Hunger in Texas

by James Worster

According to a USDA report released recently some twelve million American families had problems affording food in 2002. The Department of Agriculture also stated that a high percentage of these men, women and children actually, at one time or another, went hungry. It was estimated that of almost four million families last year someone in the household missed meals because the family income was insufficient to acquire food. This according to the USDA is a slightly over eight percent increase from 2001.

Out of the world’s total population, an estimated twenty-three percent are financially incapable of providing for themselves an adequate nutritional diet. According to international advisory committees, almost thirty-five thousand children under the age of five die of the effects of malnutrition in this world each and every day. To bring this a little closer to home, approximately one and one half million children in Texas live under the poverty level; this relates to about 27%, compared to 21% of the national mean for the same circumstances.

Dramatic hunger in the United States is not as prevalent as in other countries such as Somalia and Sudan. The unfortunate fact that our problem of hunger in this country is not as obvious, it also tends to go unrecognized but is no less serious and is often ignored buy local and state bourgeois politics.

In most cases there is not much choice for individual households at the low to mid income level… It is simply a case of pay the rent or eat, pay the utilities or eat, pay the pharmacy or eat. This is our legacy under the present state of affairs. Many in Texas are intimidated when they apply for food stamps or nutritional assistance by the very agencies that were organized to help them. In some instances they are belittled or embarrassed by the employees at these agencies. Understandably many of these programs in Texas are merely a short stop to a problem! They are more like life support to many and not an answer to the basic situation at hand.

It is well known that children who are raised lacking in nutritional requirements have been shown to be underachievers and of poor health for the remainder of there lives thus a burden to or on their so-called "Society". That is a statistic according to the AMA! These statistics are not the children of the bourgeois but the children of the proletarians. Their pain is our pain and often they live next door to us or within the confines of our own homes and yes, on occasion, even we suffer with them!

In a nation such as ours with in-exhaustible industrial resources, land, space and technology, we have the ability to produce and distribute foods of all types in great abundance to our fellow human beings. It can be easily witnessed that the reason so many are suffering from hunger or the effects of malnutrition is due to the simple fact that our resources for production and distribution are not being utilized for the needs of all people. So long as the farming industry is subsidized not to plant crops that would feed our hungry or food crops are destroyed for no other reason than to artificially elevate prices, this will simply be a case of greed verses need.

Our nation’s present course of action, it would seem, is to mobilize our military for the purposes of the domination of the mid-east for the extrapolation of petroleum products. Would it not be more beneficial to the populace of our state or the nation to mobilize an "Agricultural Militia" which in turn would simultaneously reduce our unemployment rate and produce larger food crops? This newly organized entity might also be responsible for the distribution of food and nutritional products to the working masses who are in need of such items. Why should many starve amongst abundance?

A nation removed from the constraints of these antisocial and antiquated concepts of bourgeois capitalistic domination and united under a more socialistic form of government would be able to end this disabling crisis of hunger among its inhabitants. Moving beyond the capitalistic agribusiness of this county’s many food producing monopolies to a more socialized program of production would thus end the vile exploitation of the farm worker and the destruction of the land and natural resources upon which we so greatly depend.

Free Trade Dilemmas: Some Observations About Mexico

by Michael S. Yoder

Now that the 2004 presidential campaign among the mainstream two parties is underway, we are seeing increased attention paid to the plight of working families in the U.S. Some Democrats are finally criticizing NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements publicly. They point out that manufacturing jobs are shrinking at an alarming rate, forcing many Americans to search for work in the largely non-union and generally low-paying service sector. As socialists, we obviously share these concerns, and take the argument a step further by pointing out that American capitalism has accelerated the economic and social uncertainties faced by millions of families in the era of globalization. However, we as socialists must maintain an interest in social and economic well being of people in other countries too, given that globalization results in increasingly flexible flows of capital across borders.

