#TXLEGE: Who does Leach think he's kidding?!?

"And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"

Matthew 7:3

Apparently, Chip Roy was (correctly) raising heck in D.C. yesterday:

Well, hardly anything surprises me anymore - but ⁦@SpeakerPelosi⁩ just tore up the Constitution by jamming “proxy voting” thru so members of Congress can turn over their obligation to work for constituents to other members. We ask Americans to work. So should Congress. pic.twitter.com/al7fwiCeOv

— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) May 15, 2020

O.K. Good deal Chip Roy. Ghost/proxy voting is a wretched procedure.

Then this happened:

You're joking, right?!?

As we explained:

It's funny 'cuz proxy voting happens every single day (sometimes dozens of times per day) the Texas house is in session.

(But good deal @chiproytx for trying to keep this travesty out of Congress; we've seen how corrupting it is back home.)

Clerk will ring the bell....#TXLEGE https://t.co/jTmnJpnYFy

— cahnman (@cahnman) May 16, 2020

Case in point:

From last session:

But this isn’t a ghost story. It’s a story of representatives helping each other via an informed courtesy involving pushing their voting buttons when they’re away from their desks. Lots of votes are cast on a long day in the House. And lots of times members are elsewhere in the chamber when votes come up. They often leave instructions with desk neighbors on how they want to be shown voting, though they have to be in the chamber to vote.

But sometimes those votes are cast when a member is not in the chamber nor in the building nor even in Austin. That’s not supposed to happen.

But sometimes it changes the outcome of a close vote on an important matter.

You get the point, but there's a wealth of additional examples here.

Bottom Line:  For a member of the Texas house to decry ghost/proxy voting is quite something.

Statesman makes ASININE attack on Chip Roy

"Every prudent man acts with knowledge,
But a fool lays open his folly."
Proverbs 13:6

Editorial this morning:

Once again we find ourselves wondering: Who is U.S. Rep. Chip Roy representing?

....

With his vote over the weekend against a major coronavirus economic relief package, Roy chose hollow posturing over helping constituents. Thankfully the petty opposition by Roy, a Republican congressman for northern Hays and southern Travis counties, did not kill the measure, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support and now awaits Senate approval.

....

Roy protested that the package, hammered out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, was unveiled shortly before the vote, with no opportunity for members of Congress to amend it. Certainly those circumstances are less than ideal. They also reflect the difficulty of the moment, with leaders of opposing parties racing to craft a relief package in the face of a public health emergency.

....

Reasonable debates continue over funding priorities and the reach of government. But when Americans are hurting, we expect members of Congress to set aside partisan squabbling and push for the greater good.

How silly.

Apparently, according to the Statesman, members of Congress actually knowing what's in the bill is "hollow posturing."  What else is there to say?!?  Pretty much speaks for itself.

But what's even more astounding is how the Statesman takes every single claim made by the government at face value.

On what planet does the government, as it actually exists in the real world, deserve that level of benefit of the doubt?!?

Bottom Line:  It's just astounding how, after every time we've been burned by the government rushing through major policy changes under the guise of crisis over the past 20 years, that an alleged watchdog organization would object to basic due diligence.

-------

Bonus: How much do you want to bet that the Statesman will (correctly) cry bloody murder if council tries to do the exact same thing with the land development code re-write.

#TXLEGE: Troxclair would be, easily, strongest GOP candidate for SD-14 special election (aka. #TroxStillRox)

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

With Kirk Watson having now had a day to bask in his semi-deserved accolades, attention now turns to the special election.  The Statesman's roundup about Democrats is good.  But it begs a natural follow-up question.  Who will Republicans run?!?

The answer is completely obvious: Ellen Troxclair.

She's already been elected within the district.  She attracted crossover votes in that election.  Furthermore, her record in office was spectacular.

The question, of course, is whether she'll actually do it.

When Ellen Troxclair first ran for council, she and Caleb had zero kids.  Now they have three.  That changes priorities.  If she decided against seeking a second council term when she had two kids, it's hard to ask her to run for another office when she has three.

But none of that changes the fact that she's, easily, the strongest potential candidate.

Bottom Line: We doubt she'll do it, but it's an easy call if she will.

#TXLEGE: This hemp/marijuana mix-up illustrates MUCH DEEPER Problem with Legislature

"He who is slothful in his work
Is a brother to him who is a great destroyer."
Proverbs 18:9

Statesman has a really good editorial on this industrial hemp/marijuana situation:

In their enthusiasm this legislative session to open up Texas fields for hemp farming, lawmakers ended up sowing a bumper crop of confusion among police, prosecutors and the public.

Now hundreds of marijuana cases are getting dropped across the state, and Texans are receiving mixed messages: Pot remains illegal, but you may or may not get charged for having it, depending on which county you’re in.

It’s the kind of bungled plot we’d expect from a stoner movie, not the state Capitol.

Legislators and Gov. Greg Abbott failed at one of the most basic aspects of passing a law: Making sure the tools exist to enforce it. In this case, House Bill 1325 by Rep. Tracy King, and sponsored by Sen. Charles Perry, defined legal hemp as having less than 0.3% of tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, but no one checked to see if police labs around the state were equipped to distinguish hemp from marijuana, which has a greater concentration of the euphoria-inducing THC.

Turns out, most agencies don’t have such testing available.

For years, law enforcement relied on simple field tests and drug-sniffing dogs to detect the mere presence of THC, not a certain concentration of it. Prosecutors also relied on the testimony of experienced officers that the substance they seized was consistent with marijuana. All of that is out the window now, because none of those methods can distinguish lawful hemp from outlawed pot.

