Guys I do not know all of the facts or particulars, and suspect neither do any of you, I do however know Bobby is not "crooked" a "slimeball" or any of the other colorful characterizations being used here. He is in fact the opposite of that.

Also just to point out that both sides being lawyered up doesn't sound like a "shakedown" at all to me, those don't usually take place when counsel is involved on both sides. I also don't put my faith for factual accounting in people selling clicks on youtube.

Both sides may have done something wrong here, or not, I don't know but like I have said several times I will reserve my judgement until all facts and sides are publicly known.

Requesting $250,000 for a plane that doesn't belong to you is an absolute shakedown, dude.

Charpie said:

---

Requesting $250,000 for a plane that doesn't belong to you is an absolute shakedown, dude.

---

So let me ask you a question, if your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend came and told us you beat them, should I assume that is true?

And start calling you an abuser, a slimeball etc?

Or should I wait to see if it is actually true?

Let's review the facts that we do know,

#1 The BBC owns a parcel of land that was bought with taxpayer funds
#2 The mayor appoints all members of the BBC
#3 The mayor is running cows on said land
#4 Someone had to make an emergency landing on this land
#5 The mayor is now refusing to release the plane from this land without payment.

What inside that list of facts would you like to dispute as a smear job or somehow putting him in a light he doesn't deserve?

Also it makes a hell of a lot of sense to lawyer up if someone is holding your property hostage, that might be one of the more laughable things I've ever seen as a reason to not trust someone's narrative.

That depends.

It's a message board. I would assume people would (and have) say/said the very worst things about me. I would also assume this to be true if I was in public office. That's the job.

I will also say that I just moved here from Austin. It blows my mind how some folks will go on and on about the crazy stuff that happens there, where the crazy crap happens EVERYWHERE.

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Let's review the facts that we do know,

#1 The BBC owns a parcel of land that was bought with taxpayer funds
#2 The mayor appoints all members of the BBC
#3 The mayor is running cows on said land
#4 Someone had to make an emergency landing on this land
#5 The mayor is now refusing to release the plane from this land without payment.

What inside that list of facts would you like to dispute as a smear job or somehow putting him in a light he doesn't deserve?

Also it makes a hell of a lot of sense to lawyer up if someone is holding your property hostage, that might be one of the more laughable things I've ever seen as a reason to not trust someone's narrative.

---

I don't know any of the parties in this dispute, I don't live in Bryan, and I honestly don't have a dog in this fight. But having witnessed many a person falsely accused and castigated on these forums over the past 15+ years, I'm just going to point out that AT THIS POINT, #5 (bolded above) is hearsay. All we have is a Youtuber angling for clicks and subscribers who interviewed the owner of the plane. The owner did CLAIM #5 is true and it may in fact BE true but as of right now there is no proof of that.

I agree, things SEEM very odd and potentially illicit based on what we know now, but let's wait until the facts come out before we convict someone in the court of public opinion of a crime he may in fact not have committed.

EliteElectric said:

---

Guys I do not know all of the facts or particulars, and suspect neither do any of you, I do however know Bobby is not "crooked" a "slimeball" or any of the other colorful characterizations being used here. He is in fact the opposite of that.

Also just to point out that both sides being lawyered up doesn't sound like a "shakedown" at all to me, those don't usually take place when counsel is involved on both sides. I also don't put my faith for factual accounting in people selling clicks on youtube.

Both sides may have done something wrong here, or not, I don't know but like I have said several times I will reserve my judgement until all facts and sides are publicly known.

---

First, accusing a public official of corruption or something otherwise negative is not a crime and is done all the time.
Secondly, your post: "Bobby is a good man who gives a lot of his time, effort and resources to the community" reads like someone who only knows the public face of a politician. This is not to say that Gutierrez is a two-faced POS, but you should be old enough to know that politicians will stretch the truth, make promises they can't keep, and do dirty tricks to win elections. It doesn't take dirty money, collusion, or something otherwise obviously illegal to make a politician slimy.

Look at how fast posts are getting wiped without notice...

EliteElectric said:

---

Charpie said:

---

Requesting $250,000 for a plane that doesn't belong to you is an absolute shakedown, dude.

---

So let me ask you a question, if your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend came and told us you beat them, should I assume that is true?

And start calling you an abuser, a slimeball etc?

Or should I wait to see if it is actually true?

---

Do you really not know the difference between scrutinizing public officials and private citizens, or are you trying to be argumentative?

The mayor may appoint those members, I don't know. Did Bobby appoint them, because he just recently became the mayor, or were they already on that council before he took office?


People run cows on land that isn't theirs all the time. It's called a grazing lease. You pay money for the right to graze the land. Hopefully he's paying, and paying a fair market price for that. How long has he had cows there? Just since appointed, or for ten years? Or from before the BBC started managing it? Again, I don't know.

There are lots of assumptions on this thread, those things may or may not be true.

The request for $$$$ to release the plane is pretty shady, yes, but that's one side of the story. It doesn't look good, and may well be true. But we haven't heard the other side.

Okay for arguments sake let's wipe the money part off the table,

#5 he is refusing to return property to its rightful owner.

Still a problem

It seems like the appearance of a conflict of interest (a lease of BBC to the mayor) would be addressed at an absolute minimum.

Just the perception is a bad look

When you're a reporter that knows too much, you're supposed to tell your audience.

3 pages in, and nobody knows anything. does that sum it up correctly? any dates on these things?

I completely agree.

trouble said:

---

I completely agree.

---

Local reporters tossing softballs to local politicos?
<this is my shocked face>

This sounds like a good old boy network deal if I've ever seen one. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

toolshed said:

---

The mayor may appoint those members, I don't know. Did Bobby appoint them, because he just recently became the mayor, or were they already on that council before he took office?


People run cows on land that isn't theirs all the time. It's called a grazing lease. You pay money for the right to graze the land. Hopefully he's paying, and paying a fair market price for that. How long has he had cows there? Just since appointed, or for ten years? Or from before the BBC started managing it? Again, I don't know.

There are lots of assumptions on this thread, those things may or may not be true.

The request for $$$$ to release the plane is pretty shady, yes, but that's one side of the story. It doesn't look good, and may well be true. But we haven't heard the other side.

---

The cattle have not been on the property very long, under a year I would guess... but was the lease put out for bid, or was it "who you know", a question easily answered.
Plus the mayor has been a lousy steward of the lease, with the numerous breakouts of his longhorns, and being dismissive of damages or inconveniencing others.

Quote:

---

People run cows on land that isn't theirs all the time. It's called a grazing lease. You pay money for the right to graze the land. Hopefully he's paying, and paying a fair market price for that. How long has he had cows there? Just since appointed, or for ten years? Or from before the BBC started managing it? Again, I don't know.

---

It was posted in the other thread (and deleted) that Bobby was on the BBC board in 2021 when the land was bought for 12.8 million. He then became mayor in 2022. It would probably be a safe assumption (though not confirmed) that his cows went onto the land soon after the purchase to maintain the Ag Exemption.

Obviously, a sitting board member should not be running a for-profit business on land purchased with taxpayer money via a non-profit that he is a boar member of.

From what the pilot said in the interview, Bobby is allegedly claiming that the mental stress of the plane landing caused his prized longhorn cattle to have miscarriages amounting to $250k. However, i would point out that when the crash happened, there were supposedly cowboys out there working the cattle (they were the first on scene of the crash). Working cattle on horseback, can be quite stressful to cattle. Also, cattle that are artificially inseminated (not sure if that is what happened here, but if the cattle are worth $250k, it is likely) have a failure rate of around 12%.

Hornbeck said:

---

trouble said:

---

I completely agree.

---

Local reporters tossing softballs to local politicos?
<this is my shocked face>

This sounds like a good old boy network deal if I've ever seen one. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

---

The spotlight here is not on the Mayor, it is on our local media and the "do not **** in your own yard" attitude.

With the deep history of corruption in Bryan (1850-1950s) it is unwise for our local media not to investigate this incident.

Quote:

---

Guys I do not know all of the facts or particulars, and suspect neither do any of you, I do however know Bobby is not "crooked" a "slimeball" or any of the other colorful characterizations being used here. He is in fact the opposite of that.

Also just to point out that both sides being lawyered up doesn't sound like a "shakedown" at all to me, those don't usually take place when counsel is involved on both sides. I also don't put my faith for factual accounting in people selling clicks on youtube.

Both sides may have done something wrong here, or not, I don't know but like I have said several times I will reserve my judgement until all facts and sides are publicly known.

---

Withdrawing until more is known.

I think a $250,000 ransom is a pretty damn big thing

I'm not sure it's really hearsay to acknowledge that someone cannot get their property back, if it was then the mayor could very easily show that he gave back the man's plane when requested

Tailgate88 said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Let's review the facts that we do know,

#1 The BBC owns a parcel of land that was bought with taxpayer funds
#2 The mayor appoints all members of the BBC
#3 The mayor is running cows on said land
#4 Someone had to make an emergency landing on this land
#5 The mayor is now refusing to release the plane from this land without payment.

What inside that list of facts would you like to dispute as a smear job or somehow putting him in a light he doesn't deserve?

Also it makes a hell of a lot of sense to lawyer up if someone is holding your property hostage, that might be one of the more laughable things I've ever seen as a reason to not trust someone's narrative.

---

I don't know any of the parties in this dispute, I don't live in Bryan, and I honestly don't have a dog in this fight. But having witnessed many a person falsely accused and castigated on these forums over the past 15+ years, I'm just going to point out that AT THIS POINT, #5 (bolded above) is hearsay. All we have is a Youtuber angling for clicks and subscribers who interviewed the owner of the plane. The owner did CLAIM #5 is true and it may in fact BE true but as of right now there is no proof of that.

I agree, things SEEM very odd and potentially illicit based on what we know now, but let's wait until the facts come out before we convict someone in the court of public opinion of a crime he may in fact not have committed.

---

While I agree there's no "proof" beyond what the pilot is saying, why would he just leave an airplane on somebody's property?

MiMi said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

I'm not sure it's really hearsay to acknowledge that someone cannot get their property back, if it was then the mayor could very easily show that he gave back the man's plane when requested

---

Is the plane still in the pasture? In the latest video the pilot said he was called by a city official and told to move his plane. He said that he hopes the plane would be in a hangar in College Station by early this week.

---

The plane was still there on Sunday afternoon when I drove past. As were the emotionally scarred cattle.

Plane was still there yesterday at 6 pm.

1 - moving it is more expensive than it is worth
2- you are fighting with insurance company on who pays for the move.
3- you are having a hard time finding or paying for someone with expertise to move the plane
4- you are trying to figure out if the plane is salvage vs repairable - and making decisions about removing wings based on that
5-……..
I can come up with reasons you might just leave it there all day.

EliteElectric said:

---

Charpie said:

---

Requesting $250,000 for a plane that doesn't belong to you is an absolute shakedown, dude.

---

So let me ask you a question, if your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend came and told us you beat them, should I assume that is true?

And start calling you an abuser, a slimeball etc?

Or should I wait to see if it is actually true?

---

This is TexAgs...Where unfortunately many are posting for sport and not considerate discussion. And your first clue is anyone responding to you with any variation of 'dude' in the response.

Well, there's a letter from Matt Doss of Doss and Rodrguez saying that the plane crash is a "civil matter" that caused "substantial damage" to the mayor's cattle ranching business who is leasing the land. BCAD says the land is owned by a quasi governmental agency (which also has numerous ties to the mayor) which is used by the city of Bryan for off the books real estate transactions.

There's some facts. I think that would warrant a news story, even a "developing" one…