Blue Waves? Red Waves? What about the last "wave" switch in Garland and Texas in the 1970s?

Political signs running the gamut from Republican to Democrat are everywhere in Garland right now as the Red and Blue Waves compete for top billing.

With all the talk these days about a "Blue Wave" possibly ready to sweep over our beloved Lone Star State, it's helpful to remember when the "Red Wave" swept over Texas some 40 years ago and changed the whole political landscape for a generation.

Yes, for those too young to remember, for those who did not live here then, and for those who choose not to remember, Texas—and Garland—once were strongholds for Democrats. Republicans were the outsiders looking in, while Democrats sat at the table and feasted on their political victories.

Then suddenly, in over a little more than a decade, everything changed. Even politicians who once boasted of their Democratic leanings, like chameleons, became Republicans.

I had a ringside seat to watching this shift occur statewide.

Not only was I a reporter and columnist on the largest daily newspaper in the state at that time, but my desk in the newsroom at the Houston Chronicle was very near Editor Everett Collier's office. Wannabe presidents, governors, senators, legislators, county judges, county commissioners, district judges, mayors, councilmembers, etc., walked past my desk on their way to see Everett who made the decisions about which candidates the newspaper would endorse. Sometimes these hopefuls stopped to chat on their way to the top person's office. (Or if someone particularly interesting—such as characters in the Nixon White House Watergate scandal happened in—I got up and quickly offered my assistance with directions to the editor's office, hoping to get a better view of the person and maybe perhaps catch a few words to remember.)

During that time I was an actual eyewitness to the "Red Wave" moving across Texas during the 1970s and into the early 1980s.

Just like they do now with the Republicans, back in that day local and state officials also lined up with the so-called Southern Democrats in Congress. In those days it was a "kiss of political death" to be a Republican. Today, some see it as the reverse.

More than a century earlier, Southern Democrats emerged as defenders of slavery and worked for its expansion. Then after the Civil War, Southern Democrats were associated with segregation and held the white voters together as a bloc in the Old South. That monopoly broke apart with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal, then Harry S Truman and the Democratic Party's shift toward a pro- and then aggressive Civil Rights position.

Simultaneously during that same time frame, the Party of Lincoln, the Republicans, moved right— away from so-called liberalism on social and cultural issues and toward a more so-called conservative position in our society.

By the 1970s, the two parties had de facto swapped positions on many issues. Then during the 1970s, the transition began to trickle down to lower forms of government, including states, counties, and municipalities. Historians say the Republican Party's "lock" on all forms of U.S. government was complete by 2010.

 
At the state and local level, including Texas and Garland, the so-called "southern wing" of the Democratic Party was so solid, inflexible, and so sure of itself that it worked to exclude "those Republicans" from even minor appointments such as postmasters or any other minor positions of that day. Southern Democrats were also known for "being soft" on integration but tough (at least in talk) on Soviet and Chinese communism. They failed miserably to see the shifts occurring in American society all around them then.

And within a decade—the 1970s—the Southern Democrats in Texas and Garland were either swept out of office or quickly switched parties and dressed themselves up as Republicans.

The Garland Republican Women's Club was highly active in the 1970s when that particular wave swept through town. Here is a Garland News story about one of their activities.

I saw that transition happening before my eyes in the parade of politicians seeking the Chronicle's endorsement—and also in the Chronicle's endorsements. First they were all Democrats; then they were a mixture; then finally they were mostly Republicans.

I got a real laugh out of some politicians who one day were Democrats and the next day Republicans. I still smile when I think of one state district judge who was Democrat all the way, then almost immediately morphed into a sold-out Republican. As I watched and observed, peer pressure was clearly at play as well as a desire to not be left behind in the transition that was under way.

Even here in Garland Kay and I had a ringside seat to the transition that saw our current hometown shift dramatically from blue to red. Kay's parents and some of their neighbors here on Garland's 11th Street at that time led the way to bring the modern Republican Party into heavily Democratic Garland. They were motivated in part by the rigidness and backwardness of the Southern Democrats. I stood back in amazement as they worked diligently to unseat Southern Democrats and replace them with Republicans—or worked steadily to convince Southern Democrats to switch parties, which many did, especially as they saw the Red Wave sweeping over them.

11th Street was a mecca for entertaining Republican candidates. Here Winifred Stokes, left, and Mable Wheeler, second from right, host candidate George W. Bush in a party on 11th Street. Mable was my mother-in-law.

I've been reflecting on those days now that people are talking about the approaching "Blue Wave".

The Republican Party is, in so many ways, taking on the same characteristics of the Southern Democrats in the 1950s and 1960s—exclusive, inflexible, overly sure of itself, unwilling to compromise, and unappreciative of others who don't look, talk, and act like its members.

A former Democrat herself, Kay's mother became a devout Republican. She was such a firm Republican, the first question she asked me after I told Kay's parents I wanted to marry their daughter was, "Well, there is a political difference here."

At that time, 50 some years ago, I identified with the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Now I consider myself an Independent because neither party fully represents my political views. I vote based on issues that I support and those cross party lines. And yes, I vote based on what I perceive as the ethics, morals, and transparency of individual candidates, too. I will not vote for someone just because some party boss somewhere demands it. Or because the person wears a label on his or her collar! And yes, over the past 5 decades I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and on occasion Third Party candidates. While I consider myself a centrist, I have voted for a few Tea Party and a few Libertarian candidates, too—usually because I knew and liked them or knew and totally opposed their opponents.

My response to my future mother-in-law was, "I don't intend to make an issue of it, and I hope you won't either."

None of us did! We called a truce, effective on most occasions.

Fortunately for all of us, after the dreadful and divisive days of Watergate and Nixon, we could all agree on the Bush family. They and we had interacted with the Bushes personally in different ways, but we all found them people worthy of our respect.

One subject that brought varying political views together in our family was respect for the George H.W. Bushes. My wife, son, and I had the privilege of meeting Bush I and his wife, Barbara, when we lived in Houston, also the Bushes' hometown.

So fast-forward to today. Kay and I have many friends and acquaintances in both parties. We personally know so many who are running for election, or re-election, in county, statewide, and national races right now. Some are Democrats. Some are Republicans. Some are Libertarians. And some are Independents.

Nevertheless, like many others, I wonder whether a Blue Wave is on the horizon. If it is, it won't be a tidal wave like many hope and expect. It's been creeping into North Texas slowly for the past several elections. Dallas County officials, including its Commissioners Court, have been in the forefront of the change.

Even Steven Wong, the State Director of the Republican Party of Texas, sees the possibility of a political shift on the horizon.

In one of his recent fundraising emails, he said, "The Democrats continue to tout a Blue Wave that will sweep across Texas, wiping out countless Republican seats and effectively turning our state Democrat.

"We CANNOT let that happen. 

"One of the greatest ways to help us prevent this is to volunteer for our Republican Party of Texas Cavalry today!"

I would much have preferred Wong had said, "Let's head them off at the pass by starting to treat one another respectfully and show the citizens of this great state that WE can lead by proving that WE can work together—Republicans with Republicans, and Republicans with Democrats, and Republicans with Independents—for a better Texas."

But, alas, what he and others are saying is far, far removed from that. I am an idealist who believes our leaders ought to really work together in actions—not just words—for the good of this city, state, and nation—not selfishly crowd into a tiny phone booth and espouse inflammatory rhetoric that sets our teeth on edge.

Unless the Republicans change their flamboyant rhetoric very soon, the Blue Wave that many anticipate will continue onward and change the political landscape for perhaps another 40 years. When that's going to actually happen, I won't predict.

Remember, Texas and Garland didn't become Republican overnight. It took longer than a decade. And the Party in Power then misread the signs of the times badly. Like the Republicans and their reaction to Hispanic citizens today, the Southern Democrats of yore failed miserably to see the end-result of the nation's fervent march toward civil rights. That party made lots and lots of blunders and mistakes during that transition, especially in reaction to the revulsion of many to its policies and politics.

