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

September 14th, 2010
Guerrero holds campaign kickoff, rips opponent

091410guerrero

San Marcos mayoral candidate Daniel Guerrero, left, and his grandfather, Jose Silguero, right, at Guerrero’s campaign event Monday night at the Saltgrass Steakhouse. Photo by Andy Sevilla.

By ANDY SEVILLA
Associate Editor

San Marcos mayoral hopeful Daniel Guerrero gave an impassioned speech to supporters at his official campaign kick-off event Monday night, highlighting his experiences and vision, while marking describing differences between himself and his opponent, John Thomaides.

Guerrero said Thomaides is a “very good opponent” and that he respects him “very much,” but asserted that Thomaides has misrepresented himself on several issues.

Guerrero served a term on the council, ending in November 2008. Thomaides won election to a third term on the council a year ago.

Guerrero said Thomaides opposed moving city elections from May to November and opposed establishment of a Texas State student liaison position on the council. Thomaides recently told the University Star that he supported both initiatives.

Thomaides was not immediately available for comment.

Guerrero also said Thomaides supported the meet and confer contracts negotiated a year ago with San Marcos police and firefighters, constantly voting in favor of the contracts until it became politically favorable for Thomaides to oppose them. Guerrero also said that Thomaides has been in favor of financial incentives until it became politically expedient to oppose them.

“His (John Thomaides) decisions seem to change each and every day,” Guerrero told supporters, drawing chuckles from the crowd.

Guerrero said the biggest difference between himself and Thomaides is that he is willing to work with others, listen to the differences of opinion and build a sense of team, all in the effort to move San Marcos forward.

“We have a tremendous opportunity before us,” Guerrero said. “Our community is changing and we have to change with it … I have a great vision for our community … I have a vision where we can bring our community together and move forward,” by ending divisiveness at City Hall and in San Marcos.

Guerrero said this year’s election is significant for the decades ahead. He said San Marcos is his home, where he grew up, went to school, engaged in leadership activities, and served the community. Guerrero said he’s carrying the hopes and dreams of an entire community that has poured into him throughout his life, and that his experiences, faith in God, and strength gained from his supporters will help guide him if elected mayor.

Guerrero said he’ll serve with dedication, commitment, and selflessness, and would never tarnish his character or the instruction his grandfather, Jose Silguero.

“I serve because that’s the example my grandpa gave to us each and every day,” Guerrero said.

Said Silguero at the rally, “I’m overjoyed that I have a grandson (Guerrero) that is giving himself to the community, is devoting himself to the community in the way that he is doing so … (Guerrero) is ready to be mayor, because it’s in his heart to serve.”

Guerrero said San Marcos voters will have an important decision this November as both mayoral candidates put forth their vision to serve the needs of San Marcos.

About 200 guests trickled in and out of the Saltgrass Steakhouse restaurant for Guerrero’s campaign event. Among them were outgoing San Marcos Mayor Susan Narvaiz’ husband Mike, and Councilmembers Fred Terry and Ryan Thomason, as well as city council hopefuls Shane Scott, Rodney Van Oudekerke, and Jude Prather. Also in attendance were former Councilmember Pam Couch and her husband, Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commissioner Bucky Couch, as well as San Marcos Police Officers Association President Danny Arredondo, former San Marcos Councilmember Ed Mihalkanin, and recent headline grabbing developers Shaun Cranston of Paso Robles, and Gordon Muir of the Buie Tract development.

Email Email | Print Print

--

60 thoughts on “Guerrero holds campaign kickoff, rips opponent

  1. Why did SMLN provide a paragraph identifying the attendees Sevilla recognized? Is it a gossip column or is the identification something more sinister? Why didn’t SMLN provide a similar roster of high profile attendees at John Thomaides event on the square back in the summer?

  2. I think Andy did a great job in identifying some of Guerrero’s key supporters at the kickoff. For some of us voters, it’s very important to know who some of the city leaders and movers and shakers are behind every candidate. Therefore, I applaud the fact that someone in this town finally has the courage to challenge the status quo of secrecy and is shining light on government and government candidates! Thankyou SMLN!!

  3. By the way, if there’s nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t be a problem to know who attends any council candidates functions. I’m sure Daniel wants voters to know who is supporting him, just as John does as well (and if they dont, then there’s something fishy). Andy did also mention that Gaylord Bose was at John’s kickof, though it seems John did have as many high-profile attendees.

  4. who cares about high profile attendes

    what is Daniel gonna do to improve San marcos! thats what i care about

  5. Jenny, I wouldn’t sully “courage” so cheaply, but your reaction doesn’t surprise me. SMLN has fostered a self-preserving, tribal mentality among readers and ends up shaping some news instead of just reporting it. Red meat is often thrown out to feed self-confirmation biases — I guess you might say the Murdoch/Aisles model has gone local.

    But answering your response, wouldn’t it be just as significant to a voter if Scott Gregson was at John’s kick-off as it might be that Danny Arredondo was at Daniel’s? Yet the editors of SMLN chose to not chop the gossip paragraph from the article on Daniel’s event so that readers might draw a connection or project the views of attendees on the candidate. Truth is, Daniel is the candidate, and it is Daniel’s views which are newsworthy. Voters shouldn’t be encouraged to be lazy by just assuming Daniel shares the views of someone who might have shown up to try and gain favor or out of mere interest. I would prefer an article that let us know what he said or thinks about the issues and how that compares to his opponent.

  6. “I would prefer an article that let us know what he said or thinks about the issues and how that compares to his opponent.”

    Likewise. Still waiting for something substantive.

  7. Actually guys I think we’ve had that informative article whenever the candidates first introduced their candidacy for the mayor’s race. I think this particular piece was coverage of a campaign kickoff, and it identifies some new things Daniel thinks about John. This article also presented us with facts (who attended the meeting). We can do what we want with these facts, add our own bias, or just take them for what they are – true statements of who was present at a mayoral campaign kickoff, as well as, a cute message from Daniel’s grandpa, who is adorable by the way.
    Actually to speak on John Mcg’s comment, if I’m not mistaken SMLN has in a previous article identified Scott Gregson as John T’s biggest contributor in the most recent reporting period. So there’s no conspiracy there, or an effort to hide Gregson’s personal support for John, at least in my opinion. But for some voters it’s important to know who’s backing a specific candidate, at least it is for me.
    When we add our on bias into presented facts, then that’s when we think we read something we did not. I read facts about who was in attendance at said meeting. I could take those facts and say how dare SMLN let the voters know who attended Daniel’s kickoff, we should keep that secret. Or I can say, maybe having current city leaders at this kickoff lends credence to Daniel’s argument that he’s a team builder. We can take the facts as we want.
    I just dont think we should immediately begin insinuating cries of foul play or bias. I wont belabor this point anymore, just wanted to give my two-cents.

  8. I’m not claiming bias or foul play, just a lack of substance, which I put equally on the candidates and the media.

    The article could have also pointed out that Guerrero was in favor of incentives ($MILLIONS$ for Stone Creek), until recently. Since he brought it up, why not dig in a little and get his current views on that debacle?

    The same goes for the Thomaides article, which had *slightly* more substance, but was still pretty fluffy. From that article – “We can send a strong message that we can not only protect our existing jobs, but also attract the new jobs we so desperately need,” Um, how exactly? What has prevented this from happening so far? That seems like a fairly simple, and obvious, question to ask, in response to that statement.

  9. Honestly, letting them get away with “vote for me, because I will make things better,” and “I was raised right,” and ” I love this city,” and blah, blah, blah, I might as well vote based on quality, quantity and propriety of placement of campaign signs.

    What specific actions will you take, to make San Marcos a better place for all of us when you are done? Why do you believe these actions will be successful? What will San Marcos look like, when you leave office? What is your vision and what are your Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely goals/steps to realizing that vision? There is no “make things better” button, that our current representatives just haven’t bothered to push.