Obviously, this story is amusing. The stoner jokes write themselves. Furthermore, the policy outcome is one this author has long supported.

That being said, there is a serious angle to this story: Legislative sloppiness.

While the hemp/marijuana slip up is humorous, the policymaking environment that enabled it is NOT.

The legislature routinely passes massive, complicated, bills without having a clue what they'll actually do.  Sometimes those bills have real world consequences.  Unfortunately, half-assed policymaking is a predictable consequence of the legislature's culture of entitlement.

Bottom Line: Routine failures at the basic blocking-and-tackling of legislating should disgust all Texans, even if the outcome in this specific case was funny.

#TXLEGE: Either they think we're stupid. Or they actually ARE stupid. Neither is good.

"The wise in heart will receive commands,
But a prating fool will fall."
Proverbs 10:8

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!?

The top leaders at the Texas Capitol reaffirmed Friday that they were determined not just to constrain property tax growth going forward, but actually to cut property tax bills.

Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, R-Lake Jackson, said they supported allowing voters to decide whether to increase the state’s sales tax by one percentage point to buy down property tax rates.

“If we’re able to pass a sales tax increase that will be dedicated to driving down property taxes, (property) taxes are going to be less next year than they were this year,” Abbott said at a press conference.

Democrats, who could play a spoiler role, reiterated their opposition to the move, which they say would not be a good deal for poor or middle income Texans.

The House could vote on House Joint Resolution 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, which would increase the state sales tax pending approval by voters, sometime next week. The measure also presumably is linked to key property tax relief provisions in the latest version of House Bill 3, another legislative priority that would direct more money to schools and updates school funding formulas.

HJR 3 would need the approval of two thirds of each chamber. In the Senate, two Democrats would have to join all 19 Republicans. Two Republicans — Sens. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, and Bob Hall, R-Edgewood — have expressed opposition to a tax increase. Bettencourt said he would prefer to raise revenue in other ways and has said tax swaps don’t work.

In the House, 17 Democrats would have to vote with all [83] Republicans for passage.

With the House Ways and Means Committee modifying the measure to no longer dedicate some of the increased sales tax money to schools — now, as written, every dollar goes to the property tax buydown — Democratic votes could be harder to come by.

House Democratic Caucus chairman Rep. Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie, told the American-Statesman that there are “at least” 60 no votes among Democrats. They won’t vote to increase the sales tax, he said, because it’s among “the most regressive taxes.”

This has both public policy AND political disaster written all over it.

-------

Public Policy Disaster:

The biggest policy problem with this proposal is that Texas' current statewide leadership has zero credibility.

In that environment, we have no reason to believe that we won't end up with both a higher sales tax AND the property tax status quo.

Make no mistake: Moving, over the long run, from property to consumption taxes is still a good idea.  The legislature entered this session with plenty of money for a significant down payment.  They had a plan they could adopt.

Instead, lawmakers chose to spend astronomical amounts of money on...basically nothing.

This sales tax hike is a belated CYA attempt...and, as such, it should be rejected.

Furthermore, when it comes to the sales tax, you can also eliminate exemptions.  There was potential consensus on this idea early in the session.  The problem, of course, is that each of those exemptions has a lobbyist/trade group defending them.  Thus, eliminating sales tax exemptions "is too hard."

So we get this hot mess of a proposal.

We're reminded of late 90's Chris Rock:



Can you come up with a better comparison?!?

-------

Political Disaster:

That Chris Turner quote speaks for itself.

The TV commercials/online videos, likewise, write themselves.

Do Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, and Dennis Bonnen really want to be the face of this debacle?!?

-------

Bottom Line: D-E-B-A-C-L-E

#TXLEGE: The wrong questions on Occupational Licenses and Religious Liberty

They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Matthew 22:21

We made a similar point about a similar topic over the weekend, but it looks like the topic is here to stay.

From Yesterday:

Opening what promises to be one of the most contentious fights of the 2019 legislative session, a Senate committee on Monday approved a bill to give state-licensed professionals — including doctors, lawyers, pharmacists and barbers — broad protection for actions taken according to their religious beliefs.

Opponents said the bill, and more than a dozen similar measures that have not yet been acted upon, would give religious people, particularly conservative Christians, the power to discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgender people as well as anyone they don’t want to do business with or serve.

But supporters of Senate Bill 17 — including its Republican author, Sen. Charles Perry — said the protections are needed to ensure that licensing agencies do not discriminate against religious professionals by forcing them to do something that violates their beliefs.

That's fine.  Government licensing boards certainly should not abuse individual conscience rights.  In that sense, SB 17 is worthwhile.

But, let's get real: Is anybody surprised?!?

Occupational licensing, by government, is inherently political.  Period.  End of story.  For a political process to reflect political trends is completely predictable.

Even if you delineate some protections this session, as long as this licensing monstrosity remains in place, those protections are temporary at best.

In the spirit of permanent relief, the Institute for Justice offers something intriguing:



TL,DR version: Take these decisions out of the realm of politics, return them to the free market.

Bottom Line: Maybe it's time to start asking if we've been rendering too much to Caesar in the first place....

#TXLEGE: Across ideological spectrum, Texas Media SILENT on new local debt ##'s

"The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender."
Proverbs 22:7

On Monday, the comptroller's office released the latest local government debt figures.  TPPF picked it up.  So did we.

