Tag: The Swamp

So Wrong on So Many Levels

I’ve been to many, many governing body meetings. Ten years of Council meetings as an elected official myself. Then there were the many years before and after my term of office. As a public information official, I attended county governing body meetings. I’d say I’ve easily attended over 700 governmental body meetings.

But not once, until April 22 at the Bastrop City Council meeting, have I ever seen the presiding official prohibit a member of the public from speaking. We didn’t have time limits on our speakers and some came to every meeting calling us out on our lack of action on this issue or that. Some were relentless, but we listened to them each time. We, after all, were their representatives, those they hoped could fix what they saw as problems in our town.

John Kirkland’s blatantly politically motivated actions last night were shocking. He was way out of line. His use of his position on the dais to silence a political opponent was a clear abuse of power. He should have allowed the former mayor to speak, thanked him for his comments, and moved on. But he didn’t. He rambled on about some illegality, about the former mayor not being able to speak because the vacancy hadn’t been filled. Ridiculous and wrong.

John Kirkland is blinded by his vendetta against Lyle Nelson. Kirkland, not some errant member of the public, circulated the petition to get rid of the mayor. Whether the former mayor was right or wrong in his actions isn’t the issue. He was never charged with a crime and was completely exonerated by the Council’s own investigator. Kirkland couldn’t wait to get him off the Council. Now, it seems, he is hell-bent on keeping him on.

Once the mayor resigned, Kirkland needed to move on. But he hasn’t. The former mayor, whether Kirkland likes it or not, is a citizen of the City. He has the legal right to speak at meetings, to call out actions of the City Council where he sees they need calling out.

What better person to raise issues than one who has been in the system? He has far more knowledge than most citizens. But that’s what makes him dangerous to Kirkland and his ilk. That’s why he’s a threat. He knows the game. He knows the players.

Kirkland’s actions last night were offensive to a free people living in a representative republic with a constitutional right of redress of grievances. They were a vicious attack on government of the people, by the people and for the people. If Kirkland can’t handle the heat, which he apparently cannot, he should get out of the kitchen.

One Hand Washes the Other

Follow the money. ALWAYS. With an upcoming local election, it’s important to understand how a candidate and ardent supporters interact. Enter John Kirkland and Mel Cooper onto the stage.

The Players

John Kirkland is a City of Bastrop Councilman and Mayor Pro-Tem running for re-election. Mel Cooper is the chairman and treasurer for a Bastrop County political PAC: Bastrop County Conservatives. Cooper is also one of the directors of a Texas corporation: Festival de la Cultura, Inc. created 10/19/2023.

The Handwashing

Hand washingIn late 2023, Festival de la Cultura, Inc. requested a $25,000 taxpayer funded donation from the City of Bastrop. On October 24, 2023, just five days after the corporation was registered with the State of Texas and one day after the corporation applied (but was not yet approved) for IRS non-profit status, John Kirkland seconded a motion to give Cooper’s corporation $25,000 in taxpayer funded money. It was unanimously approved and check number 152230 was cut to Cooper’s corporation on October 27. (For more details on this transaction, read my blog post The Emperor Has No Clothes.) According to open and public records, neither Cooper or his corporation ever provided an accounting for the use of those $25,000 taxpayer dollars.

Quid Pro Quo

In 2024, Cooper sent out emails to his PAC members and supporters containing false information in support of Kirkland-driven initiatives.

A Cooper November 21, 2024 email stated, “Tonight, at 6:30 pm, the Bastrop City Manager, Sylvia Carrillo, will be under attack by a small but vocal political faction seeking her removal, led by Mayor Lyle Nelson and City Council member Cheryl Lee. This group has made allegations, which Sylvia will address and refute with clarity and conviction.”

How did Cooper know that she would “address and refute with clarity and conviction” some alleged attack? There was nothing on the agenda to that effect. There was no listing of any public presentation. There was (and is) no resolution attached to the public agenda.
11/21/2024 Executive Session Agenda item

How did Cooper know that Carrillo would request the discussion be in public session? That decision was only announced during the meeting itself.

