Earlier this week I wrote about how the Halloween Floods of 2015 reinforces the need for the City of Kyle to place more emphasis on storm water management. In that essay I failed to emphasize this additional oversight is not only because we need proper drainage during times of heavy rains; we also need to carefully examine precisely what is flowing through those drains and is eventually being dumped into Plum Creek and other waterways.
I have a Golden Retriever and she and I take at least four walks a day. And one of the things I have noticed is that it appears to me a significant number of pet owners refuse to pick up after their animals. Walking off the paved walking areas in my neighborhood is like negotiating a minefield of dog poop. That’s why, when we walk after dark, I never get off a sidewalk.
There’s an outside stormwater drain that flows alongside where I live and I really noticed when that drain was like a raging river last weekend and again during today’s rains that the water in that drain is the color of milk chocolate. That’s not a good sign.
I mentioned in that last story that the need for increased attention being paid to storm water is going to grow more important as our city continues to grow. That’s because more areas are going to be paved over and that means more cars are going to be depositing more oil and grease on these paved surfaces. And when it rains, all that chemical crap is washed into our storm water drains and then into our creeks and rivers that we, I hope, want to keep clean and habitable for the fish and other wildlife that depend on the cleanliness and the purity of that water.
Have you ever wondered why communities on northern sides of cities (i.e, Round Rock, Georgetown) seem to flourish faster and are economically stronger and more diverse than those on the southern side (Buda, Kyle)? It’s simply because water naturally flows south and those waters are going to be cleaner on the northern side of large cities than they are on the south side. That’s why the EPA has stepped up its enforcement of clean water standards on city’s storm water facilities.
Last week’s floods were referred to as "a 100-year event," so the question of whether we need to go to a great expense to protect us against something that may only happen every 100 years is a valid one. But the dog poop, automobile oil and other junk on our city streets, grass clippings and so many other pollutants are being swept into our storm drains every single day. Think about that the next time you go fishing or swimming in one of the waterways downstream from us.
The Kyle Report
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Floods prove more attention must be paid to storm water management
I have not written that much of what will go down in history as the Great Halloween Floods of 2015 because others with far more resources could handle the reporting on this subject far better than I. I will say, however, that these floods proved to me something I’ve suspected ever since I relocated here more than a year ago, and that is city government must devote much more attention to storm water management. I was chagrined when I read the city’s Comprehensive Plan and there were separate sections on "Water" and "Wastewater," but not on "Stormwater." At last night’s City Council meeting, a number of residents complained flooding was exacerbated by clogged drains, directly attributable to the neglect in storm water management. During this year’s budget negotiations, I advocated for instituting storm water fees so the necessary fixes to the city’s infrastructure could be paid for without additional increases in homeowners’ property taxes. Storm water fees are calculated by the amount of impervious surface on any given property so, for example, the owners of the shopping centers with the large parking lots will bear a lot more of the cost than an individual homeowner — an example of one of the few taxes in Kyle that would fall more heavily on businesses than on homeowners. I will again be advocating for instituting storm water fees during the next budget go-round. The city has recently hired a company to perform what amounts to a streets inventory to determine what roadways in Kyle are in most need of repair. These most recent floods make the case that the city should do something similar in regards to storm water -— contract with a company known for storm water management to conduct a complete assessment of Kyle’s storm water utilities and report to council what the needed fixes are and how much they will cost. The cost of those fixes then should be paid for by the storm water fees. This city is growing. Everybody knows this. And as more city land gets paved over, the threats of additional flooding are going to increase unless the issue of storm water management is addressed. And if the city fails to do this on its own, I guarantee you the EPA will step in and order the city to take certain actions. I don’t think very many people want to see that happen.
Also during last night’s City Council meeting, City Manager Scott Sellers and Mayor Todd Webster went to great lengths to praise all the individuals who responded to the devastations caused by last week’s flooding.
"This was really a remarkable recovery," Sellers said. "That’s in large part due to the response from city staff. I started to list all the individual departments and Hays County but I just stopped because there was such an overwhelming response from everybody. Everyone did an incredible job from dispatch, public works, parks, admin. There were folks here at this building doing great, great job. But we could not have responded in the way that we did without the county’s assistance — from the county commissioners on down — everyone did an incredible job."
