CORPORATE WELFARE AT ITS FINEST: PLANO LEASES FIVE ACRES TO RADISSON FOR FREE7/20/2018
0 Comments
On June 25, 2018, the City Council voted unanimously to lease five acres of city land for free, so Radisson could build a hotel on it. The land is next to the Plano Event Center. City staff believes that the new hotel will bring more business to the Plano Event Center and more tourist to Plano. Having a hotel next to the Event Center has been an 18-year goal for Mark Thompson, Executive Director of Visit Plano. Apparently, he has been trying to get a company to build a hotel for 18 years, but no one has agreed until now.
There are currently fourteen hotels in the area. The nearest hotel is Fairfield Inn & Suites 3415 Premier Dr, Plano, TX 75023. It is six minutes from the Plano Event Center. The farthest is Super 8 at 1704 N Central Expy, Plano, TX 75074. That is eight minutes away. Apparently, those fourteen hotels are not helping the Event Center bring in business or tourists. However, city bureaucrats believe a hotel next door to the Event Center should do the trick. Maybe the staff did not see the article in Community Impact that said, "[H]otel occupancy is down in Plano." The article indicates that, while the supply of hotels has gone up, the demand for rooms has gone down. That is probably why the city had to basically give away land so a company would build a hotel on it.
If Radisson really wanted to build a hotel in Plano, it could afford to buy or lease the land. The parent company of Radisson is Marriott International. That company is worth almost 50 billion dollars. In the first quarter of 2018 Marriot International's revenue was $1.23 billion, and its net income was $398 million. Their net profit margin for the first quarter was 32.28%. Clearly, if Marriot thought building a hotel next to the Event Center would be profitable, it could have and would have paid for the land to build a hotel long ago. The government did not have to give the Marriot anything. By giving the land away, the city lost the money it would have made from a sale or a lease agreement. It also sends a message to other companies. If a business wants to come to Plano, they can hold out for a handout.
This deal is a disgrace to the free market and is not capitalism. In a free market system, the government gets out of the way. It is not supposed to do things to boost or hinder business. Companies succeed or fail on their own.
This act of corporate welfare is a prime example of corporatism. Corporatism is a practice invented by the infamous Mussolini, himself. When most people think of Mussolini's fascism, they only think of the violence attached to it. What they forget, is that there is an economic side too.
One aspect of Fascist economics is dirigism. This is where the government controls the incentives of investment and economic planning. Using dirigism, the government can restrict any action or promote any action. This can help or hurt companies. When politicians and bureaucrats create stifling regulations, they restrict business. When they give money or other economic incentives to corporations they are promoting it. The goal is to control who succeeds and who doesn't. The result is an all-powerful controlling bureaucratic government that thinks it knows what is best.
Do Plano citizens really want a controlling economic fascist local government? I didn't think so...
But what do the people know? According to the City, nothing. For we are only providing their paycheck.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull Signing Off
0 CommentsVETERANS GROUP WANTS TO BUILD A VILLAGE IN PLANO7/13/2018
2 Comments
The charitable organization We Got Your Six is looking to build a village for homeless veterans and have their headquarters in Plano. The village would be called Heroes Village. The group wants to build this village on about 50 acres. According to the Executive Director of We Got Your Six, “We will take the property and divide it into sections. One section will have solar powered tiny homes in it where the homeless veterans will live, this section will also have a trailer as a common room with television, computer lab, and other entertainment means. This section will also have a trailer that will be used for teaching classes as well as have offices for counselors to do their work there. We will also have a workshop, so people that have trade skills to share, can come and teach people their trade.
Another section will have our hydroponic gardens, where the homeless veterans will grow their own food, helping make the property self sufficient. We will also be growing hay and wheat which will be used as a cash crop, so that we can help fund the facility without having to always rely on grants and donations. This is also one of the ways that the homeless veterans earn their stay in the program, so that we know they are serious about being in the program. Another section will have a barn, stable, round pens, and other things for our horses and cattle that we will use on the property as another income sources. The homeless veterans will be taking care of all the maintenance around the property and will be taking care of the livestock and horses. We will also have apiaries, so that we can have our own source of honey and bees wax that we will be able to sell as yet another form of income.
All of these different parts of the program will be run by the homeless veterans with guidance and direction from the agricultural departments of the local colleges as well as locals that have agreed to help support We Got Your Six in our mission to help end veteran homelessness. In fact, once we secure the property, which we are looking for investors for, we have a company willing to help sponsor 5 of the tiny homes for our village.”
As a patriotic dog, I love this idea. The growth of homeless veterans is on the rise. This program sounds like a wonderful way to give homeless vets homes, skills, and jobs. It will also give our brave veterans something we all need, a purpose. With that purpose will come a sense of accomplishment.
In order to create Heroes Village, We Got Your Six needs land designed for agriculture. East Plano has over 700 acres of land next to Levon Farms and Collin College, off of Spring Creek and Jupiter. This area is known as Oak Point, and it would be a perfect place for Heroes Village. Since We Got Your Six wants to works with Colleges, the fact that this area is next to Collin College is a great bonus for them.
The development of Heroes Village would be wonderful for Plano, since it would bring jobs. Furthermore, the City Government gives out taxpayer money to large developers and corporations that don't need it; however, Heroes Village does need money and would bring new jobs and new residents to Plano. Personally, I would rather see tax dollars go towards helping build Heroes Village, of which will benefit the city, then a large corporation that doesn't need it. The City also doesn't just give away money, it gives away land too. For example, the City just gave land away to Radisson, so it can build an unneeded hotel on it; even though the corporation that own Radisson is worth 50 billion dollars. I would rather see land donated for a noble cause and for something that is needed. I can't think of something more noble and needed then a place to live for a homeless veteran.
If you would like to find out more about We Got Your Six or donate to the charity, go to www.wgy6.org. If you would like to see Heroes Village built at Oak Point please contact the members of City Council. You can email them at the following emails……
Rick Grady – [email protected]
Tom Harrison – [email protected]
Ron Kelly – [email protected]
Anthony Ricciardelli - [email protected]
Mayor Harry LaRosiliere – [email protected]
Rick Smith – [email protected]
Angela Miner – [email protected]
Kayci Prince – [email protected]
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
2 CommentsTHE CITY OF PLANO FILES A LAWSUIT AGAINST ITSELF7/10/2018
1 Comment
On July 5, 2018, the City of Plano filed a State District Court lawsuit against Tom Harrison in his official capacity as a City Council member, in the 401st Judicial District Court of Collin County. Since the City is suing Tom Harrison in his official capacity, the City is basically suing itself.
What led the City to sue itself? If you read my last post, COUNCILMAN TOM HARRISON SUES CITY OVER RECALL PETITION, you know that the City and Tom Harrison are already in court. On July 2, 2018, Councilman Harrison's legal team filed a reply to the City's response (brief) to the Court. In the reply Councilman Harrison's lawyer wrote, "“Article 6 was drafted and last reviewed in 1988, a full 23 years before article 7 was added to the Plano City Charter. Thus, it cannot be said that the citizens were considering the words in article 7 when drafting article 6, and the words in article 7 have no impact on interpretation of article 6.” The City's lawyer, Andy Taylor, said that statement is wrong. He writes, "Article 7 has been in existence the exact same number of years—57 years—as has Article 6, because both sections were initially passed by the electorate at the same 1961 election." To prove that statement, the City Secretary went on a search for the original 1961 certified version of the Plano City Charter. As a result of this search, Andy Taylor said, "The City Secretary discovered something that was previously unknown to her—that there appear to be two official versions of the 1961 Charter, not just one." Both Charters bear the seal of the City, and both appear to be the real version of the 1961 Charter. WOW! (Insert sarcasm here) What are the odds? But, wait, there's more.According to Andy Taylor, " In comparing the two purportedly authentic versions, the language contained in Section 6.02 of the Plano City Charter is different. Thus, one version does not contain the word “last,” in Section 6.02, while the other version does use the word “last.” This is amazing! The City Secretary was taken to court over her interpretation of Section 6.02 and, she suddenly finds two Charters from 1961 with different wording in Section 6.02. In case you have not figured this out yet, I am a bit skeptical about all of this. Of course it is my job to be skeptical, I am Plano's Political Pit Bull.
After the discovery of the two Charters, the City Secretary tried to find out which Charter was actually voted on by the citizens in 1961. So far she has not found anything to prove which Charter was voted on. She can't find a single newspaper article or the 1961 Charter election ballot. I find it hard to believe that there is no evidence of what the people voted on in 1961.
The City Secretary then contacted the Texas Secretary of State’s Office to determine what had been sent to the Office in order to certify the election results of 1961. The version Plano sent to the Texas Secretary of State in 1961 contained the word “last” in Section 6.02. However, Andy Taylor says, “The City Secretary has no way of knowing which version was actually considered by the voters. Nor does the City Secretary know if the version sent to the Texas Secretary of State was the correct version passed by the electorate or whether it was an incorrect version sent in error.” Then why contact the TX Secretary of State at all!? Personally, I think the version that was filed with the TX Secretary of State is the legal one, since that was the one filed and certified.
The incompetence gets even worse; the City Secretary has confirmed that the City has been working off of the version of the City Charter that does not contain the word “last” since 1969, which was the first time the charter was codified. Fast forward to 1980 and 1988 when the city held elections to amended the Charter. Since the City was using the version that did not have the word “last” in it, they did not write it on the ballots. I don't think it really matters if “last” was written on the ballots, because that is not what the citizens were voting on. According to the 1980 ballot, the residents were voting to add a requirement that a person signing a petition for recall provide his or her voter registration number. On the 1988 ballot, the residents were voting to amend the Charter to, “provide that each signature on a recall petition shall conform to the requirements for information as set forth in the Texas Election Code.” Yes, the City Secretary found the ballots from 1980 and 1988, but she cannot find the ballot from 1961.
Andy Taylor filed the discovery of “new evidence” (the two Charters) in the 5th Court of Appeals. He also filed, with the Court of Appeals, a notice that the City would be suing Councilman Tom Harrison in District Court. One of Councilman Tom Harrison's lawyers, Adrian A. Spears II, then filed a reply with the 5th Court of Appeals. In it he says, “The City alleges that it has two valid Charters, which is an absurd position and is nothing more than a desperate attempt to delay.” Adrian Spears II also said, “The most troubling aspect of this delay stunt is that the City filed the Declaratory Judgment lawsuit against the Relator [Tom Harrison] in his official capacity as council member and is asking the Court to declare which Charter provision controls. Such lawsuit is not only strange but is frivolous as a lawsuit against a person acting in their official capacity is in reality a lawsuit against the governmental entity. Put simply, the City is suing itself which will lead to nothing more than an advisory opinion as there is no proper defendant.” Spears goes on to slam the City by adding, “Such tactics by the City is a waste of taxpayer money and is forcing Relator [Tom Harrison] to expend funds to squeeze him out. Therefore, the fact that the City filed a lawsuit to try to create a fact issue and divest this Court of jurisdiction is desperate.” In other words, the City is only bringing these two newly discovered Charters to the courts attention to get the case kicked out of the 5th Court of Appeals. Plus, Mr. Spears II believes the City is only suing Councilman Harrison over the two Charters to drain his money.
Mr. Spears II maintains that whichever Charter is the “True Charter”, there is no provision in either of them to look back to a time when a council member was elected, to ascertain the number of signatures required for a recall petition. If the City wanted to add a “look back” provision to the Charter, it should have submitted it to the residents for a vote pursuant to section 11.11 of the City Charter. The City cannot just add a “look back” to Plano's website and claim it is legal.
In my humble opinion, the city should not be suing Councilman Tom Harrison because it “found” two conflicting Charters. In 1961, Tom Harrison was not a councilman. Therefore, he is not responsible for the incompetence of a 1961 city bureaucrat. Councilman Harrison did not serve on the 1961 Charter Commission, so he did not help write the documents. I don't think he even lived in Texas in 1961.
The City has an even bigger problem than it realizes. What if Article 6 is not the only article with different words between the two Charters? The City Charter is basically the Constitution of the City. It is the foundation of how the City is to be organized and run. Suppose that the city has been using the wrong Charter for over fifty years. If that is true, it would have huge legal ramifications. So that we can understand the magnitude of these ramifications, let's look at the following hypothetical. What if this new found Charter says that all ordinances must pass the City Council by a super majority. However, the Charter the city has been following only calls for a simple majority to pass an ordinance. If the newly discovered Charter turns out to be the “true” Charter, every ordinance passed by a simple majority since 1961 could be thrown out. If we have been using the wrong Charter, that also means we have been amending the wrong Charter. Therefore, all of the amendments that have passed could get thrown out. One of those amendments was the number of city council members the city should have. In 1961 we only had five council members and a Mayor. If we have amended the wrong Charter, can we conclude that we have the wrong number of City Council members? What happens to the two extra we have now? Would their elections even be valid? Would they have to step down from Council until a new Charter election takes place? If two have to step down, which two would it be? According to the two 1961 Charters, Council members did not have place numbers, so how would the city decide who steps down? I don't know the answers to any of these questions. The one thing I do know is the discovery of this second Charter has the potential of throwing the City into its own constitutional crisis.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull Signing Off.
