Tag Archives: Randall County

No one likes tax increases, but eventually …

property-taxes1

Amarillo’s municipal leadership wears the minimal tax burden it imposes on property owners proudly.

I totally understand their reason for it. No one wants to impose tax increases on those who pay the bills. I don’t like paying more in property taxes any more than my neighbors.

The city tax rate is likely to become a talking point as city leaders talk among themselves — and to the public — about how to pay for the escalating cost of the proposed downtown multipurpose event venue.

The MPEV price tag has gone up since the November referendum in which residents agreed to proceed with the downtown ballpark at a cost of $32 million. Well, now it’s more than $50 million.

How does the city pay for it? Will it ask more from property owners who right now pay a little more than 30 cents per $100 assessed valuation for city services?

It could happen. Then again, it might not.

I’ve been a property owner in Amarillo for nearly two decades. We built our home and have paid our taxes gladly every year. We think we’re getting a pretty good deal for what we’ve paid since 1996.

But to be candid, I’m not wedded to that dirt cheap price. Since I consider myself a “good government liberal,” I am willing to dig a little deeper when the need arises — and if it is going to help my community grow.

That’s how I am viewing the MPEV as part of the comprehensive and wide-ranging effort to improve our city’s central business district.

At the time I took my post as editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News, a new commissioners court took office in Randall County, led by newly elected County Judge Ted Wood. I remember the commissioners’ insistence that the county not raise taxes. They were intent on keeping the county rate low.

Then the demand for more service — caused by population growth — overcame commissioners’ ironclad commitment to fiscal restraint.

The commissioners then approved a tax increase that went far beyond the rollback rate mandated by state law. A petition came forward to roll those taxes back. It passed and the county had to reduce services as a result.

The pain was temporary, but it still hurt.

Amarillo shouldn’t be wedded forever to its famously low municipal tax rate. It’s something like the second-lowest municipal rate in Texas.

Stand tall, Amarillo!

When the time comes, though, for an increase — even a small one — to pay needed enhancements and improvements to the city we all cherish, then we should be ready to take ownership.

‘Retirement’ brings shelter from the wind

pooch in wind

This is another in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

My wife’s wisdom is understated, but profound nonetheless.

I stuck my head out the front door late this morning and then told her about how the wind was howling like the dickens.

“Sometimes it’s really good to be retired … on days like this,” she said.

Indeed.

So, I’m not really and truly “retired” fully in the strictest definition of the word. But she’s right about this fact: Neither of us had to be anywhere today, reporting for work, doing things on other people’s behest.

It’s nice to be sort of semi-retired, to be sure.

The wind has been blowing dirt into the air all damn day! Fires have closed highways all across the Texas Panhandle. I’ve heard reports of potential danger to some homes in rural Randall County.

I had a brief conversation this morning with a news source with whom I will speak Thursday afternoon about a feature I’ll be writing for KFDA-NewsChannel 10’s website. I had called him; he called back a little later. I answered the phone. My source said, “It must be nice to work from home.” He laughed. So did I. “That’s the payoff for getting old,” I told him.

“But you’re not old,” he said. I don’t feel old, but I am older than he is, which is the point of why I said what I said.

Retirement has its benefits. I’ll experience all of them in due course.

It is rewarding, though, to enjoy being able to stay indoors today — and away from the raging wind that gives the Texas Panhandle its, um, special quality.

 

Still prefer to stand in long line to vote

NA-BT370_statep_G_20121102163931

We went to the polling place tonight.

We arrived at the place where we usually vote. The parking lot at Arden Road Baptist Church was full. We walked through the door and turned left down the hall, walking past a long, long line of Randall County residents.

We made another turn down another hall and took our place at the end of the line.

It took five minutes past an hour before we cast our ballots.

Man, it was fun!

I remain committed to voting on Election Day. I remain equally committed to the manner we do it in Texas. We have this open primary system. We all stand in the same line. We inch our way to the room with the voting booths. We declare which party we want to vote in. We cast our ballots. Then we leave.

We don’t register with political parties. We make our choice on Election Day — or least we declare our choice when we reach the end of the line.

There’s a certain pageantry to standing in long lines with other citizens seeking to exercise their rights as Americans. We chatted among ourselves, careful of course not to talk about partisan preferences. We joked with election judges who came out to remind us of the need to have our photo ID and voter registration cards handy.

Some states — such as my home state of Oregon — do all their voting by mail. That’s fine, too, I guess. It boosts turnout, which is the best outcome of that process.

