Monthly Archives: June 2011

The El Paso News Organization is changing

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 28, 2011 Comments Off

Those that have known me for any period of time know that my belief is that information empowers everyone. Unfiltered information, however unpalatable it might be, is the nexus to prosperity as it shines the light on those trying to hide in darkness. I also believe that we all have our own reality based on our own perceptions. It is our reality and thus it cannot be wrong. We should be allowed to express our perceptions so that others can glean something from them, if they like.

I launched the El Paso News platform hoping to build it as a source of expression for anyone interested in expressing themselves. Very few took up the challenge and I found myself doing all of the expressing. Therefore I’ve decided to make a change.

I am making this platform my personal blog.

I am currently in the precipice of significant changes both professionally and personally. And I have a lot to say. As some of you know, my interests are diverse and cover a range of disciplines. Professionally I am in the technology sector and I am about to launch a very interesting web-based product. Personally, having lived in Europe, Mexico and the US I am always delving into geopolitics and I am always studying history and military strategies.

Therefore I am sure my topics will cover those subjects significantly but you shouldn’t be surprised to find an occasional off topic post as my new personal life begins to take shape. As for changes to this site there won’t be many. I’m withdrawing the stipend offer for writers I made a while back and my focus will move away from El Paso politics to a more global outreach. I will be adding the complete archive of the El Paso Tribune here as many of those topics are still relevant. Other than that, the only other difference will be that the articles will no longer appear on Monday’s, Wednesday’s and Friday’s as they were before. New articles will appear when I feel I have to comment on a topic.

For those that may want a platform to say something, feel free to submit an article and I will consider it for future publication. Either way I’ll let you know of my decision. And now for some “cover my ass” legalese. Feel free to skip to the next paragraph.

Occasionally I may write or make a comment about a product or a company I am currently involved in. First, the comment is my opinion only and is not a release to the public domain. Second, any comments I may make in relation to the financial or wellbeing of any entity I am involved in, is based on forward looking statements and are not meant as an endorsement or a guarantee of future success. I encourage you to look at all regulatory documents for specific information. Finally, the commentary and content is owned by El Paso News Organization, Inc. and any reproduction of the content, other than for commentary purposes, is strictly prohibited.

Without further ado, I welcome you to my rants and raves and I look forward to you challenging me on my notions with your thoughtful comments. The only thing I know for sure is that I may not always be right, but I’m more right than wrong! So start sending them my way. ¡Saludos!

Martín Paredes


Smart Growth and public nuisance; Part II

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 27, 2011 Comments Off

Smart Growth wrapped around a colorful vocabulary of nostalgic living is nothing more than concentrating people into smaller areas. It is building vertically. As smart as Smart Growth may sound, the reality is that Smart Growth creates more problems than it solves.

What I find most interesting is that American’s tend to keep larger personal spaces between themselves and others, yet many Americans are advocating Smart Growth. A paradox to be sure. The problem with Smart Growth lies in the unnatural state of human interaction. Humans, especially those of western influences, like to keep greater distances from others. Grouping people closer and closer increases fear and aggression. This leads to the unintended increases in community expenses in medical and security issues.

Although I have no data to support my belief that homelessness is, in part, a consequence of concentrating a greater number of people together I nonetheless see evidence of this hypothesis in my frequent travels. It is not just about transient homelessness like El Paso sees, or homelessness due to medical issues but, in my opinion, it seems to be a consequence of forcing people unnaturally together.

Recently I had an opportunity to spend time in San Francisco, arguably a “progressive” city. This gave me the opportunity to compare and reflect on over 25 years of travels to the city. What struck me about San Francisco was the apparent rampant homelessness. It wasn’t your typical homelessness as they ranged from the obviously long-term, world be damned homeless person to the homelessness who didn’t want to be there but had no other choice. This was new to me for San Francisco.

It’s not a novelty for me to see rampant homelessness having lived and travelled through some of the world’s largest metropolises, but what struck me about San Francisco was the apparent hopelessness of the situation by the locals and the community governmental entities. I saw people sprawled out, right in the middle of the street in the middle of the day with commuters gingerly picking their way around them.

