Are we clear now on downtown plans?

Well, that explains it, correct?

Amarillo officials teamed up with business and civic leaders to go through downtown’s revival plans in minute detail. They explained a lot, answered questions, heard gripes and compliments. Roughly 300 residents gathered at the Civic Center’s Heritage Room to hear it all.

End of debate? Not even close.

Now, for the record, I wasn’t one of the attendees; work commitments kept me from going downtown to hear the pitch and to watch the reaction. I cannot comment specifically on the details of the hearing. Having stipulated all of that, I’ll now tell you that I continue to scratch my head over this notion that the city is somehow conducting all this stuff in secret.

I’ve looked at some of the online comments posted on Amarillo.com; I still am amazed.

The downtown project needs a couple of starters to keep it going. One of them is that multipurpose events venue, aka MPEV and/or “the ballpark.” Without the MPEV, there likely will be no downtown hotel, which would be built and operated by a Dallas-based hotelier. Without the hotel and the MPEV, there’s no parking garage.

The project would be done.

And yet …

Some folks in high places think the MPEV is a bad idea. They’ve dislike the notion of building a convention hotel downtown without first expanding the Civic Center to make it more conducive to conventions they say are going to other cities.

Weaving through all of this is this notion that the city has done things under cover. They’ve kept vital information from the public.

From what I have heard about the daylong public meeting Wednesday at the Civic Center, nothing of the sort can be validated. Yet the cynics out there — as illustrated by some of those online comments — keep insisting the meeting was a put-up job, meant to paper over the “real issues” relating to the downtown development proposals.

The project was estimated originally to cost $113 million — give or take a few hundred thousand bucks. I understand it’s been reduced to around $92 million. It’ll be financed by private investors, who’ve been given tax inducements from city and county governments. The city will put hotel-motel tax revenue to work in helping finance the project.

Oh, and let me add as well that the tax revenue in question comes from people who come here to, uh let me think, attend conventions or other entertainment-related events.

Those tax inducements? They involve tax abatements, contrary to what one leading local — and vocal — businessman, Craig Gualtiere, said recently, do work. They actually do provide incentives for business to come to communities, set up shop, build things, hire people and provide whatever service they are in business to provide. OK, so we exempt those businesses from paying property taxes for a few years. Then they join the tax rolls. Amarillo is not creating a new invention with this device; it’s been tried and proven all across the nation.

Yes, one can overdue tax abatements, but do you really think city and county officials are unaware of that risk?

So here we are. The community has heard from the downtown redevelopment brain trust.

Let’s proceed.

Council member makes waves right off the top

Mark Nair might not like being called this, but he’s turned into a rabble-rouser.

The newest member of the Amarillo City Council stirred ’em up this week with a call for City Manager Jarrett Atkinson to resign. He did so just after he took his oath of office. He took his seat on the council, participated in a public meeting — then tossed the grenade right into the public’s lap.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/29455295/what-do-potential-resignations-mean-for-downtown-development

This is not the fellow I understood was running for a spot on the council. His friends and allies call him thoughtful and deliberative. Yes, he said he sought “change” at City Hall. I recall reading a news report immediately after he won the runoff for the Place 4 seat on June 13 in which he said he didn’t even know Atkinson, but that he looked forward to seeking answers to key questions about the way the city administration is run.

OK, then. He takes the oath and immediately calls for Atkinson’s resignation?

I’ve met Nair once, at a downtown Amarillo coffee shop. He was running for the council. Some friends of mine introduced him to me. We exchanged pleasantries. That’s it.

So, I’m not going to scold Nair too harshly here. I just would caution the young man about the land mines that await him if he becomes too out front on some of this get-rid-of-Atkinson rhetoric without knowing (a) the man about whom he is speaking and (b) all the details of what goes on at the highest levels of city government.

As a council member, he and his colleagues have authority to demand the manager’s resignation. They set the policy and the manager implements it on their — and our — behalf.

However, he’s one of three brand, spanking new members of the City Council. None of them has serious management experience, although Place 1 Councilman Elisha Demerson did serve a single term as Potter County judge — more than 20 years ago!

I was hoping for a go-slow approach when the new council members took office.

My hope has been dashed.

Those agents of change out there are happy, I reckon. Fine. Be happy.

Me? I’m hoping we can maintain some continuity as we move forward and start pondering our careful next steps in this downtown revival effort.

 

So many questions at City Hall

Amarillo City Council members decided to start their new tenure off with far more than a bang.

It went off like a volcano.

Place 4 Councilman Mark Nair called for City Manager Jarrett Atkinson’s resignation. He was joined by his pal in Place 3, Randy Burkett. That’s two votes against the manager.

Where does a city councilman’s authority begin and end here? Can one, or two members of a five-member governing body make such a call?

