Perhaps we could pay firefighters more money if fire departments went to shift work like police. Then we could stop adding on hotels with industrial kitchens to every fire station. Maybe everyone does it this way because it is indeed more economical but has it been tried?

Lotta faith in whoever Kidd is. In two posts about running on his Facebook page, he spelled council three different ways…

Serious question for Staff. Are you allowing AI generated text?

[We expect posters to give their opinions and if a post is an obvious cut and paste that is AI generated it will be removed. This thread is not about what is and is not allowed and in order to keep it from being derailed any other questions about moderation should be emailed. We will not respond to any other moderation questions and will remove them from the thread. -Staff]

The constitution should not be the only bar to heading towards a surveillance state. The solution is simple, those opposed to these things should vote out council members that support them.

Why would you need or want to wait for a court to make that decision for you?

George Costanza said:

---

Why would you need or want to wait for a court to make that decision for you?

---

It's the convenient excuse that they're all using. None of them are brave enough to speak up against the police chief, so this is the best we can get.

Yep, dont be fooled. They care nothing about the actual people that live here and pay taxes other than getting more and more from them so they can spend and control. Very sad state of affairs.

doubledog said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

George Costanza said:

---

"Short answer - After a lot of homework and a conversation with our DA there is no court evidence or precedent that these cameras break the 4th amendment. That's not my opinion, that's just the current legal precedent."

Just because something may be legal doesn't mean it's a good idea or morally right.

---

This is true, but I believe he was responding to whether it was Constitutional.

---

The main legal justification employed by courts is that individuals lack a "reasonable expectation of privacy" while traveling on public roads, where their license plates and vehicle characteristics are clearly observable by anyone.

---

We are in a constant state of balancing security and safety with our right to privacy and freedom. More and more people are electing to be more secure, safe, and a life of minimum risk rather than having privacy and freedom.

Watson's posts have been very anti A&M. Like openly hating on the school. I don't get the hostility towards the place that your town wouldn't exist without. Hopefully he loses.

My opponent has been very vocal about his displeasure with the university, and I believe that criticism is misplaced. The university existed long before the town was ever established.
While I believe there are clear opportunities to strengthen the relationship, especially around housing, fire services, collaboration, and community development, it would be foolish to try to isolate one of the largest contributors to our economy and still expect the city to thrive.

I am passionate about bringing more primary jobs to the area and building a richer, more diverse job base that serves people at every stage of life. In the last couple of years private sector employment has already surpassed university jobs, and I believe continuing that momentum and diversification is the smart path forward.

This is not a coal-mining town whose mine is dying. The university is not going anywhere, quite the opposite.

I am grateful for my alma mater and for its recent openness to working more closely with the City of College Station so both parties can achieve the best possible results.

What's your position on them until they get ruled unconstitutional?

Valen said:

---

As transparent as I can be there's been a lot of new information that has come out in the last week. My position is shifting as I continue to lean in deeper to learn more. I'll have an official position soon, I just want to talk to a few more people and dig in a bit more. The forum here has shared some interesting information as well as some new publications that I've found. Just need time to go through it all.

---

This is why politicians are one of the least trusted groups, regardless of political party. This should not be new information to anyone running for office.

Its also ok to change your mind. But no one running for office ever wants to ever be wrong and also know they aren't perfect but put in the act regardless.

While you really may not have a position, it's kind of hard to believe in an issue that has so much attention and has been an issue for a while.

How about 'Here is how I feel about the issue right now. Here are my points of contention and here is what I am still looking into because I need more context.'

For me personally I think the technology is amazing and can help in some police investigations. I am also firmly against flock cameras. I do not trust the private companies or the fact that a small number of police are bad actors.

I also absolutely hate the police state / surveillance state. Where does it go next.

As an election post and a voter, I will not vote for anyone who supports flock cameras.

Thank you for the answer. I'm just one voter, but I'll be sure to vote for the person that knows their position on this insane overreach. I will not vote for a candidate that thinks this is a nuanced issue.

One of the greatest things about this country is our freedom to disagree and publicly state our opinions. Freedoms like the ability to run for office and represent our neighbors are what make America great and worth celebrating.

Tre's post (and some of the comments) were shared with me this morning. I'm not a mudslinger, and I'm not going to speak poorly of him. I believe he's a hard worker with good intentions, I simply disagree with him on several points.

I disagree that there's nothing worth celebrating in America.

I also disagree that a negative view of Texas A&M is a healthy mindset for a council member in the town that is home to the university. We can and should identify areas for growth and work on them strategically, while still acknowledging A&M's role as the primary economic driver of this community for most of its history.

I respect and applaud Tre for speaking up on the issues he cares about. We just don't see eye to eye on everything.

I believe deeply in the American dream. That's why I already sit on boards, attend council meetings, and work with our current leaders on the areas where I see real opportunity. I want more housing that my generation and the ones that follow can actually afford. I want College Station to become a true business hub for the Brazos Valley, not a place that shuns development and growth. I want our town to stay safe while also becoming a center for the technologies that matter: homeland defense, homeland security, space, medical research, and the many other industries already rooted here.

Most importantly, I want everyone who chooses to call this place home to experience the community we all love and cherish. We can protect that character, strengthen our relationship with the university while seeking accountability, pursue responsible growth, and safeguard neighborhood values, without losing what makes College Station special.

I was pretty mild in my criticism, so if that bothered him enough to post on Facebook, good luck with the real critiques that will come with public service. And people are crazy and will criticize for things that are completely unfair to him.

I have seen him on the P&Z board and around the community and actually have a favorable opinion of him as a person. But that doesn't mean he will serve the community well. Having a city council member that is so opposed to the largest economic driver in the community is not wise. A&M is not a perfect neighbor and leaders from the both cities should work to better that relationship - not exhibit hostility.

Also, anyone who shares posts from Bernie Sanders or thinks that is the type of politicians we should be looking to for leadership is not someone I want having anything to do with the leadership or budget of CS.