Sellers also thanked TxDOT for its response to flooded vehicles along the I-35 frontage road as well as at Kohlers Crossing and 2770.
"As we went around assisting and cleaning up property, I would say 90 percent plus (of Kyle residents) were extremely appreciative of the response that the city had offered," Sellers said. "That’s a community that comes together. A disaster will either bring people together or drive them apart. In the heat of things it either brings out the best or the worst in people. We’ve seen it in disasters past and we saw it very, very well with this event. So to everybody who assisted in this last event, I want to say ‘Thank you’."
Mayor Webster thanked the city staff, saying he witnessed first-hand the reactions of citizens relieved of many burdens, especially the clearing of debris, due to the rapid response from the city’s employees. He also singled out the city’s contracted trash haulers, TDS, for its response.
"This was a pretty extraordinary thing that happened," Webster said. "What I saw was that through the work of the staff it drew people together. I saw the community responding. Every house I was with you could see neighbors and friends and families working together. True, some people were upset, but the majority of people came together and it was very good to see."
Of course, some of that good feeling may dissipate as affected homeowners begin dealing with their insurance claims, but that’s another issue.
Also during last night’s City Council meeting, City Manager Scott Sellers and Mayor Todd Webster went to great lengths to praise all the individuals who responded to the devastations caused by last week’s flooding.
"This was really a remarkable recovery," Sellers said. "That’s in large part due to the response from city staff. I started to list all the individual departments and Hays County but I just stopped because there was such an overwhelming response from everybody. Everyone did an incredible job from dispatch, public works, parks, admin. There were folks here at this building doing great, great job. But we could not have responded in the way that we did without the county’s assistance — from the county commissioners on down — everyone did an incredible job."
Sellers also thanked TxDOT for its response to flooded vehicles along the I-35 frontage road as well as at Kohlers Crossing and 2770.
"As we went around assisting and cleaning up property, I would say 90 percent plus (of Kyle residents) were extremely appreciative of the response that the city had offered," Sellers said. "That’s a community that comes together. A disaster will either bring people together or drive them apart. In the heat of things it either brings out the best or the worst in people. We’ve seen it in disasters past and we saw it very, very well with this event. So to everybody who assisted in this last event, I want to say ‘Thank you’."
Mayor Webster thanked the city staff, saying he witnessed first-hand the reactions of citizens relieved of many burdens, especially the clearing of debris, due to the rapid response from the city’s employees. He also singled out the city’s contracted trash haulers, TDS, for its response.
"This was a pretty extraordinary thing that happened," Webster said. "What I saw was that through the work of the staff it drew people together. I saw the community responding. Every house I was with you could see neighbors and friends and families working together. True, some people were upset, but the majority of people came together and it was very good to see."
Of course, some of that good feeling may dissipate as affected homeowners begin dealing with their insurance claims, but that’s another issue.
Webster wisely advocates moving elections to November, or: Recommendations on fixing Kyle’s abysmal voting rate
During last night’s discussion on proposed changes to Kyle’s charter, Mayor Todd Webster brought up the subject of moving municipal elections from May to November. If the goal is to increase voter turnout — and that is a reasonable goal — the evidence proves holding municipal elections in November will accomplish that.
The principle argument against holding elections in November is the desire not to have the city’s elections buried beneath those of the President, senators, house members, legislators, etc., especially since those are partisan elections and Kyle’s are non-partisan. One of the arguments is that voters who vote straight ticket will simply do that and not even bother to cast ballots for locally elected officials. But there is a simple way to prevent this from happening, which I will get to shortly, when I suggest my remedies for fixing Kyle’s City Council election process.
I was amused when I read in today’s Austin American-Statesman that election officials in the capitol city were lamenting that only 11.4 percent of the registered voters turned out Tuesday to vote on whether to issue bonds for a new court house. In Tuesday’s elections, 11.2 percent of the registered voters cast ballots in San Marcos, 10.8 percent turned out in Buda and 30.61 percent voted in Mountain City. Neither San Marcos nor Buda should brag about voter turnout but those numbers are more than twice the number of voters in Kyle’s last general election when 4.91 percent turned out in May.
I will predict that moving Kyle’s municipal elections from May to November, as the mayor so adroitly recommended, will at least double the percentage of voters that now come to the polls here.
