Leading Off (7/24/14)

HUD money, Chandler Parsons, and the Rangers give up.

A.C. Gonzalez Explains Why City Repaid More Than $810,000 To HUD, Kind Of. I don’t know, does this make any sense? “He stressed that the funds are not lost, but rather put back into the city’s line of credit for other HUD projects. Though general fund dollars were used to pay back the Project Reconnect money, the groups that ultimately use the funds are typically on the hook for the expenses, he said.”

Chandler Parsons to Bro Out Like Crazy Once He Gets To Dallas. According to this.

Steve Blow Has a Strong Take On Border Situation. Maybe? I mean, I really can’t tell. He’s sort of all over the road. But I can relay the following: there are a lot of paragraphs.

Rangers Trade Joakim Soria. Haven’t really been paying attention, but I gather Soria was the team’s closer. Anyway, since there’s no hope for the team this year, I think they should start having fun with it. Give Evan Grant a few at-bats. Bring back some legends and let them play a little. Raffle off an appearance in the pitching rotation. Whatever.


  • billholston

    On the Border Crisis, there’s an academic report that shows that over 80% of kids show up for their court cases. The reason the Judge reset the docket is that it is highly unusual for that many children not to appear. If kids have lawyers over 90% show up in Court.


    • Ted

      “Lastly, given TRAC’s data, if Congress wants to ensure children attend proceedings, perhaps Congress should consider appointing lawyers to children. Lawyers are more cost-effective, humane and fair than detention. The Council and others recently filed a national lawsuit to provide lawyers to children in immigration proceedings.”

      There’s gold in them thar hills!

  • Wylie H Dallas

    I had the same reaction to AC Gonzalez’ response…. it was largely non-sensical and evasive.

    With respect to the portion of the response you quoted, I THINK what he is trying to say is that the City paid the money back to HUD out of its general funds, but the entities that received the fund are ultimately on the hook to repay the City. I suspect the chances of the City getting this money back from the prior recipients ranges between slim and none— otherwise, the City would have already gone back to the recipients and collected the improperly disbursed funds. The whole reason these recipients needed the money in the first place was because they didn’t have any.

  • billholston

    Thanks Ted. I’d like to point out that lawyers have been signing up to do this work for pro bono for our agency for over ten years.

  • Ted

    Thanks, Bill. I’d like to point out that once or twice in the last ten years I walked to the Quik-Stop. I don’t do so every day. Usually I take my car.

    But I’d be tickled to have you confirm that all the lawyers who will be representing these unaccompanied children will be doing so pro bono in every case.

  • billholston

    Thanks for your efforts to clean our air Ted. My lungs thank you. I’ll admit, I’ve never walked to Quick Stop. I feel a little embarrassed by that. I will walk to the Bar headquarters today to meet a room full of lawyers all of whom are interested in pro bono work.

    Certainly not all the work will be done pro bono, but much of it is.

  • Amy Severson

    So if I pay off my Mastercard that means I didn’t buy that dress at Nordstrom’s? You know what? I think I’ll go and buy another one then.

    • Wylie H Dallas

      It sounds like the way it works with HUD is they give you a line of credit for a bunch of HUD-related stuff. Then, the City just spends it on things that may or may not be allowed under the program. Every once in awhile, HUD checks up on them, and tells them to give some of the money back, because they blew it on other stuff (such as payments to extremely well-connected individuals). Once the City pays it back (no harm, no foul), they are allowed to take the money right back again for something else.

      At least, that seems to be the way AC Gonzalez is explaining it.

  • joeptone

    We had a reporter there this morning — mostly unrepresented cases, almost all of them there, and all of them given time to go find a lawyer.

  • Amy Severson

    That money is G.O.N.E. Now, should the next dress be red or green?

  • Ted

    Bill, what you seem to be suggesting is that the lawsuit referred to in the excerpt I quoted will force the federal government to appoint lawyers to represent 50,000 to the anticipated 90,000 unaccompanied children, “much of it” on a pro bono basis.

    If “much of” this representation will be on a pro bono basis, why would a lawsuit even be necessary?

    On the other hand, a successful lawsuit would be the most effective way to direct an indeterminate portion of the proposed $3.7 billion supplemental into mandated paid legal representation of the UCs.

    Either way, though, Bill, you’re a saint. But you already knew that.