If you followed social media after the recent one-notch credit rating downgrade from Fitch Ratings, you saw City leadership in full-on meltdown mode.
If you aren’t locked into the daily turns of the City of San Antonio’s financial position, here is a quick recap. It’s important to note that the other two credit rating agencies, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, reaffirmed the City’s AAA bond rating while Fitch downgraded the City one notch to AA+. This downgrade has no effect on the City’s current debt load and won’t result in increased taxes. The core reason identified for this downgrade was the voter passage of Proposition C, granting binding arbitration for our firefighters in their contract talks with the City.
We all need to get a grip, take a deep breath, and be patient. We must also be painfully honest with ourselves about what our City stands for and what really needs to be fixed. Here is the truth bomb: For the last nine years, we have secured a AAA bond rating, the highest municipal “credit score” available. It is the signature accomplishment of City Manager Sheryl Sculley and touted by Councils past and present as our saving grace.
Problem is, the AAA bond rating isn’t all its cracked up to be. Why?
For all the hype over those same nine years, while our credit score was rising and reserves growing, this City also grew in a few other key economic indicators. Most notably, we became the most economically segregated City in the nation. The marginalized became more so. The same streets and sidewalks that were in poor condition in 2005, are for the most part, still in disrepair. Wages are almost stagnant, and the same people and families who were struggling at the beginning of Sculley’s tenure and AAA focus are still struggling today. So I ask you, who was the AAA bond rating actually for?
Yes, we have benefited from better interest rates. Yes, it is a significant financial accomplishment, and many previous bond packages have saved money because of it. But has the typical San Antonio family, in neighborhoods some City leaders have never set foot in, changed at all? The fact is, they haven’t, and it’s hypocritical and evidence of a severe political blind spot, to watch mostly privileged San Antonio residents clutch their pearls over the bond rating “credit score” and the effect on citizens, when the credit score hasn’t done a thing for the people who need the help the most.
Some folks need to shelve their righteous indignation and take a hard look in the mirror. The AAA bond rating says a lot about us, and to the Wall Street fat cats and investment bankers, it’s the gold standard. But to me, it also says our priorities at City Hall are broken.
It’s a manufactured crisis that allows us to ignore the other glaring problem we have and that’s the fact that too many in our community are missing out on the City’s financial strength. I’ve seen families on the West Side struggling to make ends meet and hustling two or three jobs for just a little extra for the kids. I can imagine them looking at media coverage of the bond rating and asking themselves where all this financial success is when they can’t earn a living wage or get their sidewalks fixed. So don’t stand there and act like the sky is falling when hundreds of thousands of folks aren’t looking at the same sky you are, my friends.
We need significant change at City Hall, not just in our financial game plan, but in our priorities. Our bond rating is important. We need to be vigilant and fiscally responsible, but we also need to be realistic about our mistakes.
At the top of that priority list is the completion of the firefighters labor contract. This one-notch downgrade by one rating agency isn’t due to a uninformed public. It isn’t because of one vote in November, regardless of which side you chose. This was years in the making and can be traced back as far as the breakdown in police and fire labor negotiations four years ago, leading to broken trust and years of ill will that culminated in these charter amendments.
If Fitch’s analysts said binding arbitration scares them, then let’s get back to the table and finalize this contract. Both sides have to put aside political – and in some cases, personal – animosity to get this done. We can make Prop C irrelevant and demonstrate to all three rating agencies that labor peace between the City and its first responders exists, contracts are completed, and financial controls are in place for the largest expenditure we have in our budget.
And from there, we can make the right hire for city manager, bring continuity to the City machine, and look to the upcoming municipal elections to chart our future. The voters spoke in November. They’ll get another chance in May. Until then, let’s act like leaders, be resolute, and not scare the community with forecasts of doom and gloom.
The voters spoke and demanded change. Now let’s see how we react.
All change is good if you own it and examine why the change is necessary. This is our chance to get our priorities right.
Mr. Brockhouse believes we have overlooked the marginalized – which I suspect most would agree with.
But isn’t he gearing up to oppose the mayor that promoted city budgeting using an equity lens? And, if my memory serves me, didn’t Mr. Brockhouse question this move saying that we “… were not there yet?”