Now, back to how to avoid being buried beneath those partisan ballot choices. That’s simple. Those elections take place in Texas in even numbered years. Simply hold the Kyle municipal elections in odd numbered years and that partisan subject is no longer an issue.
But other changes need to be made to allow this to happen and these changes also will increase voter turnout.
Currently, Kyle holds a City Council election every single year. That’s way too many. That results in election fatigue for Kyle voters. Cut that number in half, thus allowing a council election in odd-numbered years only. To accomplish this, the terms of the council members must be changed. I recommend two-year terms with a limit of four terms for each office holder. That way, in November of every odd numbered years, voters will be voting on all six council members, plus the mayor. That also will increase interest in the election and thus increase the number of voters going to the polls.
It also solves another problem, one raised by council member Damon Fogley during last night’s discussion. State law requires that officials elected to positions that have terms of longer than two years must be elected by a majority of the voters. Fogley lamented that in the general election he received 49.7 percent of the vote and, thus was subjected to a runoff. By limiting the council member’s terms to two years, you could have the elections decided by a plurality vote (i.e., the person with the most votes wins, regardless of the percentage) and avoid the need of and the costs for a runoff election. This also would increase voter turnout.
But, one may ask, if you stage elections this way, how do you avoid having a turnover of all seven council members every eight years? Well, there’s no way you can eliminate that possibility 100 percent, but you can reduce the chances of it happening almost to zero. On the first election after the charter change required to make all of the above a reality, voters cast ballots for all seven council members — the mayor and the six other council members. Out of those six, the two candidates receiving the most votes fall under the four-term limitation rule. The two winning candidates receiving the third and fourth most votes are limited to three terms and the final two are limited to two terms. After that, the four-term limit applies to all persons newly elected to the council.
Finally, I’m going to address the argument of single member versus at-large districts. Currently Kyle elects three council members from individual districts and three at-large. The argument for increasing the number of single member districts is that, at present, it is easily feasible the council could be composed of five individuals who all live in the same subdivision. The argument I’ve heard most against single member districts is that constituents desire to have more than one council member to listen to their concerns.
Here’s a solution to both problems, and one that I expressed during the citizen comments section of last night’s charter discussion. Have all six council members and the mayor elected by all Kyle voters (another step that will increase voter participation) but require that any candidate running for Places 1 and 4 on the council must reside in District 1, candidates seeking Places 2 and 5 must live in District 2 and those going for Places 3 and 6 have to reside in District 3. That provides the even geographical distribution but makes all council members directly accountable to all the citizens of Kyle.
And isn’t that what we really want?
The principle argument against holding elections in November is the desire not to have the city’s elections buried beneath those of the President, senators, house members, legislators, etc., especially since those are partisan elections and Kyle’s are non-partisan. One of the arguments is that voters who vote straight ticket will simply do that and not even bother to cast ballots for locally elected officials. But there is a simple way to prevent this from happening, which I will get to shortly, when I suggest my remedies for fixing Kyle’s City Council election process.
I was amused when I read in today’s Austin American-Statesman that election officials in the capitol city were lamenting that only 11.4 percent of the registered voters turned out Tuesday to vote on whether to issue bonds for a new court house. In Tuesday’s elections, 11.2 percent of the registered voters cast ballots in San Marcos, 10.8 percent turned out in Buda and 30.61 percent voted in Mountain City. Neither San Marcos nor Buda should brag about voter turnout but those numbers are more than twice the number of voters in Kyle’s last general election when 4.91 percent turned out in May.
I will predict that moving Kyle’s municipal elections from May to November, as the mayor so adroitly recommended, will at least double the percentage of voters that now come to the polls here.
Now, back to how to avoid being buried beneath those partisan ballot choices. That’s simple. Those elections take place in Texas in even numbered years. Simply hold the Kyle municipal elections in odd numbered years and that partisan subject is no longer an issue.
But other changes need to be made to allow this to happen and these changes also will increase voter turnout.
Currently, Kyle holds a City Council election every single year. That’s way too many. That results in election fatigue for Kyle voters. Cut that number in half, thus allowing a council election in odd-numbered years only. To accomplish this, the terms of the council members must be changed. I recommend two-year terms with a limit of four terms for each office holder. That way, in November of every odd numbered years, voters will be voting on all six council members, plus the mayor. That also will increase interest in the election and thus increase the number of voters going to the polls.
