City Hall, Fred Lewis, JAY discussed on Brian Kilmeade

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

We've had conversations with the mayor about this this audit proposition k on the November ballot. And he doesn't wanna talk about it at. At all. He just wants to talk about the borrowing of nearly a billion dollars in the previous propositions on the same ballot. We want he wants to borrow money that we pay back. But he doesn't want us to look at the books. It's like a sixteen year old we gave twenty bucks to on a Friday, but on Saturday asked for twenty more, and you say what about the twenty? I gave you last night. What's your? He's afraid of something. I mean, I'm not saying he's hiding something. But what's your friend of? I don't I don't know what they're afraid of. I mean, I don't think there's anybody that's dealt with the city and a lot they're afraid of accountability. Yeah. I don't think anybody. That's the city would say that they're run as efficiently as they could be. I think everyone knows if we do an audit. We're gonna find some inefficiencies we're gonna find some waste and duplication. And I think that's a good thing for us. Not not necessarily a bad. Ballot language is really tricky. It was intentionally written. So that you will say no on the ballot which is complete deception at city hall. I mean, that's just complete deception. Tell us about the ballot language. Yeah. In public forum. I told the mayor that I believe that the foul language is was a political advertisement against the measure, which it is. It suggests that the audit is redundant which we just went over. It's not redundant. This would be the first time we've ever done even the city auditor, Corey Stokes said in a recent Texas monitor articles, she said, it's not something we've ever been asked to do. And there's something to be said about giving an outside look, and then about language also suggests that it costs money, but doesn't talk about the savings and find the auditing any idea how much money we could find in wasteful spending. If even if we got the low end of what other cities have found which is four percent four percent of a four point one billion dollar budget and sixty four million. That's a lot. That's a lot. We can do a lot of things we can hire some police officers get a police contract or doubt about it. I got a text message here at five one two eight three six zero five hundred says why does the city demand civilian oversight of police yet? They don't want a third party or civilian oversight of an audit of themselves. That's pretty interesting the hypocrisy. See there. That's a very good point. Fred Lewis is also in the studio with this campaign finance guy, and you really been the guy behind the scenes helping keep our investment on the up and up when it comes to code next. And we're told called next is gone. It's never coming back is what the mayor says. However, what do you believe that? It's coming back code next. The mayor the city manager had made it clear that it's coming back right after the election early next year. It's going to be quote rebooted in quote going to give it a new brand new name that everybody will like that probably something that sounds more comfortable, right? Well, I think the city is under the missing oppression that the problem is the name and the brand in the policies. We think the problem is the policies that the public doesn't like it wherever they live, whatever background. They don't feel like they've been listened to stuff like taking away their rights to appeal. Decisions of the city while make it easier to have bars and commercial establishments in their single family neighborhood things that are not popular with the public in the reason. Jay is a good thing for the public. Is it allows the public the vote on the next code next or son of code next door rebranding code necks? And that means if the city doesn't listen if the staff doesn't listen if developers have too much influence than the public can say, no, basically, a code next was a rewrite of all of our land use code some people just not tuning in. Maybe not familiar with this process. But basically what set the rules and the guidelines of where and how anything can be built in this city. Absolutely. Every law related to land, development, and prop. Jay would basically say voters. Get to say, yes, or no Bernie major rewrite at the very end of the day. And the reason that matters is that they have to take it to the voters. They're going to listen to people during the process because they will have to listen to people in order to get it passed. I don't think ninety nine point nine percent of the people in Austin have a clue as to. What it is sure or care, but they do that they do pay for it. They don't care because they don't know what it is to understand. They don't understand. You just mentioned a couple of things that people may may have heard for the very first time over some other dark secrets inside code next. Well, one thing is that they've gotten rid of a reduced parking. And a lot of areas of the city pickling single family neighborhoods, which means this cars are going to be parked all along the street. The other thing is they gotten rid of some things that would have provided some compatibility along corridors big buildings on corridors next, the neighborhoods and other words to make them fit better together. But there are a lot of controversial things such as there's a transition zone where they're talking about going five blocks in the neighborhoods with multifamily and commercial development, whether the neighborhood wants it or whether it's needed. So the bottom line is whether you understand code next or not. Or what the land development code is. If you wanna make sure to keep the city straight the development community straight the staff straight. You want to have to say at the end of the day. Let's back up a few years. Why do we need to rewrite our land use codes? Why do we need code next? What was the argument for doing all of this? And I don't think I don't think the city did not. I'm not saying I want it. But I don't think the city did a good job selling this to the public to begin with. I don't think the city did a good job making it clear as I said as to what it even it is. I think you're right. But what really happened is. Fred Lewis, did a very good job of informing the public. Yeah. And people caught wind of it. Do we need a rewrite over land use codes? Well, that's not exactly clear, we have a thirty year old code and after thirty years, and changes and things you need to revise it. The first thing we should do. And this has been recommended is we should clean up the code. We have make sure that the inconsistencies the problems little things. And then let's. See where we are Fort Worth did that and then never had to go on to a big rewrite of their code. Then we could take whatever issues remain after our cleanup in. We could add the things that we think the to be at it. But we don't need to do fifteen hundred sixteen hundred pages at once. Wow. So that you can put things in there like people's rights to appeal property decisions have been reduced because the truth is nobody favors that basically code next is an attack on property rights. It's on attack on single family neighborhoods. Absolutely jump in here at five one two eight three six zero five ninety toll free eight seven seven five nine zero five five to five. Well, I think if they do hope to have any success with this at all they are they've got a long way to go as far as convincing Austin that they need it. And you and you were saying that basically the city is no good at making do what what they already have. And try to improve on what they already have that that goes across the board. And so let's let's take what we already have see how we can make it better. That makes sense. Will they had a top down? We're going to change everything we have a theory on how people should live. Yeah. They literally went around and said single family neighborhoods are obsolete. And that we need to change. How people live, you know. I I hesitate to bring this up because it sounds really conspiracy. Theorist? I mean, this sounds like Alex Jones stuff, but I got a barrage of text messages talking about what you just said making single family subdivisions and areas obsolete. All of the textures here. I've got like eight of them that say that is agenda twenty one stuff. People manipulate manipulation is what it is. That's what they say. That's what they say. I don't I don't know about that. But it definitely is an attack on property rights and people manipulation and at the end of the day what we're saying about proposition, j why people should vote for it is whatever product the city finally comes up with with whatever name branding code next. Yeah. You get the final say. And if people get the final say, they're going to moderate what they do Michael here with the the group that supporting proposition k the full audit. You get a chance to talk to some of these city council folks, the Greg Kosovars they add layers of the world. What do they say about this on it? What what pushback have you received from city hall? You personally you personally because I've seen in cyberspace in the Twitter verse some pretty hateful things said about you. And this effort to do a full audit of the city. Burst prior to watching the petition. We went and met with the city council members and the mayor and the reception was actually pretty positive. They said, yeah that sounds like a great idea. We'll get back to you. But never heard back, which is why we started the petition process since we have got it on the ballot. All of the opposition has been scare tactics. They're not discussing the merits of an audit at all. They're trying to scare voters in devoting against it talking about dark money and coke brothers and jerk Republican conspiracy, none of which has any merit or evidence to support it. They just think they can scare people to and tell you when somebody turns down an audit. It just does not look good. It it really what that tells me is because the mayor should be welcoming. Yeah. On tells me that he's he's thinking we've got a mess here to restore some trust in the city. I mean, there's already this city councils already, you know, known as the spending money like a drunken sailor bad PR move on his part while they think they can spin it and. Make it not about an audit. But that's what it is. And we know we pulled the issue, and we're talking about every day eight out of ten people when asked if they want an audit of the city's yes, it's a very popular issue. The ballot language I need to pull up in front of me. But it's very very misleading talking about an outside an outside consultant, it's catching all those phrases that make folks who are concerned about wasteful spending. Go Nana, we don't want to hire another consultant. This is a little bit different. This actually could make money. Save money at the very least, correct? Yeah. I mean, we the ballot language was a big fight between us in the city. But ultimately, what the what the ordinance says is a requires the city to hire an independent firm, and the way we defined independent was hasn't had a contract with the city in the last five years. They just can't hire. They're buddies to do the job and doesn't have any relationship to city council members of staff, and then second the firm has experience in this type of auditing. This is a big job. It's an important job. We need somebody. That knows what they're doing. Not just hire anybody to do this. Sure. Absolutely..

Coming up next