Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Garcia surrogates push back against Rodriguez, Alvarado

From the inbox this morning (the address is, which is meant to camouflage the real source). If you're scoring, it's in response to CM James Rodriguez last week.

As East End Community Leaders, we have come together to show that we have always been opposed to an overpass during the leadership of the old METRO in 2008.

The documents linked to this statement show evidence that Council Member Rodriguez is misleading voters in his recent January 8, 2013 statement trying to defend State Representative’s Carol Alvarado’s conflict of interest as a paid consultant (attached) to the old METRO leadership. State Representative Alvarado was being paid by the old METRO leadership to advocate for an overpass at Harrisburg while her constituents in the east end opposed it.

 In January of 2009, METRO sent a letter to CM Rodriguez stating that a commitment was made by Council Member Rodriguez to build an overpass.

We have 8 different letters from East End civic groups and business leaders written in December 2008 and January of 2009 showing that the residents and businesses of the east end support an underpass rather than an overpass. While Council Member Rodriguez was committed to an overpass, State Representative Alvarado was employed by METRO as a consultant; therefore disappointing her constituents for not advocating an underpass.

Commissioner Sylvia Garcia has stood with the merchants and civic leaders in the east end saying she would join our rallying shout “it’s not over, until it is under.

We want to acknowledge Mayor Annise Parker’s leadership for approving the underpass and the new METRO, and numerous council members who were also instrumental in securing the required funding for the underpass in 2011.

As active East End Community Leaders, we are continuously seeking transparency, honesty, and integrity from our elected officials. 

Emphasis on the words "underpass" and "overpass" in the above is theirs. No 'East End Leader' signed this letter, so unless someone(s) claims it, I'll call it as belonging to the Garcia campaign.

Is this a big deal to the residents of SD-6? I will admit that I just don't see how pivotal this spat is in the grand scheme. Bu then I'm not a resident of the district.

Anyone want to weigh in on this? Anyone not connected to a campaign, that is; just a voter in SD-6 with some knowledge of the issue. Help me understand why this disagreement is so pivotal now.

Stace had a report earlier today on the financials -- who's got it and how they spent it. The most interesting development in that disclosure is how Alvarado seems to be attracting the Republican money. Stace also has the vote total at about 3,400 (mail and in-person) as of yesterday. That's about 12% or so of Mark Jones' projection.

There have been reasonably good turnouts at the various community fora that have been held, but I have to be candid; I simply don't have any idea what to think about how this race will go at this point. If Garcia and Alvarado emerge as the top two (as both Kuffner and Jones have forecast), are they going to keep quarreling about underpass/overpass in the runoff?

Like there aren't more pressing issues to talk about?

One thing seems clear: the race certainly is on target for the most expensive dollar-per-vote tally witnessed in recent times.

Update: More on the money from Joe Holley. Because, you know, that's all that matters. Far be it from Charles to let anybody outdo him in this regard, however.

It's as if they don't really understand what the problem is. Truthfully... I think they do; they just don't want to address it. Thank goodness some people do.


Gary said...

Garcia has been running a negative campaign but she says Alvarado doesn't work well with others and people should know that.

I had been favoring Garcia in a mild way as I see merit in both main candidates and I am not in the district but I am not fond of negative campaigns.

The overpass is a big deal in the area, no one wanted it.

PDiddie said...

So the fact that it will be an under- and not an over- is settled, but both camps wish to keep arguing about who supported what and when?

Is that right?

It just seems to me that there are bigger things to talk about than this.