    WHAT WOULD YOU DO AND HOW?

    Anything else should be greeted with an Iraqi-style shoe toss.

  10. It has been awhile but at one time we had a person that looked at which members of the city council voted together. I may be mistaken but didn’t Daniel pretty much vote along with Mayor Susan? If this was the case then we might not be getting the change we might hope for. I remember John and Gaylord sort of being the minor votes on many of the items brought up before the council. Just curious if anybody remembers some of how the two candidates voted with other members on the council?

  11. Here you go. Of course, how everyone voted on specific issues would be more telling.

    Mayor Susan Narvaiz – With Kim Porterfield (16 votes, 94.11 percent), with Pam Couch (14 votes, 82.35 percent), with Chris Jones (10 votes, 58.82 percent), with Daniel Guerrero (10 votes, 58.82 percent), with John Thomaides (seven votes, 41.17 percent), with Gaylord Bose (seven votes, 41.17 percent).

    Councilmember Gaylord Bose – With John Thomaides (11 votes, 64.7 percent), with Kim Porterfield (eight votes, 47.05 percent), with Susan Narvaiz (seven votes, 41.17 percent), with Chris Jones (six votes, 35.29 percent), with Pam Couch (six votes, 35.29 percent), with Daniel Guerrero (four votes, 23.52 percent).

    Councilmember Pam Couch – With Kim Porterfield (15 votes, 88.23 percent), with Susan Narvaiz (14 votes, 82.35 percent), with Daniel Guerrero (10 votes, 58.82 percent), with Chris Jones (10 votes, 58.82 percent), with John Thomaides (six votes, 35.29 percent), with Gaylord Bose (six votes, 35.29 percent).

    Councilmember Daniel Guerrero – With Pam Couch (11 votes, 64.7 percent), with Kim Porterfield (11 votes, 64.7 percent), with Susan Narvaiz (10 votes, 58.82 percent), with Chris Jones (six votes, 35.29 percent), with John Thomaides (five votes, 29.41 percent), with Gaylord Bose (four votes, 23.52 percent).

    Councilmember Chris Jones – With Kim Porterfield (11 votes, 64.7 percent), with Susan Narvaiz (10 votes, 58.82 percent), with Pam Couch (10 votes, 58.82 percent), with John Thomaides (seven votes, 41.7 percent), with Gaylord Bose (six votes, 35.29 percent), with Daniel Guerrero (six votes, 35.29 percent).

    Councilmember Kim Porterfield – With Susan Narvaiz (16 votes, 94.11 percent), with Pam Couch (14 votes, 82.35 percent), with Chris Jones (11 votes, 64.7 percent), with Daniel Guerrero (10 votes, 58.82 percent), with John Thomaides (eight votes, 47.05 percent), with Gaylord Bose (eight votes, 47.05 percent).

    Councilmember John Thomaides – With Gaylord Bose (11 votes, 64.7 percent), with Kim Porterfield (eight votes, 47.05 percent), with Chris Jones (seven votes, 41.7 percent), with Susan Narvaiz (seven votes, 41.17 percent), with Pam Couch (six votes, 35.29 percent), with Daniel Guerrero (five votes, 29.41 percent).

  12. voting records are coming, Moe.
    but your recollection is the same as mine- Daniel almost always voted with Susan.

  13. Ted, I do not understand the statistics you cite. Are they for a certain period of time? Some of the individual City Council meetings can have 15 or more votes per meeting.

  14. “From the action on the dias, the rhetoric of politics and conflicts about issues as they are discussed in the street, one might think the San Marcos City Council is a divided body.

    In fact, the last city council voted unanimously in 294 of 311 cases between Nov. 20, 2007 and Nov. 3, 2008.

    Thus, the council only split on 17 votes, or 5.4 percent of the time. Despite too small of a sampling for a statistical analysis, the split votes render a meaningful descriptive analysis of how the council acts on more controversial measures.”

