Tag: elections

Shane Scott and Atom Von Arndt are facing off for Place 4.

(Never forget: San Marcos Elections are Problematic.)

Executive summary: Shane isn’t the absolute worst, but he’s not great either. I think I’m Atom-curious.

Shane Scott, the known quantity

He is a very serious grown up. Let’s all remember the time he brought 3 oz of weed to council, in order to make a some convoluted point about decriminalization being on the ballot:

Someone go make an animated GIF of that for me! It’s still so funny. And look at everyone else’s expression:

Eight different ways to say, “What the fuck, Shane?!” with just your eyes. I love it.

More seriously: should you vote for Shane?

He was on council around 2010 for a while, and then was voted off, and then was voted back on three years ago. I’m going to focus on the past couple years, since that’s what I’ve paid closest attention to.

The good: We sometimes share a common enemy:

• He has an anti-authoritarian streak, so he votes against the curfew and often looks askance at the police
• He loves businesses and hates regulations, which often pits him against NIMBY types. I am interested in affordable housing and helping vulnerable populations, which often pits me against NIMBY types, as well. So, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

For example, he voted against curfews, and voted to repeal Meet-and-Confer. (On the other hand, he voted to approve the new contract when it came back.) He voted against VisionSMTX++ this evening.

The bad: Often I disagree with him:

• He’ll choose businesses over the environment
• He’ll choose businesses over vulnerable people

Whereas I like the environment and vulnerable people.

Looking over my yearly summaries, these are things that jump out at me: Voting against the transportation master plan because of the bike lanes. Being rude to SMRF on multiple occasions. Voting against the lobbying ordinance. Voting against the eviction delay a full year earlier than its repeal, while the rest of council was still in favor of it. Voting for every single development that has come around, even the ones that end up being denied. He’s generally the most guaranteed vote for business interests, at the expense of anything else.

The ugly: Shane never seems to do anything. I can recall just a few things he’s ever initiated:

• Spear fishing in the river
• Horribly ill-conceived plan to ban being homeless
• Debt forgiveness for utilities. (This one was to his credit.)
• Leveraging decorum and politeness against Max Baker

The first three are all from 2021. That’s over two years old! And scolding Max Baker was in March of 22. He hasn’t initiated anything else I can remember, for most of his term.

He doesn’t make amendments or improve policies or try to incorporate multiple points of view into a compromise. He just shows up, votes, gets annoyed when things drag out, and goes home. That’s a real waste of a position of power.

Atom Von Arndt, the unknown quantity

What is Atom like? He seems more prepared than last year. Last year, he had shallow answers like “How dare we spend so much on street lights down Hopkins!” This year, he seems to be thinking more strategically about the connection between vulnerable populations and policy. He sounded basically progressive!

He also said that he’s just going to keep on running until he’s elected. I actually admire that a lot.

My opinion: I’m leaning towards Atom for Place 4.

Also: Alyssa is unopposed for Place 3. Fortunately, she’s great. Vote for her!

The Debate

The League of Women Voters held their debate over zoom, on October 12th. The whole thing is very short – only 26 minutes.  Opening statements, eight questions, closing statements, done!

The questions:

1. What motivates you to seek this position?
2. What would you strive to accomplish during your term?
3. How can council create opportunities for citizen input at the earliest stages of  the review process for new commercial and industrial developments?
4. What steps should San Marcos take to prepare for extreme weather events?
5. How should San Marcos work with agencies to ensure the environmental health of the river?
6. What will you do to support a vibrant economy in San Marcos while also controlling rampant growth?
7. Explain the status of the San Marcos water supply, and what should be done to ensure future supply is adequate.
8. Fire danger in Texas is increasing due to hotter summers, drought, and development. Please discuss your position on the city’s present fire fighting resources, and any changes you’d suggest.

I don’t love this set of questions?  Questions 4,7, and 8 are all technical issues. The only respectable answer is, “Well, I’d listen to the experts since they know way more than me.”