The two men also called for the resignation of Assistant City Manager Vicki Covey, who then agreed to quit.

Given that the assistant city manager is hired by the city manager, do council members have any actual authority to call for a city manager subordinate to resign?

Suppose Atkinson doesn’t quit. Suppose he wants to go to the mat. He then can ask for a public airing of the grievances against him. State open meetings law exemptions do not require that personnel matters be kept secret; they only allow for it.

Would the City Council — in the interest of the transparency on which its three new members campaigned — be willing to discuss all this in the bright light of day?

The city is knee-deep — and maybe even deeper than that — in plans to redevelop its downtown district.

What does all of this mean to the city’s efforts and does it derail it if the top municipal administrator is no longer in the picture?

Change has arrived at City Hall. The new guys said they wanted to shake up the way things had been done.

Something tells me we’re about to see whether we reap the benefits of that change — or pay for it.

 

Here comes that ‘change’ at City Hall

Mark Nair took his oath of office as the Amarillo City Council’s newest member and then asked for the resignations of City Manager Jarrett Atkinson, Assistant City Manager Vicki Covey and the five Amarillo Economic Development Corporation board members.

Isn’t there a “getting acquainted period” involved here?

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/29447986/city-leaders-asked-to-resign

Nope.

So, here’s the change voters seemingly said they wanted when they elected Nair and two other new guys to the City Council. Randy Burkett joined the newest guy in calling for the resignations.

Haven’t heard yet if the third newbie, Elisha Demerson, feels the same way. I’ll assume for the moment he does.

The $113 million question is this: What would changes at the top of the Amarillo administrative municipal chain of command mean for its downtown redevelopment efforts?

I hope that rumble I’m hearing isn’t the sound of a train wreck about to occur.

 

The Cold War is over! We won!

President Barack Obama has declared victory, finally, in the on-going Cold War with Marxism.

On Wednesday, he is going to announce the reopening of embassies in Washington and Havana, the capital city of Cuba.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/us-and-cuba-to-re-open-embassies-119609.html?hp=l1_3

Let the healing continue.

A 50-plus year estrangement with a dirt-poor island nation that has been governed by communists is about to end. Good thing, too. Because Cuba no longer poses a threat to the United States of America, the world’s remaining superpower.

Why? Cuba’s major benefactor, the Soviet Union, vaporized into history more than two decades ago. Russia has re-emerged and while the Russians are strong, they do not pose a worldwide threat to take over the world the way the Soviet Union declared publicly it intended to do.

The Soviets once used Cuban territory as a potential launching pad for offensive missiles. But a steely U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, clamped a quarantine on Cuba, intercepting Soviet ships taking missile parts to the island. The Soviets blinked, took down the missile installations and the threat of nuclear war was averted.

Cuba has languished in poverty during entire regime of the communists.

And yet some Republicans in Congress continue to harp on the idea that Cuba’s human rights record doesn’t entitle it to enjoy full diplomatic relations with the United States. Fine. Then let’s bring our ambassadors home from, say, China, Zimbabwe and Sudan.

At least two leading GOP lawmakers, Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, have Cuban ancestry. They also are running for president. They say Cuba must remain estranged from the United States until it cleans up its human-rights act.

Come on, fellas.

Let’s get real.

The time has come to end the Cold War. We’re not going to give the Cubans a pass on whatever human rights abuses they still commit against their citizens.

We are, though, going to restore relations with a neighbor. Perhaps some added exposure to what we enjoy here will rub off on the Cubans.

 

County clerk stands on principle … and quits

Dana Guffey is a principled public servant.

Do I agree with a particular principle that caused her to quit her job as a county clerk in Arkansas? No — but that’s not the point of this post.

My point is that Guffey quit her public service job because she opposes the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalizes gay marriage across the land.

She should be applauded for her principled decision, which has far more integrity than the idea promoted by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said it is just fine with him if county clerks declined to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Paxton’s view has been endorsed by Texas Republican officeholders.

These county clerks can stay on the job. They just don’t have to fulfill their oath.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/arkansas-clerk-will-resign-over-moral-objection-to-issuing-samesex-marriage-licenses/

To their credit, Potter and Randall counties’ clerks — Republicans Julie Smith and Renee Calhoun, respectively — have said they will issue licenses to same-sex couples when the opportunities present themselves. They’ve chosen to fulfill their oath, which means they vow to uphold national and state laws.

Meanwhile, Cleburne County, Ark., Clerk Dana Guffey has chosen to quit rather than do something with which she disagrees.

The Roosevelt County, N.M., clerk quit her job as well when New Mexico legalized gay marriage in 2013. I had no problem with her resignation, either. It, too, became a matter of principle.

No one says a public official must continue to hold a job if they disagree with fulfilling any of its required duties. The highest court in America has determined that since gay marriage is now legal, that it is constitutional — as opposed to state laws prohibiting it. Thus, issuing marriage licenses to gay couples becomes part of the job description.

If you cannot do the job, you quit.

That is what Dana Guffey did.

Still wondering: How does downtown plan hurt?

Amarillo MPEV

Let’s take the long view, shall we?

The drawing here depicts what Amarillo’s downtown district is set to look like in about, oh, five years.

It shows a nifty little ballpark directly across the street from City Hall. To the west of the ballpark we’ll have a convention hotel. Next to City Hall there’ll be a covered parking garage.

City officials think all of this is doable. They believe that once the project is complete, the city will draw additional convention business, with flocks of convention-goers putting themselves up in lodging downtown and perhaps as well along Interstate 40.

Xcel Energy has broken ground on a new office complex it will occupy once it vacates the 31-story Chase Tower.

City and downtown development officials are planning a daylong session Wednesday to lay out the project in detail. They’ve invited the public to take part. They want to hear everyone’s concerns; they’ll certainly accept supporting comments. They also say they intend to listen to the concerns of those who are opposed — some of them adamantly — to the downtown project.

What on God’s Earth, though, can be wrong with redeveloping a downtown district that once flourished as a gathering place for Panhandle residents, but which has languished over many years as a place that remains a business and financial center, but needs some energy?

The City Council and economic development leaders have told us until they’ve run out of breath that the downtown redevelopment will occur without spending additional property tax money. They contend that hotel/motel taxes will pay for it. The money will come from those who visit Amarillo, from folks who live elsewhere.

And even that has drawn criticism.

The projects are moving forward. Agreements have been signed. They’re finally starting to bust up some pavement to make room for what promises to be a grand new look for our downtown business district.

The price tag is around $100 million. Development leaders are securing private investors to foot a huge part of the bill. Has that quieted the critics? Oh, no. They’ve persisted in the demagoguery.

I need to ask: Are we going to forsake this investment in our city’s future because some of us just cannot believe it’s possible in little ol’ Amarillo, Texas?

How about stretching our reach just a little bit to grasp what — to my eyes — looks quite promising?

 

Thanks, Supremes, for the blog traffic

Thanks go this morning to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices have helped High Plains Blogger set yet another monthly record for page views and visitors.

The nature of this blog — which focuses on public policy, with a smattering of life experience stuff thrown in — relies on the news cycle. The Supremes kicked that cycle in the backside this past week with two key rulings: on Obamacare and then on gay marriage.

The month started out quite strong, as the blog set a single-day record for page views and unique visitors. Then traffic kind of tailed off — but only a little.

It’s back up again, thanks to the grist handed to folks such as me on which to comment.

I’ve done so of late and readers of this blog have responded nicely.

I’m gratified for that response. Keep reading and sharing what you read … please.

As for the court, it’s now in recess until October.

Thanks, justices, for going out with a serious bang.

U.S. Constitution alive and well

There are those who say the U.S. Constitution is carved in stone.

Others say it is a living document.

I will side with the living document folks.

Consider this, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision that legalizes gay marriage across the nation.

The Constitution, when it was written, granted full citizenship rights to just a portion of the population.

* Men were allowed to vote. Not women.

* Black people were the property of white people; they were considered to be three-fifths of a human being.

Eventually, the Constitution underwent change.

The 19th Amendment gave women got the right to vote. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. The 24th Amendment barred poll taxes as a requirement to vote in federal elections.

The courts stepped in on a number of fronts. The Supreme Court tossed out a state law that prohibited interracial marriage; it tossed out “separate but equal” provisions in public education, resulting in integration of our public schools; it ruled that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

Now it has ruled that same-sex couples are as entitled to marry as heterosexual couples.

The Constitution has evolved over time.

I believe the evolution will continue with this latest ruling.

 

NBC to Trump: You’re fired

Quite obviously, Donald Trump’s announcement that he’s running for president contained some remarks that stunned a lot of folks when they heard it.

I was one of them. So were the executives at NBC Universal, which today severed its relationship with The Donald. Why? The man’s comments about immigrants were, shall we say, inflammatory in the extreme.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nbc-fires-trump-over-insults-to-mexicans/ar-AAcirjp

This was my “favorite” part of Trump’s tirade as he declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination: “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some I assume are good people, but I speak to border guards and they tell us what we are getting.”

“And some I assume are good people.”

There you have it. An afterthought. A token reference to those who are coming here to improve their lives.

He kept saying that Mexico is “sending” criminals to the United States. Who in Mexico is “sending” these folks?

NBC Universal said it cannot sanction Trump’s xenophobic rants.

Univision, the Spanish-language TV network, also has ended its business relationship with Trump.

The Donald’s reaction? He’s not backing down, which surprises no one.

The more he speaks, the less serious he becomes.

Keep talking, Donald.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience