City Manager Raise Was Premature

It seems as if every El Paso blogger has had something to say about the City Manager's pay raise. I wanted to think through that issue before weighing in. Here goes:

I agree with David Karlsruher that the city manager's performance review and compensation does not belong in the public arena. Mr. Tommy Gonzalez is an employee and has a right to have such matters discussed in private by our elected Representatives. I further agree with David that, if we don't like Council members' decision, we can recall them or just not re-elect them. (Recalling a city council representative is just about numerically impossible unless, of course, you have a mega-church with an entranced audience.)

There's a "but" here as you might suspect. BUT what should be a matter of public discussion is what the Council finally decided to do. Because Mr. Gonzalez is unarguably the most important city employee, his salary increase by Council becomes a matter for public discussion and debate. I had already decided to vote against raising council salaries before they pulled the proposal from the city charter election. Higher salaries aren't what entice good people to run - big money in El Paso guarantees who gets elected. Just look at Niland, Noe and Romero. With Council's premature decision about Tommy's salary, they spent their salary increases. 

Why do I say that the salary increase is premature? I speak as an environmental activist as well as a taxpaying citizen.

First, Mr. Gonzalez's goals for the City (and they are his goals de facto and not those of Council and certainly not those of El Pasoans) have nothing to say about the environment, open space, conservation, ecosystems, etc. "Attractiveness" is not the same thing as controlling sprawl, being cognizant of the scarce resource of water, protecting the beauty of our mountains, desert and wetlands, and providing trailheads, parks, connectivity and open space for recreation.

Mr. Gonzalez's staff met with members of the West Texas Urban Forestry Council Board. Most of them were the authors of our city's Tree Care Manual, our approved tree list, and (when it was a reality) our Tree Board - a now defunct and forgotten "sub-committee" of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. In spite of the seeming enthusiasm of the City Manager's staff, nothing has been done other than shuffling the organizational chart and re-assigning the City Arborist, a good step for sure. The promised consultations, the resurrection of the Tree Board and following the Tree Manual have not come to fruition.

I understand that Mr. Gonzalez inherited some problems. On the other hand, he has had one year to make a difference on some projects. The destruction/reconstruction of the San Jacinto Plaza Park is a good example. While on this topic, let us recall that Tommy Gonzalez readily ordered taking down El Pasoan's treasured holiday Christmas tree until this blog started a public outcry. Niland didn't like the shape. She said "jump" to Tommy and he asked "how high". 

This jumping is another matter that concerns me because we've seen it in other cases. Gonzalez seems to be impulsive and this characteristic may be the biggest concern.

It has been argued that we would lose our City Manager if we didn't offer him a salary commensurate to other larger cities in Texas. Yes, but, those salaries go to full-time employees. Full time. When Council raised his salary, they also gave him more vacation time. He will not use that "vacation" time to take the kids to Hawaii; he will use that "vacation" time to do more paid consulting work. In other words, we have a part-time city manager who is also a part-time paid consultant. The City Manager should give up his consulting work and become the full-time City Manager of El Paso, Texas. Then let's talk about a commensurate salary.

Finally, I don't believe the financial numbers. I don't believe that the city is doing as well as Gonzalez claims. If so, instead of raising our onerous property taxes, why doesn't Council cut them? Hmmm?

Gonzalez may eventually deserve a higher salary. End the consulting, be less impulsive, be more transparent, listen to tree experts and don't just dictate planting larger trees in smaller spaces, and care about environmentalism - then and only then should he be up for the raise.

Council should be held accountable in the arena of public debate. I wouldn't not support a council person for election on the basis of one issue. However, when it comes to next budget time when they do seek public input, they each better listen carefully. I hope that they hear now that the raise was premature.

Xeriscape Don't "Zero-scape" Fort Bliss Cemetery

This is not xeriscaping.

This is.

Tomorrow City Council will discuss and vote on a resolution which urges Fort Bliss to replace the "xeriscaping" at the national cemetery with grass. The resolution (Item 10.1 on the agenda) is at the request of Rep. Beto O'Rourke and is sponsored by Niland, Noe and Romero. 

elpasonaturally is a big fan of Beto O'Rourke however must part with him on this one as it did on his recent vote against support for Israel. 

The chief problem with the resolution is the false belief held by most of El Paso that the cemetery or anything like it is xeriscaping. Merely throwing red rock screening on the ground (and abetting the destruction of our mountains at the same time) is not xeriscaping. The Texas Master Gardeners, part of the Texas AgriLife Extension, says: 

"Xeriscape means dry landscaping - perfect for an area like the desert. Xeriscape creates a visually attractive landscape that uses native plants selected for their water efficiency. Properly installed and maintained, a Xeriscape can use less than one-half the water of a traditional landscape and require less maintenance than a landscape that is primarily lawn." [Emphases mine.]

Read the Master Gardener page about xeriscape and take a look at the posted picture. Visit Eartheasy xeriscape page and see the picture and look over the plant selection. Best thing: visit the Chihuahuan Desert Gardens at the UTEP Centennial Museum and/or the El Paso Desert Botanical Garden at Keystone Heritage Park.

Finally, read this open letter from Marshall Carter-Tripp urging the xeriscaping of the cemetary not the zero-scaping that now exists nor its replacement with water-thirsty grass: 

Restoring Grass at Fort Bliss Cemetery?

"The El Paso Times reports that the El Paso City Council will consider tomorrow a resolution urging that grass be restored to the Fort Bliss cemetery, at the request of Representative O’Rourke.

"El Paso and Fort Bliss are located in the mountainous Chihuahuan Desert, and moreover are experiencing long-term drought.  The Rio “Grande” is empty a good part of the year.   While the PSB assures us that we will continue to have a safe water supply, it is also “mining” the underlying aquifer for that supply.   The cemetery was using some 62 million gallons of water a year to maintain the grass.  What kind of message would it send to resume pumping that much water for grass?   Arlington National Cemetery is cited as having grass.  It is located in the Washington, D.C area, which receives over 40 inches of rain a year, more than four times as much as do El Paso and Fort Bliss.  Water use is not an issue there!

"The real problem with the cemetery at Fort Bliss appears to be inadequate xeriscaping.  Xeriscaping does NOT mean just sand and gravel, more correctly called “zero-scaping.”  Landscaping with native plants and other drought-tolerant plants can be very beautiful Perhaps if the Fort Bliss authorities visited the Chihuahuan Desert Gardens at UITEP, or the gardens at Keystone, they might get some sense of what can be done. The West Texas Urban Forestry Council would help plan for better tree cover, and there is much expertise in the El Paso Native Plant Society.   Trees will help reduce water use even if grass is restored.

"The remarks quoted in the Times’ report suggest that the only standard of beauty is grass.  Should we call it the “Downton Abbey rule?”   Why must respect for the dead be measured in blades of grass?

"My spouse is a military veteran.  He will not be buried at Fort Bliss, as he is donating his body to the Texas Tech medical school.   Even if he were there, he would not be less at rest under a desert willow rather than grass!  Should I survive him, my grief would not be diminished by grass, and I would in fact regret the misuse of water and energy to maintain that grass.   We have no grass in our own yard  - but it is full of beautiful plants at all seasons.   

"Let us honor the dead, and their families, by respecting the beauty of our own landscape, and by respecting the need to conserve water for the generations to come." - Marshall Carter Tripp

Let us hope that City Council will change its resolution and urge Ft. Bliss officials truly to xeriscape the cemetery and not use just gravel or replace gravel with water and maintenance intensive grass.

Sprawlers' Agenda Revealed

Sprawl results in blight such as this in Central El Paso and burdensome property taxes but not prosperity.

City Council voted unanimously today to postpone raising impact fees for a year. Their vote followed a revelation by the Mayor that he had spoken with the CEO of the EPWU, John Balliew, and builders. Balliew apparently indicated in private conversations what he stated today: the EPWU's budget is set for the year and funding for the water plants would not be necessary for a year. Balliew also stated that there would not be a rate increase as the result of postponing the impact fees. There was some discussion at Council that perhaps the recent passage of Proposition 6 in the State of Texas might mean some money for water infrastructure here in El Paso.