To read all the documents filed to the Fifth Court of Appeals go tohttp://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-18-00700-CV&coa=coa05
1 CommentCOUNCILMAN TOM HARRISON SUES CITY OVER RECALL PETITION7/8/2018
0 Comments
On June 18, 2018, Councilman Tom Harrison's legal team filed a Writ Of Mandamusbrief to invalidate the petition calling for a recall election for him. The lawsuit was filed against the City Secretary. The Mayor and the City Attorney, Page Mins, are also listed on the lawsuit. Councilman Tom Harrison's legal team makes a few arguments, in their brief, for why the petition is not valid.
Argument one is the City Secretary abused her discretion by validating the recall petition with the wrong number of signatures. According to the Plano City Charter a recall petition, “shall be signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to at least thirty (30) percent of the number of votes cast at the regular municipal election of the city.” The Secretary used the number of voters from the 2015 municipal election. That is the election Councilman Tom Harrison won his council seat in. The problem with using that number is, the Charter does not say to use the number of voters from the election in which the council member was elected. It just say, “at the regular municipal election of the city”. The last municipal election we had was in 2017. Councilman Tom Harrison's team says it is the 2017 election number that should be used. In the brief Councilman Tom Harrison's lawyer argues…
“The Charter clearly does not require the voters to “look back” at the initial year of election. Such additional requirement of the City Secretary is not in conformance with the City Charter and is actually adding an additional requirement not found in the Charter. Such discretion by the City Secretary to add additional requirements to the Charter is a clear abuse of discretion and is void. In addition, if the City takes the position that the Charter intent is to apply a “look back” such interpretation is unfounded and is vague at best and is a desperate attempt to create a “smoke [and] mirrors” argument. Clearly the charter intent was to require a sample of the most current voters and not “look back” to years in the past. If the Charter intent was to “look back” at a time in the past it would have stated so. What is to stop the City from picking and choosing which data census of registered voters it wants to use.”
In other words, what is to stop the City from “looking back” to an election held five, ten, or fifteen years ago?
Argument two is the City Council voting on the recall election before Councilman Tom Harrison had a formal hearing. The lawyer for Councilman Tom Harrison states in the brief…
“On or about April 9, 2018 the City Council voted to hold the recall election without giving Harrison the option of a formal hearing until April 23, 2018. The Mayor also made it impossible for Council member Harrison to be heard.”
I wrote in my post on 5/15/2018 titled Battling Lawyers, Sec. 6.06 of the City Charterstates, “Public hearing to be held:
The officer whose removal is sought may, within five (5) days after such recall petition has been presented to the city council, requesting that a public hearing is held to permit him to present facts pertinent to the charges specified in the recall petition. In this event, the city council shall order such public hearing to be held, not less than five days and no more than fifteen days after receiving such request for a public hearing.”
Then Sec. 6.07 says, “Election to be called: If the officer whose removal is sought does not resign, then the city council shall order an election and set the date for holding such recall election." In the law, there is a concept called Material Construction. This means that when rules are listed in a certain order they are to be followed in that order. By voting on the recall election before having a hearing, the council went out of order.
Argument Three is the reason listed on the petition for the recall does not rise to the legal standard of incompetence, misconduct, or malfeasance. If you remember, the petition in question was started because Tom Harrison put a controversial post on his personal Facebook page. Some people were offended and started the recall petition. Section 6.01 of the Charter clearly says, “The grounds for removal from office are incompetence, misconduct or malfeasance in office.” Those three words have legal meanings. The definition of incompetence is, "The condition of lacking the power to act with legal effectiveness." The definition of misconduct is, "The unlawful conduct by an official in regard to his or her office." Lastly, the definition of malfeasance is,"The performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law." In the brief Tom Harrison's lawyer argues…
“At no time was any statement made by Harrison concerning City business and was not made in the course and scope of his position as Council Member. Also, Harrison stated that his action was personal in nature.” The brief also states, “Council member Harrison never showed any signs of incompetency, malfeasance or misconduct while in his official capacity and such efforts to circulate a petition was erroneous.”
That leads us into argument four, the recall efforts were part of a political scheme by the Mayor and his followers to get rid of Councilman Tom Harrison. The brief states…
“Council member Harrison has been outspoken regarding the motives and economics of the Mayor and City Council’s adoption of the comprehensive plan commonly known as the “Plano Tomorrow Plan. Put simply, the Plano Tomorrow plan is nothing more than a tool to allow the Mayor and city staff carte blanche to build and subsidize and approve any projects that big pocket commercial development contributors want. As a result of Harrison’s concerns and resistance to the Plano Tomorrow Plan, tensions between the Mayor, City staff, and Harrison grew and public support for Harrison and a grass roots effort has grown against the Plano Tomorrow Plan. As a result of Mr. Harrison’s concerns for the citizens of Plano and his opposition to the Plano Tomorrow Plan, the Mayor, city staff and the Mayor’s supporters have begun to target Council member Harrison and have tried desperately to silence him and actually went so far as to organize a petition drive to gather signatures to recall Council member Harrison. There is no doubt that these efforts were spearheaded by the Mayor and his supporters as the Mayor himself signed the recall petition along with at least one other council member, at least one member of the planning and zoning commission, as well as members of the Chamber of Commerce, all supporters of the Mayor and the Plano Tomorrow Plan.”
While I don't disagree that the Mayor would love to get rid of Councilman Harrison, this last argument will be the hardest to prove.
The City hired an out of town law firm to handle the case. Every time the City has a lawsuit filed it hires an outside law firm. I am beginning to wonder why we keep our own City Attorney on staff when she never goes to court. The lawyer hired to handle the claim is Andy Taylor. He filed a response with the court on June 26, 2018. In his response he lists reasons for why the court should deny the claim; these reasons are mostly based on technicalities.
Reason one for denying the case, Mr. Taylor says is the Fifth Court of Appeals, doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case. The response states….
“[Tom Harrison] has an adequate remedy at law available to him in the Civil District Court.”
In other words, Tom Harrison should have filed in District Court first.
Mr. Taylor also makes the case that .....
“The only attempt to initiate legal proceedings was inexplicably brought 74 days after the Citizen Recall Petition was submitted, 69 days after the Special Recall Election was called by Plano’s City Council, and eight full weeks after a public hearing was called and held on this matter. Nothing in [Tom Harrison's] Mandamus Record [brief] explains the reasons for this untimely delay. Also, pursuit of mandamus relief is moot, given the passage of time and the fact that the City Council has already considered the Citizen Recall Petition and entered an ordinance calling for a Special Recall Election.”
I don't see why any of that should matter. As long as Councilman Tom Harrison's team filed the case before the statute of limitations ran out, it does not matter how many days they took to file the case. Just because the City Council has called for a recall election does not mean Councilman Tom Harrison cannot go to court to stop it. In fact, Page Min (City Attorney) made it clear that the council did not have a choice in calling for the recall election after the petition had been verified by the City Secretary. Page Min also made it clear that the only remedy to stop the recall election was for Tom Harrison to go to court.
Reason two, Andy Taylor sights, for denying the case is the wrong numbers were sighted in Tom Harrison's brief. In his brief Tom Harrison's lawyer said…
“The number of qualified voters of the City based on the most recent data collected at the regular municipal election cycle is: 27,208”
That number was only for Collin County. Plano is also in Denton County. The number of Plano voters in Denton County who cast votes in 2017 was not mentioned in Councilman Tom Harrison's brief. This argument is moot because adding additional voters from Denton County makes the number of signatures needed for the petition go up.
Reason three for denying the case Mr. Andy Taylor lists is…
“Relator’s [Tom Harrison] separate ancillary emergency motion seeks injunctive relief to enjoin both the City Secretary and the non-party City of Plano from submitting Councilperson Harrison’s name to the Texas Secretary of State for the upcoming General Election. Such relief, even if granted, would accomplish nothing. First, the upcoming November election for the potential recall of Relator is not a part of the General Election. Second, the Special Recall Election does not involve certification of any name to the Texas Secretary of State. To the contrary, submission is made to both Collin and Denton counties.”
In other words, if Mr. Taylor is right, even though the recall election will be held during the November Midterm Election, Councilman Tom Harrison will not be on the Midterm ballot. His name will be listed separately. That listing will be made by Denton and Collin County, not by the TX Secretary of State. Tom Harrison's lawyers should have asked the court to prevent his name from being submitted to the Collin and Denton County Elections Departments to be put on the ballot. Again, I think this can be fixed by filing an amendment when Councilman Harrison's lawyer replies to Mr. Taylor's response.
Reason four Mr. Andy Taylor gives for throwing out the suite is..
“Now that the election is underway, the Courts will not interfere with the political process at this time, rendering Relator’s [Tom Harrison] petition non-justifiable and potentially violates the constitutional separation of powers between different branches of government.”
That is simply not correct. Courts, in the past, have stopped elections from proceeding. In March of 2018 the 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied a writ of mandamus that sought to validate recall petitions for three Windcrest City Council members.
The fifth and last reason to deny Tom Harrison's motion, Andy Taylor argues, is that the correct number of signatures was received. His argument is a bit long so bear with me. Mr. Taylor says…
“After the adoption of an ordinance, citizens have a right under Plano’s City Charter to collect signatures on a petition requesting a referendum vote on the ordinance. Section 7.02 [of the City Charter] provides that: Said petition must be signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to twenty (20) percent of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election of the city, or one hundred fifty (150), whichever is greater. Unlike Section 7.02’s reference to “last” regular municipal election of the city for referendum elections, Section 6.02 of the Plano City Charter referring to recall elections specifically omits the word “last.” More specifically, Section 6.02 of the Charter states that the "petition shall be signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to at least thirty (30) percent of the number of votes cast at the regular municipal election of the city." The City of Plano first addressed this textual difference between referendum petitions and recall elections in September of 2015, it was incumbent upon the City to harmonize these different provisions in a manner such that neither provision would be rendered meaningless or mere surplus. Accordingly, in 2015, Plano applied neutral and objective rules of statutory construction, and ultimately concluded that the fact that the drafters included the reference to “last” in one provision for elections and not in another was intentional. Therefore, Plano concluded that the threshold for signatures for the recall provision contained in Section 6.06 of the Plano City Charter should be calculated on the number of votes in the regular municipal election at which an officer was elected. Plano’s interpretation has been included since February of 2017 in the recall petition instructions on Plano’s website.”
In other words, since one part of the City Charter that has to do with petition elections has a reference to the last municipal election, but another part of the Charter does not have the words “last election” the City simply decided to amend the Charter without a vote from the residents. By the way, the only way for the City to amend the Charter is by election. However, instead of having an election, the city just amended it's website. Additionally, according to Councilman Harrison's lawyer, the problem with Mr. Taylor's argument was that the word “last” was left out on purpose in article 6, since it was added in Article 7. “Article 6 was drafted and last reviewed in 1988, a full 23 years before article 7 was added to the Plano City Charter. Thus, it cannot be said that the citizens were considering the words in article 7 when drafting Article 6, and the words in article 7 have no impact on interpretation of Article 6. The plain meaning of the words in article 6 are clear and are not ambiguous; and the word "last" was not in the non-existent article 7 at the time article 6 was written.”
Interestingly, Mr. Andy Taylor did not refute Councilman Harrison's lawyers argument that the reasons listed on the petition for the recall do not rise to the legal standard of incompetence, misconduct, or malfeasance.
Now the recall petition is in the hands of the court. They could take up to a month to review the case and come to an opinion. What will really be interesting is what the City will do if it looses the case. Will the City appeal or save the taxpayers money and accept the decision?
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull Signing Off.
You can read the full brief and all the responses at http://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-18-00700-CV&coa=coa05
0 CommentsA STATEMENT FROM COUNCILMAN HARRSION AND HIS TEAM6/21/2018
0 Comments
Councilman Tom Harrsion and “Team Tom” Launch legal effort, and Sues the City Secretary with a writ of Mandamus to begin the effort force a proper airing of the for recall vacating his City Council seat.
After 3 months of over-the top charges, claims of divisive behavior and wounds to the city’s sense of
‘welcoming diversity’ demonstrations and the Mayor’s rushed call for three meetings (including a special
Sunday City Council meeting) addressing unsupported charges that a single personal cell phone
Facebook, clickbait video should be responsible for removal of an elected public official, now the
petitioners must defend their campaign in court.
