Well, I know how verbose I can be, but I think more is better right? (or is that about butter?). Anyway, after reading the Burleson Star's reporting of the last candidate forum, I feel that everyone deserved to know exactly what happened at the Hill College Forum this past Thursday night. So, as a public service, I have provided you with a blow by blow of what I considered the best moments of the evening. I know that it's long, hence "War and Peace", but you just have to keep reading as it gets more interesting near the end because that is where the Mayor and his opponent get into the action. So, here goes!
Reporting from Burleson campus of Hill College:
April 26, 2012
I was one of the maybe 75 people that attended the Hill College Forum last night (Thrusday) to hear the City Council and Mayor candidates answer questions posed to them by Hill students and members of the audience. I was left a bit under-whelmed. (ump)
While I am very thankful that the students and faculty took the time and effort to put it on, and it was very well organized, some of the questions were not applicable to the questions facing Burleson council members in the coming years. Questions about Crowley-Rendon Rd status, sprinkler systems for historical buildings (eh, maybe), left me a bit needy for more. I did think the "Heart of Burleson" question was a good one and I liked the answers given by council candidates for the most part. I think "Old Town" was really the "right" answer in my opinion.
It was actually a bit humorous that all the candidates talked about the "Old Town" revitalization until they were almost giddy. For candidates, save one (That's you, Ronnie), that want to "change" how Burleson does things, they sure seemed to like what has been done over the last 8 years.
Oh, and one of the lighter moments for me was when the question was asked about what type of business would you like to see in Burleson that would attract 18-23 year olds? Well, one candidate was really stoked about bringing a Theatre to town (can you guess which candidate?). No, not to watch the "Hunger Games" or anything like that, but for live performances. She even indicated that it was apparently second rate to have to make use of the two perfectly good theater auditoriums that were build at the two high schools with tax paid bond money . If we can only find another Bass Brother. Oh, and I'm sure it would bring in some highly paid jobs that theatre always brings. (Exactly what did you do with that Theatre Arts degree specializing in Stage Design? Oh, yeah, you worked at Macy's.)
OK, Im getting on with it.
Matt Aiken gave a good videoed "vision statement" and introduction. He wasn't there due to a previous engagement, but his video with scrolling words was effective, I thought. I think that he certainly put to rest who has a better grasp of the job that needs to be done. Experience certainly speaks volumes. (The only problem I had with it was Matt like to say the word "Transparency" a lot. Come on now. Don't be so greedy, the city has already won that award how many years in a row now?) Just kidding, Matt. I'm still voting for you.
There were two subjects brought up -most likely as a queston from the audience - that sparked a little spit fire to the evening. One was about public housing and the other was about the Opportunity Fund. First the council candidates were given a shot at the questions and then the Mayoral candidates had a go. Actually, the Mayor started with a "shot across the bow" when he took the podium for his opening statement. Afterwards, the moderator asked the Mayor's opponent to give his views on the question. (that made him actually have more time to speak, but that could be a good thing).
Back to the council candidates.
Regarding the federal housing issue. It appeared that the candidates that had bees in their bonnets about the possiblity of five proposed housing developments coming to Burleson all at one time (never happen), appeared to have gotten the message* that had been spreading around town that these candidates were painting themselves into a corner should they actually win election and then have to serve on the council and live with their prior statements. However, I knew a few of them couldn't help themselves as I remember some of the candidates expressed flashes of anger while speaking at the Tea Party Forum. Apparently they wee indignant that the Mayor and current council members would not pledge to disapprove all additional federal housing requests for support. There was a lot of "humming and hawing" but even with guarded speech, it was clear who were saying, "NIMBY" (not in my backyard) to Federal housing.
One candidate added to her opening statement that all our elementaries were "busting at the seams" from all the students they had, citing the busing of students to her children's elementary from other schools due to "over-crowding". I am pretty sure that the busing is going on to keep from adding classes in the other schools to reduce the number of waivers necessary to maintain the 22:1 ratio. It really has nothing to do with space in the elementaries. Now, the middle schools, that's a different matter.
The other question that added a bit of excitement was the question about the Opportunity Fund, its original funding mechanism and whether it was legal. Wow! What if it had not been legal??