I also agree that the recent downgrade is not cause for panic. But, it is a warning signal. I look at cities like Fort Worth and Dallas that are fighting huge underfunded benefit & pension costs. We should support and respect our first responders, but making promises that we can’t support with our budget will not help them in the long run and will only further hinder our ability to help the marginalized of our city which Mr. Brockhouse seems concerned about.
Fair points, JC. I did oppose the equity lens budgeting and I want to tell you why. It was a dubious strategy at best, essentially leadership by slogan. When the equity lens was started, we used it on streets and sidewalks and allocated extra money based on street condition ratings for an entire District. We ranked streets and sidewalks in all 10 Districts for funding. So, it looked like D6 had the 2nd best streets in the City and we received zero “equity dollars”. Well I have Edgewood and the Westside in D6 and those streets and sidewalks are abysmal in major areas and they were left out of the equity lens budgeting in 2018 because of a total average for an entire District. It was wrong and I called out the equity lens for its lack of real analysis for neighborhood needs. An F rated street in D6 is the same as an F rated street in D2 and yet D6 was dropped. All that to say, the metrics for equity lens budgeting are broken and continue to be. I would also say that the 2019 budget did have a change in equity lens budgeting and D6 received about $1.5 million in funding for streets and sidewalks, so we are improving on the measurement and I attributed the updated equity funding to raising awareness that every District has struggles and we cannot be so myopic to use the easy metric to allocate $$$, we need to dig deeper and find areas that need help everywhere. And yes, I agree…we don’t want to make promises we can’t keep to our first responders and we need to finalize a contract that is good for both sides. Ok, rambling done, but you made fair points and I wanted to respond to you.
When will we see the Fire Union come to the table? Or was this just a dog and pony show? Which councilman supported the ridiculous propositions that set off this bond warning signal? Since when has Anyone on the city council not been focused on the things you just listed in this backhanded insult of our city?
Rest assured, people know whos name was on this sham of a push for “fundamental(by campaign label only)” very stupid changes to the city charter.
Questions answered in order:
1. Not sure when they will return. I am on the record saying they must.
2. Not a dog and pony.
3. Me.
4. I sit in the meetings of the Council. Lots of talk and little action on the core issues I mentioned. You can disagree, but I don’t see much happening other than task forces and think tanks. But, that’s my opinion.
The people whose “names were on this sham” number in the hundreds of thousands and can be found of the voter rolls in November. Both Props B and C passed with hundreds of thousands saying YES. So I am assuming you are saying the voting public made a “stupid” decision? Or they were duped? In any case, you seem to be making a pretty pointed comment on a publicly voted decision.
Brockhouse, your precious firefighters *still* haven’t come to the negotiating table. You are responsible for this mess and you will lose in May.
You give me way too much credit for this, as if I have hundreds of thousands of voters on standby. Please. And yes, I am a huge firefighter and police officer supporter. Nothing new there.
Every council that’s worked with Sheryl Sculley has prioritized public works projects, education, a living wage, more money going to neglected parts of town, and of course public safety contracts. Brockhouse says we need change at city hall then talks about…………………. the exact same priorities…….smh
Fitch doesn’t used AA+, it’s just AA. It’s a nice trick by the Councilman to make us think something that’s not a huge deal is even less of a big deal.
Here is the link for the AA+. Just in case you needed a proof source. Sorry, but needed to make sure info is accurate.
Fitch Rates San Antonio, TX Limited Tax Bonds ‘AA+’; Downgrades IDR to ‘AA+’; Outlook Stable
19 DEC 2018 03:51 PM ET
https://www.fitchratings.com/site/pr/10054859
That’s fair – my apologies Councilman.
The breakdown of the rating is a little more troubling though, given that a single-A rating is barely investment level.
Revenue Framework aaa
Expenditure Framework a
Long-Term Liability Burden aa
Operating Performance aaa
No need to apologize at all. I appreciate your fairness and comments. Let me look further at your points on breakdowns.
Brockhouse gaslighting 101
First, tell everyone that the predicted negative results won’t happen and that anyone peddling the prediction is a fear monger.
Second, if the predicted result comes about as foretold, deny that its really a negative result.
Third, try to convince people that even if it it is a negative result, it’s not as bad as other things ( Hey, it could be worse than a credit downgrade. You could have scurvy, ebola, or tuberculosis.)