  15. As you know, statistics can show whatever you want. In the article Ted mentions, it shows that Thomaides voted with Narvaiz 41% of the time while Guerro voted with Narvaiz 58% of the time. In reality, Thomaides voted with Narvaiz 96.78% of the time and Guerro voted with Narvaiz 97.75% of the time. Not much of a difference if you ask me.Oh, but wait, that is taking all of the votes into consideration rather than just the ones that were split. Well, that really does not tell us anything since I have seen many things pass unanimously that should have never been unanimous if the council member actually gave a damn about the constituents.

  16. I agree, mostly. I’m looking forward to seeing each candidate’s (where applicable) total voting record.

  17. Thanks for the additional information on the statistics. I remember many of the split votes. And, I agree, somehow our current City Council has succumbed to the “we will all vote the same way if at all possible” syndrome. So much so, it makes some wonder if votes get lined up in advance of the meeting.

  18. When I see developers like Shaun Cranston of Paso Robles, and Gordon Muir of the Buie Tract, that gives me a clear indication were Mr. Guerrero proprieties will be. Now our choice is either keep the same policies as Susan’s then vote for Daniel, or change and have a fresh start and vote for John Thomaides . People are angry, and wants a change for a better future for our city, San Marcos will go bankrupt very soon if we keep Susan’s policies or expect your taxes maybe to double soon. This is not a personal contest, heck, I rather have a beer with Daniel than John, but I care about this city and I think John Thomaides will be a better leader.

  19. So the former council members and current members that were present means that he will create free health care for past members? You governments are all about health care these days. You can spin this any way you want it only makes it a wild @&& guess.

  20. Sort of. I think it is fairly likely that they do not agree with, support, or expect much support from Thomaides. They may have been at Guerrero’s event, in the hopes of getting in his good graces. That doesn’t mean that they got anywhere (or that they didn’t).

  21. Chris, it should give you an indication that Daniel is a leader that will bring folks together from all segments of the community.

  22. yes, i know. Daniel is a great guy. I like him very much, as I’ve said in the past. I and my oldest daughter have been the recipients of his good will and good advice.
    But for me, it’s all about how he will vote on the dais. His voting record will show that he has not voted to support the issues I care about. I can’t quantify it yet, I need to look at minutes from all the Council meetings to do so.

  23. If Thomaides and Gaylord are supporting each other in alot of votes, that tells me something. Tells me all i need to know. Not supporting that

  24. Just because someone shows up to a candidates event does not necessarily mean that the candidate invited them or even knew they were going to be there. To decide who you are going to vote for based on who showed up to an even is rather shallow at best.

    If Mr. Thomaides is the solution, why has he not been the solution to date? He has been one vote on every issue for how long now, 5 or 6 years? He could have formed a consensus as council member just as well as he can (or can’t as it may seem) as mayor. Remember, the mayor is just one vote of 7. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

  25. Someone who votes on the “right” side, but can’t build a consensus would be better than someone who votes on the “wrong” side and can build a consensus. We’ve had the latter for quite awhile now.

    Definitely looking forward to those voting records. If Guerrero’s shows that he has voted on my side, he’s an interesting candidate. If not, then thanks but no thanks. It’s a refreshingly simple choice, when both candidates are known quantities.

  26. Compatible vote counters: Please don’t overlook an overweening fact that can skew the “guilt by association” factor.” To wit, a very large number of motions arise and are voted on regarding “housekeeping” item,s, such as adopting the latest version of the Southern Building Code for local application. Some come from Admin. or Staff, for things like budget amendments (“If I could change some money from Lina to Line B, I could double the amount of office supplies at a big discount, thereby saving money in the long run.” or “Because of cost over-runs on the project, we must move money from X account to make up the difference.” Or the National League of Cities has asked us to share a position on the use of “stimulus” money to repair or improve local bridge and transportation infrastructure.”