How about the rest of Texas Media?!?

• Texas Tribune -- NOTHING.
  
  [Note: In fairness to the Trib, they have covered this issue fairly extensively in the past.]

• Austin American Statesman -- NOTHING.

• Dallas Morning News -- NOTHING

• Ft. Worth Star Telegram -- NOTHING.
  
  [Note: Check out what the Star Telegram did publish on the same day the local debt ##'s came out.]

• Houston Chronicle -- NOTHING.

• San Antonio Express News -- NOTHING.

We know what you're thinking: The DAMN LIBRUL MEDIA (tm) is suppressing the story.

So how did conservative media outlets, specifically those who focus on fiscal policy, perform?!?

• Empower Texans/Texas Scorecard -- NOTHING.

• Texas Monitor -- NOTHING.

Bottom Line: Texas has the second highest per capita local government debt in the country; it sure would be nice if more of our voters understood that reality....

WillCo Democrats Import Hollywood Liberal

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”
1 Corinthians 15:33

Yesterday, Jimmy Flannigan tweeted:

I'm not one that gets star-struck but Natalie Portman is standing between my and @MayorAdler signs at the campaign office of @mjhegar @BucyForTexas @karltm

But @statesman - that office is in Austin #atxd6, not Cedar Park! https://t.co/lps8IyBTmo

— Jimmy Flannigan (@JimmyFlannigan) October 25, 2018

We had originally intended to rip on Jimmy for going to this event in the middle of the workday despite this ongoing water DEBACLE.  But clicking through the Statesman link, it doesn't appear that he was there.  So no harm, no foul, towards Jimmy (on this topic).

But this does beg another question: What the heck are the WillCo Democrats thinking?!?

It's not a secret that people can't stand being lectured about politics by celebrities.  Yet that's how WillCo D's choose to present themselves.  If you're wondering why John Carter will (probably) survive the midterm, this is a good example of why.

Y'all do realize this district includes Bell County, right?!?

Bottom Line: This is a good way to confirm every stereotype about Democrats in existence....

#atxcouncil: The Soccer Stadium DEBACLE Gets WORSE

"Also it is not good for a soul to be without knowledge,
And he sins who hastens with his feet."
Proverbs 19:2

From yesterday's Statesman:

A date that could have marked the end for Major League Soccer coming to Austin will come and go without much commotion.

Lawyers from Precourt Sports Ventures and the city of Austin are still drafting the final lease and development contract for a Major League Soccer stadium at McKalla Place. The terms sheet approved by the Austin City Council in August specified Oct. 9 as a day when either side could terminate the deal if a final agreement had not been reached. Although signatures are still likely months away, representatives from both sides told the American-Statesman that they have no intentions of backing out.

"It was there as a failsafe, just in case there were any substantial roadblocks and things just weren't coming together," David Green, a spokesman for the city, told the Statesman. "It would allow either party to back out, but wasn't meant as a hard deadline. We're coming up on Oct. 9, and right now we've made very good progress. There isn't any reason for either party to consider invoking that clause of the terms sheet at this time."

MLS lobbyist Richard Suttle, who works for PSV, declined to comment other than to say he agrees with the city about Oct. 9.

....

"We always said it would take 90 to 120 days," Green said. "We're still confident in that as a good window. November, December timeframe, probably more likely to be December as both sides go through multiple reviews from their lawyers to make sure everything is above board before anybody signs anything."

While both sides agree things are moving smoothly, there are still several potential stumbling blocks, starting with the lingering uncertainty surrounding the possible relocation of Columbus Crew SC. Team investor-operator Anthony Precourt, who started exploring a move in October 2017, intended to finalize a move for the 2019 season, but MLS has yet to sign off. A lawsuit hangs over proceedings in Ohio, and appears unlikely to be resolved by the end of the 2018 season.

....

MLS normally releases its schedule for the coming year in early January, with the first games kicking off in early March. PSV had a brand reveal for a potential MLS team, to be called Austin FC, but other specifics for a possible 2019 launch (season tickets, temporary stadium, etc.) are on hold.

....

There's also the matter of local opposition from political action committee IndyAustin, which is circulating a petition challenging the stadium deal.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Wow.

To recap:

• They're aiming for a final contract in December...but they're expecting to be able to play games in March?!?
  
  That seems...ambitious!

• The lawsuit in Columbus remains unresolved, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

• Speaking of lawsuits, there's one coming in Austin the deal is finalized.  The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because you need a final signed contract before a plaintiff has standing.  Does anyone doubt the 3rd Court of Appeals will issue a temporary injunction?!?

• They have to get through the petition campaign.
  
  [Note: They won't; Soccer fans don't vote.]

• They don't even have a temporary stadium agreement!!!  Yet they want to play games in MARCH of next year.  NEWSFLASH: It's already mid-October!!!

• It's long been rumored that the team wants to use UT's facilities as a temporary stadium.  It's not a secret that UT isn't particularly interested.  Given everything we know about how the University of Texas does business, just IMAGINE what UT would end up charging Precourt in a situation where they have THIS much leverage.

The best part, however, is that this is exactly what we warned Council would happen:

Oh well, they're the ones who chose not to listen.

Bottom Line: This is going down exactly how we predicted, and it's only going to get worse (for Adler and Precourt)....

#atxcouncil rebuked by DEMOCRAT Travis County Judge over #CodeNext Lawlessness

"Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear."
1 Timothy 5:20

Unexpected good news from an unexpected source:

The CodeNext petition ordinance will appear on November’s ballot and likely pour kerosene on Austin City Council elections this year just as campaign season begins to ramp up.