They were not just in downtown, or the surrounding streets but also in the tourist areas such as Fisherman’s Wharf. There, sprawled out in the middle of the street. I even wondered if some were still alive. In most cities, especially ones making a living from tourists, an attempt, however misguided it is, is done to hide the homelessness from the tourists. I saw no evidence of this in my recent trip. In fact, I saw no anger, disgust, or even empathy from the locals. Although they were everywhere as you had to avoid them walking the streets, it was as if they did not exist. They weren’t there was the feeling expressed by everyone, although you couldn’t avoid seeing them.

Is this phenomena a byproduct of the economic conditions we live under, another issue as of yet unidentified, a byproduct of Smart Growth or something else, I can’t be sure. I’m not willing to blame it all on Smart Growth but I would argue that this is, in part, a byproduct of it.

My argument is based on the notion that concentrating people, literally on top of each other dehumanizes people into accepting an unnatural state in the mistaken belief that the nostalgia of walking to work and eating and shopping in the neighborhood is the way to live. Humans are wonderers and explorers by nature. We look for greener pastures down the road and we do this by spreading our wings. In the vertical cities of Smart Growth our wings are clipped because to spread them will only hit someone else in the face, figuratively that is.


Commentary: The Fallacy of Smart Growth, Part 1

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 24, 2011 Comments Off

Much community discussion about Smart Growth has been ongoing in the community recently. Absent from the discussion is sustainability. San Francisco can be characterized as a city employing the principals of smart growth. It is a good case study of the sustainability of smart growth over a long period of time.

I had the opportunity to spend time in the city over a period of 25 years through frequent visits. This has given me the opportunity to empirically experience Smart Growth from an outsiders perspective. Also, recently I had the opportunity to discuss Smart Growth with a second generation resident of the city.

His personal experience and insight demonstrates the fallacy of Smart Growth and the ramifications to a city’s future. Don grew up in San Francisco, the son of a longshoremen. He told me, the city is unsustainable. I asked him to elaborate. He told me that his father and mother, and all of their friends now live outside of San Francisco as his childhood home became too expensive for his family to keep. He commutes hours to visit with them. In his experience, as the city implemented Smart Growth principals, it displaced longtime members of the community as the property values increased and they got taxed out of their ability to keep their home. In essence Smart Growth forced them out of their homes.

What about the people who now live in the city’s downtown? According to Don, what is happening is that the 20 and 30 year olds move in full of nostalgia for the notion of a community experience but they soon realize that the “experience” is nothing like the fantasy of it, and they soon move out. “It’s a revolving door, they move in and then move out”.

In other words, Smart Growth does not create a sustainable community, rather it creates a revolving door of transients intent on establishing roots but soon realizing that roots are difficult to establish in a community in constant transition with expenses exceeding their ability to live there, thus making Smart Growth unsustainable over time.

The problem lies in the revolving door. As people move out, new outsiders move in to fill the void. Although this seems like a good scenario for taxing purposes, the problem lies in that as the city grows vertically a larger concentration of people are grouped together leading to more crime and an increase in other community ills. More importantly, rather than increasing the tax base, Smart Growth actually forces citizens to pay more in taxes as the tax base is now fully supported by the concentration of people who have to deal with more crime. At the same time, as crime increases, other sources of tax revenues like gasoline decrease because of a lesser reliance on automobiles leading to higher taxes on the concentrated properties. Thus the revolving door extends from people to higher property taxes in general; an unsustainable cycle.


Texas Governor Right about Veto to Driving and Texting

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 22, 2011 Comments Off

Texas Governor Perry is absolutely correct in exercising his veto power over the driving and texting bill presented to him by the Texas Legislature. It comes down to the simple notion of personal responsibility. Unfortunately, many legislators are intent on protecting the community against itself in the mistaken belief that the government’s job is to protect us against our own stupidity.

There is no doubt that texting and driving is a dangerous activity. It endangers not only the driver, other drivers, their passengers but also the community in general. Unfortunately any activity, when common sense is not adhered to can become dangerous no matter how benign. Take for example, riding a bicycle on a leisurely Sunday afternoon.

A bicyclist that applies common sense to bicycling will not only enjoy the activity but would also not create havoc for others on the public roadways. The bicyclist that ignores personal responsibility and rides their bike ignoring common sense and road rules not only becomes a danger to themselves but also to the others on the roads, including automobile drivers. For example, a bicyclist who ignores a stop sign causes a motorist to swerve to avoid the bicyclist only to end up crashed into a utility pole.

Would the community demand that bicycling now be banned on Texas roadways because of one or many bicyclists ignoring personal responsibility? Of course not. Just like there are existing mechanisms to deal with errant bicyclists, there are also existing laws to deal with irresponsible drivers.