It also solves another problem, one raised by council member Damon Fogley during last night’s discussion. State law requires that officials elected to positions that have terms of longer than two years must be elected by a majority of the voters. Fogley lamented that in the general election he received 49.7 percent of the vote and, thus was subjected to a runoff. By limiting the council member’s terms to two years, you could have the elections decided by a plurality vote (i.e., the person with the most votes wins, regardless of the percentage) and avoid the need of and the costs for a runoff election. This also would increase voter turnout.
But, one may ask, if you stage elections this way, how do you avoid having a turnover of all seven council members every eight years? Well, there’s no way you can eliminate that possibility 100 percent, but you can reduce the chances of it happening almost to zero. On the first election after the charter change required to make all of the above a reality, voters cast ballots for all seven council members — the mayor and the six other council members. Out of those six, the two candidates receiving the most votes fall under the four-term limitation rule. The two winning candidates receiving the third and fourth most votes are limited to three terms and the final two are limited to two terms. After that, the four-term limit applies to all persons newly elected to the council.
Finally, I’m going to address the argument of single member versus at-large districts. Currently Kyle elects three council members from individual districts and three at-large. The argument for increasing the number of single member districts is that, at present, it is easily feasible the council could be composed of five individuals who all live in the same subdivision. The argument I’ve heard most against single member districts is that constituents desire to have more than one council member to listen to their concerns.
Here’s a solution to both problems, and one that I expressed during the citizen comments section of last night’s charter discussion. Have all six council members and the mayor elected by all Kyle voters (another step that will increase voter participation) but require that any candidate running for Places 1 and 4 on the council must reside in District 1, candidates seeking Places 2 and 5 must live in District 2 and those going for Places 3 and 6 have to reside in District 3. That provides the even geographical distribution but makes all council members directly accountable to all the citizens of Kyle.
And isn’t that what we really want?
Mariachi festival moving indoors
The Mariachi festival scheduled for Saturday at the Kyle City Square is being moved inside to the cafeteria at Lehman High School out of concern for possible adverse weekend weather conditions. The Dia de los Muertos Mariachi Extravaganza, featuring performances from at least five separate mariachi groups, will take place from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Lehman cafeteria.
Random thoughts involving the appeal hearing of Jesse Espinoza
Back before he became the high-sheriff of our fair city, Jeff Barnett was the police chief in Princeton, a town of 7,700 folks about eight or so miles east of McKinney, Texas, in Collin County, which is on the northern border of Dallas County. It’s main claim to fame is its relatively low tax rate, the result of it being a General Law city, not a home Rule one. While serving as police chief there, Barnett had a sexual affair with Suzanne Hurlston, who was then the wife of local anesthesiologist Glen Hurlston. On March 15, 2011, Suzanne gave birth to a boy fathered by Barnett but assumed at the time by Dr. Hurlston to be his child. In fact, they named the child Gerard Jeffrey Blake Hurlston. Dr. Hurlston said during testimony Monday at the appeal hearing of Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza that he had absolutely no clue the child wasn’t his until he was tipped off 10 months later by Suzanne’s former fiancee, who has also fathered two children with Suzanne, that Barnett was showing up at Dr. Hurlston’s house when the doctor wasn’t there.
Needless to say, Dr. Hurlston was none too happy about any of this.
All of the above is indisputable. Chief Barnett has acknowledged paternity of the child and the infant’s name has since been changed to Jeffrey Blake Barnett. A lot of what follows has been disputed. What’s not in dispute is that on New Year’s Day 2012 Hurlston was arrested on a charge of felony domestic abuse after Suzanne claimed he attempted to strangle her. That charge was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and Hurlston pled no contest. Subsequently Hurlston claimed his wife contacted Barnett in Kyle, telling him about the incident, and Barnett subsequently called in some favors from his former associates on the Princeton police force and that’s what led to Hurlston’s arrest. Hurlston testified Monday he wanted to know more about this Barnett person and learned he was being considered, along with Kyle resident and Austin Police Department supervisor Joseph Muñoz, for Kyle’s chief of police. At the time Espinoza was head of the Kyle police association and was actively promoting Muñoz over Barnett. Hurlston decided Espinoza might be someone who could provide him with information concerning Barnett. Eventually, in December 2013, Hurlston filed a lawsuit against a number of parties including Barnett and the City of Kyle. The city seems to believe Espinoza illegally supplied Hurlston with information that provided grist for the lawsuit. As a result Barnett in February placed Espinoza on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into Espinoza’s activities that related to Hurlston.
There were a number of problems with this action, however. First, Barnett’s actions could be viewed as nothing more than retaliation against an officer who did not support his quest for chief and who had aligned himself with someone who was not only pursuing legal actions against the chief, but had a personal grudge against him. To counter that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.
But there was a second, bigger, problem. According to the Civil Service regulations the City has agreed to in regards to its police department, the department can only discipline officers for actions committed within 180 days of when charges are brought against that officer. If Espinoza did anything the city believes he did in regards to Hurlston — and whether he did or not is still open to question — they were all done outside this 180-day "statute of limitations."
So the City concocted a new plan. They submitted Espinoza to (as close as I can tell) about seven intensive question-and-answer sessions, including one seven-hour session that apparently was videotaped, and at least one session with Edge. The man from Waxahachie testified Monday the answers Espinoza provided during these sessions were "non-responsive," and that non-responsiveness amounted to insubordination and that insubordination was the reason Edge suspended Espinoza from the force indefinitely.
The hearings I attended Monday and Tuesday were the last in a series of hearings Espinoza sought to have that suspension overturned. I obviously missed at least four previous days of testimony which were the real juicy, salacious parts of the hearing during which, from I have been told by a number of sources, testimony was presented on, among other things, the drinking and sleeping habits as well as the "illicit" sex lives of some of this city’s elected officials. I am not going to get into any of this because, for the life of me, who, other than the parties I have already named, was having sex and/or drinking with whom does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to the issue to be decided, which is whether Espinoza’s suspension should be reversed.
What I do believe was relevant, however, was the testimony I heard myself, especially that from Edge who was the first person to testify Monday and the last of the witnesses called by the city’s hired gun attorney, Bettye Lynn, a labor law specialist. Edge cited the following exchange he had with Espinoza concerning a trip Hurlston was making to Kyle to attend a City Council meeting:
Edge: Did you call Dr. Hurlston?
Espinoza: I probably did.
Edge: Why?
Espinoza: I wanted to see if he made it.
Edge said that exchange constituted insubordination on Espinoza’s part because his second answer proves his first response was "non-responsive." Edge argued that since Espinoza talked to Hurlston to determine "if he made it," the answer to his first question should have simply been "yes."
ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
Hey, I am not a police officer and I have never been involved in the interrogation of a subject in a criminal investigation. But I’m betting most police officers who have will support me on this. If they are interrogating a potential suspect and they ask the subject "Did you commit this crime?" and the subject responds "I probably did," that suspect is going to be handcuffed, read his rights (if Miranda hasn’t already been applied) and dispatched to the lockup. If I asked anyone a question on any subject and that someone answers "I probably did," I’m going to interpret that to mean "yes," and I’m going to go way out on a limb here and argue that 99.9 percent of the English speaking world would interpret it exactly the same way.
Second: I will argue Edge proved to be one of those persons who would interpret it exactly the same way. If he had interpreted it any other way in his examination of Espinoza, then why did he ask the followup question?
Here is another problem I have with this. The first witness called for the defense on Monday was Dr. Hurlston and at one point he was asked when he met Espinoza. He replied: "Probably in 2013 or 2014." And you know what? Not a single person in that hearing room jumped up and claimed that answer was non-responsive.
Like I said earlier, I only saw the final two days of this hearing, but if the city is relying on Espinoza saying "I probably did" as the reason for suspending him, I am convinced Espinoza is being railroaded here.
What happens now is that each side, Lynn and defense attorney Grant Goodwin, will make their final arguments in the form of written statements that will be sent to hearing examiner Michael B. McReynolds, presumably at his home office in Fort Worth. Those statements are due around the end of the year and McReynolds said he would make his final determination, or "award," within 30 days of acknowledging receipt of the statements. So it’s probably going to be late January or early February before we know the outcome. How he’s going to rule is anyone’s guess, but I do know the only times he seemed to lose his temper during the two days of testimony I witnessed was when he told Hurlston "I am having real problems with some of your answers and some of your reactions" and when he put Espinoza down by telling him sternly "You don’t make the rules in this hearing."