Fourth, point to powerful elites/ special interest/ bankers/ George Soros/ the media (pick your bogey man) and claim to stand with the little guy (note: Brockhouse takes a lot of campaign money from developers and bankers)
Councilman, thank you for your comments. Since you mention economic segregation and folks working two or three jobs to make ends meet, may I ask why you chose to abstain from the vote on the Housing Policy Framework which addresses those very things?
I had some real heartache with the Housing Policy Framework, not gonna lie. Lots of unfunded mandates without any clear delineation of who would be paying the price tags. Also, I felt like it left out key components…yes it was about housing, but not much done in the way of deregulation and cost reductions to close the affordability gap. We focused on the City closing the gap with incentives and potentially future bond money, but very little of reducing development fees and charges the City has implemented into the development and home building process over the last 10-15 years. And a big miss to me was a conversation during that time on wages. If people made more money, then they can afford more home…instead of the City trying to close that gap with taxpayer resources. Just a few thoughts.
Councilman, thank you for your response! I heard you say those things when you spoke in opposition and wished I had the opportunity at the time to address your concerns. Perhaps I can do so now.
1. The Housing Framework goes into great detail on sources of funding. There is nothing vague about it. It is an economic development engine built on affordable housing that leverages billions in private investment and federal dollars. You enthusiastically championed CCHIP a couple of weeks back in your comments then voted for it. It is a market rate housing-based economic development engine that has the same source of funds: taxpayer dollars. Why the latter and not the former? The former doesn’t tackle wages but the Housing Policy Framework actually does go into some detail about the issue.
2. The Housing Framework lays out several major strategies for reducing cost and regulatory burden including as of right zoning, the reduction of impact fees and infrastructure costs, and most importantly it calls for a deep review of the UDC to remove cost burden across the board. That effort is being championed by Councilman Pelaez and is now underway.
Regarding your clarification on the abstention: I am sorry you missed the vote but you are on record as you say. If you had the opportunity to vote again, would it be a yes? Thanks again for taking the time to talk.
Whoops, hit send to quickly. Correction: CCHIP does not address wages.
Hey Jim…thank you for the follow up. Here are some quick points as I take down the Christmas tree lights today and pack up!
1. I submitted a Council Resolution Request last year to change and update the CCHIP and ICRIP programs. I supported the recent changes, but I wish they would have gone further. I believe we need to be looking further than just incentivizing downtown (not cutting downtown, expansion). That’s the most expensive dirt in the City and for us to be looking to put affordable housing, with City incentives, downtown is not something I will often support. But, I do realize that it is needed to an extent (a vibrant downtown is something we all own) and I was a Yes on CCHIP because expansion of the program was there. I believe we should be incentivizing across the entire City and remove all CCHIP and ICRIP boundaries. As for the funding, I had real concerns because it is almost $3 billion over 10 years of spending, a lot of which is unfunded mandates, like a housing bond that I would be hard pressed to support (I believe the public would not support it either). I also don’t believe we should be putting taxpayer money into things like fixing people’s roofs or the City being involved in finance or the home buying process. The framework was too broad and out of the scope of what I believe the City should be doing. This is taxpayer money and until we get the basics done right first, we can do without $25 million being spent out of the 2019 budget hiring 18 people and creating a whole new City department and executive to manage housing.
2. As for fees and cost reductions, I have been consistently on the record, since day one, calling for a reduction of process and fees to develop. This was my position a year before Pelaez’s CCR (not trying to take credit, just stating I have been on this point). Not a big fan of “as of right” zoning because it limits the power of the Council member and neighborhoods to control growth. In my opinion, a dollar is a dollar to a developer, if we can reduce their development costs by reducing fees and regulations we should do so. Drop our fees instead of spending tax dollars on incentives is a good step in my opinion.
Problem for me Jim, is I don’t think the MHPT is a core service of the City and the overreach and cost burden is enormous. The Charter doesn’t even allow it. But I can find things to support in it that meet the needs of those residents who need help the most. Honestly, not a Yes on this. I don’t think we should have voted to accept the entire book of recommendations either. There is much in there that concerns me and I couldn’t vote for all it, if the time came again.
Good conversation. You are well versed on this and I am assuming its because you’re the Jim who served on the MHPT. As a city council member, I can honestly say we are probably nowhere near the expertise needed to have in-depth conversations on this and we can all learn a hell of lot more…me included. I tend to come at these things from a role of government perspective and taxes to what matters most first. I do think our ability to raise wages and job creation as an answer to the housing situation that we have not really addressed as a council.
