Tag Archives: Amarillo election

local news

Recount? Really?

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Is this the new modus operandi for candidates who lose contests for public office?

They get fewer votes than the winner and then yap and yammer about alleged “irregularities” in the counting of the ballots. So it is happening now in the just completed race for mayor of Amarillo, Texas.

Mayor Ginger Nelson was re-elected with 54 percent of the vote. Her closest challenger was someone named Claudette Smith (about whom I know nothing), who finished with 29 percent of the total vote. Let’s see, that’s a 25-percentage point difference between first and second.

And yet, Smith wants a recount. She said this, according to the Amarillo Globe-News: “Since Election Day, I have been inundated with inquiries regarding the outcome and integrity of the election. At the request of a very large number of citizens, I filed a petition for a recount,” Smith said in a statement given to the Globe-News on Tuesday after the Globe-News’ print deadline. “Another candidate on the ballot (in a different race) has requested a recount as well. Many citizens have expressed that the incumbent in my race barely missed a runoff by 4%, which equates to around 800 votes. Additionally, there are a number of questionable incidents that occurred during the election that are being looked at. As a candidate, I pay for the cost of the recount. It does not cost the taxpayers anything. I have agreed to pay these costs. If it was a fair and honest election, I don’t see any reason anyone should object to a recount. It’s what the people want and so that’s what I’ve decided to do.”

Update: Smith comments on recount request submitted for Amarillo mayor race (msn.com)

Ah, ha! There it is! She says Nelson fell just 800 votes of being forced into a runoff. Therefore, Smith said, she needs to recount the tally. Good grief.

The only redeeming quality of this farce is that Smith is going to foot the bill for a recount.

Still, I believe it will prove to be a monumental waste of time.  Oh, and Smith had better not claim any sort of “election theft.”

local news

City delays election, gearing up for a major mandate from voters

The pandemic that has felled so many people around the world also is altering the way governments function.

Elections, for example, are being delayed.

One local election that has caught my eye is slated to occur up yonder in Amarillo, Texas. City officials had planned to stage an election in early May, but the coronavirus pandemic has forced a major postponement until, get this, Nov. 3.

At issue is a bond issue of about $300 million that the city is asking voters to approve. The money will go toward (a) expanding and renovating the 50-plus-year-old Civic Center, (b) sprucing up the old Santa Fe Railroad Depot just east of the Civic Center and (c) relocating City Hall to what I understand is a still-unspecified location.

A May election, which the city — along with the rest of the world — would put too many people in jeopardy of catching the coronavirus. Social distancing mandates that we stay away from each other.

So, now the city is looking at a Nov. 3 election, tentatively, that is.

This is a big deal. Why? Because voters all over the land will be casting ballots for president of the United States on that day. The turnout for Nov. 3 figures to be far greater than it would have been in early May.

Thus, whatever voters decide could be — and should be — considered a significant mandate, even if the results reflect a close tally.

My only concern about the bond issue election, though, rests in what I believe has been a well-kept secret: the location of the new City Hall operation. City officials should make damn sure they divulge where they intend to relocate and what they intend to do in order to make the new site amenable to the kind of government operation it will contain.

I have a few snitches in Amarillo. They do their best to keep me informed of this and/or that development. They tell me that the city is still negotiating a deal for a new downtown site for City Hall.

OK, then. Get the deal done and tell the public. Pronto, man!

local news, political news

Voters clean house at Amarillo City Hall

1 Comment

Amarillo voters have made a bit of history at the ballot box.

They have elected a female-majority City Council; that shouldn’t be a big deal, although I do recall there was a good bit of media and community chatter when Debra McCartt became the city’s first female mayor.

They also have booted out two incumbents, meaning that the city will have a brand new five-member governing council take office in a few weeks.

This is potentially a huge step forward for the city.

Mayor-elect Ginger Nelson will take office with a lengthy platform full of promises to do a lot of things. Many of the planks in that platform deal with economic development, wise expenditure of tax money, greater citizen involvement and (this is my favorite) beautification of rights-of-way along Interstates 40 and 27.

Council members-elect Elaine Hays in Place 1, Freda Powell in Place 2, Eddy Sauer in Place 3 and Howard Smith in Place 4 all are newcomers to city government — as is Nelson.

They all come to office with the backing of a political action committee, Amarillo Matters, that raised a good bit of money to get their message out. Yes, there was some blowback expressed on social media about the motives behind Amarillo Matters’ investment in the candidates who won.

I am not going to join that chorus of naysayers. I’m honestly optimistic about what this new City Council will bring to the community.

They all pledged in some form or another to restore a sense of cooperation among its members. Such a pledge doesn’t necessarily mean an absence of dissent or debate among council members, nor should it.