Because my mayoral campaign sign was blue, some people automatically and erroneously assumed I was a Democrat, although I am an avowed Independent. I chose blue because it's my favorite color and because blue and gold (gold signifying hope) looked good together.

I believe in a United States of America where people of different races, parties, religions, economic levels, and regions work together for the common good of ALL—not for the good of one or two particular special-interest groups.

I do not like polarization, nor do I like polarizing leaders.

In my worldview, people of differing parties work together calmly to find solutions, not reasons to bicker, undercut, and destroy.

But that's not happening right now. And all the bickering seems to be getting worse and worse.

One of the reasons I'm hesitant about whether the Blue Wave will actually occur this year is the way our elections have shifted during the past 40 years from being based on issues, policies, and hard work to today where money, money, and more money (and the slanted, narrowly focused advertising and marketing it will buy) are the drivers. 

On the other hand, one of the reasons I believe things might shift, if not in November then later, are the candidates themselves.

District 2 constable candidate Bill Gipson is on the run in hoping to bring a Blue Wave through North Texas. If Bill wins, he will be the first African-American in the office he is seeking. We've enjoyed having Bill in our home for social visits.

Not since my days at the Houston Chronicle have I personally known so many who will be on the ballot this fall in the midterm elections in Texas. The Party in Power is wielding too many that are seasoned political veterans nearing or in the older-adults category. With rare exceptions, the Democrats are younger, more energetic, and full of optimism about their personal futures. If they lose, many of these candidates are likely to be back on stage next election time—older, wiser, and more seasoned.

A Blue Wave coming? Look carefully at what the previous Red Wave taught us:

1. Something similar has happened in the past, so a transition of that magnitude is possible in the present.

2. Such transitions happen slowly, usually not overnight. One election does not a pattern make.

3. Don't jump to conclusions too quickly when such a transition is under way. I've read too many articles over the years that could have been titled, "Is the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party) dead?” Political obituaries are dangerous to write or read—and even more dangerous to believe.

4. If and when it does happen, you will see lots of people in red quickly changing their colors again. Politics, after all, is a fluid business, with way too many in both parties licking their fingers and sticking them in the air to test which way the wind is blowing.

We've been in numerous social occasions where we've gotten to know many of the candidates running for office in the November elections. Congressional candidate Colin Allred is a graduate of our alma mater, Baylor University. Five of our 10 immediate family members are Baylor graduates. We'd love to see many of the next generation graduate from there, too.

How much did it cost to elect someone Mayor of Garland? And why did $2 out of every $3 spent in the recent mayoral election come from 3 PACs?

Final reports filed in Austin show that the local Garland Firefighters PAC spent $22,408.48 to underwrite the current Garland mayor's election on May 5.

When I first discussed running for mayor of Garland in this past May's election, an acquaintance warned me that such a race is highly expensive—as much as $50,000.

"Do you know how much a mayor's race costs?" he asked with concern in his tone.

I rolled my eyes, thinking that I had no intention of ever spending that amount for a political campaign, even if I had family, friends, and supporters who would come forth with that kind of money. I presumed hard work, candor, transparency, a background in management and leadership, a great team of volunteers, high energy, and tenacity would pay off.

My source's dollar-figure for a mayoral election here turned out to be more accurate than I ever dreamed, but the real question is not how much a campaign costs individual candidates and their Garland supporters.

The pertinent question really is, "How much are PACs willing to spend for their candidate to become mayor of Garland?" Or even a city councilmember? And why are they doing this? And shouldn't the public be brought into the loop with full disclosure and transparency on this very serious reality?

These controversial PACs clearly are not just a national issue, they are a local concern, too. Their tentacles reach all the way down deep into our city and involve not just the mayor's office but the city council seats as well. 

Three PACs were involved in our last Garland mayoral election on May 5 and provided $2 out of every $3 spent in that whole campaign. That's no insignificant percentage or sum.

If you've been following the U.S. Senate race in Texas, you've no doubt heard over and over the debate about these Political Action Committees, commonly called PACs. These entities are formed by special-interest groups, usually wealthy organizations, who either make contributions to a candidate's campaign or run parallel campaigns for the candidate, or both. These PACs always have some kind of agenda.

Incumbent Texas Senator Ted Cruz warmly embraces support of some of the most powerful and wealthy PACs in Texas and the U.S. They are spending vast numbers of dollars to support his reelection bid. Their recent injection of money probably accounts for Cruz's uptick in at least one recent poll.

His challenger, Democratic nominee U.S. Rep. Robert "Beto" O'Rourke of El Paso, refuses to have anything to do with PACs and will not accept money or support from them. Beto instead is relying on small donations from ordinary citizens and is receiving a huge outpouring of support for his stand. Until the last few days, polls showed Cruz and Beto locked in a dead-heat. National conservative PACs are reported to be rushing in with wheelbarrows full of dollars for new advertising to counter the Texas insurgency and rescue Cruz.

Thanks to Beto and others, the public is growing wise to the unbalanced and unfair (and I would add unAmerican) influence of these PACs.

Until the final tallies were in and I figured out how to trace the actual money spent by the three PACs involved in the recent Garland mayoral race, I had no idea how much they collectively invested—and how much influence—these PACs wield on Garland elections or the city governments of Garland and its surrounding cities.

I still don't know exactly why these three PACs do this and to such an extent.

Final reports filed in Austin show the Texas Association of Realtors spent $20,569.73 to underwrite the election of Garland's current mayor.

In this year's election, on required City of Garland election forms, the winning candidate and I appear to have spent somewhat equal amounts of money: $13,406.52 for Moore for Mayor; $17,234.38 for the winning candidate for Mayor; while the third candidate for Mayor reported that she spent $349.00 (but also used signs and equipment from a previous mayoral election in which she ran.)

Everything between the first two candidates looked somewhat even until I began to ferret out the real numbers deep in the files in Austin. Then the picture changed dramatically.

Kay and I provided more than half of the funding for my campaign, while 53 individuals made contributions ranging from $20 to $500 to the Moore for Mayor campaign. We personally donated $7,122.88 from our own resources plus $1,200 of in-kind services to the Moore for Mayor campaign.

The third candidate reported contributions of a total of $150 from 3 individuals.

Neither the third candidate nor I received any PAC funds.

The Garland Firefighters Association's PAC provided about $6,700—less than half—of the winning candidate's donations. The Apartment Association of Greater Dallas PAC provided her with another $1,500, while 26 individuals made contributions ranging from $100 to $500. That winning candidate listed $1,225 in donations of $50 or less from individuals whose names are not listed.

Donors who give $50 or less (usually in cash) do not have to be listed by name.

Documents filed in both Garland and Austin show that the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas spent $1,500 to underwrite the current mayor in the May 5 campaign.

The winning candidate and the other candidate did not show that they put personal money into their own mayoral campaigns but instead called differences between what was contributed and what was spent "loans". (Based on the winning candidate's reports, she sustained a debt of $1,382.61; the other candidate sustained a debt of $199.00).

Campaign debt is also a technique used for years by Texas politicos; it allows PACs or individual supporters to come in later after an election and quietly contribute funds to pay off the debt. Former Mayor Douglas Athas' campaign treasurer claimed that after he won election in 2013, his campaign was more than $40,000 in debt for personal loans he made to the campaign. During his second and uncontested campaign two years later the treasurer told me that he was raising money to help pay off the first mayoral campaign's debts and asked me for a donation.

The Moore for Mayor Campaign opted instead to clear the books of all debt with additional contributions from me.

As the late News Commentator Paul Harvey would say, "Here's the rest of the story:"

You won't find this information on file in the Garland City Hall nor reported in any city publication. You have to look in the records of the Texas Ethics Commission in Austin to get it. And you have to know how to slog through the myriad of bureaucratic forms and hurdles to find the information. All of it is public record, but that doesn't mean it is easy to find.

PACs are registered with the State of Texas and report to the state, not to our city government, despite the fact that they make huge contributions to our political races—a situation that ought to concern every Garland citizen.

