The Case for an Alamo Vote Now

Print Share on LinkedIn Comments More
Tourists walk by the Alamo just after dusk.

Bonnie Arbittier / Rivard Report

Tourists walk by the Alamo just after dusk.

Mayor Ron Nirenberg wants to move slowly on any final decision on the future design of Alamo Plaza while he and others focus attention and energy on defeating efforts by the firefighters union to radically amend the City Charter on Nov. 6.

Mayor Ron Nirenberg

Scott Ball / Rivard Report

Mayor Ron Nirenberg.

If the three ballot measures devised by union leaders were to pass, San Antonio would see its council-city manager form of government significantly diminished and rendered subordinate to citizen petition and referendum initiatives, not unlike what voters approved in California decades ago, now widely viewed as a failure.

The original timeline called for a final vote for or against the Alamo plan by late summer or fall, but the proposed redevelopment to the Alamo Plaza has generated controversy, leading to considerable speculation around City Hall about how a decision made now might impact voters in the midterm elections.

I believe a delay is a mistake, although I originally shared the mayor’s view that City leaders should clear all other business from the public agenda, which actually proves to be impractical. City Council needs to meet and move on issues weekly to keep the proverbial trains running, and sidetracking the Alamo plan comes with its own set of risks.

One is internal dissent. Publicly, not much is being said, but one key person who is said to strongly disagree with Nirenberg is Councilman Roberto Treviño (D1), who has been directly involved in the project for more than four years as a member of both the Alamo Management Committee, which unanimously approved the plan on Sept. 4, and the Alamo Citizens Advisory Committee, which approved the plan one week earlier.

Councilman Roberto Treviño (D1) presents the options for voting to the committee.

Bonnie Arbittier / Rivard Report

Councilman Roberto Treviño (D1) presents to the Alamo Citizen Advisory Committee before the vote on August 30.

Treviño has not come out in direct opposition to the delay, but he’s made it clear in conversations inside and outside City Hall that he supports moving ahead with the original timeline. He is said to believe City staff shares his view, yet take their cue from the mayor on politically sensitive issues. Delayed projects, any architect will tell you, often become dead projects. Treviño is an architect.

Another reason is momentum. San Antonio has tried and failed to redevelop the Alamo Plaza on multiple occasions over the years, and again and again, has failed to give the state’s most iconic historic site and the city’s most important civic plaza the attention it deserves.

Why risk failing again? This time San Antonio has the opportunity to forge a productive partnership with the state of Texas, which manages the Alamo, and win sustained funding from the Texas Legislature, funding that is essential to the long-term viability of the project. Without the state’s partnership and funding, we can forget the most influential philanthropists here and outside San Antonio raising $200 million or more to complete the project, which will include a world-class museum and visitor center.

Land Comm. George P. Bush

Bonnie Arbittier / Rivard Report

Land Commissioner George P. Bush.

Last week Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush resorted to Twitter to publicly call on Nirenberg to join him in giving final approval to the plan. Such a public ploy suggests more private reasoning failed, and the two are no longer in sync on the timing.

San Antonio already faces a continuing challenge from conservative state legislators on issues ranging from annexation to taxing authority to other home-rule traditions. Do we want another fight on our hands? No one knows if the state could successfully move to condemn the property around the Alamo. I’d rather not fight that legal battle.

There are plenty of thoughtful people in San Antonio who remain wary of key elements in the proposed interpretive plan. Their concerns should carry weight throughout the process once a plan is approved, but such concerns don’t merit stopping the project in its tracks. I’ve written before that none of us will get our way on such a complex project. Nothing truly transformative can be accomplished on the Alamo Plaza unless a lot of smart, strong people agree to compromise.

A number of constituent groups that originally opposed the plan have seen their needs met, or partially met, and have come to support the plan. Ideally, that kind of process will continue. Some opponents will never be appeased, especially those who actually argue the Alamo Plaza is just fine as it is.

Some fear a backlash from the “don’t move the Cenotaph” protesters. While loud and rude, they don’t necessarily represent a large constituency. Many aren’t even city residents. They don’t have a vote and they don’t deserve our fear.

A small crowd gathers next to the cenotaph.

Bonnie Arbittier / Rivard Report

A small crowd gathers next to the cenotaph to protest its move.