There is a rising political class in the United States that has decided that to deal with the problems in a community it takes a firm hand to dictate upon the community the how a community should live. Unfortunately this political class seems to have forgotten that the United States was formed under the notion that freedom from government dictums is the reason America was founded upon.

Whether at the national, state or local governmental circles, the populace that votes politicians into office need to remember that a power granted to a government is a power that cannot be readily taken back. From the immortal words of John F. Kennedy, citizens need to start asking themselves, not what government can do for you but rather what can you do to keep government at bay. It starts with exercising your right to self-determination through personal responsibility.


Delegate versus Representative

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 20, 2011 Comments Off

There are two schools of thought when it comes to American Democracy, one is that representatives, whether city, county or national; are elected as “delegates” to represent the constituency or as “trustees” to speak for the constituency. As the domestic benefits issue continues to manifest itself in the community collective, it is important that El Paso voters examine what type of representative it is that they elect.

A “delegate” type of representative is one that is elected to by the voters to represent the voters’ views before the legislative body. For example, in the domestic benefits issue, the vocal majority of voters have stated numerous times that their wish is that unmarried couples should not be allowed to receive city sponsored benefits. A “delegate” votes in favor of this point of view.

On the other hand, in the “trustee” type of representative, the representative is elected by the voters’ to listen to the constituency and then formulate their own opinion as to what is best for the community. Clearly, John Cook ascribes to the notion that he is a “trustee” when it comes to the domestic benefits issue. A “trustee” makes a decision based on their own opinion of what is good for the community, not what the vocal majority wants.

Each type of representative would argue that American democracy is best served by their notion of what type of representative it is that they are. In the domestic benefits issue, the “trustees’’ argue that they know what it is the community truly wants and needs regardless of the vocal majority’s stated wishes.

On the other hand, the “delegates” argue that they represent the will of the people, regardless of how it is they personally feel about it. City Representative Eddie Holguin best exemplifies this when he states that although he is against the citizen’s drive to do away with the domestic benefits, he nonetheless, is compelled to vote what the constituency has demanded.

There are many arguments for and against each type of representation most notably the issue of slavery in America. Those that ascribe to the notion of a “trustee”, like to point to this instance in history as an example of where the majority is wrong and it takes a “trustee” to represent the will of the downtrodden.  Unfortunately this argument ignores the basis by which freedom finally came for the American slaves.

War and many years of challenges against the vocal majority in the community was the reason that slavery was eventually deemed wrong in the community. A “trustee” did not make the change, although it can be argued that a “trustee” finally forced the issue that led to war. Although this may be true, the change did not come about until the silent majority finally rose and forced a public discussion on the issue.

That is the nexus to the problem for the minority if they are intent on making a change in the community, they must rise from being a silent minority to a vocal majority. This is first accomplished by organizing and participating in the process of government. If the silent minority feels discriminated against by the vocal majority then the solution is as simple as voting.

To rely on a “trustee” to right a wrong, ignores the fundamentals of a democracy, one in which people express their wants and needs through the electoral process by participating and electing representatives to represent their wants via “delegates” instead of “trustees”. To do otherwise only exacerbates a problem by changing the direction of the community each and every time another majority of likeminded “trustees” are elected.

To those supporting Byrd, Cook and Ortega for their actions in regards to the domestic benefits issue better note that their victory is subject to change in the next round of elections as a new slate of “delegates” may actually make their victory a bitter defeat that they may have to live with. For the El Paso voter, the most important question they can ask of their candidate is whether they are a “delegate” or a “trustee” representative. For Democracy to flourish in El Paso, “delegates” need not apply.


Epitome of Arrogance: Byrd, Cook, Quintana, O’Rourke and Ortega

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 17, 2011 Comments Off

On, Tuesday, June 14, 2011 Mayor John Cook, Representatives Susie Byrd, Rachel Quintana, Beto O’Rourke and Steve Ortega have decided that there is no place for Democracy in El Paso. In 2009, city council decided to extend domestic health benefits to unmarried couples. Shortly after that, a citizen driven referendum was initiated whereby citizens of El Paso demanded the city change its position. First they asked council, then they gathered the necessary voter signatures to force city council to vote on the matter via a citizen presented ordinance.