Travis County state District Judge Orlinda Naranjo issued the order on Monday ruling that it was premature for the Austin City Council to deny the petition ordinance.

If approved, the proposed ordinance would allow voters to decide whether they wish to vote on CodeNext and any future large-scale revisions of Austin’s land development code. It also calls for a waiting period before any voter-approved land-use rewrite is adopted.

Here's what's extraordinary: It's not that the city lost.  It's that they lost in Travis County District court.  That NEVER happens.

Usually, when there's a lawsuit challenging the lawless actions of any governmental entity in this county, the hack Travis County Democrat judges protect the government.  That didn't happen here.  That's VERY interesting.  [Note: The fact that a similar, though less pronounced, phenomenon occurred on the so-called "sick leave" lawsuit is likewise interesting.]

Bottom Line: You know the city's case is weak when Travis County judges can't invent legal fictions to prop them up....

#atxcouncil: City Manager Finalists meet the Public

"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;"
1 Peter 5:2

We attended last night's forum with the City Manager finalists and spoke with the Statesman on the way out:

Adam Cahn, a local blogger, said that his main concern was City Council ending up locking itself into a long-term contract in hiring the city manager. He said both candidates seemed able, but he preferred Lazarus.

“Lazarus at least knows what he is talking about,” Cahn said. “Cronk seems like he is just full of government clichés.”

To elaborate: As we explained last month, we're not particularly impressed with any of the candidates.  Given this reality, we prefer to keep whomever is hired on a short leash.  Thus, no long term contract.

FWIW, Mayor Adler told us last night he agreed about not making a long term commitment.

As we told the Statesman, Spencer Cronk was full of the bureaucratic cliches one usually hears at these type of government events: "engagement," "dialogue," "stakeholders,"diversity," "inclusion," "equity," "comprehensive plan," "outreach," holistic," and "strategic" to name a few.

Worse, Cronk dodged the question about affordability.  Speaking of housing, he said "I'm not a housing expert."  Typical of his performance, he reverted to cliches when asked about streamlining permitting.

Howard Lazarus wasn't anything special but at least he a) has private sector experience and b) understands Austin.

Lazarus used to run Austin's public works department.  Obviously, that's not something we consider in his favor.  But that does mean he understands some of the unique factors that make Austin Austin.

On CodeNext, Lazarus paid lip service to both sides.  But at least he knows what CodeNext is and he understands the community discussion.  The other guy would probably have to have a "holistic stakeholder dialogue."

Lazarus spoke favorably of "reducing the cost of construction" on residential building.  Again, that might be lip service, but at least it's lip service that identifies the correct problem.  Lazarus also appeared skeptical of corporate "incentive" packages.

Lazarus floated the idea of moving to a two year budget cycle.  We don't necessarily endorse this, but it's an idea worth considering.  The state of Texas budgets biannually and, whatever you think of the Texas state budget generally, from a process perspective there's something to be said for taking a breath between budget cycles (*).

Bottom Line: Neither finalist impresses.  But, between the two, Lazarus clearly possesses a better understanding of our community.  Mostly, we want to keep whoever is hired on a short leash while revisiting the issue in a few years.

-------

* -- A two year budget cycle might also make zero-based budgeting more feasible.

#atxcouncil Greases Skids for Shady Real Estate Deal by Entitled Crony Capitalists (what else is new in this town?!?)....

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Wait a second.  WHAT happened last night?!?  Via Deadspin:

While the Columbus Crew are gearing up for an Eastern Conference Finals matchup with the formidable Toronto FC, their carpetbagging owner Anthony Precourt is continuing his efforts to move the Crew out of Ohio and resettle them in Austin. Last night, the Austin city council voted to look into the viability of building an MLS stadium in the city, which is a boring way to say that they’re happily playing along with Precourt and seem to be serious about this whole MLS business. MLS czar Don Garber has been silent on the matter, even though all of it stands in direct contradiction with the supposed MLS expansion and franchising model. But that, I suppose, is business.

The entire matter still has months to go before it shakes out, and at this juncture it’s still entirely possible that Precourt is simply using Austin as leverage in order to extort Columbus for more public money. Either way, the battle for hearts and minds continues apace. Precourt hired an Austin-based PR firm to sell his plan to the public, which brings us to MLS2ATX, a grassroots organization billing itself as “a community of supporters working together to bring Major League Soccer to Austin, TX.” If you checked out their Facebook page, they might seem to be exactly that.

They are not. MLS2ATX is owned and operated by Precourt Sports Ventures, a fact which they don’t even try to hide. None of their tactics are, say, actively nefarious, it’s just that everything the Precourt group is doing to astroturf the everliving shit out of their move is tacky and cynical.

More from the Statesman:

The resolution, which Tovo’s office drafted, directs city staff to begin an analysis of city-owned land, including underutilized parkland, for possible location of an “urban core” stadium and a large training facility that could be located anywhere in the city.

At this point, an apology: We did not know this particular act of larceny was being fast tracked.  If we had, we would have been at Council yesterday.  Unfortunately, between the unlikely school bond results and the bombshell revelations at the legislature, Council fell off our radar screen.

So, we're sorry.

The spin coming out this morning is that any potential Major League Soccer stadium will be "privately financed."  That could be an improvement over how these deals have traditionally been done.  But just because there isn't a direct payment from the public purse does not mean there aren't other taxpayer financed subsidies.