A post-Nov. 6 vote by City Council could end up creating the hostility it was meant to avert. If union officials prevail, as they did in misleading thousands of San Antonians into believing they were signing petitions supporting firefighters, a politically weakened mayor and city manager will be in no position to hurry an Alamo plan approval through City Council before election results are certified.

Such a move might be technically legal, but it would strike citizens as a cynical maneuver and backfire. And while no Council decisions are grandfathered, per se, union officials will have much harder time exciting voters about challenging past Council decisions made before the election. By waiting until after the elections to decide the Alamo plan’s future, city leaders just might embolden union officials to make the Alamo Plaza their first test of expanded petition and referendum powers.

Union officials have no particular stake in the redevelopment of the Alamo Plaza. The union’s goal from the start has been winning leverage at the collective bargaining table by provoking political disruption, and now, targeting the mayor and city manager.

No one would have imagined in June 2017 that the newly elected mayor would face such a hostile and serious challenge so early in his first term. Like it or not, he does. Navigating the next 40 days until early voting commences on Oct. 22 will not be easy, but logic suggests it would be easier with the Alamo redevelopment plan a done deal.

42 thoughts on “The Case for an Alamo Vote Now

  1. The biggest issue in San Antonio isn’t the redo of the Alamo, whether the cenotaph is valid at its present location or not…it’s public engagement! So many important issues in this city lack real public engagement. The frustration exhibited here is one view, but as we can see, there are many…and those citizens’ views are just as valid in their own right.

    This lack of public engagement has lead to so many of the important issues in our great city to be railroaded into policies, codes, etc., and then later incredible amounts of money and energy to get it right with lawsuits, finding new candidates, fighting at city council meetings, etc. The lack of public engagement is at the root of the Vote No/Vote Yes campaign.

    A lack of public trust in the city is really the lack of public engagement. It’s a right that this city is known for and will be present no matter how big we grow…it’s in our DNA and has resulted in a city many want to visit and live in.

  2. Great article RR, it sounds like from this article that you afraid the charter amendments will indeed pass in November. And, just as Barbara says , this is solely due to mistrust from lack of public engagement. Time after time, throngs of caring citizens have approached the podium for their mere 3 minutes to speak on concerns and objections to lifestyle changing issues or projects, and the result is always the same – CC votes against them anyway. CC voices needed to be toned down and approval for one project in return for a yes vote on another needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, these referendums are the only way the citizens have cried – listen! Like you said RR, state condemnation can be the final vote and SA will not get any say over that. Maybe this huge issue, the Alamo, might serve to tame some huge egos that have been growing larger and larger with each passing vote inside city chambers.

    • Lora, Thank you for your comment. I believe the City and its supporters need to mount a vigorous campaign against Chris Steele and the union. Perhaps the best way to do that is look at it as we journalists do: Who is Chris Steele? No one knows. When we listen to Steele speak, we hear a rambling, incoherent, and patently unbelievable individual with no higher purpose of leading people in this city to a better place. He’s instead taking an axe off his firetruck to wreak havoc where he can’t get his way. The questions is this: can people see past the city manager’s salary, or whatever other issue annoys them, to fully consider the alternatives they will have to live with if these measures pass? Will we turn over the keys to city government to a union official we do not even know, who seems to me utterly unsuited for public leadership? Citizens should actually resent that they will be voting on charter reforms engineered by paid, out-of-town petitioners. These are not locally driven initiatives rising up from the engaged citizenry. Yet anti-government sentiment at all levels of our society today is so prevelenat, people seem inclined to take pitchforks and torches to the status quo, damn the consequences. My two cents on a Sunday morning. –RR

      • Btw, one more thought on your above response, this City is anything but the status quo! There has been no status quo since the last CC election.

        • I cant believe you deleted my comment about the people who cant vote and your referring to them as non city residents and out of town petitioners, when they are simply just not living in the Incorporated City of San Antonio, but they breath the air of SA proper and work and shop in it. These are folks that live in Alamo Hts, Terrell Hills, Castle Hills, Hill Country Vlg, Hollywood Park, Balcones Hts, and many others. Talk about slanted viewing and being ok for you to disparage, but no one else can. Chris Steele, get petitions signed to merge Bexar County and Incorporated San Antonio, so all Bexar County can vote! Bet we will see a large difference in how this City is run. Shame on you RR. Quick viewers, read this before it is deleted.