However, I remain an old-fashioned kind of guy. There just remains a certain semblance of ceremony attached to going to the polling place, waiting in line, chatting up your neighbors and then doing your civic duty.

I love the process.

 

Quandary awaits on Primary Election Day

1407859219000-Election-3-

I am confused about how I should vote on Texas Primary Election Day.

You know, of course, that I hate early voting. I prefer to wait until Election Day to cast my ballot. This year has proved that practice to be more essential than ever. The wackiness of the Republican primary contest has taken us to places never before seen.

But here’s my quandary.

Texas has an open primary system, meaning that voters aren’t “registered” with a political party. We go to the polling place and choose which primary we want to cast our vote. The polling judge will stamp our voting cards with “Republican” or “Democrat,” some of the time; occasionally they forget to do it.

Our polling place is at a local church. We’ll walk through the door and have to decide: Do I vote Democratic or do I vote Republican? (I won’t speak for my wife. She makes up her own mind on these things.)

My own presidential voting history is straightforward. I’ve voted in every election since 1972 and have voted Democratic every time. I flinched one year: 1976, in the race between President Ford and former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter; I ended up voting for Carter.

Primary elections in this part of Texas, though, limit one’s options. All the local activity is on the Republican side. We have some token Democrats running for statewide office, but in Randall County — the unofficial birthplace of modern Texas Republicanism — all the local offices are decided on the GOP side.

My problem is this: Do I want to vote in the Republican primary to cast a ballot for someone other than Donald J. Trump or Rafael Edward Cruz or do I lean toward my traditional roots and vote for either Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

I’ve declared already that my favorite presidential candidate — of the seven people running in either party — appears to be Ohio Gov. John Kasich. He’s a grownup, a mature public official with an actual record of accomplishment. He’s also got a beating heart that he reveals with great eloquence.

Hillary Clinton also is eminently qualified — on paper — to be the next commander in chief. She’s got a solid public service record. My problem with her? I just don’t trust her completely.

I’m torn. I’m literally undecided on which way to turn when my wife and I walk into the polling place on Tuesday.

My wife wishes we could vote in both primaries; just pick the best candidate either party has to offer — and then decide between whoever wins their parties’ nominations in the fall.

She’s just as torn as I am on what to do next week.

It’s decision time. I might just have to pray about it.

I’m unlikely, though, to say openly who gets my vote. It will become apparent as we move closer toward the general election. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

Next to zero interest in politics? Perhaps

horse race

Incumbent officeholders hate it when I say this, but that’s too bad. I’ll keep saying it.

Hardly ever do they deserve a free ride to re-election. However, that’s what happens with mind-numbing regularity in many of our local communities.

Let’s look at Randall County, for an example.

I mailer came to my house this week. It’s from Paula Hicks, who’s running for the Precinct 4 constable seat occupied by Chris Johnson. She points out that her race is the only contested one in the county.

Wouldn’t you know it. The only contested race in the county where I live involves the one office I care next to nothing about. We shouldn’t even have constables in Randall County, but we do and this year the office is being contested.

What about the rest of the county offices? They’re all uncontested. Even the tax assessor-collector’s office, which is being vacated by a long-time incumbent, Sharon Hollingsworth, doesn’t have a contested race.

Why don’t candidates jump in? Why don’t incumbents get challenged by those who think they can do a better job?

Are they happy with the job being done? Don’t they want the publicity that goes with seeking public office? Do they fear offending someone?

That isn’t the case north of the county line, in Potter County?

The county attorney, Scott Brumley, has a challenger; the 47th District attorney, Randall Sims, has one too. A county commissioner, Leon Church in Precinct 3, is getting a challenge.

But that’s it. Just three incumbents from the entire slate of candidates have to fight to keep their office.

It’s not that I want all the incumbents to get tossed out on their ears. It’s just that I’ve long thought that incumbents build a public record and they ought to face demands that they defend those records.

The past few Amarillo municipal elections have been lively affairs. This past year saw two incumbent City Council members defeated and a third newcomer elected to a seat that had been vacated. I wasn’t happy with the outcome, but I did enjoy listening to the community debate.

Challengers who rise up from the masses need not be negative. They merely need to say how they intend to perform the duties differently from the individual who’s already in the office. Better? Sure.

I get that incumbents don’t like hearing that from folks like me. They think I sit out here in the peanut gallery just relishing the chance to toss the proverbial rotten tomato at them.

Not true. I just like a robust debate. Especially at the local level, where government — and the people who we choose to run it — make decisions that affect our lives most directly.