So there’s that.
Needless to say, Dr. Hurlston was none too happy about any of this.
All of the above is indisputable. Chief Barnett has acknowledged paternity of the child and the infant’s name has since been changed to Jeffrey Blake Barnett. A lot of what follows has been disputed. What’s not in dispute is that on New Year’s Day 2012 Hurlston was arrested on a charge of felony domestic abuse after Suzanne claimed he attempted to strangle her. That charge was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and Hurlston pled no contest. Subsequently Hurlston claimed his wife contacted Barnett in Kyle, telling him about the incident, and Barnett subsequently called in some favors from his former associates on the Princeton police force and that’s what led to Hurlston’s arrest. Hurlston testified Monday he wanted to know more about this Barnett person and learned he was being considered, along with Kyle resident and Austin Police Department supervisor Joseph Muñoz, for Kyle’s chief of police. At the time Espinoza was head of the Kyle police association and was actively promoting Muñoz over Barnett. Hurlston decided Espinoza might be someone who could provide him with information concerning Barnett. Eventually, in December 2013, Hurlston filed a lawsuit against a number of parties including Barnett and the City of Kyle. The city seems to believe Espinoza illegally supplied Hurlston with information that provided grist for the lawsuit. As a result Barnett in February placed Espinoza on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into Espinoza’s activities that related to Hurlston.
There were a number of problems with this action, however. First, Barnett’s actions could be viewed as nothing more than retaliation against an officer who did not support his quest for chief and who had aligned himself with someone who was not only pursuing legal actions against the chief, but had a personal grudge against him. To counter that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.
But there was a second, bigger, problem. According to the Civil Service regulations the City has agreed to in regards to its police department, the department can only discipline officers for actions committed within 180 days of when charges are brought against that officer. If Espinoza did anything the city believes he did in regards to Hurlston — and whether he did or not is still open to question — they were all done outside this 180-day "statute of limitations."
So the City concocted a new plan. They submitted Espinoza to (as close as I can tell) about seven intensive question-and-answer sessions, including one seven-hour session that apparently was videotaped, and at least one session with Edge. The man from Waxahachie testified Monday the answers Espinoza provided during these sessions were "non-responsive," and that non-responsiveness amounted to insubordination and that insubordination was the reason Edge suspended Espinoza from the force indefinitely.
The hearings I attended Monday and Tuesday were the last in a series of hearings Espinoza sought to have that suspension overturned. I obviously missed at least four previous days of testimony which were the real juicy, salacious parts of the hearing during which, from I have been told by a number of sources, testimony was presented on, among other things, the drinking and sleeping habits as well as the "illicit" sex lives of some of this city’s elected officials. I am not going to get into any of this because, for the life of me, who, other than the parties I have already named, was having sex and/or drinking with whom does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to the issue to be decided, which is whether Espinoza’s suspension should be reversed.
What I do believe was relevant, however, was the testimony I heard myself, especially that from Edge who was the first person to testify Monday and the last of the witnesses called by the city’s hired gun attorney, Bettye Lynn, a labor law specialist. Edge cited the following exchange he had with Espinoza concerning a trip Hurlston was making to Kyle to attend a City Council meeting:
Edge: Did you call Dr. Hurlston?
Espinoza: I probably did.
Edge: Why?
Espinoza: I wanted to see if he made it.
Edge said that exchange constituted insubordination on Espinoza’s part because his second answer proves his first response was "non-responsive." Edge argued that since Espinoza talked to Hurlston to determine "if he made it," the answer to his first question should have simply been "yes."
ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
Hey, I am not a police officer and I have never been involved in the interrogation of a subject in a criminal investigation. But I’m betting most police officers who have will support me on this. If they are interrogating a potential suspect and they ask the subject "Did you commit this crime?" and the subject responds "I probably did," that suspect is going to be handcuffed, read his rights (if Miranda hasn’t already been applied) and dispatched to the lockup. If I asked anyone a question on any subject and that someone answers "I probably did," I’m going to interpret that to mean "yes," and I’m going to go way out on a limb here and argue that 99.9 percent of the English speaking world would interpret it exactly the same way.