The Islamic interest groups and Collin County Democrat Party activists from Plano, Richardson
Irving, Arlington and Dallas who have put together a petition for recall in response to Mayor Harry
LaRossilliere’s organizing press conference will finally have to prove up the viability of their petition
against Councilman Tom Harrison in court.
“The petition was fatally flawed and vaguely dependent on the assurances of the petition collectors to
explain their view of the Councilman as a “racist bigot”, and included wide variety of additional smears
and alluded to inapplicable city ordinances without making their case, specifically. That’s how a petition
collector chose to identify the unexplained ordinances to me when he asked me to sign it at Parr Library
on March 6th,” said Allan Samara who identifies as a friend of the Councilman.”
Harrison’s legal GoFundMe account was put together by Plano citizens who know Tom Harrison and
honor his commitment to fiscally responsible Plano growth, put a legal fund together and obtained a law
firm to defend the councilman and has filed a writ of Mandamus asking for a ruling on several
questionable issues contained in the petition document, Including insufficiencies of the signature count,
vagueness of the charge of misconduct in office, failure to notarize all signature sheets, and even highlyssdd
suspicious petitioner witness signatures are present in the documents.
Failed 2017 City Council candidate, and Democratic Precinct Chairman Ann Bacchus who became
spokesman for the group collecting the signatures has her name on 76 of the 10-signature sheets
personally asserting she witnessed the signing,
Democrat activist & Afgan-born Denton County Justice of the Peace candidate Asad Shalami has his
name on 63 sheets and up to 1700 of the signatures are subject to challenge for a variety of flaws, he
court must now sort through.
The City Secretary accepted the signature sheets April 4th and without questioning the recorded obvious
failure to have attached the listed exhibits of the offending documentation, listed in the petition as
items A, B, C, D. Ignoring any ordinance-mandated sequence of notice and response time(See ignored
City ordinances (6.05,6.06, 6.07) for the “accused” Councilman, the city council voted to set a recall
election for November 2018,but only if they can convince the court the flaws of procedure and the
accusations contained in the document validly produced the required signatures.
We believe a manipulative fraud was conducted in the collection of these signatures after Mayor
LaRossiere called a press conference denouncing his fellow councilman, and after allegedly noticing the
Facebook posting only 10 hours after 3 of his fellow councilmen admonished him for boycotting
President Trump’s infrastructure Mayor’s conference in Washington the previous week at the behest of
sanctuary-city Mayors Garcetti of Los Angles, Landrieu of New Orleans and DeBlasio of New York.
The troubling partisan political issues, inherent in the presence of attorney Bacchus and David
Downs ,both losing candidates with the Mayor’s financial PAC support in June of 2017 runoffs, at the
petition turn-in press conference on April 4th suggest a political taint to this entire process.
A process that will now play out in court.
Councilman Harrison is represented by:
Attorney: Art Martinez de Vara
0 CommentsENVISION OAK POINT UPDATE6/21/2018
1 Comment
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018, the City Council discussed the Envision Oak Point Plan. Ms. Day, from the Planning Department, gave a presentation on the plan. Since the plan first came out, the Planning Department has reduced the number of apartments from 1,600 units to 990 units.
Residents are still concerned about the amount of density in the plan, and taxpayer-funded economic incentives that may go to developers. Councilman Ricciardelli asked for a disclaimer in the plan. He wanted the disclaimer to say, "The following is a list of economic development tools that the city may consider in the future. In approving this plan the city council is not taking a position on whether any of these tools are appropriate or inappropriate for Oak Point." The Mayor was against that. He loves giving taxpayer money to developers. Councilwoman Prince was fine with the disclaimer to help reduce public confusion. In the end, Councilman Ricciardelli won and a disclaimer will be added.
As for the density, that remains the same. The plan predicts a population for the area of 7,630 residents. That is 7,630 people for 1.5 per square miles. Right now Plano has about 4,000 residents per square mile, so the plan calls for squeezing more people together. Does the city council think we are sardines that should be squeezed into a can?! Councilman Ricciardelli suggested reducing the density. The Mayor would not hear of it, and no one else would back Councilman Ricciardelli up. In the end, he lost that battle.
During the discussion, the Mayor kept saying, “The reason for a plan is so we can drive this [type of development] to what we want this to be. We can do nothing, and just let it happen or we can drive this.” He also said, “If we did not have a plan, we will have a hodgepodge [of development] in this area.” Councilman Ron Kelly stated, “This is just a vision." Councilman Rick Smith said, “The plan is a road map of what we want to see.”
Here is the problem with these statements, the residents and the free market are not doing the driving. Instead, the Mayor and bureaucrats are making the road map and doing the driving. The residents and the free market economy need to be in the driver's seat. Only the market will know what kind of development will be successful in this area. Only the free market can meet the demands of the residents who live there. For example, Councilman Ron Kelly said that people in this area say they want less fast food and more destination restaurants. If that is true, an entrepreneur who thinks an upscale restaurant will do well in the area will open one. The same applies to any kind of shopping. Store owners are the best people to predict what has a chance of being successful in an area.
The government, however, is terrible at predicting that. Usually, when the government is the driver, it makes things worse. To exemplify this the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “If the government was put in charge of the Sahara, it would run out of sand in 5 years.”
If you don't like this plan, and you want the government out of your driver's seat, write to
Christina Day, the Director Of Planning - [email protected]
and City Council
Rick Grady – [email protected]
Ron Kelly – [email protected]
Mayor Harry LaRosiliere – [email protected]
Angela Miner – [email protected]
Kayci Prince – [email protected]
Tom Harrison – [email protected]
Anthony Ricciardelli - [email protected]
Rick Smith – [email protected]
Tell them what you don't like in the plan, and how they should fix it before the City Council votes on July 23, 2018.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
1 CommentOAK POINT MAY BE COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD6/7/2018
2 Comments
As many of you probably know, I just posted a video talking about how the Envision Oak Point Plan is dead; however, it seems the plan may be rising from its grave. I was just informed that on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, the Oak Point Plan will be discussed in a private executive session with the council members and the Planning Department head Ms. Day. The plan will be on the agenda for the public city council meeting at 7 pm that night. That means the plan can be voted on.
This news has me asking many questions.
1. Why is the City Council and Ms. Day discussing Oak Point behind closed doors? What are they hiding?
2. Why is a City Council meeting being held on a Tuesday? According to the City's website, City Council meetings are supposed to be held on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month.
3. If the Plan has been changed, why is the city not giving the public time to review it before voting on it.
This news is also disturbing when you realize this meeting will be held when most of the people opposed to it will be in San Antonio for the TX State Republican Convention. Even some of our council members are delegates to the convention. While the general session of the convention does not start until Thursday the 14th, the committee meetings will be held at the being of the week. If it is just a coincidence that the Oak Point plan will be up for a vote when most who oppose it will be out of town, then I am a Golden Retriever.
It is schemes like this that lead people to conclude government is corrupt and it does not care about what the people think.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
See correction in the comments below.
2 CommentsWHAT WAS THE CITY COUNCIL TRYING TO HIDE?6/6/2018
4 Comments
On May 29, 2018, at 10 am the Plano City Council had a meeting they are calling a retreat. The agenda stated, "The following will be presented and discussed by City Council: Discussion and Direction regarding City of Plano Vision, Mission, Strategic Plan and Goals, Council Governance, Roles, Interactions, and Responsibilities. Discussions may also include Discussion and Direction of Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Budget and Long Range Planning vision." Unfortunately, I can't tell you if those things were discussed because this meeting was not televised. I don't know if Plano TV taped the meeting to air on Plano's website at a later time. All I do know is that as of 6/6/2018 Plano TV has not uploaded the meeting. The minutes of the meeting have also not be uploaded.
The Open Meetings Act requires a meeting like this to be open to the public. Since the meeting was on a Tuesday morning, most residents could not attend. The residents have a right to know what was said; therefore, the meeting should have been recorded or held at a time when a majority of residents could attend. The fact that the meeting was not recorded leads me to great suspicion. Why was the meeting not recorded? Is the council trying to hide something? If they are, what are they hiding? Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time and record the meeting. However, we can contact our council members and ask why this retreat was not recorded, and demand all meetings that are open to the public be recorded in the future.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull Signing off.
4 CommentsBATTLING LAWYERS5/15/2018
1 Comment
There is an old saying, "Ask two lawyers a question, and you will get four answers." That saying seems to be the case in the recall petition, and with the vote to have a recall election.
On one side you have the City Attorney Page Mims and a high priced lawyer from Huston. According to them, if the petition has the required number of signatures, and is certified by the City Secretary, the Council must accept any recall petition. In Ms. Mims' opinion only the City Secretary or a District Court can decide if a recall petition is valid. The City Council does not have the authority to determine the sufficiency of a recall petition. So, if Ms. Mims is correct, a person could start a petition to recall the Mayor because he thinks the Mayor is a "jerk", and if the City Secretary validates it, the City Council has to call a recall election.
On the other side, we have lawyers who disagree with Ms. Mims' analysis. To understand the opposite side's views, we have to first go over the City Chater.
The City Chater says,
Sec. 6.01. - The scope of the recall.
Any elected city official, whether elected to office by the qualified voters of the city or appointed by the city council to fill a vacancy, shall be subject to recall and removal from office by the qualified voters of the city on grounds of incompetence, misconduct or malfeasance in office.
Sec. 6.06. - Public hearing to be held.
The officer whose removal is sought may, within five (5) days after such recall petition has been presented to the city council, requesting that a public hearing is held to permit him to present facts pertinent to the charges specified in the recall petition. In this event, the city council shall order such public hearing to be held, not less than five days and no more than fifteen days after receiving such request for a public hearing.
Sec. 6.07. - Election to be called.
If the officer whose removal is sought does not resign, then the city council shall order an election and set the date for holding such recall election. The date selected for the recall election shall be in accordance with the Texas Election Code. If, after the recall election date is established, the officer vacates his or her position, the recall election shall be canceled and the vacancy shall be filled in accordance with state law."
Now that we know what is in the charter, let's go through each section as it relates to this recall.
Section 6.01 clearly says the grounds for removal from office are incompetence, misconduct or malfeasance in office. Those three words have legal meanings. The definition of incompetence is, "The condition of lacking the power to act with legal effectiveness." The definition of misconduct is, "The unlawful conduct by an official in regard to his or her office." Lastly, the definition of malfeasance is, "The performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law." Those on Tom's team state that posting something on a personal Facebook page, that is offensive to some people, does not rise to the legal standard of incompetence, misconduct, or malfeasance.
Another problem with the way the council handled the recall petition is when it took a vote on calling an election before Tom Harrison could have a hearing. In the law, there is a concept called Material Construction. This means that when rules are listed in a certain order they are to be followed in that order. By voting on the election before having a hearing, the council went out of order.
So, what happens now? A judge will decide which lawyer is right, and either the recall will go forward, be stopped, or delayed.
1 CommentFREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DYING4/24/2018
4 Comments
Freedom of speech has been under attack in American cities and, Plano is now among them. This attack on the First Amendment came to a head when Plano City Council voted to censure and later voted to have a recall election for Councilman Tom Harrison. A liberal group got the required amount of signatures on a recall petition. There are some conflicting attorney opinions on whether or not the council broke the rules by voting on the recall before Tom Harrison could have a hearing. We also have disagreements on whether the petition itself is legal, but I will talk about those issues in another post.
All of this craziness is because people were offended by a post that was on Tom Harrison's personal Facebook page. While the post was highly controversial, if Tom Harrison is fired for asserting his first amendment right, then free speech is truly dead in America.
Freedom of speech has been under attack for years. Clergy cannot speak freely to their congregations out of fear of the government. Radio and TV hosts lose sponsors because people threaten to boycott. Colleges only allow students to speak freely in designated free speech zones. Students also don't want to have conservatives speak at College graduations. In fact, they don't want any conservative speakers on campus at all. Students even resort to rioting to prevent people like Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro from being on campus. Even College professors bully conservative students.
These attacks on speech have recently moved from Colleges to the internet. The Media Research Center has come out with a 50-page study proving tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter partner with left-leaning groups that hate conservatives. The study found that Google aided Democrats by having search results for the 2016 presidential campaign favor Hillary Clinton.
Youtube has shut down conservative channels and, they remove videos promoting Republican views. Facebook has taken conservative pages down. Tech companies also rely on anti-conservative fact-checkers.
This is not an attack anymore; it's a global assault. People around the world are only allowed to see one view from one group of people. This is what some of the most brutal dictators in history did. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, all banned speech they did not agree with. Only one view was allowed in the press, books, TV shows, film, and art. Today totalitarian governments prevent free speech just like the above leaders did; for example, they block internet sites they don't agree with.
