David Pillow, HD 94: Interviewed

Voters of House District 94 this fall have a choice between what amounts to a different verse of the same song or an entirely new song altogether.

[HD 94: Map•Precincts Within The District•Population Analysis]

The defeat of entrenched Republican State Representative Kent Grusendorf (R-Arlington) by Dianne Patrick (R-Arlington) in the GOP Primary in March put this district in the news but it did something else, too: it demonstrated that the voters in the district are ready for change and presented Democrats with the opportunity to run for an open seat.

Businessman and community leader David Pillow (D-Arlington) is hoping to capatilize on these factors to turn this ‘red’ district ‘blue’ this fall.

[David Pillow: Campaign Site•Bio•Volunteer•Donate]

I sat down for a phone interview with David and his campaign manager Keith Thursday afternoon and got the chance to talk to about Pillow’s campaign.

David noted that his campaign strategy changed a bit after the primary, but that he believes that’s a good thing:

PILLOW: Our strategy changed a bit because of who we are running against. But, this gives us the opportunity to say some things about the overall Republican strategy as opposed to just targeting one individual Republican.

David pointed out that, while his opponent used key education issues to topple Grusendorf, who chaired the Public Education Committee in the House, Patrick and her party aren’t offering the kind of change that voters in HD 94 are really looking for:

PILLOW: To me, it doesn’t matter if it is Grusendorf or Patrick. The question is, “are the citizens of District 94 and Texas really being represented?” Whether it is Grusendor of Patrick, it’s the same animal either way.

Voters in District 94 demonstrated a desire for change [in the Republican Primary]. But, the change they really seek is not to elect another Republican; they want real change, which is Democratic values that will represent our district, and I believe that’s why we have a strong chance to win this race.

One reason she [Patrick] won was so much cross-over from Democratic voters; that’s one reason she was able to oust Grusendorf.

In order to get this message out, David says his campaign will concentrate on ‘grassroots’ efforts like blockwalking and phone banking, for which he’ll need a lot of volunteer support. The campaign is also planing mailers and automated phone banking. The campaign also has a headquarters office.
David also has a fund-raiser planned for August. But, (as you may have noticed via the BlogAd on this and other Texas blogs), his campaign has a new-twist on fund raising.

Pillow, who has been in the jewelry business at the executive level and owns his own jewelry supply store, has designed several unique pieces of jewelry—pendants, rings and more—to help him raise campaign funds. He says it’s his way of giving a “thank you” to contributors. (I really like the piece displayed in the BlogAd, but my favorite is this one).
On the issues, David is well-versed and sends a clear message. And, in contrast to his opponent—who is running a fairly “single-issue” campaign—David’s issues span the spectrum of the ills plaguing Texas:

PILLOW: The number one issue is that the state legislature has blatantly refused to make our childrens’ education a priority, and we have to really focus on that. Over the last five sessions, special sessions included, the GOP-led legislature has refused to remedy the problems we face in funding public education.

[Also] we have to make sure that the people of Texas have affordable, accessible healthcare. That has to be a real priority for the state legislature. And, I think, high on the list of priority issues is that our government has to be transparent and accountable to the people of our state. We’ve seen the GOP-led legislature refuse to open the vail of secrecy and make votes and actions transparent. We need to know what is going on in Austin.

David’s remarks on the transparency of state actions is especially timely, given the secret contracts to build portions of the Trans Texas Corridor. His call for making votes more transparent is one that has been echoed by every major daily newspaper in the state, but has been stalled by Republican leadership.  But, he has more issues:

PILLOW: Our state has to start focusing on creating jobs in Texas—good jobs we can raise our families on—so we can realize what has become the elusive American Dream.

Toward helping families achieve the American Dream, David says he’d support and even introduce legislation to increase the minimum wage in Texas.

I also asked David about clean air and environmental issues. HD 94, which includes parts of Tarrant County including just over 40 percent of Arlington and all of Dalworthington Gardens and Pantego, is one of several Metroplex districts affected in many ways by smog and air pollution:

I think we really have to focus on making sure we maintain a leadership role in the production of energy for the state and the nation. Texas has always been an oil state and a leader in the production of energy for our country. We need to maintain that, only we need to do that and accomodate clean air. Legislation needs to be passed to help us look at alternative fuel sources, and to actually move forward with real changes with regard to the way we produce energy—with alternative sources like ethanol, solar energy—and look at what is a viable way for us to maintain our role in the energy supply.

