Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > United States City Forums > Texas > San Marcos
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 11-15-2007, 10:18 PM  
Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 35 | Kudos: +10
Let's Clear this up

So, you all think the Jude Prather campaign was ran dirty? Why? Because we used negative ads? We used previous voting records to come up with examples on why we believed someone shouldn't be in office? Because we scared the crap out of you by nearly pulling off the an upset? How about the OTHER side of the election. Our signs were stolen by someone (not us, Brete), people from the Bose camp told voters that Jude was a big supporter of changing the SF-6 zoning laws (which Jude repeatedly say he would not do as a city councilmen), they told voters that Jude was pushing to keep the bars open later (which Jude again repeatedly said he would not initiate as a city councilmen), and WE ARE THE LIARS?
Where's the difference here? We took information and used it to our advantage JUST LIKE THEY DID. Yet, the people from their camp (Norton, Immis) are saying that we ran a dirty campaign. While you're busy ignoring answering these questions, why don't you ignore this one, too: Who was it looking through Mat Golding's apartment window the night before the election that got freaked out when I spotted him? Looked like a familiar white older man with a goatee.....
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 10:28 PM  
Senior Member

San Marcos
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 486 | Kudos: +1
Just to throw my 2 cents in, as someone who had nothing to do with either campaign, neither made me particularly proud to be a citizen of San Marcos or particularly excited about my options.

It sure would have been nice to hear Jude's position on the SF-6 zoning here, since that is a huge concern for me. It would have meant a lot more than the insinuations about some audit of the prison in Kyle.

Live and learn.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 10:43 PM  
Member

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 98 | Kudos: +10
semi-native. At the CONA debate, Jude Prather went out of his way to say something to effect of, "Look me in the eye. I will not vote to overturn SF-6 residency restrictions as a city council member." I'm sorry but I do not remember your asking that question during our earlier discussions or I would have told you that then. You would think some of the neighborhod associations might have mentioned it when they were trying to misappropriate the Sierra Circle neighborhoods' valid concerns to rush through "Marshal" Ken Bell's landlord licensing and inspections regime.

I can accept that you found the tone of both sides disturbing; I think that is a fair criticism. I cannot accept some of the pygmies all sanctimonious with fake indignation about the negative campaign when they, as I've said, retained power for a long time through wedge issues and the politics of division.

I am learning from this experience but I have some educating to do too.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 10:57 PM  
Senior Member

San Marcos
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 486 | Kudos: +1
I didn't ask about SF-6 specifically. Frankly, I can't see how it would ever be changed anyway, especially given the difficulty we have in getting anyone to buy residential property in this town.

I did ask about Sagewood and the problems between renters and owners, but the only reply was the article Jude wrote about Sagewood. I just didn't get any sense of his position or plan from that and frankly, I was left with the impression that he did not support the property owners, but did not want to lose votes by taking a position.

It appears that this was an inaccurate interpretation, but what would you think, if you were a property owner, dealing directly with this issue daily and you were looking at a candidate who a) was a student and running with this as a primary selling point (given that it has been largely students who have vocally opposed property owners - take for example the poll one student linked to here, asking if SF-6 discriminates against students), b) was opposed to the only solution currently on the table and c) offered no other solution?

I'm just telling you how it sounded to me. To lose by three votes and have at least two people (my wife and myself) unclear about such a critical issue is unfortunate, to be sure. That strong statement about SF-6 would have at least let me know that he supported us. The fact that he is a homeowner didn't cut it. We've had student "homeowners" in our neighborhood before and they were worse than the renters.

If he had talked about the importance of single-family neighborhoods and how to get some peace between the renters and the owners, that's what we needed to hear. Maybe he talked about it elsewhere. I never could catch a replay of the debate. I have Grande and I am not sure it was ever on with them.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 11:08 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 226 | Kudos: +0
Now I am confused. I have had people wrongly assume I was involved with the Bose campaign tell me that equalvoice was Matt Golding (even though sorry guys) I had no idea who Matt Golding was until they told me ran the Prather camapign. Were Immis and Norton with the Bose campaign? How about it guys? Someone who was with the Bose campaign emailed me and asked if I knew who Norton was, still don't. The Prather campaign folks have been pretty up front about the posters who were with the campaign. Who on here that was posting was with Bose's campaign in the interest of knowing who we have been reading from?
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 11:10 PM  
Member

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 76 | Kudos: +10
Exactly why was is so hard for someone from the Prather campaign to say what his stances on the issues was? Semi, myself, and others made it clear that was what we were looking for. I didn't see anything until the weekend before the election (after I had already voted, on the last day of early voting). Both Bose and Prather turned me off. Not just with the tactics, but with each of their personalities. At this time, I don't have the energy to determine if either campaign was lying. I do know that I get suspicious of a campaign that comes on a public forum, refuses to take a stance on anything, and spends their time slinging mud on their opponent.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 11:13 PM  
Senior Member

San Marcos
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 486 | Kudos: +1
Yeah, I asked the same question earlier. I was hammering one of the Prather guys for answers and was asked why I wasn't asking the Bose people the same questions. The tone of the message was that they were on here, but nobody ever fessed up.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 11:16 PM  
Senior Member

San Marcos
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 486 | Kudos: +1
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljefe View Post
I do know that I get suspicious of a campaign that comes on a public forum, refuses to take a stance on anything, and spends their time slinging mud on their opponent.

That and I was really put off by the insinuations that my comments and questions were invalid because I didn't post my real name. I'm not the one running for office and I don't need the people I might be voting for, putting me on trial. The whole thing was pretty unpleasant.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 11:20 PM  
Member

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 98 | Kudos: +10
I do regret not arguing in more substantive terms. I could have "leaked" the audit info and raised those questions anonymously but wanted to be upfront and transparent about it. I tried to do so in a way that addressed why I thought it was important to people making a decision but did not have the audit itself so could only do it in question form. In my mind, a race against an incumbent is always about whether the incumbent has served the city well and proved himself worthy of service. My judgment on that may have hurt Jude, but I hope it made people thing twice about Gaylord as well.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2007, 11:27 PM  
Senior Member

San Marcos
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 486 | Kudos: +1
Well, it is no secret that the renter/owner issue is hot for both sides and that we all agree it has not been fixed (i.e. Bose is not doing his job). Some new ideas would have gone a long way.

As it was, I felt I had to choose between someone who couldn't fix my problem and someone who couldn't see my problem and thought that I was part of a vocal minority who was causing the city to spend all kinds of money on "pet projects".

The audit means nothing in comparison.

I pay about $5000 in property taxes each year and some of that goes to the city, but not all. I estimate that the renter/owner issue is costing me twice that in stagnating property values each year and the quality of life cost can't be measured.

If you ask me which I am more concerned about, the portion of my $5000 that is being wasted or the fact that I feel trapped in this house (the house we fell in love with not too long ago), it's no contest. I already assume that most of my taxes are being wasted and misused.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > United States City Forums > Texas > San Marcos
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.