Off the top of our head:

• Would any land for a potential stadium site be sold to the team at full market value?!?  If the answer to the above question is yes, then what party would make that appraisal?!?

• Would a potential stadium receive preferential tax treatment in the form of property tax abatements?!?

• Tax increment financing?!?

Keep in mind, this is coming from the same people who are refusing to release details of their Amazon pitch to the public.

But here's the genuinely astounding thing about this entire discussion: WE ALREADY HAVE A 20,000 SEAT SOCCER STADIUM IN THE "URBAN CORE" OF AUSTIN.

So we already have a venue that would fulfill the stated needs.  Furthermore, the venue in question happens to be located in a super convenient location for most Austinites.  Furthermore still, the traffic in that part of town is already bad enough that adding the occasional soccer game to the mix would make any difference one way or the other.

The only thing that would need to transpire would be to have the team owner reach an agreement with the University of Texas (and we all know how the University of Texas likes to make money).

But no, we're going to give away valuable publicly owned land to a politically connected crony capitalist team owner to build a superfluous second stadium?!?

Makes total sense.

Bottom Line: Austin Texas already has a 20,000 seat soccer stadium in the urban core; we don't need a second.

#atxcouncil hides City Manager candidates from Public

"For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."
John 3:20

LOL:

The Austin City Council might have broken Texas law Thursday when council members left the posted location of a meeting and rushed away in vans that took them to an undisclosed place to conduct interviews with city manager candidates.

Several lawyers who are experts in Texas open meetings law said the council violated the law by leaving the Hilton Austin Airport, where they had intended to conduct the interviews, in favor of a conference room at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport that was inaccessible to the public.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous,” Houston lawyer Joe Larsen said. “Obviously, what they have done is completely outside of the pale. Clearly they are trying to engage in a secret meeting.”

....

The Statesman sued the city this week for blocking requests for information about candidates made under the Texas Public Information Act. The paper was amending its complaint Thursday, alleging the council violated open meetings laws with the hasty change of venue.

Mayor Steve Adler, Council Member Kathie Tovo, Council Member Ann Kitchen and a statement from city staffers all said they violated no laws by secretly moving the location of the interviews from the meeting’s posted site. All other council members either did not answer questions or gave no comment on switching locations.

Adler said later that he didn’t feel good about how things happened Thursday, but stood by the actions. The mayor said he felt badly that the council had been unable to maintain the candidates’ confidentiality Tuesday after it had said that it would.

“The whole situation is awkward,” he said. “We want to have an absolutely open process, and we want to make sure we find the absolute finest candidates and, where those things conflict with one another, you get to a place that does not feel good.”

....

As on Tuesday, the council began its meeting for the second round of interviews at the Hilton, then adjourned to executive session. Several council members headed to the hotel conference room where they had held their closed-door meeting on Tuesday, but they then boarded two airport shuttles that took them to Austin-Bergstrom airport.

One reporter tried to follow a shuttle in his car only to be blocked by a city staffer who closed and padlocked a gate behind the shuttle. That staffer refused to give his name.

The Statesman later located the council, which was in a conference room beyond the airport’s Transportation Security Administration security checkpoint. The airport’s staff refused to allow reporters to that area of the airport.

Read the whole thing here.

Abbott quietly asserts further ownership over the University of Texas

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”
1 Corinthians 15:33

[Note: The most interesting aspect of Sarah Martinez Tucker's background can be found here.]

Another very interesting tidbit from yesterday's special UT board meeting:

AUSTIN—Regent Sara Martinez Tucker, appointed in 2015 by Governor Greg Abbott to a six-year term on The University of Texas System Board of Regents, was unanimously elected chairman of the board at a special called meeting Monday.

Tucker was nominated by Chairman Paul Foster, and the motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Steve Hicks.

Chairman Sara Martinez Tucker

“It has been an immense honor to serve as chairman of the board these last four years, but it was time to pass the gavel to a new leader,” Foster said. “It was a pleasure to nominate Regent Tucker, who has brought great insight and guidance to the Board over the last two years. The UT System and all of its institutions are going to benefit greatly under her very capable leadership.”

Prior to her appointment as regent, Tucker, a native of Laredo and resident of Dallas, served as the nation’s top higher education official as under secretary of the U.S. Department of Education under President George W. Bush. There, she oversaw all policies, programs, and activities related to postsecondary education, vocational and adult education, and federal student aid.

Tucker also served as the CEO and president of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, where she pursued an aggressive goal to double the rate of Hispanics earning college degrees. Prior to her work in the nonprofit sector, she was a long-time executive at AT&T.

Tucker currently serves as chairman of the Regents’ academic affairs committee, in addition to serving on the health affairs, finance and planning, and audit, compliance and risk management committees.

“Sara Martinez Tucker is going to be an incredibly effective chairman, and I know that I and everyone at the UT System is looking forward to working with her in her new capacity,” Chancellor William McRaven said. “She gives tremendous time and energy to the UT System, and she is extremely knowledgeable and cares very deeply about higher education. We could not ask for a better leader to guide us forward.”

Tucker earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism and a master’s degree in business administration from UT Austin. Tucker has been named as an Outstanding Young Texas Ex and a Distinguished Alumna at UT Austin and among many honors has received honorary doctorates from the University of Notre Dame, Boston College, and the University of Maryland University College.

