Wednesday, January 14, 2015

 
HOW CHAVEZ-VASQUEZ CHANGED EVERYTHING
 
UPDATE:  Filed documents show that on October 27, 2014, Chavez-Vasquez and her husband paid $417,000 for land and a home of 5000 square feet plus in Los Fresnos.  The Lincoln Park vote was after that date.  Like I say below, the Homestead designation will not appear until this year.  But you must complete the paperwork when you purchase your home if you want the lower taxes for the following year.  The document would be in the San Benito office.
 
I am thinking if they did complete the request then it would take effect January 1, 2015, which is why her resignation came now.  But, it is not so simple - the purchase date of the home could have disqualified her from serving on the city commission at the time of the Lincoln Park vote.
 
This requires a lot more research.
 
ORIGINAL POST
 
The Herald is reporting Mark Sossi is researching the issue as to the city's option.  When the BV on November 30th reported the Commissioner had put her home up for sale and claims she had moved to Los Fresnos were circulating around city hall, I did not disclose my source said the information was coming from an investigator watching Chavez-Vasquez's comings and goings.
 
A reader has sent me some additional research on this issue - it is possible her vote on Lincoln Park is void.  For now her alleged new residence is not listed as her homestead - but that means nothing.  Texas has a filing period for this, and the homestead is not listed until the following year after you move in.  For example I bought my home in June and completed all of the paperwork, but it did not take effect until the following January.  Also because this appears to maybe be new construction it could take years for it to appear on the Cameron County Appraisal district page.  But I can learn the date of her move in at the San Benito office.  It is a matter of time - which right now I have none.
 
MARTINEZ'S CHALLENGE AND IN FACT THE VOTERS' CHALLENGE
 
Weeks ago I was informed two lawyers would be running for office and that they were recruited by Ben Neece at Abraham Galonsky's request.[ Click  for federal filing which shows de Leon and Neece as co-counsel. But this proves nothing in terms of ties to Galonsky, or that in fact Ben Neece had anything to do with their decision to run.]  I have seen zero proof of this.  This is why I did not reported it.  But now the two lawyers whose names have surfaced are in fact the names I was given. The campaign finance reports will not be helpful.  There is no way for anyone to verify the truth as to the source of donations, so it is very easy to hide the true donor.
 
Cesar De Leon's decision to run was not made yesterday.  Whois has his web page registered in December by a Juan O. Hernandez.  The address appears to be a residence.  814 E. Taylor.
 
WE CANNOT MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON RUMORS
 
If we want to know for sure who the candidates are we need to demand they answer direct questions. It does not matter which side you are on, you will want the answers to these questions so you know how to vote.
 
Rather then rely on anonymous sources and rumors we need to demand that all candidates state their position on Lincoln Park, and the purchase of both Galonsky buildings.  We need to demand they state their position as to Tony Martinez's leadership and policies.  This will tell us more than  rumors or anonymous sources.  You know an anonymous source can put out false information to trick us into voting against what we believe to be best.
 
If the candidates will not answer these questions then I suggest we not vote for them.
 
HOW CHAVEZ CHANGED LINCOLN PARK
 
The city is on record the one vote, which may now be void because of  Chavez-Vasquez, on Lincoln park was to simply open discussions.  This means for now, unless John Villarreal or Rick Longoria change their vote, Tony does not have the 4 votes to finish the deal.
 
On the hypothetical the commission can vote in a replacement for Chavez until the election, the consensus at city hall is John Villarreal is the only one of the three not clearly always in Tony's corner who may agree to such a vote.  Unless Tetreau-Kalifa, Longoria or Villarreal agree with Tony's pick he has no power on this issue.  This means the Lincoln Park deal cannot be completed until after the election - depending on the results.
 
SOMETHING IS UP AT CITY HALL
 
It is nearly impossible to get anyone to talk right now other than to give an opinion on who might vote with Tony on a replacement.  What little I can learn is, Chavez-Vasquez resignation was a surprise to some  Does it have to do with the alleged investigator following her?  I do not know.  But there are a lot of rumors which cannot be confirmed.  But what can be confirmed is, something is up.
 
It may relate to a claim I received yesterday.  Some initial research put the claim in doubt, but then I read an article on line that may have explained the part in doubt.  But, apparently there is concern at city hall over something which has nothing to do with the election or Chavez-Vasquez's replacement.
 
Something has happened and people are spooked.
 
IT IS NOT THE TIME FOR RUMORS
 
To save Lincoln Park and end Tony's rule, even if he wins as mayor, the key is to expose any candidate on facts not rumors who supports Tony and his dealings.  We do this be demanding each candidate go on record as to their support or opposition to the Lincoln Park deal, and Tony's leadership.
 
The second issue is, because some of the elections will have multiple candidates thinking all they have to say to win  is Tony is a crook, the anti-Tony vote will be diluted thereby making it easier for his candidate to win.  Candidates need to look at their ability to raise money and get the backing of community groups.  If they do not have it they need to bow out to allow the better candidate to go one on one against Tony's candidates. 
 
THE ROMAN PEREZ RICK LONGORIA RACE
 
This race gives Tony the best chance of picking up a vote on the commission.  This time around Roman Perez has a strong community presence.  He was out front on Lincoln Park while Rick Longoria waffled.  Roman's record against Tony Martinez is stronger than Rick Longoria's - but to be fair when you are actually sitting there and voting sometimes you have to vote against what you think best so you can get the votes you need for a project in your district.  If Roman thinks he can just oppose Tony at every turn and expect his district to get what it needs, he will not be serving his district - politics is what it is whether we like it or not.
 
Both can be relied upon to work with a new majority against Tony Martinez.  Both are strong candidates - which is the problem - both will have strong support from the anti-Tony voice, which means they split that vote in favor of Tony's candidate.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The vote of Chavez-Vasquez under the Texas Constitutional Holdover Doctrine is not void. Chavez-Vasquez can continue to vote up until her successor is sworn in. See Tex. Const. Art. XVI, Sec.17. See also Tex. AG opinions, JM-636, DM-2 and 0-6259.

BobbyWC said...

Thanks for your research

Anonymous said...

The vote of Chavez-Vasquez under the Texas Constitutional Holdover Doctrine is not void. Chavez-Vasquez can continue to vote up until her successor is sworn in. See Tex. Const. Art. XVI, Sec.17. See also Tex. AG opinions, JM-636, DM-2 and 0-6259.

Not correct. Constitutional holdover provision does NOT cover a public official who ceases to be qualified. And if it can be proven she resided somewhere else (a BIG if) at the time of the vote, the doodoo will have hit the fan.

BobbyWC said...

yesterday was a long day - I will check this out later and update after I read the AG opinions and then go from there.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

When an elected public official ceases to be qualified, whether by resignation, disqualification (in this case because of loss of required residency) and even upon expiration of the official's term, this creates a "legal vacancy". This does not impact the Constitutional Holdover Doctrine which is fairly clear and unambiguous. The original policy reasons for the provision are based on the concept of assuring the viable perpetuity of a governing body and not bring a governmental entity to a standstill due to a legal vacancy.

BobbyWC said...

I'm about to post the AG opinion which expressly says a disqualification from office does not deny the officer the status of holdover.

But there are times wherein the AG has held certain constitutional provisions deny an office holdover status

Bobby WC