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

May 22nd, 2008
Residents of recently annexed neighborhoods would not qualify for mayor, council under proposed changes


A provision that would disqualify residents of recently annexed neighborhoods from running for mayor or city council is among proposed amendments coming before the charter review commission for a final vote this afternoon.

Currently, candidates for city council must have lived in the city for at least a year before a city election or have had a “principal physical residence for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the person’s election, in any territory not formerly within the corporate limits of the city, but which is annexed.” A proposed amendment would strike out that portion of council candidate qualifications.

The charter review commission is appointed every two years by the city council to update the document and recommend changes. Then the city council decides which proposed amendments to put on the ballot for voter consideration in November. Chaired by former mayor Kathy Morris, the commission is composed of vice chair Arthur Taylor, Scott Cook, Bucky Couch, Sam McCabe, Sam Montoya and Bill Taylor.

In 2003, residents of Willow Creek and other recently annexed neighborhoods off Hunter Road southwest of the city elected two council members and former Mayor Bob Habingreither who then presided over the area’s deannexation.

The commission’s last scheduled meeting is 5:30 p.m. today in the main conference room at City Hall, 630 E. Hopkins.


The article was changed to say Willow Creek residents elected three city council members following the area’s annexation, not a city council majority.


» Proposed charter amendments as of May 15 [pdf]


» With scant public input, charter review commission finalizing its work 04/25/08

Email Email | Print Print


3 thoughts on “Residents of recently annexed neighborhoods would not qualify for mayor, council under proposed changes

  1. Interesting. I wonder, given the problems we are facing with home ownership, why we would propose striking “promote neighborhood integrity” from the goals of the government.

    A quick Google search brought up this explanation of “neighborhood integrity” from the city of College Station:

    The term Neighborhood Integrity is often used to describe the core components that make up the identity of a particular neighborhood. There are certain attributes that contribute positively to neighborhoods, such as

    * definable boundaries (roads, land use, natural boundaries)
    * relatively compact size that promotes interaction between neighbors,
    * connectivity or reasonable proximity to schools, parks, clinics, etc.

    Similarly, Neighborhood Integrity incorporates a quality-of-life aspect. Residents expect neighborhoods to be relatively quiet, safe, have lower volumes of traffic and be well maintained. Making sure the character and feel of a neighborhood remains stable and protected will also help solidify it’s identity over time.

    Most of that sounds pretty important and desirable in promoting homeownership and long-term residency.

    Similarly, why strike “create a strong community” from those goals? That is what we are lacking more than anything. There are too many “Us and Them” issues in this city.

  2. Good questions Ted. I didnt ask about those. It might have something to do with having more concrete objectives. Neighorhood integrity, et. al. seem like worthy goals but are maybe too abstract to codify as a goal of city government. It’s still an interesting change in light of all the neighborhood issues that come up like your problems in the Sierra Circle area.

Leave a Reply

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