Now some Americans are acting just like those oppressive nations and dictators. Some have shut down speech they don't like. Others bully, harass and physically attack people. They condemn people who have a different point of view. This attitude is not what millions of Americas have fought and even died for. This attitude is the opposite of freedom and liberty. The anti-speech view is why freedom of speech is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The authors of the Bill of Rights (who were not all rich slave owners) and other current wise people have had a few things to say about the freedom of speech. The following are some examples. One wise man said, "For the people to rule wisely, they have to be able to communicate with one another freely, without fear of reprisal." Freedom of speech is not just a God-given right, it is a precondition for self-government.
A founder believed that people who seek to restrict speech revealed themselves to be opponents of republicanism. (The form of government, not the political party.)
Another wise man said, "Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by a minority." This should serve as a reminder that, while people say things that we might find personally offensive, we should never prevent people from speaking. As Roger Pilon explains: “In America, the legitimate power rests ultimately with the people. However, the people have no more right to tyrannize each other through democratic government, than the government itself has to tyrannize the people.”
A wise President also said, “If there be any among us who would wish to change our republican form of government, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
The courts have also weighed in on speech that may be offensive. In an 8-0 decision, the court struck down a rule from the Patent and Trademark Office. This rule denied an Asian band a federal trademark registration for the name “The Slants,” a derogatory term for Asian-Americans. This case deals with the broader issue that speech should be silenced if someone, somewhere might be offended by it. The court ruled on the side of speech.
Benjamin Franklin (a man who, at great risk to his own freedom, taught blacks how to read and write) wrote in The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 8, 1736, "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. This is one reason senators and representatives have the right to speak their minds in congressional debates and committee proceedings without fear of legal reprisal by persons who may be defamed. The Framers knew our representatives could not have free and robust debates if, they fear punishment for what they say.
What everyone above understood was the First Amendment was not placed in our Bill of Rights to protect speech we like. It is there to protect the speech we don't like. The way to combat speech we don't like is with more speech, not less. A great general once said, "Meet me on the battlefield of ideas." We can't meet and debate ideas if we are too afraid to speak our minds. Therefore, we must all stand up for speech we don't like. If we don't, it may be you who says something someone else doesn't like and when that time comes, their won't be anyone left who will stand up for you.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
4 CommentsTOWN HALL MEETING ABOUT WATER SAFTEY4/10/2018
0 Comments
As many of you know, our water had a very powerful chlorine smell last month caused by the yearly chlorine burn they do to keep the pipes clean. This issue was discussed at a town hall meeting by Erin Brockovich and water expert, Robert Bowcock, on April 5, 2018. Hundreds of concerned residents attended the meeting, none of them being Plano City Council officials.
I was able to listen to their discussion online and want to mention a few things that were said. (You can watch the whole meeting on the Safer Water, North TX Facebook page.)
1. Robert Bowcock stressed the importance of maintaining the water distribution center properly.
2. He also said that the NTMWD used the highest levels of chlorine he had ever seen and such high levels are not necessary.
3. The chlorine burns are used to clean the water by ridding the pipes of biofilm.
4. Two reasons our water and pipes get so dirty are Texas’ warm temperatures and low water usage. Apparently, saving water is not good for us.
5. The town can put in biological filters now, to help clean the water, but they are waiting until 2021. Plano made over $38 million dollars in water usage fees last year. That profit could go to buy the biofilters. (The city buys the water from NTWMD at wholesale prices and, sells it to us at retail.)
6. A doctor has made a correlation between the yearly chlorine burn and an increase in skin problems. Every March, Dr. Lauren Stewart, a dermatologist, has more people visiting her office with skin rashes and eczema.
7. Erin has a website called, " www.communityhealthbook.com " where people can report any illness they think is connected to the water supply.
8. Towns can implement higher water standards.
9. We don't test for Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs).
10. A highly toxic water pollutant, known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), is a problem throughout the world. Last year, it caused a number of U.S. communities to close their drinking water supplies. PFOA has been found to cause increased cholesterol levels and is related to low infant birth weights,
effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS). We don't know if PFOA is in our own water. To find out more about PFOAs, you can go to https://www.epa.gov/pfas
11. NTMWD has bought up domain names that are similar to Safer Water North TX.
12. Safer Water North TX has asked the NTMWD for documents. They got some, however, NTMWD is asking the TX Attorney General to keep some flies secret due to attorney-client privilege. The NTMWD got this attorney recently. Our Attorney General is from Collin County. His family still lives here. His wife, Angela, is running for TX State Senate. Contact him to let him know that the public should have all the documents.
What I took away from the town hall is, The NTMWD maintains its water and meets all EPA standards. If this is true... Why does our water suck? If this water was being sold in the free market, no one would buy it. We are the customer, the city is the seller. Even though the city of Plano and the residents can't return the NTMWD's water, Plano can demand a better product or make the product better. But... That will only happen if the residents demand it.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off
0 CommentsWATER CONCERNS IN COLLIN COUNTY4/5/2018
0 Comments
Many residents have had concerns about the water in Collin County. This year when the North Texas Municipal Water District did its yearly chlorine burn residents noticed a strong chlorine smell. I am not an expert on water safety, so I am not going to comment about the safety of the water. I did not even know anything was different about the water in Plano, since I have a water filter and soften for my whole house. Only when we had to turn our filter off, did I smell the chlorine. For those who are very worried about the water, there is a group, Safer Water North TX, that you can join on Facebook. I also recommend going to the NTMWD website www.ntmwd.com . The NTMWD has stated that the water meets EPA safety standards.
This is Plano's Political Pitbull signing off.
0 CommentsCITY OF EXCELLENCE TO COIT ROAD PLANO DRIVERS....DROP DEAD!3/11/2018
After listening to the Mayor's cheer-leading Chamber of Commerce speech at the "State of the City" Lecture last Thursday night...we though everything was really cool here in the "City of Excellence". What with all the (10!) national surveys the P.R. staff has arranged for Mayor Harry's deplorables to bask in the glory of.... Today we got a city newsletter at 1:06 PM informing us that the lovable folks at KC/Southern Railway are just going to stop cold(!) all traffic on Coit for 3 days 3/12-14. How about if "Mayor of Excellence" pick up a phone and tell the railroad boys they don't close all 6 lanes of a very major city artery all at once and, instead alternate the closing and work at night.
This is not the way to run a city Mr. Mayor! Police, Fire, Schools and Traffic count, oh wait, the Mayor's in Washington D.C. this week with the sanctuary city mayors for the second time in a month.
If you love the thump of driving over the railroad crossing at Coit Road between Plano Parkway and Mapleshade Lane, you'll need to find a new thrill soon. Monday, March 12 through Wednesday, March 14, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company is reconstructing this at-grade railroad crossing. Follow signs to alternate routes, but be aware no through traffic from north or south is permitted at the crossing.
Written by a Friend of Plano's Polical Pitbull
0 Comments
On June 25, 2018, the City Council voted unanimously to lease five acres of city land for free, so Radisson could build a hotel on it. The land is next to the Plano Event Center. City staff believes that the new hotel will bring more business to the Plano Event Center and more tourist to Plano. Having a hotel next to the Event Center has been an 18-year goal for Mark Thompson, Executive Director of Visit Plano. Apparently, he has been trying to get a company to build a hotel for 18 years, but no one has agreed until now.
There are currently fourteen hotels in the area. The nearest hotel is Fairfield Inn & Suites 3415 Premier Dr, Plano, TX 75023. It is six minutes from the Plano Event Center. The farthest is Super 8 at 1704 N Central Expy, Plano, TX 75074. That is eight minutes away. Apparently, those fourteen hotels are not helping the Event Center bring in business or tourists. However, city bureaucrats believe a hotel next door to the Event Center should do the trick. Maybe the staff did not see the article in Community Impact that said, "[H]otel occupancy is down in Plano." The article indicates that, while the supply of hotels has gone up, the demand for rooms has gone down. That is probably why the city had to basically give away land so a company would build a hotel on it.
If Radisson really wanted to build a hotel in Plano, it could afford to buy or lease the land. The parent company of Radisson is Marriott International. That company is worth almost 50 billion dollars. In the first quarter of 2018 Marriot International's revenue was $1.23 billion, and its net income was $398 million. Their net profit margin for the first quarter was 32.28%. Clearly, if Marriot thought building a hotel next to the Event Center would be profitable, it could have and would have paid for the land to build a hotel long ago. The government did not have to give the Marriot anything. By giving the land away, the city lost the money it would have made from a sale or a lease agreement. It also sends a message to other companies. If a business wants to come to Plano, they can hold out for a handout.
This deal is a disgrace to the free market and is not capitalism. In a free market system, the government gets out of the way. It is not supposed to do things to boost or hinder business. Companies succeed or fail on their own.
This act of corporate welfare is a prime example of corporatism. Corporatism is a practice invented by the infamous Mussolini, himself. When most people think of Mussolini's fascism, they only think of the violence attached to it. What they forget, is that there is an economic side too.
One aspect of Fascist economics is dirigism. This is where the government controls the incentives of investment and economic planning. Using dirigism, the government can restrict any action or promote any action. This can help or hurt companies. When politicians and bureaucrats create stifling regulations, they restrict business. When they give money or other economic incentives to corporations they are promoting it. The goal is to control who succeeds and who doesn't. The result is an all-powerful controlling bureaucratic government that thinks it knows what is best.
Do Plano citizens really want a controlling economic fascist local government? I didn't think so...
But what do the people know? According to the City, nothing. For we are only providing their paycheck.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull Signing Off
0 CommentsVETERANS GROUP WANTS TO BUILD A VILLAGE IN PLANO7/13/2018
2 Comments
The charitable organization We Got Your Six is looking to build a village for homeless veterans and have their headquarters in Plano. The village would be called Heroes Village. The group wants to build this village on about 50 acres. According to the Executive Director of We Got Your Six, “We will take the property and divide it into sections. One section will have solar powered tiny homes in it where the homeless veterans will live, this section will also have a trailer as a common room with television, computer lab, and other entertainment means. This section will also have a trailer that will be used for teaching classes as well as have offices for counselors to do their work there. We will also have a workshop, so people that have trade skills to share, can come and teach people their trade.
Another section will have our hydroponic gardens, where the homeless veterans will grow their own food, helping make the property self sufficient. We will also be growing hay and wheat which will be used as a cash crop, so that we can help fund the facility without having to always rely on grants and donations. This is also one of the ways that the homeless veterans earn their stay in the program, so that we know they are serious about being in the program. Another section will have a barn, stable, round pens, and other things for our horses and cattle that we will use on the property as another income sources. The homeless veterans will be taking care of all the maintenance around the property and will be taking care of the livestock and horses. We will also have apiaries, so that we can have our own source of honey and bees wax that we will be able to sell as yet another form of income.
All of these different parts of the program will be run by the homeless veterans with guidance and direction from the agricultural departments of the local colleges as well as locals that have agreed to help support We Got Your Six in our mission to help end veteran homelessness. In fact, once we secure the property, which we are looking for investors for, we have a company willing to help sponsor 5 of the tiny homes for our village.”
As a patriotic dog, I love this idea. The growth of homeless veterans is on the rise. This program sounds like a wonderful way to give homeless vets homes, skills, and jobs. It will also give our brave veterans something we all need, a purpose. With that purpose will come a sense of accomplishment.
In order to create Heroes Village, We Got Your Six needs land designed for agriculture. East Plano has over 700 acres of land next to Levon Farms and Collin College, off of Spring Creek and Jupiter. This area is known as Oak Point, and it would be a perfect place for Heroes Village. Since We Got Your Six wants to works with Colleges, the fact that this area is next to Collin College is a great bonus for them.
The development of Heroes Village would be wonderful for Plano, since it would bring jobs. Furthermore, the City Government gives out taxpayer money to large developers and corporations that don't need it; however, Heroes Village does need money and would bring new jobs and new residents to Plano. Personally, I would rather see tax dollars go towards helping build Heroes Village, of which will benefit the city, then a large corporation that doesn't need it. The City also doesn't just give away money, it gives away land too. For example, the City just gave land away to Radisson, so it can build an unneeded hotel on it; even though the corporation that own Radisson is worth 50 billion dollars. I would rather see land donated for a noble cause and for something that is needed. I can't think of something more noble and needed then a place to live for a homeless veteran.
If you would like to find out more about We Got Your Six or donate to the charity, go to www.wgy6.org. If you would like to see Heroes Village built at Oak Point please contact the members of City Council. You can email them at the following emails……
Rick Grady – [email protected]
Tom Harrison – [email protected]
Ron Kelly – [email protected]
Anthony Ricciardelli - [email protected]
Mayor Harry LaRosiliere – [email protected]
Rick Smith – [email protected]
Angela Miner – [email protected]
Kayci Prince – [email protected]
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
2 CommentsTHE CITY OF PLANO FILES A LAWSUIT AGAINST ITSELF7/10/2018
1 Comment
On July 5, 2018, the City of Plano filed a State District Court lawsuit against Tom Harrison in his official capacity as a City Council member, in the 401st Judicial District Court of Collin County. Since the City is suing Tom Harrison in his official capacity, the City is basically suing itself.
What led the City to sue itself? If you read my last post, COUNCILMAN TOM HARRISON SUES CITY OVER RECALL PETITION, you know that the City and Tom Harrison are already in court. On July 2, 2018, Councilman Harrison's legal team filed a reply to the City's response (brief) to the Court. In the reply Councilman Harrison's lawyer wrote, "“Article 6 was drafted and last reviewed in 1988, a full 23 years before article 7 was added to the Plano City Charter. Thus, it cannot be said that the citizens were considering the words in article 7 when drafting article 6, and the words in article 7 have no impact on interpretation of article 6.” The City's lawyer, Andy Taylor, said that statement is wrong. He writes, "Article 7 has been in existence the exact same number of years—57 years—as has Article 6, because both sections were initially passed by the electorate at the same 1961 election." To prove that statement, the City Secretary went on a search for the original 1961 certified version of the Plano City Charter. As a result of this search, Andy Taylor said, "The City Secretary discovered something that was previously unknown to her—that there appear to be two official versions of the 1961 Charter, not just one." Both Charters bear the seal of the City, and both appear to be the real version of the 1961 Charter. WOW! (Insert sarcasm here) What are the odds? But, wait, there's more.According to Andy Taylor, " In comparing the two purportedly authentic versions, the language contained in Section 6.02 of the Plano City Charter is different. Thus, one version does not contain the word “last,” in Section 6.02, while the other version does use the word “last.” This is amazing! The City Secretary was taken to court over her interpretation of Section 6.02 and, she suddenly finds two Charters from 1961 with different wording in Section 6.02. In case you have not figured this out yet, I am a bit skeptical about all of this. Of course it is my job to be skeptical, I am Plano's Political Pit Bull.
After the discovery of the two Charters, the City Secretary tried to find out which Charter was actually voted on by the citizens in 1961. So far she has not found anything to prove which Charter was voted on. She can't find a single newspaper article or the 1961 Charter election ballot. I find it hard to believe that there is no evidence of what the people voted on in 1961.
The City Secretary then contacted the Texas Secretary of State’s Office to determine what had been sent to the Office in order to certify the election results of 1961. The version Plano sent to the Texas Secretary of State in 1961 contained the word “last” in Section 6.02. However, Andy Taylor says, “The City Secretary has no way of knowing which version was actually considered by the voters. Nor does the City Secretary know if the version sent to the Texas Secretary of State was the correct version passed by the electorate or whether it was an incorrect version sent in error.” Then why contact the TX Secretary of State at all!? Personally, I think the version that was filed with the TX Secretary of State is the legal one, since that was the one filed and certified.
The incompetence gets even worse; the City Secretary has confirmed that the City has been working off of the version of the City Charter that does not contain the word “last” since 1969, which was the first time the charter was codified. Fast forward to 1980 and 1988 when the city held elections to amended the Charter. Since the City was using the version that did not have the word “last” in it, they did not write it on the ballots. I don't think it really matters if “last” was written on the ballots, because that is not what the citizens were voting on. According to the 1980 ballot, the residents were voting to add a requirement that a person signing a petition for recall provide his or her voter registration number. On the 1988 ballot, the residents were voting to amend the Charter to, “provide that each signature on a recall petition shall conform to the requirements for information as set forth in the Texas Election Code.” Yes, the City Secretary found the ballots from 1980 and 1988, but she cannot find the ballot from 1961.
Andy Taylor filed the discovery of “new evidence” (the two Charters) in the 5th Court of Appeals. He also filed, with the Court of Appeals, a notice that the City would be suing Councilman Tom Harrison in District Court. One of Councilman Tom Harrison's lawyers, Adrian A. Spears II, then filed a reply with the 5th Court of Appeals. In it he says, “The City alleges that it has two valid Charters, which is an absurd position and is nothing more than a desperate attempt to delay.” Adrian Spears II also said, “The most troubling aspect of this delay stunt is that the City filed the Declaratory Judgment lawsuit against the Relator [Tom Harrison] in his official capacity as council member and is asking the Court to declare which Charter provision controls. Such lawsuit is not only strange but is frivolous as a lawsuit against a person acting in their official capacity is in reality a lawsuit against the governmental entity. Put simply, the City is suing itself which will lead to nothing more than an advisory opinion as there is no proper defendant.” Spears goes on to slam the City by adding, “Such tactics by the City is a waste of taxpayer money and is forcing Relator [Tom Harrison] to expend funds to squeeze him out. Therefore, the fact that the City filed a lawsuit to try to create a fact issue and divest this Court of jurisdiction is desperate.” In other words, the City is only bringing these two newly discovered Charters to the courts attention to get the case kicked out of the 5th Court of Appeals. Plus, Mr. Spears II believes the City is only suing Councilman Harrison over the two Charters to drain his money.
Mr. Spears II maintains that whichever Charter is the “True Charter”, there is no provision in either of them to look back to a time when a council member was elected, to ascertain the number of signatures required for a recall petition. If the City wanted to add a “look back” provision to the Charter, it should have submitted it to the residents for a vote pursuant to section 11.11 of the City Charter. The City cannot just add a “look back” to Plano's website and claim it is legal.
In my humble opinion, the city should not be suing Councilman Tom Harrison because it “found” two conflicting Charters. In 1961, Tom Harrison was not a councilman. Therefore, he is not responsible for the incompetence of a 1961 city bureaucrat. Councilman Harrison did not serve on the 1961 Charter Commission, so he did not help write the documents. I don't think he even lived in Texas in 1961.
The City has an even bigger problem than it realizes. What if Article 6 is not the only article with different words between the two Charters? The City Charter is basically the Constitution of the City. It is the foundation of how the City is to be organized and run. Suppose that the city has been using the wrong Charter for over fifty years. If that is true, it would have huge legal ramifications. So that we can understand the magnitude of these ramifications, let's look at the following hypothetical. What if this new found Charter says that all ordinances must pass the City Council by a super majority. However, the Charter the city has been following only calls for a simple majority to pass an ordinance. If the newly discovered Charter turns out to be the “true” Charter, every ordinance passed by a simple majority since 1961 could be thrown out. If we have been using the wrong Charter, that also means we have been amending the wrong Charter. Therefore, all of the amendments that have passed could get thrown out. One of those amendments was the number of city council members the city should have. In 1961 we only had five council members and a Mayor. If we have amended the wrong Charter, can we conclude that we have the wrong number of City Council members? What happens to the two extra we have now? Would their elections even be valid? Would they have to step down from Council until a new Charter election takes place? If two have to step down, which two would it be? According to the two 1961 Charters, Council members did not have place numbers, so how would the city decide who steps down? I don't know the answers to any of these questions. The one thing I do know is the discovery of this second Charter has the potential of throwing the City into its own constitutional crisis.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull Signing Off.
To read all the documents filed to the Fifth Court of Appeals go tohttp://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-18-00700-CV&coa=coa05
1 CommentCOUNCILMAN TOM HARRISON SUES CITY OVER RECALL PETITION7/8/2018
0 Comments
On June 18, 2018, Councilman Tom Harrison's legal team filed a Writ Of Mandamusbrief to invalidate the petition calling for a recall election for him. The lawsuit was filed against the City Secretary. The Mayor and the City Attorney, Page Mins, are also listed on the lawsuit. Councilman Tom Harrison's legal team makes a few arguments, in their brief, for why the petition is not valid.
Argument one is the City Secretary abused her discretion by validating the recall petition with the wrong number of signatures. According to the Plano City Charter a recall petition, “shall be signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to at least thirty (30) percent of the number of votes cast at the regular municipal election of the city.” The Secretary used the number of voters from the 2015 municipal election. That is the election Councilman Tom Harrison won his council seat in. The problem with using that number is, the Charter does not say to use the number of voters from the election in which the council member was elected. It just say, “at the regular municipal election of the city”. The last municipal election we had was in 2017. Councilman Tom Harrison's team says it is the 2017 election number that should be used. In the brief Councilman Tom Harrison's lawyer argues…
“The Charter clearly does not require the voters to “look back” at the initial year of election. Such additional requirement of the City Secretary is not in conformance with the City Charter and is actually adding an additional requirement not found in the Charter. Such discretion by the City Secretary to add additional requirements to the Charter is a clear abuse of discretion and is void. In addition, if the City takes the position that the Charter intent is to apply a “look back” such interpretation is unfounded and is vague at best and is a desperate attempt to create a “smoke [and] mirrors” argument. Clearly the charter intent was to require a sample of the most current voters and not “look back” to years in the past. If the Charter intent was to “look back” at a time in the past it would have stated so. What is to stop the City from picking and choosing which data census of registered voters it wants to use.”
In other words, what is to stop the City from “looking back” to an election held five, ten, or fifteen years ago?
Argument two is the City Council voting on the recall election before Councilman Tom Harrison had a formal hearing. The lawyer for Councilman Tom Harrison states in the brief…
“On or about April 9, 2018 the City Council voted to hold the recall election without giving Harrison the option of a formal hearing until April 23, 2018. The Mayor also made it impossible for Council member Harrison to be heard.”
I wrote in my post on 5/15/2018 titled Battling Lawyers, Sec. 6.06 of the City Charterstates, “Public hearing to be held:
The officer whose removal is sought may, within five (5) days after such recall petition has been presented to the city council, requesting that a public hearing is held to permit him to present facts pertinent to the charges specified in the recall petition. In this event, the city council shall order such public hearing to be held, not less than five days and no more than fifteen days after receiving such request for a public hearing.”
Then Sec. 6.07 says, “Election to be called: If the officer whose removal is sought does not resign, then the city council shall order an election and set the date for holding such recall election." In the law, there is a concept called Material Construction. This means that when rules are listed in a certain order they are to be followed in that order. By voting on the recall election before having a hearing, the council went out of order.
Argument Three is the reason listed on the petition for the recall does not rise to the legal standard of incompetence, misconduct, or malfeasance. If you remember, the petition in question was started because Tom Harrison put a controversial post on his personal Facebook page. Some people were offended and started the recall petition. Section 6.01 of the Charter clearly says, “The grounds for removal from office are incompetence, misconduct or malfeasance in office.” Those three words have legal meanings. The definition of incompetence is, "The condition of lacking the power to act with legal effectiveness." The definition of misconduct is, "The unlawful conduct by an official in regard to his or her office." Lastly, the definition of malfeasance is,"The performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law." In the brief Tom Harrison's lawyer argues…
“At no time was any statement made by Harrison concerning City business and was not made in the course and scope of his position as Council Member. Also, Harrison stated that his action was personal in nature.” The brief also states, “Council member Harrison never showed any signs of incompetency, malfeasance or misconduct while in his official capacity and such efforts to circulate a petition was erroneous.”
That leads us into argument four, the recall efforts were part of a political scheme by the Mayor and his followers to get rid of Councilman Tom Harrison. The brief states…
“Council member Harrison has been outspoken regarding the motives and economics of the Mayor and City Council’s adoption of the comprehensive plan commonly known as the “Plano Tomorrow Plan. Put simply, the Plano Tomorrow plan is nothing more than a tool to allow the Mayor and city staff carte blanche to build and subsidize and approve any projects that big pocket commercial development contributors want. As a result of Harrison’s concerns and resistance to the Plano Tomorrow Plan, tensions between the Mayor, City staff, and Harrison grew and public support for Harrison and a grass roots effort has grown against the Plano Tomorrow Plan. As a result of Mr. Harrison’s concerns for the citizens of Plano and his opposition to the Plano Tomorrow Plan, the Mayor, city staff and the Mayor’s supporters have begun to target Council member Harrison and have tried desperately to silence him and actually went so far as to organize a petition drive to gather signatures to recall Council member Harrison. There is no doubt that these efforts were spearheaded by the Mayor and his supporters as the Mayor himself signed the recall petition along with at least one other council member, at least one member of the planning and zoning commission, as well as members of the Chamber of Commerce, all supporters of the Mayor and the Plano Tomorrow Plan.”
While I don't disagree that the Mayor would love to get rid of Councilman Harrison, this last argument will be the hardest to prove.
The City hired an out of town law firm to handle the case. Every time the City has a lawsuit filed it hires an outside law firm. I am beginning to wonder why we keep our own City Attorney on staff when she never goes to court. The lawyer hired to handle the claim is Andy Taylor. He filed a response with the court on June 26, 2018. In his response he lists reasons for why the court should deny the claim; these reasons are mostly based on technicalities.
Reason one for denying the case, Mr. Taylor says is the Fifth Court of Appeals, doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case. The response states….
“[Tom Harrison] has an adequate remedy at law available to him in the Civil District Court.”
In other words, Tom Harrison should have filed in District Court first.