“I am honored and humbled by this great privilege, and I am grateful to my colleagues for entrusting me with this responsibility. Having the opportunity to work with extraordinary board members, system administration leaders and visionary university presidents to ensure that UT students and patients have access to the best possible outcomes is and will always be my top priority,” said Chairman Tucker, following her appointment.

LOL, as the Statesman's Ralph Haurwitz explains:

Although by outward appearances the regents select their own leader, in actual practice the governor’s office signals the choice and the regents follow suit.

In other words, the UT Board now not only contains a majority of Abbott appointees, but it's now led by Abbott's hand picked chairwoman.

Given that the Board of Regents is now led by Abbott's hand picked chair, let's consider several incidents that have occurred since May 1st of this year (the Board has jurisdiction over all of these):

• Second on campus murder in 13 months.

• Following the afore mentioned second murder in 13 months, the Board of Regents has declined to have a public discussion of on-campus security in not one, not two, but three separate Board meetings.

• UTIMCO's refusal to deposit their gold at the state bullion depository.

• Violent communists recruiting on campus.

• Creation of an arbitrary "sexual assault" policy to please a big donor, which predictably leads to them getting sued.

• The early seeds of another tuition hike.

• Defying Abbott over statue removal.

• An absurd proposal to supervise the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal.

• The Maryland debacle.

• The University chancellor grandstanding over immigration in response to a sensible change in federal policy.

• A separate Abbott-appointed regent expanding so-called "social work."

• A left wing student assaulting a student reporter for the Daily Texan.

[Note: Even we didn't realize that there had been 12 separate terrible incidents in the past 4.5 months and we follow this stuff closely.]

Bottom Line: Anytime you wonder how the University of Texas consistently gets away with terrible behavior, and what can be done about it, remember that the Governor's office controls the Board of Regents.

Details emerge on University of Texas' pursuit of nuclear weapons

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
Genesis 11:4

[Note: You can read our longer explanation of why allowing the current UT leadership anywhere near nuclear weapons is a terrible idea here.]

Given that they were discussing the Los Alamos bid, we intended to attend yesterday's special meeting of the UT board.  Unfortunately, a very late arriving bus made that impossible.  Fortunately, the Statesman had it covered:

The University of Texas System Board of Regents on Monday authorized spending up to $4.5 million to prepare a bid to operate Los Alamos National Laboratory, a key part of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex.

....

The spending vote was not a surprise, as the board encouraged its staff last month to explore development of a bid. The regents still would have to vote again before submitting a proposal to the federal government to operate Los Alamos, which is tucked into the mountains of northern New Mexico.

The UT System, partnering with Lockheed Martin Corp., lost a bid to operate Los Alamos in 2005. The system later joined with the Texas A&M University System, the University of New Mexico, the Boeing Co. and Battelle Memorial Institute in a failed bid to run Sandia National Laboratories, also based in New Mexico.

Sandia and Los Alamos are part of the Energy Department, whose current secretary, Rick Perry, is a former Texas governor [Note: Considering the history, that's why this fool's errand is HILARIOUS].

A bid to run Los Alamos, which has 11,200 employees and a $2.5 billion budget, would be a quest for the prestige, the opportunity for national service and the legacy that attach to the institution charged with ensuring that the nation’s nuclear weapons would work as intended, without actually detonating them.

Running the lab wouldn’t necessarily be pure glory, though, because mistakes could damage the UT System’s reputation [Note: Gee...ya think?!?].

Industry partners, and perhaps academic partners, would be part of the UT System team, and UT-Austin would have a key role, officials have said. But unlike the previous bids involving the UT System for Los Alamos and Sandia, the system would be the lead player if it goes forward with the initiative.

Read the whole thing here.

#TXLEGE: Abbott's mouth writes a big check....

"I have held My peace a long time,
I have been still and restrained Myself.
Now I will cry like a woman in labor,
I will pant and gasp at once."
Isaiah 42:14

Well this is...an awfully bold statement:

I can tell you that in 10 days we are going to have a Texas that I consider to be far better, more conservative, that will continue the Texas model for conservative governance,” Abbott told the American-Statesman on Friday evening.

....

We are on a trajectory where you’re going to see between now and a week from now — next Friday — a lot of things move very fast. We’ve got to match them up between the House and the Senate, but you’re going to see a lot of items move over the next seven days.

Read the whole thing here.

"Capitol Complex" project epitomizes EVERYTHING wrong with both #ATXCouncil and #TXLEGE....

"Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it."
Genesis 2:15

Wow; we had no idea this was even under discussion until we saw today's Statesman story:

After a closed-door discussion Thursday, Austin City Council members agreed to waive $6.9 million in fees and provide other assistance to the state for a new Capitol Complex — a topic that had drawn wry skepticism during a council workshop earlier in the week.

The Capitol Complex is a planned $581 million three-phase project to convert North Congress Avenue between the Capitol and the University of Texas into a grassy pedestrian mall. The later phases will create new office buildings for state workers at 16th and 18th streets. Work is expected to begin this summer.

The 6-2 vote Thursday, with two abstentions and one council member absent, authorizes city staffers to draft an interlocal agreement with the state to waive fees for the first phase of the Capitol Complex project. It would also provide expedited permitting for the project, appointment of a city staff project team and an agreement that the city will vacate four blocks of North Congress Avenue and convert 16th, 17th and 18th streets to two-way traffic.