Contrary to all the vitriol out there (go look at your FB post on this piece) I will move on my positions and like to listen and talk it out. My folks get mad at me because I get on these platforms and go at it, but I think this is the new “field office” for elected officials.
I have a lot to learn, but again, contrary to lies and hatred out there, I will listen. That’s part of the reason I went to Rivard with this piece, knowing the backlash that would happen.
All good and thank you. I am always open for more. My email address is greg.brockhouse@sanantonio.gov if you want to catch up and walk me through your ideas.
Fair enough, Councilman. You and I clearly have some significant philosophical disagreements on the role of local government but I do appreciate your willingness to engage and modify your positions based on new information. I could go on for pages about how fixing roofs is not a charitable endeavor but a smart investment that saves the city millions in the long haul, and how economic segregation is at it’s core a zoning issue, and how the citizens of SA overwhelmingly voted in favor of a $2o million housing bond in the last bond cycle but I won’t take you to task here. I’ll beat you up later about all of this :-). Maybe over lunch or a beer. Take care.
And in total honesty, I wasn’t on the dais when the vote was called. It was a long day of discussions and I had stepped off for a bathroom break and to follow up on an issue. The vote was cast and I was logged as an abstention. I did ask the Mayor to re-open the vote, but he declined saying I was clearly on the record with my concerns. Just wanted to be totally transparent with you. The recording of the day will show the same.
This article is the biggest piece of political dribble I have ever read. Everyone knows that the downgrade is a direct result of greedy unions, for which, Greg Brockhouse has been bought and paid for. He is writing this to save face and try to salvage the unsalvagable. Let’s abolish the unions, repeal the charter provisions in two years, and send Brockhouse back to whatever hole under a rock he crawled out of.
Save face? 59% of the public agreed on one Amendment and 51% on the other. I don’t have to salvage anything when I was on the side of the voting public. But hey, I dribble on….
The voting public agreed because people like you mislead them. Would they still be on your side if you were transparent about how much money you have taken from the unions to be their point man? Chris Steele knows he has a patsy, the rest of is are learning it too. Dribble dribble.
I accepted two contributions totaling $1000 over 2 years. GUILTY. So have many other elected officials. The max contribution is $500 within about a year. Like thats worth being a sell out over. Give me a break. I am the biggest supporter of police and fire because I believe they deserve the best we can afford and I consider them family. I own it. Always have.
Misled….uhhhhh you have no faith in the voter. I think its telling they split the vote and said No to A and Yes to B & C….that’s a pretty clear demonstration of intent and thought.
Next comment….
Next comment: That’s a misleading answer at best. The real intent of my point was not how much they have given you in campaign contributions, but how much they gave you when you worked for them. And before you weasel around, let me be clear, how much did the unions pay you, either by their own payroll or for services on a contract or other compensation? I don’t think anyone is anti public safety, what a lot of people are is anti GREED and anti POWER GRABS. Chris Steele is on record through a recording saying that that you were his man. So I ask again, what was your price, sir?
I tried to respond to your last comment, cut couldn’t, so I am responding to this one.
As was reported by other outlets over the last 2 years, prior to my announcement of my candidacy, I relinquished my consulting roles in politics. I ended all contracts to solely run for office. That was well over 2 years ago. Prior to that in 2013-2016, I acted as a consultant and was paid as a general contractor about $61,000 over 3.5 years. That’s been reported in the media as recently as this month. As a general political contractor, from 2013-2016 I received those funds and also spent a portion of them to my employees, specifically on things like design work for political mail. I don’t have all the records in front of me, but anyone can clearly see that making about $600 a month is not a windfall. Fact is, I loved my time working with the firefighters and frankly would have helped them for free. I think they are worth that much and there hasn’t been a better group of people I have ever worked with while I did consulting. It became more about the family than the paycheck. And don’t forget, that was well over 2.5 years ago that I was working with them…no incentive for me other than doing what I think is right.
I tried to respond to your last comment, cut couldn’t, so I am responding to this one.
