Which ones up for election have views similar to Jess Fields?

And yes, I am voting for the recall.

Jess is against the recall, FYI.

I am fully aware that Councilman Fields is against the recall. This is one of several issues that I disagree with him on. I do however like the majority of his votes during his time in office.

I like Fields and most of his policy decisions and I like his approach. I like McMillan's stance on most policies but I don't like her approach. I expect most politicians to be against recall - they are self-serving that way.

I like Rhodes in Place 1 vs Brick. He is an encyclopedia of knowledge, especially on the budget. He has put in a great deal of time and thought and I think he would be an excellent conservative CM. Brick is used to public speaking and comes across a bit better I think, but I agree with Rhodes on more issues (scaling back the utility ROI in particular).

I like Pinto in Place 3 vs Mooney. Mooney comes across very anti-student. Pinto is conservative but realizes a city must carry some capital debt. Pinto is not as well-spoken as Mooney, but I like his conservative positions more.

I like Shultz in Place 5 vs Hawkins. Hawkins appears a bit radical (debt free, rainy day fund) and I am more comfortable with Shultz's conservative views that Hawkins.
Ellison is a no-go, she has supported every government size increase the city has offered up (rental registration, tree ordinances) and spoke against common sense fixes like the color palette fixes recently approved. She supports a new city hall and was supportive of a convention center until recently when she said she now wants to wait for another study before deciding.

Listen to the wtaw forum and the kbtx forum and decide for yourself.
http://www.wtaw.com/2011/04/18/bcs-candidates-forum-college-station-city-council/
http://www.kbtx.com/bcspolitics/headlines/CS_City_Council_Candidates_Give_Their_3_Big_Issues_121025589.html

Rhodes
Pinto
Hawkins
Lancaster
FOR common sense conservatives.



[This message has been edited by aggiepaintrain (edited 5/5/2011 10:07a).]

Vote against the recall, that is just plain stupid.

Vote against McAdams, Brick, Hughes and Mooney. Their signs are up in the yards of those that think we should never allow commercial development and that they are owed some sort of business free park like corredor from their home to work every day. Their policies will increase taxes, cost us tax revenue and the convenience of proper development of the Bypass.



[This message has been edited by AgCPA (edited 5/3/2011 8:53a).]

I will vote for Mooney simply because he is running against Pinto. Pinto is Mcmillian reincarnated. His mailer shows how small minded his governing principles are. He is basically against anything besides narrowly defined core services. I'm pretty sure that goes against what the majority of College Station residents want.

there seems to be a general lack of good candidates. apparently we must vote either for anti develpment nit wits or nut case libertarians that don't want to progress at all. overall its pretty sad for the community. But I'm sorry Berry or Lyles are way better than the libertarian welborn folks.

AgCPA, note that the current libertarian nutjobs aren't running against Berry or Lyles. The question is how they stack up against Mooney (for Pinto), and vs Ellison and Schultz (Hawkins). I'm not considering Shaikh to be a serious candidate. If the choice is as you characterize it, then it seems to me that you should split your ballot so neither the nitwits nor the nut cases can claim a mandate.

Although I will vote for recall as an imperfect referendum on annexation, I am still thinking about who to vote for. Although I am something of a libertarian nutjob myself, Hawkins may be a bridge too far even for me. The gold buying and the association with Rick Davis don't help him for me.

I don't think the lack of good candidates is something new due to recall. One of the benefits of limited government is that it limits the damage that less than ideal candidates can do once elected.


[This message has been edited by biobioprof (edited 5/3/2011 12:45p).]

How 'bout if you look at the candidates' ideas and make an informed decision. There's a helpful survey of the candidates at greatbcs.org

Bioprof, with all due respect, I'm trying to figure out how less than ideal candidates can only do limited damage. Does that mean we should never seek out and vote for ideal candidates?

Apparently anyone who thinks Mooney is anti-student doesn't know anything about him. He saved more students from failure and kept them eligible and able to graduate when he was Associate Athletic Director for Academic Services back in the late 80's through the 90's. Students and parents like him. I heard high praise about him during the Corps Spring Review dinners.
In the Chamber forum he only pointed out that since students rent so many residential units in town, they make a significant contribution to the general fund through the return on investment charge that is included in their utility bill.

quote:

---

I'm trying to figure out how less than ideal candidates can only do limited damage.

---

Just the obvious: By limiting the power they can exercise once elected - and by having mechanisms to replace them.

quote:

---

Does that mean we should never seek out and vote for ideal candidates?

---

If you find one, by all means vote for him or her. But since we are voting for humans and not angels, either your standard for ideality is not very demanding or you'll be waiting for a long time.