Besides the $6,658.73 the Garland Fire Fighters Community Interest Committee PAC gave directly to the winning candidate's campaign, the local firefighter PAC spent an additional $15,749.75 on advertising and other expenses to benefit that candidate, for a total of $22,408.48. It paid $5,110.00 to David Riggs of Sulphur Springs, who has headed up the local Firefighters Association for many years, for work at the polls putting up signs, lobbying voters arriving at the polls, etc. Besides Riggs, five other Garland firefighters received $1,882.00 total for working in the campaign—all doing work Garland citizens volunteered to do for the Moore for Mayor Campaign.

The $22,408.48 total spent by the Garland Firefighters Association's PAC for the winning mayoral campaign is almost double the total spent by the Moore for Mayor Campaign. Because the $6,658.73 is reported as a "donation" from the firefighter PAC on both the winning candidate's form filed in Garland and as a "donation" to the candidate on the firefighter PAC's form filed in Austin, that makes it difficult to compare the winning candidate for Mayor's real campaign contributions. Without that donation, the winning candidate's campaign total drops significantly—to less than half the firefighter PAC's total spent.

The Garland firefighters' PAC also paid $958.96 of advertising expenses for the successful District 2 council candidate, where the original opponent to the winner withdrew weeks before the election but whose name remained on the ballot.

In the 2018 election the firefighter PACs' Schedule F1 filed in Austin also lists $1,000 paid to Thomas Tran for "signs" and $330.00 paid to a Garland firefighter for "campaign work", but neither of those line items in the state report says whether the money supported the Garland successful mayoral or council candidate. That required line item on those two pieces of information is blank.

The Garland firefighter PAC has actually financially supported the elections of the majority—five—of our current city council members. After the council election two years ago, one opponent of one of those five said he felt as if he had been running against the Garland Firefighters PAC instead of his actual opponent in what turned out to be a very close runoff election.

Of the remaining four council members, three have never faced an opponent, nor has one single citizen actually ever voted in an election for any of the three. The fourth was not endorsed by the firefighters PAC when he first ran but certainly can't miss the value of having the firefighters association on his side in case he has further political ambitions.

The firefighters local association has lobbied city council heavily to get the city to begin making Retirement Stability Benefit contributions for civil service employees. After years of lobbying, in 2018 the fire fighters union at last succeeded in this effort. In the 2018 FY budget, the city finally agreed to begin contributing .5 percent of a civil service employee's (police and firefighters') paycheck toward these retirement funds. The employee matches the funds. When this year's budget was introduced by the city manager, it proposed increasing the city contribution to .75 percent—reflecting exactly the annual increase that was recommended during last year's budget discussions.

However, before budget hearings ended this year, council at the last minute managed to increase the city contribution to 1 percent in the FY 2019 budget. Not one council member (including those whose campaigns had been funded by the firefighter PAC) spoke in opposition to this extra boost that went beyond what was in the original budget proposal. Nor did any of them opt to recuse themselves from voting because of the contributions their campaigns had received.

When the FY 2019 budget was adopted a few days ago, the added .25-percent hike was in the budget, at an additional cost of $151,168 to citizens this year. The firefighter PAC certainly saw its diligent work in the 2018 election as well as in past elections (and the promise of elections to come) pay off in this bottom line voted on unopposed for civil service employees.

As required, the firefighter PAC's filings in Austin also lists donations it received from its members mostly through payroll deductions from city paychecks. On forms filed in Austin, all but a few donations are from firefighters cited as living outside of Garland. City statistics indicate some 95 percent of all Garland firefighters do not live in Garland but instead live in cities ranging from southern Oklahoma to Central Texas, from west of Fort Worth to East Texas. Garland fire fighters make contributions to their association and PAC through payroll deductions from their city paychecks. Keep in mind that this is taxpayers' money—deducted from their paychecks that citizens fund—that is turned immediately back around and used to support candidates in local, regional and state political races.

As a taxpayer, voter, and citizen of Garland, I am appalled that $2 out of every $3 spent in the recent May 5 election for Mayor of Garland was provided by three PACs, which means people living outside of our hometown now exert more influence over our local elections than citizens living here.

The third PAC that got deeply involved in Garland's recent mayoral election was a big surprise—for me at least. I previously thought it was just a minor player in Garland politics, as did many others I've talked with. It turns out that the Texas REALTORS PAC based in Kerrville, TX, was the second biggest spender in Garland's May 5 mayoral campaign—running a close second to the Garland firefighters PAC. Its reports filed in Austin indicate checks totaling $20,569.73 were issued by its central office in Chicago, IL for expenses such as advertising and robo-phone calls supporting the winning Garland mayoral candidate.

The Texas Realtors report is truly eye-popping. That wealthy PAC gets involved in City Council and mayoral races throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex as well as throughout the state. (While the Greater Dallas Apartment Association seems to focus its resources only on the DFW area, the Texas REALTORS PAC is statewide and affiliated with a nationwide organization.) The amount given by the REALTORS to support my fellow candidate's campaign seems to be standard operating procedure for the Texas REALTORS PAC.

While the firefighter PACs' involvement in Garland elections—but not the actual amounts of money it spends through directly paid expenses and parallel campaign expenses—is somewhat known in the community, the Texas REALTORS PAC is not.

I now see why my acquaintance tried to warn me about the heavy financial costs of mayoral elections here. What he didn't tell me (and what would have been more helpful) is the vast extent of financial involvement by these three PACs in Garland municipal elections—and the fact that they bankroll two-thirds of the total campaign expenses.  

All this means people living outside of our hometown now exert more influence over our municipal elections than ordinary citizens living here do.

And that's not right. There's something seriously wrong with that situation.

These comments are by no means intended to reflect on any of the candidates involved in Garland's last local election. It also does not diminish the high regard I have for Garland's outstanding fire department and the excellent work our firefighters do to protect our citizens. My intent is simply to point out the great influence the three PACs have on local races—and the seriousness of a political system created over many years which has diminished the importance and influence of ordinary citizens in our municipal elections and replaced them with PACs whose influence is majorly significant here now.

I feel a moral obligation to warn other citizens in our beloved city, especially those who might be thinking about running for city council or mayor. This is a truly serious matter. As we are learning in the Russian interference allegations about the 2016 U.S. Presidential race, our elections are a cornerstone in our freedoms. Free elections are guaranteed to us in our U.S. constitution. We don't need anyone taking that right away from us. PACs are legal but still questionable. Garland citizens need to be in charge of their own destiny and make decisions accordingly, not people who don't live, pay taxes, and vote in our city.

Somehow, some way Garland needs to move beyond its captivity to these powerful financial influences on its political life.

If you don't manage to receive contributions from these three PACs, does it do you any good at all to run for office? Unless you are independently wealthy and have a bottomless pit of resources to spend on your race, how can any candidate stand against these deep pockets? As I've mentioned before in this blog, this deprives our citizens of the democratic process. With the PACs a factor, we'll keep having uncontested elections and deprive our citizens of the right to choose among qualified candidates. It will greatly discourage qualified, involved citizens who wish to run for public office. Why bother to run for office in this city when the deck is stacked secretly against you?

Forcing these PACs out of the darkness of secrecy and into the light of public awareness is one way to combat them. Eventually electing a reform-minded council not beholden to them is another. A third way is for citizens to form additional PACs to compete with these three. Can you imagine if other city employees opted to follow the firefighters' model: "Garland parks and recreation workers' PAC . . . ", "Garland streets department workers' PAC . . .", "Garland environmental waste workers' PAC . . ." and so on. Each would be entitled to raise money through payroll deductions from city paychecks, which are funded by Garland taxpayers. And each could lobby Council for its own pet project benefiting its members.

Or Garland homeowners in a particular part of town could form a PAC to lobby for better conditions in existing single-family houses and apartments in their area. I wonder if such a group could demand a cut of the taxes collected in their areas? Seems rather silly, doesn't it?

While Beto and I may disagree about certain points in his platform, he is dead-on correct in his opposition to these PAC's. 

