The election ended, but it’s not over yet: now the runoff has begun. The runoff is where we actually decide who will become our next mayor. You all need to vote this time. Early voting begins June 1 and continues through June 9. Election Day is June 13. Mark it on your calendar. I previously wrote a commentary in support of former state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, specifically remarking on her support for the arts, and music in particular. In the piece, I cautioned about the effect of splitting the vote between Mike Villarreal and Van de Putte would have for the progressive community of San Antonio: the potential election of incumbent Mayor Ivy Taylor. Now, this possibility is imminent.
SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORTERS?
After I submitted my commentary, Robert Rivard submitted the most comprehensive, well-balanced piece about all of the candidates. Even as a Van de Putte supporter, I admire, respect, and philosophically agree with Mike’s vision for San Antonio. My belief in Van de Putte’s experience and track record, on the other hand, ultimately led to my full support for her. Belief is not enough, however, now is the time for us all to act. We are at a very precarious crossroads in San Antonio. We can collectively move forward as an entire community, or digress to an era that divided our community in pieces, and sub-communities that compose our city, keeping us isolated in pockets from one another.
Now is the time to join together to exercise our right en masse, but it’s going to take more than posting on Facebook, tweeting on Twitter, or even writing a commentary on the Rivard Report. We all need to vote.
The only thing worse than Villarreal dropping out of the election would be Taylor winning the mayoral race. Taylor is directly responsible for overseeing the loss of two viable forms of public transportation (rideshare and streetcar), while also fostering discrimination against our city’s LGBTQ community. In the lead up to the election, Villarreal had more support on social media, by far, than any of the other candidates in the race, yet sadly, his social media supporters did not all vote. Rivard’s article was shared nearly 2,000 times via social media, but many Mike “followers” did not show up at the polls.
Regardless of the excuse, the statistics don’t lie. Voters between the ages of 18-35 only accounted for approximately 5% of the vote, and the demographic between 36-50 only comprised about 13% of the total vote. This means 82% of the people who decide your future are over the age of 50 years old. This is embarrassing for us as a community. How can we collectively lament the shortcomings of our city’s governance, yet simultaneously fail to exercise our own investment in the community through a vote itself? Do we really want change in the community, or do we just want to passively complain about bad decision-making at City Hall in hindsight? If you fall into the former category, you need to show up and exercise your right to vote. Failing to do so is tantamount to deferring to your parents and grandparents to make life and community decisions on your behalf, because you don’t feel capable of doing so on your own. Isn’t it time we start making decisions for ourselves?
YOU NEED TO VOTE
In Rivard’s most recent piece, which makes mention of the lack of voting Millenials, many readers commented about how hard it is to vote. Ironically, they are whining through an electronic medium (i.e. phone or computer) where they could just as easily look up a polling location for early voting, and bike/walk/bus/drive there with an identification card. I sincerely hope all of the whining about how voting should be easier is not one big excuse to be apathetic and lazy about elections going on right now. Election reform takes time, and lack of participation will not bring about the required change we all want — it will actually perpetuate the problem.
Converting social media traffic into actual voters at the polls hasn’t yet happened, but the opportunity to do so is now. Let’s make it happen and show up to vote this time. It’s absolutely critical for voters to show up to vote. While I realize there is still a sting from Mike’s loss, it’s over now, and time to move on. The future of our city is at stake, but still in your hands.
Again, I agreed with Mike Villarreal’s overall vision for San Antonio, but chose to fully support Van de Putte based on her experience, track record, and overall leadership on behalf of San Antonio. Now the race is between Van de Putte and interim Mayor Ivy Taylor. By any standard of measurement, Van de Putte is the best candidate for our city.
ISSUES:
POLICE UNION CONTRACT
Mike Beldon’s previous commentary falsely accused Van de Putte of “talking out of both sides of her mouth” on the police contracts, but fails to offer any evidence to support such a claim. Contrarily, Van de Putte is the only candidate with 24 years of experience bringing people to the negotiating table and getting big things done, unlike Taylor who lacks the experience to engage in these types of high level negotiations.
Van de Putte can get a balanced contract with the police union done – not solely out of fairness to our first responders and fiscal responsibility, but because San Antonians deserve it. If Van de Putte had already been mayor, these negotiations would not have devolved into this level of contentiousness. I know Van de Putte, and her number one priority is offering due respect to each and every person, on both sides of the table. In his commentary, Beldon seems to advocate for litigation. As an attorney, with a background in litigation, I can assure the readers that lawsuits are used as a last resort when all other efforts to achieve resolution have failed. If a lawsuit is necessary in this instance, then it’s because there’s been a failure in interim Mayor Taylor’s leadership to resolve the matter. We need Leticia to bring all sides back to the bargaining table. Let’s start from there.
LEADERSHIP FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY
Beldon goes on in his commentary to criticize Van de Putte’s position in front of the Wednesday Morning Breakfast Group, which, according to Beldon, is a collection of “our city’s business leaders with a deep commitment to this city’s growth and prosperity.” But how does her appearance in front of one elite faction within the city reflect her representation for the public at-large? Van de Putte is a voice for the people, all of the people. This includes the business elite at the Wednesday Morning Breakfast Group, as well as the general public who is not invited to attend these special meetings. Particular allegiance to one group over another is not how we need to collectively bring our city together.
Her opposition to the property tax bill passed in 2013 demonstrates a fundamental understanding of the actual effect of the bill, which can potentially cost homeowners more money in the long run.
Both Van de Putte and Taylor previously said they wouldn’t run for mayor. At best, they reconsidered, and chose an alternate path for the community. At worst, they misrepresented themselves to the public ahead of time. In either scenario, the issue is moot, because they both did it.
Van de Putte did nothing ethically or legally wrong when transferring funds from her state campaign account to her local one. So why is this even relevant? The fact remains it is not. It’s another attempt to detract from the real issues and matters that affect the San Antonio community and the citizens here.
LGBT RIGHTS
As far as the NDO is concerned, Taylor said she voted to represent her district. Well that’s a claim verging on ridiculous. State Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, Councilmember Alan Warrick II (D2), and Commissioner Tommy Calvert (Pct.4) – all from Taylor’s district/precinct – have each decided to fully support Van de Putte in this election. How can she claim that she has “voted her district” when none of her colleagues in her community/district/precinct support her in this election? The Eastside leadership view her as a failure to the community.
Van de Putte has been a leader of LGBTQ rights at the state level. When she was sworn in as Governor of Texas for a day, she urged her legislative colleagues to pass her Senate Bill 237 (2013), which would ban employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender expression.
“Someday, there will be a portrait of a Texas hero on these walls, and he or she may just happen to be gay,” Van de Putte said, adding that state legend Sam Houston, whose Bible she used to administer her oath of office, was a champion for Native Americans’ rights, and she pledged to do the same for gay rights.
TRANSPORTATION
Mayor Taylor has specifically been responsible for San Antonio losing two viable forms of public transportation: the streetcar and rideshare. Frankly, her biggest legacy as interim mayor has been her failure to address drunk driving in this city by effectively killing one form of public transportation and chasing away another.
On the other hand, Van de Putte supports fully expanding transportation options. This includes expanding VIA’s multi-modal options like park and rides and bus rapid transit. She will work to bring rideshare companies back to San Antonio, while also making investments in the maintenance of streets and bridges.
On a larger scale, Van de Putte supports the Lone Star Rail Project. She recognizes how this has the most potential of any proposed project to alleviate traffic and stimulate economic growth up and down the I-35 corridor.