As was reported by other outlets over the last 2 years, prior to my announcement of my candidacy, I relinquished my consulting roles in politics. I ended all contracts to solely run for office. That was well over 2 years ago. Prior to that in 2013-2016, I acted as a consultant and was paid as a general contractor about $61,000 over 3.5 years. That’s been reported in the media as recently as this month. As a general political contractor, from 2013-2016 I received those funds and also spent a portion of them to my employees, specifically on things like design work for political mail. I don’t have all the records in front of me, but anyone can clearly see that making about $600 a month is not a windfall. Fact is, I loved my time working with the firefighters and frankly would have helped them for free. I think they are worth that much and there hasn’t been a better group of people I have ever worked with while I did consulting. It became more about the family than the paycheck. And don’t forget, that was well over 2.5 years ago that I was working with them…no incentive for me other than doing what I think is right.
D.T. what part of town is your rock in? I voted YES! If anyone tried to dupe the votes it was the city and the PAC that supported their NO campaign. How much money did they spend to send out many pamphlets telling Senior to vote NO because to vote YES would negatively affect them? I am still trying to figure that one out.
I agree 100% with Brockhouse. I admire that both he and Perry are the only 2 council members who do not participate in the lemmings to the sea behaviour I see. I encourage you to attend City Council meetings, they are eye-openers.
I support our policeman and fireman, however they are highly paid and well compensated. . . in fact we have a police and fire chief that make more than the NYC PD and FD chiefs. Our city doesn’t warrant that level of compensation, it’s ridiculous. Greg instead of kissing but to the city police and fire folks. How about share with us a plan for economic development with high paying jobs? Here are some ideas: In order to get those jobs we have to build up our downtown, get real mass transit, more direct flights, promote transformation of areas like the pearl. Lastly, we have to invest in our education systems, local school districts, UTSA and UIW. This will allow us to further transform our city into a modern smart SA. Our neighbor to the north AUSTIN has figured this out and now has 15k more jobs with a new Apple campus. This could have been SA, and it’s a shame we’re over looked bc the city has a terrible education system, high crime, and a lack of first class city amenities. We need to learn how to play on our strengths (climate, diversity, cyber security, medical, trail system) better and build on our weak points(airport, education, mass transit, cool factor like Barton springs) I was curious why the hot springs wasn’t part of the new park project by mission trail, hot wells park? That would have been so unique to have had a hot spring fed pool and would have been a draw like Barton springs is to austin. There is so much opportunity in SA. I hope we can get it right and not become an Oakland as it is to SF I don’t want us to always be in the shadows of Austin, we should be leading here.
Since GB was for limiting the City Manager’s pay by tying it to the lowest paid city workers’ pay, does he believe it would be fair to limit fire and police insurance benefits to those of the lowest paid city workers? Or do fire and police have more inherent value than regular people? Is GB fine with a petition vote deciding the benefits of fire and police? Surely he believes the public should have the right to decide how much of their taxes go to fire and police?
Yes, fire and police have more inherent value than the “regular people”, because they are willing to take much greater risks to protect us than, for example, a code compliance secretary or receptionist.
Construction workers, utility workers, loggers, fishermen, and a large number of professions have jobs far more dangerous than police and fire. I admire police and fire workers for their courage and for the many difficult things they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. But the facts do not bear out that they should be put on a pedestal above the many Americans that do as or more perilous work. Certainly not to the tune of benefits that they get in San Antonio which will eventually lead to the bankruptcy of the city.
We are talking about City compensation, John. I think they deserve the best we can afford. Period. And I disagree wholeheartedly that the compensation of police and fire is going to bankrupt the City. Perhaps you fell into the whole 66% of the City budget conversation started years ago, but there are some simple facts. Our police and fire account for 65% of the General Fund, which is less than 50% of the entire City budget. First responders in San Antonio range in the 3rd to 4th highest paid in the State. You may have been hung up on an outstanding insurance package, but first responders historically negotiated a top benefit package while forgoing on the compensation side. As a whole, our first responders in total compensation are not the best paid in the State.
All I was saying before was the fact if people want to vote on compensation, go for it. Everywhere these votes happen, first responders win. Frankly, I am good with the public having the final say in anything. Works for me.
Construction workers, utility workers, loggers and fisherman don’t experience even near what firefighters do in terms of cancer rates from exposure. Many of those aren’t counted as Line of Duty Deaths and therefore won’t make it into your neat little statistic.
John, the City Manager has, over the years, systematically decreased city employee benefits to save money. I think we should begin raising their health insurance benefits, both for employee retention and recruitment needs….but mainly because they deserve it.