You can count on me to join ranks with Beto and others who are alarmed about the stranglehold these well-funded unAmerican wealthy PACs have on our constitutional freedoms as citizens of the United States of America.

Just for the record, here are the three Texas ID numbers of the three PACs that were involved in our city's recent elections: Texas REALTORS PAC, TX filer ID 00070098, the Garland Fire Fighters Community Interest Committee PAC, TX filer ID 00057219, Apartment Association of Greater Dallas PAC, TX filer ID 00016482. To learn more about these three PACs and to obtain copies of their reports, click on https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/index.html. Then in the left hand top corner, click on "Search Campaign Finance and Lobby Reports", then enter the ID number or name of the PAC. When the first report pops up, be sure to look in the right hand corner for an arrow that will take you to see other reports.

Garland citizens deserve better than having non-citizens through these PACs dumping huge sums into our local municipal elections. 

 

Transparency is suddenly way-cool in the lead up to the Garland Bond Study Committee meetings, and citizens are the beneficiaries

Citizens need to listen closely—and speak up—as the City of Garland decides whether to hold a bond election in 2019. Their money and future may be at stake here.

Garland city councilmembers are now falling all over themselves to make sure the public is fully informed and has access to all the proceedings going forward for the possible 2019 bond election next year.

During their marathon work session Tuesday, September 4, council went the extra mile to make sure the soon-to-be constituted 19-member Bond Study Committee's sessions are fully open to the public and recorded on audio and possibly video, with those recordings and meeting notices posted in a highly accessible place.

I commend council for taking this stand. Citizens certainly will be the beneficiaries.

An earlier blog questioned the roots of this bond issue, which had the appearance of materializing almost out of thin air, with the fact of a 2019 bond election suddenly becoming mentioned around as though it were gospel. One council member responded that talk about the possible bond proposal emanated at the council's retreat last December 15 at a local hotel. Further research by this blog showed that the retreat was one of only a few "special" meetings of council during that calendar year that was NOT televised. No recording of the event is delineated on the city's website listing CGTV videos. The posted agenda to that meeting says it was only a staff-based "future bond program discussion", with no dates given. The meeting's official minutes posted on the city's website indicate no vote was taken nor consensus reached on the bond "discussion" at the retreat—with a "hypothetical timetable of events" presented by staff. 

Few citizens attend the day-long marathon council retreats, especially when the meetings are held in a hotel on the northern end of town and, as with the case of this one, are scheduled 10 days before Christmas when ordinary citizens already have full schedules.

Was the un-televised retreat held deep into the chaotic Christmas season the right time and/or the right setting to suddenly introduce a proposal with possible serious tax consequences for Garland citizens? Do our citizens deserve better than this?

No City Council meetings held outside Garland City Hall are videotaped and/or broadcast on TV. The day-long council retreat last December 15 at the Hyatt Hotel was where the proposed 2019 bond proposal was said to have gotten its start—out of sight of most citizens. Wouldn't televising such council retreats be respectful of citizens? Should these gatherings be moved back to city hall if televising retreats is impossible?

As engaged citizens and professional journalists during the early days of the adoption of the Texas Open Records Act, Kay and I are always concerned when local and state politicians seem to wander to the edge of that law. The law was born in the early 1970s when Frank Sharp, president of Sharpstown Bank in Houston, was convicted of colluding with city officials behind closed doors. The tentacles of that scandal reached far and wide in Houston and South Texas, prompting Texas legislators for solid and good reasons to adopt the state's Open Meetings Law.

Out in the sunshine is the only way any form of government should operate, especially when taxes and money are concerned!

On Tuesday night, councilmembers even went so far as to consider whether citizens attending the public bond committee sessions would be able to address the committee meetings briefly. Kudos to Councilmember Jim Bookhout for strongly supporting citizen input at the committee meetings; I certainly hope some provision is made to let citizens have a brief say-so during the committee sessions.

Regardless, as I have said repeatedly, on the other side of the equation Garland citizens need to pay serious attention to ALL the proceedings regarding the possible 2019 city bond election. So far, proportionately, very few Garland citizens seem to be taking it seriously enough. That may be good for our politicians short-term but very bad for the community long-term.

The last such city bond election—in 2004, 14 years ago—has been dubbed a "failure" by one sitting Garland city councilmember. Yet another has inquired of the city manager whether that 2004 city bond election could be "undone". I concur with them. A little over 40% of the money approved by voters in 2004 has NOT been spent. Dozens of approved projects have never been implemented. The excuse used for the delay—the 2007 Great Recession—was over within three years; the Dallas area recovered quickly and has been in a boom for several years now. Meanwhile, nearly $100 million in approved bonds remain on the books to be issued at the whim of city leaders. (By the end of this year—four months from now—city figures indicate the $100 million should drop to $88 million.) Retreat minutes summarize that Councilmember Scott LeMay asked City Manager Bryan Bradford if election of the unfinished projects in the 2004 bond election could be de-authorized. In the minutes Bradford tells LeMay that doing so would require a vote of Garland citizens (an election or "un-election" of the 2004 bond issue).

 During the Tuesday-night city council meeting, a discussion occurred about whether a "small" new $100-million proposed bond program would increase taxes. Left out of that discussion was the 1 + 1 = 2 question about whether the $100 million remaining on the books PLUS a new $100 million approved in a 2019 election would, if both fully implemented alongside each other, cause a tax increase. Is there room in the budget for just one or both? I posed that question to city staff, who said indeed, the city could sustain the remaining $88 million plus a new $100 million in bond-fund projects without requiring a tax increase. 

For the extra $100 million, the city possibly could get the most needed (and publicly promoted) projects done—its new police evidence building, a new animal shelter, realignment and repair of the Naaman Forest Road where flooding occurs, and a couple more projects spread out over the city.

But don't get lulled to sleep thinking City Council and city staff are thinking small. Despite rumors emanating from some Garland politicos that council has already set in stone a bond proposal totaling $250 million, during the Tuesday-night session council members declined to set financial parameters for the new bond study committee, to be inaugurated about September 19. Council was told that suggested project proposals already total some $800 million and could go as high as $1 billion. Discussion, however, seems aimed at the $250 million to $450 million range. That would mean eliminating three-fourths to one-half of the already-suggested projects or whittling them down in size. One councilmember said his district would "burn me at the stake" if he supported a bond program as high as $450 million. Anything between those $100 million to $800 million numbers will definitely raise Garland property taxes. The higher the numbers, the higher the tax increase. Anything higher than $400 million could possibly spark a taxpayer revolt in some parts of town.

After bungling Garland's 2004 bond implementation so badly and for so many years, Garland's needs are great. Nobody should argue against that—it's evident in our parks, on our streets, along our creek beds (drainage), etc. But how fast and how much do we spend to get out of the hole the city is in?

And also, going forward does the city do these projects using borrowed money or cash that will be generated by increasing property values set to hit our residents over the next few years and expiring bond payments (after 2024) that will exit the city's budget? And with a water-rate hike and other city fees—and even a potential GP&L hike down the road—on the possible increase? Those are all important questions that deserve a hearing.

The City of Garland can learn much from the 2014 Garland ISD bond election. Many citizens are still bothered that the proposed new school district Natatorium wasn't listed on the ballot as a separate item instead of being lumped with other projects.

Though it was not actually a part of the proposed 2019 city bond-election discussion, one item on Council's regular agenda Tuesday night (the location of the school district's new Natatorium near the George Bush Freeway) spotlighted the problems associated with a local bond package not vetted properly. Garland ISD's new Natatorium was a hot potato when it was approved in 2014 and has remained so ever since. While city council this week worried over parking, buses, and fencing to protect neighbors at the proposed facility, GISD continues to struggle with dissident voices over the fact that the controversial Natatorium was not a separate yes-or-no item in that bond election.

If we actually do hold the proposed city bond election in 2019, the City of Garland needs to learn from the school district's misfortunes and separate as many as possible of the large, especially controversial items, into separate yes-or-no votes.

The city also can learn a lesson from germinating its discussion about the possible bond election at the non-televised, poorly attended, day-long retreat last December. December 17, 2018, is projected as the deadline for hearing the bond committee's final report and recommendations—learning whether the committee recommends putting the bond issue on the May 2019 ballot and what items are suggested to be on it. That date of December 17 is not best for our citizens, but if Council insists and goes forward with it, the meeting— wherever it takes place—needs to be televised, well publicized, and shared repeatedly over the next few months with the citizens of Garland. Making public such an important decision just 8 days before Christmas is not likely to gain much citizen attention.

Listen up, Garland citizens and taxpayers: These are serious matters right now. They WILL impact your pocketbook. Council has signaled rightly its willingness to listen to you. Get informed. Stay tuned. Let your voices be heard loud and strong!

As they say during wedding ceremonies, "Speak now or forever hold your peace."

Garland voters have the final say on whether the city can issue more bonds.

 

School district and city bonds are totally separate financial matters, though many of the same Garland citizens pay taxes to support both. Some lessons from the 2014 GISD bond issue can apply to the potential 2019 Garland issue, if it goes forward.

Çitizens beware! It's your money they're after. A few dollars here, a few dollars there, and your pocketbook will begin feeling the pain

Fees may be going up on the three public golf courses the City of Garland operates at Firewheel.

It may sound like a real snooze, but this year's hearings on the proposed FY 2019 City of Garland budget demand that citizens listen up good.

Sprinkled liberally throughout these hearings is talk of fee increases or rate increases to citizens.

Separately, each of the proposed fee or rate increases doesn't seem like that much. Some apply to the average citizen, while others would be incurred only by builders or businesses, which most likely would pass them along to consumers. Collectively, however, it represents a common thread.

For example, the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Arts Department has proposed a $2 increase in its youth ID cards and a $5 hike for its ID cards for adults. Rentals for certain rooms and facilities may go up $10 in their hourly rates (for example, the Hollabaugh pavilion increases from $40 to $50 hourly that an individual or group may soon pay for its weekend rental rates).

To rent the Hollabaugh pavilion citizens may have to pay more per hour on weekends, according to a proposal for the city's FY 19 budget.

The cost for fees Garland landlords pay are projected to increase 18 percent, from $55 to $65 yearly, for a single-family dwelling used as rental. Application cost for an occupancy permit is proposed to go up $500; application for a new or revised concept plan for a planned development is proposed to go up $1,000 plus $50 an acre; alcohol distance variances up $200; zoning change applications a $200 increase to $1,000, and zoning verification letters to go up $150.

Fees for new construction on a single-family home are projected to go up from $3.75 to $4.00 per $1,000 construction value and from $5 to $7 per $1,000 construction value on remodels, canopy installation, etc.

The Health Department wants to charge $2.50 more per animal to pick up deceased animals from vets (expected to generate $6,000 in new revenue) and $5 more per day for quarantining an animal suspected of having rabies (expected to generate $2,450 in new revenue).

Then at the Firewheel golf courses, greens fees for golfers on all three public courses are proposed to be $2 more in FY 19.

Add this to the spectre of a tax hike that would occur if a proposed city bond issue is passed. One councilmember says our council already has a "consensus" to raise taxes immediately as soon as the proposed bond election is approved by voters (presuming that it is).

A proposed bond program is being considered by Garland city council and citizens.

The mayor, on the other hand, proposed a 1-cent tax reduction "on the debt side" but quickly acknowledged it may be short-lived, depending on the outcome of the proposed bond election.

If approved by voters and immediately funded by City Council, the increase in taxes would dramatically offset any short-term 1-cent reduction in taxes paid on the existing debt.

 

Not having spent some $100 million from its 2004 bonds approved by voters (nearly 50 percent of the original total), there's always the possibility our City Council will decide to finally spend those funds, too, again possibly raising your taxes to pay for it. Some council members say some of the proposals in the new proposed package will be additions to previous bonds approved—to pay for the increases in the original estimates, which would automatically put the original 2004 bond money into play. That could mean the public will be asked to vote on a $350 million bond package (or whatever they decide on), which in reality could be a $450 million package, if the full $100 million currently sitting on ice is put back into play.

This is not to say that some of the current proposed ideas for the possible bond election are not worthy.  Many are needed and some absolutely necessary. But taken as a whole, due to the long delays, the total bill may be eye-popping for the people having to pick up the tab through their taxes.

Then there's the DCAD property tax increases headed our way. Some properties in our own neighborhood are up nearly an eye-popping 80% to 100%.  How about yours? If you haven't received hefty property value increases yet, keep your eyes and ears open. They are coming, if not this year then the next. Because of state laws, the city, county, and school district may not be able to tax you at the full amounts of your new appraisal THIS YEAR or next year. They just have to phase them over time.

And just when you think all the bad news has been unpacked and on the table, officials from Garland Power & Light sent up a trial balloon warning that if current conditions continue, citizens could see a hike in their electric rates within five to 10 years to bolster its reserve fund needed to maintain its top marks by rating agencies. GP&L officials did tell Council not to count on the large "contributions" our utility company was presumed to be making to the city's operating budget this year and next. At least they promised to make some contributions and especially not to ask the city for money for the city-owned utility.

And the city's water department reported that price of our water will go up another 5% (down from 10% initially suggested) despite conservation measures most of us have implemented.  The North Texas Municipal Water District, of which Garland is a member, is the driver for the water increases, which is a very complicated financial/political situation. This is happening despite the fact that Garland was described as having been a "poster child" for water conservation, reducing overall usage from 11,000 gallons of water per month in 2006 to 6,400 gallons per month in 2017. Instead of rewarding citizens for cutting their usage almost in half, citizens get slapped with a rate hike (even though it's lower than originally predicted). 

Citizens, beware! It's your money they're after.

And City Council budget hearings and discussions can be as confusing as budget hearings in the U.S. Congress. What's most important is to see where council lands at the end, especially if concerned citizens step in raising questions about specifics or too many rate, fee, and tax increases. Texas laws and the city's charter require processes that must be followed.

Let me hasten to add that I've said for years that I would gladly temporarily pay higher property taxes to help improve our city's miserable streets because I like many others are already spending that much on damaged tires and front-end alignments due to the pot-holes and other street problems. For nearly a half-decade Council balked at allowing a voter-approved 2-cent temporary tax increase for our streets. Instead, Council "found" the money elsewhere—by not approving funds for other pressing needs such as more police and a bigger development office and thrust, which we sorely also need.

What complicates the situation is the failure for 14 years to use the roughly $100 million—nearly one-half—of the 2004 voter-approved bond package. Why? The publicly stated excuse is that we've been struggling to overcome the 2007 Great Recession. That's odd since most economists cite the Great Recession as having ended in June 2009. After that cities that also had put their bond sales and budgets on hold started turning loose of the money to restore infrastructure and meet other needs. For some reason, Garland didn't follow suit. Our political leaders love to point fingers of blame, but the bottom line is the whole gaggle of them in office over the past decade bear some responsibility for the delays.

Some cities have leap-frogged ahead of us—fixing their streets and other infrastructure needs. With the U.S. economy now roaring with so many restraints removed nationally, these places are prepared for a future filled with inflation and the eventual downturn that always follows a blazing boom.

Now, instead, our city's needs have stacked up higher than most realize. At the same time our city debt is fast approaching—in 2024—a payoff. We stand at an unusual crossroads, somewhat like the United States did for a brief few years at the end of the 1990s when our National Debt was actually shrinking.

Fees to reserve classrooms and multipurpose rooms at Garland parks facilities may be hiked if a current proposal is passed.

We truly are at a pivotal moment in the life of this 240,000 population, 87th largest city in the U.S., 12th largest city in Texas. Which way we go in the next year will impact generations of Garlandites to come.

Do we figure out a way to tighten the financial belt for six more years and then move forward using the cash now used for bond payments from the budget? Maybe sell some assets to get there quicker? Or do we plunge deeper into debt? Not an easy choice. I know people who are advocating every option.