So we wasted three questions on important-but-wonky issues. But there was nothing asked about:

• Sprawl
• Affordable housing
• SMART Terminal
• SMPD
• Cape’s Dam

In short, I want questions that could potentially distinguish how candidates will vote on issues.

However! The LWV are a bunch of hard-working volunteers, who are running debates and volunteering because they believe in democracy. I’m not really going to crab at anyone who is donating so much time and energy towards democracy.

The rules: Each candidate gets one minute for anything, no rebuttals.

Debate Summary: I think they tied, debate-wise. Neither one sounded much stronger than the other. I basically transcribed their answers below, but it’s kind of jumbled, since they only had a minute to make their case.

Opening statements: 

Shane Scott:
– Council for 3 years,
– 5 year term about 5 years earlier.
– Glad to be here!

Atom Von Arndt:
– Regular guy: renter, dad,
– Got the same problems that everyone is having.

1. What motivates you to seek this position?

Shane: The community, the issues that are coming. The growth we’re going to see. The jobs we need to create. Transportation issues.  Wanting to serve in general.

Atom: Housing issues, affordability issues, lack of transparency with the roads. I face all these same problems and I want to help.  I’m concerned with the people on the bottom of the food chain. Getting resources for the homeless and people in need.  Service.

2. What would you strive to accomplish during your term?

AVA: Get better resources for mental health issues. If you’re on disability, there aren’t resources and you get forced out of town. How do you move to a bigger place if this isn’t affordable? Increase resources. Second, housing. Rent-by-the-room is hurting our economy.

SS: Same things! Affordability, housing, homeless. List goes on. Transportation is coming in the future. I see the traffic. We work for homeless and people with mental health issues. We do a lot. We lower rates. I did the debt forgiveness for utilities.  We do a lot.

3. How can council create opportunities for citizen input at the earliest stages of  the review process for new commercial and industrial developments?

SS: All plans for any kind of development should be out and open for the community to observe and have input! Too many times it’s done before it even gets to council.  Committees can help decipher! But the community needs a birds-eye view of any development that’s going to come to San Marcos.

AVA: Community outreach. I hear that this is difficult. People need to know. How do we get their attention? More town halls. More block parties. Use businesses to bring people in to announce decisions and upcoming things, especially P&Z.  Make town halls exciting! Give them some pizzazz to get people to show up and make people feel like council is operating on their behalf.

4. What steps should San Marcos take to prepare for extreme weather events?

[Kinda unfair as a question!]

AVA: It’s been a drought, and then we’re worried about floods. Need emergency plans in place. Need to worry about all this new development and how it will affect the flood plains.  Preparedness and emergency plans – focus on that. “I’m no weatherologist, but eventually we’re going to to have the rain again, we’re going to have the water, and it’s going to need to be an issue we get out in front of.”

SS: Is this the winter storm you’re asking about? We’ve done a lot! Hardening our water and utility lines to protect during freeze. Federal funding for flood mitigation, we went to Washington. Bypasses are getting built, underground drainage is getting built, GPMRS system just got up, will let people get on the channel if you have no cell ability.

5. How should SM work with agencies to ensure the environmental health of the river?

SS: That’s one of our key issues! We’re talking about a can ban. Removed styrofoam from parks, moved BBQ pits away, we do river clean up 2-3x a year. Educate people about the river and let them know about the endangered species and why we love it.

AVA: Love the can ban.  Boils down to enforcement. Gotta make sure people do that. But development is happening by the river. Gotta enforce rules on development as well, though.  Enforce the rules and regulations around the river and pass more things like can ban to keep people from flooding the river with garbage.

6. What will you do to support a vibrant economy in San Marcos while also controlling rampant growth?

[What does “controlling rampant growth” exactly mean? It sounds like “try to prevent” which is nonsense.]

AVA: This is tricky! Businesses open and close downtown a lot. Seasonality of economy, poor college students. Grants to support small local businesses. Work with small local businesses. Make downtown beautiful, open up boarded up shops.  Encourage growth with larger businesses, grocery store chains.

[May I humbly suggest that we strongly look at a vacancy tax?]

SS: With covid, small businesses were hit. We did a lot as a city, but many did close. I’m focused on bringing the jobs – Amazons #1 and 2. A place to live, work, and play, with a job that pays enough to live here.  Looking for ways to help people.

[HRM. Have we been concerned with minimum wage jobs, SHANE?]

7. Explain the status of the SM water supply, and what should be done to ensure future supply is adequate.

SS: I know this one pretty well! I voted for the water rights from Gonzales. GMRA and us bought 50% of it and literally purchased our water security for the next 50 years. So we’re not going to run out like Kyle does.  In fact, Kyle didn’t want to join originally, and so I was like ‘we’ll purchase your portion and sell it back to you later on, to make money and lower utilities for our citizens.’ So I’m always trying to get someone else to pay for our lifestyle, because we were here first. [off-putting chuckle.]

AVA: The majority of our water we don’t pull from the Edwards aquifer. Most of us are coming from another source. The college is using a lot more aquifer water than the city does. Selling off water to Kyle is great! It’s income. Obviously let’s educate them to keep them from blowing through their limits though. I want to look into more of this college vs city stuff another time. 

8. Fire danger in Texas is increasing due to hotter summers, drought, and development. Please discuss your position on the city’s present fire fighting resources, and any changes you’d suggest.

AVA: Having a well-funded, well-equipped fire department is essential for any city in Texas. We can and should spend more money on it, especially with the record heat.  More firefighters over police officers, not to start any fights. Houses catch on fire all the time, we don’t have any crime waves going on in SM right now. [Note: I can’t tell if this is straight or kidding.]  We need to be prepared and equipped.

SS: We keep increasing the Fire Department needs as the chief presents them. Also education what the fired department can and can’t do. We have to call air supply to the hill country. We’re always paying attention to that. Community engagement and people paying attention so that fires don’t happen.

[A good answer here would be to connect it to sprawl. The more sprawl, the more expensive your fire department becomes.]

Closing Statements

SS: Thanks you! It’s been a pleasure. I hope I’ve answered questions that help you understand. I’m a small business owner, been here 30 years. My kids go through the school system. We’re part of everything. I love serving, problem-solving, forethought for planning, 50 year water supplies, 3% that we bought into the electric utility that earned us 25 million during the Uri Snowstorm*. Those are things I enjoy putting together as a councilmember, and I enjoy the business side of that. Lower the rates, lower the taxes!

[Wait. The city earned $25 million from electricity during Snowvid?! That’s super gross!]

AVA: Thank you! It would be an honor. I’m in sales. I’ve always worked for other people, rented from other people, so I feel the effects of when this all happens for the working class. My superpower is communicating and talking to people, it’s what I’ve always been good at. Finding common ground.  So many different people with different people, and I think I can be the voice for them. It’s a great city, there’s a lot we can do. I’m not going anywhere! I’ll run again next year! I think I have a good head on my shoulders, and I’ll talk to anyone who wants to talk to me. 

And…SCENE! My guess is that Shane is so well-connected that he breezes to re-election. But it wouldn’t hurt to at least make him sweat a little.

Here’s my official thoughts on candidates!

I listened to the League of Women Voters and the Hays County Democrat forum.  I don’t have recordings of anything else, but feel free to point me towards them.

Short-short version: 

1. Jane vs John for Mayor:

 I’m actually on the fence.  I trust Jane 100% to be honest, but I disagree with her principles in significant ways.  (She’s solidly centrist on the business community, cops, and the environment.) Based on his debate answers, I’m still nervous that putting John together with Shane, Jude, and Mark is going to mean open season for developers to maximize their profits, and we will not require developers to build what’s best for San Marcos.  Developers are not your friend!

Here are two truths:

• We need housing
• Developers are going to prioritize profit over what’s best for San Marcos

Here are my fears: Jane isn’t going to prioritize dense housing enough, and John will let the developers get away with murder.  

