They say you shouldn’t discuss politics or religion in polite company, but does it still count if you discuss both politics and religion at the same time?
John McNaughton and I have a pretty good debate going on in another thread about the separation of church and state, and I’d like your opinion.
If the Supreme Court reversed itself on prayer in schools, which would you prefer KISD do?
…but not sworn AT, at least not publicly.
Tonight the Keller City Council swore in its three newest members, John Baker, Tom Cawthra and Jim Thompson. This was just another ho-hum, same-o same-o transition of power ceremony common in the West but unthinkable among vast swaths of the world’s oppressed peoples.
I used my time at the podium to pay homage to those who didn’t have to listen to me, didn’t have to consider my arguments, didn’t have to care what I had to say. But they did so anyway, and I had never bothered to say how much I appreciated it.
I will now withdraw from the public stage, not only at Town Hall but at Keller City Limits, too. If this blog survives as a useful forum, it will be because others take the time and effort to make it so.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very proud of KCL—it’s just that my leading role in it has ended, at least for now. Like a scorned suitor, it is therapeutic that I step away and do something else with my time and talent. It is also just the decent thing to do for my opponent(s)—he’s (they’ve) earned the right to represent you with the benefit of the doubt, and he shall have it from me.
To those of you with whom I’ve been short lately (and you know who you are,) I’m truly sorry. I know you mean well, but this is a decision I made some time ago.
KCL will continue to be “owned” by me, but it will be administered by Doug Miller, Frank Flanagan, Mike Sivertsen, Monty Snow and John and Elaine McNaughton. There are many others with author privileges on KCL, and many more are welcome. If you have something to say that you feel is more important than just a comment, contact one of these people and get yourself signed up as an author. Just try to keep it about Keller, OK?
As for me, I will continue to write, because I really enjoy it. I just won’t be writing about Keller politics, at least for a while. I have another domain called thinkfromscratch.com where I might pontificate. Some of the things I’m considering saying there will preclude me from being elected to any office ever again.
Finally, I want to express my sincere thanks to those who supported me. I will always be grateful.
Early voting results:
Place 2: John Baker is leading with 57.8% of the vote.
Place 3: Tom Cawthra is leading with 56% of the vote.
Place 4: Jim Thompson is leading with 68% of the vote.
I’ve called and congratulated Jim Thompson.
UPDATE, Final Results:
John Baker, 53% of final vote
Tom Cawthra, 52% of final vote
Jim Thompson, 67% of final vote
I honestly thought I could stir the fiscally conservative majority of Keller to vote in a city election. I was naive. I couldn’t even inspire my wife to vote.
What’s surprising about the phone & email feedback I’ve been getting from the letter I sent to Keller voters is how few were negative in any way. In fact, the most negative thing said was simply “what’s wrong with massage therapy at the Pointe or DVDs at the library?” I’ll address that in another post tomorrow.
Here’s the most positive email (not counting the email notifications of generous donors):
Mr. Carson,
Well done. Your letter in answer to your opponents’ open letter to Keller citizens was clear, to the point, detailed your voting history, provided explanations for your votes on specific issues, and avoided personal attacks against your opponents.
After reading your critics’ open letter to Keller citizens, I was very concerned that you were blind with power and using it against city employees and staff to intimidate and bully them. However, they failed to bring to my attention specific instances of your alleged abuse of power and intimidation tactics. Instead they raised general character attacks based on nothing specific. I believe their letter was an attempt to discredit you without providing specific evidence to support their claims.
As you well know, we citizens, whether local voters or state/federal voters, are tired of character attacks. We want to hear about specific issues and how they affect us personally. Your letter did just that and very well. You’ve proven to me that you represent voters who want limited government control in their lives; reductions and cuts in unnecessary spending for items that could be privately funded; and notification about abuse of public funding by a small few who want to further their own personal interests regarding the direction and growth of our city.
–Richelle Aldrich
Thank you very much, Mrs. Aldrich.
Here’s a link to the trumped up charges of intimidation and interference they were referring to: http://kellercitylimits.com/?p=387
[Admin Note: This is being transcribed by the slowest transcriber in Keller. Keep checking back for updates. kthx]
Introductory Remarks by Joe Petersen:
Good Evening! Welcome to the 2008 Keller City Council Candidates’ Forum. My name is Joe Petersen and I’m chairman of the Greater Keller Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is producing this event this evening along with the League of Women Voters.
First of all I’d like to thank the candidates and the incumbents for their participation this evening, as well as the live audience, for your time and interest in this important election. We truly have a wonderful, wonderful city. Our current population is hitting almost 38,000 strong, and the city is one of the most beautiful in the metroplex. We’re blessed with an outstanding school system, as well as a city staff that’s committed to absolute professionalism and excellence.
We’ve got 51 police officers and 44 fire fighters I’d put next to anyone in their professionalism, their training, and their readiness to help us in a time of need.
In fact this past year Money magazine, as most of you are aware, named Keller one of the best places to live in the country. We’re in the top 100 places to live in the country, simply because of the quality of life here in our great city.
I think Keller can best be defined by its diversity. As an example, our many churches, our many recreational offerings, even our housing offerings are so diverse in nature.
[pause for microphone feedback problem]
There we go. Other than our speaker system, what a great city we have.
Our city offers homes in older neighborhoods, absolutely full of character. In new, master-planned communities with well-manicured lawns and common spaces. And even large parcels that have room—ten acres and even twenty acres—for horses and cattle in the larger, northern part of the city. We have small, more affordable homes, all the way up to multi-million dollar estates, and everything in between. Our city is quite diverse.
Often, during our annual election cycle, candidates as well as incumbents sometimes look at our diversity and our differences, and find negative things in that. Statements are made in a negative way, that really do affect the other candidates, or affect our city in a negative way, or embarrass us. Over the years the political process in Keller has gotten quite ugly. As statements are made for the sole purpose of embarrassing one to show that I’m better.
I hope in this forum this evening, we can celebrate our diversity, and respect our differences. Because it’s our differences that make us strong. It’s not our differences that make us wrong. I hope tonight will be a very informative evening, a very factual evening, and again I hope we’re all going to be respectful of the differences that make this great city that we call home.
With that I’d like to introduce Georgia Kidwell with the League of Women Voters, who will be moderating.
(more…)
…that’s how many people showed up to vote today at Town Hall. That’s well short of daily vote totals in 2006 and 2007, but I’m not worried. I’ve heard from plenty of people who are withholding final judgment until they’ve heard from the candidates tonight.
My campaign letter went out in the mail this morning, and will probably arrive for most of you in tomorrow’s mail. Here it is, “below the fold.”
He’re a fun way to waste some time in our cubicles: Go to www.google.com, type in “positively keller” and then click the “I’m feeling lucky” button. Go ahead. I’ll be here when you get back.
Hidden Lakes has come through again with a very good questionnaire (why can’t the Star-Telegram and League of Women Voters come up with questions that are important to Keller, instead of boring generic queries?)
Anyway, here’s the link to Hidden Lakes’ questionnaire:
http://hlhoa.com/Candidate_Responses.html
I’ll surely have more to say, but you need to know in advance that Tom Cawthra is dead wrong about the Town Center UDC and what’s permissible there. Single Family (attached) does NOT include apartments, no matter how strained the interpretation. Once again, the city manager, after hearing my reasoning, denied Keller Station’s application because it included a multi-family use (apartments,) and multi-family is NOT permitted in the 2002 Town Center UDC.
I’ll lay even money that someone will write a letter to the editor of the Keller Citizen telling how Jim Carson wants to turn down offers of free money.
In our meeting tonight with the Library Board, the third agenda item was whether the city should actively seek grant money to supplement the $4 million expansion/renovation we’re planning to do. There were plenty of huzzahs and absolutelys around the table, but when my turn came I had to be honest and say, “I’m not comfortable with the idea.”
This is as egalitarian as I’m likely to ever get, but I just think it is unseemly for a city as rich as Keller to go around shaking a tin cup at potential donors. Our average household income tops $100,000 per year—can we really justify competing for library grant money against inner-city Dallas and dirt-poor rural areas?
So look for letters to the editor aghast that I would deny the poor, poor children of poor, poor Keller the ability to read because I don’t want to seek grants. And Positively Keller will be positively giddy that I’ve handed them another issue to spin against me. Oh well, I am very much counting on hyper-intelligent people showing up to vote.
Mitch Holmes brought up a good point about the library petition which became law in December, 2005:
Resolved, the City of Keller shall not construct nor remodel any public library, without first submitting the issue of whether to fund the building or remodeling of a public library at a particular site, to a vote of the qualified voters of the City of Keller.
Mitch’s concern was that, because the petition did not mention the source of funds, we could not spend even grant money without explicit permission of the voters. It’s an interesting point that we’ll have the city attorney check out. I’m in favor of asking the voters to repeal the petition, now that we no longer have to fear council end-runs around the voters. Or don’t we?
Please join us for an open house/envelope-stuffing party!
From my supporters, to my adversaries, to the just-plain-curious: I’d like to meet you Saturday, April 26th, sometime between 11am and 7pm. Volunteers will be stuffing my (as yet unwritten) campaign letter into envelopes.
You can join in the envelope sealing, or just stop by to say Hi—stay for five minutes or five hours.
In the last two years I’ve been your councilman, one of the few disappointments is how few of you I’ve met or received feedback from. So even if you have a bone to pick, please stop by.
1541 Lost Lake Dr., Keller TX 76248
817/514-0858
There are several new websites for candidates, and one of a political action group. The pac (which I don’t capitalize because I don’t know their election law status,) is called Positively Keller, and the address is http://positivelykeller.com.
It seems to be spearheaded by Doug Newton, and includes lots of Keller luminaries, past and present (mostly past.) The Supporters page lists them by name and claim to fame. Be sure to click on the highlighted names to see what they’ve written about their beloved Keller and the supposed sad state of its city council.
I’m not going to bother refuting anything specific they’ve said, mostly because they’ve said almost nothing specific. Instead I’m going to borrow a literary device from former councilman Jim Badalamenti, and ask of these luminaries, “Where WERE you?”
Where were you for eleven consecutive years that the city manager enjoyed unearned job security through an employment contract that was flatly prohibited by the City Charter?
Where were you when our former mayor was playing small town power politics at its ugliest with a plan to bypass the voters to build the library that they had already voted down? Where are your names on the petition that stopped that travesty?
Where were you when the scheme was hatched whereby public art was funded by a contractually-mandated kickback from our garbage vendor?
Where were you when another high-rise apartment complex was proposed in the heart of Keller’s commercial corridor? Where were you when we were researching Keller’s Unified Development Code (written by several of you) and discovering that not just Keller Station, but Arthouse as well, is not even close to complying with our ordinances?
Monty asks the following rhetorical question in a prior post:
But to prevent this situation in the future, the “predominantly non-residential” language needs to be replaced by “no additional residential” or something equally unequivocal. Given the ubiquitous opposition to apartments in this town, I don’t understand why that hasn’t been done already. Can someone explain that to me?
First, the legal case for denying Keller Station goes well beyond the “predominantly non-residential” clause. All we need to do is to properly understand and uphold the definitions of single-family attached (which is a permitted use) and multi-family (which is NOT a permitted use.) We also have several limitations on the use of this land in the 1990 Town Center Guidelines. The 1998 update to the Town Center Guidelines only dealt with the properties in the heart of Town Center, and said nothing about parcels north of 1709.
But the primary reason this language hasn’t been made unequivocal is the Community Development Department doesn’t want to. They know—know—that apartments/condos/mixed use are the way Keller needs to go. It says so right there on page something-something of the City Planner’s Handbook. To them, you people who are so upset about high-density housing are just wrong, and they’ve got to explain to you why you’re wrong. And Mitch Holmes is right there with them. He said in a meeting tonight that Live/Work/Play* is something we have to do, or he might have said it’s the only way.
Monty also said “Harness and Kirk are not going to publicly discuss how they would vote…” I’m not sure if that’s true of Bob Kirk, but it’s definitely true of Mark Harness. Mark Harness is convinced that council members must not express opinions on matters that may come before council. He is so convinced of this that he voted that I had violated the City Charter by my actions on this blog as they related to Keller Station. I later asked him to provide supporting documentation for his view. He acknowledged my request, but never cited any rule that backed up his vote.
Keller Station was stopped cold by Doug Miller, yours truly, and the grass-roots legwork of citizens of Saddlebrook and Hidden Lakes. My role was 1) researching city codes and pointing out the ones that the city staff had failed to enforce in their initial assessment of the project, and 2) fostering debate on this website. For this, Mark Harness branded me a scofflaw. Curiously, he said just before his vote, “I can honestly say I haven’t read the blog in over a year.” What the heck does THAT mean? Is he somehow proud that he has ignored the reasoned debate of two Keller councilmen and many of his own constituents?
You can stop future Keller Stations by remaining ever-vigilant and then working your tails off on petition-and-email campaigns, or you can elect some more councilmen who will do it of their own volition through the courage of their convictions.
*Another euphemism for high-density residential/mixed use development