Blog
 
Gravatar

.

Upper left: David Gibbons, Anita Goebel, BJ Williams
Lower left: Rich Aubin, Robert Vera, Scott LeMay 

It looks like Garland will be stuck with all of them, even Anita, until May 2018

Although Garland’s City Charter does allow for citizens to recall errant City Council members, it would appear that state law restricts communities from holding special elections to replace them.  In the case of Council member Goebel, her term limit is reached in May and she could not run for re-election anyway.

Considering her penchant for ignoring voters and more or less following the “Anita Knows Best” strategy, I sincerely doubt that Ms. Goebel will be swayed by the fact that more than four times the number of citizens in her district who elected her voted to recall her (and many of these were people who had voted for her in the first place). She and five other members of the Garland City Council obviously don’t listen to the voters of Garland.

On the other hand, if citizens in Rich Aubin’s district decide to recall him and if they are successful in gathering the required 800 votes for recall, Mr. Aubin’s political ambitions would end in May of 2018.  He would not be able {could still] to run for office [but his chances of winning would be slim to none].  The same could be said for Mr. David Gibbons. Note: copy in brackets was added subsequent to the publication date of this post to replace crossed-out copy.

 

______________________________________________________

Here are a Few Verifiable Facts to Leave You With From this Garland Story--the end of which will be written by the voters in May of 2018

 

1.  These six City Council members (Anita Goebel, Rich Aubin, David Gibbons, BJ Williams, Scott LeMay and Robert Vera) did NOT save taxpayers money as their current spin would have it:

  • They have spent $47,000 dollars of taxpayer money so far in demolition expenses of the Armory and this expense is not over.  This demolition expense only covered the cost of the walls of the building—not the foundation.  It is estimated that the removal of the foundation will bring the cost up to [at least cost another] $120,000 dollars [which is the amount of one quote for demolishing the building along with the foundation.  However, many folks believe the cost for finishing the job and removing the foundation will exceed $120,000 due to its sturdy build.  In addition, in their rash haste to demolish the building, the heavy equipment, along with the falling debris likely disturbed the ground  where it is reported there is at least one underground tank storing spent petroleum products from the days when the property was used as an armory.]  Note: copy in brackets was added subsequent to the publication date of this post.

    This is particularly egregious considering the building was suitable for adaptive reuse and had a roof as I understand that was still under warranty.   A nonprofit wanted to take this building at no expense to taxpayers, bring it up to code, and use it for a Garland Makerspace.  This group, the Garland Makerspace Discovery Group, had already engaged a group of certified inspectors who determined that for $500,000 we could have the building up to code and transform in to a usable space for our community.

  • In addition, the decision to locate the dog and skate park at this location required the removal of a Little League baseball field.  How much will that cost taxpayers to build another one?

    These six City Council members sure have a funny way of "saving" taxpayer money. We can only hope that we don't experience too many more of their "cost-cutting" measures prior to May 2018.

2.  These six City Council members (Anita Goebel, Rich Aubin, David Gibbons, BJ Williams, Scott LeMay and Robert Vera) do not pay one bit of attention to the voices of the people they are supposed to represent.

  • Prior to voting to demolish the armory, comments and signatures of over 200 Garland citizens were placed on each of their desks.  They knew at that point that over 200 citizens were against demolishing the armory. Source: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/city-council-stop-study-plans-for-central-park

  • Yet this information did not even slow them down in their rush to do what they wanted to do.  They didn’t stop for a moment.  In their purposeful obfuscation they seem stuck on saying that they didn't hurry because it's been 14 years since the dog park bond was passed.  That timeline has little to nothing to do with their recent actions to jam through legislation in less than two months to install a dog and skate park in Central Park against the the wishes of literally hundreds of Garland citizens.

  • Now we will likely see another example of this disdain for voters in the behavior of Anita Goebel.  Even though our City Charter does recommend the council member resign in the face of a recall vote by the majority in a district, don’t hold your breath for Ms. Goebel to step down.  It's obviously not in her character to yield to the wishes of the majority.

3.  These six City Council members (Anita Goebel, Rich Aubin, David Gibbons, BJ Williams, Scott LeMay and Robert Vera) apparently feel perfectly comfortable with making recommendations they are not qualified to make.

  • At a September 5 City Council Work Session they presented criteria to the Parks and Recreation department for a Dog and Skate Park at Central Park—despite the fact that not a single one of them hold a degree in park planning and despite the fact that the Parks and Recreation Board had rejected Central Park as a location for a dog and skate park less than a year prior.  These City Council members chose Central Park as the site because they knew better?  How is that?

4.  These six City Council members (Anita Goebel, Rich Aubin, David Gibbons, BJ Williams, Scott LeMay and Robert Vera) apparently feel perfectly comfortable disregarding the protocol that has been established to maintain the checks and balances of our local government.

  • These plans for the dog and skate park drawn up by members of the Parks and Recreation Department were not presented to and reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Board prior to their presentation to the City Council.    All members of the City Council as well as the Parks and Recreation staff as well as the Assistant City Manager Rick Vasquez are well aware of this process—yet they all ignored it.  In fact, Mr. Rich Aubin called me a disgrace to the park board when I had the nerve to point out to the council in a City Council meeting that they had totally disregarded the checks and balances for our local government. 

    Two members of the Parks and Recreation Board resigned because of the behavior of these City Council members.
Recognize 2489 Views