      • Chris steele is not the cause, he and his fire troupe are the effect. If city management had been more responsible and not renewed the police and fire contract automatically, we would not have Chris Steele or a referendum put to vote. The oversight of not removing the evergreen clause, and then trying to back it out after contracted renewal was executed caused this boondoggle. It also caused huge legal fee debt to be the burden of the tax payer. The tax payers include those non city residents and out of town petitioners! living outside incorporated San Antonio. This should not be deleted, but is hope to shed light on why folks are upset and public mistrust is rampant.

      • Why is it ok for you to disparage Chris Steele in this article that has nothing to do with the Alamo, yet when i respond to your comment about him not being the cause but being the effect – you delete my response comments??

        • Lora,

          Your comment was deleted at your request. Please see the comment you made on our site on Sunday at 4:22 p.m:
          In reply to lora.
          Please delete the above comment. I wrote it when I was too emotional. It was out of anger. I don’t not want it posted there and I do not see a delete button anywhere.
          The comment you posted – the one you asked to be deleted – would not have been deleted otherwise as it did not violate our commenting policy. The comment can be restored if you wish.

          Graham Watson-Ringo
          Managing Editor
          Rivard Report

          • Wow ! I wrote no such thing. I don’t write out of emotional anger, I write from intelligence and educated knowledge!! Someone has plagiarized my name, and I can only think this could come from the inside???!! Maybe they were emotionally angry at what I said? I will never ask you to delete what I write, unless, I thought you deleted it and when in fact you did not. I replied in part as to the main comment, but in pieces, as above. Why is the comment I allegedly asked to delete, not published as a comment that is viewable to all? Might want to check the email of mine and the “person” that wrote asking to delete my comment. But, I thank you for asking. PLEASE RESTORE IT

  3. Mr. Rivard has gone negative on us – it appears that he lives in fear of the “firefighters union” and their petitions.

    In addition to making negative statements about the firefighters union’s political efforts – in which I believe the citizens will have a say in November – he saves some of his negative statements for the group he describes as ““don’t move the Cenotaph” protesters.”

    I don’t think that he likes the “save the Cenotaph” group; he describes them as “loud and rude” which could be considered rude. My experience in grass-roots diplomacy has taught me that those without power and without lots of money have to be “real loud” to get attention- and being “loud” at public meetings means being defined as “rude” by others. Mr. Rivard’s focus on this group of citizens is evidence that the publicity tactic of being “loud and rude” works.

    But he goes further in his ‘despotricar’ against the “Cenotaph saviors.” He states that “they don’t necessarily represent a large constituency” without documenting that statement and without defining “large constituency” (such as: Does “large” mean more than 100,000 or more than 100 people?). The importance of documentation for reports and even opinions should be known to him because of his exemplary background in journalism.

    But the part of Mr. Rivard’s verbal disparaging of the “Cenotaph defense league” that bothered me the most was when he stated: “Many aren’t even city residents.” This suggests that he thinks the Alamo belongs to San Antonio only – this is not only parochial thinking, it is a slap in the face of every Texan especially those who had a member of their family die at the Alamo in 1836. THE ALAMO BELONGS TO TEXAS – not just San Antonio. All Texans should have the right to voice their opinion about what happens to the Alamo.

    And lastly, Mr. Rivard’s suggestion that Mayor Nirenberg has now become a ‘political animal’ without true concern about what happens to the Alamo was disconcerting. The Rivard Report’s Ms. Dimmick wrote an excellent piece about Mayor Nirenberg standing up for San Antonio in the face of George P. Bush’s questionable use of social media to conduct state business. In that report, Mayor Nirenberg clearly stated his reasons for not wanting to rush into signing the agreement with the State of Texas: 1) “I want to make sure that electoral politics has no influence on the proper execution of the Alamo plan.”; 2) “We simply can’t be rushed in completing the next steps and we won’t be.”; 3) The plan will go to the Historic and Design Review Commission and the Planning Commission “within the next few weeks,”; and 4) Meanwhile, an architectural study of the historic buildings is underway and the City and State still have to work out the details of the leasing and operation agreements.

    God Bless Texas.