However, for the past two years residents have witnessed the occasional flareup of tempers and of at least one council member occasionally speaking out of turn, getting way ahead of the rest of the governing body. That council member didn’t seek a second term.

The City Council managed to force out a competent city manager, hire an interim manager and then make a mess of the search for a new permanent chief administrator — before settling finally on a solid choice in Jared Miller.

The city is in the midst of a significant downtown makeover. It has a lot of work to do on its streets. It is working with state transportation officials on improvements to our freeway interchange.

I welcome the new folks who’ll take their oaths of office.

I also applaud the city’s voters for deciding to make a bit of history. If only more of them would have voted to make this moment even more meaningful.

local news, political news

No gunfire in Amarillo — get out and vote!

I visited today at lunchtime with Daniel Martinez, a candidate for the Amarillo College Board of Regents — and heard a bit of news about the upcoming local election.

It is that, according to Martinez, about 7,000 voters cast ballots early. Martinez thinks that bodes well for a big turnout when Election Day rolls around on Saturday.

I do not share my friend’s optimistic outlook.

What I think it means, sadly, is that a lot of Amarillo’s voters are casting their ballots early. And that’s it!

Then I watched a video posted on Facebook of an interview with outgoing Mayor Paul Harpole. The mayor said the city is projecting a turnout of 12,000 to 14,000 voters. Let that sink for a moment.

Harpole told Panhandle PBS’s Karen Welch that the city has 104,000 registered voters living here. Amarillo’s population is on the cusp of 200,000 residents.

If Harpole’s projection is correct, that puts the percentage of voter turnout at slightly more than 10 percent.

Hey, let’s stand up and cheer!

On second thought, let’s not!

Harpole then told a story about a couple in Fallujah, Iraq, who made sure to vote while gunfire was erupting just blocks away. The wife handed her infant child to her husband while she voted, Harpole said; she came back out, took the baby, and then her husband went in to cast his ballot.

Harpole then told Welch that Amarillo residents don’t have to face the prospect of getting shot on the street while they vote — which is his way of saying that we have no excuses, none at all, for refusing to have our voices heard in this critical election.

I am running out of ways to urge residents to cast their ballots in these local races. The very idea that nine out of 10 Amarillo residents would sit this election out — and leave these decisions to other residents — means that the democratic process is in danger of going on life support.

local news

Quality and quantity of council candidates are improving

The pace is picking up in this election contest for the Amarillo City Council.

Freda Powell has announced her candidacy for the council. She’s a known civic leader, who’s been engaged in matters of public policy for many years.

Mayor Paul Harpole is expected to announce today whether he’ll seek another term. My bet? He’s bowing out. We’re also expected to hear from Place 2 Councilwoman Lisa Blake about whether she plans to run for election to the seat to which she was appointed in 2016 to succeed Brian Eades, who resigned and moved out of town.

This is all quite exciting and it bodes well for the city’s experiment in representative democracy.

I’ve said for years that our system of government — especially at the local level — works best when more, rather than fewer, people get involved. It works best when many candidates step up and voters then get a chance to assess their qualities, their message and their intent.

An even better result is when more, rather than fewer, voters actually go to the polls on Election Day.

As I noted many times while I wrote editorials and columns for newspapers in Texas and Oregon, city hall and the county courthouse is where government’s proverbial rubber hits the road. I’ll make the point again here.

Pundits and political scientists all gauge the level of interest in presidential elections by the turnout. The 2016 contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton featured a so-so percentage turnout of eligible voters who actually cast ballots. Why? It’s likely because of the high negative poll ratings both candidates had to bear.

We measure turnout success quite differently at the local level. A turnout of 20 to 30 percent for municipal races in Amarillo is considered a smashing success. I consider it a dismal failure of voters to engage in the policies that have a direct impact on their lives.

We are choosing individuals who will set tax rates and will determine how many cops and firefighters will protect us; they decide on whether our streets should be well-maintained; they determine the cost of our water and sewer service; they vote on whether to improve our parks.

This stuff matters, folks, in a very real, tangible and demonstrable way to all of us.

So … The candidates are lining up to run for City Council. The deadline for filing is Feb. 17. The election occurs on May 6.

We’ve had profoundly important elections before. They have produced dramatic turnover, such as what occurred in the May 2015 election.

My hope now is that as the quality of the field continues to improve along with the quantity that voters, too, will step up and do their civic duty and participate.

local news, political news

‘Trickery’ didn’t bring city these ballot measures

13861145

I cannot get past a word I saw on a website formed to oppose a set of ballot measures set for Amarillo’s municipal election next month.

The word is “trickery.”

The website titled saveamarillo.org has accused Amarillo City Hall of duping voters into deciding on seven-part package of propositions aimed at making some improvements throughout the city.