Unable to overcome the majority of the city representatives’ insistence on extending health benefits to unmarried couples, the citizens forced a referendum via signatures for the voters of the community to vote on. The measure passed and the city council was forced to take the matter to court in order to attempt to prevail against the wishes of those who voted. The citizens once again prevailed when the court found that the citizen driven referendum, although not perfect, was constitutionally valid.

Not content with the court’s ruling, the city council, through Byrd, Cook, Quintana, O’Rourke and Ortega decided that not the citizens, those that vote and not the court who found the referendum to be valid – but they, and only they know what is good for the community and forced the matter back to where it all begun.

Notwithstanding the arrogance of the four, greater than thou politicians, their actions smack of a serious threat to citizen participation in El Paso.  Wrapping themselves around a false cloak of defending the minority in the community, the four have created a situation whereby they dictate what is right for the community. This is a serious offense to democracy and it must not stand.

It is dangerous to allow four individuals to set a precedent whereby four individuals decide what direction the community should take. Their actions are not one of defenders of the downtrodden but of a few individuals who feel that their arrogance supersedes the will of the voting community and the dictum of a court ruling stating that the citizens have adhered to the constitutional requirement to implement their choice for the community.

Today it is an additional cost to the taxpayers of the community, however small, for something the community clearly does not want. Tomorrow, four politicians might decide that city elections are just too expensive and maybe even, too inconvenient, and decide that El Paso should have elections every ten years. Once allowed a measure of unchecked power, a politician might decide that they want more.

The citizens of El Paso cannot and should not allow Byrd, Cook, Quintana, O’Rourke and Ortega to go unchecked. For Quintana and O’Rourke there is nothing the voters can do, other than publically chastise them as their terms are over, but for Byrd, Cook and Ortega a challenged in the form of recall petition is not only warranted but required.


Election Analysis: District 1

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 15, 2011 1 comment

An analysis of the District 1 run-off election on June 11 between Ann Morgan Lilly and Lyda Ness Garcia has some interesting trends worth examining. District 1, generally tends to have a better educated and more affluent electorate than the rest of the city. Therefore, the notion that education and affluence plays a part in electoral participation can be discarded in this case as the electorate in the district is best representative of having these items on their resumes.

Below is a comparison of the May and June votes cast for each candidate. The conditional endorsements are the votes received by Hinojosa and Peinado. The other are the rest of the candidates.

Candidate May 26, 2011 June 11, 2011 Difference
Ann Morgan Lilly 1,813 1,946 +133
Lyda Ness Garcia 1,014 1,567 +553
Conditional Endorsement 858
Other Candidates 1,064

Mobilization of the electorate

The first item to explore is the concept of mobilization of the electorate for a candidate. In the case of the run-off elections for District 1, the candidates mobilized an additional 686 voters to vote in the runoff.

During the May 26 election, 1,813 voters turned out for Ann Morgan Lilly with 873 votes cast in early voting and another 940 on Election Day. During the run-off on June 11, Lilly received 964 votes in early voting and an additional 982 on Election Day giving Lilly a total of 1,946 votes.

This represents an additional 133 votes for Ann Morgan Lilly during the run-off.

On the other hand, Lyda Ness Garcia received 438 votes during early voting and an additional 576 votes on Election Day in May, giving her a total of 1,014 for that period. During the run-off in June, Lyda Ness Garcia attracted 1,567 votes, divided between 775 votes cast in early voting for both periods and 792 on Election Day.

Lyda Ness Garcia mobilized an additional 553 voters for the run-off.

Is political mudslinging detrimental or effective?

Both candidates mobilized 686 new voters to vote for them with Lyda Ness Garcia receiving the majority. As the District 1 run-off election was characterized as “dirty” politics with accusations flung from one candidate to the other with Ness Garcia generally accused of generating more controversy against her opponent the notion that mud-slinging in politics is not effective appears to be mute as Ness Garcia attracted the lion’s share of the “new” voter in the run-off. Although the argument can be made that the additional voters for Ness Garcia were an anti-Lilly vote, the fact remains that more voters participated in the run-off then in the general election, regardless of the mud-slinging or in spite of it.

Did endorsements count?