 

 

Constables: Who needs ’em?

Constable_Flag

Chris Johnson’s campaign signs are popping up all over southern Amarillo.

He is spending a good bit of dough seeking re-election to one of the more curious public offices I’ve ever seen.

He won’t get my vote. It’s not that I have anything against Johnson. I don’t know him. I’ve never had any dealings with him.

He’s a constable in Randall County, Texas.

Constable. What is that? He’s a politician/cop whose duties include (a) serving papers, such as subpoenas and summonses and (b) providing security for justice of the peace courts.

Let me stipulate a couple of things here.

One is that I’ve had a longstanding antipathy toward the very idea of electing constables. Why? We don’t need them. My wish would be for the Texas Legislature to propose a state constitutional amendment to do away with the office. The duties done by the constable can be done by sheriff’s deputies or municipal police officers.

But no-o-o-o-o! We’ve got to have another elected official assigned to do these things.

The other thing is that during my nearly 32 years living in Texas, I’ve voted for one man as a constable. Jeff Lester used to hold the office that Johnson now occupies. Lester, who retired recently from the Amarillo Police Department, ran for the office with one pledge: to get rid of it.

He held the title of constable, but didn’t do anything. He didn’t get paid. He referred all the duties to the sheriff’s department. He wanted to keep the office inactive long enough to enable the Randall County Commissioners Court to abolish the office, which state law empowers it to do after a period of time had lapsed.

Then came reapportionment after the 2010 census had been completed. The county had to redraw political boundaries based on shifts in population as required by state law. County commissioners then reapportioned Lester out of the precinct he had served as constable, meaning he couldn’t run for re-election.

That’s when Johnson ran — and won.

I must reiterate that I have nothing personal against Constable Johnson. It’s the office he holds that bugs the bejeebers out of me.

I get that some counties have a need for constables. The experience in Randall and Potter counties, though, has been spotty at best. We’ve elected constables who haven’t done anything while drawing their salaries. One Potter County constable — who’s since resigned — would suit up in all the gear and the requisite hardware just to serve legal papers.

I’m digging deep trying to remember a time I’ve ever heard of a constable in this part of the state making an arrest, or being involved in a high-profile criminal activity. Have I been asleep all these years?

So, I guess that Constable Johnson will get re-elected this year. Good for him. I’ll kick in my piddling portion to help pay his salary, although I won’t like doing it.

In this era when people say they’re sick of government inefficiency, I keep wondering: Where is the anger over paying for a superfluous law enforcement entity that — from my vantage point — need not exist?

We have plenty of county and municipal law enforcement personnel who are quite capable of doing the constables’ job.

 

SW wind = smell of money

feedlot

Dave Oliver is a fine TV meteorologist.

However, the KFDA NewsChannel 10 weather man needs to be a bit more precise when he asks rhetorical questions about wind direction in the Texas Panhandle.

Oliver — aka “Doppler” Dave — was giving a weather report Tuesday night. He informed viewers of the upcoming warm weather we’re going to have for most of the rest of the week.

He was going through the usual stuff, showing viewers maps, cloud flow, talking about “computer models” and so forth.

Then he said the wind pattern was going to shift in Amarillo. He said it would change to a southwesterly flow, meaning the wind would come from southwest of the city.

“You know what that means?” Oliver said, before answering his own question — which was that the wind would be dry and wouldn’t produce much moisture.

No, Dave. That’s not what a southwest wind means to many of us who live in Amarillo.

It means it’s going to stink to high heaven out there.

The southwesterly wind means those feedlots in Hereford and Randall County will send their aroma this way. That’s what happened today, just as Oliver predicted.

The wind shifted. It was dry, all right, just as Oliver said.

It also stunk up the place with the “smell of money.”

Grand jury reform arrives in Texas

Way back when I arrived in Texas, in 1984, the newspaper where I started working had just begun an editorial campaign to change the way the state impaneled grand juries.

The Jefferson County criminal justice system had come under fire over suspicions that a grand jury might have been seated to get back at political foes of a district judge. Our newspaper, the Beaumont Enterprise, disliked the jury commissioner system and we called for a change to select grand juries the way the state seats trial juries — using the voter registration rolls.

We finally persuaded the county’s two criminal district judges to adopt a random selection method.

