When Washington Stops, Cities Keep Going

October 12, 2025.Reading time 16 minutes.

Suggested by Jessica Williams, Written by Lewis McLain & AI

A Local Government Perspective on Federal Shutdowns

When the federal government grinds to a halt, television cameras point toward Washington, D.C. — toward empty offices, barricaded monuments, and finger-pointing press conferences. But the deeper story unfolds far from the Capitol. It takes place in city halls and neighborhoods where the real consequences of a shutdown ripple through families, local economies, and municipal balance sheets. While the federal government pauses, cities and towns must continue to serve, balancing fiscal prudence, compassion for affected residents, and the unshakable expectation that local government never stops.

I. The Federal-to-Local Connection

Local governments rarely make national headlines during a shutdown, yet their dependence on federal flow-throughs and reimbursements is significant. From Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to HOME housing programs, from FAA airport reimbursements to FEMA disaster claims, federal funds support many city functions. The design of these programs compounds the risk: they are usually reimbursement-based rather than prepaid. When federal employees are furloughed, reimbursements stall — leaving cities to advance money from their own cash reserves to keep projects on track.

For instance, a housing rehabilitation program may already have contractors in the field and invoices pending. A delayed reimbursement from HUD can suddenly force a city to choose between advancing local dollars or halting work. Likewise, infrastructure projects tied to the FAA or Department of Transportation can stall midstream when the federal payment machinery freezes. Cities are left managing not only projects but expectations — of residents, contractors, and partner agencies.

Well-managed municipalities rely on robust fund balance policies and the ability to make interfund transfers. Yet even well-prepared finance directors find themselves navigating uncharted waters when multiple federal programs stop simultaneously. The lesson is clear: local governments bear real exposure to national political stalemates, even when they have done nothing wrong.

II. The Human Face of a Shutdown

A city’s greatest concern during a federal shutdown is not a spreadsheet but its people. In many communities, a meaningful share of the population works directly or indirectly for the federal government — postal workers, TSA agents, defense employees, and contractors. The economic fabric of a local government entity like McKinney, DART, or New Braunfels Utilities is interwoven with residents whose livelihoods depend on those paychecks.

When those checks stop, the impact is immediate and personal. Utility payments slow. Grocery budgets tighten. Local restaurants and retailers feel the chill. Within a week or two, the effects reach City Hall: rising delinquent water accounts, increased calls for payment extensions, and growing demand at local food pantries and nonprofits. The impact is felt across neighborhoods and income levels — from young families with mortgages to retirees on fixed incomes who supplement with part-time federal contract work.

Cities, being the most visible and accessible level of government, often absorb the frustration of residents caught in the crossfire. Even though the city did not cause the shutdown, it becomes the government people can still reach by phone or in person.

III. The Timing Challenge: Between Tax Deadlines and Utility Bills

Federal shutdowns often strike at awkward moments in the local fiscal cycle. In many Texas cities, property tax bills are just now being mailed as the federal government shutters. Most of the revenue from those bills will arrive over the next 90 days, which represents the most significant single inflow of cash for the entire year.

Fortunately, mortgage escrow requirements create a buffer. Because most homeowners make monthly escrow payments throughout the year, their mortgage servicers will remit property taxes to the city or county on schedule even if a federal shutdown temporarily disrupts their paychecks. This structural safeguard prevents an immediate collapse in property tax collections.

Yet not every taxpayer is escrowed. Small business owners, landlords, and those who pay directly can still delay payments — or struggle to meet their obligations if a shutdown drags into multiple months. For cities that rely heavily on prompt collections, this can create minor but measurable shortfalls that affect cash flow, particularly if compounded by reduced sales tax receipts and slowed utility payments.

Sales tax receipts, which arrive monthly, may dip if federal workers and contractors cut spending. The decline might not show up for several months, but the slowdown starts immediately in local commerce. At the same time, cities face delayed federal reimbursements and stable or rising service demand.

This combination stresses cash flow precisely when flexibility is most limited. For finance directors, this becomes a daily balancing act: ensuring payroll is met, capital projects stay funded, and reserves are used strategically without overreaction. A short-term shutdown may require little more than internal adjustments, but a prolonged one tests every line item in the budget.

IV. Managing the Municipal Response

During a shutdown, the most important city management function is communication. City managers and finance directors begin by identifying which programs rely on federal funds. Do those programs have enough local cash to bridge a temporary gap? Are any critical contracts or grants about to expire?

Departments review ongoing projects with federal reimbursements — airports, housing, transit, public safety, and disaster recovery. Some may need to slow their pace or reassign staff to prevent idle costs. Payroll and benefit obligations continue uninterrupted, of course, since city workers are paid locally.

At the same time, cities must consider how to support residents who suddenly face hardship. Utility departments might create temporary payment plans or defer disconnection notices for furloughed workers. Libraries, recreation centers, and community development offices may become gathering points for information and assistance. Some cities coordinate with local churches and nonprofits to help with rent and groceries.

The critical leadership challenge is tone: balancing fiscal discipline with empathy. Citizens need to see that their city understands their struggle — not through rhetoric, but through quiet, practical help.