The question then becomes on whether Ann Morgan Lilly’s strategy to pander to Manny Hinojosa who garnered 605 votes and Abe Peinado who received 253 in May elections was a wise strategy. On May 16, Hinojosa and Peinado bartered their combined 858 votes with an endorsement of the candidate that would “pledge” their vote on the health benefits fiasco for unmarried couples, among other things. Lilly agreed and she received their “endorsements”. In the end, Lilly’s strategy failed as she only received an additional 133 votes, short of the 858 expected votes, assuming that Hinojosa and Peinado voters actually voted in the run-off and, if they did, voted for Lilly. In the end, Lilly’s strategy failed as she failed to garner a significant number of mobilized voters to her side.

Are unpaid taxes a voter issue?

Lyda Ness Garcia has acknowledged a significant debt to the IRS. The revelation was made a center piece by Ann Morgan Lilly during the runoff. From the results of the run-off votes cast, where Ness Garcia received an additional 553 votes, to Ann Morgan Lilly’s 133, it can be deduced, that at least for the voters who voted in the run-off election the tax situation for Ness Garcia was not a factor. This is especially true when the difference between early voting in and Election Day results in May are compared to the run-off election. Ann Morgan Lilly, attracted an additional 91 votes in early voting during the run-off as compared to the May election and 42 new votes on Election Day. Her 133 additional votes were less than Ness Garcia’s additional votes in early voting of 337 and 216 on Election Day for a total of 553.

Elections are over in early voting.

This latest run-off election has once again demonstrated that once a candidate is behind in early voting their opportunity to make up lost ground and claim victory with votes cast on Election Day is generally impossible. Therefore, for future candidates, the election cycle is early voting and Election Day voting patterns tend to mirror early voting results. By 7:00 pm, on election night the outcome is generally assured.

Unfortunately for Lyda Ness Garcia, she was unable to muster enugh additional voters in the run-off to overcome the 799 votes that Ann Morgan Lilly had going into the run-off, thus she lost the election.


City District 1 and 5 Election Results for 2011

Posted by El Paso News on June 13, 2011 Comments Off

Last Saturday, June 11, 2011 city voters in District 1 and 5 went out to vote for their representatives in a run off because a clear victor was not able to muster enough votes in these two districts in the May elections.

District 1 had an incumbent defending her ability to lead the district for another term. District 5, on the other hand, had new faces looking to occupy the seat.

The following is the results of votes cast in both election sessions, according to the County’s elections department.

On May 26, 2011, 3.35% of the eligible electorate participated and the results were as follows.

Early Voting for May 26, 2011

District 1:
TIM BESCO (186) – 8.33%
ANN MORGAN LILLY (873) – 39.08%
RICHARD SCHECTER (136) – 6.09%
LYDA NESS GARCIA (438) – 19.61%
MANNY HINOJOSA (306) – 13.70%
THERESA A. WARE-ASBU (184) – 8.24%
ABE PEINADO (111) – 4.97%
There were 56 under votes in District 1.

District 5:
M. MAYELA MEJIA (452) – 32.71%
PHILLIP G. GARCIA (33) – 2.39%
MICHIEL MIKE NOE (548) – 39.65%
GEORGE ATKINS (81) – 5.86%
SONIA BROWN (268) – 19.39%
There were 41 under votes in District 5.

Election Day for May 26, 2011: (4.14% of eligible voters participated)

District 1:
TIM BESCO (216) – 8.59%
ANN MORGAN LILLY (940) – 37.38%
RICHARD SCHECTER (138) – 5.49%
LYDA NESS GARCIA (576) – 22.90%
MANNY HINOJOSA (299) – 11.89%
THERESA A. WARE-ASBU (204) – 8.11%
ABE PEINADO (142) – 5.65%
There were 58 under votes in this session for District 1.

District 5:
M. MAYELA MEJIA (547) – 30.75%
PHILLIP G. GARCIA (35) – 1.97%
MICHIEL MIKE NOE (748) – 42.05%
GEORGE ATKINS (111) – 6.24%
SONIA BROWN (338) – 19.00%
There were 25 under votes for District 5 in this session.

Combined results for the May 26, 2011 results: (7.48% of the eligible electorate cast a vote)

District 1:
TIM BESCO (402) – 8.46%
ANN MORGAN LILLY (1,813) – 38.18%
RICHARD SCHECTER (274) – 5.77%
LYDA NESS GARCIA (1,014) – 21.35%
MANNY HINOJOSA (605) – 12.74%
THERESA A. WARE-ASBU (388) – 8.17%
ABE PEINADO (253) – 5.33%
There were 114 under votes in District 1.