Certainly I appreciate the Mayor's efforts behind the scenes so to speak. On the other hand, he (and El Paso) would benefit more from the expertise from City Planning. The introduction of the ordinance should have come from Planning Director, Matthew McElroy. Instead, the Mayor interrupted Mr. McElroy and had Mr. Balliew come to the podium in order to circumvent (and I'm not using this word pejoratively) the original proposal to raise the fees and, instead, to explore postponing the fees.

Dr. Noe stated that he understood that impact fees is a matter of fairness: you use something, you pay for it; you don't, you don't. However, he also stated that to have infill there had to be incentives. When I addressed Council I agreed with him about incentivizing infill projects. What concerns me is that by  "incentives" he and others mean doing away with Smart Growth and shelving Plan El Paso - the very Master Plan that sprawlers hate. (I would look for incentives in terms of reducing permit fees and hook-up fees from EPWU.) In fact, as I expressed to Council, I hope that, during this coming year, that the City will pay for an independent study to verify whether we have grown and can continue to grow ourselves to prosperity. Study after study across the nation shows that sprawling does not pay for itself but rather is a drag on the economy of a municipality. In the case of El Paso, sprawl puts the burden on the property owner with burdensome property taxes - especially the low to middle/low income families who are in a majority in El Paso. It wouldn't hurt for the City to find out for sure about growth, sprawl and prosperity.

By the 1950's El Paso was the leading city in the southwest. It occupied just 25 square miles of land - a modest growth from its beginnings with 8 square miles. With the advent of the automobile, the freeway, and the suburban model of development, El Paso today occupies 260 square miles and is one of the poorest cities in the country. Certainly, it is not the leader in the southwest or Texas. Sprawl has not brought prosperity. It has brought burdensome property taxes and increasing blight.

The agenda of the sprawlers became obvious today. They loathe impact fees and hope that a State proposition will soothe the unfairness of putting the burden on ratepayers. They want no impact fees. Moreover, they want to abolish Smart Growth and they want to rezone the Northwest and Northeast master plans so that there are no smart growth requirements. Unfortunately they own this current City Council and may succeed with their agenda.

I do hope that a study about sprawl and prosperity can be conducted during this coming year. The downside to my proposal is that the Council can always cherry pick a consultant who will tell them what they want to hear - sprawl makes us more prosperous; build, build, build to your greedy heart's content, Mr. Sprawler. The builders control CIAC which will continue to advise against impact fees. Surprise. Surprise.

One hopes that the Mayor will listen to good scientific data about sustainable growth. There are very knowledgeable people here in El Paso who can help him: people from Eco El Paso, people already in city government in Planning and Sustainability. They need a place at the table as well. My guess is that, just like the stakeholder meetings that were held for selecting a new City Manager, there will be no one with environmental engineering and planning expertise and what gets done will be mere window dressing. The real decisions will be behind closed doors - Mayor with John Balliew and with builders and the chit chat of Representatives outside of City Council.

It's not good.

Noe No Friend of Conservationists

"They're aligned with Tolbert. That means they like natural open space and protecting little animals. Let's sprawl them! Muahaha!"

David K. shared one of the emails he received as a result of an Open Records Request. It clearly shows that City Council District 5 Representative, Dr. Michiel Noe, is no friend of conservationists:

Noe Email 

The petition, of course, is the one currently in circulation to preserve land north of Transmountain on both sides of the Franklins. 

We shouldn't be surprised by his unfriendly stance toward green. The highest contributors to his 2011 campaign included:

Sun City Properties $7,200 total

Melcan Ltd.  $1,500

Randal O'Leary $1,500 total

Doug Schwartz $1,000

Assoc. of Builders $1,000

Gerald Rubin $1,000

Scott Schwartz $1,000

Dr. Noe is bought and paid for as they say.