V. The Broader Civic Consequences

Shutdowns carry a subtle but lasting cost to public trust. To the average citizen, “government” is a single concept — not layers of jurisdiction. When Washington falters, many lose confidence in all levels of government, including their city hall. This is unfair but inevitable.

Local government, therefore, has an opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate stability. Police still patrol, fire crews still respond, sanitation trucks still roll at dawn. This continuity becomes a visible reminder that while national politics may polarize, local service endures.

City leaders who communicate clearly — explaining which programs are affected and which are not — reinforce that trust. A well-crafted message from a mayor or city manager can calm uncertainty: “Your trash will still be picked up. Your water will keep running. City services are funded by your local taxes, not federal dollars.”

This reassurance may seem simple, but it strengthens the bond between residents and their local government at a time when faith in public institutions is fragile.

VI. The Financial Resilience Playbook

Each shutdown teaches cities to be more resilient. Smart local governments now build contingency plans much like those used for hurricanes or ice storms. The cause may be political, but the preparation is financial.

Key strategies include:

Building robust reserves. Fund balance policies that cover 90 to 120 days of operations give cities the flexibility to absorb delayed reimbursements or revenue slowdowns.
Diversifying revenue sources. Relying less on intergovernmental transfers and more on local revenue ensures stability.
Tracking exposure. Maintaining a database of all grants tied to federal agencies helps finance staff quickly assess risk when a shutdown begins.
Cross-training staff. If a federally funded program is paused, reassigned employees can temporarily assist in other departments, minimizing disruption.
Communicating with regional partners. Cities coordinate with counties, school districts, and COGs to align messages and pool resources for affected residents.

In Texas, where home-rule cities maintain broad authority, these actions demonstrate the spirit of local self-reliance that has long characterized municipal governance.

VII. The Emotional and Moral Dimension

Beyond numbers and policies lies the moral core of local government — compassion for neighbors. A shutdown reminds city employees why they serve. The clerk extending a payment plan to a furloughed resident, the firefighter delivering groceries to a struggling family, the librarian helping a laid-off contractor update a résumé — these quiet moments of service define a city’s heart.

They also embody what national politics often forgets: governance is not just the art of policy but the practice of care. Cities, precisely because they are close to the people, reflect the best instincts of government — to listen, to adapt, and to keep going.

VIII. Lessons for the Future

Each federal shutdown exposes the fragile seams of interdependence between national and local governments. For cities, the lesson is not merely to survive the next one, but to plan as though it were inevitable.

Cities should:

Review and update financial contingency plans annually.
Maintain relationships with federal and state partners to receive timely information.
Incorporate shutdown scenarios into their cash-flow modeling.
Develop citizen assistance programs that can be quickly activated.
Use the experience as a teaching moment for civic education — showing residents how local finances truly work.

Ultimately, resilience is not only financial but cultural. A city that knows its role, understands its resources, and trusts its people will weather any temporary political storm.

IX. Conclusion – The Quiet Strength of Local Government

When Washington stops, cities keep going.
They pick up the trash, respond to fires, issue building permits, and answer 911 calls. They balance budgets in real time, not by ideology but by necessity. They hold the public trust not in headlines but in streetlights that stay on and water that keeps flowing.

The fiscal rhythm of a city continues — property tax bills just mailed, escrowed payments coming in from mortgage companies, and sales tax checks arriving monthly. The federal stalemate may cast a shadow, but local governments remain the steady pulse of everyday life.

A federal shutdown reveals more than dysfunction; it reveals the quiet strength of local government. It reminds citizens that the most dependable form of government is the one closest to home. Cities are the steady heartbeat of a nation whose higher powers may occasionally stumble.

And when the federal lights go out, it is the glow of City Hall that assures people the republic still stands — one water bill, one payroll, one act of service at a time.

Appendix A – Common-Sense Local Resilience Checklist

For Finance and Budget Officers

Cash-Flow Modeling: Immediately model 30-, 60-, and 90-day liquidity scenarios assuming delayed federal reimbursements.
Property Tax Timing: Track escrow remittances and direct-payer delinquencies separately to spot early stress points.
Reserve Triggers: Define thresholds for when fund balance use requires council notification or resolution.
Federal Program Audit: Identify active grants, agency contacts, and next reimbursement cycles.
Deferred Spending: Postpone discretionary purchases and travel until normal operations resume.

For City Management and Departments
6. Communication Plan: Prepare clear public statements explaining what is and isn’t affected by the shutdown.
7. Utility Assistance: Create temporary payment plans for furloughed federal employees and contractors.
8. Community Coordination: Link with local churches, food banks, and nonprofits to share information and avoid duplication of aid.
9. Employee Flexibility: Reassign staff from federally funded projects to core services where possible.
10. After-Action Review: Once the shutdown ends, conduct a debrief and document lessons learned for future preparedness.

For City Leadership and Elected Officials
11. Maintain Calm Visibility: Hold briefings to assure residents that city services continue uninterrupted.
12. Avoid Partisanship: Keep communications focused on service continuity and citizen support, not blame.
13. Celebrate Resilience: Acknowledge employees who help residents through financial or emotional hardship.