Well, this week, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law that makes it a requirement to seat grand juries in a random method.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/19/abbott-signs-grand-jury-reform-legislation/

It’s a good day for the state’s criminal justice system.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “Under House Bill 2150, the state will no longer use the outdated system that lets judge-appointed commissioners pick jurors, a nationally uncommon practice that critics say is rife with potential for conflicts of interest.”

The old system allowed judges to pick jury commissioners, usually friends, to find grand jurors. It’s been called a “pick a pal” system. Friends pick friends, who then might be friends with the judge whose court has jurisdiction.

The “potential for conflicts of interest” surely did exist.

I once served on a grand jury, in Randall County, that was picked by the old method. We had an uneventful term, meeting every other week for several months. I learned a lot about my community.

My participation as a grand juror, though, all but eliminated me from consideration for a trial jury, District Attorney James Farren told us, as we then would be seen as “pro-prosecution” by defense counsel.

That’s fine.

But I’m still quite glad to see the Texas Legislature enact this long-needed reform, which follows the model used in the vast majority of other states.

If a randomly selected trial jury is qualified to sentence someone to death, then a randomly selected grand jury ought to be qualified to determine whether the crime should be prosecuted in the first place.

So long to ‘pick-a-pal’ grand jury system?

Texas might be on the verge of doing something it should have done years ago.

It might dramatically reform the way many of the state’s 254 counties select members to sit on a grand jury.

Let’s hold to the cheers until it clears the Texas Legislature and lands on Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/24/texas-moves-closer-to-overhauling-grand-jury-syste/

The Texas House of Representatives has approved Senate Bill 135. It would require grand juries to be chosen the way trial juries are picked: randomly.

The current system allows state district judges to impanel grand juries using a jury commissioner system. The judge picks a jury commissioner, who then looks for friends, acquaintances or just plain folks he or she knows to serve on a grand jury.

Here’s where I make my full disclosure. I once served on a Randall County grand jury. A neighbor who happens to be a friend asked me to serve. I said “yes.” I then was seated by 181st District Judge John Board, along with other grand jurors. We met for the next three months and heard criminal complaints presented by the Criminal District Attorney’s Office.

Did that grand jury work well? Yes.

However, there remains the potential problem of friends picking friends to serve on grand juries. Heck, even judges pick friends to serve as jury commissioners. Cronyism can — and does, on occasion — run amok.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “Critics of the ‘pick-a-pal’ system, an uncommon practice nationwide, say it could lead to conflicts of interest. The debate over the legislation has unfolded amid outrage nationwide that grand juries have failed to indict police officers in shootings of unarmed men.”

A random selection method does not diminish the quality of the grand jury that hears criminal complaints and decides whether to indict someone for an alleged crime.

Look at it this way: If a randomly selected trial jury can decide whether someone lives or dies if he or she is convicted of a capital crime, then a similarly chosen grand jury can decide whether that person should stand trial in the first place.

 

Texans will have a say in 2016 contest

It’s nice to be loved, isn’t it, Texas voters?

Bet on it. The large and likely cantankerous Republican presidential field is going to cozy up to Texans about a year from now when the state casts its primary vote for president of the United States.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/20/analysis-what-happens-when-texans-votes-matter/

It’ll be just like the old day. Hey, even the not-so-old days. Harken back to 2008, when Democratic U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton were slugging it out for their party’s presidential nomination.

By the time the Texas primary rolled around, the Democratic nomination was far from sewn up. So, what happened? Voters turned out in record numbers.

There’s more. Even in heavily Republican Texas Panhandle counties — such as Randall County — the Democratic Party polling places were far busier than the GOP stations. A lot of Republicans crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary and it likely enabled Sen. Clinton to win most of the state’s Democratic delegates.

As Ross Ramsey noted in a Texas Tribune analysis: “The mix of candidates could make a difference, too. Candidates with Texas ties, like Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry and Rand Paul, could draw their own home crowds if their candidacies are still alive early next year. And candidates from different factions could attract different herds of support.

“This sort of turnout boom does not happen often in Texas. The parties tend to settle their presidential nomination battles in places like New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa. By the time they get to Texas, they’ve already all but chosen their nominees.

“Voters like a fight, and you can see the evidence of that in turnout. When there’s a big race, more people vote.”

They’re going to get one, more than likely, on the Republican side in 2016.

And what about the Democrats? Barring some huge surprise — which is entirely possible — the Dems’ nomination looks like it already belongs to Hillary Clinton.

The Republican field looks as though it’s going to be huge and it’s going to take some time to cull the losers from the field. Thus, when Texas gets its turn to vote, we’ll be in the mix.

Can you feel the love?