Saturday, April 08, 2006
League City - Comment about the Mike Lee / Tommy Cones City Council race
This comment from a League City resident came in last week, but may have been missed by all the Tom Delay coverage. Here is my response and the comment:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DaisyGirl
I think Mr. Hallisey’s response was more than “a bit” strong and is a prime example of what's wrong with League City politics.
In terms of Mr. Lee, I concur with you that Mr. Lee is very likeable and personable. He is well-spoken with a professional demeanor and appearance.
Mr. Lee’s temperament seems well suited to working collegially with the Mayor and Council, and in particular, Mr. Lee does not have the kind of personality that would bully or try to intimidate city staff.
Mr. Lee is financially savvy, and has some practical experience in dealing with developers and builders from his service on the South Shore #7 MUD board.
As a conservative, I like the fact that he has cut taxes for his MUD board constituents and look forward to him bringing that same financial discipline to League City citizens.
Mr. Lee is also a conservative, which may not be important to some people, but it matters to me and 75% of the people who have taken the current poll on my blog.
I strongly agree that a new person running would be a breath of fresh air, but I think that applies to all of the city council positions. The council has made some poor financial decisions in the past which have cost taxpayers money; council members should be held, rightfully, accountable for their actions and Mr. Lee’s opponent is an incumbent.
As a side note, I am pleased that Mayor Shults has brought the Butler Longhorn Museum issue to the front burner.
I am one who does not think the city should be in the museum business; much less spend $1.5 million taxpayer dollars on a project that’s not even open after more than 3 years.
I am encouraged that Mr. Lee’s position on the BLM issue involves finding a solution that doesn’t spend any more taxpayer money.
In terms of his time in League City; he’s lived here since 2003, served on a MUD board, attends St. Mary’s Catholic Church, pays his taxes, and votes.
What else does he need to do to prove his is able to contribute?
I didn’t notice that there was a residency requirement in the charter, that says unless you’ve lived here for more than 10 years you can’t run for council; as matter of fact, I think the opposite may be true.
A new perspective brings new eyes, new ideas and new solutions; and I think League City is clearly in need of new solutions that don’t wastefully spend taxpayer money and that bring in quality commercial development to lower residential taxes.
Additionally, being a resident for three years didn’t seem to affect Councilman Barber’s election last year. Councilman Barber was out spent by a local business owner who has lived in League City for more than 20 years. Obviously, how long you live in town is not a deciding factor for the majority of League City’s voters.
The City Council is not a union shop; seniority should not be a factor.
What is a factor, in my opinion, is are you fiscally conservative? Meaning do you spend my tax money wisely on projects that agree with my basic priorities (roads, infrastructure, public safety, etc) or do you spend it on economic investments that have poor returns on taxpayer dollars?
Secondarily, can you work well with others? Are you effective in what you do and can you work with the council, Mayor, and staff to move the city forward or are you a throwback to the times when the council had an adversarial relationship with the Mayor, when League City was on the front page of the papers as an example of how not to govern, and when the business of the city was effectively stopped as it was in the last 6 months of the former Mayor’s term?
And lastly, do you have a clear vision of where you want this city to go? I like Mr. Lee's focus on bringing in quality commercial development to reduce residential taxes. I think we need more of it. I like his desire to limit multi-family apartments and to require developers/builders to make sure new subdivisions have greenbelts, lakes, and other quality amenities; clearly development will come, but we need solutions to League City's growth that favor taxpayers and not developers.
Based on those issues, Mr. Lee is more conservative and better qualified than his opponent.
You’re welcome for the forum. Thanks for taking the time to write, even if we disagree. Stay involved and don’t forget to vote next Tuesday in the primary runoff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original comment From DaisyGirl,
Mr. Hallisey's response may have been a bit strong, but he was being quite realistic.
Mr. Markum, I've emailed you with information for confirmation and spoke to Mr. Lee over the telephone and found him very personable and likable...
But ready for League City Council... not yet...
A new person would be a breath of fresh air, but running in Position #3... I don't think so.
When I spoke with Mr. Lee prior to signing up with the League City secretary, he said he was going to run for Council, but not sure which position as of then.
At that time Ms. Benoit hadn't voiced an option of running again and Mr. Samuelson wasn't known in regular circles to be running... Really, I begged him to run in Position #4 since he was soooooooooo new to League City and only on a MUD...
I have to agree with Mr. Hallisey, except for the tone...
His points of interest were on the money.
Once again, thank you for this forum and the opportunity to make another opinion available, even if we disagree. It is appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DaisyGirl
I think Mr. Hallisey’s response was more than “a bit” strong and is a prime example of what's wrong with League City politics.
In terms of Mr. Lee, I concur with you that Mr. Lee is very likeable and personable. He is well-spoken with a professional demeanor and appearance.
Mr. Lee’s temperament seems well suited to working collegially with the Mayor and Council, and in particular, Mr. Lee does not have the kind of personality that would bully or try to intimidate city staff.
Mr. Lee is financially savvy, and has some practical experience in dealing with developers and builders from his service on the South Shore #7 MUD board.
As a conservative, I like the fact that he has cut taxes for his MUD board constituents and look forward to him bringing that same financial discipline to League City citizens.