Do police and fire have more “inherent value”? As persons, of course not. As jobs and duties of danger, yes they do, and as such the complexity and difficulty of the job and life threatening nature deserve the best we can afford.
As for voting on police and fire…as a matter of fact, it was the voters that approved collective bargaining in the first place. That’s the only way the police and fire received their rights to negotiate pay and benefits…from the voters. I would caution you though, police and fire are the number one rated and respected profession in the City. Going after their pay is a losing proposition (no pun intended).
So I take it from your non-responsive response that you oppose voters directly voting on fire and police salaries and benefits? You’re ok with voters bypassing the city council to have their direct say on other matters of city management, but you do not want the voters having a direct say on the amount of salary and benefits fire and police receive. Instead you want intermediaries hashing out the fine details via the collective bargaining process at its fine. Trumpian hypocrisy at its finest.
Not what I said. Go vote on it. I will bet the farm police and fire prevail. They are the highest rated profession in the City. Good luck trying to win that campaign. Collective Bargaining is the best place for those negotiations to happen.
I will let voters make the call on anything. A public vote is fine with me.
Mr. Brockhouse, in my mind you are tainted because of your connection to the fire union leader. He is not as interested in the rank and file firefighter as he is in the power of his position, in my observation.
I don’t believe they will come to the table until they know if you are going to be Mayor, as you want so badly to be. Because, you know…you’re their guy.
If you had/have this wonderful relationship with the union chief, you could have help broker a contract long ago.
Susan, fair points, but I have never hid my relationships and I own it. I have strong relationships with Police and Fire. No shame on my end. I will tell you something important about your comment on the union leader “no as interested in the rank and file firefighter”. Respectfully, you couldn’t be more wrong. These men and women are a family first and foremost…much like it was for me when I was in the military. Chris Steele is the longest service fire union leader in the nation…you don’t get to do that job that long without caring about the rank and file. He is re-elected overwhelmingly every time.
As for a contract, even family disagrees. I have asked them to return and negotiate. I also met with the Mayor’s team early in the tenure and offered to help broker a meeting and solve the impasse…this was well before any petitions…and the Mayor’s team did not take me up on my offer. I was ignored.
Whether or not I run for any election is irrelevant, they need to me negotiate and I have said that publicly.
I hope “charting our future” in upcoming municipal elections in May, includes a critical examination of the city’s adopted SA Tomorrow “vision”, which perpetuates our growing socioeconomic divide. By using its long-held “urban planning” model, focusing on the built environment and measuring “success” in business terms, rather than in human capital/socioeconomic terms, this divide will only continue to worsen.
As such, we will increasingly see rising costs of living, gentrification, displacement and greater burdens upon low-moderate income families, in the race to become a metroplex and “world class” city. Where will you stand at these crossroads? Charting the future begins here.
Fernando, I think we can measure success in both human capital and business terms. There is a balance and I do believe solving some of our socioeconomic issues means partnering with business and working through them, not with them. After all, they pay the wages, they hire the people and they produce the growth. If business feels limited in doing so they retract and that hurts us all. That’s not to say that we roll over and give business all they want. But I have advocated for incentivizing business to re-invest their profits back into wages and benefits, not City Council mandating these requirements.
Frankly, I don’t buy into the leadership by slogan “world class” city talk, nor the “City on the Rise”. I am a back to basics first council member: Jobs, Wages, Rooftops, Public Safety and Infrastructure. I also think expansion and lessening the focus on downtown only will allow many more to join in the growth. I have spent my life growing up on the far Westside and Southside. From what I have seen over decades many are missing out on the City’s support and we can do more.
Just a few quick thoughts while I take down Christmas tree lights…
Let me add this: there are no measurements or adopted agenda to address economic segregation; there is no public official or City Mgr. response to date, no united voice. The city’s only yardstick of success is understood in business terms, via its untouchable, adopted long-range plan. Is this narrow vision still acceptable, or would you modify it to address critical civic objectives not currently being addressed?
The private sector has its part to play in every way possible, but the key point is how does the city, with its financial clout, leverage its power with the private sector to induce greater socioeconomic impacts & outcomes, via a strategic planning process? Your dated model only produces success for private sector outcomes, but not for important public sector outcomes. Hence, you’ll need a socioeconomic framework to address critical public goals — can you garner political support comparable to your long-term, heavy support for the private sector?
