Comments on: Tightened candidate residency requirement survives first council discussion

By: Apache Fog

Apache Fog — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:18:31 +0000

I don’t see how having paid taxes is a qualifier for participation in the political process. Some don’t vote, some only vote and some make the ultimate sacrifice and serve in office. Thank you Kathy for your service. To me, participation is more about affecting the future. If the city governemt handles an annexation appropriately they need not worry about the spectre of a cabal of de-annexation candidates taking over the process. By the way, I acknowledge that I have forfeited my right to complain because I never attended a single charter meeting. I imagine the amendment will carry and with very little downside.

By: Kathy M.Morris

Kathy M.Morris — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:51:01 +0000

To clarify the proposed change to the Charter regarding council candidacy and the one year residency requirement— The intent is to require a one year residency for ALL council candidates. Currently, newly annexed residents may satisfy the residency requirement, to file for office, by combining their non-city residency with their new city residency -to equal one year. They will not have paid taxes for a full year like current city residents. This proposal makes it equitible for all residents within the city limits and has nothing to do with speculation of annexation.
This charter change does not disenfranchise anyone. Any citizen who has lived in the corporate city limits, for one full year, would be eligible to put their name on the ballot.

By: Apache Fog

Apache Fog — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:52:32 +0000

It smells like a first step in an anticipated annexation bid. And some housekeeping to prevent what happened in the south San Marcos annexation. If the city wants to annex Country Estates (for example, not that I’ve heard anyone propose it) they need to come up with a very generous service plan, save some money for it and give the new citizens something for their money. Examples would be new roads, security lighting, sewer system available but not forced on anyone, fire substation and parks. It’s possible to create a voting district comprised of the area to be annexed. To disenfranchise a new citizen seems wrong to me. To imagine another protracted battle over de-annexation sends shivers down my spine.

By: Ted Marchut

Ted Marchut — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:23:35 +0000

I must be missing something. I am happily ignorant about some of the details of the inner workings of government, but it seems like anyone living in a recently annexed neighborhood, who happens to be on City Council (or mayor) should have to recuse themselves from any discussions of deannexation of that same neighborhood.

If so, what is the point of the debate? Anyone in town, whether they have been here 50 years or were annexed last week, ought to be able to run for office.

Clearly more went on. I have to admit that I had my own conflict of interest, which forced me to ignore the deannexation debacle whenever possible.

Looking back, it is very strange to me that people elected from that neighborhood were allowed to participate in the discussions at all (maybe they weren’t). It also seems strange that Bill Taylor, who was one of the Council members that the folks in Willow Creek got elected, now says it is a bad idea to let people from recently annexed neighborhoods run for office.

There are more details somewhere. It would be great to see them.

By: J.T.

J.T. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:39:14 +0000

Residency should be based off of how long you have lived at your current address. It seems undemocratic that people can be annexed and thus considered to be living at a “new residence”. I hope someone fights this decision.