Keith, David’s campaign manager, chimed in on this one as well:

KEITH: One of the big core issues, specifically in Arlington, is growth—with the traffic situation—and that ties in very nicely with the environmental issues because they are all connected. The more poorly we plan our roads and insist and more roads, that already adds to the bad pollution problem that will only get worse. In 2010, we will get fined [by the EPA] if we don’t do something. When David gets in office, we will be looking at this quite vigerously and with great interest on ways to reduce output from the coal powered plants and cement plants that are in our area, as well as ways to encourage development of alternative sources of energy.

He also had strong feelings about the tax plans recently passed by the Legislature that were recommended by the Texas Tax Reform Commission:

PILLOW: Not to be cliche, but I will tell you that, once again, it shows a real need for transparency. It [the tax plan] is a shell game, and just moving taxes around. It has not lowered taxes per say, it has shoved some on local government. It has increased business tax liabilities so business will have to go up on the cost of goods, and the average citizen is not going to realize any additional savings or money in their pockets. It really didn’t address property taxes, either.

I also asked David about something that’s been in the news lately—underfunding of our state parks and whether or not he supported initiatives that would return them to a better financial state (we also discussed the sporting goods tax and possible reallocation of that to more fully fund state parks as it was intended):

PILLOW: The short answer is, ‘yes,’ we need to fund [them]. The long answer is that we need to go in—as the people’s representatives—and look at the allocation of funds and see why these issues keep popping up. In other words, why is there not enough money to fund schools? Why is there not enough money for state parks? Why isn’t there enough money to fund all of these previously allocated benefits the people of our state?  Where is it going?

[...]

It generally goes back to accountability. Once something is earmarked in a certain way, the Legislature has no premonition about walking in under the guise of darkness and reallocating those resources. It is time for the public to stand up and be notified and say ‘we are not going to allow it to happen.’

I also talked with David and Keith about some of their campaign needs, and they need some volunteers to help with blockwalking. So, if you are in the Metroplex (even if you aren’t in David’s district), contact Keith if you would like to volunteer to help. You can reach Keith via email at keith-at-electpillow.com, and he’ll put you to work.

Overall, HD 94 is a district that many believe may be too “red” to be turned “blue” this cycle. However, with the combination of rage against Republicans nationwide, the fact that Patrick won’t be able to depend on a warchest like Grusendorf had amassed—not to mention the fact that she won’t be receiving money from Dr. James Leinninger—and the fact that this is an open seat, anything could happen. It’s a district in transition, so to speak.

Though Grusendorf’s opponent last cycle got less than 40 percent of the vote, Court of Criminal Appeals candidate J.R. Molina and Railroad Commissioner Candidate Bob Scarbrough both polled 42 percent, while David Van Os polled 40 percent.

The Open Meetings Act Does Not Violate Free Speech

Maybe I should just go back to bed, because the news isn’t getting any better. Better yet, I think I’ll just declare today “Asinine Friday,” because this is almost as asinine as what the right-wing bloggers were doing in the last post:

PECOS  — Two West Texas city council members who claim the Texas Open Meetings Act stifles free speech made their case in federal court for overturning the nearly 40-year-old law.

If that doesn’t make steam pour out of your ears, then you should go back to bed, too.

While I’m tempted to launch into a history of the Texas Open Meetings Act, I won’t; you can Google it and find out for yourself if you don’t already know (and if you don’t, here’s a hint: Sharpstown Scandal & Dirty 30).

I was, however, shocked to see that Dick DeGuerin was representing the idiots:

“The essence of the First Amendment is at issue here,” said plaintiff’s lawyer Dick DeGuerin of Houston. “We choose our representatives in a democratic fashion to speak for us. Any impingement on that free speech has to be extremely limited.”

Here’s what this stems from:

The case stems from an October 2004 e-mail sent by then-Councilwoman Katie Elms-Lawrence to three other Alpine councilors on the issue of hiring a water engineer for the city. Rangra responded with a suggestion of his own.