There's so much to say about why this is a terrible idea, but we'll start with a personal observation we made numerous times throughout this past regular legislative session.  If you walk around the area north of the Capitol Grounds and south of UT campus after 6pm, you quickly notice that it's a dead zone once all the state employees go home at night.  Having a dead zone between two of the most robust neighborhoods in the city (Downtown and Campus) is one of the worst missed opportunities we have for land use in this city.

As we made that observation over the past few months, we've come to an increasingly obvious conclusion: the State of Texas should sell that land (or, at a minimum, do a long-term ground lease) for mixed-use residential/commercial development.

Beyond that, there's the city of Austin's chronic housing shortage.  If this area were properly re-developed, you could get 10,000 additional units of housing supply in a desirable location, which can only lower housing costs citywide.  And the best part is that you wouldn't have to displace any current residents, because there aren't any current residents.

Then there's the traffic consideration.  The primary driver [Note: Pun not originally intended, but left in place after being recognized] of traffic on I-35 is state employees commuting to and from work.  Getting all those state employees off of I-35 and replacing them with people who aren't travelling long distances to their job can only ease traffic congestion.

Then there's the cost: $581 million to build luxury office towers for state employees.  One thing we learned during the Courthouse bond campaign two years ago is that construction costs in less prime locations are a fraction of construction costs on prime real estate.  If this project moves forward, it's safe to predict it'll cost twice as much as advertised, take twice as long to complete as predicted, then once the project belatedly opens the buildings will rapidly depreciate to the point where within 7 years they'll need another infusion of cash for "maintenance."

Finally, of course, there's the ongoing nightmare of the city of Austin's fee and permitting process.  We've long been of the belief that the city needs to streamline fees and permitting for everyone and end the constant stream of "fee waivers" and "expedited permitting."  That the state of Texas was able to obtain special treatment is yet another example of how politically favored entities receive accommodations which are unavailable to the rest of us.

Bottom Line: Never forget, once you get beyond the headlines, that politics at every level in this state is about good ol' boys putting together shady real estate deals....

#TXLEGE: Governor FoxNews' twitter baiting theatrics can't erase Constitutional Carry failure....

"For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light."
Luke 8:17

Did you hear?!?

The Guvnah told a joke at a bill signing Ceremony this morning:

Gov. Greg Abbott jokes he’ll carry riddled target `in case I see any reporters’ https://t.co/TXrKmZqjsB pic.twitter.com/F3b1KpHXDV

— Austin Statesman (@statesman) May 26, 2017

Obviously, the Huffington Post took the bait:

But Abbott’s quote, at the very least, showed a stunning lack of awareness. After all, Republican Greg Gianforte was charged with assault after allegedly body-slamming a Guardian reporter in Montana on Wednesday. He was elected to Congress the next day.

Everyone saw that story ― media outlets pulled their endorsements of the candidate and the GOP appeared to keep its distance from him after the news broke. As it turns out, threatening or attacking reporters isn’t a good idea, although there appears to be a trajectory of anti-media rhetoric under President Donald Trump’s administration.

“This joke was dangerous and out of line. Because it’s never just a joke to some. It’s never just rhetoric. Words matter,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Friday afternoon.

Naturally, SJW-Twitter followed suit:

You are truly sick, @GregAbbott_TX. You pick this week, of all weeks, to joke about violence against journalists? https://t.co/Q9W1d81uxq

— Matthew Chapman (@fawfulfan) May 26, 2017

Republican governor @GregAbbott_TX of Texas – MY STATE – is joking about killing reporters.

Have you NO sense of decency, @GregAbbott_TX? https://t.co/4GLF7MqkCi

— leah mcelrath 🗽 (@leahmcelrath) May 26, 2017

For @GregAbbott_TX to joke about shooting reporters is absolutely disgusting. Blood on his hands if violence against media escalates in TX https://t.co/nnme0x7bOG

— Stephen Bridges (@bridge2nowhere) May 26, 2017

It was all very...theatrical.

But, stepping back, did you realize what that bill ceremony failed to include?!?

CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.

Yeah, about that:

Constitutional Carry was left for dead two months ago and the "fee reduction" bill Abbott's signed this morning is not an acceptable substitute.

But who cares about the second amendment when left-wingers on Twitter are taking political bait?!?

Right?!?

Bottom Line: This will be an interesting test case.  Will the grassroots follow the left in taking Abbott's bait; or will they realize that this was NOT the constitutional carry bill they've asked for the past two sessions?!?  It's an open question....

#TXLEGE: House Leadership (predictably) dragging feet on pro-Life bills....

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

Texas Right to Life held a press conference this morning; we didn't attend, but they posted the video:



The Statesman has more:

“Unfortunately, session after session, the Texas House of Representatives has not prioritized pro-life bills,” he said “We’ve prioritized the budget, CPS, education, an Uber bill — all things that are important, but none of which are as important as saving the lives of preborn babies.”

Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, noted that the House had only nine voting days left to pass House bills, and legislation placed on the final days’ calendars rarely comes up for a vote, particularly if legislators begin delaying tactics to kill late-calendar bills they oppose.

“That’s why you sense the urgency in what we’re doing today,” Krause said.

Schaefer said he and others will ask Gov. Greg Abbott to call a special session if abortion-related regulations are not passed by session’s end on May 29.

While the Senate has passed a number of abortion regulations, “no legislation touching abortion has made its way through the Texas House of Representatives yet,” said Emily Cook, political director for Texas Right to Life. 

....