The professional planning field is NOT limited to the built environment; this is the only concept the city has held for many, many years — simple, narrow, and very dated for our real needs. Not reflective of “national talent”. Thx.
Article and responses seem open and honest-nice change of pace for a politician. Mr. Brockhouse, I do not know you, but do appreciate your candor and you taking the time to respond to readers. Being a retired military officer, I tend to believe that your efforts are honest and are attempts to break through the “good ole boy” network of city leaders. Your article and responses are the most open I have read on The Rivard Report or for that matter any other media. Telling the truth and fighting for those who need a voice should be a recipe for future successes in your political career. Don’t succumb to the “rub my back and I’ll rub yours” political existence.
P.S. Look into the operations of SAWS as deep as you can. The Vista Ridge project soured my views on that organization and I tend to think information and decisions coming from SAWS management may not be in the best interests of the taxpayer, but I could be wrong.
Thank you, Ken for the words and for your service. I was in the Air Force myself and appreciate all who serve! I always try to respond to people who are, at the very least, fair and respectful. You can go and look at the Facebook posts on this piece and the vitriol is ridiculous…when people can’t be far and argue the facts or opinions, they begin the personal attacks. I don’t respond to people like that.
As for my role on Council, I do tend to be the contrarian and that’s good for me. I am out to change up the system and so far I have been blessed to enjoy my time. My military background taught me to tell it like it is and then part friends. Most in politics or on the social media platforms don’t understand the honor in that.
I have been keeping my team on the SAWS issues. I have consistently voted against their rate increase requests and do see the opportunities to do much better.
Thank you for the comments!
Stay the course. I realize the personal attacks are tough to take. I’ve been the contrarian both in the Air Force and outside and was many times labeled with terms, such as, a “loose cannon” and “not a team player” for trying to do what is right. What is right by law, regulation, or policy and not by my personal opinion of what I thought was right. Those who don’t “go along” to “get along” oftentimes are attacked personally. It is an uncomfortable position, but one taken who values integrity and doing what is right.
Councilman, we disagree on more than a few things (the primordial importance of the AAA bond rating not being one of them; when you speak of ‘mostly privileged San Antonio residents clutch[ing] their pearls over the bond rating “credit score” and the effect on citizens, when the credit score hasn’t done a thing for the people who need the help the most,’ I agree wholeheartedly), but my word — it is refreshing to see someone engage the public like this. When you inevitably run against the incumbent who this site likes to consider the second coming of John F Kennedy, I hope this interfacing continues.
My folks on my team think I am on the the commentary too much! Ha! But I believe it is the new “field office”. I want to engage and learn a little too. I do not like the personal attacks though and there are many because at the end of the day, we all want the best, we just see a different path. Doesn’t make me the devil or someone else wrong. That’s the point with these Amendments. They passed. Overwhelmingly in the case of Prop B. For people to attack and demean over a public vote, which is the best scoreboard you can ask for, is wrong and I think if we gave each other a little more credit, San Antonio would be better for it!
I see Greg has still yet to mention anything about economic development as someone posted earlier. Where is the discussion about getting high paying smart jobs? Why didn’t the city even try for Amazon? Did we even attempt to get the Apple jobs? I love how the councilman is making the issue on city pay for firefighters. Keeps touring the voters said this and I agree we need to solve it. But that’s not the biggest issue this city faces. How About change the narrative to economic development and raising education standards in the city? Will someone in the media press this guy and Ron on things like this that really matter to the average everyday SanAntonian? Greg all of your comments so far go back to somehow patronizing city employees because they put on a badge or sit in the fire dept. In fact being a policeman or fireman is safer than being a roofer. Yet we love to tout how much this person puts their life on the line. They choose to do this job and it’s not as dangerous as you make it out to be.
I’m not saying the job doesn’t warrant great health benefits or pay. But i also know we can’t bankrupt and make promises the city cannot keep. . .passing the buck to the next generation. San Antonio already offers some of the nations top Pay and health benefits for policeman and firefighters. So for the readers and for Greg because he apparently needs further education this area.
Please educate yourself:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6373798/amp
The fact is: being a policeman is not one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, according to statistics from the Bureau of Labor.