Brown charged Elms-Lawrence and Rangra with violating the Open Meetings Act, and both were indicted.

Though the charges were dismissed in 2005, Rangra and Monclova filed suit in federal court to challenge the law as unconstitutional.

Normally, three government body members emailing each other isn’t an open meetings act violation. They must have, in the emails, decided on a particular course of action. The story, by the AP, doesn’t specify. But, I’d suspect that had to be the case for them to be prosecuted.

Otherwise—say they were just emailing each other their thoughts on an issue—I’m not even sure that they should be prosecuted.  However, I doubt that was the case.
The Texas Open Meetings Act prevents the conducting of the business of a government body in private except in limited circumstances for executive sessions.

That applies to decision making. So, if they were making decisions, then they were in the wrong. It does not apply, however, to being asked about something while you’re thumping watermelons in the produce section down at Albertson’s:

Rangra, Monclova and Elms-Lawrence testified Wednesday that the law is confusing and that the charges had a chilling effect. Monclova said she was afraid to talk to constituents in the aftermath of the indictments.

“I found myself not wanting to go to the grocery store, not wanting to go to town functions because someone might be there that might constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act,” Monclova said.

That has got to be the most bizarre thing I have ever heard related to TOMA in my life.  What  Monclova is refering to is actual meetings in private. There is always the danger that a quorum of the city council might be present down at the local Dairy Queen or McDonalds on any given day, but that’s no reason to become agoraphobic unless you all can’t resist the temptation to sit down in a back booth in the smoking section and  start discussing city business.

Use your brain! This is common sense, not constitutional crisis. The rule is not just if members of a public board are in the same place, but if they are in the same place and conducting business. Supposed four members of a six member city council all went to one particular church. Does sitting through Sunday service constitute an open meetings violation? No—and it doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to tell you that. Now, if those four sat in the back pew together and started discussing city street repairs during the offering, that’s a different story.

Ugh!

The Right’s Trashy Internet Attacks On Barbara Radnofsky

[This post may contain harsh language directed at the Rightwing Blogsphere, because I'm pissed.—VL]

Most of the time, I don’t pay too much attention to what I read on the over-the-top, whiny, right-wing blogs that have begun to dot the Texas Blogsphere.

However, this attempt to “swift boat” Barbara Radnofsky on the far-right-wing Lone Star Times (by LST blogger Tommy Boy) and Austin-based Voice In The Wilderness (evidently the writers one and the same) are so outlandish I cannot allow them to pass without some comment.

Their attacks are sad, pathetic attempts to attack Radnofsky to hide the serious shortcomings of Kay Bailey Hutchison.

With zero evidence, they mockingly ask if Radnofsky’s run is designed to set her up to be a Washington lobbyist and charge that she “seems not to have her finger on the pulse of the Texas body politic.”

Both claims are rediculous.

First of all, while Kay Bailey Hutchison has her finger—nay, her entire hand—in the back pocked ot Tom DeLay cronies and K Street lobbyists, Barbara Radnofsky understands issues that matter to Texans.

A prime example of this is that Radnofsky’s campaign highlighted early on an issue of great importance to South Texas that Kay Bailey Hutchison had failed to act on for more than a decade in the Senate: a veteran’s hospital for South Texas.

Confronted by headline after headline about her own failures brought to light by Radnofsky, Hutchison finally decided that maybe South Texas did need a VA hospital. Who has their finger on the pulse of Texas voters? Not Kay Bailey Hutchison.
The Republican bloggers then bitch about Radnofsky’s involvement with the netroots:

Are these the actions of a candidate serious about mounting a challenge in the thoroughly Republican state of Texas? Or tactics of an effort to gain Senator face time cleverly disguised as a political campaign run on the backs of Texas’ liberal netroots?

First of all, Texas “liberal netroots” (the progressive blogsphere), isn’t all “liberal.” There are a number of conservative Democrats who blog in Texas. That statement is just a gross generalization.