Second: I will argue Edge proved to be one of those persons who would interpret it exactly the same way. If he had interpreted it any other way in his examination of Espinoza, then why did he ask the followup question?
Here is another problem I have with this. The first witness called for the defense on Monday was Dr. Hurlston and at one point he was asked when he met Espinoza. He replied: "Probably in 2013 or 2014." And you know what? Not a single person in that hearing room jumped up and claimed that answer was non-responsive.
Like I said earlier, I only saw the final two days of this hearing, but if the city is relying on Espinoza saying "I probably did" as the reason for suspending him, I am convinced Espinoza is being railroaded here.
What happens now is that each side, Lynn and defense attorney Grant Goodwin, will make their final arguments in the form of written statements that will be sent to hearing examiner Michael B. McReynolds, presumably at his home office in Fort Worth. Those statements are due around the end of the year and McReynolds said he would make his final determination, or "award," within 30 days of acknowledging receipt of the statements. So it’s probably going to be late January or early February before we know the outcome. How he’s going to rule is anyone’s guess, but I do know the only times he seemed to lose his temper during the two days of testimony I witnessed was when he told Hurlston "I am having real problems with some of your answers and some of your reactions" and when he put Espinoza down by telling him sternly "You don’t make the rules in this hearing."
So there’s that.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
The likely demise of the Mountain City ILA
Last night’s elections for the Mountain City City Council may have secured the final nail in the coffin of a proposed agreement between Mountain City and Kyle involving, to put it simply, selling water for land.
I’m going to try make this explanation as bare bones as possible and, in doing so, I will, admittedly, being omitting a lot of details, but the situation is basically this. A developer proposed the construction of a trendy residential district it called Anthem on property located in Mountain City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). In order to provide water for the subdivision, the developer reached an agreement with an outfit known as Electro Purification which proposed to drill wells near Wimberly in an area that was not regulated by any water district. Residents around the proposed drilling feared those wells would drain water from their water supplies and they took their complaints to county and state government officials. The result was legislation enacted that placed the disputed area under supervision, having the effect of limiting the amount of water Electro Purification could extract from their wells. As a result, Anthem still had no water source.
So the City of Kyle decided to saddle its white horse and ride to the rescue. It told Mountain City it would provide the water needed for Anthem if Mountain City would cede jurisdiction of the Anthem property to Kyle which, probably sooner than later, would annex the territory into its city limits. There was more to the agreement than that and, originally Hays County was part of the deal, throwing in some free road reconstruction for Mountain City, but recently I have heard that the county is out of the deal and the city of Dripping Springs has become the third party.
The populace of Mountain City was sharply divided over the proposal. (The populace of Kyle, as usual, didn’t seem to care one way or another.) I don’t want to say the Mountain City population was "split," because that would infer there were as many Mountain City residents for the ILA as there were against it. My feeling, from attending a couple of town hall meetings and one city council meeting, was that there were far more people against the deal than there were those for it. I didn’t realize just how overwhelming those numbers were until I saw the results of last night’s elections, which basically was a referendum on the ILA. Those that are against the ILA are divided into two camps. The first, under no conditions whatsoever, wants to cede any land to Kyle — they insist a "buffer" must be maintained to protect them from Kyle. The other camp just thinks Mountain City is not getting enough in return for ceding the property. (Back when Kyle Mayor Todd Webster was not afraid to talk with me, he said right after the ILA was proposed that, had he been in Mountain City’s shoes, he would oppose it.)
Last night’s Mountain City City Council election featured five candidates all running for three positions on the council — the top three vote getters would win. Three of the candidates — incumbent Lee Taylor, Suzanne Halam and Ralph McClendon Jr. — had either expressed dissatisfaction with the ILA or said they hadn’t reached a final position on it. The other two — Eva Brown and Thomas W. Brown Jr. (wife and husband) — were solidly in favor of it. The Browns, together, tallied only 8.8 percent of the votes cast. That’s not 8.8 percent each, but 8.8 total: 5 percent for Thomas Brown and 3.8 percent for Eva Brown. That’s astonishing. From where I sit, the folks in Mountain City spoke loudly, clearly and resoundingly about how they feel about the ILA and they don’t want it. And since any proposed agreement would have to be approved by the Mountain City City Council, I can’t see how this deal has any future.