District 5:
M. MAYELA MEJIA (999) – 31.60%
PHILLIP G. GARCIA (68) – 2.15%
MICHIEL MIKE NOE (1,296) – 41.00%
GEORGE ATKINS (192) – 6.07%
SONIA BROWN (606) – 19.17%
There were 66 under votes in District 5.

Run-off Election, June 11, 2011 (2.89% of the eligible electorate participated)

Early Election Results:

District 1:
LYDA NESS GARCIA (775) – 44.57%
ANN MORGAN LILLY (964) – 55.43%
There were 7 under votes in this session.

District 5:
M. MAYELA MEJIA (409) – 41.91%
MICHIEL (MIKE) NOE (567) – 58.09%

Election Day Results: (3.16% of the eligible voters participated)

District 1:
LYDA NESS GARCIA (792) – 44.64%
ANN MORGAN LILLY (982) – 55.36%
There were 7 under votes in that session.

District 5:
M. MAYELA MEJIA (457) – 38.31%
MICHIEL (MIKE) NOE (736) – 61.69%
There were 5 under votes in that session.

Combined results for the run-off election for June 11, 2011: (6.04% of eligible voters cast a vote)

District 1:
LYDA NESS GARCIA (1,567) – 44.61%
ANN MORGAN LILLY (1,946) – 55.39%
There were 14 under votes.

District 5:
M. MAYELA MEJIA (866) – 39.93%
MICHIEL (MIKE) NOE (1,303) – 60.07%
There were 5 under votes.


Commentary: Fearless leader John Cook makes matters worse

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 10, 2011 Comments Off

Regardless of one’s stance on the issue of the partner benefits for the city of El Paso, the important thing to note is that the ultimate decision lies with the electorate of El Paso and not the mayor. Last Tuesday, Cook decided that he knows what is right. Unfortunately in his quest for sainthood, Cook forgot that in a democracy it is the voter that determines what is right or what is wrong, not him.

Cook put on the city’s agenda an introduction to an ordinance designed to overturn the voter’s law pushed forth by the city electorate in November 2010. Cook’s introduction passed on a vote of 6 to 2.

Judge Montalvo wrote in his response to the city’s challenge of the electorate’s ordinance that electorate ordinance was constitutional. He added that it had the unintended consequence of removing other beneficiaries of the health benefits. Rather than fix the problem, omnipotent Cook has just made it worse.

After first ignoring the electorate’s will to not extend health benefits to unmarried couples, the city, forced by an electorate driven referendum, forced itself into litigation in order to circumvent the will of the people. Unfortunately for city, the judiciary found for the electorate and forced the city to accept the will of the people. Undeterred, John Cook has the unmitigated audacity to tell the community; “I think it’s important to do what’s right”.

Wow! The mayor has now decided that the citizens of El Paso are wrong! And, he, the royal highness of El Paso, as the omnipotent protectorate of the community has taken it upon himself to make things right. Funny thing is that the mayor, in his quest of becoming the community’s protectorate, has created the very thing that Judge Montalvo said would have led to a successful challenge to the community driven ordinance. Cook has now created a “class” of citizens that he is now going to exclude from the ordinance he has introduced.

Cook’s ordinance states; “That health benefits shall be available to city employees and their legal spouse and dependent children and all other persons who are within an eligible class under a City Health Benefits Plan to receive health benefits or who are in a class that actually received health benefits from the City prior to November 10, 2010, the effective date Ordinance No. 017456; provided however, that all persons who were previously approved for health benefits for the reason that they were in a ‘related agency’ shall be reevaluated to determine their eligibility under the states law enumerated classification of an ‘affiliated service contractor’ and shall be approved to re-approve for eligibility by the City Manager, as appropriate.”  [emphasis author]

Note the first line that clearly states; “legal spouse”. Towards the third line, the proposed ordinance adds; “or who are in a class that actually received health benefits from the City prior to November 10”.

In his self-centered “almighty” persona, John Cook has created the very thing Judge Montalvo said would invalidate the ordinance, a “class” of individuals. On one hand, Cook’s ordinance states that only “legal” spouses are entitled to benefits. The State of Texas does not extend marriage benefits to gay couples.

At the same time, Cook’s ordinance states that the 19 unmarried couples that were extended benefits before November 10, 2010 would continue to receive benefits.

In other words, those gay couples that want to benefit from the city’s health plan after November 10, 2010 are excluded because they are not “legally” married in Texas and were not on the plan prior to November 10, 2010. Omnipotent Cook just created an excluded “class” of individuals that makes his proposed ordinance subject to a legal challenge and one whose outcome has already been decided by a federal judge who warned against it.

