Disingenuous Local Political Ads

Let me start this post by saying I really like Amarillo. I have lived here for several years now and I hope to be able to stay here for many more years. But that does not mean it is perfect, and one of the areas that could be improved is the type of city government.

The city is run by a mayor and four city commissioners -- all of whom are elected at-large. That may have been fine when the city was small, but Amarillo now boasts a population of nearly 200,000. Although the city has many different areas and many different kinds of people, the at-large commissioner system has resulted in all the commissioners coming from the same white affluent part of town. This means that part of town has a lot of representation  while other parts of the city have no representation at all.

In the city election that will take place in a few days (May 14th), there is a measure on the ballot that would have the city commissioners elected from single-member districts. This would prevent all the commissioners from living in the same part of town, and would give residents in other parts of town a voice on the city commission. This is a good thing, and the federal courts have mandated single-member districts in many other large Texas cities.

But I have noticed that the affluent powers-that-be here in Amarillo have been running some TV ads opposing single-member districts. One of these ads says that single member districts would divide the city. I guess a person could look at it that way if they lived in the affluent part of the city. It would mean they would have to give up some of their representation so people in other parts of the city could have some representation. I don't see that as dividing the city though -- it's just spreading the political power to more parts of the city.

Another of these ads makes it sound like it would take some power from the voters. It points out that now a voter can vote for all four commissioners, but if single-member districts were instituted then a voter could vote for only one commissioner (the one representing their own district). I have to wonder just what good it does a voter to vote for four commissioners if none of them live in their part of town. Wouldn't it be better to vote for a single commissioner who lives near you and will have the best interests of your community as his main interest? I know I would prefer to vote for one person who lives in my district than four rich people who do not.

But perhaps the stupidest of these ads is the one featuring our current mayor. She tries to scare voters by telling them that single-member districts would be "more expensive" and could lead to "doubling property taxes". That's an outrageous lie! Why would electing commissioners from single-member districts cost even a penny more that electing at-large commissioners? Like most lying politicians she doesn't say why it would be more expensive -- she just tosses out the lie, knowing that many voters will be scared by it and then vote against single-member districts.

I can understand why the affluent powers-that-be are spending money to run these disingenuous TV ads. They've never had to share power with folks in other parts of the city, and they don't want to start doing it now. And they are willing to lie and scare voters so they can keep all the power in their hands.

It is time for Amarillo to realize it has outgrown the at-large city commissioner system. It is time to spread the political power throughout the city. Almost all the large cities in Texas (and many cities smaller than Amarillo) have now established single-member districts -- because it is fairer and gives all citizens a voice in city government. Amarillo needs to join them.

Single-Member Districts Still An Issue In Amarillo

There is a new citizens group in Amarillo, and they are planning to get enough signatures on a petition to bring back the issue of single-member districts for the election of city council candidates.   This group, Amarillo Citizens for Property Rights (ACPR), is unhappy about renovation plans for the downtown area.   They also oppose an ordinance that regulates business signs and plans for the revitalization of the downtown area.

I can understand why some business people might be upset at the sign ordinance, but I don't see that as unreasonable.   Most cities of any size (and Amarillo has nearly 200,000 residents) has a sign ordinance.   It just makes sense for a large city to control the number, size, and height of signs.   Without such an ordinance, Amarillo citizens and visitors would be subjected to an ugly and confusing urban landscape -- not a pleasing prospect in a growing city with plans to renovate its downtown area.

As for the downtown renovation, a quick trip downtown should convince any citizen that is something that's badly needed.   It would not only make the area look much better but it would revitalize the area -- bringing in new businesses and providing new customers for existing businesses (from both visitors and residents of the area).   Just look at how the revitalization of the downtown area in Fort Worth turned out to be a boon for both citizens and businesses.

I do get the feeling that the ACPR group may be composed of some fringe elements though.   They are accusing the city leadership of wanting to implement United Nations goals in renovating the downtown area.   The idea seems ludicrous when you consider the make-up of Amarillo's city leadership.   Amarillo is ruled by right-wing Republicans, and has been for quite a while.   The thought that they would want to impose anything proposed by the United Nations is beyond ridiculous.   It borders on insanity.

But the third goal of ACPR, the implementation of single-member districts for city elections, is something the citizens of Amarillo should embrace.   The current at-large system of electing city leaders is unfair and has resulted in nearly all of the leadership coming from one sector of the city -- the southwest sector.   This has resulted in that area of the city getting the lion's share of attention and funds.

There have been efforts in the past to go to single-member districts, but they have all failed.   City leaders have fought it tooth-and-nail.   They have no intention of sharing power with other areas of the city until they are forced to do so, because that might mean some of the money flooding into the southwest sector would be redirected to other areas of the city areas that badly need their fair share of city money and planning.

When Amarillo was a small prairie town the at-large districts were probably a good idea.   But that day has long passed.   Amarillo is a large and growing city, and what is good for one part of the city may not be good for the city as a whole.   All the citizens in all areas of the city need to have an equal voice in what happens in city government -- and that has not been true for quite a while now.

I may not support all the goals of the ACPR group, but I do hope they can revive the issue of single-member districts and finally get something done about it.

Election Shows Need For Single-Member Districts

The election in Amarillo to fill all four spots on the City Commission shows clearly the need for single-member districts in the city. As usual, four middle-class white guys from the same part of the city were elected.

Of course, they all claim they will represent all of the city. But a drive around the various sections of Amarillo shows that would be something new, if it happens at all. It is only natural for someone to represent the part of the city he lives in better than other parts of the city.

I'm not saying these candidates are evil or intentionally neglect other parts of the city. They just naturally want to take care of their own first. It is the system that is evil, because it denies representation to all but one section of the city - the section where the money lives.

These folks in the southwestern section like the system as it is, because it allows them to control the entire city. Instituting a single-member district plan would take that control away from them and spread the power throughout the city. That is why they oppose single-member districts.

But they can't say they don't want to share the power, so they come up with other excuses. One of these excuses is that there's not enough minorities to create districts for them. This argument ignores the fact that many poor and working class Whites in other parts of the city are also denied representation. Their needs may not coincide at all with those of the controlling monied interests.

It also ignores the basic make-up of the city's population. According the the U.S. Census Bureau's breakdown of Amarillo's population, the following was true in the 2000 census:

African-American............6.0%

Native American..............0.7%

Asian................................1.6%

Pacific Islanders..............0.2%

Hispanics........................26.3%

Simple math tells me this is 34.8% percent of the population. This is a pretty large portion of the population to be without representation.

Another reason those in power use to avoid single-member districts is the "unity" argument. They say they want a unified city, and to go to single-member districts would divide the city. What a silly argument! We're not talking about dividing the city, but sharing the power.

If the unity argument held water, then it would be best to have all our senators and representatives to run state-wide. But if this happened, all senators and reps would come from Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston and San Antonio, and the Panhandle would be left without representation (or the power that comes with it).

The fact is that single-member districts are a way to share power among all the citizens. I can understand that those in power don't want to share it, but it still should be done.

Recently the Texas NAACP said it would help in the push for single-member districts in Amarillo, but said a lawsuit was not an option. I believe this is a mistake. ALL options should remain on the table. The stakes are too high to eliminate any option.