As I said earlier, I know city budgets are boring stuff—also lengthy and at points confusing. 

The four public bond "hearings" were touted as tremendous successes because of the turnout of 134—many of them repeats and part of the reigning city insiders including city employees and elected officials—in a city of 240,000 people.

At the second "bond hearing", a Garland politico leaned over to me and commented about how many present were not "ordinary" citizens. He estimated "maybe a dozen" in the audience were just regular people. After he pointed out who he thought weren't insiders, I was able to point out the roles in city politics that about half of the 12 currently play, albeit in lower levels.

And few citizens have shown up for the first FY19 budget hearings.

None of the fee, rate, tax increases have been voted into law yet. The process is merely under way.

So, stay tuned and listen carefully during the next weeks and months.

But IF YOU DON'T pay attention to what is happening now, don't be surprised when city leaders turn a deaf ear to your complaints about higher rates, fees, and taxes after you are hit with them.

Citizen apathy is at an all-time high, while our city stands at this pivotal moment and crossroads. Whither Garland? Don't let only a few citizens decide for you!

Citizens, let your voices be heard one way or the other on these matters!

Does a "Hidden Hand" guide Garland bond-issue talk? Don't ignore blunt warnings about your property taxes increasing.

A "Why Now?" slide is shown at the community meeting at the North Garland Branch Library.

A few years back, a freshman Garland councilmember sat in our living room, querying my wife and me about whether we had perceived that a "Hidden Hand" might be responsible for some puzzling developments this newcomer had observed in our city government.

While Garland operates under a city-manager form of government with mayor and city council as somewhat titular heads, this new councilmember believed someone or something other than the city manager—and not easily identifiable—was behind certain patterns of making "these things happen" in our beloved city.

During his short tenure, this councilmember had already noticed that things just sort of seemed to "occur"—issues being presented as  "givens" without council action. For example, a choice of four possible outcomes regarding the downtown commercial area mysteriously and suddenly were narrowed down to just two. Who narrowed them down? Not council, he contended and we had observed. But who? That question was never answered.

Kay and I had seen enough in our nearly two decades living here to agree with him. What, or who, was this "Hidden Hand" guiding the city? we all three wondered.

Each of us had names and/or processes for what or who we suspected might be in control of these events in our city. Our names of the suspects, however, were not always the same.

To help affirm his perception, with this new city councilmember Kay and I reviewed Kay's verbatim transcripts of at least two earlier council work sessions where we could trace the exact "Hidden Hand" pattern he described. In sessions designed just for brainstorming, council would discuss some proposal. Suddenly, TA-DA! The "brainstorm" quickly and mysteriously got set in stone. How? No vote was ever taken (unless it was done so behind the scenes, which, of course, is not legal). No direct verbal order was agreed to on camera.

Fast-forward just a few years from that discussion, and the same pattern seems to be emerging again regarding discussions about a potential upcoming citywide bond issue.

The players that we all three perceived might be at work in this mysterious process two years ago are now no longer around, but the process continues. Hmm . . .. Did new faces take their places in the frames and adopt the old methods? Or where these odd decisions just the way Garland works?

If you listen to some of the rhetoric going on now, you hear a bond issue stated as a fact, a given. It's going to happen. One councilmember last week asked some citizens, "Are you aware we have a bond election coming up?"

Poll taken at a meeting to ascertain interest in having a bond election. Voting is on the "honor" system, presuming that non-Garland citizens will refrain from participating.

But who said so? And when exactly was that decision made? Council hasn't voted this in as gospel.  At its un-televised day-long retreat at a Garland hotel in mid-December City Council by consensus agreed to move forward to study the idea; they didn't vote to hold a bond election and can't until much later in the process.

A series of community meetings has begun for the purpose of taking citizens' pulse about what projects are desired and to recruit volunteers to serve on a study committee. Polls are being taken at those meetings, but one doesn't know if only residents, city employees, or city councilmembers are the ones actually voting in the polls. The public is only being told that the texting and computer based polls are based on "the honor system". Apparently nonresident city employees will abide by their consciences and not vote on whether taxpaying residents will pay for a tax increase. Just like 95% of the Garland firefighters don't live here, don't pay taxes here, and don't vote here, but through their firefighter association and its political PAC stick their noses and their money deeply into our city elections.

Isn't this the cart before the horse? Has the city really determined that such an election will occur . . . and whether this is the best (or the worst) time to initiate a bond election?

If so, when did that happen? The retreat "consensus" only set the stage for the possibility of one.  It hasn't occurred yet, but the process for it is aggressively under way.

A "Why Now?" slide is shown at the community meeting at the North Garland Branch Library.

In one of the recent community meetings on the bond issue, one astute citizen asked how much of the last 2004 city bond package money remains to be spent. About half, we were told. By Saturday's meeting, the response was modified to between $100 and $105 million out of an original bond program of $224 million was still unspent. Privately one city official said "a little money" remains unspent from the 1997 bond package that preceded the 2004 bond election. Interesting!

In Saturday's second public session on the bond discussion, one sitting city councilmember called the 2004 bond election "a failure". His public assessment was rather startling though probably closer to the truth than most other city leaders would like to admit.

Consultant Nathan Ante explains reasons for delays in spending money approved in the 2004 bond election.

Other citizens at the Thursday-evening meeting wanted to know where the huge hidden tax increases showing up in citizens' mailboxes these days (in the guise of gigantic increases in DCAD tax appraisals for their homes and properties) fits into the mix. The answers seemed to get minimized in the discussion.

The "Hidden Hand" seems to be at play again; some of those that previously were concerned about this pattern seem to be involved in it now.

For example, wheels were in motion for a possible bond election prior to the recent changing of the guard at city hall. Even before the municipal election on May 5, the city staff had already put out a request for bids for a consulting firm to begin putting together a framework for a potential bond issue. That ball was set in motion in March. By May 15, just before the new mayor and council were sworn in, the city already was recommending that the firm of Kimley Horn get the nod at a $200,000 consulting fee.

What curious timing! The Hidden Hand couldn't wait for the new mayor and new city councilmembers to be seated. The action occurred immediately before the election. It was like the Hidden Hand decided, Just in case someone might be elected mayor that didn't support a bond election hook, line, and sinker, let's get the wheels rolling so it would be very difficult to backtrack. Or was it to give a new mayor endorsed by several councilmembers the cover needed for raising taxes, when she had publicly argued against it and strongly suggested one of her opponents had a tax hike already fixed in his mind?

What was the hurry? Nevertheless, it worked perfectly. The timing and process remain suspicious, but nevertheless the Hidden Hand set the stage perfectly for either way the mayoral election turned out.

A consultant was already set to grease the wheels for a bond election by the time the new mayor was sworn in and the new council constituted. No one stopped to say, "Wait a minute. Do we really need this? Is this the best thing for us to do right now? And are there some alternate ways to explore to fund new projects?" The tide was already moving in the Hidden Hand's desired direction.

Thankfully, at the Thursday-night meeting, consultants Nathan Ante and Abra Nusser prefaced most of their remarks with some cautionary "if's". "Why are we considering a bond issue?" Ante posed to the group. Nusser queried, "If we move forward with this schedule . . . ", "If we do proceed with the bond package . . ."

They weren't quite so cautious at the Saturday session until the audience bore down heavily on the fact that almost half of the 2004 bond election projects and funds haven't seen the light of day yet.

I was very grateful for the consultants' cautionary words but puzzled how we as a city got to this stage so quickly without more discussion and official votes and why we are moving so fast with it. Is someone afraid our current Great Texas Economic Boom is going to end suddenly? If it does, we're going to be in more trouble than we ever imagined; our citizen taxpayers will be left "holding the bag" for decades for political blunders now.

A slide is presented showing the tax impact of a potential bond issue.

According to one councilmember during the meeting Thursday night, August 3, as a part of the bond-election-proposal discussions already under way now, council has an understanding to raise taxes immediately to pay for the new bonds as soon as they are approved. "This council will vote to raise taxes right off the bat," was the statement made. 

  

My, my, my . .  . how fast the Hidden Hand works. We technically haven't decided yet to have a bond election, but a majority of council by consensus has already decided on a tax increase in addition to the "hidden" tax increase arriving on their doorsteps from the DCAD appraisal increases? Wow!

This is not to say the projects being rumored and discussed to be paid for with the new bonds are not worthy.

Do we need a new animal shelter? That was part of my mayoral platform.

Do our dreadful streets need much more work? I made that point often during the campaign.

Should we build the new needed police-evidence facility? Of course. Without a doubt!

Do we need better and more creative and flexible economic-development plans for the whole city and not just certain parts of it? Absolutely!

Do we need to finally build the long-delayed new North Garland Library on land owned for years by the city on Garland Avenue near Sam's Club and Walmart? Yes, we do!

And do we need to continue to develop our embryonic walking-and-bike trails throughout the city? You betcha!

During the recent mayoral campaign, I talked about creative ways—finding more public and private grants, for instance, and seeking prosperous donors for certain named projects—as the way to start to tackle the myriad of problems in our city and to avoid overloading our not-so-wealthy citizens with more taxes and more debt. One city councilmember expressed concern that this might come with strings attached—as if a 20-year mortgage that new bonds generate don't!

"Tax and borrow" is not my first choice! I apparently have a lot more faith in the free-enterprise system than some of our current city councilmembers do!

Word on the street is also that our city's sales-tax base has suddenly gone flat, hopefully only because of the rising rate of retail on the Internet. (More about that in a later blog.) That is not a good sign regardless how one looks at it. Keep your eyes on the Congressional hearings in Washington, D.C., about returning to the days when Internet sales were immune to state and local sales taxes. Such a move could hasten our nation's reliance on the Internet for retail sales (thus shuttering more brick-and-mortar businesses) but stall local and state government projects and incomes across the country.

Citizens at meeting could text their answers to various polls.

None of this, of course, is to say that Kay and I personally have made up our minds about whether a bond election is necessary at this time. The eventual list of new projects to be built or fixed by the new bonds may or may not be something we support. Time will tell. Much depends on the honesty of the process, what additional facts are laid out before us, and the final outcome.

Our main concern at this point is process—something that used to be a major concern in some other circles as well. Previously "process" critiques were directed at the former mayor, when someone didn't approve of him. Are we suddenly no longer concerned about "process" since the former mayor is no longer around to blame? If "process" is important and not criticized just for the sake of politics, then it's important regardless who sits in the mayor's seat and who the city councilmembers are. "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" in my books.

Why is this Hidden Hand back at work so quickly and dragging us so rapidly toward a decision that may mean more debt and more taxes—on top of a huge property tax increases ready to heavily burden our citizens even more for the years ahead?

Does anyone remember how quickly property values go up AND DOWN in Texas? I've lived through at least two major boom-and-bust cycles in Texas property values (and a few minor ones, too), so I am not naive about our state's current economic boom. It will end. The only question is when? And where will Garland be in that cycle? And how prepared are we for the next downturn?

And has everyone forgotten that the last Garland ISD bond election de facto brought down the incumbent GISD superintendent at the time? The presence and price-tag for the new GISD natatorium in the bond election was the heart of that battle, though not by any means the only issues.  

These are crucial days in the life of our city. Our list of needs is great. Our problems are legion. And so are our tax burdens. The Dallas County Appraisal District (DCAD, for short) is handing our city leaders a gigantic ongoing Christmas gift—a bucketload of new money in the form of tax-appraisal increases. In bond-election discussions, it has not been precise about how large that bucket is going to be or even how we intend to spend it all.

Will the unofficial, appraisal-driven tax increase provide enough resources for the city to pay cash for the items that are top priority for the bond election? Nobody knows just yet. Privately, some city leaders admit the city will be completely out of debt by 2024—just six years from now . . . that is, if we don't borrow the remaining $105 million for the long-delayed 2004 bond project. Put another way, that means the $42 million a year (on $221 million of indebtedness) currently being spent on city debt will go away in 2024. We could do a whole lot with that $42 million extra every year! That's enough money to build both the new animal shelter and the police-evidence facility in one year! Think what we could do in the years after that! Especially with the windfall from the rising tax appraisals on our homes and businesses.

That's a truly a sobering thought. Getting from 2018 to 2024 would be a difficult trick, BUT having a city free of debt in a nation drowning in red ink could, if marketed correctly, be turned into an amazing "image asset" for our city.

Have we as a city explored all the options besides "tax and borrow"? No!  And some don't want to, either. When one citizen at Thursday night's meeting brought up the idea of big businesses in the city helping fund special projects, her words seemed to hit the ceiling and bounce off.

And when another citizen, a former city councilmember, presented the idea of forgoing debt and paying cash for big projects, the silence of the response was deafening.

Yet in my world view, leaders are obligated to explore all options—not just the ruts in the road they have been traveling on for decades. I personally detest the idea that we must continue to do things the way we've always done them and others before us have always done them. To many of us, that's the definition of insanity. Change can be liberating.

Garland citizens and taxpayers need to listen carefully—and cautiously—to these discussions about a bond election either next May or the following November. (You can bet your last penny that the decision on when to hold the election will be based on political careers, not what is best for our city! That's just the way politicians work here, there, and everywhere.) Those bond discussions are ongoing right now. Nothing is locked in stone yet. At least that's the official word. Tune in. Pay attention to what is being said. You as a Garland citizen, taxpayer, and voter have every right to information about this matter and to voice your opinion on it.

And you will also be paying the bill for this presumed bond election years after every current member of this city council moves off to other roles either here in our city or elsewhere around the world.

You, as a citizen, are the boss of how this money is spent. Treat it as if all of it were in your very own pocket.

Garland City Manager Bryan Bradford addresses the first community meeting on the discussed bond program.

Time to move beyond the current crisis at Garland's Animal Shelter and immediately start planning and funding a new facility

The 53-year-old antiquated, small Garland Animal Shelter needs to be replaced soon.

The situation with the Garland Animal Shelter's rare distemper outbreak and the days of crisis that followed begs for a quicker solution to our community's need for a new animal shelter.

The outbreak followed on the heels of a major uproar on City Council over the care of our animals at the shelter and the role of people outside Garland in the dispute.

Were the two major events connected? The manager of our animal shelter believes not. Others tend to agree with him—that the two issues occurring so close together was coincidental.

Regardless, the two matters have significantly raised the profile of our 53-year-old, outdated, undersized, and inadequately designed (for today's needs) facility.

Thanks to the drama involved and all the media coverage, the ball is now rolling to push Garland in the direction of finally "doing something" about our old animal shelter.

Back in the 1960s when the small shelter was "cutting-edge", it was designed as the hub for reuniting runaway dogs and cats captured by our "dogcatcher" with their pet owners. That description hardly begins to describe all the demands on our animal shelter today.

Garland in 1965 had a population of about 60,000 compared to a population today of around 240,000—a fourfold increase.

And our dog and cat populations have grown tremendously as well—some believe much more rapidly. A study by the City of Garland Animal Services Department in July 2015 showed an estimated dog population of 47,206 and an estimated cat population of 51,605. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that in 2016 Garland had 75,428 households. So, if every household in the city had either a cat or a dog, we would have 23,383 left over—enough for roughly 1 in 3 to have a second dog or cat. 

Pets today fill much-expanded roles in our lives than our pets did back then. A "service animal" was much less used back in 1965. Laws that require landlords to accept such pets—or face severe penalties—were not heard of then.

Besides being a place to reunite runaway pets with their owners, our shelter today has become a place where pet owners drop off their unwanted dogs and cats, where pet adoptions take place, and where citizens pick up traps for rats, squirrels, rabbits, and all sorts of other animals. It serves a myriad of other functions—including capturing, sterilizing, and releasing "feral cats" and other animals—that were far less visualized back in the mid-1960s.

As the "crisis du jour" roiled at Garland Animal Shelter this week, the city had to use this temporary facility to house dogs.