Carrillo had a lengthy Powerpoint presentation ready to go for the meeting. It had to have been prepared in advance. For Cooper to have known that Carrillo would “address and refute [an attack] with clarity and conviction”, Cooper had to have been told in advance what Carrillo would do. Cooper had to have been told in advance that Carrillo would request this personnel matter be discussed in public…. because this item was on the agenda as a “Executive Session”, a session closed to the public.

Summary

BCC endorsement listCooper‘s LLC gets $25,000 of taxpayer money with Kirkland‘s second-on-the-motion and vote. A few months later, Cooper sends an email calling for Nelson’s resignation (yet he never sent such an email calling for Jimmy Crouch’s resignation). Cooper then sent the November email discussed above to his PAC members and supporters with false and inside information.

Now, Cooper and his PAC are now hawking Kirkland for Bastrop City Council. Of course they are.

In this case, it’s clear that one hand washed the other. But should the soap be $25,000 of your hard earned taxpayer money?

Don’t New Jersey my Texas

Senate bill 785 passed out of the Senate Local Government Committee without amendment and is headed to the Senate floor. There’s an identical bill in the Texas House: HB 1835 scheduled in the Land & Resources Committee on April 10.

Both mandate that any Texas “municipality with zoning regulations or zoning district boundaries”:

(1) shall permit the installation of a new HUD-code
manufactured home for use as a dwelling under at least one:
(A) residential zoning classification; or
(B) type of residential zoning district; and
(2) may not adopt or enforce other zoning regulations
or zoning district boundaries that directly or indirectly prohibit
the installation of new HUD-code manufactured homes in all
residential zoning classifications or types of residential zoning
districts adopted by the municipality.

This isn’t about affordable housing. It’s zone busting step one and I’m shocked that Republicans who allegedly are for less government intrusion would be supportive of this.

In NJ, suburban towns were accused of and sued over “exclusionary zoning” in the 1980’s. Denville, where I lived, was primarily made up of very small lots around lakes… summer cottages that were renovated in the 1950s as year-round homes because they were cheap. Denville was also 13.7% seniors, many on fixed incomes. None of that mattered when the State of NJ decided that the suburbs were exclusionary. Build it and we don’t care what it costs current property taxpayers.

As a result, since the late 1980’s, every NJ municipality is assigned a “fair share” housing quota every 10 years. Municipalities either have to figure out how to do it themselves with tax dollars or builders get what’s called a “builder’s remedy”: 5-6 market value townhouses for every 1 low or moderate unit they build. To hell with zoning, land topography, water resources, traffic, schools, public safety.

These Texas bills are the first step toward those quotas. They don’t mandate quotas, but do mandate that HUD-code housing cannot be prohibited in “all residential zoning classifications or types of residential zoning districts adopted by the municipality”.

That means it can be placed in any residential district in every municipality in Texas and there’s not a thing a municipality can do about it. The problem is that this bill only deals with the building, the HUD-Code house. What exactly, then, is “indirectly” prohibiting the use of these HUD-Code homes? Is the cost of land an “indirect” prohibition?

Affordable Housing Isn’t Just a Building

What happens to municipalities where land is too expensive for a person to acquire the land to put up a HUD-code home? When that happened in NJ and suburban towns didn’t build any low or moderate income housing, the courts, unhappy with the lack of affordable housing, began assigning quotas to every suburban municipality. When municipalities still didn’t build the housing (who could afford to do so), developers were allowed to sue towns for not providing housing commensurate with the quotas. Our town had a plan, but the court didn’t like our plan so the court assigned a “master zoner” to our town. I called those meetings “Thursdays with David” and was at nearly every one. I watched and listened as a court-appointed planner worked with developers who had sued our town to rezone their lands for high density housing…. all in the name of providing affordable housing.

This is how it starts. Let’s assume these bills pass. Yes, I can put a HUD-code manufactured home on a lot in City A. But I can’t afford that lot in City A. So what good does that do me? I want to live in City A. Schools are better. It’s closer to my job. I want to live there for any number of reasons. But I can’t afford to. Next come mandates and quotas.

This is the second bill this session that seems to be rushing through the legislature in the name of affordable housing. Neither one addresses water resources. Neither one addresses municipal service costs. Neither one addresses income qualification or verification for affordable housing. Neither one addresses saleable versus rental housing. (More on that in another blog post.)

Clearly, neither author has thought through the impact and costs. Even though the state Fiscal Notes say there are no costs to either one either at the state level or municipal level. There are costs and if they looked at NJ’s experience, they’d realize that. I really hope these legislators don’t New Jersey my Texas.

HUD-Code Housing


What is it? Who regulates it? Does it even exist anymore?

I looked up “HUD-code” on the web with interesting results.
Web search for HUD-code

These two pages, one specifically the home page for HUD’s Office of Manufactured Housing Programs and that program’s Frequently Asked Questions page, are gone. That would seem to mean that program is now defunct. In any case, it’s continuity is clearly in question. Yet, the Texas Senate is poised to pass legislation requiring HUD-code housing in all residential districts in all cities.

I then did a search on the HUD website itself for HUD-code. It returned this:
Search results on HUD website for HUD-Code

Again, every one of these pages having to do with HUD-code housing returns a Page not Found error and flips the user to HUD’s home page. Yet, the Texas Senate is poised to pass legislation requiring HUD-code housing be allowed in all residential districts in all cities.

Perhaps the Texas Senate would be wise to see what happens to HUD before moving forward with SB785. Same for the Texas House with HB 1835. HUD is in the process of cutting about 4,000 staff members, or approximately 50% of its staff. As I pointed out, there’s no information on its website about HUD-Code housing. There are only 4 regulations under HUD-Code on Regulations.gov and none is from the past 3 years: 1-2003; 1-2005; 1-2007; and 1-2022.

It would seem Texas is poised to legislate allowing something to happen in all residential zoning districts of all Texas municipalities that may no longer exist.

More Sloppy (Illegal?) Gov’t

I wrote extensively on March 30 about what appear to be flagrant violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) by the City of Bastrop with its called meeting on March 31.

But wait! There’s more.

Another meeting has been called. This time for Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The agenda says it’s a Special City Council Meeting. But you wouldn’t know that by scanning the list of meetings. It’s not called a Special City Council Meeting on the list of City Council meetings. It’s called “Pet Microchipping Townhall Meeting”.

What’s a city-sponsored “Townhall Meeting” anyway? There is no such meeting type in the Bastrop Charter or Rules of Procedure. Both the PDF and HTML agendas for this meeting repeatedly refer to a City Council meeting or the Council. The HTML public agenda actually says this is a “Special City Council Meeting”. All references to the Council, on both agendas, are highlighted below. Why would any member of the public accessing either of these agendas think this is not a City Council meeting?

2025-04-02Special City Council Meeting 04_02_2025 05_30 PM _ Bastrop, TX-HTMLDownload
2025-04-02Special City Council Meeting 04_02_2025 05_30 PM _ Bastrop, TX-PDFDownload

And, did I mention that once again, the HTML version of the agenda says there will be a closed session at 5PM, a “Mayor’s State of the City Address” at 6PM and the meeting starts at 6:30. Yes, it does, and it also says, in the upper right corner, that the meeting starts at 5:30. One agenda. Two different meeting start times. The PDF version of the agenda also says the meeting starts at 5:30. So, which is it?

As a member of the public, I have to guess if the meeting starts at 5:30 or at 6:30. I have to guess if that “Mayor’s State of the City Address” will be given or repeated from the other poorly noticed meeting two days earlier, or not. I also have to guess who is giving presentations and guess at the subject matter. Presentations should be identified along with the presenter on an agenda.

The point of the Texas Open Meetings Act is so that citizens know what is going on at City Hall, what their elected officials are up to, and to allow citizens a forum to express their views on the topics advertised.

Governing bodies and city officials can’t just make it up as they go. This meeting completely fails the TOMA test. It should be properly noticed as a Council meeting with a quorum of the Council in attendance to officially listen to and collect citizen input on this subject.

Sloppy Gov’t or Illegal Gov’t?

At what point does sloppy government actually become illegal government? At what point does the business conducted at improperly noticed special meetings become moot? At what point does a presentation by a council person who is also a candidate become illegal electioneering in City Hall?

On Friday, March 28, notice of a City of Bastrop Special Council meeting was posted. Two versions are provided for the public online: HTML and PDF. I typically grab the HTML version. I took screen shots of that last night.

Agenda Screenshot Saturday March 29 at 8:15PM of HTML version of the agenda

This morning, while doing a search for “State of the City”, I happened to view, then grab, the PDF version.

Agenda capture Sunday March 30 at 9:30AM of PDF version of the agenda

What a difference!

  • At the top of the HTML agenda is an Executive Session at 5PM. No rationale for that Executive Session is shown. That is required by law.
  • In the PDF version, that Executive Session has been removed.
  • Is there, or is there not, an Executive Session? If there is, what’s the subject?
  • “Staff and Board Reports” is an item on the HTML agenda. Not on the PDF version.
  • Will there, or will there not, be Staff and Board Reports?
  • The HTML version lists “Presentations” during the meeting, but no indication of the subject of those “Presentations”.
  • How can the public know if they’d be interested in attending to hear those “Presentations” if they don’t know what they are?
  • The HTML agenda includes “Mayor’s State of the City Address” at 6PM.
  • The PDF agenda does not list a “Mayor’s State of the City Address” at all, but rather during the meeting it lists “City of Bastrop Presentation” but not by whom nor the subject matter.
  • Will there be a “Mayor’s State of the City Address” by Council candidate and Mayor Pro Tem John Kirkland? If so, that would seem to be illegal electioneering in City Hall. Perhaps that’s why the item name change.
  • A search of City of Bastrop agendas since 2005 for “State of the City” returns only one other instance of such an address at a noticed Council meeting: in 2023 upon the retirement of Mayor Connie Schroeder.
  • The City website home page shows that a “State of the City” address was just done on September 16, 2024 by the City Manager at a Chamber meeting. The video remains online. So why another one just 6 months later? Could it be there’s an election coming up on May 3?
  • The HTML agenda says the meeting starts at 6:30. The PDF agenda says it starts at 6.
  • So an attendee referencing the HTML agenda will be a 1/2 hour late to a meeting that the PDF agenda says starts at 6PM. Is that a legal meeting? Questionable at best.
  • The HTML agenda says the meeting location is Bastrop City Hall City Council Chambers (top right). The PDF agenda says it is the Convention Center.
  • So an attendee referencing the HTML agenda will go to City Hall. An attendee referencing the PDF agenda will go to the Convention Center.
  • Finally, on the CityofBastrop.org website list of meetings, this meeting isn’t even listed as a “Special City Council Meeting” but rather is listed like this:
    City Council meeting listing
    How is a member of the public supposed to know that this is actually a Special City Council Meeting? If I didn’t look at the agenda itself, I would have guessed this was a meeting of some organization and that it didn’t pertain to me.

So at what point does sloppy government become illegal government? I submit that it has done so with the publication of this meeting if the City Council chooses to hold this meeting in the face of so many notice irregularities.

March 31 Update

After sending an email to the City Manager, City Council members, City Attorney and some members of the press about this “Town Hall”, I received a quick response from the City Manager. While I appreciate her rapid response, her comments concern me.

“This is an informational meeting to give the residents an opportunity to hear from the developer, also learn the history of the project from a timeline perspective and what the local government code actually states, and lastly, where the project stands.”

Since when does a city government hold a meeting that is not a Council meeting or Planning & Zoning meeting to allow a developer to present (sell) his development concept or plans? If the developer wants to hold such a meeting, well, that’s his or her prerogative. But the city should not be doing so.

Will the city do this for every developer that wants a public forum to “sell” interested parties on its project? On what basis will the city turn down the next developer who asks for such a forum? City government cannot discriminate. This isn’t the first controversial development and it won’t be the last.

