Losing the ties that bind

Last May, while the bill to establish Esperanza was speeding its way through the Texas Legislature, one of three registered lobbyists for Esperanza’s developer was busily handing out ‘gifts.’ Lobby reports show that ‘gifts’ valued at more than $1,000 were provided for various female staff members who worked for representatives and senators on the Natural Resources Committees.

These committees were responsible for recommending approval of Esperanza’s water district bill. The gifts were for spa services and ranged in value from $100 to $350 each (presumably based on the importance of the staffer’s position). There were also gifts to the staff of the Calendars and Ways and Means Committees, for a total of $1,800. Were these gatekeepers for our elected officials being rewarded for something?

Meanwhile, back home, the fallout from all the political favors, both local and abroad, has the potential to impact some of our oldest and most historically significant treasures. Decisions about roads and waste treatment plants are bulldozing ahead without the benefit of community discussions or supporting the values expressed in Boerne’s Master Plan. Both roads and the location of a waste treatment plant need to be considered in the context of broader goals of preserving an irreplaceable heritage.

At the very least, shouldn’t a competitive bidding process be required for the waste treatment plant decision, given the cost and impacts?

Somehow, the possible connection of a gal in Austin with cotton wadding stuck between her propped-up toes, getting a pedicure, and the destruction of priceless heritage properties just doesn’t seem to set well. Some ties are important to keep, while others should never have been made.

Paula Cairns

Boerne

Political phone calls could backfire

Since when did running for public office provide a license to be annoying? The first major phase of the 2008 election season is now behind us and hopefully my phone will quit ringing from all the political solicitations. Of course this was only a primary so, unless something changes, I get to look forward to the abuse of my privacy occurring all over again as the November elections grow near.

I really wonder if any politician out there has taken time to ask if the use of annoying telemarketing techniques provides any positive benefit to their campaign. When it comes to choosing a candidate I certainly don’t need help from a ringing telephone just as I sit down to dinner in front of the television to watch the beloved Spurs. My indecision will not be resolved because of a recorded phone message. If anything, it provides the temptation to vote for the other candidate… at least until the next day when I receive their recorded message that will probably interrupt my lunch. I can’t imagine anyone appreciating any of these recorded political calls.

So what happened to organizing phone banks and having real people who support their candidate make the calls? I think I received two of those out of what had to be over 100 calls during this recent byproduct of democracy. I respected those two people for getting involved on behalf of their candidate and they provided me an opportunity to ask questions. I guess that’s something you can try with a recorded message but I wouldn’t count on a very stimulating response… although it might be better than the answers we are getting from some of the candidates these days.

Speaking of the candidates, aren’t some of the incumbents the same people that listened so closely to their constituents’ complaints about how annoying telemarketers had become? And wasn’t the result the creation of a state and national Do Not Call list? Oh, now I remember. Those politicians excluded themselves from the rules. Was that so we can all be reminded how annoyed we would be from the unwelcome phone calls all of the time instead of just during election seasons?

For most of you who hold a political office, thank you for the hard work you do. But please remember the next time you run for office that we have all worked hard for the right not to be annoyed.

Mike Hagan

Boerne

DuBose recusal idea had no merit

I can’t believe all the criticism of Jacques Dubose the last few weeks concerning the Hill Country Pregnancy Care Center (HCPCC), and yes he is a board member for the organization. This is a non-profit, non-paying job or better put, non-paying service to one of the best ministries in the city of Boerne.

The HCPCC is supported by members of probably every church in Boerne as well as hundreds in this community. The HCPCC found it hard to believe that there were some so much against them building on Frey Street and will look for another location. They minister to hurting young women, hardly a threat to a neighborhood. While those against this ministry on Frey Street were mutilating Jacques’ character with their letters in the paper, he was negotiating with the president of the HCPCC to find a better location for this ministry.

I find it kind of funny that these people will say that there is a conflict of interest with Jacques Dubose and the HCPCC. We should look at some recent issues and bring out all the facts, not accusations.

The Boerne Together organization led the charge against Esperanza. Did Rob Ziegler recuse himself from voting on the issue since he is a member of this nonprofit? No. Did Bob Manning recuse himself since he was a founder of the organization? No.

Mike Luckey

Boerne