Conclusion: vote for whoever you want.

2. Matt vs Max for Council Seat #1:

Matt Mendoza comes from a family that is deeply woven into San Marcos. He’s new to politics. He seems bright and eager to learn.  At the Hays Dems thing, he was forcefully pro-GRACE act (not criminalizing abortion) but lukewarm on Prop A.  My guess is that he’s left of center on some issues and centrist on others. I would love to see him grow and develop on P&Z for another year. (Perhaps he would enjoy reading this very blog for a year, idk.)

But Max knows so much, and is so clear on what he’s fighting for, and he’s fighting for the right things.  We’d be fools to vote him out.   If Max learned to cajole and charm people into buying into his ideas, he’d be unstoppable.  (At one point, Max made the case that he’s gotten less argumentative and more collaborative since the DEI workshop in August.  Could be! He needs more time to build up a track record.)  

Conclusion: Vote for Max, save Matthew for next year.

3. Saul vs Atom for Council seat #2:

I am pretty harsh on Saul for his answers below, because they are so entirely devoid of content. He is an open ear to large portions of the San Marcos Hispanic community, but I don’t think he does anything with the information that comes in.   He’s been on council for two terms, but can’t answer basic questions. I became very exasperated with him.

Does that mean you should vote for Atom Von Arndt? Look, I don’t know. He’s the outsider. He was at his best when he spoke bluntly (WINK) on Prop A: sending people to prison for possession of pot supports the private prison industrial complex.  So I think he has a general liberal bent.  And he seemed like a bright person who was willing to learn.  But he has a lot to learn. (And he’s got a thing for clown facepaint.)

Conclusion: Vote for whoever you want.

And now, the long-long answer!

The LWV debates are super short, ringing in at just under an hour.  Candidates are only given one minute to answer each question.  Also, they held it on Tuesday, and Matthew Mendoza had a P&Z meeting.  So that seems a bit unfair.

The Hays Dems forum gave each candidate plenty of time to speak at length and then field questions. But only Jane Hughson, Max Baker, and Matthew Mendoza were there.

First up is the Mayor Race:

Opening Statements:  Both candidates give basic bio details. What can you say in a minute? They’ve both lived in SM forever.  Jane Hughson worked at Texas State for decades and has been on a billion community service organizations. John Thomaides owns a business involving water somehow. They both like buzzwords about “common sense” and “being frugal” and “balance”.

The Hays County Democratic forum gave a much longer stretch for candidates to talk, but John Thomaides wasn’t there. Jane talked at length about all her experience – she’s worked with every San Marcos organization under the sun – but I didn’t exactly learn anything new. We know how she governs.

First question: Diversity/Equity/Inclusion?

I’d say both candidates give equally half-assed answers. Jane Hughson says it’s the right thing to do and we had a half-day retreat.  She defends her effort to cut the equity coordinator from a $400K/4 year position to a $200K/2 year position, saying that we need to embed the position permanently.  I guess? You still jeopardized two years of funding for the position. 

John Thomaides says all the departments should practice best practices.  And Austin has a whole DEI department, and we’re not there yet. It’s a balance.  He did not seem like this is an urgent issue to him.

Second question: Housing Density? 

This might be the question that tips the entire election towards Jane, if I know our NIMBY friends.  

John answers first: we need infill-friendly policies. We need to consider things like condos and townhomes.

Jane Hughson says: You need density to make transit work.  We allow smaller lots now.  I absolutely will not touch old neighborhoods, but maybe new neighborhoods could experiment with smaller lots?

Thomaides’ answer is closer to what I believe.  I wish he’d mentioned a sense of scale, because I’m still skittish about the giant apartment complexes that went up a decade ago while he was on council.  There’s a big difference between 4-plexes and 8-plexes integrated throughout neighborhoods, and something like The Cottages and The Retreat, forming their own entire ecosystem.