Mr. Taylor also makes the case that .....
“The only attempt to initiate legal proceedings was inexplicably brought 74 days after the Citizen Recall Petition was submitted, 69 days after the Special Recall Election was called by Plano’s City Council, and eight full weeks after a public hearing was called and held on this matter. Nothing in [Tom Harrison's] Mandamus Record [brief] explains the reasons for this untimely delay. Also, pursuit of mandamus relief is moot, given the passage of time and the fact that the City Council has already considered the Citizen Recall Petition and entered an ordinance calling for a Special Recall Election.”
I don't see why any of that should matter. As long as Councilman Tom Harrison's team filed the case before the statute of limitations ran out, it does not matter how many days they took to file the case. Just because the City Council has called for a recall election does not mean Councilman Tom Harrison cannot go to court to stop it. In fact, Page Min (City Attorney) made it clear that the council did not have a choice in calling for the recall election after the petition had been verified by the City Secretary. Page Min also made it clear that the only remedy to stop the recall election was for Tom Harrison to go to court.
Reason two, Andy Taylor sights, for denying the case is the wrong numbers were sighted in Tom Harrison's brief. In his brief Tom Harrison's lawyer said…
“The number of qualified voters of the City based on the most recent data collected at the regular municipal election cycle is: 27,208”
That number was only for Collin County. Plano is also in Denton County. The number of Plano voters in Denton County who cast votes in 2017 was not mentioned in Councilman Tom Harrison's brief. This argument is moot because adding additional voters from Denton County makes the number of signatures needed for the petition go up.
Reason three for denying the case Mr. Andy Taylor lists is…
“Relator’s [Tom Harrison] separate ancillary emergency motion seeks injunctive relief to enjoin both the City Secretary and the non-party City of Plano from submitting Councilperson Harrison’s name to the Texas Secretary of State for the upcoming General Election. Such relief, even if granted, would accomplish nothing. First, the upcoming November election for the potential recall of Relator is not a part of the General Election. Second, the Special Recall Election does not involve certification of any name to the Texas Secretary of State. To the contrary, submission is made to both Collin and Denton counties.”
In other words, if Mr. Taylor is right, even though the recall election will be held during the November Midterm Election, Councilman Tom Harrison will not be on the Midterm ballot. His name will be listed separately. That listing will be made by Denton and Collin County, not by the TX Secretary of State. Tom Harrison's lawyers should have asked the court to prevent his name from being submitted to the Collin and Denton County Elections Departments to be put on the ballot. Again, I think this can be fixed by filing an amendment when Councilman Harrison's lawyer replies to Mr. Taylor's response.
Reason four Mr. Andy Taylor gives for throwing out the suite is..
“Now that the election is underway, the Courts will not interfere with the political process at this time, rendering Relator’s [Tom Harrison] petition non-justifiable and potentially violates the constitutional separation of powers between different branches of government.”
That is simply not correct. Courts, in the past, have stopped elections from proceeding. In March of 2018 the 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied a writ of mandamus that sought to validate recall petitions for three Windcrest City Council members.
The fifth and last reason to deny Tom Harrison's motion, Andy Taylor argues, is that the correct number of signatures was received. His argument is a bit long so bear with me. Mr. Taylor says…
“After the adoption of an ordinance, citizens have a right under Plano’s City Charter to collect signatures on a petition requesting a referendum vote on the ordinance. Section 7.02 [of the City Charter] provides that: Said petition must be signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to twenty (20) percent of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election of the city, or one hundred fifty (150), whichever is greater. Unlike Section 7.02’s reference to “last” regular municipal election of the city for referendum elections, Section 6.02 of the Plano City Charter referring to recall elections specifically omits the word “last.” More specifically, Section 6.02 of the Charter states that the "petition shall be signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to at least thirty (30) percent of the number of votes cast at the regular municipal election of the city." The City of Plano first addressed this textual difference between referendum petitions and recall elections in September of 2015, it was incumbent upon the City to harmonize these different provisions in a manner such that neither provision would be rendered meaningless or mere surplus. Accordingly, in 2015, Plano applied neutral and objective rules of statutory construction, and ultimately concluded that the fact that the drafters included the reference to “last” in one provision for elections and not in another was intentional. Therefore, Plano concluded that the threshold for signatures for the recall provision contained in Section 6.06 of the Plano City Charter should be calculated on the number of votes in the regular municipal election at which an officer was elected. Plano’s interpretation has been included since February of 2017 in the recall petition instructions on Plano’s website.”
In other words, since one part of the City Charter that has to do with petition elections has a reference to the last municipal election, but another part of the Charter does not have the words “last election” the City simply decided to amend the Charter without a vote from the residents. By the way, the only way for the City to amend the Charter is by election. However, instead of having an election, the city just amended it's website. Additionally, according to Councilman Harrison's lawyer, the problem with Mr. Taylor's argument was that the word “last” was left out on purpose in article 6, since it was added in Article 7. “Article 6 was drafted and last reviewed in 1988, a full 23 years before article 7 was added to the Plano City Charter. Thus, it cannot be said that the citizens were considering the words in article 7 when drafting Article 6, and the words in article 7 have no impact on interpretation of Article 6. The plain meaning of the words in article 6 are clear and are not ambiguous; and the word "last" was not in the non-existent article 7 at the time article 6 was written.”
Interestingly, Mr. Andy Taylor did not refute Councilman Harrison's lawyers argument that the reasons listed on the petition for the recall do not rise to the legal standard of incompetence, misconduct, or malfeasance.
Now the recall petition is in the hands of the court. They could take up to a month to review the case and come to an opinion. What will really be interesting is what the City will do if it looses the case. Will the City appeal or save the taxpayers money and accept the decision?
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull Signing Off.
You can read the full brief and all the responses at http://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-18-00700-CV&coa=coa05
0 CommentsA STATEMENT FROM COUNCILMAN HARRSION AND HIS TEAM6/21/2018
0 Comments
Councilman Tom Harrsion and “Team Tom” Launch legal effort, and Sues the City Secretary with a writ of Mandamus to begin the effort force a proper airing of the for recall vacating his City Council seat.
After 3 months of over-the top charges, claims of divisive behavior and wounds to the city’s sense of
‘welcoming diversity’ demonstrations and the Mayor’s rushed call for three meetings (including a special
Sunday City Council meeting) addressing unsupported charges that a single personal cell phone
Facebook, clickbait video should be responsible for removal of an elected public official, now the
petitioners must defend their campaign in court.
The Islamic interest groups and Collin County Democrat Party activists from Plano, Richardson
Irving, Arlington and Dallas who have put together a petition for recall in response to Mayor Harry
LaRossilliere’s organizing press conference will finally have to prove up the viability of their petition
against Councilman Tom Harrison in court.
“The petition was fatally flawed and vaguely dependent on the assurances of the petition collectors to
explain their view of the Councilman as a “racist bigot”, and included wide variety of additional smears
and alluded to inapplicable city ordinances without making their case, specifically. That’s how a petition
collector chose to identify the unexplained ordinances to me when he asked me to sign it at Parr Library
on March 6th,” said Allan Samara who identifies as a friend of the Councilman.”
Harrison’s legal GoFundMe account was put together by Plano citizens who know Tom Harrison and
honor his commitment to fiscally responsible Plano growth, put a legal fund together and obtained a law
firm to defend the councilman and has filed a writ of Mandamus asking for a ruling on several
questionable issues contained in the petition document, Including insufficiencies of the signature count,
vagueness of the charge of misconduct in office, failure to notarize all signature sheets, and even highlyssdd
suspicious petitioner witness signatures are present in the documents.
Failed 2017 City Council candidate, and Democratic Precinct Chairman Ann Bacchus who became
spokesman for the group collecting the signatures has her name on 76 of the 10-signature sheets
personally asserting she witnessed the signing,
Democrat activist & Afgan-born Denton County Justice of the Peace candidate Asad Shalami has his
name on 63 sheets and up to 1700 of the signatures are subject to challenge for a variety of flaws, he
court must now sort through.
The City Secretary accepted the signature sheets April 4th and without questioning the recorded obvious
failure to have attached the listed exhibits of the offending documentation, listed in the petition as
items A, B, C, D. Ignoring any ordinance-mandated sequence of notice and response time(See ignored
City ordinances (6.05,6.06, 6.07) for the “accused” Councilman, the city council voted to set a recall
election for November 2018,but only if they can convince the court the flaws of procedure and the
accusations contained in the document validly produced the required signatures.
We believe a manipulative fraud was conducted in the collection of these signatures after Mayor
LaRossiere called a press conference denouncing his fellow councilman, and after allegedly noticing the
Facebook posting only 10 hours after 3 of his fellow councilmen admonished him for boycotting
President Trump’s infrastructure Mayor’s conference in Washington the previous week at the behest of
sanctuary-city Mayors Garcetti of Los Angles, Landrieu of New Orleans and DeBlasio of New York.
The troubling partisan political issues, inherent in the presence of attorney Bacchus and David
Downs ,both losing candidates with the Mayor’s financial PAC support in June of 2017 runoffs, at the
petition turn-in press conference on April 4th suggest a political taint to this entire process.
A process that will now play out in court.
Councilman Harrison is represented by:
Attorney: Art Martinez de Vara
0 CommentsENVISION OAK POINT UPDATE6/21/2018
1 Comment
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018, the City Council discussed the Envision Oak Point Plan. Ms. Day, from the Planning Department, gave a presentation on the plan. Since the plan first came out, the Planning Department has reduced the number of apartments from 1,600 units to 990 units.
Residents are still concerned about the amount of density in the plan, and taxpayer-funded economic incentives that may go to developers. Councilman Ricciardelli asked for a disclaimer in the plan. He wanted the disclaimer to say, "The following is a list of economic development tools that the city may consider in the future. In approving this plan the city council is not taking a position on whether any of these tools are appropriate or inappropriate for Oak Point." The Mayor was against that. He loves giving taxpayer money to developers. Councilwoman Prince was fine with the disclaimer to help reduce public confusion. In the end, Councilman Ricciardelli won and a disclaimer will be added.
As for the density, that remains the same. The plan predicts a population for the area of 7,630 residents. That is 7,630 people for 1.5 per square miles. Right now Plano has about 4,000 residents per square mile, so the plan calls for squeezing more people together. Does the city council think we are sardines that should be squeezed into a can?! Councilman Ricciardelli suggested reducing the density. The Mayor would not hear of it, and no one else would back Councilman Ricciardelli up. In the end, he lost that battle.
During the discussion, the Mayor kept saying, “The reason for a plan is so we can drive this [type of development] to what we want this to be. We can do nothing, and just let it happen or we can drive this.” He also said, “If we did not have a plan, we will have a hodgepodge [of development] in this area.” Councilman Ron Kelly stated, “This is just a vision." Councilman Rick Smith said, “The plan is a road map of what we want to see.”
Here is the problem with these statements, the residents and the free market are not doing the driving. Instead, the Mayor and bureaucrats are making the road map and doing the driving. The residents and the free market economy need to be in the driver's seat. Only the market will know what kind of development will be successful in this area. Only the free market can meet the demands of the residents who live there. For example, Councilman Ron Kelly said that people in this area say they want less fast food and more destination restaurants. If that is true, an entrepreneur who thinks an upscale restaurant will do well in the area will open one. The same applies to any kind of shopping. Store owners are the best people to predict what has a chance of being successful in an area.
The government, however, is terrible at predicting that. Usually, when the government is the driver, it makes things worse. To exemplify this the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “If the government was put in charge of the Sahara, it would run out of sand in 5 years.”
If you don't like this plan, and you want the government out of your driver's seat, write to
Christina Day, the Director Of Planning - [email protected]
and City Council
Rick Grady – [email protected]
Ron Kelly – [email protected]
Mayor Harry LaRosiliere – [email protected]
Angela Miner – [email protected]
Kayci Prince – [email protected]
Tom Harrison – [email protected]
Anthony Ricciardelli - [email protected]
Rick Smith – [email protected]
Tell them what you don't like in the plan, and how they should fix it before the City Council votes on July 23, 2018.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
1 CommentOAK POINT MAY BE COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD6/7/2018
2 Comments
As many of you probably know, I just posted a video talking about how the Envision Oak Point Plan is dead; however, it seems the plan may be rising from its grave. I was just informed that on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, the Oak Point Plan will be discussed in a private executive session with the council members and the Planning Department head Ms. Day. The plan will be on the agenda for the public city council meeting at 7 pm that night. That means the plan can be voted on.
This news has me asking many questions.
1. Why is the City Council and Ms. Day discussing Oak Point behind closed doors? What are they hiding?
2. Why is a City Council meeting being held on a Tuesday? According to the City's website, City Council meetings are supposed to be held on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month.