The original predictions by those opposed to NAFTA of manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S. for lower-wage localities south of the border certainly came true. Ironically, however, Mexicans are alarmed at the impact of globalization upon their country. This includes directors of economic promotion agencies, union leaders, academics, government officials, and ordinary middle- and working-class citizens I have interviewed. In other words, representatives of labor, domestic capital, and government are saying virtually the same thing: Mexico’s brand of economic development remains a dependent style of development, at the mercy of American consumers and the owners of multinational capital.

Over half of Mexico’s manufacturing by value is destined for export, primarily to the U.S. and Canada, given Mexico’s membership in NAFTA. Slowdowns in the U.S. economy have sent shock waves through the Mexican economy. In retrospect, it has become clear to me (and even to some members of the business community) that in the long run, with a few exceptions, Mexico has not really benefited from the trade agreement. Wages in maquiladoras historically are lower than those of traditional Mexican heavy manufacturing firms. Local suppliers of parts and other inputs are few, since the idea of the maquiladora is to assemble products made of components imported from the U.S., Japan, Korea, or a host of European countries, and export the products to American consumers. Thus, the production chain tends to be poorly developed. What this translates to is vulnerability to plant closings as multinational capital seeks even cheaper labor in East Asia and Central America. The latter is occurring at an alarming rate. Last year, approximately fifteen percent of the country’s maquiladora workers were laid off, and a similar percentage of plants shut down.

The traditional agricultural sector has fared even worse than plant workers. To make the country a more attractive credit risk to multinational lending institutions, the state began privatizing the nation’s ejidos, or state-owned collective farm lands that, despite their inefficiency, provided a rural social safety net for campesinos (rural folk), and enabled them to supply a significant portion of the country’s corn, beans, and other staples. The official rationale provided by President Salinas de Gortari in 1992 for the privatization is that campesinos could become, in effect, small businessmen and obtain private credit to expand their operations and increase their productivity. Campesinos have been forced to sell these lands, however, because Salinas also eliminated the price supports for these staple crops and allowed U.S. agribusiness, which enjoys significant subsidies from the U.S. Congress, to flood the Mexican market with these crops. U.S. Agribusiness can afford to "dump" corn and other commodities at prices below their costs of production. The Mexican treasury is not sufficiently large to offer the country’s farmers a similar safety net. The result has been rapid rural-to-urban migration, and in a minority of cases, migration to the U.S. Multitudes of sociologists and journalists lament the breakup of families that this impoverishment of the Mexican countryside creates.

Fiscal pressures brought on by globalization led President Miguel de la Madrid to begin decentralizing the governance of the country in the early 1980s. The federal government became increasingly incapable of maintaining the social safety net and stimulating meaningful economic development. In response, de la Madrid changed the constitution to, in essence, pass on such responsibilities to states and municipalities. Now, localities must compete with other localities for capital investment, which, in a capitalist world, forces each to spend scarce resources offering incentives to foreign and domestic manufacturing companies. This leaves fewer funds available for promoting the establishment and well being of home-grown small family businesses. Furthermore, "decentralization" is replaced by a "re-centralization" at the local level. Wealthy land owners typically control the municipal planning process and the doling out of public monies for infrastructure, two underpinnings of the "realtypolitik" of contemporary Mexico.

Recently Robert W. Lake of the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University put forth an argument for the necessity of a larger-scale, more centralized form of governance whose primary agenda is social justice and the elimination of poverty. His argument has validity in the case of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. A democratic socialist NAFTA and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) probably would be built around something like what Robert Lake advocates. They would become "fair trade" agreements among the member countries that would involve a hemisphere-wide coordinated War on Poverty and Inequality.

A part of me is pessimistic and saddened by the stagnation of Mexico’s economy and the social chaos that is imminent. Of course, similar problems occur more frequently than before throughout all of the developing world, as well as here in the U.S. My optimistic side recognizes that democratic socialists around the globe are preparing to play an important role in picking up the fallen pieces when capitalism’s greed does the system in. Is my optimism naive? I believe not. More and more often, people I talk to both in the U.S. and in Mexico, from all income levels and from all political affiliations, despite the media’s rampant promotion of self-centeredness, are recognizing and fearing the existence of the "race to the bottom." If the recent Cancun WTO talks are any indication, this topic is broached more and more in Europe and Asia as well as in the Americas. It may in fact be too late for capitalism in its present form to be salvaged. Democratic socialists should become even more vocal now about what needs to be done in its aftermath.