The website, apparently created by local lawyer Len Walker, seems to imply some star chamber activities. Thus, the word “trickery” sticks in my craw. He recently added this “letter” to the site. Here it is:

http://saveamarillo.org/a-letter-from-len-walker/

When you click on the link, you’ll be able to see the rest of the website. It’s interesting and because I’m a fair-minded fellow, I encourage you to take a peek at all of it.

At issue is a package of proposals totaling $340 million. They’re broken out separately. Voters can approve all of them; they can OK some of them; or they can reject them all. The election occurs on Nov. 8.

If memory serves, the city sought public comment on these proposals. The City Council met in public to discuss them. The original package totaled nearly $1 billion. The council then winnowed them down to a more manageable collection of projects.

All of this was done, again if memory serves, in full public view.

As for Walker’s letter, he seems to suggest that the city — along with Potter County — are going to saddle taxpayers with a mountain of debt to pay for these projects. Perhaps we ought to consider that the city has virtually no debt at the moment and whatever debt taxpayers would assume by approving the projects would be manageable and serviceable.

I’ve noted already that I intend to support all seven of the projects listed on the ballot.

Even if I were to oppose them, it wouldn’t be because of any “trickery” perpetrated on residents.

I believe the city has been up front and transparent on what it needs and is merely doing the responsible thing by asking the taxpayers — those who would foot the bill — for permission to deliver these improvements.

local news, political news

They call it ‘trickery’ at City Hall … seriously?

2 Comments

tx amar city hall

My wife and I got a surprise this morning on our walk through the neighborhood.

We saw a house around corner from ours with a lawn sign that urges city residents to oppose all seven of the municipal propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The message is sponsored by a group called saveamarillo.org.

So, when we got home, I looked up the website and found some limited “information” about why this group — which doesn’t have any individuals listed — opposes the propositions.

Here’s what I found under the tab “The Problems with Propositions 1-7”: “The problems with the propositions that Amarillo will be voting on are very simple to see.

“These propositions are loaded with pork. When we say pork, we mean wasteful spending by government officials. Look through the items listed on amarillo.gov and you will see plenty of items that are not well defined, or not needed. We are for buying must haves, but all of the must haves listed in these propositions could easily be taken care of by the City Council. Instead, Amarillo will not be voting only on wants, or only on must haves, but rather Amarillo will be voting on a combo package of the City’s wants and a couple of must haves. This is trickery by the career politicians. And it is yet another reason to vote against on November 8.”

That’s it, folks.

For starters, I’d like to know who the “we” are in this effort to derail the city’s $340 million spending package that covers a multitude of issues, ranging from parks and ballfields, police and fire protection, street repair and Civic Center renovation and expansion.

I also would like for them to identify the “pork” alleged to be contained in the measures.

How about telling us how the City Council could have “taken care of” the items listed in the propositions? Are these folks — whoever they are — suggesting the council could just spend the money without asking voters for their approval?

As for City Hall asking voters to decide the fate of a “combo package,” the city instead has broken out the propositions into stand-alone segments. Voters can approve all, some or none of them.

I intend to support them all.

This group also accuses the city of not defining the projects sufficiently. It’s fair to ask, though, whether saveamarillo.org has defined its objections … at all!

Check out the website here:

http://saveamarillo.org/

They call it “trickery.” I sense a good bit of the same in the vagueness of this anti-proposition effort.

local news

All city ballot props deserve voter support

o-soccer-ball-facebook

I’ve made up my mind … and it was easier to settle on this decision than it has been trying to decide who should become the next president of the United States of America.

All of the Amarillo ballot measures deserve voters’ endorsement.

Some are more vital than others. The city has done a marvelous job of breaking out a total package of about $340 million into separate measures aimed at specific needs.

It settled on a seven-part package.

Here are the seven elements spelled out … line by line:

http://amarillo.gov/pdf/CIP_list_for_ballot_resolution.pdf

Do I rate all of them equally? No. Some are more vital than others. My personal preference would be to place the public safety element at the top of the priority list. The city is hoping to spend $20 million on several elements relating to improving police and fire protection.

The street element also is critical. I do not like driving along pock-marked streets. They are rough on motor vehicles and I much prefer to drive my motor vehicles along streets that are free of those craters.

Yes, there are some problematical issues on the ballot. The toughest political sell — in my view — would be the ballot proposition dealing with athletic fields. The city hopes to spend a huge chunk of change, about $65 million, to improve current ball fields and build new fields. We’ve been down this road before. Amarillo voters rejected the Amarillo Recreational Center proposal. I’m not yet sure if there’s enough support in the city to back this latest request. I hope it’s there and I intend to support it.