Even then, your ideal candidate may lose to a corrupt demagogue who panders to the majority who aren't as enlightened as you are. Thus, we design our institutions to tolerable when people we oppose are in power, even if that limits the ability of those we support to do good.

quote:

---

In the Chamber forum he only pointed out that since students rent so many residential units in town, they make a significant contribution to the general fund through the return on investment charge that is included in their utility bill.

---

It seemed to me that he thought renters don't pay property taxes, so this was a way for renters to pay their fair share. I am pretty sure that property owners don't 'eat' the property tax. Things are a lot different now than they were in the 90s-- money is very tight. Whether he meant it or not, he sounded like he thought they should pay more...very confusing. In the interviews he also talked about how he saw that Shadowwood was getting new sewers-- which is coincidental that yesterday's meet-and-greet was at a home on Shadowwood along with Brick and Ellison. (I just thought that was truly coincidental, I have not a tinfoil hat-- seems an odd coalition to me) Anyone go and have info about what was said or new info? Did he talk about the students?

Schultz was not at the Shadowwood thing (I could see her more part of a coalition with Mooney and Brick than see Ellison with the) . I am still cautious about her since her support for Chet stemmed from his ability to bring home the pork for projects. I'm against federal pork and would prefer lower federal taxes. Definitely not Ellison.

Pinto is very soft spoken but really seems up on the issues and more of the type person to think eight steps down the road (long term consequences) than just deciding what's good for today.

Hawkins doesn't seem that out there to me. More just new to politics (on the rainy day fund , ect.). Like all politicians, they run on their positions, but adapt to conditions once elected. I wold think it's hard for even folks involved on committees to know how the city is really running or what the history of departments is.

The med student (Shaikh) wants more art. I want less city-paid-for art. Not voting for him. (some of these decisions are easier than others)

Forgot to add, the Buttalion has voiced its opinion (which is different that the Eagle)

http://www.thebatt.com/opinion/annexual-assault-on-wellborn-1.2215334

Student vote might be higher than some expect.

That Batt article is horrible! Sensationalism is no way to get a point across and the comments below it prove it.

Speaking of sensationalism, I would like to address this misconception that I am planning to turn the city government into some sort of pawn shop. I am not a survivalist nor am I some sort of G. Gordon Liddy wanna be. I simply wanted to stress the importance of protecting taxpayer dollars against potential inflation.

As I said, it should be invested in hard assets "LIKE gold and silver." These assets can be anything, but they should be liquid or easily sellable(unlike our city's current real estate investments) which will improve our bond rating and traditionally strong during inflation. The reason I stated gold and silver was due to the fact that they have traditionally been a good curb against inflation. Higher inflation is a real possibility. If the Federal government loses its bond rating, then they will be forced to raise interest rates on their bonds. This will mean the creation of more paper and higher prices thus devaluing the dollar. If we were to create a rainy day fund, as many other entities and governments do, I would want to ensure that it would be managed appropriately to maintain its value. I do not think a rainy day is such a divisive or extreme issue. How many liberals, conservatives, etc. have ever opened a savings account?
I have a strong educational and experiential background in economics and accounting, so my reasoning is not unfounded. Although my objectivity in answering the GreatBCS question has been criticized, my belief in saving when possible remains the same. I feel that many people can relate to the idea of creating and/or maintaining a rainy day fund/savings account. This will also allow us to make major or emergency capital improvements without having to ask the people to incur more debt.

I will always maintain my stance on fiscal conservatism; however, my definition of fiscal conservatism is not "those who benefit pay," but rather it is do not risk what you can not afford to lose and do not spend what you do not already have. These are practical, reasonable principles which upon I think most can agree.

I will finalize my first post to the MyBCS world by saying that the rainy day fund is not my first priority. Reigning in spending and helping to ease the taxpayer burden is. I want to phase out the ROI over the next three years. Because utilities is a variable cost, renters such as those on fixed incomes, low incomes, and students are hit the hardest with this. It is a regressive tax. I do not understand why they call it a Return On Investment. That is like creating a company, making a product, and only selling it to your employees. The value created does not circulate or increase. I do want nice parks, but I would like to put many of these parks into the hands of the HOA's of the neighborhoods for which these parks were clearly intended. I have no intention of raising property taxes. I disagree that we HAD to annex Wellborn. Why are we spending almost $4 million to give them a new sewer line when we are going to need to spend around $90 million over the next several years to upgrade our own lines and treatment facilities? Would you put a new sprinkler system in your yard when your pipes are busted in your house?

I simply want the city government to reevaluate its fiscal priorities during these rough economic times just like the rest of us have had to do. Thank you.

Hal Hawkins for City Council Place 5
(979) 224-2660

[This message has been edited by HalHawkins (edited 5/4/2011 1:13a).]

Ivanna, I was interested in learning more about the aligning of Ellison, Brick, Mooney and their supporters. When Jonathan Coopersmith began promoting the meet and greet in his home his name was familiar.

Sure enough I found Dr. Coopersmith is on the Brazos Democratic Party's speaker's bureau listing, has written several letters to The Eagle in support of Crompton and filed with the Texas Ethics Commission last fall for a Political Action Committee named Committee for a Weak America. Perhaps Ms. Schultz is too conservative for his political perspective.

[This message has been edited by momlaw (edited 5/4/2011 8:07a).]

Welcome to myBCS, Mr. Hawkins! I'm glad to see more local candidates and sitting council members on here. Hope you'll stick around to respond to more questions/assertions.

While you are still a rookie, you are limited in the number of posts you can make per day, but as you've seen already, you can edit previous posts.

I'll throw out a question to encourage you: one of your big issues is the city debt, which you call unacceptable on your website. Could you tell us what an acceptable level is, and explain your reasoning? Thanks.

Thank you for joining the myBCS community, Hal. I appreciate your words.

I also disagree with your characterization of the "like gold and silver" issue. The word "like" doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, this is a horribly misguided idea -- whether it is gold and silver, or something "like" gold and silver.

The city should not be taking its monies and investing in speculative markets (like commodities or equity markets) -- ever. If the city has money that it hasn't spent on services, it should return that money to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. The idea that you would even consider taking my tax dollars and investing it in markets like this is frightening to me.

I invest my own money in commodity markets and equity markets. I don't want you and the city taking my money in taxes and then trying to invest it like that. It's a great idea for me to do that. It's a terrible idea for you to take my money and do the same.

The solution is for you (if you're elected) and the city to keep my taxes low so *I* can invest my money the way I see fit.

With all due respect, I honestly cannot see voting for you if you cannot see that difference.

Hal,
Welcome aboard!

As a realtor, would you apply your "do not spend what you do not already have" philosophy to homebuyers? How about car buyers? Student loans?

I'm interested in how Hawkins responds because while I like some of what Schultz has said in other areas, the fact that she told KBTX that opposition to recall is her top issue - above her issue 2, the budget - may lose my vote.

I'm willing to vote for people who disagree with me on recall (e.g. Jess Fields and Shawn Rhodes), but her answer seemed to me to be in a different category. Both of them seem to understand that annexation was contentious, with or without recall.

quote:

---

I just can't understand how we got to this point...

---

She blames it on the national partisan atmosphere. Hello? When you annex people against their will, it's going to be divisive within that community. Kelo was divisive in New London, but it didn't break down on party lines. Looking at the letters in the Eagle on annexation, I see opponents and supporters across the political spectrum.

Kelo was about eminent domain, not annexation. Those people lost their property. The people of Wellborn still own theirs.

Tradishun, the purpose would not be to invest taxpayer money in order to receive a profit, but it would be to create a hedge against inflation. The idea is simply to match the rate of inflation, so taxpayer money is not devalued.

The goal of the rainy day fund would be to ensure emergencies or major capital improvments could be paid for without incurring new debt. One of the biggest wastes of taxpayer money is through the payment of debt interest. For example, the city concluded that over the next 6-10 years we will need to make sewer line and wasterwater treatment upgrades at a cost of roughly $90 million (assuming prices stay the same). Furthermore, lets assume that we will spend $9 million a year for these upgrades for 10 years. Lets also assume the city was to float a 20-year bond at 4% (assuming interest rates stay low) for each year. Once fully amortized, each bond would have incurred $4 million in interest. This means that from the $90 million in bonds sold, we will have paid almost $40 million in interest. With the rainy day fund, we can avoid trying to find additional sources of revenue or make more cuts to pay for that interest. I think taxpayers would be much more comfortable seeing their money going exclusively to that capital improvement project rather than a third of it going to interest.

With the city's current obligations, its last bond will not mature until 2029. In fact, 24 out of the 30 outstanding bonds the city has will not mature until the 2020's. If we can halt the creation of new debt, much more of taxpayer money can go towards projects and services as debt payments decrease. With current obligations at roughly just over $300 million (principal and interest), we have a debt to revenue ratio of around 129%. Our goal should be to have a ratio of less than 100% of our revenue.

I am a believer in tax cuts as well. We do have some of the lowest property taxes in the state. I would like create a tax cut by phasing out the ROI. Because it is a variable cost, utilities affect lower income and fixed income individuals the most. It also greatly affects businesses with high overhead costs. I think we can help out alot of families, students, and businesses by lowering their utility bills.

Finally, I believe in saving up as much as possible for making large personal purchases. I would advise anyone AGAINST a "zero down" or extremely low down payment loan. People should make sure that they earn enough to make their payments and can put down enough to achieve the best possible rate of return on their investment. Additionally, paying a substantial down payment creates a vested interest for that individual and encourages responsible repayment. I am a Realtor that cares about the financial strengths and weaknesses of a client, for I want them to make the wisest decisions possible for buying and have a home or property that can make them happy for a long time.

Hal Hawkins for City Council Place 5
(979) 224-2660

[This message has been edited by HalHawkins (edited 5/4/2011 12:23p).]

Momlaw (or anyone else who knows,) what is a "Committee for a weak America?"

quote:

---

Kelo was about eminent domain, not annexation. Those people lost their property. The people of Wellborn still own theirs

---

add the word "rights" after "property" and this statement is false.

Kelo was about eminent domain. Those people lost their property rights (they went to "zero", actually). The people of Wellborn also lost their property rights (but not all).

[This message has been edited by ekonoag (edited 5/4/2011 3:03p).]

Birdnerd, I asked a former Congressional candidate who happens to be a nationally recognized expert in homeland security, history, politics and quite a few other related issues. He said his doctoral dissertation addressed the "Weak America" philosophy, which was practiced by Carter and others who believe that a weaker America fosters a "better world".

Eminent domain and annexation ARE two different things. To say otherwise is simply a falsehood that you can't wish away because it feels good to do so. They are related only because they both concern property, but that's as far as it goes. A freeway and a golf cart path are both a type of road, but you would never say they are the same thing, would you?

Momlaw, if you are implying that Mooney and Brick are somehow for a weak America, you need to come up with a bit more than that.

I was not asserting that eminent domain and annexation were the same thing, merely that they were similar in cutting across party lines, for the reasons that ekonoag states.

bio beat me to it. I don't imply they are the same. I would much rather hold onto my property with fewer or altered rights than give it away completely. But they are both property rights issues. You can't say that annexation leaves the property owner the same as before. You can't say the annexed property owner willingly gave any property rights to the government.

Property rights is an issue that some hold in the same esteem as democracy. I understand some people don't understand or disagree, but I side with property rights advocates and prefer to be very cautious when intruding on them.

Ekon:

Must agree, the people in Occupied Wellborn have lost property rights. Property (money)in the form taxes will be confiscated by CoCS from the citizens of Occupied Wellborn without their consent.

bloody typo

[This message has been edited by foxfire (edited 5/4/2011 4:09p).]

A lot of people on here are holding out hope that pinto, hawkins, and maybe rhodes will make it a priority to deannex part of the city. These posters are bad mouthing candidates who have said they have no plans deannex part of the city.


that being said, what are the steps needed to deannex a portion of the city.


Will there be other subdivision in the city that will want to be deannexed.

Will these candidates that might be for deannexation be willing to break up other parts of the city?


Can you deannex, just my house, so I can avoid property tax while still getting the benefit of living "in the city?"

csaggie, were you annexed against your will after you owned your home?

I used to live in Bryan and shopped often in CS. Even went to CS parks and pools. CS should annex Bryan.

[This message has been edited by ekonoag (edited 5/4/2011 4:23p).]

quote:

---

what are the steps needed to deannex a portion of the city.

---

quote:

---

Texas Local Government Code:

Sec. 43.142. DISANNEXATION ACCORDING TO MUNICIPAL CHARTER IN HOME-RULE MUNICIPALITY. A home-rule municipality may disannex an area in the municipality according to rules as may be provided by the charter of the municipality and not inconsistent with the procedural rules prescribed by this chapter.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

---

quote:

---

City of College Station Charter, Article 2, Section 7

Extension of City Limits by the City Council
Section 7. The City Council shall have the power to fix, by ordinance, the boundary limits of the City of College Station, and to provide for the extension of such boundary limits and the annexation of additional territory lying adjacent to the City, with or without the consent of the inhabitants of such area to be annexed. The City Council shall have the power to detach, by ordinance, any territory, with or without the consent of the inhabitants of such area to be detached. When any territory shall be so annexed, the same shall be a part of the City and the inhabitants thereof shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of all the citizens and shall be bound by the acts, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the City. When territory has been detached, the same shall no longer be a part of the City.

---

Simply put, what it takes to detach (disannex) Wellborn is FOUR votes on Council to do so (or THREE, if the Council is temporarily reduced to four members . . .).

[This message has been edited by TimothyD (edited 5/4/2011 5:17p).]