The War in Iraq is About Oil

by Bill Fulcher

The demonstrators were right from the very first with our cries of "No War for Oil." How did we know? Most of us just had a gut feeling, and many of us remembered Viet Nam.

We have to understand that George W. Bush comes from a line of wealthy individuals who think that "freedom" means the freedom of one or two percent of the population to own all large businesses and or natural resources while maybe another 48 percent own a very minor amount through our 401(k) plans and IRAs.

An elected leader of a country that doesn’t allow this ownership by a few, of big businesses, land, and natural resources because the country has nationalized some of their major industries, is referred to a "dictator." And our "free" press has pretty well followed those definitions.

The Baath Party was the only political party in Iraq, according to my Britannica 2001. The foreign oil industry in Iraq was nationalized in 1972 – 1975. That was when the U.S.was busy loosing the war in Viet Nam over more or less the same issues; i.e., the ownership of land, and natural resources.

The Bush family and friends must have not come out too well in the nationalization, judging from their hostility towards Iraq.

Nationalized? That means it was taken over by the government for the benefit of the people. The financial services industry in Iraq was nationalized even before then.

The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language says that socialism is a "political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution…."

I guess that the wealthy think that if the idea caught on and the production and means of distribution of goods and services were owned collectively by the people through government ownership, they might have to go out and get themselves a job.

In the United States under a more and more conservative government, more and more of our tax money goes to national defense rather than Social Security, health and education. In other words more and more of our taxes are being used to protect the wealth of the very richest people in the country and less and less for education, health and welfare of the people.

Bush is selling a large majority of the population on the idea that attacking Iraq will somehow reduce the number of terrorists. However, terrorists are often generated because of an unequal distribution of wealth.

Taking Iraq’s natural resources away from the Iraqi people and turning it over to wealthy US and British investors is not going to reduce the number of terrorists in the world.

Almost 70 percent of the U.S- population thinks that we attacked Iraq because of 9-11. Yet 15 of the terrorists who hijacked the planes flew or attempted to fly them into the buildings were from Saudi Arabia—a pro-capitalist country.

So why did we attack Iraq instead Saudi Arabia? The 9-11 attacks gave Bush the perfect excuse to go in and change their economy from a nationalized economy to an economy in which the oil is owned by private investors, mainly US and British capitalists.

Weapons of mass destruction were the first excuse given for the attack. Then, when no weapons of mass destruction were found, and without skipping a beat or even putting up much of a search for the WMDs, it was decided that we needed to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. He had killed some of his own people in a civil war that was instigated by the Bush family, father and son. How many Iraqis (and Americans) have been killed because of George W. Bush and his father?

Abraham Lincoln also may have been responsible for the deaths of many Americans buried in cemeteries around the South during our Civil War. Yet, I’ve never heard Lincoln referred to as a tyrant except by some Southerners who complain that he robbed them of the "freedom" to own slaves.

Matters of State

by James Worster

Here in Texas our lawmakers have managed to reach an agreement for the redistricting of a new congressional map. This fiasco may or may not yet be over. Although most of us thought that this was all settled quite a while back, what concerns many is the fact that this agenda needed to be revisited at all! It could also be said that the new map may violate the federal Voting Rights Act.

Our leaders in the State House and Senate have squabbled over this issue for some time with no other ideology than just who’s party would or could get a bigger piece of the political pie in the end. This obviously leaves other parties out in the cold.

Let us consider the fact that the Democrats, not once but twice ran across the border into neighboring states to escape the inevitable, costing the state considerable tax dollars during their absence. Let us also not forget the GOP’s never ending thirst for power by attempting to obtain as many congressional seats with this plan to help sustain the capitalistic endeavors of their industrialist constituents.

After the return of the traveling Democrats this fall, the Republicans, then having little or no resistance to their new demographics began infighting over West

Texas, which required even more time for a finished product. A map was completed in mid October. We were told, as citizens that, "All of this was for our own good".