If the developer were not allowed to speak, but the city wanted to hold an educational meeting about its code and use various completed development examples to explain that code, that would be one thing. But to hold a “Townhall” on behalf of a single developer is completely inappropriate.

Why Do I Feel Like I’m Back in NJ?

Senate bill SB15 has been passed on the Texas Senate floor and has been sent to the Texas House. The bill’s authors are Bettencourt (R), Campbell (R), Creighton (R), Gutierrez (D), Hagenbuch (R), Hughes (R), Middleton (R), Nichols (R), Paxton (R) and West (D). Co-authors are Johnson (D), Kolkhorst (R) and Parker (R).

There’s an identical bill in the House, HB3919. Bill author? Gates (R). This bill was just referred to the House Land & Resource Committee.

What are these Republican legislators thinking? Why would they do this to any municipality: legislatively remove their right to zone their municipality as they see fit and as their residents desire via public hearings?

Sec. 211.052. APPLICABILITY. (a) This subchapter applies only to a municipality that:
(1) has a population of more than 150,000; and
(2) is wholly or partly located in a county with a population of more than 300,000.

According to 2020 census data, there are 19 affected municipalities: Houston,  San Antonio,  Dallas,  Austin,  Fort Worth,  El Paso,  Arlington,  Corpus Christi,  Plano,  Lubbock,  Laredo,  Irving,  Garland,  Frisco, McKinney,  Grand Prairie,  Brownsville,  Killeen,  and Denton.  And, there are 6 or more that will likely be affected after the 2030 census.

How long before those numerical restrictions change? Next session? Or the one after that? How long before a developer sues over the population applicability of this proposed statute should it become law?

These bills are an outrageous intrusion by the legislature into local growth and zoning. They demand that any currently unplatted lot over 5 acres must be zoned at 31.1 units per acre. Both bills say:

(b) A municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule, or other measure that requires:
(1) a residential lot to be:
      (A) larger than 1,400 square feet;
      (B) wider than 20 feet; or
      (C) deeper than 60 feet; or
(2) if regulating the density of dwelling units on a residential lot, a ratio of dwelling units per acre that results in fewer than 31.1 units per acre.

Yes, you read the right. A municipality will lose control of zoning, not being allowed to require lots to be larger than 1,400 square feet.

There’s nothing in these bills that takes into account slopes, flood plain, wetlands or any other topographic impediment to small lot development. It says nothing about sewer, septic, water, parkland, open space or any other infrastructure. It makes no exception for home-rule municipalities. It’s as if every lot is just a flat sheet of paper on which one can draw roads and lot lines.

Only due to an amendment from the Senate floor can these municipalities zone larger lots over an aquifer. Well, isn’t that a nice hat-tip to our water needs?

The fiscal note for this bill in the Senate is a joke. It says “No significant costs to state agencies are anticipated.” Really? What about schools? Health care services? Road repair? Water resources?

According to the EPA, “The average American uses around 82 gallons per day per person in the household. That means a family of four would use around 10,000 gallons in a 30-day period.” And, in dryer areas like Texas, that use is higher.

Small lot zoning of 1,400 square feet, 31 to the acre, would require 310,000 gallons of water per month per acre. For a five acre lot, that is 1,550,000 gallons of water per month for just one such 5-acre development. And, these bills don’t limit that density to just five acres. Imagine the water needs of that density across a 20-acre development!

Schools? According to TEA, average state revenue to school districts and charter schools per student is $5,809. In the US, there are an average of 1.94 children per household. Even if we use only 1 child per household for these small homes, on average, that’s 31 children per developed-acre added into a school system. The cost to the State of Texas? $900,035 in required state funding annually for one 5-acre development. And, that doesn’t even address the local property tax contribution to a child’s education.

Morris County NJ was the 9th highest per-capita income county in the United States when I lived there. It’s the only state where property taxes are higher than Texas. Affordable housing is a major issue there as well. What we found, though, was that small lot zoning was very, very expensive to our property taxpayers because of the costs of services to support it.

In the mid-1980s, every municipality in NJ was mandated by the NJ Supreme Court to build its “fair share” of low and moderate income housing. This wasn’t Section 8 housing. It was low income housing for those who were under 50% of the median income for our Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. Moderate income housing was for those whose income was 50% to 80% of the median income for our Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. No renter could pay more than 30% of their gross income in rent. Originally, housing numbers were assigned by the courts. Subsequently, a Council on Affordable Housing determined each municipality’s “fair share”. Developers could build 5 or 6 market value townhouses for every one low/moderate income unit they provided. Housing was built and developers made millions and millions. All in the name of providing “affordable housing”.

The costs to municipalities? Schools, roads, police. Our town was 5,000 housing units, mostly small formerly summer cottages for New Yorkers that in the 1950s had been turned into year round homes. They were on small lots. Yet, we were ordered to build 924 units of low & moderate income housing. With the market-value density bonus, that would have been 5,400 new housing units to be built in 6 years. The impacts would have been devastating. Hence the fight. Hence my raising my hand to say “Someone needs to stop this.” Cripe, our town fought hard against 6 or 7 to the acre, not 31.1 as demanded in these TX bills. Yes, we built housing, some family, some seniors, some townhouses, some duplexes. And yes, the demand for services significantly increased. And no, property taxes did not go down. In fact, they went up.

What are these TEXAS Republican legislators thinking? Apparently, they are not. The same old story: developers make millions and taxpayers are left paying the bill.

SUMMARY OF THIS BLOG AS SUBMITTED TO THE LAND & RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE TEXAS HOUSE on march 28, 2025.

DO NOT PASS THIS BILL. To read my full blog post on it, use this link: https://republicancarol.org/why-do-i-feel-like-im-back-in-nj/ Along with 5 citizens, I started a citizens group to fight mandated low and moderate income housing in NJ in the 1980s. I spent 8 years on the Planning Board, 6 years on the Town Council and 4 years as Mayor in Denville Township NJ as a result. I never thought I’d see this in Texas. Here, it’s y’all in the legislature. There, it was the courts. The density given to developers in our case was 6 or 7 units/acre. This TX bill forces THIRTY ONE units per acre! The Senate fiscal report totally ignores the consequences to local municipalities and the State of Texas for such forced high density. There are those that actually cost taxpayers: schools, roads, police, healthcare, other municipal services. Then there are the resources: water, sewage treatment, loss of wetlands, runoff, flooding, parks, open spaces. This bill mandates 31 units/acres on 5 acres OR MORE.

Let’s talk water requirements: According to the EPA, “The average American uses around 82 gallons per day per person in the household. That means a family of four would use around 10,000 gallons in a 30-day period.” And, in dryer areas like Texas, that use is higher. Small lot zoning of 1,400 square feet, 31 to the acre, would require 310,000 gallons of water per month per acre. That is 1,550,000 gallons of water per month for just one such 5-acre development. For 2 people per household, that’s still 775,000 gal/month/5-acre development. And, these bills don’t limit that density to just five acres. Imagine the water needs of that density across a 20-acre development!

Schools? According to TEA, average state revenue to school districts and charter schools per student is $5,809. In the US, there are an average of 1.94 children per household. Even if we use only 1 child per household for these small homes, on average, that’s 31 children per developed-acre added into a school system. The cost to the State of Texas? $900,395 in required state funding for one 5-acre development. And, then there’s the local property tax contribution to a child’s education. How many of these developments will there be? According to 2020 census data, there are 19 affected municipalities. How long before those numerical restrictions change? Next session? Or the one after that? How long before a developer sues over the population applicability of this proposed statute should it become law? And, what if they win so every developer gets this benefit in every municipality? The legislature will have created a nightmare in Texas.

NJ is the only state with property taxes higher than TX. And, forced high-density low & moderate income housing did nothing but drive them up. This is the same old story. Developers get more density, make millions, and taxpayers are left paying the bill. Please tell me I’m reading this bill wrong because if not, this is a horrible idea.