3. If the Plan has been changed, why is the city not giving the public time to review it before voting on it.
This news is also disturbing when you realize this meeting will be held when most of the people opposed to it will be in San Antonio for the TX State Republican Convention. Even some of our council members are delegates to the convention. While the general session of the convention does not start until Thursday the 14th, the committee meetings will be held at the being of the week. If it is just a coincidence that the Oak Point plan will be up for a vote when most who oppose it will be out of town, then I am a Golden Retriever.
It is schemes like this that lead people to conclude government is corrupt and it does not care about what the people think.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
See correction in the comments below.
2 CommentsWHAT WAS THE CITY COUNCIL TRYING TO HIDE?6/6/2018
4 Comments
On May 29, 2018, at 10 am the Plano City Council had a meeting they are calling a retreat. The agenda stated, "The following will be presented and discussed by City Council: Discussion and Direction regarding City of Plano Vision, Mission, Strategic Plan and Goals, Council Governance, Roles, Interactions, and Responsibilities. Discussions may also include Discussion and Direction of Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Budget and Long Range Planning vision." Unfortunately, I can't tell you if those things were discussed because this meeting was not televised. I don't know if Plano TV taped the meeting to air on Plano's website at a later time. All I do know is that as of 6/6/2018 Plano TV has not uploaded the meeting. The minutes of the meeting have also not be uploaded.
The Open Meetings Act requires a meeting like this to be open to the public. Since the meeting was on a Tuesday morning, most residents could not attend. The residents have a right to know what was said; therefore, the meeting should have been recorded or held at a time when a majority of residents could attend. The fact that the meeting was not recorded leads me to great suspicion. Why was the meeting not recorded? Is the council trying to hide something? If they are, what are they hiding? Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time and record the meeting. However, we can contact our council members and ask why this retreat was not recorded, and demand all meetings that are open to the public be recorded in the future.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull Signing off.
4 CommentsBATTLING LAWYERS5/15/2018
1 Comment
There is an old saying, "Ask two lawyers a question, and you will get four answers." That saying seems to be the case in the recall petition, and with the vote to have a recall election.
On one side you have the City Attorney Page Mims and a high priced lawyer from Huston. According to them, if the petition has the required number of signatures, and is certified by the City Secretary, the Council must accept any recall petition. In Ms. Mims' opinion only the City Secretary or a District Court can decide if a recall petition is valid. The City Council does not have the authority to determine the sufficiency of a recall petition. So, if Ms. Mims is correct, a person could start a petition to recall the Mayor because he thinks the Mayor is a "jerk", and if the City Secretary validates it, the City Council has to call a recall election.
On the other side, we have lawyers who disagree with Ms. Mims' analysis. To understand the opposite side's views, we have to first go over the City Chater.
The City Chater says,
Sec. 6.01. - The scope of the recall.
Any elected city official, whether elected to office by the qualified voters of the city or appointed by the city council to fill a vacancy, shall be subject to recall and removal from office by the qualified voters of the city on grounds of incompetence, misconduct or malfeasance in office.
Sec. 6.06. - Public hearing to be held.
The officer whose removal is sought may, within five (5) days after such recall petition has been presented to the city council, requesting that a public hearing is held to permit him to present facts pertinent to the charges specified in the recall petition. In this event, the city council shall order such public hearing to be held, not less than five days and no more than fifteen days after receiving such request for a public hearing.
Sec. 6.07. - Election to be called.
If the officer whose removal is sought does not resign, then the city council shall order an election and set the date for holding such recall election. The date selected for the recall election shall be in accordance with the Texas Election Code. If, after the recall election date is established, the officer vacates his or her position, the recall election shall be canceled and the vacancy shall be filled in accordance with state law."
Now that we know what is in the charter, let's go through each section as it relates to this recall.
Section 6.01 clearly says the grounds for removal from office are incompetence, misconduct or malfeasance in office. Those three words have legal meanings. The definition of incompetence is, "The condition of lacking the power to act with legal effectiveness." The definition of misconduct is, "The unlawful conduct by an official in regard to his or her office." Lastly, the definition of malfeasance is, "The performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law." Those on Tom's team state that posting something on a personal Facebook page, that is offensive to some people, does not rise to the legal standard of incompetence, misconduct, or malfeasance.
Another problem with the way the council handled the recall petition is when it took a vote on calling an election before Tom Harrison could have a hearing. In the law, there is a concept called Material Construction. This means that when rules are listed in a certain order they are to be followed in that order. By voting on the election before having a hearing, the council went out of order.
So, what happens now? A judge will decide which lawyer is right, and either the recall will go forward, be stopped, or delayed.
1 CommentFREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DYING4/24/2018
4 Comments
Freedom of speech has been under attack in American cities and, Plano is now among them. This attack on the First Amendment came to a head when Plano City Council voted to censure and later voted to have a recall election for Councilman Tom Harrison. A liberal group got the required amount of signatures on a recall petition. There are some conflicting attorney opinions on whether or not the council broke the rules by voting on the recall before Tom Harrison could have a hearing. We also have disagreements on whether the petition itself is legal, but I will talk about those issues in another post.
All of this craziness is because people were offended by a post that was on Tom Harrison's personal Facebook page. While the post was highly controversial, if Tom Harrison is fired for asserting his first amendment right, then free speech is truly dead in America.
Freedom of speech has been under attack for years. Clergy cannot speak freely to their congregations out of fear of the government. Radio and TV hosts lose sponsors because people threaten to boycott. Colleges only allow students to speak freely in designated free speech zones. Students also don't want to have conservatives speak at College graduations. In fact, they don't want any conservative speakers on campus at all. Students even resort to rioting to prevent people like Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro from being on campus. Even College professors bully conservative students.
These attacks on speech have recently moved from Colleges to the internet. The Media Research Center has come out with a 50-page study proving tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter partner with left-leaning groups that hate conservatives. The study found that Google aided Democrats by having search results for the 2016 presidential campaign favor Hillary Clinton.
Youtube has shut down conservative channels and, they remove videos promoting Republican views. Facebook has taken conservative pages down. Tech companies also rely on anti-conservative fact-checkers.
This is not an attack anymore; it's a global assault. People around the world are only allowed to see one view from one group of people. This is what some of the most brutal dictators in history did. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, all banned speech they did not agree with. Only one view was allowed in the press, books, TV shows, film, and art. Today totalitarian governments prevent free speech just like the above leaders did; for example, they block internet sites they don't agree with.
Now some Americans are acting just like those oppressive nations and dictators. Some have shut down speech they don't like. Others bully, harass and physically attack people. They condemn people who have a different point of view. This attitude is not what millions of Americas have fought and even died for. This attitude is the opposite of freedom and liberty. The anti-speech view is why freedom of speech is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The authors of the Bill of Rights (who were not all rich slave owners) and other current wise people have had a few things to say about the freedom of speech. The following are some examples. One wise man said, "For the people to rule wisely, they have to be able to communicate with one another freely, without fear of reprisal." Freedom of speech is not just a God-given right, it is a precondition for self-government.
A founder believed that people who seek to restrict speech revealed themselves to be opponents of republicanism. (The form of government, not the political party.)
Another wise man said, "Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by a minority." This should serve as a reminder that, while people say things that we might find personally offensive, we should never prevent people from speaking. As Roger Pilon explains: “In America, the legitimate power rests ultimately with the people. However, the people have no more right to tyrannize each other through democratic government, than the government itself has to tyrannize the people.”
A wise President also said, “If there be any among us who would wish to change our republican form of government, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
The courts have also weighed in on speech that may be offensive. In an 8-0 decision, the court struck down a rule from the Patent and Trademark Office. This rule denied an Asian band a federal trademark registration for the name “The Slants,” a derogatory term for Asian-Americans. This case deals with the broader issue that speech should be silenced if someone, somewhere might be offended by it. The court ruled on the side of speech.
Benjamin Franklin (a man who, at great risk to his own freedom, taught blacks how to read and write) wrote in The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 8, 1736, "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. This is one reason senators and representatives have the right to speak their minds in congressional debates and committee proceedings without fear of legal reprisal by persons who may be defamed. The Framers knew our representatives could not have free and robust debates if, they fear punishment for what they say.
What everyone above understood was the First Amendment was not placed in our Bill of Rights to protect speech we like. It is there to protect the speech we don't like. The way to combat speech we don't like is with more speech, not less. A great general once said, "Meet me on the battlefield of ideas." We can't meet and debate ideas if we are too afraid to speak our minds. Therefore, we must all stand up for speech we don't like. If we don't, it may be you who says something someone else doesn't like and when that time comes, their won't be anyone left who will stand up for you.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
4 CommentsTOWN HALL MEETING ABOUT WATER SAFTEY4/10/2018
0 Comments
As many of you know, our water had a very powerful chlorine smell last month caused by the yearly chlorine burn they do to keep the pipes clean. This issue was discussed at a town hall meeting by Erin Brockovich and water expert, Robert Bowcock, on April 5, 2018. Hundreds of concerned residents attended the meeting, none of them being Plano City Council officials.
I was able to listen to their discussion online and want to mention a few things that were said. (You can watch the whole meeting on the Safer Water, North TX Facebook page.)
1. Robert Bowcock stressed the importance of maintaining the water distribution center properly.
2. He also said that the NTMWD used the highest levels of chlorine he had ever seen and such high levels are not necessary.
3. The chlorine burns are used to clean the water by ridding the pipes of biofilm.
4. Two reasons our water and pipes get so dirty are Texas’ warm temperatures and low water usage. Apparently, saving water is not good for us.
5. The town can put in biological filters now, to help clean the water, but they are waiting until 2021. Plano made over $38 million dollars in water usage fees last year. That profit could go to buy the biofilters. (The city buys the water from NTWMD at wholesale prices and, sells it to us at retail.)
6. A doctor has made a correlation between the yearly chlorine burn and an increase in skin problems. Every March, Dr. Lauren Stewart, a dermatologist, has more people visiting her office with skin rashes and eczema.
7. Erin has a website called, " www.communityhealthbook.com " where people can report any illness they think is connected to the water supply.
8. Towns can implement higher water standards.
9. We don't test for Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs).
10. A highly toxic water pollutant, known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), is a problem throughout the world. Last year, it caused a number of U.S. communities to close their drinking water supplies. PFOA has been found to cause increased cholesterol levels and is related to low infant birth weights,
effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS). We don't know if PFOA is in our own water. To find out more about PFOAs, you can go to https://www.epa.gov/pfas
11. NTMWD has bought up domain names that are similar to Safer Water North TX.
12. Safer Water North TX has asked the NTMWD for documents. They got some, however, NTMWD is asking the TX Attorney General to keep some flies secret due to attorney-client privilege. The NTMWD got this attorney recently. Our Attorney General is from Collin County. His family still lives here. His wife, Angela, is running for TX State Senate. Contact him to let him know that the public should have all the documents.
What I took away from the town hall is, The NTMWD maintains its water and meets all EPA standards. If this is true... Why does our water suck? If this water was being sold in the free market, no one would buy it. We are the customer, the city is the seller. Even though the city of Plano and the residents can't return the NTMWD's water, Plano can demand a better product or make the product better. But... That will only happen if the residents demand it.
This is Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off
0 CommentsWATER CONCERNS IN COLLIN COUNTY4/5/2018
0 Comments
Many residents have had concerns about the water in Collin County. This year when the North Texas Municipal Water District did its yearly chlorine burn residents noticed a strong chlorine smell. I am not an expert on water safety, so I am not going to comment about the safety of the water. I did not even know anything was different about the water in Plano, since I have a water filter and soften for my whole house. Only when we had to turn our filter off, did I smell the chlorine. For those who are very worried about the water, there is a group, Safer Water North TX, that you can join on Facebook. I also recommend going to the NTMWD website www.ntmwd.com . The NTMWD has stated that the water meets EPA safety standards.
This is Plano's Political Pitbull signing off.
0 CommentsCITY OF EXCELLENCE TO COIT ROAD PLANO DRIVERS....DROP DEAD!3/11/2018
After listening to the Mayor's cheer-leading Chamber of Commerce speech at the "State of the City" Lecture last Thursday night...we though everything was really cool here in the "City of Excellence". What with all the (10!) national surveys the P.R. staff has arranged for Mayor Harry's deplorables to bask in the glory of.... Today we got a city newsletter at 1:06 PM informing us that the lovable folks at KC/Southern Railway are just going to stop cold(!) all traffic on Coit for 3 days 3/12-14. How about if "Mayor of Excellence" pick up a phone and tell the railroad boys they don't close all 6 lanes of a very major city artery all at once and, instead alternate the closing and work at night.
This is not the way to run a city Mr. Mayor! Police, Fire, Schools and Traffic count, oh wait, the Mayor's in Washington D.C. this week with the sanctuary city mayors for the second time in a month.