Even if Taylor convenes yet another advisory council on Uber and Lyft in an attempt to resolve the matter, it’s not a solution. It’s another attempt to stall negotiations even further. We can’t afford to allow Taylor to stall or impede meaningful negotiations, while drunk drivers ruin the lives of victims and their families on a daily basis in San Antonio. Any delay on matters regarding public transportation is contrary to public policy and safety. Beginning anew, Van de Putte will find a solution that satisfies both public safety needs and allows these companies to operate in San Antonio.
LEADERSHIP & EXPERIENCE
In his commentary, Beldon condescendingly distinguishes the candidates by alleging Taylor doesn’t have Van de Putte’s grasp of “retail politics.” I’m unclear what this quote precisely means without further definition, but I would also contend that Taylor doesn’t have Van de Putte’s grasp of leadership altogether: the core tenet we need for anyone who is serving as our mayor. Van de Putte’s record is replete with accomplishments that have benefitted the city and community of San Antonio.
She has served in the legislature for more than 24 years fortifying the vitality of San Antonio at the state level:
- She secured funding for UTSA Downtown Campus, as well as the UT Health Science Center,
- raised $200 million in funding for the Greehey Children’s Cancer Research Institute,
- passed anti-bullying legislation,
- legislation to support veterans job training,
- established veterans courts,
- helped pass the Better Jobs Act which allowed cities to invest in education and job training for Pre-K 4 SA,
- helped pass legislation to allow cities and counties to build community arenas like the AT&T Center.
Van de Putte is prime to provide the leadership to articulate, implement and coordinate a plan to cultivate opportunity, foster innovation, and offer San Antonians across all demographics the tools to reach their potential. For the business community, she will provide a better means of facilitating a more efficient permitting process, as well smooth the working relationships between businesses and SAWS, CPS, and the City. Small and medium sized businesses are important engines of our economic growth; City leadership must continuously engage their concerns and foster a predictable regulatory climate.
For job seekers, Van de Putte wants to focus on educational pipelines for training the quality employees that businesses require. City Hall can help educate, train, and retrain San Antonians to fill high-skill, high-paying jobs. By 2020 65% of all jobs in this country will require some type of post high school credential. We must support a local workforce that is constantly learning and upgrading its skills.
MILITARY & VETERANS
As the daughter of a veteran and the Chair of the Senate Veteran Affairs and Military Installations Committee for 11 years, Van de Putte realizes the families of service members also make great sacrifices. San Antonio is known as “Military City” but she will work to ensure we earn the title of “Veteran City” for being the best city in the country for veterans and their families. Among other accomplishments
- Van de Putte passed the College Credit for Heroes Bill in 2011, which assists in translating military training to college credit, realizing veterans need greater academic recognition in the civilian world from certifications received in the military.
- When in office, city hall will encourage higher education programs for cybersecurity, cultivating a local talent pipeline for the industry’s growth and positioning San Antonio as a national leader.
WATER SUPPLY
Van de Putte, knows each drop of water conserved is a drop of water you don’t have to pay for later. She wants to see SA continue a robust conservation strategy to lead the state.
Specifically for the Vista Ridge Pipeline, she wants to see it’s implemented properly and efficiently, so any cost overruns or burdens do not fall on rate-payers.
ANIMAL CARE
Van de Putte knows preventative approaches are the best ways to lower costs and avoid bad outcomes.
Aggressive spay neuter programs, education and enforcement have proven to yield results. She seeks to expand these investments moving us closer toward the goal of 100% live release.
CONCLUSION
On every single relevant issue that pertains to our community, Van de Putte stands head shoulders above all others as the superior candidate for Mayor of San Antonio. No one comes close to her level of experience or track record as a civic leader representing the citizens of San Antonio at-large. Van de Putte does not pander to any one group, but rather, seeks to bring all groups together for the greater good of our San Antonio community. I urge readers to support her for Mayor when early voting commences on June 1.
*Featured/top image: Leticia Van de Putte waves to supporters as she exits a vehicle on the Eastside. Photo by Scott Ball.
Related Stories:
Mike Villarreal: You Choose the Next Mayor
Taylor and Van de Putte Tangle at UTSA Forum
“Sam Houston, whose Bible she used to administer her oath of office, was a champion for Native Americans’ rights.”
What kind of twisted logic is this? You can’t equate Native American Rights with “LGBT rights.” A group of people is not the same as sexual orientation or gender identification. It is this contorted view of reality that makes Van de Putte wrong for our city, wrong for Texas, and a Catholic in name only.
Curtis,
Race or ethnicity is only one way in which we may define a “group of people”. In the United States, religious minorities constitutes “groups of people” protected from persecution and afforded equal rights under the law. Though I don’t prescribe to the notion that sexual orientation is a choice, one must admit that religion certainly is and thus one can choose to become part of a group and can still demand equal protection under the law.
You may also be aware that we recognize handicapped citizens as a group, and that group is also afforded the protections against discrimination. We spend millions upon millions of dollars in this city installing ramps, talking crosswalks, and handicap accessible bathrooms. This positive effort we extend to ensure equality for all citizens comes as a financial burden on our city that I and most citizens are more than willing to undertake. This is because we believe in the founding principal on which our nation was conceived, that we are all equal under the law.
If you cannot see the truth behind this founding principal and how it applies to any and all groups in our society, especially those that are in the minority and suffer from discrimination as a result, then I feel bad for you.
I’ll leave you with the words of Mildred Loving, who’s fight in the Supreme Court of the United States led to the abolition of all state laws banning interracial marriage. Her case was monumental in recognizing the rights of individuals, regardless of their “group” to marry the people they love.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf
LVP has her flaws.
For example she needs to wrap her head around the concept of municipal broadband along the lines of what Chattanooga has.
In other words, turn SAABN on for everyone, not just COSA offices, schools, libraries, etc. Like SAWs and CPS, San Antonio needs SAABN/municipal regulated high speed internet for all. It would go a long way toward eliminating the digital divide currently separating the Northside from the rest of town.
A quick sit down with former D3 Letty Ozuna would bring LVP up to speed. LVP is sharp enough to see how SAABN would become a key attractor for tech to San Antonio and would show the world San Antonio does have progressive vision, despite all of Taylor’s many missteps during her short pinch hit stint as Mayor.
But yeah, people need to vote and #AnyoneButTaylor is the way to go.
Agreed #AnyoneButTaylor.
Leticia will sell the City out to the unions. Look at our Big Cities controlled by democrats and this is the scam done before the Bankruptcy proceedings years later.
Thomas, do you have any evidence of this scam you claim will happen in San Antonio?
“Taylor is directly responsible for overseeing the loss of two viable forms of public transportation (rideshare and streetcar), while also fostering discrimination against our city’s LGBTQ community. ”
Statements like this one, that eliminate all context that could turn a simplistic speaking point into a legitimate convereaction is what truly holds our city back from progression.
If Blayne or any one else that is for a more progressive city truly knew the history of the Eastside and those that came out against Ivy, I don’t think they would be siding with the Calverts, McClendons, and James Howards…investigate the meaning of progress on the Eastside and then tell me that you still want to claim the opinions of those three as your backing argument.
Brian,
“Statements like this one, that eliminate all context that could turn a simplistic speaking point into a legitimate convereaction is what truly holds our city back from progression.”
What does the above paragraph even mean? “Convereaction” isn’t even a real word.
Again, you make broad sweeping conclusions and assertions about people individually, and attack my historical perspective, yet you contribute no evidence whatsoever to reinforce your argument.
I encourage you to write a commentary commentary educating us on the “history” of the Eastside, rather than concluding, without arguing, that I don’t understand same.
I have to agree, in part, with Brian. Taylor has taken a lot of undue slack over transportation.
Streetcar: I’m a proponent for rail but the VIA plan was poor at best. Its route would run along a residentially sparse area (the development along the lower broadway corridor is worth commending but is far from providing the density to make rail viable). Taylor pulled a paltry $32 million in city funding for a project that would cost hundreds of millions when complete. A large portion of that was secured by VIA and the scrapped route would be a starting point for a larger rail system but it was a bad starting point that would likely drain any momentum for a viable rail system in SA.
Rideshare: As mayor Taylor had one vote on the issue as did every other council member. Replacing Taylor with LVP would have very little impact on this issue if the council as a whole is not behind the issue. Opposition from suburban council members led to the ordinance that Uber & Lyft did not want to comply with, not Taylor alone. What would LVP do differently?
Other thoughts:
Vista Ridge Pipeline is a SAWS project. The mayor is one member of the SAWS board. I don’t see this as something LVP or Taylor could have much impact on. If I’m wrong, please explain how.
Animal Care: This issue has gone from one of little relevance in the 90s to a huge concern and cause to champion for council members across the city. Not really an issue the mayor can single handedly have great impact on. City funding comes from the general fund and is approved by council as a whole. Again, the mayor only has one vote. What would LVP do?
You write “When in office, city hall will encourage higher education programs for cybersecurity, cultivating a local talent pipeline for the industry’s growth and positioning San Antonio as a national leader.”
This is already occurring without LVP in office. UTSA & StMu are already developing these programs.
While you list several accomplishments of LVP in state office, the role of mayor is altogether different. From reading support pieces for both LVP and Taylor it seems to me that boosters on both sides have a gross misunderstanding of what powers a mayor actually holds in this city. SATX operates under a council-manager form of government under which the mayor’s position is more ceremonial than managerial and where the city manger executes many of the functions people are tacking onto the mayor’s office.
If elected LVP would have a soapbox and a single vote at city hall, a couple seats on the boards for CPS and SAWS, and not much else in terms of real power. SATX is not a strong mayor city like NYC – from the NDO to the police union contracts the mayor executes very little.
Assuming arguendo, in that the SA mayor’s position is largely ceremonial, wouldn’t you prefer to have a candidate in place with more connections at the state and national level than one who is entirely disconnected from even her own community? The power of the mayor’s seat rests with the charisma of the office holder and the connections within and outside the community. Taylor doesn’t even have the support of the representatives from her own community/district/precinct, much less the majority of counsel. By all accounts she will be entirely ineffective, and bring no amount of influence beyond a singular vote. In that sense, you are absolutely correct.
LVP’s influence transcends the municipal landscape, which is precisely why we need her as SA’s next mayor.
As I previously asked in response to your comment in another article, you mentioned you’re a Mike Villarreal supporter: are you really considering voting for someone who discriminates against the LGBTQ community with that singular vote she exercises?
I really like and wholly agree with this statement of yours: “The power of the mayor’s seat rests with the charisma of the office holder and the connections within and outside the community.”
I may be in the minority in believing this but both Taylor and LVP have shown little charisma throughout the campaign. I am not inspired when listening to them speak and their rhetoric incites absolutely zero excitement in their leadership.
In the case of LVP this is especially concerning. Her power within the Texas Democratic Party is unquestioned. To that point she has held legislative blue seats for 20+ years – unchallenged by other Dems for a seat that Republicans have no shot at. Her loss for the Lt. Gov. seat highlights this point.
I can attribute Taylor’s lack of charisma to a lack of experience in high profile (relatively) campaigns. Her limited experience reminds me very much of former Mayor Castro – arguably one of the city’s most effective mayors in recent history. His lack of political experience and connections prior to entering office (even a failed bid for mayor before finally winning election) lends me some hope for Taylor.
In the end it is Taylor’s pragmatic approach to the city’s development and the utter failure of LVP, despite her decades of experience, to put forth a strong vision for the city that leads me to lean towards Taylor for mayor.
All else aside – how astonishing is it that the political powerhouse that was LVP is in a runoff with a political unknown who lacks both the political and monetary wealth of the LVP campaign? If this election has shown anything it is just how poor LVP preforms against actual challenges. With her legislative reign over and unlikely to ever return I hold little faith in her ability to draw significantly and meaningfully on her wealth of contacts. The funny thing about political connections is that they seem to fade when political power does.
Focusing on charisma and connections as some of the biggest strengths of the mayoral seat LVP is underwhelming at best.
“Taylor is directly responsible for overseeing the loss of two viable forms of public transportation (rideshare and streetcar), while also fostering discrimination against our city’s LGBTQ community. ”
Statements like this one, that eliminate all context that could turn a simplistic speaking point into a legitimate convereaction is what truly holds our city back from progression.
If Blayne or any one else that is for a more progressive city truly knew the history of the Eastside and those that came out against Ivy, I don’t think they would be siding with the Calverts, McClendons, and James Howards…investigate the meaning of progress on the Eastside and then tell me that you still want to claim the opinions of those three as your backing argument.
Brian,
“Statements like this one, that eliminate all context that could turn a simplistic speaking point into a legitimate convereaction is what truly holds our city back from progression.”
What does the above paragraph even mean? “Convereaction” isn’t even a real word.
Again, you make broad sweeping conclusions and assertions about people individually, and attack my historical perspective, yet you contribute no evidence whatsoever to reinforce your argument.
I encourage you to write a commentary commentary educating us on the “history” of the Eastside, rather than concluding, without arguing, that I don’t understand same.
Will support you this time. To me, you’re the best candidate with a plan for our future.
No thank you….
What does she have to offer San Antonio?
Over hundred friends of mine have committed on voting #LeticiaForMayor a true Vision of San Antonio with a proven record that supports all San Antonians see you at the polls!
LVP is a political hack. She cuts and runs when the going gets tough. Ivy is a thinking leader, not a politician as LVP is who has run for every conceivable open position.
Career Politician that lacks vision….San Antonio is on the brink of being a great city. Keep Mayor Ivy R. Taylor
They’re all imperfect. But Leticia is the better candidate in this guess. I do agree that the absurd, budget breaking deal with the police and fire unions needs to be rescinded.
Great article and why I’m also working to elect Leticia Van de Putte.
The fact that she had to get the same person to write both support articles speaks volumes. It also speaks volumes that all this author did was throw stones. He gave us no actual reason to support his candidate.
The fact is, she did speak out both sides of her mouth and there is an Express article to prove it.
The fact is, the contracts were at a stand still and were being argued over the radio before the Mayor really had a chance to hit the ground. She brought both sides back and council was 99% of the way to a deal in March when LVP promised the Union something and they decided to take their chances at the election.
LVP has, generally, taken more credit (or had it attributed to her) for work she didn’t actually do the heavy lifting on. Over the 24 + years she was in office she authored ZERO major bills but certainly “co-authored” tons of them (along with everyone else)
Look, I voted for LVP for the LT Governor race. She was absolutely the better choice in that election.
You cannot convince me that she has a vision for this city, though. Being a third generation San Antonian and stealing other people’s good ideas do not make you a leader. They make you someone who is absolutely desperate to keep your empire afloat.
Jeff,
No one from the campaign, including Leticia, prompted me to write either article. The decision to do so was entirely my own.
You obviously didn’t read the entire article if you are genuinely asserting all I did was “throw stones.” I encourage you to actually read the commentary this time before making unfounded conclusions. I stated plenty of reasons to support LVP.
You contradict yourself by saying she never authored any bills, but then go on to say she co-authored bills. The paragraph where you assert this is entirely nonsensical.
In a twist of irony, you then go on to, again, prematurely conclude LVP has no vision, by attacking her purported motivations, and ignoring the arguments proffered in the article.
In a nutshell, you completely failed to contribute any perspective on why the other candidate would be better.