    The place to look is in the crazed votes–to give Beall’s, Target and Penney’s “incentives” to move a couple of miles south, to a new (also subsidized) roadside Shopping Center, exactly 13 miles north of a nearly identical one in New Braunfels, with the same anchors. Or the secretly-arranged “deal” to front developers $3M-$5M to do an Alamo Drafthouse and create a Sixth Street auxiliary and knockoff at Springtown. Or a huge commitment of incentives to fund a half-planned instant roadside suburb, plus providing infrastructure to fit it in with existing development and raw land up for speculation. Or the incredibly tortured pay increase/union contract with the public safety folks, which makes them now a very odd half-breed between Civil Service and not–a HUGE difference with legal ramifications. Or more currently, to try hard to incentivize development which will require roads and sewer lines, etc, to serve new development squat in the midst of the Sink Creek Drainage Basin, floodplain, recharge area, etc. Or the nearly incredible goal of lifting Aquarena over the UPAC rail Crossing, expanding the carrying capacity without any new space between Charles Austin Drive and the River to dump all the traffic–the goal apparently being to handle the mammoth crowds who will come to see the Rose Bowl played here. Calculate the TELLING votes, and the ones that piss off the most money on whims (I’m not going to say anything about the “sports tourism initiative or the lovely and talented new “brand and tagline.” That took a horse-whipping in the University Star, and rightly.

  27. Mr. Thomaides voted AGAINST the will of over 300 citizens who stood vigil for FOUR hours on the mandatory micro-chpping of pets issue. The vote came up a year later and they over turned their own over turning of the ordinance. If Mr. Thomaides was for the will of the people, he would have (a) voted against the measure (b) waited as we requested for another night other than ELECTION NIGHT when everyone was not at the pcts (c) the city could have put the data in the RSS feed to alert citizens {which it did not} PRIOR TO THE VOTE. DG4SM, the RIGHT VOTE! If you stood in solidarity with the other 300 citizens, please spread the word Vote DG4SM for Mayor of San Marcos!

  28. I don’t think it’s fair to bash someone for the mayoral position simply because they believe that pets should be micro-chipped. That was one overrated issue and not in any way should it dictate who we should elect as our mayor. There are many other more pressing items, such as jeopardizing our water supply. At least it shows he stands up for himself and doesn’t sway his vote just to make people happy.

  29. Yeah, I look forward to the day that pet microchips, deer feeding, city logos and the like are our most pressing problems.

  30. It was important enough for 300 citizens to get involved. Let us not forget that this was the largest protest in the history of San Marcos, Texas. It may not be important to some, but it sure was for many. It could just as easily be any other issue of which people take the time out of their evening to be present for FOUR hours during City Council meeting and receive national press coverage. We were the FIRST city in the nation to over turn such an ordinance. The fact remains that the citizens held up their voices to the elected officials and the incumbents IGNORED their voices. It is not a “bash” it is a political fact via voting record. And, as one who has reviewed the Open Records data, the 300 people were congruent with the letters/e-mails sent to City Hall by residents opposing the measure, time and time again, over a period of years. He stood up to vote against it when the people were present, and when they were not present the second vote, a year later, he changed his vote.

  31. Those 300 people are welcome to vote however they choose. My top priorities are: education, jobs, neighborhoods, transparency and transportation. Some combination of those will drive my vote. Sorry.

  32. Mine are: Downtown {of which I have seen (0) in any of the press releases}, smart growth {no blight/environmental stewardship}, balanced budgets, and Veterans {again (0) in any of the press releases}. It is the philosophy and praxis of leadership that I am pointing out here. And, YAY to transparency! It appears to be en vogue this year! If one is for transparency, then one could more than likely agree that our elected officials should have NOT voted to over turn the ordinance until citizens could be involved in the process. Rather than over turning the measure on election night, especially without any publicity, i.e. not being in the city RSS feed. A website which has costs THOUSANDS of dollars.