However: the old neighborhoods in town are extremely spooked by the word infill.  They are convinced that frat boys will pee on their hedges, fill the streets with Coors Light cans, and throw massive house parties that last until 3 am.  And sometimes, the unspoken part is that they just don’t want to live next to poor people. 

Third question: Homelessness?

Jane Hughson’s answer: there are many reasons people are homeless, and you have to tailor individual responses. The Homeless Coalition is working to do that.

John Thomaides’ answer: Every city is dealing with this. You can’t give every person a house. Find those people who are willing to change and work with them. It’s a difficult issue.

I’m giving this point to Mayor Hughson.  Thomaides’ answer sounded defensive and like he is going to blame homeless people for not wanting to change, and therefore they don’t deserve help.

Fourth question: Infrastructure? How to evaluate a project?

John takes this to mean “how does SM decide which city projects to work on?” He wants to re-do how we award contracts.

Jane says that you have to work with engineers, and modify how much different projects disrupt peoples’ lives.

Closing Statements

I am allergic to the kind of buzzword-heavy scripted statement that candidates are compelled to cook up here. “I will be all things to all people!”  It’s a waste of time to scrutinize these crumbs and say anything meaningful about how they’d be on the dais.

What about other topics?

The environment/river: John’s website and Facebook make it clear that he works his tail off to clean up the river and feels strongly about littering.  

Does that mean he’s willing to vote for constraints on businesses that want to develop over the aquifer?  I have no idea. What about broader measures towards sustainability? What kind of cost is he willing to impose on businesses to force them to implement sustainable solutions? I have no idea.

Jane tends to support the river, and is willing to work with businesses on greener solutions, but she’s not going to force anyone towards anything game-changing.  

My guess is they’d be roughly the same on the environment.

Cops/crime: John’s website doesn’t say anything, and Jane has been pretty centrist. She voted against cite-and-release, I think, but then came around and supported its renewal. (Which Chief Standridge also supported.)  My guess is they’d be roughly the same, here, too.

What about their past voting records as Mayor and on council? This takes so much work to properly summarize. For example, in 2011 and 2012, there was a big city fight about a proposed development over Sessom Creek. Here’s an article that says it was postponed . Here’s an article that says a previous vote was a no, and now it’s scaled down. Neither say how anyone voted. I’d have to look it up to see if Thomaides was even on council in 2012. The two main places that I go to find the council archives only go back to 2014. Oh wait! Thomaides was instrumental in its defeat. Good job, John.

What about the HEB shitshow, on the corner of Wonderworld and Hopkins? In 2016, slightly over a year past the Memorial Day floods, HEB applied to rezone the corner of Wonderworld and Hunter – right next to purgatory creek, which had just flooded the previous October. The plan was to put curb cuts on Wonderworld, west of Hunter. It was an insanely terrible location and the town was furious. Both Hughson and Thomaides voted in favor of it, though, so that’s a wash in terms of your upcoming mayoral decision. What about the Woods? Thomaides (and Jude Prather) both voted against it. Jane Hughson wasn’t on council back then.

I have a vivid memory of a controversial vote where (some? all?) the men all left the room to avoid going on record, and Lisa Prewitt, Jane Hughson, and Melissa Derrick were all left sitting there holding the bag. But I can’t place it. I thought it might have been Cape’s Dam, but it appears John and Jane both voted originally to remove it.

Since Jane’s been mayor, she voted against cite-and-release, but since then tentatively supports it. Covid hit. How should we spend $18 million in American Rescue Plan dollars? She did not apply any pressure over Ryan Hartmann. She helped rewrite the Land Development Code. I dunno – their two stints in office have been characterized by very different kinds of issues.

Here’s the thing: I didn’t watch city council meetings when John was mayor. I don’t know if he’s careful and judicious, or if he comes unprepared to meetings, or if he makes his decisions ahead of time, or if he comes with an open mind and discusses things in good faith. There were ethics complaints against Scott Gregson while John was mayor, and in my mind, I had them as friends. But again, I did not listen to the council meetings where those issues were actually discussed. There is a wealth of knowledge out there on how John governs, but I don’t have it.

The Other Council Seats

It’s kind of shitty, but they held the debate during a P&Z meeting, and so Matthew Mendoza was in a bind.  He sent over a short personal statement and skipped the debate. However, he was at the Hays Dems forum, and got to speak for as long as he wanted, and then answered questions. 

Summarizing Matthew Mendoza on his own: Born and raised here, loves this city. Some sort of IT guy.

• Tentative Yay on Prop A, but not whole-hearted. 
• On the river: Absolutely no development within 100 yards! Beyond that, we’ll have to work with the developer.  We need to shake down businesses like Chuck Nash for donations to help fund conservation efforts.

(This is not a great answer – I’m pretty sure there’s already no development within 100 yards. And you can’t work with developers unless you’re willing to walk away. Otherwise you’re just letting them hold all the cards.)

• On abortion/the GRACE act: enthusiastic support for not prosecuting women.
• On animal shelters: he’s a softie for animals and wants to support the shelter.

None of those are nitty-gritty answers that tell you that he’d hold corporations’ feet to the fire, but it would have been very hard for him to pull that off. Like I said, my guess is mostly centrist, maybe tilting to the left.

Onto the debate itself!

Note: From here on out, I’m sticking with the League debate, and mostly ignoring Max’s answers at the Hays Dems Forum. His answers were interesting and the whole thing is worth listening to, but he already has way more to say than Saul or Atom, and it just would be too lopsided.

Opening statements

Max’s keywords are sustainability, equity, and transparency. 

Saul’s new grandbaby was born today!

Atom Von Arndt is relatively new to town, and a renter, with a regular job, who keeps scratching his head at how we do things here.

Question 1: What are your priorities?

Max’s priorities are sustainability, equity, and government transparency.  He wants more town halls and more engagement.

Saul’s priorities are flooding. Work with small businesses. Housing but NOT in existing neighborhoods. Finish the projects that are midway through.

Atom’s: Roads. Why do we have bike lanes to nowhere? What the hell happened at Hopkins and 35? Affordability. More outreach.

Question 2: Homelessness

From this point on, Max is just playing a completely different game than Atom and Saul.  He can just rattle off such a more well-informed, complex answer, with specific examples and experiences he’s had to fortify it.  

It really reflects most poorly on Saul.  Of course Atom doesn’t know the details – he’s brand new and running as an outsider. But Saul is running for his third term.  He should know a lot by this point. 

Here’s what I mean – on homelessness: 

• Saul says, “Outreach! Provide education and mental health services”

• Atom says “Outreach and mental health.”

• Max says “I have volunteer experience with XYZ org, we did a homeless study with the American Rescue Plan funding, I’m focused on implementing a continuum of care with all the organizations in town, which I can enumerate. Want to talk about transitional housing? A housing-first policy is important. We need to de-silo our non-profits – they’re a patchwork and not cooperating that well.”  

When Max speaks, you get the idea that he could keep going for another ten minutes with developed ideas. When Saul talks, it feels like the kid hoping that the teacher won’t notice if they increase the margins, increase the font size to 14, and triple the line spacing to get their essay up to two pages.

Question 3: How do you evaluate infrastructure? 

Atom: He’s comfortable ranting here. Why did we spend $10 million on fancy street lights for Hopkins?! [Note: we didn’t.] What’s up with these nutty bike stoplights to nowhere? What the hell is going on with I-35 and Hopkins? We should be fixing the drainage and potholes!

I mean…those are the kind of questions you get from outsiders. They’re easy to ask. The answers are slow, technical, and wonky. This doesn’t make him a bad candidate for office, but it doesn’t tell you much about what he’ll do when he gets there.  (Actually, it tells you the very first thing he’ll do: he’ll learn that those answers are slow, technical, and wonky.)

Max goes next: Equity, equity, equity! Evaluate projects through an equity lens. Bring your full understanding of historical and systemic biases. 

 It’s really a pretty good answer.

Saul: We need to have different parts of the pie. You can’t give the whole pie to one project. There need to be consequences for contractors who go too long. 

SAUL.  We do have different parts of the pie.  You just approved a budget, which is literally how you divide up the pie. What on earth are you nattering on about.

Question 4: Density?

Max: The only infill that gets financing is large scale multifamily.  Can we figure out how to do small-scale infill, like the mini-complexes on San Antonio?  Sprawl drives up everyone’s taxes and is bad for everyone.

This is fairly close to my own answer: 4-plexes should be allowed by right, anywhere. 8-plexes should be allowed very often.  Sprawl is bad.

Saul: Smaller homes on smaller lots! 

Twice Saul refers to the zonings “CF4.5” and “CF5”, and I’m pretty sure these don’t exist. My memory is that there is SF6 and SF4.5, (Single Family 6 and Single Family 4.5), and there is CD4 and CD5, (Character District 4 and Character District 5). But there’s no CF anything.  

It’s really not a big deal – people misspeak all the time. But he’s not providing other evidence that he really does know what he’s talking about.  And he was on P&Z before his two terms on council, and he was on council when they re-did the land development code. 

Atom: Mixed use apartments downtown are insanely expensive, and then that allows other landlords to raise their rents too. We’ve got to build more housing and make sure it’s affordable. 

He’s not yet plugged into the NIMBYism he’ll face, but sure, his instincts are fine.

Question 5: Yay on Prop A?

Saul: 4 oz is a LOT.  That’s 475 joints. That’s not personal use. But I voted to let the voters decide. 

Atom: YAY!  Pot possession just feeds the private prison industrial complex. We should do anything we can to keep people out of the criminal justice system.

Max: In 2019, I ran on Cite and Release. 4 oz is because that’s where the state of Texas draws the line between “little” and “lots”. It only applies to nonviolent offenders, and just possession. 

I appreciated Atom tying this into the larger human rights issues associated with our prison complex, because that’s mostly where I think the moral salience comes from, too.

Question 6: Diversity/Equity/Inclusion?

Atom: It’s everyone’s town! We need a ton of engagement/outreach.

This is both right and wrong. We do need a ton of outreach, but it’s way harder than he’s imagining. Solving the outreach problem is not just a matter of good intentions.

Max: I advocated for a 4 year DEI coordinator. Every person on the DC trip told us to keep DEI front and center. Equity lens helps us do everything better: better policing, better planning.  I want to pay people for feedback.

(I don’t think that last sentence is quite right. That doesn’t target the people that are hardest to reach. We have to do the hard work of showing up at barbershops, churches, and working with well-connected existing groups like Community Action, the food bank, the women’s shelter, etc.  It just takes a ton of labor, ultimately.) But aside from that, Max generally has a solid track record of voting to support DEI and think about issues connected to it.

Saul: You guys, you need to hear Saul’s entire answer, in his own words:

“First of all, I think everyone should be treated equally and fairly, no matter what walk of life they come from. I think something we have to remember, also, is that people have different cultures and different heritages, and we gotta take that into consideration as well.  Those are two things that I’d like to really focus on. And maybe we can someday live in that world. That’s all I have. Thank you very much.”

Read that outloud, and time yourself.  Saul manages to make it last almost 40 seconds. (It starts at 50:51 if you’re interested.)

WHAT THE HELL. There’s no there there.  

Closing statements:

Saul: I want to finish projects we started. Covid delayed everything. I’ve never seen anything like that.

Atom: I heart San Marcos.  I’m a single dad with a 10 year old.  My superpower is that I can connect and communicate with everyone really well, so I can get out there and find out what people want.

Max: The DEI workshop made me a better collaborator. I was endorsed by the Hays Women’s caucus.

And that’s a wrap!

No grand conclusions from me. BUT, if you’re feeling moved to do something, reach out to Hays County Democrats about helping on election day to make sure MAGA “poll-watchers” aren’t intimidating voters and sabotaging democracy.