Second, I resent that someone would say that Barbara is running her campaign on the “backs” of the netroots. So, let me say this to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid Right-Wing blogsphere:

The netroots does what we damned well please; candidates don’t run our blogs. If a blogger promotes a candidate, it’s that blogger’s choice to do so, period. And, while we as individual bloggers may do interviews with campaigns or even be asked to help spread the word about a fund-raising goal, special project or volunteer need, we do that as individuals. Even when bloggers do work together on a project (like the upcoming TexRoots roll-out), we are part of that project because we want to be. We don’t have someone sitting in an ivory tower somewhere emailing us and telling us, “today, you will blog about ____________.”

So, let me call your your statement what it really is: bullshit.

The same could be said about this comment:

Radnofsky, by contrast, is a paramour of the normal, liberal constituency groups in Texas that speak loudly but carry a small stick. In a state that went for Bush in 2004 by a margin of 61-38, one would expect to see more nuanced positioning in the proximity of conservative core issues, while simultaneously casting code words and knowing glances to the activist base.

The paramour in this case, is the right-wing blogger who wrote this. Evidently, as a result of his torrid love affair with the Republican Party and President Bush, he’s become blind to the fact that groups like the Texas Federation of Teachers is not “liberal constituency group,” that speaks loudly but carries a small stick.

TFT is one of those groups that endorsed Barbara Radnofsky. And, it should alert Kay Bailey Hutchison and her supporters to the fact that a United States Senator for Texas has such a piss-poor record on education that a group that often favors incumbent protection regardless has declined to support her for re-election.
I’d have far less of a problem with these right-wing attacks if this blogger wanted to attack Barbara Radnofsky for her stands on various issues. Barbara Radnofsky is far more versed on the issues that matter to Texas voters than her opponent.

That is why the thought of debating Barbara Radnofsky evidently scares Kay Bailey Hutchison so bad that she hasn’t accepted a single debate invitation that’s been extended to date. What is Kay Bailey Hutchison afraid of? That Barbara Radnofsky is smarter than she is? That Barbara Radnofsky knows more than she does? That Barbara Radnofsky has her finger on the pulse of Texas voters more than she does?
If it were only those things, Hutchison would probably debate Radnofsky. But what Hutchison is really afraid of is that Barabara Ann Radnofsky will point out that Hutchison is a promise-breaking, do nothing, lobbyist loving, Virginia resident whose right-wing ideas are out of touch with the average Texas voter.

Why don’t all of you Contract With America Republicans out there ask Kay Bailey Hutchison why she has broken her promise to serve only two terms. Was it because she was afraid to run for governor?

Is it because she has her heart set on being the first female vice presidential nominee from the Republican Party?

Hey, don’t kill the messenger; you right wing bloggers started all of the nutty speculation.

Why don’t you Bush lovers out there ask Kay Bailey Hutchison why she defies her president on immigration issues? Is it because she’s so scared of the fact that Radnofsky strikes the right balance between “conservative” and “liberal” that she could drain a few votes, so she’s got to ramp up her base with “red meat” issues?

In a debate on the issues, Barbara Ann Radnofsk would beat Kay Bailey Hutchison hands down. Radnofsky is an astute student of public policy while Kay Bailey Hutchison is the Aging Prom Queen of K Street.

There are so many issues on which Kay Bailey Hutchison is out of touch. For one thing, she’s not done one thing to return to Texas more of our federal gas tax dollars. Instead, she ships them off to Alaska.

Kay Bailey Hutchison plays politics for the moment, not for Texas. Unlike senators like Lyndon Johnson and Lloyd Bentsen, Hutchison doesn’t “do” for Texas; she simply carries water for the Republican Party up and down the aisles of the Senate or even to the convention floor of the National GOP conventions, like her hateful speech in ‘96 that was full of more vitrol than Dole’s own address.

I hate to say it, but Phill Gramm actually delivered more for Texas than Kay Bailey Hutchison has. And that is awful.

So, to the RightWing Blogsphere: next time you want to attack the liberal netroots and a Democratic candidate, stick to the issues.

This Texas blogger won’t sit by and let you “swift boat” candidates.