In five years, 2008 to 2012, only one policeman was killed by a firearm in the line of duty in New York City. Police officers are many times more likely to commit suicide than to be killed by a criminal; nine NYC policemen attempted to take their own lives in 2012, alone. Eight succeeded. In 2013, eight NYPD officers attempted suicide, while six succeeded. If police want to protect themselves, a wise move might be to invest in psychiatric counseling, rather than increased firepower.
The 10 Deadliest Jobs: Deaths per 100,000
1. Logging workers: 128.8
2. Fishers and related fishing workers: 117
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers: 53.4
4. Roofers: 40.5
5. Structural iron and steel workers: 37
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors: 27.1
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers: 23
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers: 22.1
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers: 21.3
10. Construction laborers: 17.4
Hey Jim, sorry, but ended up getting swamped with Christmas tree lights and deco takedown. We are off for a couple of weeks at City Hall and my wife and I have a ton of stuff we needed to catch up on. Also, in my reply to a lot of these comments, I missed the question on the economic development.
First I don’t believe I am patronizing City employees. I believe police and fire deserve the best we can offer. Period. However, I was the only Councilmember to raise during the last budget cycle the need to raise City employee COLA and benefits. I felt like the average City employee deserved more and I fought for it. Unfortunately, the City Manager disagreed and only a couple other Members wanted to pursue raising COLA to an acceptable level. I always had heartache how our City Manager receives 15-20% raises and the regular employee is luck to bet 1-3%. So, I believe my track record on that shows support for all City employees.
As for economic development, we have to really examine out strategy. I supported and publicly called the Mayor out for the lame response to Amazon. We should have at least tried…regardless of the outcome, the exercise would have taught us a lot about our opportunities. Same for Apple. We have a giant, anti-business sign, hanging at City Hall. We over regulate, over fee, and try to pass off our costs for our City programs onto the back of business. We have no small business strategy development strategy either. Last year, I forwarded a Council Consideration Request to expand our incentives to small and medium sized businesses. That led to the City review of all incentive programs. Again, my track record shows a push to enhance business opportunities. Small business is the one hiring a bulk of our employees and we should be incentivizing them to hire. I believe need to attract business to SA, but retention and growth of our existing crop of employers is just as important.
I think we need to consider using all our tools in the arsenal to get jobs moving and growing. Quick thoughts: incentivize local hiring and expansion with fee waivers and micro tax abatements. Remove the roadblocks from our DSD department and waive fees for hiring and for benefit enhancement. I like the idea of pushing the living wage with incentives, not mandates. Also, workforce development educational support, but coupled with a transit/mobility option to get people to these schools. We also need to realize that people want to live in areas that are the best choices for them…not for government. I don’t fear sprawl, but most at City Hall want the growth downtown or in the center core. Sorry, but the vast majority of folks don’t want to live there, they don’t want to educate their kids there, and they don’t want to work there. That’s not an indictment of downtown, in so much as its a reality of how people want to live their lives without government intervention wherever possible.
Ok, this is a long response, but I wanted to hop on and say a few things.
Happy New Year!
Greg, your many responses to these comments, and I have only glanced over a few, suggests maybe a lack of confidence. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? If your commentary is solid, you should feel confident in it and not try to justify, defend, or further elaborate your point. As you state “..own it”.
Well Guillermo…quite the opposite. I stand firmly in my beliefs. But, I have always believed, if I put something out there and the public takes their time to answer or comment, respectfully, then I owe them my time as well. I will always comment and I almost always do. Some folks will try to have it both ways…attack for no responses and a lack of engagement, but then when engagement happens, decry the fact I am justifying. I don’t play those games. I say what I think, believe it and always engage the public….of course, only when they are respectful and fair. I just believe that is my job…be present and stand by my words.
I’ve no problem paying appropriate salaries to our police and firemen…However, I can’t for the life of me believe that they warrant full health benefits for themselves AND their entire family for life on our backs. I don’t necessarily feel safer because I’m paying for a fireman’s child’s braces…or their legal fees for divorces, etc…not just for the employee but for their entire family. And does this go on for life? or just while employed. (My fear is the former) Show me any other company or corporation that pays 100% health and legal benefits for the employee AND their family member.
I like how Brockhouse keeps saying we should pay the firefighters “the best we can offer” but supported reducing the CM’s pay to a ridiculously low number for a city our size. What a hypocrite.