The city’s famously low tax rate is going to increase incrementally, depending on how many of the seven measures win voter approval.

Here are the resolutions that the City Council approved:

http://amarillo.gov/pdf/Resolution_Callilng_November_Election_16.pdf

I happen to be a good place regarding tax rates. My property taxes are frozen, given my age. That ought to bode well for these measures among other, um, more mature voters who enjoy the same property tax benefit granted to my wife and me.

Do I wish others to shoulder a tax burden that is too heavy, too costly? Of course not.

Amarillo residents have benefited for decades with a municipal tax rate of about 35 cents per $100 assessed property valuation. That rate is among the lowest in Texas. Is it time to dig a bit deeper to pay for these improvements to our infrastructure or to improve the quality of life in this vibrant — and growing — community?

I believe the time has arrived.

I applaud the city for the manner in which it has pitched these measures to voters. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposal. We have the option of selecting which of these measures to support.

I plan to support all of them.

local news, political news

Early vote totals: impressive

EARLY+VOTING_MGN

Let’s try this number on for size …

13,627.

That’s the number of Amarillo voters who cast ballots in advance of Tuesday’s election. We’re going to decide whether we want to build a $32 million multipurpose event venue that includes a ballpark in downtown Amarillo; we’re also going to vote on seven proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.

The early-vote number isn’t a record-breaker. It’s impressive nevertheless.

By my estimation, that number represents roughly 10 to 11 percent of all registered voters in the city. It’s not great in and of itself.

However, compared to the hideous turnout of many recent previous municipal elections, I believe that early-vote number represents a positive trend.

I’ll be frank. The constitutional amendments aren’t drawing voters out. It takes a citywide issue such as the MPEV to bring ’em to the polls.

I haven’t voted early. I’m waiting until Tuesday. I’ll probably go to my Randall County polling place first thing. I’ll be there by 7 a.m.

You know how I’ll vote on this deal. Oh, just in case you don’t know … I’m voting “for” the MPEV as a statement that the city is ready to keep marching forward.

I’m heartened that the early turnout has been so relatively brisk.

What does it mean for the final result? We’re going to find out early Tuesday evening when those early ballot results are released.

Here’s hoping for the best.

 

local news

Early vote numbers for MPEV election … way up!

early voting

The early indications from both sides of the line dividing Randall and Potter counties in Amarillo are encouraging … I hope.

Early voting for the Nov. 3 election is way up over what it was for the municipal elections this past May. I’m quite sure the Texas constitutional amendment proposals aren’t pulling voters to the polls in the early balloting.

What’s more, the 3,063 voters who cast ballots during the first two days is just a shade less than the 3,151 who voted in the first two days of early voting in the 2014 general election — when we were voting for governor.

The multipurpose event venue is pulling voters to the polls.

Is that a good thing? Well, I hope it is.

And by “good,” I hope that means that those who support the MPEV as it’s been presented are turning out. Do I know who’s turning out? Of course not.

Me? I ain’t voting until Nov. 3, which is Election Day. I hate early voting. I prefer to wait until the last minute.

Back to issue at hand.

The early vote totals should bode well for the pro-MPEV side. I count myself among them. Perhaps it’s just wishful thinking. Then again, when I say “should,” I am not necessarily predicting that’s what happening, but instead hoping for what I want to happen.

I’ve been trying to parse through all the arguments for and against the MPEV. I’ve heard the skeptics, the naysayers, the conspiracy theorists. I have sought to examine the issue inside, outside, forward and back.

I keep coming back to this conclusion:

We’re hoping to build a $32 million venue that includes a ballpark in downtown Amarillo; the money will be paid back with hotel/motel tax revenue generated by out-of-town visitors; a hotel developing is plunking down $45 million of investors’ money to build a four-diamond hotel; we’re hoping to build a parking garage with revenue bonds that also will be repaid with hotel/motel tax money.

Property taxes will not increase.

This is a classic public-private partnership that’s seen success throughout the nation. Amarillo’s civic and political leadership has not reinvented the wheel with this project. It’s merely done something new … for Amarillo!

I see virtually no downside to this project. I’ve been on board since the beginning and I have grown weary of the cynics who just know it isn’t going to work.

How do they know it? They just do.

I am going to put my faith in the hard work that’s been done to date.

Furthermore, I am going to continue to hope that the pro-MPEV political action groups have done their spade work and have mounted a massive get-out-the-vote effort that well might be showing itself in these impressive early-vote totals.

As Paul Matney, co-chair of Vote FOR Amarillo, said the other day, the early vote will set the trend. When the city spits out those first early-vote numbers on Election Day after the polls close, we’ll know where the MPEV is headed.

I’m hoping for the best.