Judge Says Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Allow Strayhorn On Ballot As “Grandma”; Strayhorn Drops Suit

Carole Keeton Strayhorn evidently got the message today that her lawsuit to force the Secretary of State to list her on the November ballot as “Grandma” is as asinine as it sounds; she dropped the lawsuit shortly after a state district judge said she lacked jurisdiction to order the state to comply with the Comprtoller’s request.

Strayhorn, a Republican running as an independent for Texas Governor, was hoping to boost name recognition with the “grandma” monkier. Her last statewide race was run as “Carole Keeton Rylander,” and was before her marriage to current husband, Ed Strayhorn.

Judge Suzanne Covington evidently thought little of the suit as well:

Judge Suzanne Covington questioned lawyers for Strayhorn and the Texas secretary of state before announcing her decision. She drew laughs in court when she asked what would prevent her from requesting that she be listed on the ballot as Suzanne “Best Judge in the Land” Covington.

Secretary of State Roger Williams ruled that “Grandma” was a slogan, not a nickname, and was this not permitted on the ballot. For several years, Strayhorn has refered to herself in political advertisements and on the stump as “One Tough Grandma.

Strayhorn said she never tried to get “Grandma” on the ballot before because she didn’t know it could be done.

TDP v. Benkiser Filings

Several people have mentioned that Fort Bend Now has a complete list of all of the flinings in TDP v. Benkiser, but they are missing some. I’ve compiled a complete list with links to all the documents here.

She Must Run As Carol

More on this soon, but a state district court in Austin has ruled that The Comptroller Formerly Known as Rylander cannot be “grandma” on the ballot. She says now she’ll run with her real name.

Help Nick Lampson & Chet Edwards

John Edwards’ One America Committee is seeking votes to determine what Congressional candidates the PAC will help later this year. Two Texans, Nick Lampson and Chet Edwards are on the list; you can vote for both in the first round of voting here. Please do so!

Texas’ GOP Congressmen Are Ponying Up To Protect Their Own

Via The Hill,  Texas’ Republican Congressmen are ponying up to help protect their cronies from being beaten by Democrats.

The Battleground program (doesn’t the very name sound like something Joe Barton should be leading while riding on a white horse through a muddy trench?) designed to raise this money has raised $7.7 million in two weeks, thanks in part to two of Texas’ own.

Congressman Joe Barton (R-Ennis), after NRCC officials claimed at a meeting of GOP congressmen that the DCCC had already scheduled $50 million worth of television advertising this fall (really? where?), stood up and pledged to raise $4.2 million dollars to help his fellow Republicans who are endanger of being voted out of Congress:

Barton also challenged members of the other panels to match that amount and vowed to treat all the members of any committee that matches or exceeds the Energy and Commerce totals to a Texas steak dinner.

If Joe Barton likes his steaks like he prefers his North Texas air (smokey and black), I doubt he’ll have many takers.

And, even though he’s just a lowly man in terms of seniority and not reportedly in the offing for any chairmanships (thus the need to curry more favor among his colleagues), Jeb Hensarling (R-Dallas) has ponied up $200,000 to aid in the effort.

SOMEONE wants to be chair of the Republican Study Committee really, really bad.

The Black Gap Bumble: Facts Speak For Themselves; Black Gap Not An Isolated Incident

Texas Governor Rick Perry and Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson were in full-on “react & spin” mode Tuesday and Wednesday amid criticism about the sale of land in the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, (blogged at Capitol Annex as “Texas’ Natural Herigage: For $ale” on Tuesday).

As the story, brought to the attention of the Blogsphere and the media by DriveDemocracy and the Texas Progress Council, unfolded Tuesday, Rick Perry was offering his usual brand of “I’m Proud of Texas and I’ll Fix This” spin, which appeared in morning papers Wednesday.

Some outlets, like the Houston Chronicle, made Perry’s spin the story, instead of focusing on the real issue, which is the sale of the Black Gap land.

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and his public relations team jumped in on the act, too, sending out a press release entitled, “Black Gap Wildlife Management Area Facts” along with confusing maps that purported to denounce nearly each and every fact espoused by the Texas Progress Council’s Glenn Smith and paint the land swap that led to the sale as a good thing for Texas Parks & Wildlife.