If you love the thump of driving over the railroad crossing at Coit Road between Plano Parkway and Mapleshade Lane, you'll need to find a new thrill soon. Monday, March 12 through Wednesday, March 14, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company is reconstructing this at-grade railroad crossing. Follow signs to alternate routes, but be aware no through traffic from north or south is permitted at the crossing.
Written by a Friend of Plano's Polical Pitbull
Three items that concern me in the 10/10/2016 agenda
(The words in red are my own thoughts on the item.)
Approval of Expenditure:
"To approve expenditures for Community Events Grants in the total amount of $50,640 to support community events. "
(This is for an Art Fest. Taxpayers should not have to pay for this. A private organization could put on the event.)
"To approve expenditures for Arts & Events Grants in the total amount of $1,175,812 to support arts and cultural diversity. "
(Have they lost their minds?! This money should be used for the police or firefighter departments. Financially supporting the arts and cultural diversity is not the job of government.)
Zoning Change:
"Public Hearing and consideration of an Ordinance as requested in Zoning Case 2016-032 to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City, Ordinance No. 2015-5-2, as heretofore amended, granting Specific Use Permit No. 21 so as to allow for the additional use of Patio Home on 10.8 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Ohio Drive and Lorimar Drive, in the City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, presently zoned Retail; directing a change accordingly in the official zoning map of the City; and providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a savings clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date. Applicant: NDB Company Inc."
(This is for the approval of about 50 single-family houses. There are two problems.
1. We don't have the room for more people. Traffic is already terrible, and more people will only make it worse.
2 We don't have enough water. Our lakes and reservoirs are full, but we don't have enough of them for our growing population. Also, the EPA is preventing Collin County from building a new water reservoir. Until the county finds a way to increase our water reserves, we should abstain from building new housing.)
Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
(The words in red are my own thoughts on the item.)
Approval of Expenditure:
"To approve expenditures for Community Events Grants in the total amount of $50,640 to support community events. "
(This is for an Art Fest. Taxpayers should not have to pay for this. A private organization could put on the event.)
"To approve expenditures for Arts & Events Grants in the total amount of $1,175,812 to support arts and cultural diversity. "
(Have they lost their minds?! This money should be used for the police or firefighter departments. Financially supporting the arts and cultural diversity is not the job of government.)
Zoning Change:
"Public Hearing and consideration of an Ordinance as requested in Zoning Case 2016-032 to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City, Ordinance No. 2015-5-2, as heretofore amended, granting Specific Use Permit No. 21 so as to allow for the additional use of Patio Home on 10.8 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Ohio Drive and Lorimar Drive, in the City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, presently zoned Retail; directing a change accordingly in the official zoning map of the City; and providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a savings clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date. Applicant: NDB Company Inc."
(This is for the approval of about 50 single-family houses. There are two problems.
1. We don't have the room for more people. Traffic is already terrible, and more people will only make it worse.
2 We don't have enough water. Our lakes and reservoirs are full, but we don't have enough of them for our growing population. Also, the EPA is preventing Collin County from building a new water reservoir. Until the county finds a way to increase our water reserves, we should abstain from building new housing.)
Plano's Political Pit Bull signing off.
2017 BOND FOR THE MAY 6TH ELECTION
In May, Plano voters will cast their vote for City Council, Mayor, School Board, and a Bond. Plano city government is asking its people to give the green light to borrow $226,120,000. And what is so important that we must go into a massive amount of debt? The city's needs of course, but most importantly, the city's needless inessential wants.
The following is a list of things the city needs that are in the bond:
$15 million for a Fire Training Center - Right now our firefighters train in small groups in Mckinney. Plano's fire chief said, "It's just not practical to send your resources that far away. You don't send your fire companies to train one at a time because that's not how we fight a fire." The Chief also wants to do training for our vertically growing city. The operating and maintenance costs will be $631,794.
$12 million for a Northwest Plano Police Substation - Since the city approved thousands of apartments, our population is growing. A larger population requires more police and another substation. The operating and maintenance costs will be $1,632,414.
$4 million for a Parkway and Fleet Service Center renovation - The Fleet Center is where the city maintains its motor vehicles. The building is in desperate need of repairs.
$90,270,000 for Street Improvements - Our roads are in need of repair. Some of this is just normal wear and tear. Other improvements listed in the bond is a result of our growing population.
The following is a list of things the city wants that are in the bond.
$5 million for Davis Library Expansion - The operating and maintenance costs of $301,662.
$5 million for Harrington Library Expansion - The operating and maintenance costs will be $199,858.
( Honestly, is library use up among Plano citizens? The only time I go to the library is when I vote.)
$78,850,000 for Park Improvements and Land Acquisitions- The operating and maintenance costs will be $2,561,000.
$10 million for Oak Point Rec Center Pools- The operating and maintenance costs will be $710,000.
$2,500,000 for High Point Tennis Center renovation.
$3,500,000 for Collinwood House and Historic Preservation - The operating and maintenance costs will be $71,692. This house is something the city government wants to destroy. Residents want to save this historic house. People have offered to take the house off of Plano's hands. The city declined those financial offers. If someone wants to use their own money to restore the Collinwood House, the city should let them.
At the December 12, 2016, city council meeting Karen Rhodes-Whitley, Director of Budget & Research said, "If the bond goes above $202 million the property tax rate will go up." So far the bond package totals $226,120,000. Residents are already suffering under the weight of rising property taxes. Now is not the time to raise them.
Most of the items in the bond are unnecessary. Some of the projects could be done with private funds. Additionally, the city does not have to do all of these projects at once. They can do the things that are in urgent need of repair. For example, the Parkway & Fleet Service Center needs major repairs. One person who toured the place said that his first reaction was to tear it down and start over. That is an urgent need. Library expansions, a new pro shop for the High Point Tennis Center, and $18 million for land acquisitions... not so urgent. We should not have to go into massive debt and get a tax increase for items that are unnecessary.
So, what can you do? On January 23, 2017, during the council meeting at 7:00 pm, the City Council will have the final public hearing on the bond. Go and publicly speak about your concerns. You can also send an e-mail to each council member. This website has links to every council member's e-mail. Also on January 23rd, the draft of the bond will be presented. Will we get to vote on each item of the bond? Citizens should get to vote on each project. Will the draft have the words tax increase in it? I don't think so.
I have attached the latest Bond Referendum Discussion Packet to this post, so you don't have to search for it on Plano's website. It was not easy to find. The city claims to be transparent, but it falls short. I think it is time for a post about Plano's lack of transparency. Stay tuned for that article.
This is Plano's Political Pitbull signing off.
The following is a list of things the city needs that are in the bond:
$15 million for a Fire Training Center - Right now our firefighters train in small groups in Mckinney. Plano's fire chief said, "It's just not practical to send your resources that far away. You don't send your fire companies to train one at a time because that's not how we fight a fire." The Chief also wants to do training for our vertically growing city. The operating and maintenance costs will be $631,794.
$12 million for a Northwest Plano Police Substation - Since the city approved thousands of apartments, our population is growing. A larger population requires more police and another substation. The operating and maintenance costs will be $1,632,414.
$4 million for a Parkway and Fleet Service Center renovation - The Fleet Center is where the city maintains its motor vehicles. The building is in desperate need of repairs.
$90,270,000 for Street Improvements - Our roads are in need of repair. Some of this is just normal wear and tear. Other improvements listed in the bond is a result of our growing population.
The following is a list of things the city wants that are in the bond.
$5 million for Davis Library Expansion - The operating and maintenance costs of $301,662.
$5 million for Harrington Library Expansion - The operating and maintenance costs will be $199,858.
( Honestly, is library use up among Plano citizens? The only time I go to the library is when I vote.)
$78,850,000 for Park Improvements and Land Acquisitions- The operating and maintenance costs will be $2,561,000.
$10 million for Oak Point Rec Center Pools- The operating and maintenance costs will be $710,000.
$2,500,000 for High Point Tennis Center renovation.
$3,500,000 for Collinwood House and Historic Preservation - The operating and maintenance costs will be $71,692. This house is something the city government wants to destroy. Residents want to save this historic house. People have offered to take the house off of Plano's hands. The city declined those financial offers. If someone wants to use their own money to restore the Collinwood House, the city should let them.
At the December 12, 2016, city council meeting Karen Rhodes-Whitley, Director of Budget & Research said, "If the bond goes above $202 million the property tax rate will go up." So far the bond package totals $226,120,000. Residents are already suffering under the weight of rising property taxes. Now is not the time to raise them.
Most of the items in the bond are unnecessary. Some of the projects could be done with private funds. Additionally, the city does not have to do all of these projects at once. They can do the things that are in urgent need of repair. For example, the Parkway & Fleet Service Center needs major repairs. One person who toured the place said that his first reaction was to tear it down and start over. That is an urgent need. Library expansions, a new pro shop for the High Point Tennis Center, and $18 million for land acquisitions... not so urgent. We should not have to go into massive debt and get a tax increase for items that are unnecessary.
So, what can you do? On January 23, 2017, during the council meeting at 7:00 pm, the City Council will have the final public hearing on the bond. Go and publicly speak about your concerns. You can also send an e-mail to each council member. This website has links to every council member's e-mail. Also on January 23rd, the draft of the bond will be presented. Will we get to vote on each item of the bond? Citizens should get to vote on each project. Will the draft have the words tax increase in it? I don't think so.
I have attached the latest Bond Referendum Discussion Packet to this post, so you don't have to search for it on Plano's website. It was not easy to find. The city claims to be transparent, but it falls short. I think it is time for a post about Plano's lack of transparency. Stay tuned for that article.
This is Plano's Political Pitbull signing off.
Plano Passes A Budget
September 28, 2016
On Monday, Sept 12, 2016 the Plano City Council unanimously passed the 2016-2017 proposed budget. The Mayor thinks the budget is a wonderful example of fiscal responsibility; however, the city will be spending more money next year then last year. The city is already 41 million dollars in debt, and if the budget is fiscally responsible, we should not spend more then we take in. These would be logical conclusions, but we are talking about the language of a politician. We need to remember that politicians' language is very different from our own.
For 2016-2017 the revenue is projected to be $317 million; that is up from last year. The operating budget is $317 million, which is also higher than last year. If you only saw that, you would think we have a balanced budget. The problem with that, is our debt is part of the operating budget. The following are a list of things in the budget that caught my attention. The words in brackets are my thoughts about the item.
September 28, 2016
On Monday, Sept 12, 2016 the Plano City Council unanimously passed the 2016-2017 proposed budget. The Mayor thinks the budget is a wonderful example of fiscal responsibility; however, the city will be spending more money next year then last year. The city is already 41 million dollars in debt, and if the budget is fiscally responsible, we should not spend more then we take in. These would be logical conclusions, but we are talking about the language of a politician. We need to remember that politicians' language is very different from our own.
For 2016-2017 the revenue is projected to be $317 million; that is up from last year. The operating budget is $317 million, which is also higher than last year. If you only saw that, you would think we have a balanced budget. The problem with that, is our debt is part of the operating budget. The following are a list of things in the budget that caught my attention. The words in brackets are my thoughts about the item.
- A 3% raise for every city employee. {They get a raise every year; meanwhile, I know some private citizens whose salary went down.}
- Some employees will be getting more than a 3% raise. {This is not a merit based raise. Their pay is going up, so that Plano can say it pays its employees the same as other cities. For example, if a first year cop gets paid $100,000 in Dallas, a first year Plano cop will get paid the same. (This is only an example, not the actual numbers). }
- $10,031 for awards and plaques. {I wonder if they are made of gold.}
- $25,078 for miscellaneous credit card debt. {Yes, it is listed as miscellaneous. Nothing should be listed as miscellaneous. They should tell us what that money is being spent on.}
- $160,127 for advertising. {NY, Huston, San Antonio, and Galveston advertise to tourists. Plano is not a “destination city”, so we will never be listed on a top vacation destination list with NYC, Orlando, and Miami}
- $15,000 for art. {We are in debt! Why are we spending money for art?! If the city wants art for a park, hold an art contest. Then the winner's art will be placed in the park.}
- $50,000 for an art fest. {Tax payers should not have to pay for this, private organizations should.}
- $7,624 for laundry. {WHOSE LAUNDRY ARE WE DOING?! Funny, the budget doesn’t say.}
- $39,122 for food. {It does not say what the food is for.}
- $70,000 for an art study. {This is totally unnecessary. I am not sure why the city needs this much money to study art. Instead, the money could go to the police or fire department.}
The above is only a fraction of the budget. Here is the link to the full budget http://budget.finances.plano.gov/#!/year/default . The items listed above add up to a lot of money. Every penny the city spends comes from tax payers, or consumers who spent money at a local business, yet it is the job of council to protect our money from being wasted. It is also the city's responsibility to be totally open and transparent with our money; however, this budget does not do that.
Plano Political Pit Bull signing off
| discussion___direction_materials_packet_for_010917.pdf |