One side says now that it is all over; the other says it has just begun!

The sad side to this taxpayer funded group of kids in opposing tree houses throwing water balloons at each other is that you and I, the working class, will at some point have to take responsibility for footing the bill. Can it be said that these two parties forgot the real reason they were elected in the first place—to be public servants not public parasites?

All of this shows that these politicians are as far removed from their indigenous working class constituents as they could possibly be. The tax funds required for this multimillion-dollar redistricting plan would all be well spent according to them… I wonder about that. We could ask the man in the street! You know, the guy with the wife and kids who has to find a new job because the company he worked for just closed down and moved it’s factory outside the U.S. or the teachers who can’t teach anymore because they have to teach a "Test" and get their students to pass it or get their résumé together. This has done nothing to improve our educational system! We could ask the people working in social services around the state that are understaffed and under equipped. Or ask the young couple that can’t obtain inexpensive health insurance for their new child without starving themselves to do so. Ask the woman who wants control of her own physical being and is denied her right by political mandate via religious special interest…

The working masses need help not hindrance!

It is time for the voting public to open their eyes and look to the Left for answers. Speak to your friends, family, fellow students and co-workers of the socialist political viewpoint. For real freedom and peace it is now time for all of us to rally behind our Socialist Presidential and state candidates then follow through with a vote.

George in Wonderland

by Steve Slavin

There are aspects of our economy very much like those described in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. As the Red Queen explained to Alice, "Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast."

The Red Queen could have been describing our "jobless recovery" from the last recession, and even the moderate growth in employment since August. Basically we need to keep adding jobs at a fairly good clip just to keep unemployment from rising.

In January, 2001, when George W. Bush was inaugurated, we were at full employment. Since then, of course, we have had a recession and a jobless recovery. Even with the employment gains since August, we have lost almost two million jobs since Bush took office.

But the job picture is a lot worse than that. During the administration of George W. Bush, about seven million people joined our labor force. So we needed to create more than seven million additional jobs to stay at full employment. Instead we lost nearly two million jobs. So how much is our jobs deficit? Do the math.

We have a deficit of nine million jobs (two million jobs lost plus seven million additional jobs needed for people who have entered the labor force since January, 2001).

President Bush has often said that he will not be satisfied until every American who wants to work has a job. Right now he has more than nine million reasons to sing these lyrics of the Rolling Stones, "I can’t get no (pause for one beat) satisfaction."

(Postscript: On October 8, 2004, just prior to the Bush-Kerry Debate, the US government released its job figures for the month previous: Only 96,000 new jobs "created". Even if 300,000 new jobs were created, not only would we still be 600,000 jobs short of where we were when he took office, but millions of jobs fewer than where we should have been.)

It Was Only Twenty Million Dollars.

by Breck Guise

In order to address the growing amount of children without health insurance Congress, as a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Texas developed a Federal/State partnership known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program or SCHIP. The goal of SCHIP was to provide health insurance for children whose families made too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough money for private health insurance. This represented the single largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children since the initiation of Medicaid in the mid ‘60’s[1]. According to the Texas CHIP State Plan, submitted by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC/Commission) to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or CMS for approval, an estimated 365,591 children were in need of CHIP services in 1998. Now seven years later, 145,500 eligible children have been dropped from the CHIP program due to budget cuts.[2] What is this huge disparity that lies between the good intentions of the Texas’ 1998 CHIP State Plan and the 2004 budget deficit reality? Is it sinister or just poor management?

Outrage is easily dispensed from any and all political entities not involved, and the Monday morning quarterback has plenty of advice from his removed seat of the high and mighty. Needless to say, outrage was rampant and across the board when the Texas State Auditor’s Office (SAO) released its July 2004 audit on the HHSC’s administration of the CHIP Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) contract. The SAO’s conclusions are as follows:

Ø HHSC issued approximately $20 million in unnecessary or excessive payments to Clarendon National Insurance Company, the EPO for CHIP. These payments, combined with the Commission’s serious deficiencies in contracting practices and contract monitoring, constitute an abuse of the Commission’s fiduciary responsibility to appropriately oversee and manage the EPO contract and associated CHIP funds.