Where does the city go from here in the aftermath of the two back-to-back shelter issues?

Acknowledging a problem immediately is the first step in finding a cure. We've now doubled that acknowledgement in the past three months. Who among us doesn't believe we have a serious problem with our current animal shelter facility? 

The stage is now set for finding a solution to the nearly two-decades' old question, What are we going to do about our outdated and inadequate Garland animal shelter?

The answer already floating is to wait until the city finishes its bureaucratic processes and decides whether to hold a proposed bond election that includes a new animal shelter. Depending on the exact timetable, that could mean waiting until possibly 2020 or maybe later to get started with planning and construction, with probably a finish date of 2021 or later.

After all, as all know, nearly half of the monies approved in the 2004 bond issue are still sitting on ice. Surely that won't happen again, but there is a history here. Nothing is ever certain, despite best intentions.

Instead, many of us believe the city should start immediately to work on the issue. We've talked long enough. It's time now for action. We need a plan in place soon—before another crisis hits.

The process needs to be fully public and to involve our citizens as much and as often as possible.

The City Manager already made clear in his new budget priorities that the animal shelter is one of his top priorities; he made that announcement the very evening that the city publicly reported the canine-distemper outbreak.  

City Manager Bryan Bradford has the authority to move funds now to identify and get the planning processes going for the new shelter. As we learned during the controversy over the bulldozing of the old Armory in Central Park, he can approve up to $50,000 without Council approval. That should be adequate to get the ball rolling on at least site selection and preliminary architectural work.

Bond funds may be needed and available later, but we already know the city coffers will soon be filling with new monies from the dramatic increases in property values and the tax revenue that's going to generate for the city. Barring the unlikely event of a sudden and dramatic downturn in the Texas and U.S. housing markets, the new tax money will be available one way or the other, with or without a possible bond proposal that includes the shelter.

And for years citizens such as Lee Lutz and Terrie Kieper have maintained that in the past private monies were available for at least part of the new shelter but that the former mayor and several former members of City Council blocked their efforts to tap those funds. Citizens like these two dedicated, energetic, and talented community leaders—and any others involved with them in the quest in the past or want to be in the present—need to be empowered immediately to establish a citizens committee to bring forth public recommendations and proposals for what private funding is available now and how this can be obtained and used.  Others who have poured heart and soul into the animal-shelter issue need to be included, too. 

As I have said many times, I would like to see what citizens working together can do using a variety of resources and not just tax money—a true private-public participatory partnership!

Meanwhile, the issues of where should the shelter be situated, how large it should be, and what the design needs to be require attention as soon as possible. Uriel Villalpando, animal services manager at our city's present animal shelter, says he has all kinds of thoughts and ideas about how to answer those questions. Our crusading animal-loving citizens and their friends need to have a voice in these decisions, too.

The current location may have been a good idea 53 years ago, but it is definitely not the right place now for what is needed. Ditto for its size, purpose, and design. Let's move quickly beyond the past and into a brighter future!

I've seen and heard estimates ranging from $6 million to $40 million for the new animal shelter. We need to get the amount nailed down, without such wild variations being stated around the community. The exact amount needs to be determined now by knowledgeable citizens and experts—not waiting for a possible "bond committee" to be formed to study and prioritize all the needs of the city and decide what's leftover for the new shelter.

A price tag of $40 million is one thing; a sticker price of $6 million is an entirely different matter.  The larger may require some bond money. The smaller may be able to fly on its own. We need to know the difference now, not later.

Unlike streets and other major infrastructure needs, most of the issues surrounding building the new Garland animal shelter are easily resolvable now and may be within resources already readily available—if community leaders and citizens will simply pull together, use their ingenuity, open their hearts and minds to the idea, and just DO IT!

This photo of Garland's Animal Shelter gives an idea of how small it is.

Garland's Animal Services Manager: "Outbreaks of this magnitude are rare . . ., no animals have been euthanized"

Uriel Villalpando, animal services manager at our city's animal shelter. Photo from garlandtx.gov.

Garland citizens may be interested in this full online interview with Uriel Villalpando, animal services manager at our city's animal shelter, regarding the canine-distemper outbreak and crisis that Garland's Animal Shelter has faced in recent days.

Garland citizens first became aware of the outbreak last Tuesday evening, August 3, when Mayor Pro Tem Rich Aubin, (district 5 councilmember), substituting for absent Garland Mayor Lori Barnett Dodson at the regular bi-monthly session, announced on TV that the outbreak had started and called on animal rescue organizations inside and outside of Garland to join hands in rescuing the animals.

Here are Uriel's answers (in regular type) to my questions (in bold):

1. How often do outbreaks like this happen in shelters in DFW and Texas? I understand the Houston Animal Shelter experienced the same thing last April. Do you know of others where this has happened this year? Are there any similarities between these, such as summertime, excessive heat, lack of air conditioning, etc.? Do outbreaks occur in winter as well as summer?

All shelters constantly deal with diseases like distemper but outbreaks of this magnitude are rare. We’ve read reports of similar outbreaks at various shelters nationwide, but nothing more than media reports. We don’t know enough about other outbreaks to make any comparisons.

2. How many dogs at the Garland Animal Shelter during this outbreak were diagnosed with distemper? And how many of those had to be euthanized? What did you do to try to limit the number of animals impacted, including those euthanized?

Up until today (8/14/18), a total of 33 dogs were diagnosed with distemper out of the 124 that we have tested. Out of the 33 dogs that tested positive, only six were in our care and have been transported to a vet clinic for treatment.

As soon as the first case was identified we began to implement control measures such as isolating symptomatic dogs and testing all animals at the shelter. We’ve since established temporary kennels to further isolate animals that have tested negative but may have since been exposed. Our goal is to clear the shelter of all potentially exposed animals by the end of today (8/14/18) and resume normal operations at the shelter. Potentially exposed animals will be housed at the temporary kennels until placement. Since the first case was identified, no animals have been humanely euthanized.

3. Why did this outbreak occur when it did—on the heels of a major uproar on City Council over the care of our animals at the shelter and the intervention of people outside Garland in the dispute? Were the critics right? Or is this just a case of coincidence?

Everything points to coincidence. The shelter has been operated the same this summer as it has been for decades so there’s no reason to believe this is anything more than a coincidence. Modern shelters are designed with disease control measures engineered into the facilities so perhaps we can look forward to a reduced chance of similar outbreaks in a new facility.

4. What could have been done to prevent the outbreak? And was it preventable? 

Staff takes routine control measures to prevent outbreaks like vaccinating all animals and sanitizing the shelter daily. The simple fact is, despite our best efforts the risk of disease in the shelter is ever present because disease is ever present in our community environment. We’re not aware of additional preventative measures to implement in light of the outbreak. We were already doing everything the experts recommend including vaccinating all animals on intake.

5. Would having a new Animal Shelter building like many of us have talked about been a factor in whether this outbreak occurred at all? Or can it/does it occur in new shelters as well?

As I stated previously, modern shelters are designed with disease control measures engineered into the buildings. That’s one major factor in why a new shelter is so expensive. New shelters are designed with several “pods” which are basically several small units of kennels where the units are completely separated. This is very effective in disease control because if one pod is affected by disease it is isolated to that small group of animals and will not affect animals in other pods.

6. As you think about planning for a new Garland Animal Shelter, do you have any ideas about what you would like in terms of square footage, location, design, etc.?

Yes, yes, and yes. I don’t want to “spill the beans” before we’ve had an opportunity to present our needs to the bond committee, but we have done lots of homework in preparation for the bond proposal. Much more to come…

7. Where does the city go from here in the aftermath of this outbreak?

We continue to implement disease control measures and practice good hygiene at the shelter. Make no mistake, a modern shelter isn’t a silver bullet. Under poor management, disease can spread in the most modern facility. Our staff is doing a great job but we’re limited by the facility. No matter what happens, we will continue to do the best job we can with the resources we have.

Next Louis Moore of Garland blog: Garland must move forward on this long-delayed project