that he could take back to his constituents, in light of the absolute onslaught of emails he got. The guy demurs and cites the 48% impervious cover. Gleason praises the applicant and asks about rain barrels. The guy is a fan of rain barrels. And of limiting pesticides. So Gleason has two wins to take back to his constituents, I guess. It’s the most timid environmental win I’ve ever seen, but sure.
Some quick bits: – Saul Gonzalez asks if San Marcos bargained on these tax rebates. We are told yes, we did. – Max asks if there is still commercial available to be developed at La Cima. We are told yes, there is. – Max asks about if jobs will be required to be local? And can we require internships?
Alyssa Garza points out that there’s a difference between having out-of-town people relocate and be considered locals, and actually hiring people who already lived locally, and that what makes the difference is often jobs trainings and career pathway programs. Will there be those?
The beginning of the end
Max makes a motion that the studio must have 50 internships. Then he says 50 for Texas State and 50 for the high school. He finally gets a second, from Saul Gonzalez.
Alyssa tactfully recommends that he not pick numbers out of thin air, and suggests that he require an internship plan by year 2? Max amends his motion.
The applicant squirms and protests that they’ll be contracting out with yet-undetermined 3rd parties, and can’t possibly commit to an internship program now.
Alyssa mutters “This is a hot mess.” And then elaborates: The educational tie-in is a substantial part of their pitch. It feels like a con if they’re not prepared to actually back it up with any concrete plan. She specifically says that this is a strong application and they didn’t need to bullshit like this, and it chafes.
Vote: Should the studio be obligated to provide an internship plan after two years? Yes: Max Baker, Saul Gonzalez No: Mayor Hughson, Shane Scott, Jude Prather, Mark Gleason, and Alyssa Garza.
So it fails.
By this point, the discussion has been going on for over an hour. No one is taking Max seriously. Max makes a motion to require job training. Does not get a second.
Max asks about the studio’s discrimination policy: why doesn’t it match that of San Marcos? It leaves out protecting gender identity and sexual orientation. (This is a great catch!)
The city lawyer, Michael Cosantino, affirms that this is a problem, and he adds that the studio also left out age discrimination. He recommends that council fix these omissions.
So Max makes a motion to add in protections for gender identity, sexual orientation and age. Jude Prather seconds it, but chides Max about going on for too long and dragging things out.
The vote: Should the anti-discrimination clause cover gender identity, sexual orientation, and age? Yes: Jude Prather, Alyssa Garza, Saul Gonzalez, and Max Baker No: Shane Scott, Jane Hughson, Mark Gleason.
That’s right: the lawyer literally just told them to pass this amendment. Shane Scott, Jane Hughson, and Mark Gleason all vote no, seemingly just to spite Max Baker.
Listen carefully everybody: that is the sound of City Council decompensating. That is a globby, burbling mess of a City Council.
Which brings us to Max Baker declaring, “I AM ASHAMED THAT SOME OF YOU…!” and simultaneously Mark Gleason shouting “I WILL NOT TAKE THIS!” Mark Gleason shouts about abuse, and filibustering, and calling the question. Max Baker shouts about the actual definition of filibustering. Jane Hughson shouts about people talking over each other and who has the floor. It is not pretty.
At this point, Jude Prather moves to call the question. This passes with a 6-1 vote. (I bet you can infer how that played out.) So the discussion (yelling) is finally over.
The actual vote on the tax incentive plan for the studio: Yes: Everyone but Max. No: Max.
Max Baker spits, “Thank you all for not working very hard on this!”
What is my analysis?
That in a pissing match, everyone gets pretty smelly and wet?
Ok, here goes:
I can’t tell what Max Baker’s actual position on the studio is. Does he think it’s fundamentally a bad idea? Does he think that it’s fundamentally a good idea, but the agreement is sloppy? Is he open to being persuaded, if these amendments were taken seriously?
If you think the studio should not exist, you should make a concise and clear argument why not. Since it’s clearly going to pass without your vote, pick one or two mitigating amendments, and try to coax others to go along with these changes. In my opinion, the SMRF amendment and fixing the anti-discrimination language should have been easy wins, or at least thoughtful discussions.
If you think the studio should exist, then say so and provide a balanced list of pros and cons. Work to iron out the cons.
What Max Baker is doing is treating the proposal as though a procrastinating college student wrote it overnight on the last day of spring break. Max is the professor who takes it as a foregone conclusion that the paper is crap. He then nitpicks every last sentence through a lens of finding proof that justifies his beliefs. Any single correction is probably fair, but as a whole, it’s overkill to eviscerate a paper like that.
To be clear: Max Baker’s moral compass is generally pointed in the right direction. It’s just that he’s got no sense of scale. Everything is a calamity of the same proportion.
Nevertheless, the rest of city council has an obligation to wade through Max’s crises and evaluate each one on its merits. It’s extremely poor form to vote against him, out of spite.
Item 35: Future Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and team-building workshop.
Council sorely needs some help. The plan is to have a workshop in August. There are two main issues:
1. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Most of the council has an abysmal understanding of DEI issues – how are racial and economic inequalities baked into the ways we live? Where did they come from? How do we begin to fix it? Alyssa Garza is the main proponent of DEI issues, and really pushed for this workshop altogether. Max Baker is generally on board.
Ok: Hearing Jane Hughson speak on DEI is my favorite thing. She is genuinely trying, and she truly is approaching the whole thing in good faith. And yet she’s such a beginner. You can see the gears turn in her head as she tries to figure out what language to use. “I see this as educational. There are things Ms. Garza says and I don’t understand because they are new to me. As I understand more of these concepts that are becoming popular and important, that’s going to help me understand her.” It is so clunky, but so earnest.
2. Team-Building
Can the council and Max bridge the hostility and become less dysfunctional? Here is my diagnosis of the current animosity:
It’s easy to blame Max Baker. When he’s fired up, he attacks everyone relentlessly and frequently insinuates that people are lazy, incompetent, and unethical.
Sometimes people are lazy, incompetent, and unethical, but that’s also what it looks like when you’re overworked, under-trained, or being pulled in several directions. People are complex. A single situation can be both bad and sympathetic.
Like I said in the last item, Max Baker’s moral compass is pointed in the right direction, but he has no sense of scale. Everything is a calamity of the same proportion. He can generate 50 moral crises out of a trip to the grocery store. This is very tiring if you’re trying to just make dinner.
When things are going sideways, Jane Hughson has a tendency to act authoritarian towards him and pick fights with him. This is exceptionally counterproductive.
The rest of city council has an obligation to wade through Max’s crises and evaluate each one on its merits. It’s poor form to vote against him out of spite.
Max has legitimate reasons to be angry with other councilmembers. Sometimes they vote in shitty ways. I find it easy to believe that they are nicer for the camera, and act like asses to him behind the scenes. Politicians are known for this kind of thing.
(For the record, these dynamics do not really involve Alyssa Garza. Nor Saul Gonzales or Jude Prather, even though they vote against Max more often.)
If Max could prioritize the biggest problems and let little things go, and if he could use honey to catch flies instead of vinegar, he would be much more successful in implementing his agenda. As is, he is not terribly effective at convincing the majority of council to buy his arguments.
I don’t know what the path to functionality looks like. People are generally not very good at re-inventing their group dynamics. Hopefully this workshop helps.
The San Marxist 