Ø Clarendon and its subcontracted claims administrator made $5.5 million in excessive or undocumented payments to Clarendon’s subcontracted program manager.

Ø The Commission’s practice of retroactively amending its contracts (1) created uncertainty regarding the state’s financial obligation and (2) put the Commission in the potentially disadvantageous position of negotiating payments it had already made.

Ø Inadequate contract terms did not prohibit Clarendon from inappropriately using $15.96 million of CHIP funds for its corporate use.

Ø Inadequately defined financial reporting requirements contributed to misreporting on $2.41 million of revenues and expenditures by Clarendon. mis-reporting of revenues and expenditures resulted in an $835,739 overstatement in Clarendon’s invoice to the Commission for additional contributions to pay medical claims.

Ø The Commission failed to detect that Clarendon inappropriately retained $1.79 million of the $3.36 million in CHIP funds it transferred to its accounts pay for reinsurance.

Ø Despite being aware of problems in Clarendon’s and its subcontractors’ financial controls, the Commission has not audited or obtained an audit of Clarendon.

Ø The Commission did not ensure that Clarendon had written and executed contracts with its subcontractors, and readiness reviews performed for Clarendon were neither comprehensive nor timely.[3]

$20 million lost sounds more sinister than just poor management. The fact of the matter is that the Texas Children’s Health Insurance Program was on bad footing from the start. With only one other bidder to contend with, Clarendon won the bid for the EPO hands down, however, implementation of the EPO ended up costing the Commission way more than anyone anticipated- $10 million more to be exact. When it came time for HHSC and Clarendon to renegotiate, Clarendon originally offered to continue its fully insured arrangement at a 67 percent rate increase.[4] So, rather than renewing Clarendon’s drug benefit, the Commission decided to carry it themselves. According to the March 2003 SAO report, the Commission’s projections for CHIP drug rebate revenue decreased from $9.6 million to $4.5 million due to “erroneous assumptions and inadequate analysis”. This is compared to the $14 million projected target for the supplemental Medicaid drug rebate specified in the General Appropriations Act.[5] So, not only were estimated drug revenues grossly overestimated, but HHSC continued to pay Clarendon as if it were performing the same functions that it was originally contracted to do. An oversight of this magnitude looks very suspicious, but not if you ask Albert Hawkins, the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. While admitting to poor management and policies, Hawkins blames a lot of the oversight on lack of historical data and misunderstanding. He claims in his June 30, 2004 SAO audit report response that managerial improvements have already been implemented and that the 20 million dollar faux pas in “excessive or unnecessary” fees to Clarendon were indeed too high, however, he goes on to say that to characterize the decisions reached as “abuse of fiduciary responsibility” is overly subjective and unfair. He also says that the underwriter’s fees, reinsurance, and the risk charge were a fair part of the negotiation process and that Clarendon held a “strong negotiating position” because there were no other firms willing to work with HHSC. He puts great emphasis on this fact, and that it is necessary to understand that the first EPO contract was negotiated, not competitively procured, which was a primary factor affecting the cost of the contract. Interestingly, Hawkins felt it important to note that Texas implemented its CHIP program in less time than any comparable program in the nation[6], as if this rush to implementation was a good thing.

Texas Comptroller, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, sees more of an issue than just mismanagement and is calling for a federal inquiry. She says, “A number of the players involved have connections with the Texas administration. Consequently, an internal investigation would not be independent because the governor, who sits atop the Texas Health and Human Services System, appoints the Health and Human Services System Inspector General.” Whether the loss of 20 million dollars by HHSC was a scandalous plot or a gross oversight doesn’t really change the outcome of the situation, nor does it give the players involved any more of a moral high ground. The fact of the matter is, is that even if the 20 million dollars were just lost to poor management, that is 20 million dollars of tax payer’s money that wasn’t cared for, 20 million dollars of America’s hard earned money that wasn’t respected enough to be used carefully. Morally speaking Clarendon has responsibility in this too. According to some estimates, by doing their best suck the CHIP fund dry, Clarendon with the help of Health and Human Services, in effect, stole insurance from 17,000 children and year. Outrageous? Unconscionable? There is no way around it.

[1] “SCHIP Summary” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/schip/about-SCHIP.asp (21 Aug. 2004).

[2] Strayhorn, Carol Keeton. “Comptroller’s Report” Statement. August 2004. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/protax/stmt/stmt0408/stmt0408_1.html (21 Aug. 2004).

[3] “An Audit Report on the Health and Human Services Commission’s Administration of the CHIP Exclusive Provider Organization Contract” Texas State Auditor’s Office. July 2004. http://www.sao.state.tx.us/Reports/report.cfm/report/04-042 (21 Aug. 2004).

[4] Hawkins, Albert. “Executive Commissioner Hawkins’ Letter to SAO” Texas Health and Human Services Commission. 30 June 2004. p.2. http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/news/announce/070804_SAO-CHIPEPOaudit.html (21 Aug. 2004)

[5] “An Audit Report on The Children’s Health Insurance Program at the Health and Human Services Commission” Texas State Auditor’s Office. March 2003. http://www.sao.state.tx.us/Reports/report.cfm/year/2003/report/03-022 (21 Aug. 2004)

[6] Hawkins, Albert. “Executive Commissioner Hawkins’ Letter to SAO” Texas Health and Human Services Commission. 30 June 2004. p.1-4. http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/news/announce/070804_SAO-CHIPEPOaudit.html (21 Aug. 2004)

Report from the Border: Navigating Through Local Politics

by Michael Yoder

A question I ask myself every day is whether a socialist can work within the system, alongside the power elite, and still accomplish something worthwhile. Often I think one can, and other times I have my doubts.

Laredo has its share of problems. The gap between the extreme wealthy and poor is obviously huge to the naked eye, but would not be measurable in light of the growing informal economy. Ex-urban colonias, most of which lack basic services, comprise the majority of non-urban communities of Webb County. In typical Sunbelt fashion where taxation is tantamount to warfare against people, urban services are limited, especially parks and health and recreational programs for people of low income. An ethic of education has yet to develop here, such that schools hire poorly qualified teachers who themselves are products of the public school, and this vicious circle leaves the community unfit to compete in the global economy.

A powerful landed oligarchy controls both real estate development and the political system, so the cost of living is one of the highest in the US when factoring in median income. Land-use planning is directed by this ruling class. Urban ecology is in tatters as developers have a history of securing permission from the City to create subdivisions in flood plains, and hastily build them by bulldozing the native vegetation, a beautiful assemblage of brush-country flora and fauna locally referred to as monte. The method is to reduce the land to bald dirt, fill dirt into low spots in arroyo (creek) beds, and build cookie-cutter homes with one tiny tree planted in front of each. Not surprisingly, flooding has become a major problem. The look is typically suburban: automobile oriented and completely lacking in imagination. Laredo’s realtypolitik involves the appointment by members of city council of land developers or their hired engineers to the Planning and Zoning Commission and other relevant boards.

Against this backdrop, a few opportunities for changing the situation open up on occasion. About eight years ago, a maverick Republican city council member decided Laredo needed more trees, so he spearheaded an effort to make Laredo a Tree City, USA. He first created the Tree Committee, and appointed me to it. The committee worked hard to create the Tree Ordinance, which in the end was greatly watered down by the City Attorney, who invoked political opinions in opposition to parts of it as though they were legal opinions. We, therefore, were unable to achieve our ultimate goal, a tree preservation ordinance. In short, the Tree Ordinance applied to City-owned land, but had little to no impact on private property.

When I heard there was an opening on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, I approached the city councilman responsible for appointing that position, and convinced him, a Republican, to appoint me. I served there until the councilman’s term was up, and was replaced when the new councilman (another Republican) was elected. Just before the election, I had challenged a developer who wanted the board to agree that the City adopt as park land a large detention pond for soccer fields, and the land surrounding it as a linear park. Developers have to donate a mere one acre for every 100 home sites. I argued that the developer needed to donate a legitimate piece of land as parkland. The item was tabled. Not surprisingly, before the next meeting, I was pulled off the committee by the newly elected councilman, who had ties to the developer, and who placed me back on the Tree Committee. In response, a progressive councilman from the old downtown area, whose campaign I worked on, re-appointed me a few months later to the parks committee. It has been very difficult to fight against what I refer to as the “Walmartization of park land,” the prevailing strategy of building mega-parks that are more concrete than green, instead of neighborhood pocket parks. I argue at every meeting, to the annoyance of the director of the Parks and Recreation Department, that every Laredoan deserves to be in walking distance of a park. I have had to beat my head against a wall to maneuver to get the rest of the committee to agree with me in a handful of cases, and vote to have the City accept pocket parks in new subdivisions. These little victories are sweet, but unfortunately too few.

I worked with another group of citizens to convince the City Council to adopt the Greenspace Ordinance, which protects stream buffers. The bulldozing of arroyos had created a dire need for protection of streambeds and their vegetation. Our greatest tactic was to get school children involved, by showing up at the different meetings and getting before the cameras. The City had no choice but to relent.

Laredo has a hockey arena! It’s financed by a sales tax increase. Arena Ventures, Inc., a Houston company, receives the benefits of the private-public partnership. A huge group of activists fought to keep the project from being built on the grounds of the way it is financed and the horrible location: in a warehouse district on Laredo’s suburban east side. On the day of the referendum, more people voted against it than for it, but the heavy campaigning by Laredo’s mayor and most City Council members tilted the early vote in favor of the building, which basically looks like a huge high school cafetorium. Admittedly, it’s a world-class building that hosts the Miss Texas USA Pageant for the next four years and a number of sports and music events, but in most cases, according to employees I’ve talked to, the arena has done little to bring in out of town tourists and to boost the overall economy as originally promised.

Why does the pro-business Laredo government embrace me, despite my doing battle with developers? Probably because of style. At least this is what I am told. Because I am an academic geographer, I can publicly argue that I have the credentials to advise and comment on matters related to land use. But perhaps more importantly, because I intentionally pick my battles wisely, and do not burn bridges, I am included in many City and County government activities, in spite of my outspokenness. Am I satisfied? No. There is much more to be done. Laredoans need to embrace the idea of high-density walking-scale communities, such as those found in Nuevo Laredo, Piedras Negras, and other Mexican border cities. Only the developer elites can do this under the wicked free enterprise system. A plaza every 3 or 4 blocks. Neighborhoods with a mix of different income levels. More citizen participation in land use planning. A border version of New Urbanism.

It could work, but it would require that activists not burn bridges, conduct themselves within the law, and take every advantage to espouse a socialist perspective on matters related to community development and land use.

Postscript. Since writing this essay, I have been appointed to the Webb County Rural Rail District, and elected Vice President of the Board. According to Texas law, a county can establish a rural rail district,, an independent governmental entity much like a non-profit corporation, to promote, manage, plan, and construct rail lines and associated infrastructure. The entity has the power to lay track, float revenue bonds, declare right of ways through imminent domain, and raise revenue through track use fees or leasing out of warehouses, but it has no taxing authority. It can develop real estate like industrial parks or warehousing for rent or sale. Can a socialist remain a socialist on this board and accomplish anything? I believe the answer is yes, as long as the board member fights for the projects that are clearly in the best interest of citizens. For example, one project already proposed, which I favor strongly at this point, is to re-route out of Laredo’s west-side working class neighborhoods the numerous NAFTA-related trains traveling between the US and Mexico, over to a rural area west of the city where they would cross the river, thereby reducing citizens’ exposure to the noise and potential dangers of trains barreling through the city. So long as such a project is self-sustaining through track use fees (paid for by railroad companies), this project would seem to follow the principle of putting the needs of people first. No doubt, I will post questions and “hypotheticals” to SP-Texas members from time to time, to ensure that I remain on course.