In conclusion, our fearless leader John Cook, who knows better than the electorate, has put the city in a position of having to once again defend itself in court. As if that’s not enough, our self-proclaimed righteous leader not only thumbed his nose at the very people who elect him but, unsatisfied in his quest to do “right”, has also created an excluded “class” of people, the gay community he purports to help. Wow, John Cook, the omnipotent leader has no clue!


Analysis: Political Posturing in the mayoral race

Posted by Martín Paredes on June 8, 2011 1 comment

Although still a couple of years to go until the city’s next mayoral race, political posturing is starting to materialize as to whom the contenders might be. The nexus driving the posturing within the city’s political circles is the perceived re-materialization of the Ray Caballero centric politics of the “progressive” mentality of reinventing the city for economic prosperity. Although not directly in the limelight, at this time, Ray Caballero has left a legacy in the policy mantra of city district representatives Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega.

Although unable to generally muster the necessary votes to continue the Ray Caballero re-invention of the city, Byrd and Ortega have been helped in their quest by the ineffectual leadership of Mayor John Cook, the undying support of Byrd by District One Representative Ann Morgan Lilly and the occasional voting support from Representative Beto O’Rourke.

The possible reappearance of Ray Caballero in the city’s political landscape is driven by recent political realities. The first, obvious one is Caballero’s silencing of his greatest nemesis, Luther Jones. Jones is facing long-term incarceration therefore keeping him from further antagonizing Caballero’s implementation of his political agenda on the city. The recent elections of County Judge Veronica Escobar and State Representative Jose Rodriguez have further empowered the Caballero political faction in their perceived quest to implement their political agenda.

Against this backdrop is the June 11, 2011 run-off election between Ann Morgan Lilly and Lyda Ness-Garcia. Should Morgan Lilly result victorious then the balance of power will continue to favor Byrd and Ortega as they can continue to count on Morgan Lilly’s undying support of Byrd. Unfortunately for them, even a Morgan Lilly victory is tempered by their inability to garner a majority on city council in relation to their most controversial proposals as Acosta and Robinson generally do not side with them.

The other districts generally continue to vote independent, favoring their own political agendas. At the same time, the district five office holder is yet to be determined. District eight Representative-elect Courtney Niland seems to be business centric therefore her possible support of the Byrd-Ortega block is lackluster at best.

Should Ness-Garcia prove to be victorious in the run-off election, the Byrd-Ortega voting block is expected to be further eroded when it comes to the Caballero driven political agenda. Regardless of the election results on June 11, the Caballero led political agenda would likely manifest itself in a run for the mayoral office by Steve Ortega.

Although numerous rumors of a mayoral race by Steve Ortega have been played out in the city’s political circles, Ortega has not officially announced a run for higher office. As outlined above, though a mayoral run by Ortega seems to be in the making as a furtherance of the Caballero doctrine. At first glance, the mayor’s office no longer holds much political muscle since the city elected to go with a city-representative form of government, but the reality is that the office allows for political “muscle” to be leveraged upon the council. Although outwardly a “figurehead”, the mayor has the ability to leverage power in different sectors of the city in order to force specific votes on an issue.

More importantly, Ortega has begun to temper his public persona in an attempt to make himself more palatable to a larger electoral base while at the same time taking leadership roles in controversial policy issues such as the partner benefits controversy.  Recently, city representatives Susie Byrd and Beto O’Rourke, along with Steve Ortega publically endorsed a measure to legalize marihuana. Although Steve Ortega was at the official announcement, he, for the most part, let Byrd and O’Rourke, take the public leadership role on the issue. Both Byrd and O’Rourke have announced they are leaving political life. Ortega has not ruled out a run for the mayoral race.

In these and other controversial community issues, Ortega seems intent on keeping a “reasonable” public stance on the controversies in an apparent attempt to appear to be a “leader” while tempering his public posture as to not antagonize the electorate. This appears to reinforce a concerted effort on his part to seek the mayor’s office in the next election.

In these and other controversial community issues, Ortega
seems intent on keeping a “reasonable” public stance on the controversies in an
apparent attempt to appear to be a “leader” while tempering his public posture
as to not antagonize the electorate. This appears to reinforce a concerted
effort on his part to seek the mayor’s office in the next election.