    • Curtis, for the record I have never used the words “political animal” in conversation or in the written word to describe Mayor Nirenberg. Your use of those words in quotes ascribed to me falsely implies otherwise. Also, I do not write here or anywhere that the “don”t move the Cenotaph” protestors do not matter. What I have written is that their impact on the City election will be negligible because many of them are from outside San Antonio and cannot cote in our City election. Fiinally, there is nothing in your activities to merit your self-proclaimed “Cenotaph saviors” moniker and the press should not accord you that status. The monument is being restored and moved 500 feet, and all the disinformation about it being destroyed, wrecked, diminished, or placed into storage, etc. is the real definition of “fake news.” –RR

      • Mr.Rivard, Thank you for your reply. About ‘political animal:’ I purposefully enclosed that phrase with ‘ instead of ” in an attempt to indicate that it was not your phrase. I guess I failed to make that differentiation to the readers. But your article definitely emphasizes that you think he was most concerned about politics when he decided to postpone his decision – I disagree with that assessment and supported my statement with quotes from Mayor Nirenberg in my piece. Also, be aware that I am not involved in the Cenotaph activities – and did not indicate that in my opinion. However, I am a concerned Texan and a student of Texas history. If you have a written report from someone such as an architect that describes how the Cenotaph will be moved and that clearly states that there will be minimal chance of damage to the monument, please post that on the Rivard Report website. I have yet to see a report like that – and I believe that information would be important – more important than people speculating that it won’t be destroyed, wrecked, diminished by its translocation. Hoping for the best.

      • Dear RR:
        While I appreciate your RR report. Why is it that you can make disparaging comments, yet when others do, they are deleted! I strongly disagree with you on your slanted view, although accept respectfully, its your opinion. Firstly, although I agree with you the Fire Union should not be the cause for these referendums, but where I strongly disagree; Chris Steele and his fire buddies are not the cause, they are the effect! Said before, the absence of a responsible city management is the “cause” for forgetting to omit the evergreen clause at renewal of the contract, only realizing too late and trying to correct it. This equated to a large boondoggle and huge legal fees at the expense of the tax payers, including the non city residents and out of town petitioners!
        Secondly, “non City residents and Out of town petitoners” is simply really defined as other than Incorporated City of San Antonio citizens! Example, Alamo Hts, Terrell Hills, Castle Hills, Shavano Park, Hollywood Park, Hill Country Vlg, etc.. These folks – and there are a lot of them, breath the same air as SA proper, and work and shop in Incorporated San Antonio, but have to bite their nails and hold their breaths while the Incorporated San Antonio votes.
        Betcha dollars to donuts, City elected officials would be a lot different if these so called non City residents/out of town petitioners could vote in Incorporated San Antonio elections!
        I say accomplish the long ongoing battle of City vs. County one government and merge. This will cut out the middle man, San Antonio officials!, hopefully save my tax $$ because County employees and officials make less than city employees and officials and let all Bexar County residents vote on all San Antonio issues/elections.
        I hope for the same respect and that you will not deleted this comment. Thank you

        • Please delete the above comment. I wrote it when I was too emotional. It was out of anger. I don’t not want it posted there and I do not see a delete button anywhere.

          • Lora, me thinks that you’re treating us to some kind of comments-section-performance-art. Right? Your posts are very entertaining and confusing. You are either a genius or the cocaine has done a number on your medulla oblongata.

          • Hey Carlos, my goal in life is to entertain, so glad I could accommodate you. But you will make a good partner, ’cause you are pretty entertaining yourself, thanks for the breath of fresh air. As far as the cocaine affecting me medulla, sorry don’t use it, therefore, that makes a genius! And one with lots of moxy!! Btw, don’t tell anyone, but the delete vs. not delete comment was confusing me genius medulla too!! Hope all got the point, however.

    • Mr. Rivard is right. I hate to admit that he’s right, but I have no choice. Hey, if they believe in their plan they should just vote. Postponing votes is a chicken move to keep ME from mobilizing my troops and storming City Hall with protesters and unseating Ron Nirenberg. Nirenberg moves his chess pieces around to avoid having me involved. Can you blame him? He knows I’m going to run against him.

      That’s right. You heard it here. I’m coming for your seat, Ron and I’m going to win. Your handling of the Travis monument, the RNC convention, the selling of the Alamo to the United Nations, cozying up to George Soros, your disrespect of Donald and Milano’s Trumop, and the destruction of the cenotaph guarantees me a victory. Don’t day I didn’t warn you.

      • That’s what we need. Cynthia Brehm will save us. She’s doing a great job at the GOP headquarters. And by “great”, I mean that she’s driving the local party to bankruptcy. How much money has she raised? Are any local republican elected coming to her for party support? This weirdo lady has no shame and is in it for herself.

    • We support Mayor Nirenberg. My husband , Paul Gescheidle, and I were married in front of the Alamo. We don’t have a single photo of the cenotaph in our wedding album because it isn’t the most important part of the Alamo experience. Nobody who attended our wedding from out of town ever says, “wow, I’m so glad you got married next to the cenotaph.” Why? Because nobody cares about it as much about it as the lawn, the long barracks, the trees, and the bandstand gazebo. I’ll be speaking about it at Citizens to Be Heard this week. Council needs to vote NOW!

  4. Bob

    The people who design live and work downtown should have their views considered seriously and not dismissed.

    The closure of the plaza with fences, gates , hours is not a flexible and revitalized place.

    Closure of the plaza and control by the state of our civic space is NOT required to make their revitalization plan a success.

    We as architects, developers , and urban designers want the best place for the city. This proposed plan closing the space and inhibiting movement and free speech will forever shape the plaza as a static state controlled plaza without that pivotal urban character :

    Flexibility and Civic Engagement


      • Subject: Alamo Plaza
        Comments or Question: Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, The large discussion surrounding the Alamo Plaza seems to gather around the place as an urban plaza as well as the historic battle grounds. There seems to be a segregation of spaces, a dual identity to the spot, where a contiguous expression would be more appropriate. I had mentioned to the prior council that the public out cry centered around the abruptness of the transition between 1836 and 2018. (in one inch of glass) Turning the place to “an idyllic” (mentioned by the latest presenter) park is not the answer either, as the “place” is the city center. A formalized order imposed on the components in the plaza will go a long way toward removing the “confusion” the original master planner encountered in his first visit. The first notion is that the Alamo itself is on a minor axis in the plaza and it’s “presence” needs to be increased. This may be done by enhancing the axis across the plaza with East/West orientation. The second notion is to align the Coppini cenotaph with the center line of the post office to the North. These two formalities will add some reverence for the site and overcome the amorphous “park” the current proposal intends. How these two ideas are executed will determine the character of the plaza and tie some major components to each other, uniting the space without compromising the duality of the plaza uses.
        Mark E. Kellmann, Architect, NCARB
        San Antonio, Texas

  5. Nice article Bob. This all boils down to leadership. There is a time and place for everything and the time for this approval is now! We’ve seen a more than robust process with a clear and prudent timeline from the beginning. We’ve all witnessed appropriate pauses along the way and have definitely seen adjustments brought on to improve the master plan. What’s needed now is Leadership (with a capital “L”) from our City not politics. We’ve seen patience and openness from Councilman Trevino and now we’re seeing his wisdom. That’s Leadership. No need to wait until our real and fair processes are high jacked by other issues, characters or the like. It’s time for the Mayor and Council to act, approve and finally put our History, and culture in its honored place.

  6. I haven’t followed the Alamo discussions closely. Quite frankly, doing enough research to fully understand all of the points of contention feels like it would be a full time job. However, I do have this thought: whatever modification plans we settle on should be able to stand the test of time. It shouldn’t be a plan that needs to pass while we have momentum this month. Experts and the public should be able to agree that it is the best plan this month, next month, next year, and decades from now. And when we finally get through this, I’m going to make a t-shirt that says, “I survived the 2nd Battle of the Alamo!”

    • Every time a salesman tries to put the hard sell on me — ‘Sign today, and you’ll get a discount’ or ‘This offer is good one day only’ — I get leery. Now we have politicians and columnists saying, ‘Act now! We can’t wait!’

      • You make a good point but please understand that this isn’t a hard sell to “sign today”. It instead is the next logical, planned and step in a transparent process. The question of the day is whether to delay voting (albeit for political reasons, etc.). So the questioning the obvious why now vs why later point of this article seems to arrive at a plain and simple answer. No smoke and mirrors, no getting hung up on peripheral or detail issues, no hyperbole. Just a straight forward up or down vote from the CC.

        • The reason for the rush is that there is more momentum and legal maneuvering to leave the Spirit of Sacrifice exactly where it is. The Structural Assessment & Stone Conservation Report by Jaster Quintanilla San Antonio, LLP indicates that the structure is sound, but simply needs a bit of realigning and sealing. And it raises concerns about moving it. Without having to do any vast research, it basically means that it is not only more economical to leave the Spirit exactly where it is, but it is safer for it as well. They couldn’t even move a simply bronze statue without damaging it. Imagine them attempting to move this.

  7. I think the biggest problem with the plan is the idea of a city ceding control of its most important plaza to the state. It’s an absurd notion and this whole process seems to be some gambit for the state to gain control of the Alamo, Alamo Plaza, and the streets around it and for certain city officials who aspire to state office to present a plum to existing state officials. It’s not so much amazing as it is ridiculous, that a city government could be so inept, passive, and easily intimidated that it would even consider giving away the center of the city. The idea that this is part of the plan is truly surreal. I’m all for the redevelopment of Alamo Plaza and am not a ‘don’t-move-the-cenotapher’, I feel like I am just for common sense and cities don’t give away their most important properties to the state unless they are incapable of managing it themselves. Is the 7th largest city in America a bunch of children in need of Jeb Bush’s son riding in from Florida on a white horse to save them from their own incompetence?

  8. I agree with Barbara Witte-Howell and David Lake. The San Antonio Conservation Society has collected over 7,000 signatures on our petition to keep the Plaza open and keep the historic elements. The Mayor and City Council should now sign over the Plaza until there is an agreement to repurpose the Crockett, Palace and Woolworth Buildings, which they agreed to supporting in an ordinance last summer. All 3 buildings are City Landmarked and have National Register of Historic Places designations. Interesting the the GLO , which held a 2-day symposium this past weekend, is all about preservation ane “Save Texas History”, but are clearly in favor of demolition of these historic buildings and for what? These joint meetings are ti check off the box, not to listen to the citizens! Sad, but true.

  9. I completely “second” Robert Rivard’s rational and coherent observations upon and recommendations regarding the Alamo Plaza redevelopment plan! While I understand the Mayor’s desire for the City’s Commissions to weigh in on the plan, I also agree with Robert that Ron should move ahead ASAP to approve the plan and maintain momentum. We need to be seen by the Legislature to be proactively cooperating with the State on the Alamo and Alamo Plaza redevelopment before the next legislative session begins in January – we don’t need to lose the support (and funding) that has been so long coming from the Legislative level.

    Voting for the Fire Unions’ vindictive Propositions #1 thru#3 will create chaos for our well-run City government. This is not about absurd comments like “taking back the City” or such ridiculousness – this is just throwing a money wrench in the best-run major city in the state, and would be self-destructive. VOTE NO!!

  10. Just to clarify, as typing on my smartphone always has errors, the San Antonio Conservation Society does NOT want the Mayor and Council to sign off on leasing the Plaza to the state until repurposing the Crockett Bldg, Palace and Woolworth are guaranteed to be repurposed and therefore protected.

  11. Guess it’s time to call in the Washington Post to nationally expose the foolishness of our mayor and his desire for delay, just as the Post did with the foolishness of the SBOE and their desire to remove heroes from the Alamo.

    1# – There have been many, many public forums concerning the Alamo plan. I personally have been to 2. At each meeting there were concessions discussed and eventually adopted. Remember the glass wall?
    2# – We are “working with” a state agency. In the end, THEY WILL WIN if we do not negotiate in good faith. I had a conversation with a CC member who quite concisely expressed the need to fight one battle at a time.
    3#- As an artist who works on sculpture, i have consulted many experienced artist in SA, and yes the Cenotaph needs work. Moving it will be a HUGE challenge, but with all the current attention I believe now is a perfect time to preserve, and yes move it.
    4#- I am a native of SA and the “machine” that runs SA has always moved conservatively and thoughtfully. If McAllister, LBJ, Hugman, Manupelli, Zachery (and many more) had not had a vision, Hemisfair and our tourist industry would never have been built. We elect officials to make the tough decisions knowing that they can be voted out of office at any time. I personally DO NOT want to see my beautiful, unique city run by a bunch of squabbling, generally ill informed special interest groups, who will do nothing but hinder and perhaps destroy our unique, cohesive atmosphere and economy. We need to look around and be thankful for what we have folks.
    Lover of San Antonio!

  13. As soon as this city council came into power, they had an agenda. It didn’t matter whether or not their constituents approved of it.

    I support Vote Yes in November. The petition wasn’t deceptive. I knew exactly what I was signing and why. Government should have a healthy amount of fear of their constituents, unlike what is currently expressed: “I only need you to vote me in and pay your taxes. You are irrelevant otherwise, especially if it contradicts my desires.” They deserve to be the target, to feel the heat. You may be “peezos” with them, but for the rest of the normal people of San Antonio, they have received nothing but lies and snide down-the-nose regard, especially from Scully.

    You claim that the “save the cenotaph” group is “loud and rude”, but did you ever go to any of the meetings? They had a few minutes to say something at one (1) meeting. Have you been to the Citizens Be Heard sessions? The City Council members are sitting there playing on their phones, sleeping, staring off into the far beyond, sneering at the citizen speaking, sarcastic, snooty, … that is IF they even show up. Their voices are not heard. And that’s because their voices don’t matter, right? The city will do what the city wants.

    Since you’ve opened up that can of worms, what portion of the constituency does the defenders represent? Your claim of the amount of people really lacks citation. Are we talking about the results of those polls that the “anti-Cenotaph group” keeps referring to? The ones that they refuse to release the supporting documentation for? Or do you refer to the “save the cenotaph group” to be not a large portion of the wealthy constituency? . All these “pauses” along the way were a farce. Each committee basically has varying combination of the same anti-Cenotaph people on every single one of them.

    Do the descendants of the Alamo have to remain in San Antonio to actually have a say in what happens with the symbolic headstone of their ancestors? Just how many out of towners are having their say with moving it? How much outside money? Just out of curiosity, do you have any ancestors who fought at the Alamo? In Texas? If it takes people like us to stand between people like you and the Spirit of Sacrifice, then the moniker “Cenotaph saviors” is appropriate. I don’t understand why people like you would move it into a free speech zone so unprotected?

    Have you read the Structural Assessment & Stone Conservation Report? It says that it is more feasible and economical, considering the construction, to repair, seal and remain is the best solution for the Cenotaph. Heck, the City couldn’t even more a simply bronze statue without damaging it. Was the backdoor dead-of-the-night shenanigans of Travis Park basically a practice run for the Spirit? I know what’s going to happen if they try to move the Spirit of Sacrifice. The disinformation that people like you put out stating that the Spirit “needs” to be moved to be restored is the pure definition of “fake news”. We aren’t swallowing the kool-aide, RR. So very disappointed.

    • YOU WROTE: “You claim that the “save the cenotaph” group is “loud and rude”, but did you ever go to any of the meetings?”

      GIVE ME A BREAK. I went to a few of those meetings. The Freedom Force fools would interrupt and holler at speakers. They’d interrupt other citizens who were trying to ask questions. When people were seeking clarification, the Freedom Force crowd would just get louder and disrupt the meeting to where it was very difficult, if not impossible, to get the entire presentation. One of those clowns even showed up in an Incredible Hulk outfit. Not exaggerating – – a flippin’ halloween costume. And then they complain that they aren’t taken seriously? It’s not reasonable to expect people to treat you with anything but disdain when you behave like an a$$hole the way those jerks behave at meetings.

      • You completely missed my point of mentioning having gone to the meetings. So I’ll be happy to copy and paste it for you so that maybe my point comes through a little better.

        They had a few minutes to say something at one (1) meeting. Have you been to the Citizens Be Heard sessions? The City Council members are sitting there playing on their phones, sleeping, staring off into the far beyond, sneering at the citizen speaking, sarcastic, snooty, … that is IF they even show up. Their voices are not heard. And that’s because their voices don’t matter, right? The city will do what the city wants.

        Who cares if someone showed up in an Incredible Hulk outfit? They have a right to a freedom of expression. People are tired of not being heard. And in this case, it is their ancestors that are being desecrated.

        What is your skin in the game?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *