San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

August 26th, 2010
Spell drops out of city council race

STAFF REPORT

The November city council election in San Marcos shook out a little bit Wednesday when Texas State student Griffin Spell announced he would drop out of the race or incumbent Councilmember Kim Porterfield’s seat.

Spell’s decision leaves to Porterfield and 2008 mayoral candidate David Newman, who filed at the last minute before the deadline on Tuesday.

Spell said he decided to depart from the race because he believes Newman’s candidacy will pose a strong challenge to Porterfield. Spell said he will support Newman however he can.

“My goals have been to bring a strong, independent voice to our city council, restore confidence in our city government, and support fiscally responsible policies,” Spell said. “I believe Dave Newman will do all these things and more. As a small business owner, Dave knows the importance of smart, fiscally responsible policies and a balanced budget. He shares our values of open, honest, and transparent government of, by, and for the people. I am confident Dave Newman will be an outstanding member of our city council and a true representative of the people of San Marcos.”

Newman finished second in a three-way mayoral race with 30.1 percent of the vote in 2008. Newman said he is running against the prevailing way of doing business on the city council.

“I think that the issues that I raised in the 2008 election, and the statements and concerns that I brought to the table have been borne out to be true,” Newman said. “I believe that the people of San Marcos know to some degree already, where I stand on many of the issues which face us both then and now, and my firm stance on those issues hasn’t changed. What I believe has indeed changed is the tolerance of the people and the willingness of the voters of San Marcos to continue to enable the continuation of more of the same at City Hall through yet another election year. There are many people that are communicating intense dissatisfaction with our government, and I have personally heard appeals for consideration and concern, over and over at City Hall, and what I have observed is that it repeatedly falls on deaf ears.”

Porterfield said she welcomes the challenge and that her strategy is to talk about the issues with voters. Porterfield is the only incumbent up for election on a November ballot that will decide four of the seven seats on the city council.

“I think it’s good,” Porterfield said about Newman joining the race. “The more choices, the better it is for the voters. It’s part of our democratic process.”

Councilmember John Thomaides and former Councilmember Daniel Guerrero are running against each other for mayor. Former San Marcos Police Department Officer Rodney van Oudekerke and local businessman Shane Scott are running for the remaining two years of Thomaides’ unexpired council term. Planning and Zoning Commissioner Jude Prather and hospital contract administrator Toby Hooper are running for the seat being vacated by Councilmember Gaylord Bose, who has chosen to not seek re-election.

Email Email | Print Print

--

17 thoughts on “Spell drops out of city council race

  1. Hey John !
    I was just called by a neighbor and asked to come take a john thomaides sign out of their yard because your “team” did not ask permission to place a sign… sigh… that was fun !

  2. Well, I already declined to have anyone’s signs in my yard. Hopefully, I won’t fall victim to the great campaign sign conspiracy.

  3. really elena?
    classy.
    mistakes happen. when i ran for school board, i put a sign in the yard next door to where it was supposed to go.
    a simple address mix-up.
    and let’s talk about sign placement, shall we?
    the Carson properties (WWDr, Hunter, ect…) all have Daniel, Jude and Kim signs.
    that is all we need to know…

  4. Yeah REALLY CHRIS !!!! I had another neighbor call me about a john sign in their yard…. THEY HAD NOT GIVEN PERMISSION ! Just cause they supported john in previous elecitions does NOT mean they are supporting him in this election ! So “team john” made two mistakes on ONE street? THAT is ALL we need to know ! When the record comes out Im sure all the john signs will come down….. its on record ! And you know about all that “record” situation !

  5. A couple of times my vote has been determined after witnessing how people who support a specific candidate acts… petty, attention-seeking supporters can be such a turn-off.

  6. BTW, the idea that someone needs to call their neighborhood rep, to get a sign removed (they weigh what, a pound) is about as preposterous as the notion that it is newsworthy enough to debate here.

  7. Well it has finally arrived – the sign controversy! I can’t remember an election in the past 20 years that did not have a petty scandal about signs: the design, placement, and collection after the election. We have important issues (not signs) so let’s stick to them.

  8. People that won’t call, email or speak face-to-face with someone directly to discuss these types of matters, and think it’s “fun” to air their personal, petty differences in everyone else’s faces are sad and cowardly – *they* are another reason why our community is so divisive. It’s sad. It’s so disappointing that many adults in our community act like children. What kind of example are you setting for the future generations of community leaders & organizers: More of the same. It is disappointing.

  9. This town is run by a handful of developers/land owners. If a candidate is supported (by sign placement or cash or both) by one of these folks (carson), it’s a crystal clear indication of that candidate’s views and of how he/she will vote if elected. In this town, we all know who owns what land or rental property, so when a candidate’s sign lands there, it is a “sign” to pay attention to, though not as important as the actual contributor lists.
    Yeah, it’s small town bs, and most of these “controversies” are petty and mean (this) while some are costly and kind of scary (Maycock).

  10. To each his/her own, I suppose. I don’t really care a whole lot about where signs are, and whether they ended up in the wrong place by accident or intentionally (doubtful). I’m waiting for something substantive.

    Both mayoral candidates have served on City Council. I’d like to hear their commentary on their voting records (I’d also like to see their voting records). I’d like to hear what, specifically, they plan to do to bring better jobs to town. I’d like to hear what power (and responsibility) they feel that the mayor has, to help address the problems with our schools.

    That’s just me.

    You two can go ahead and vote based on the great signage conspiracy.

  11. I don’t know who owns every piece of land. I don’t know which properties are rentals, or who owns them, or whether the owner, or tenant, agreed to have signs in the yard. What’s more, I don’t have time to drive around town tallying up signs, or speculating about whether the candidate had permission to place various signs.

Leave a Reply

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

:)