As luck would have it, Ronnie Johnson was there as he is running for the council and he just happened to have been president of the BISD Trustees when the Opportunity Fund was proposed and approved. Ronnie was Vice- President of the Opportunity Fund Board. Wow! Straight from the horse's mouth!! (Sorry Ronnie). He said unequivocally, "No, it (is) was not illegal". Stating there were more lawyers than .... I couldn't hear his comparison, but I got the message. It's not illegal. You would have thought that would have put it to rest, but no. With the two other candidates "passing" Ms. Gammon, gave a somewhat disbelieving sigh and said, "I'd like to know if it IS legal". She either can't hear or she believes she is the appeals courts and Ronnie was over-turned!
However, when the Mayor gave his opening speech, he was less than demure when he said he wanted to lay to rest this question. The Opportunity Fund is NOT illegal. It began as a method to develop a workforce to prepare for and entice industry to Burleson. There was always the intent to use economic development funds for it and they dedicate 1/50th of the fund to the Opportunity Fund. Then, taking a final swing, he added that businesses and individuals did contribute to it and yes, those funds have waned somewhat but the City of Burleson always planned to provided some of the funding. There! (Editorial comment here. I think that business gifts have waned because of who is in control of the Chamber of Commerce now.. Just sayin')
But wait. The moderator decided that since this was such an interesting topic, the Mayor's opposition needed to address the subject. The opponent began, "Well, I can't speak to the legality of it...." "What?" The Mayor said. "Yes you can. "You voted to fund it" just a short time ago.
Yes!!!!
Of course, the moderator called for decorum; the candidates aren't supposed to address each other but to addressed the student panel. The opponent didn't turn his head; just stared straight ahead. I did detect a bit of a twinkle in the Mayor's eye, however. I was high fiving in my mind!!
The discussion of the housing issue was much more mundane with the Mayor and the opponent. There really wasn't much left for the opponent to say other than, if the developer follows the rules, there really isn't much that can be done. I was sitting in the back by this time, observing one of the council candidate hacking 'poo" out of her mouth. There was obviously disagreement. Darn, it's maddening when you can't get your way, right?" The Mayor had already prepared a position statement on this issue and it was distributed at the Forum to the few people there. If you want to see it go to www.kenshetter.com and look for "housing". There were so many untruths, half truths and mis-understanding that have been given out, it is really hard to make the issue clear without a long two page article. So read his so I don't have to type it here.
One interesting thing that came up was the Mayor's opponent kept hammering on the his assertation that many industries have wanted to locate in Burleson but have not done so due to to many regulations. He added one other reason... they were not sufficiently "wined and dined". The opponent said that these people (industrialist) are "enterpreneurs" and they need to be handled "with kid gloves". Well, my husband has 30+ years in corporate manufacturing and that is code for "Wine, Women and Song". So, does that mean that Mayor Shetter and the city staff haven't been spending enough city money on big expense accounts and wild parties? I know where they can find some "Cowtown Hotties". You might even ask the opponent.
In regards to the burdensome regulations on building design, etc... Well, I agree that you probably don't have to have the same building design requirements in an industrial park as you do on Main Street, but it seems a little pre-mature to have those ready to go since they just turned dirt on the Highpoint Industrial Park not long ago. I also am sure that the Planning and Zoning Committee hasn't brought that before the council yet. I could be wrong, but I think I remember something about that. I wonder why the Mayor's opponent hasn't asked his friend Ms. Gammon about that since she is on that City Board and enjoys the job so much she wants to stay on it. Since that is a citizen group, maybe the "people" will have an opinion on what those requirments should be to house "widget" manufacturing.
I had a questions I was eager to ask the Mayor's opponent, but it didn't make the list. So, I was happy when the Mayor alluded to my question when he asked how it was possible to lower the debt, reduce taxes, reduce the budget, build infra-structure and pay police and firemen more. I agree with the Mayor, it sounds like a fairly tale.
Just sayin'
Ann
* For info on the "message" please read the previous post, "What Would Jesus Do?"
Also, if you haven't already, read the other two prior posts as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment