Except the mayor did not hold the lease. Rafter D does.Hornbeck said:BQ_90 said:
I live in CS and don't give a damn, but I'll take $1 cattle lease.
And if anyone can't see the ethical issues here, then you may biased by your personal contacts with the mayor
This, about the ethical issues. The press release saying this all happened before he was the mayor is complete smoke screen as well. Everyone that has lived around here for a bit knows that Gutierrez has been in city politics for a long while, and that the fact that he was actually on the board is conveniently left out… causing the super-sleuths on TexAgs to expose to the light.
Plane update
168,848 Views |
1172 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by Hornbeck
The mayor was on the board of the BCC when the lease was given out.
pretty convenient isn't ittechno-ag said:Don't forget that Rafter D has the grazing lease, not the mayor. Rafter D used the land to temporarily hold the mayor's cows.BQ_90 said:
I live in CS and don't give a damn, but I'll take $1 cattle lease.
And if anyone can't see the ethical issues here, then you may biased by your personal contacts with the mayor
Techno, are you friends with the mayor? I've never seen so much white knighting from a person on the outside of the situation.
In all seriousness that's a stretch to say it's blatantly unethical. What do you think happened? Did the mayor say to Dorn, hey I want you to do some AI on my herd. You can put them on this land temporarily. And even if he did so what? Dorn can choose to do the AI anywhere. It's not like he needs to save $167/month on a grazing lease to make a profit on a $250,000 AI program. That doesn't make any sense.Jsimonds58 said:
The mayor was on the board of the BCC when the lease was given out.
Sorry, just not buying this huge conspiracy theory.
BQ_90 said:pretty convenient isn't ittechno-ag said:Don't forget that Rafter D has the grazing lease, not the mayor. Rafter D used the land to temporarily hold the mayor's cows.BQ_90 said:
I live in CS and don't give a damn, but I'll take $1 cattle lease.
And if anyone can't see the ethical issues here, then you may biased by your personal contacts with the mayor
Convenient, indeed, and Rafter D stated his bidness arrangement with Gutierrez existed prior to the "lease", but when it became available, is anyone shocked that Rafter D was offered the lease, with a client (Gutierrez) ready to occupy it?
Except rafter D doesn't own land to keep a herd of longhorns
I'm trying to let you people see a different perspective that doesn't involve a conspiracy under every rock. Mistakes and miscommunications do not necessarily equate to malfeasance.Jbob04 said:
Techno, are you friends with the mayor? I've never seen so much white knighting from a person on the outside of the situation.
At this point it isn't a conspiracy theory. If you don't see how this is unethical then you are lost.
And if you can't see it in a different perspective then likewise. I don't think y'all will get your wish for a Q&A session with the mayor on here due to laws and lawyers. There may be some public statement at some time. Or maybe not since it's not evident any laws whatsoever were broken and all the public "outrage" seems confined to this board.Jbob04 said:
At this point it isn't a conspiracy theory. If you don't see how this is unethical then you are lost.
If the lease was not publicly bid for it may be a legit legal issue.
Would depend on the funding, if any public funding went to it, then yes it would have to be a "public bid" process. That process can be crooked and the potentially leasee can already be decided, but normally that has to be open to multiple parties, if not truly "public".
Would depend on the funding, if any public funding went to it, then yes it would have to be a "public bid" process. That process can be crooked and the potentially leasee can already be decided, but normally that has to be open to multiple parties, if not truly "public".
It's possible the $1/year lease came with benefits.
I mean, seems like the classic set up for quid-pro-quo.
Removed a lot of heresy, but I think the writing is on the wall.
I mean, seems like the classic set up for quid-pro-quo.
Removed a lot of heresy, but I think the writing is on the wall.
Does it still have to go to bid if the annual value is so low though? If they could get 10,000/year then I could see the need for a public bidding process. But it looks like the most they could reasonably expect was $2000/year or $167/month. It might be that at that low of an amount a public bid process is not necessary. Most bids involve the public entity handing over money for goods and services over a certain threshold, not the other way around.OnlyForNow said:
If the lease was not publicly bid for it may be a legit legal issue.
Would depend on the funding, if any public funding went to it, then yes it would have to be a "public bid" process. That process can be crooked and the potentially leasee can already be decided, but normally that has to be open to multiple parties, if not truly "public".
Fair enough. Happy to give a mea culpa if needed after it's all shaken out.OnlyForNow said:
It's possible the $1/year lease came with benefits.
I mean, seems like the classic set up for quid-pro-quo.
Removed a lot of heresy, but I think the writing is on the wall.
I've never dealt with anything like this specifically, but have worked with dozens of county and city entities on random work of all kinds and typically EVERYTHING has to be made "public."
I kept using quotes because there are a lot of ways to have qualifiers that restrict who can bid or who can even see it to bid (for damn good reason), but it should go out.
This cattle man, may have been one of select few, that multiple people at BBC or Bryan knew professionally or personally, can provide documentation of his operation, and vouch for him - and if he has a stellar record of property management, etc. then it'd be a shoehorn kinda thing - in reality something that happens quite a bit.
I kept using quotes because there are a lot of ways to have qualifiers that restrict who can bid or who can even see it to bid (for damn good reason), but it should go out.
This cattle man, may have been one of select few, that multiple people at BBC or Bryan knew professionally or personally, can provide documentation of his operation, and vouch for him - and if he has a stellar record of property management, etc. then it'd be a shoehorn kinda thing - in reality something that happens quite a bit.
City of Bryan funds the BBC as far as I know. Out of what money they do it isn't quite clear. If I paid Bryan taxes though, I'd be pretty hot. They claim they can't fund police cars, but can spend $12M on a pasture, to lease out for $1 a year.
This angle makes more sense if it's really temporary, but according to neighbors it's been over a year those cows have been grazing. Even dorn said the reason was about "keeping grass down" not just holding them temporarily.
It seems more like dorn needed a convenient place for La pistola cattle more than the bbc needed a tenant.
It seems more like dorn needed a convenient place for La pistola cattle more than the bbc needed a tenant.
This is more of a "one hand washes the other" situation.techno-ag said:Don't forget that Rafter D has the grazing lease, not the mayor. Rafter D used the land to temporarily hold the mayor's cows.BQ_90 said:
I live in CS and don't give a damn, but I'll take $1 cattle lease.
And if anyone can't see the ethical issues here, then you may biased by your personal contacts with the mayor
Ok. It's a 5013c controlled by the city, correct? Maybe they don't need to put this out for bid by law. In fact, I would be very surprised if anything they've done is illegal.
I believe the tax return that someone posted earlier in the thread showed it to be a 501(c)(6); but everywhere else, I've seen it referenced as a 501(c)(3).techno-ag said:
Ok. It's a 5013c controlled by the city, correct? Maybe they don't need to put this out for bid by law. In fact, I would be very surprised if anything they've done is illegal.
FIFY no one said $2000/year from prime (location) land was the fair market price. Only the average price for all acreage in the state of Texas... TAMU (for example) takes bids on item of much less value.techno-ag said:
Does it still have to go to bid if the annual value is so low though? If they could get 10,000/year then I could see the need for a public bidding process. But it looks like themostleast they could reasonably expect was $2000/year or $167/month. It might be that at that low of an amount a public bid process is not necessary. Most bids involve the public entity handing over money for goods and services over a certain threshold, not the other way around.
I believe the poster you quoted is the one that floated the $2000 figure earlier in the thread.
I do not think it was illegal, it just does not pass the smell test. BBC "awards" (well connected Bryan business man, former BBC member and business partner of the current Mayor) 200 acre of prime land near TAMU ag school for $1/year.techno-ag said:
Ok. It's a 5013c controlled by the city, correct? Maybe they don't need to put this out for bid by law. In fact, I would be very surprised if anything they've done is illegal.
You tell me Techno, aren't you the least bit curious on how that happened? Not a conspiracy, just curiosity.
Yes I was the poster...maroon barchetta said:
I believe the poster you quoted is the one that floated the $2000 figure earlier in the thread.
My mistake.
did the plane get moved?
Also why can't the plane owner just pay $1 year to leave it there. Seems like that's fair right?
Also why can't the plane owner just pay $1 year to leave it there. Seems like that's fair right?
Ok. We can quibble over "prime location" for grazing cattle. But again, is a bidding process necessary when leasing something like this out? Sure, paying for a new building or equipment should go out for bids, that's not the issue. But if the state average lease amounts to $167/month I'm not sure bidding is required at all. Especially when the lease can be ended at the drop of a hat.doubledog said:FIFY no one said $2000/year from prime (location) land was the fair market price. Only the average price for all acreage in the state of Texas... TAMU (for example) takes bids on item of much less value.techno-ag said:
Does it still have to go to bid if the annual value is so low though? If they could get 10,000/year then I could see the need for a public bidding process. But it looks like themostleast they could reasonably expect was $2000/year or $167/month. It might be that at that low of an amount a public bid process is not necessary. Most bids involve the public entity handing over money for goods and services over a certain threshold, not the other way around.
BQ_90 said:
did the plane get moved?
Also why can't the plane owner just pay $1 year to leave it there. Seems like that's fair right?
/end of thread!
Fair question. My guess is they wanted to keep the ag exempt status to help the future sale. They also wanted to make it look mowed. They knew Dorn and somebody had the idea. They're a nonprofit, not looking to make a lot, but the lease filled the need by a man they knew and trusted.doubledog said:I do not think it was illegal, it just does not pass the smell test. BBC "awards" (well connected Bryan business man, former BBC member and business partner of the current Mayor) 200 acre of prime land near TAMU ag school for $1/year.techno-ag said:
Ok. It's a 5013c controlled by the city, correct? Maybe they don't need to put this out for bid by law. In fact, I would be very surprised if anything they've done is illegal.
You tell me Techno, aren't you the least bit curious on how that happened? Not a conspiracy, just curiosity.
We've already been over the fact that their non-profit status makes the ag exemption a non issue. Let's not keep trying to throw up that smoke screen please
You have answered the question of why "a man they knew and trusted". An insider deal...techno-ag said:Fair question. My guess is they wanted to keep the ag exempt status to help the future sale. They also wanted to make it look mowed. They knew Dorn and somebody had the idea. They're a nonprofit, not looking to make a lot, but the lease filled the need by a man they knew and trusted.doubledog said:I do not think it was illegal, it just does not pass the smell test. BBC "awards" (well connected Bryan business man, former BBC member and business partner of the current Mayor) 200 acre of prime land near TAMU ag school for $1/year.techno-ag said:
Ok. It's a 5013c controlled by the city, correct? Maybe they don't need to put this out for bid by law. In fact, I would be very surprised if anything they've done is illegal.
You tell me Techno, aren't you the least bit curious on how that happened? Not a conspiracy, just curiosity.
Yes we have. When holding a property you want to keep the ag exemption, which makes it more desirable to buyers. You are correct, however, that the non profit does not pay taxes on the land while they hold it regardless of its ag exemption status.Jsimonds58 said:
We've already been over the fact that their non-profit status makes the ag exemption a non issue. Let's not keep trying to throw up that smoke screen please
The BBC didn't spend $12,900,000 on that property to run cattle on. And I'll bet a good chunk of money the next buyer won't spend that for cattle land either. If they did we have a bigger story that needs to be discussed.techno-ag said:Yes we have. When holding a property you want to keep the ag exemption, which makes it more desirable to buyers. You are correct, however, that the non profit does not pay taxes on the land while they hold it regardless of its ag exemption status.Jsimonds58 said:
We've already been over the fact that their non-profit status makes the ag exemption a non issue. Let's not keep trying to throw up that smoke screen please
It is what it is. A sweetheart deal for a politician and his friend that would have been buried except for a plane that came up short of making the concrete. And even then they could have kept it all in the dark if they had let the poor guy get his plane. Instead they fumbled the play badly.
Plane and longhorns still there
My post got deleted. Sucks when the truth is said.
Dan Gryder speaks about the issue and plans to visit. There's alot of this corruption going on behind the faces of people you think you can trust, the people voted to take care of this city. It's makes no business sense to lease out a property for $1/yr. That does nothing to support the buisness, especially a non-profit. Come on....
Dan Gryder speaks about the issue and plans to visit. There's alot of this corruption going on behind the faces of people you think you can trust, the people voted to take care of this city. It's makes no business sense to lease out a property for $1/yr. That does nothing to support the buisness, especially a non-profit. Come on....