  33. One last item, before I jump out of the thread. It does not take elected officials to get action here in our community. After our blight report = houses town down, after our graffiti blasting report = operation hauled due to air particulate concerns, today after speaking with state agency = barrels downtown behind the old cleaners, the ones that have been there for six months, they will be removed tomorrow. We have handed off the information on the contents of these barrels to “We the People” for tonight’s show at 8:00 on smtx.tv. And, will have a full video report tomorrow as the barrels are taken out of the heart of downtown. It is good to know that city staff and state staff work collaboratively with citizens. I look forward to our elected officials doing the same after this November’s election. Take Action Citizens, don’t just sit on the side lines! Break a Leg to all the candidates!! We are looking forward to the debates!

  34. You are right Lisa that we shouldn’t wait for our elected officials to take action. I have always said (and it has been observed by others) that the Council members already know how they are voting before citizen input. I always enjoy a good grass root sign-holding protest (whether I agree with opinions or not) especially when done correctly w/media coverage. It’s nice to see our elected officials squirm with the visual reminder that they work for us and people are paying attention. I don’t always agree with you , Lisa, but I hope that you continue to rub some people the wrong way!

  35. Well after the 7-0 (or 0-7) vote on the Paso Robles annexation, it has definitely tarnished my interest in Thomaides. Big disappointment. I was hoping he was pro-neighborhoods.

    But hearing all the “San Marcos forward” rant from C. Jones and then it clicked that it was also Guerreo’s catch phrase….does “forward” mean plowing through neighborhoods with no looking back?

    Anyone else want to step up?

  36. I suspect that some voted for annexation in the hopes that it would allow the city to have greater control over how the development is carried out.

  37. It would be nice to have our candidates speak during the public comment periods, when these controversial issues come up, so that we know where they stand.

  38. After all, if Council is prepared to vote on an issue, and if there is adequate transparency, then the candidates should also be prepared to offer up their positions. Campaigns don’t need to be limited to sign controversies and PR fluff.

  39. Annexation = land use and site development regulations. You want to see nightmare… watch a golf course get developed outside of the city limits and on top of the recharge zone. Edwards rules only get you so far with environmental protection. That is why the vote was unanimous, and I will all but guarantee you that is why Thomaides and Bose voted how they did (and perhaps 1-2 others).

  40. “It would be nice to have our candidates speak during the public comment periods, when these controversial issues come up, so that we know where they stand.”

    I agree with you Mr. Marchut, and I have indeed done so,…

    on numerous occasions.

    I hope that the people of San Marcos who are paying attention to these proceedings before us currently at City Hall do have a firm idea of where I stand on the issues,….

    for I have made no secret of it.

    I ask for, and thank you for your support on November 2nd.

    Dave Newman
    Candidate for Place 1: San Marcos City Council

  41. “Edwards rules only get you so far with environmental protection.

    That is why the vote was unanimous, and I will all but guarantee you that is why Thomaides and Bose voted how they did ”

    I can verify/confirm that.

  42. Mr. Newman,

    What are you verifying/confirming? Is it the first part of the part about how Thomaides/Bose voted? If the latter, does that mean you are in bed with Thomaides? Are you intent on creating a new “voting block” to vote with Thomaides?

  43. This is a good point CWS and Mr. Newman. I hadn’t considered that.

    Now, is there any chance that the town will /can encourage the developers to nix the golf course part altogether? Could they be swayed to put in protected green space with very accessible trails, picnic areas for the private community etc? There has to be something that is safer for the aquifer, and if the town is giving services, shouldn’t it be able to demand a little in return?

  44. Just to be clear, I am not anti-golf! But there are 2 other courses in the town limits already. A third seems to be a want, not a need…..

  45. To be fair, a golf course won’t likely have the problems with dog crap, litter, drunks, hot coals from frills, etc. Our parks are not without their own issues, environmental and otherwise.

  46. Lou Loomis: I’m going to put it right on the line. There’s been a lot of complaints already. Fooling around on the course, bad language, smoking grass, poor caddying. If you guys want to get fired. If you want to be replaced by golf carts, just keep it up.

    My point being , the course will bring jobs to San Marcos.

    BTW- Caddy Shack

Leave a Reply

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

:)