The problem with General Land Office’s fact sheet, however, is that their facts are “subject to interpretation. That’s a nice way of saying that the so-called facts are, at best, questionable.

The GLO’s fact sheet makes this statement:

Again, no portion of the BGWMA is for sale, there has been no offer for BGWMA land, and therefore no “bidder” has been turned down. Mr. Smith is intentionally misleading the public. He purposefully described the possible sale or lease of PSF land adjacent to Black Gap, as the sale of Black Gap itself.

However, reports in the Big Bend Gazette, a monthly magazine covering the Big Bend area, contradict this—and the reports are backed up with facts from public information obtained from the GLO:

Under documents obtained by The Gazette under the Texas Public Information Act, CEMEX, Inc., a Houston subsidiary of the Monterrey, Mexico-based international cement conglomerate CEMEX S.A. de C.V., has offered $3,461,658 for a 25,071-ACRE chunk of Black Gap. The offer by CEMEX would net the state a profit of $729,212 or $29.08 per acre above its appraised value.

The GLO has rejected the offer. Calls to CEMEX’s world headquarters in Monterrey and U.S headquarters in Houston were not returned by press time. CEMEX owns the nearby 514,000-acre El Carmen Wilderness Area in Mexico. Both CEMEX and company CEO Lorenzo H. Zambrano have won international acclaim and awards for their commitment to environmental protection.

Addressing the GLO’s claim that Smith is misleading the public by describing, “the possible sale or lease of PSF land adjacent to Black Gap, as the sale of Black Gap itself” is also short on truth.

Why? That will require some explaining, which, convinently, the GLO has already done half of the work:

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the Texas General Land Office (GLO) exchanged lands to consolidate checker-boarded property near Black Gap Wildlife Management Area (WMA), and actually ADDED 10,181 acres to TPWD land holdings.
Background: In 1997, the Legislature passed House Bill 770, directing the School Land Board, the GLO and the TPWD to transfer land holdings within any state park or wildlife management area, such as Black Gap WMA.

This bill was passed because the Land Office owned acreage within the boundaries of TPWD property. As a result, a map of the Black Gap WMA looked like a checkerboard and management of the property was problematic.
Since TPWD didn’t have enough money to buy the acreage, the GLO swapped adjacent tracts of land with TPWD. As a result of the land swap TPWD now owns more acreage in the area.

Plus, TPWD bought 3,117 acres in the wildlife management area that the agency had been leasing from the GLO.
The land exchange was not “so it can be sold.” The land transfer was to consolidate land holdings by each agency so that they will have contiguous boundaries, improving management of each area.

The other half of the explaination is this: The GLO and Patterson are claiming that, because the land has been transferred from TPWD to the GLO, it’s no longer the “Black Gap WMA land.”

It’s as if I traded you my Pepsi for your Sprite and then told you that the Pepsi was now a Dr. Pepper because I had a Pepsi, so you now couldn’t possibly have a Pepsi.

The GLO’s explaination holds no water. The land is still the same land it was before the GLO had it; it’s still the land that was a vital part of the wildlife management area and a major part of Texas’ natural heritage. It didn’t suddenly morph from untamed river frontage into a bunch of insignificant foothills just because it is in the possession of another agency.

The bottom line is that the land is what it is. Just because it may technically no longer be part of TP&WD does not mean its significance is any less or that it isn’t land from the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area. Though it may not bear that designation, it is still management area land.

That the park gained land is true; but the significance of the land gained pales in comparison to what was lost.

Black Gap Not An Isolated Incident

Making matters worse for Patterson and the GLO—especially concerning whether the GLO’s claims that the land is not for sale are truly legitimate—is the fact that this land transfer and public sale is not an isolated incident.

An eerily similar situation is in progress near Azle in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

There, 400 acres set aside for a state park on the eastern shore of Eagle Mountain Lake has already been transferred to the General Land Office and the Azle News reports that potential buyers have been sought by the GLO to turn the land into residential development.

Public outcry over the Eagle Mountain Lake situation has been fairly significant:

•300 People attended a rally on July 13 to support the land being used for a park.
•The chairman of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission is trying to postpone the sale until park supporters can raise the money to build the state park on their own, without state funding.
•State Rep. Charlie Geren (R-Arlington) organized the July 13 meeting and is quoted as saying, “We’re going to fight for this to be a park.”
•The Tarrant County Regional Water District has offered to pony up $10.5 million to buy the land and mineral rights and keep the area as a park.
•Congresswoman Kay Granger (R-Fort Worth) has asked that the land not be sold to private developers.

There is also something else. The GLO made a comment on “underutilized” land and the ability of the Governor to sell state properties in its release and outright defense of the Governor:

Land owned by the Texas General Land Office is Permanent School Fund land and cannot be sold by the Governor. The Commissioner of the General Land Office and the School Land Board make all decisions about the sale of PSF land.
Any non PSF land identified for sale by the Governor appears on an Underutilized Land Report, which is then acted upon by the GLO. Black Gap is not on this list.
Background: Governor Rick Perry is not going to sell any land in the area because it is not his to sell. Any land involved in this area would be sold by the Land Office. The School Land Board would make any decision to sell Permanent School Fund land. Property owned by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department — such as the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area — is not for sale – and the GLO simply does not have the authority to sell it.

Before you read what follows, remember this: The Eagle Mountain Lake land became GLO land. The GLO says:

“Land owned by the Texas General Land Office is Permanent School Fund land and cannot be sold by the Governor.”

Ok. GLO Land EQUALS Permanent School Fund Land. Permanent School Fund Land EQUALS land that cannot be sold by the governor (according to the GLO).

If the GLO is telling the entire truth, then, explain this:

In December, Gov. Rick Perry added the parcel to a for-sale list of “underutilized” state properties. Soon after, Parks and Wildlife officials spoke of selling it for the highest price possible.

and this:

Late last week, Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission Chairman Joseph Fitzsimmons asked the Texas Land Office to postpone the sale of the land for at least four months.

If the land isn’t GLO land, why is the GLO selling it? Even if the Eagle Mountain Lake land is STILL in control of the TP&WD, why is the GLO involved if the GLO claims they can’t sell it:

Property owned by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department …is not for sale – and the GLO simply does not have the authority to sell it.

Really? Their website consents they have the authority to lease the land.

And, actually, the GLO would be the body statutorly obligated to sell the land if Perry wanted it sold, via the Texas Natural Resources Code:

§ 31.1573. REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNOR.  (a) The land office shall take charge and control of  real property as necessary to conduct and close a real estate transaction authorized by the governor.

And, the School Land Board mentioned by the GLO’s release actually has first right to purchase any land from another agency which could later be sold:

§ 31.159. FIRST OPTION TO PURCHASE.  (a) The School Land  Board has a first option to purchase real property authorized for sale by the legislature or the governor.  The board may exercise its option by tendering cash for market value as mutually agreed on by the board and the state agency that owns the real property, but the purchase price may not be less than market value.  For purposes of this section, the division may request more than one appraisal to
determine market value.  If the parties cannot agree on a value, the board and the state agency that owns the real property shall follow the procedures provided by Subsections (d) and (e).  The board may not pay more than market value.

One way or another, regardless of whether the land is “underutilized” and directed to be sold by the governor, or if the land becomes PSF land and is sold by the School Land Board, the GLO is involved. They have the statutory authority.

Per the Big Bend Gazette article, the GLO and TPWD have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the type of transfers taking place in Azle and in Big Bend. The Gazette quotes from the MOU:

“On or before December 1, 1997, the General Land Office, the School Land Board, and the Parks and Wildlife Department shall develop a plan for the removal or  conveyance to the Parks and Wildlife Department pursuant to one or more sales, exchanges, or other transfers of the surface estate in any real property dedicated to the permanent school fund that is located within the boundaries of any tract managed by the Parks and Wildlife Department, including a state park, wildlife management area or scientific area but not including a coastal preserve.”

The Gazette says this is also an improper interpretation of HB 770 from the ‘97 session and that the transfers are supposed to be from GLO to TP&WD, not vice versa or as exchanges.