In particular, she said, Right to Life’s top priority — dubbed the “dismemberment abortion” ban, which would place limits on second-trimester “dilation and evacuation” abortions — has been given unsatisfactory treatment in the House, where a Senate-passed bill has not yet been referred to a committee to begin action. Another measure, which would ban abortion coverage in private insurance plans as well as plans offered to state employees and participants in the Affordable Care Act, has a House committee hearing Wednesday and must be voted out by Friday to meet House deadlines.

From Texas Right to Life:

While many bills are marketed as “Pro-Life,” only substantive Pro-Life bills will save lives. With merely 27 days remaining in the 85th Legislative Session, the Texas House has not passed any Pro-Life bills. The Texas Senate has passed multiple Pro-Life bills including Senate Bill 415, the Dismemberment Abortion Ban, and Senate Bill 20, Pro-Life Health Insurance Reform.

If life-saving bills are not passed in the final days of the legislative session, more than 100,000 lives will be lost to abortion before the Texas Legislature meets again. Only two of Texas Right to Life’s priority bills have been heard in House committees (House Bill 2063 and House Bill 1113). All House bills must be voted out of committee by Monday, May 8, and passed on the House floor by Thursday, May 11. As we have seen in previous sessions, leaving important Pro-Life legislation to the final days and hours allows anti-Life Democrats to chub, ensuring the clock runs out on life-saving reforms.

As John Seago, Legislative Director for Texas Right to Life, explained, “The concern over fetal tissue donation and research or the legislation that imposes burial and cremation regulations on abortion clinics fundamentally miss the mark. These policies merely debate what to do with the body of the child after he or she dies. The Pro-Life movement in Texas must prioritize legislation that will stop the injustice of elective abortion from occurring in the first place.”

Texas Right to Life joins other conservative groups in calling attention to the neglect of priority legislation by representatives who call themselves “Pro-Life.” The greatest priority this session is passing the Dismemberment Abortion Ban, which would outlaw the inhumane practice of killing a preborn child in the womb by tearing her limb from limb while her heart is still beating. Senate Bill 415 passed on March 20 winning bipartisan support with Democrat Senators Lucio and Zaffirini voting for the bill.

In addition to passage in the Senate, Texas Right to Life’s priority legislation has far-reaching support. The Dismemberment Abortion Ban received support from 95% of the voting delegates at the Republican Party of Texas convention (more than 8,000 activists voted for the policy), making the proposal the most popular Pro-Life policy plank in the 2016 Republican Party Platform. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton indicated support for the life-saving legislation in joining the amicus brief defending the constitutionality of Alabama’s Dismemberment Abortion Ban. Furthermore, the House version of the Dismemberment Abortion Ban, House Bill 844 by Representative Stephanie Klick, has 67 coauthors.

Texas Right to Life General Counsel Emily Cook stated, “Texas used to be within the top five of Pro-Life states in the nation; we are now ranked 17th. With 95 Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives, passing conservative legislation should not be this difficult.”

Read the full statesman report here; read the full Right to Life Press release here.

Bottom Line: We expect them to pass something they can call 'pro-life' on the campaign trail, but it's an open question whether what they pass will have any teeth.

#TXLEGE SB 822: A TERRIBLE Bill for Austin's Housing Costs....

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?"
Matthew 20:15

[Author's Note: The Statesman has a good write up this morning's hearing here.]

There's a bill we've been keeping an eye on for several weeks about which we have yet to comment, but considering that it got a hearing this morning, now is a good time.

SB 822 is a weird attempt to get the legislature involved in a West Austin land dispute that's been simmering for at least a decade.  To be honest, we have no idea why the legislature chose to but in this session.  While we have no specific knowledge, considering the neighborhood involved, we suspect there's a lobbyist who's also a participant in the land dispute.

At the heart of the issue is a tract of land (sidenote: What else is new in Texas?!?) on which is currently situated the Lions Golf Course.  The golf course is operated by the city of Austin while the land is owned by the University of Texas system.  That being said, given its proximity to downtown and various other popular locations, this tract is a prime candidate for residential construction in a city that needs to build 150,000 units of new housing over the next decade.

Because it's such a prime location for housing construction, from time to time UT has looked into selling (or long term ground leasing) the property to various developers...which of course doesn't sit well with the anti-growthers at the Austin Neighborhoods Council.  This has led to the disingenuous and tiresome "Save Muny" campaign in West Austin.  With UT's lease with the city set to expire in 2019, ANC is clearly trying to pre-empt a public discussion of the property.

Which brings us to Estes' bill.  SB 822 would transfer the property from the UT system (who might eventually allow hosing (in our city that needs to build 150,000 new units)) to the state of Texas' Parks and Wildlife department.  The P&W department could be expected to keep the property as a municipally run golf course for the indefinite future.

And, of course, keeping the property as a municipally run golf course will permanently remove almost a 150 acres of prime real estate from the housing stock.

Bottom Line: For this website to come down on the same side as UT on an issue before the legislature should tell you a lot about the unusual nature of this situation, but leaving the status quo in place is the best possible outcome for everyone except a few vocal anti-growthers in West Austin.

-----

Note I: We didn't want to dilute the arguments on the merits above with an ideological tangent, but it's also worth pointing out that no city has any business running any golf course at any time.

-----

Note II: Where the heck are the Texas Exes on this one?!?  For as much as they loved to play the "the legislature shouldn't micromanage universities" card  during discussions of any attempts to hold Bill Powers accountable for all his misdeeds over the years, this actual attempt to micromanage the university's real estate doesn't seem to elicit a peep.  They're the one group that could probably kill this thing if they got involved...so we hope they do.