Remarks by Lorenzo Gonzalez
99 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 4 of 4
- Play at 4:24:50
“we could have been working on those and we could have been, which essentially by voting this entire thing down now, and it takes three months to redo it.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:25:23
“Not doing it right the first time is now costing us money.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:26:02
“Right, we're paying for our mistakes. I completely agree. We should have never made the mistakes, but these are the cards we've been dealt, and we've made a mistake, and now we need to fix our mistakes and do it right.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:26:50
“Are you done? You moved your microphone, so I'm assuming you're finished. I can speak now. I agree that... we would now have to start the process all over again, and it costs us money. But these are the cards that we are dealt, to use your term, and we didn't do it right the first time, so to do it right the second time is going to cost us money. I wish it didn't. I wish we did it right the first time, but we didn't. These are the cards we are dealt.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:31:47
“Yeah, that's exactly what I was about to say.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:32:49
“It's literally what we did earlier twice.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:33:02
“But so I would know that it's actually a true amendment.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:34:33
“So mayor, I had a similar question. Would you be more comfortable if instead of doing 60% year one and then it's staying that way for a whole year and then 100%, increasing it by 10% every quarter so that we still get to 100% in a year, but we're at 70%, then 80%, then 90%. So essentially 70% month four, 80% month seven. I'm not giving that to staff.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:35:21
“Would you consider May 1st? Can we just vote on this and then if it dies, do what we've been saying? I'm trying to find a medium ground here to move forward. I mean, honestly, I feel like there's four votes to move forward with. but four people just voted on it. Yes, sir.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:35:51
“Stop folding a winning hand. Yeah. You have the four votes.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:36:04
“In that case, he could vote no, and then we can then discuss something else.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:36:56
“If it ultimately fails and the prevailing side was it losing, so then you can reconsider it.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:37:11
“I just don't feel comfortable that literally every other attempt at a motion to amend was to appease the mayor. No disrespect to the mayor, but it's mayor, would you be comfortable with this? Literally is how, and I did it myself too, but like literally every attempt to amend this has been. to try to get going with your support.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:41:35
“If there's a second, first thing, Patrick, is that you can, we just vote on it instead of like, y'all need to go to therapy.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:42:51
“Based on what's on the screen, how much do you pay if you come in on 317? Well, no, because one says it ends on 317.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 4:43:05
“So then that one should be 316. All right, cool.”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 5:01:04
“Yeah, so I put this item because essentially I don't necessarily have a disagreement with the 30 days. I'm just confused as to why the city is paying. So I know that the I guess the narrative or the information that was provided was that this would expedite the process or expedite. expedite the releasing of innocent people. So rather than waiting in jail for 180 days, they're waiting in jail for 30 days. But as discussed on the message board, the majority of our defendants are out on bond. And I believe Chief said that there is actually not a single person that is sitting in jail waiting for…”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 5:03:45
“I'm not, I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad that we expedite, you know, um, closing out cases regardless of whether it's a conviction or dismissal. It's just that the Hays County District Attorney's Office isn't lining up to subsidize activities that are conducted and are in the purview of the San Marcos Police Department. I don't think the city of San Marcos should be subsidizing jobs that are in the purview of the Hays County District Attorney. So I'm like, I hate to quote a billionaire, but like as law and order says, the police investigate crimes and the does your attorneys…”
City Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 49:23
“So we have a representative from Lyme, right?”
City Council · Aug 18, 2026
- Play at 49:25
“So I had a question specifically for them.”
City Council · Aug 18, 2026
- Play at 49:31
“So I know for the Lime Access program, one of the qualifications is participation in the free or reduced lunch program. Our local ISD has 100% participation. So I know in a different market, because every student had free lunch, their school district didn't provide individualized paperwork that shows that the student qualifies. So would a family just being able to prove that their child is going to a SMCISD school be enough to qualify them? Or how difficult would it be for them to prove that they participate in the free lunch program given that everyone in our ISD participates?”
City Council · Aug 18, 2026
- Play at 50:23
“Being a Title I school, the entire school qualifies.”
City Council · Aug 18, 2026
- Play at 52:15
“So I guess that changes the root of my question. Because my understanding was as long as the household had a qualifying child. So I guess let me give you the actual real world example. So in San Antonio, several years ago, there was a family who lived relatively close to their school. So the father would walk the kids to school, but then use a scooter to get to work. But because the school district was a Title I school, the district was not providing them any sort of paperwork that they qualified. So they were having difficulty providing that to y'all. So the solution in that particular case…”
City Council · Aug 18, 2026
- Play at 55:31
“Yeah, and for clarification, it didn't take two months for Lime to approve them. It took two months for the state of Texas to approve them to get SNAP to then qualify for Lime.”
City Council · Aug 18, 2026