Finally, the Gazette quotes from a GLO letter to a local official in the Big Bend Area that admits to the offer from CEMEX, leaves the door open for a future sale, and points out that the job of the GLO is to get the maximum dollar possible for PSF lands:

“Since completing the sale and Trade with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department last year, the General Land Office (GLO) was approached by CEMEX, who expressed interest in purchasing the property as part of a conservation initative. The GLO was not interested in selling them the property at that time and does not have any plans to sell the property. This does not mean the property will never be sold since the primary reason of the Permanent School Fund is to generate income for public education. We will consider any offers brought to us, however the GLO has no plans to sell the property at this time.”

From the above GLO letter, bear this phrase in mind:

“…the General Land Office (GLO) was approached by CEMEX, who expressed interest in purchasing the property as part of a conservation initative…”

Compare that to the GLO’s press release:

Again, no portion of the BGWMA is for sale, there has been no offer for BGWMA land, and therefore no “bidder” has been turned down.

It’s almost not debatable whether or not the GLO is telling the truth. Remember, their version of the truth hinges on the technicality. The GLO claims that, since the land is now GLO land it is not BGWMA land. So, to them, they are telling the truth because of semantics.

The reality is that the BGWMA land itself—regardless of who now exercises care and control over it, since it is still the Black Gap land—did have an interested buyer, that the GLO told local officials about, though they now claim it has never had a buyer and isn’t for sale, and that no “bidder” was turned down.

Technically, that’s true. No “bidder” was turned down because there was no bid process. I suppose the GLO would prefer it phrased as “a buyer was turned down.”

The Dallas Morning News Is Not Funny

In the 2004 election cycle, the DMN called such columns as this one “Trail Mix,” or something equally cute and simeltaniously idiotic sounding. I have no idea what this particular thrown together mess of election-related news was called in the print editions, but it is less than amusing and, to me, shows that the MSM is far more eager to pick on Bell than Strayhorn or Friedman:

Democratic nominee for governor Chris Bell has had better-attended campaign events than one last week in Dallas.

Mr. Bell wanted to unveil his environmental plan at Kimball High School, but the campaign did not get the proper permission to use the building.

So he was forced to have a news conference across the street in the 100-degree heat.

When a sweaty reporter asked the Democrat whether the sparse gathering was indicative of a struggling campaign, Mr. Bell retorted that he couldn’t control the media.

Whatever the case, Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign says its primary foe is Mr. Bell, not Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn.

“He has an organization in 254 counties,” said Robert Black , a spokesman for Mr. Perry. “Texas is still a two-party state.”

First of all, did Gomer Jeffers or whoever wrote this actually call up Rick Perry’s campaign and say, “hey, what do you think about Chris Bell’s 100-degree press conference?” If so, someone has too much time on their hands.

As for the “sparse gathering” and “struggling campaign” remarks, they should be directed at Carole Strayhorn. Very few media outlets called out The Comptroller Formerly Known As Rylander for her idiotic lawsuit to have herself listed on the ballot as “Grandma.” Instead, the headline writers at major daily newspapers across the state took advantage of the opportunity to use the words “kinky” in the same context as “grandma,” to amuse their sagging readership.

Strayhorn is the one who is going down in the polls. Bell is on the way up. One problem with a statewide tour doesn’t mean your campaign is struggling. Managing logistics for a statewide campaign swing is no doubt a nightmare and mistakes can happen. At least, the mistake didn’t involve a sitting governor calling a member of the media a “MoFo,” a la Rick Perry.

But, to the Mainstream Media, Chris Bell evidently doesn’t have the “rockstar” appeal of a cigar-chewing author who drinks beer while riding in parades or a Comptroller full of more adjectives to describe the Trans Texas Corridor than answers to Texas’ problems.

When will the MSM wake up and realize that the Jesse Ventura/Ahhhhnold treatment they are giving to the two independent candidates (and of which Strayhorn is totally undeserving since she’s been in the political limelight for decades) because of the novel fact they are independents exhibits inherant bias?

I would venture to bet that, if one subscribed to a clipping service and had all of the MSM articles written about Strayhorn and Friedman alone  from the state’s major daily newspapers that they were given more column inches on the campaign trail than Bell, and possibly more than Bell and Perry combined (exclusive of coverage Perry got for pretending to do his job as governor).

That just ain’t right.

« Previous Page — Next Page »