Either Mayor Ron Nirenberg or Councilman Greg Brockhouse (D6) will be mayor of San Antonio for the next two years after the polls close and votes are tallied on election night, June 8. It’s been a rancorous campaign season, and voters have a clear choice between the two.
Here’s a simplified breakdown of their similarities and differences on policy matters. Click links within these descriptions of their stances to read more about the issues.
To find out more about the candidates from their campaigns visit www.voteron.com and www.gregbrockhouse.com.
Public Safety
Attention: The internal data of table “4” is corrupted!
Public Safety Unions
Attention: The internal data of table “5” is corrupted!
I do appreciate this article. I am a supporter of the Mayor’s re-election and hope this article points out many of Mr. Brockhouse’s deficiencies. It will always be difficult to find funds to pay the city’s First Defender’s appropriately. Perhaps Mr. Brockhouse has a magic wand to increase the available funds. Otherwise any tax decreases he might favor would only decrease the ability of the city to address the needs of both the police and fire.
I can’t help notice that most of RN’s accomplishments are ‘plans’ without any results.
…is it our weak-mayor city government that can’t get the job done?
…or is it our weak mayor?
You will blame a “weak mayor” when it’s the mayor you don’t want in office
When it’s your mayor that can’t accomplish anything, then it’s the weakness of the government structure
Pretty predictable mental gymnastics
What are you basing your “pretty predictable mental gymnastics” comment on? Or is it because Ron is your guy?
There is weakness in Ron. Sorry.
Exactly what I was thinking. Lots of “plans” and pricey committee’s, but then often ignores what citizen input says
I would LOVE for someone to take a hard look at the property APPRAISAL process. For the APPRAISED value of my home to more than triple in 18 years is rediculous. Then, share that hard look with property owners.
Agreed. Too many behind the scenes deals/decisions made by the shadow govt of city non-profits, task forces/working groups,etc of city insiders. If RN is re-elected this governance/and the taxes for it -will hurt all but the wealthiest citizens…in a city where the median income is $48,000ish. The fact that the city has a mitigation fund to help those who are being taxed out of their homes shows the policies-including tax abatements to developers-that drive the agenda…and it’s not an agenda that has the average, tax paying, home owning citizen in mind.
Don’t be fooled…the plans come with a price tag that they won’t discuss before the election—taxpayer beware!!
“For the APPRAISED value of my home to more than triple in 18 years is ridiculous”
This doesn’t seem ridiculous at all. In lots of parts of town the market values have more than tripled, and even just to keep up with inflation would have required about a 50% increase in the last 18 years.
If people want lower property tax appraisals, they should talk to the state about establishing an income tax, getting rid of ineffective homestead exemptions, and allowing cities to set their own sales taxes. Or vote for Brockhouse’s magic wand and then complain when the appraised values go up and services crumble.
I couldn’t agree more. I have an MS in Carbon Management and was a climate researcher at the University level for four years so I know there is no substance to RN’s climate plan. It is merely posturing, pandering, and would not effect any meaningful reductions in carbon emissions from transportation.
The mayor did not VOTE against CFA bc it is closed on Sunday. He used the closed on Sunday /local company preference reasons AFTER national blowback on the vote. It is dishonest to present it as you did in this article. Further, the mayor should have known the legal and fair process that made CFA a contender. He could have remedied that on the second vote-initiated by Brockhouse, but chose not to. That is not leadership. Own the vote and correct it when given the chance-that is leadership.
Actually it’s dishonest to pretend you know why any of the council members voted unless they specifically told you.
It’s also curious that more people don’t support putting more local businesses into the airport; there aren’t that many outlets available.
Are you kidding? We know bc of the reasons Treviño gave for the vote…that is what they voted on publicly. What goes on in their heads isn’t my concern..but they did in fact vote on Trevino’s proposal-if they had other thoughts or doubts they should have expressed them.
As for local businesses-most people I know who travel and have to eat in airports actually prefer places they can depend on. Local eateries at the airport are not well known by travelers and you take your chances…plus they are usually slow and not nearly as good as the off airport venues. They are never as crowded as well known eateries. IMO based on experience.
Actually Anne they voted on a contract that didn’t include Chick-Fil-A. They didn’t vote on whether or not the company should be removed for any particular reason.
You make a fair point on local eateries.
Wrong. They voted to remove an already vetted business per the RFP based on the objection of Trevino; council and mayor voted to approve the removal of CFA for consideration of a franchise at the airport based on Trevino’s objection of what charities the owner of CFA donated his personal funds to including Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes. There was no contract …CFA was removed from consideration after going through the process the city required based on criteria not applied to other applicants and not part of the RFP, but rather the objection of a single councilman.
When the mayor has a majority of CC and the city manager with him and still accomplished nothing…that is weakness…not mental gymnastics.
The only accomplishments this Mayor has are having done business behind close doors!! From CFA, RNC, Amazon, paid sick leave, the statue, moving the Christmas tree from in front of the Alamo, and one that has NEVER been brought up which is unbelievable is the reimagine Alamo! when you have accomplishments like that its no wonder you have to go dirty on the other candidate because you can’t run on the last 2 years which has been a total failure. I still do not understand how he can say crime has gone down in SA? Just look on the East and West sides where most of the murders have occurred. Rivard Report why are you not reporting on those issues that I have posted? looking forward for a response, but I doubt I will get one!
I have read this twice. It is a seriously biased piece. I was expecting an article with just the facts and no particular opinion. Not what I had in mind.