I’m going to try make this explanation as bare bones as possible and, in doing so, I will, admittedly, being omitting a lot of details, but the situation is basically this. A developer proposed the construction of a trendy residential district it called Anthem on property located in Mountain City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). In order to provide water for the subdivision, the developer reached an agreement with an outfit known as Electro Purification which proposed to drill wells near Wimberly in an area that was not regulated by any water district. Residents around the proposed drilling feared those wells would drain water from their water supplies and they took their complaints to county and state government officials. The result was legislation enacted that placed the disputed area under supervision, having the effect of limiting the amount of water Electro Purification could extract from their wells. As a result, Anthem still had no water source.
So the City of Kyle decided to saddle its white horse and ride to the rescue. It told Mountain City it would provide the water needed for Anthem if Mountain City would cede jurisdiction of the Anthem property to Kyle which, probably sooner than later, would annex the territory into its city limits. There was more to the agreement than that and, originally Hays County was part of the deal, throwing in some free road reconstruction for Mountain City, but recently I have heard that the county is out of the deal and the city of Dripping Springs has become the third party.
The populace of Mountain City was sharply divided over the proposal. (The populace of Kyle, as usual, didn’t seem to care one way or another.) I don’t want to say the Mountain City population was "split," because that would infer there were as many Mountain City residents for the ILA as there were against it. My feeling, from attending a couple of town hall meetings and one city council meeting, was that there were far more people against the deal than there were those for it. I didn’t realize just how overwhelming those numbers were until I saw the results of last night’s elections, which basically was a referendum on the ILA. Those that are against the ILA are divided into two camps. The first, under no conditions whatsoever, wants to cede any land to Kyle — they insist a "buffer" must be maintained to protect them from Kyle. The other camp just thinks Mountain City is not getting enough in return for ceding the property. (Back when Kyle Mayor Todd Webster was not afraid to talk with me, he said right after the ILA was proposed that, had he been in Mountain City’s shoes, he would oppose it.)
Last night’s Mountain City City Council election featured five candidates all running for three positions on the council — the top three vote getters would win. Three of the candidates — incumbent Lee Taylor, Suzanne Halam and Ralph McClendon Jr. — had either expressed dissatisfaction with the ILA or said they hadn’t reached a final position on it. The other two — Eva Brown and Thomas W. Brown Jr. (wife and husband) — were solidly in favor of it. The Browns, together, tallied only 8.8 percent of the votes cast. That’s not 8.8 percent each, but 8.8 total: 5 percent for Thomas Brown and 3.8 percent for Eva Brown. That’s astonishing. From where I sit, the folks in Mountain City spoke loudly, clearly and resoundingly about how they feel about the ILA and they don’t want it. And since any proposed agreement would have to be approved by the Mountain City City Council, I can’t see how this deal has any future.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Downtown resource center created to help flood, storm survivors
Kyle residents and other persons affected by last week’s storms and floods will be able to get some of their questions about recovery answered at what is being called the Survivor Resource Center at Old Kyle City Hall, located in the Center Street Square across from the Texas Pie Company, tomorrow through Thursday from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Government agencies and nonprofit groups will meet with any resident of Hays County, inside or outside of any city limits, who suffered damage from the storms to discuss assistance that might be available to them, including housing issues, physical and mental healthcare, help with insurance questions and driver license replacement.
This will be a temporary information center only, not a place to pick up or donate food or material goods.
Kyle Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix said today damage assessment teams will be in Kyle this afternoon "going door to door in the affected areas." These teams will also have information about these meetings as well as other information about how to proceed with the recovery."
Government agencies and nonprofit groups will meet with any resident of Hays County, inside or outside of any city limits, who suffered damage from the storms to discuss assistance that might be available to them, including housing issues, physical and mental healthcare, help with insurance questions and driver license replacement.
This will be a temporary information center only, not a place to pick up or donate food or material goods.
Kyle Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix said today damage assessment teams will be in Kyle this afternoon "going door to door in the affected areas." These teams will also have information about these meetings as well as other information about how to proceed with the recovery."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)