A bond package of $425 million appears heading to Garland voters; it's only the beginning of what's needed to truly move our city forward and out of the muck!

Fixing numerous drainage and streets issues is part of the $425 million bond proposal.

After ups and downs, circling and landing, and all sorts of political posturing by the nine members of our city council, Garland is now heading full-speed ahead toward a bond election of about $425 million on the May 4 municipal election.

The city attorney's office is now working on the exact wording of eight or so propositions that will appear on the ballot. Apparently the long-debated new Garland animal shelter may show up standing alone at $12 million as one of the 8 or so propositions. Those propositions will be voted on at council's Tuesday, February 5, meeting, then will move on to the public ballot.

Only a handful of citizens actually seemed to be following the drama that began to unfold in December 2017 when the idea first appeared on a council agenda for an un-televised council retreat held in a local hotel. At that time Garland had a different mayor and several different council members who no longer are on that body.

Eventually a bond committee composed of "citizens"—a significant number of whom had previous roles in the city as council members, city employees, boards and commissions members, and a former mayor—was formed to study the issue. With the help of city staff, the group put together a scary but forthright and honest list of more than $1.2 billion needs that MUST be addressed soon in our community. Out of that came proposals of three graduated interlocking tiers of $489 million, $325 million, and $250 million from which council was to choose or revise one into its final version.

The issue all along has been how much will citizens be willing to pay in increased property taxes. That amount will depend on the appraised value of property in Garland. The burden will not be spread out evenly over the city, because Garland's home values vary widely. The benchmark of around $224 per year—usually stated by our politicians in smaller monthly and daily amounts—was often cited, though the exact amount will range widely.

From the beginning the proposal to issue bonds focused around how much citizens are willing to pay in increased real estate taxes.

In the end after all sorts of maneuvering, so-called fiscal conservatives capitulated in the face of the overwhelming needs and moved up to the higher bond number of $425 million: the final proposal is not that far below the top $489 million recommended by the bond committee. The evidence for the higher number was crystal clear, as staff described park by park, road by road, area by area, how our needs are so great.

The voters will now get to decide exactly how many—if any—of the individual bond proposals will actually receive the green light.

This will be the first bond election in 15 years. About $80 million remains unspent from the last 2004 bond election—a number that complicated both the committee's and council's debate.

Once council votes to put it on the ballot, it's anybody's guess what the public debate over the next three months will be like. Will a group form to oppose the bond issue? Or will another group form to support it? Or will the issue remain one discussed by only a small group within our city? We will need to wait and see.

As I discussed with our former city council member, Laura Perkins "Perky" Cox, who stopped by for a visit recently, even though Kay and I are significant property owners in District 2—which means we will be paying a hefty tax increase far more than the average citizens will pay for the bonds—we will support the total $425 million bond package, because we believe every item on the final list—as well as most items on the original $1.2 billion review—is necessary to move this city forward to where it might have a fighting chance to compete with our neighbors to the east, north, and west.  (Perky was one of the Bond Study Committee members; she was appointed to the committee by District 5 Councilmember Rich Aubin. In that role Perky articulated the needs in our District 2 and in our city.)

Garland voters apparently will be able to vote on the proposed $12 million new animal shelter as a separate item in the bond election.

Because our city as a whole is so far behind in so many areas, there's no guarantee Garland can compete with our rampantly prospering neighbors, even with the new bonds. Yes, our needs are that great!

Our city needs to move beyond the defensive political rhetoric of the past that sometimes tried to paint a false image of a prosperous city that we are not. Statistics revealed by the bond study committee —especially the library committee's eye-popping numbers—show we are what I have long suspected, that overall Garland is a community growing less educated and less affluent with each passing year.

Those trends MUST be reversed. Truly reversed. Not by words but by actions.

The new bonds will give us an opportunity to do just that.

The bonds, however, are no panacea.

Much, much more than just borrowed money and tax increases is necessary to put this city back on the right tracks going forward.

To borrow a phrase that one often hears on the national front, "We need to MAKE GARLAND GREAT AGAIN!"

We need to work together—ALL Garland citizens of all races, creeds, colors, gender, language spoken, and financial ability—utilizing every creative, financial, and other resources available to make this a better city for ALL our people. 

Increasing taxes and borrowing more money won't be enough to truly "Make Garland Great Again". The most beautiful entrance into Garland, at Shiloh at LBJ Freeway was actually paid for by a local business wanting to improve its neighborhood.