Mr. Lee is also a conservative, which may not be important to some people, but it matters to me and 75% of the people who have taken the current poll on my blog.
I strongly agree that a new person running would be a breath of fresh air, but I think that applies to all of the city council positions. The council has made some poor financial decisions in the past which have cost taxpayers money; council members should be held, rightfully, accountable for their actions and Mr. Lee’s opponent is an incumbent.
As a side note, I am pleased that Mayor Shults has brought the Butler Longhorn Museum issue to the front burner.
I am one who does not think the city should be in the museum business; much less spend $1.5 million taxpayer dollars on a project that’s not even open after more than 3 years.
I am encouraged that Mr. Lee’s position on the BLM issue involves finding a solution that doesn’t spend any more taxpayer money.
In terms of his time in League City; he’s lived here since 2003, served on a MUD board, attends St. Mary’s Catholic Church, pays his taxes, and votes.
What else does he need to do to prove his is able to contribute?
I didn’t notice that there was a residency requirement in the charter, that says unless you’ve lived here for more than 10 years you can’t run for council; as matter of fact, I think the opposite may be true.
A new perspective brings new eyes, new ideas and new solutions; and I think League City is clearly in need of new solutions that don’t wastefully spend taxpayer money and that bring in quality commercial development to lower residential taxes.
Additionally, being a resident for three years didn’t seem to affect Councilman Barber’s election last year. Councilman Barber was out spent by a local business owner who has lived in League City for more than 20 years. Obviously, how long you live in town is not a deciding factor for the majority of League City’s voters.
The City Council is not a union shop; seniority should not be a factor.
What is a factor, in my opinion, is are you fiscally conservative? Meaning do you spend my tax money wisely on projects that agree with my basic priorities (roads, infrastructure, public safety, etc) or do you spend it on economic investments that have poor returns on taxpayer dollars?
Secondarily, can you work well with others? Are you effective in what you do and can you work with the council, Mayor, and staff to move the city forward or are you a throwback to the times when the council had an adversarial relationship with the Mayor, when League City was on the front page of the papers as an example of how not to govern, and when the business of the city was effectively stopped as it was in the last 6 months of the former Mayor’s term?
And lastly, do you have a clear vision of where you want this city to go? I like Mr. Lee's focus on bringing in quality commercial development to reduce residential taxes. I think we need more of it. I like his desire to limit multi-family apartments and to require developers/builders to make sure new subdivisions have greenbelts, lakes, and other quality amenities; clearly development will come, but we need solutions to League City's growth that favor taxpayers and not developers.
Based on those issues, Mr. Lee is more conservative and better qualified than his opponent.
You’re welcome for the forum. Thanks for taking the time to write, even if we disagree. Stay involved and don’t forget to vote next Tuesday in the primary runoff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original comment From DaisyGirl,
Mr. Hallisey's response may have been a bit strong, but he was being quite realistic.
Mr. Markum, I've emailed you with information for confirmation and spoke to Mr. Lee over the telephone and found him very personable and likable...
But ready for League City Council... not yet...
A new person would be a breath of fresh air, but running in Position #3... I don't think so.
When I spoke with Mr. Lee prior to signing up with the League City secretary, he said he was going to run for Council, but not sure which position as of then.
At that time Ms. Benoit hadn't voiced an option of running again and Mr. Samuelson wasn't known in regular circles to be running... Really, I begged him to run in Position #4 since he was soooooooooo new to League City and only on a MUD...
I have to agree with Mr. Hallisey, except for the tone...
His points of interest were on the money.
Once again, thank you for this forum and the opportunity to make another opinion available, even if we disagree. It is appreciated.
Comments:
<< Home
Let us debunk the claim that Mr. Lee dropped taxes in his MUD. First of all the Mud Mongers never let anything happen in a MUD that they don't like. What are MUD Mongers? They are the myriad of businesses that make hundreds of millions in dollars in Fees from MUDs in Galveston County. They make their money from fees for accounting services, fees for engineering services. Muds are a big business and there is a large group of businesses that never wants them to go away. Most of the "tax cuts" are really just refinancing of the debt and extending the term from the MUD. Not really an financial wizardy involved. Most of the time they also illegally extend the term of the debt, which extends the MUDS existence. Take the South Shore Mud, it was supposed to be gone already, but we have 11 more years because of debt extension. So Let's debunk Mr. Lee's claim he lowered taxes, lets say what he really did. He went to a meeting once a month, was fed a catered in lunch, received $175.00 per month or there about, and did what a developer told him to do. (a developer controls the MUD and Put him on the MUD) When they Accountants told Lee that they wanted to refinance the Debt, he said sure great, then all kinds of people made all kinds of money and they refinanced the debt for his mud, and then they extended the term, much like taking a car note that was setup for 36 months, paying on it for 18 months, then refinancing for an additional 60 months. Sure the payment is cheaper, but you pay 10 times the interest. Same is true in the mud that Mr. Lee is a board member of. He may have voted to drop the rate, but the truth is, the taxpayers in his MUD are paying more in interest and for a longer term and more fees to the MUD Mongers. So is that Conservative, I say not. Don't Let Mr. Lee BS you, he is no more a conservative than President Clinton, he just wants to get elected and he was told by his consultant that if you call yourself a conservative, you can win.
Post a Comment
<< Home
