None of our elected city leaders seemed to be concerned about the ethics of the money swap that the city engaged in with the state of Texas last week.
The state had money that could only be used for pedestrian wayfinding and facility enhancements related to pedestrian access.
The city had money that it was going to spend for wayfinding and facility enhancements related to pedestrian access.
The two governments decided to swap money with the state funding the pedestrian things and the city giving the state money for aesthetic enhancements to bridges.
Both sides agreed to swap $10 million each. I give you 10, you give me 10.
City staff wants us to believe that this is tied to another $6 million or so that the state was already going to spend.
Either way you look at it the money swap was designed to circumvent rules that control how money is to be spent. The city manager once again presented a crisis situation to council–do it this week or lose the opportunity.
The intended result would have been that the city got both their pedestrian improvements and beautification money for the bridges over I-10 near downtown. Council may have been able to divert those funds away from the bridges toward public safety lighting projects around town. I guess that we will have to see if that can be done.
They seem to think that rules are made to be bent.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
I do not understand why CC has not demanded an explanation of the real cost of the stadium, including all these “laundered” extras. Maybe Nyland, Lilly and Noe don’t want anyone to see those numbers and embarrass them for their support of the boondoggle? Of course, I doubt Wilson and her Mountainstar clients want to have those numbers disclosed, either.
LikeLike
Ethics? Que es ethics?
LikeLike