Bad logic
Thursday, August 30th, 2007 by eblogToday we start with another dedication to the ever-popular Mayor Pat Ahumada: “The Illogical Song,” by Supertramp.
***
We can understand that Brownsville’s mayor might not like this Imagine Brownsville stuff. After all, it’s not his baby. And he’s not alone. Some people suspect that this is just another one of those feel-good operations to gain public confidence while shuffling money to a few friends. Some suspect that this could be that old failed RioGulf thing, which fell apart with all the grace of an out-of-control merry-go-round, flinging parts and participants every which way.
Ahumada wants to kill the whole idea, including the $450,000 the city committed last year to pay civil engineers to gather information and prepare a study on n what the city’s residents need and want.
This is the second time the new mayor looks to kill a project that his predecessors began; the first was a third study aiming to determine how much developers should pay for the infrastructure needed to support new housing developments.
The problem is, Ahumada can’t just cancel contracts at will. In the absence of a breach by the other party, legally that can only be done if it is determined that those entering into the contract are younger than 18, or found to be mentally incapacitated. (We’re not taking this line of reason any further — we’re sure each reader continue this paragraph to his or her own delight).
So we had to pay the economic researchers who were hired to do the impact fee study; we just let them off the hook without having to actually finish their work. That doesn’t make much sense, does it? And guess what? Now our Public Utilities Board is saying it still needs that information, so it’s planning to go out and look for another group, and pay for a FOURTH study.
Thanks, Mayor Pat.
Now he’s saying the money for the Imagine Brownsville contract isn’t in the budget. That argument won’t wash, though. The mayor, along with the city manager and other City Commission members, makes the budget. If the money’s not in the budget, then he needs to put it there, whether he likes the idea or not.
The city committed to the project a year ago, and is obligated to uphold its end of the deal. The city is right now making its budget for the next fiscal year (which starts in a month), and the first part of budget making is going over all your obligations and figuring out how you’re going to meet them. He can’t just leave the money off the books and then tell the engineers that he’s sorry, but we’re not going to keep our end of the deal. Life don’t work that way.
Ahumada could well have a point. We’re paying a lot of money for a study that might have been done just as well in-house. But the City Commission that was in place at the time approved the study and committed to it. And it appears that a majority of the current commission still supports the idea. Ahumada says himself that he’s just one vote; in this case he’s outnumbered, and he has to deal with it.
He also has to meet the obligations his predecessors made, just like his decisions will bind those who follow him in office.
So if the money’s not there, then it needs to be found, and whoever didn’t put it there needs to be called on the carpet.
That’s the only logical thing to do.






