Open mouth insert foot?

[okiehiker]

http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2008/03/a-christmas-mou.html

[TheWildWestGuy]

Apparently BBC members are not the only one's wanting Patterson removed from office.
Maybe he just tells himself that the NPS doesn't want the Christmas Mountains because it makes it easier for him to live with his actions and dampens the guilt.   Deep down the guy has got to know that what he is doing is wrong for the people of Texas... TWWG

[Vince T]

I would just like to ask Paterson - man to man - over a beer even, "Why are you doing this?"
I don't get it...and neither to most that have followed the story.

[BigBendHiker]

I would just like to ask Paterson - man to man - over a beer even, "Why are you doing this?"
I don't get it...and neither to most that have followed the story.

Vince T...your comments are spot on.  Patterson's stance on this defies logic.  And then, his latest comment as noted in the link that Okiehiker posted is even more ludicrous.

BBH

[STARLITDARKNESS3]

Since we know Mr. Patterson reads BBC boards, I welcome an explanation straight from Mr. Patterson himself.  So, what's it going to be JP?

[RichardM]

Since we know Mr. Patterson reads BBC boards, I welcome an explanation straight from Mr. Patterson himself.  So, what's it going to be JP?

Make that "read", as in past tense:

Last Active:     February 20, 2008, 12:06:08 pm

I'm sure there’s more I could cover, but enough for now. Again, if you have any questions email me at jerry.patterson@glo.state.tx.us  I have no inclination to “blog” or “chat” online, but any response you receive from me you can post on any site you wish.

[Roy]

Patterson is not alone;  there's a lot of people that think government ownership of anything is a bad idea.  And, here in Texas, private ownership of land (with no government interferrence of any kind) is practically sacred.  He's preaching to these folks, and they like what they hear.  I still think he's getting ready to run for some statewide office.
I think he's made a mistake by taking on the national park system, though.  That's practically sacred to even more folks.

[okiehiker]

I was amazed, when I was in the legislature the entrenched perspectives of certain people. 

There actually are people who believe that there is a moral superiority to who owns certain property or performs certain functions.

I filed a bill to require the public agency involved to submit a bid for performing any function that was subject to bid for privatization.  I couldn't care less whether the state writes a check to an employee or writes the same check to a contractor.  For many functions private contracting makes a lot of sense.  During the session there are huge printing needs.  A week after it ends there is almost no need.  To invest in adequate equipment to meet a demand that exists for 90 days a year might make no sense.  Paying a premium to a private contractor for a function the state performs 24/7 may likewise make no sense. 

My question was, "What approach best performs the function and is the best use of tax-payer funds."  The Jerry Patterson's of the world were crazy over having the state prepare an actual cost estimate. 

In Iraq we have transferred billions to inefficient extremely expensive contractors.  A system of mutual accountability would go a long way towards creating a more efficient and open government. 

The GLO has fallen into the trap of thinking good people doing seemingly good things must equal a good outcome.

There is a neglect of accountability to the people and to the donors of this property.

If the GLO should not have taken the property in the first place, the remedy is not to violate the original agreement. 

If in fact the proposed agencies do not want the land, the donors should have been contacted before pursuing any other course of action. 

Once these two contacts had been made, the public should have been made well-aware of the goings-on.  Public sentiment might then have changed the perspective of NPS or TPWD.  If it didn't, then the sale of the land would end up netting the school trust the maximum possible price, while honoring the original intent of the donors. 

This is not rocket science, but seems often to escape the thinking of many in government.  How often are the opponents of government who serve in office the very best examples of why diligence by the people is essential.