Final Thought:
A federal shutdown may freeze the nation’s highest offices, but it cannot stop the heartbeat of a city. Local government remains the living proof that public service is not dependent on politics, but on people — the quiet guardians of continuity who keep faith, finance, and community moving forward.

Government Shutdowns: Crisis or Farce?

September 29, 2025.Reading time 12 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

From 1976 to Today

Every few years, Americans brace for news of a looming federal government shutdown. Media coverage describes them as looming catastrophes, filled with images of barricaded monuments, national parks closed, and frustrated travelers at airports. Politicians on both sides amplify the tension, using the threat of shutdown as leverage in their broader battles. But step back from the noise, and a more complicated picture emerges. Shutdowns are disruptive, yes—but much of the panic they generate stems from a broader financial reality: many workers, public and private alike, simply don’t have enough savings to weather even a temporary pause in pay.

The Mechanics of a Shutdown

By law, when Congress fails to pass appropriations, agencies must cease operations that are not legally “excepted” for safety or essential services. Furloughed employees are ordered home, barred from working even if they wish to. Others—air traffic controllers, Border Patrol agents, TSA officers—must continue working without pay until the shutdown ends. Since the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, federal workers are guaranteed back pay once the government reopens. Contractors, however, are not: a janitor or cafeteria worker may permanently lose income for the weeks the government was closed.

The Record Since 1976

The modern shutdown era began after a 1976 Justice Department opinion forced agencies to halt during funding gaps. Since then, there have been 10 shutdowns where furloughs actually occurred:

In the early 1980s, several shutdowns lasted 1–3 days each over spending disputes.
In 1986, there was a 1-day lapse.
In 1990, a 3-day shutdown unfolded during deficit reduction talks.
In late 1995, the government closed for 5 days, followed soon after by a 21-day shutdown into early 1996.
In 2013, the government shut down for 16 days over the Affordable Care Act.
In January 2018, a 3-day lapse occurred, followed by a few-hour closure in February 2018.
From December 2018 to January 2019, the U.S. endured its longest shutdown, lasting 34–35 days over border wall funding.

The averages

10 shutdowns since 1976 with furloughs.
~87 total days lost to shutdowns.
Average length: about 8–9 days each.
Average spacing: roughly 51 months between shutdowns or just over 4 years.
Longest: 2018–19 (35 days). Second-longest: 1995–96 (21 days).

The Savings Problem

Here lies the heart of the issue. For all the headlines about missed paychecks, the true problem is one shared across the American economy: too many households have little or no emergency savings. Federal Reserve surveys consistently show that a significant share of Americans struggle to cover even a $400 unexpected bill.

To put this in perspective, the average federal worker earns about $75,000 per year, or roughly $6,250 per month before taxes. If an employee had just one month’s salary set aside, most shutdowns—lasting a week or two—would be a financial nuisance rather than a personal crisis. Yet many federal workers, like many in the private sector, do not keep that cushion. The result is that a temporary disruption is felt as if it were permanent.

Public vs. Private Sector Contrast

In fact, federal employees are relatively shielded compared to their private-sector counterparts. Federal workers furloughed during a shutdown now know they will receive full back pay once it ends. That makes a shutdown more like a forced, interest-free loan taken from their personal finances—unpleasant, but not ruinous for those with only modest savings.

Private-sector workers, by contrast, face layoffs or plant closures with no promise of retroactive pay. When a factory shuts down or a store closes, wages are gone permanently. The drama over government shutdowns often overlooks this harsher reality faced daily by millions outside the public sector.

The Theatrics of Shutdowns

Here lies the “farce.” The political theater surrounding shutdowns magnifies their significance beyond their actual economic scope. Members of Congress stage dramatic press conferences in front of locked gates to national parks or shuttered museums. Leaders exchange blame in nightly news cycles, accusing the other party of holding the nation hostage.

Yet the reality is that these shutdowns are typically short—averaging less than nine days over the last 50 years—and resolved with little structural change. They function less as fiscal turning points and more as bargaining chips in partisan standoffs. For many politicians, the shutdown becomes a stage prop: a way to appear tough, principled, or uncompromising before their base, while knowing full well that the lights will turn back on once both sides agree to a continuing resolution.

Anecdotal Stories and Media Amplification

The media plays its own role in heightening the drama. During shutdowns, reporters easily find stories of hardship: a young family lining up at a food pantry, a federal employee selling personal belongings online, or a worker worried about making rent. These are real and often heartbreaking situations, but they are also selective snapshots. By highlighting the most sympathetic cases, the press frames shutdowns as universal devastation rather than as uneven disruptions that many households could withstand with even modest savings. The cycle feeds public anxiety, while offering politicians ready-made examples to cite in their rhetorical battles.

Conclusion and Prescription

Government shutdowns are disruptive and unnecessary, but they are not the economic cataclysm they are often made out to be. Federal employees, uniquely, are made whole with back pay; private-sector workers are not so fortunate. The real lesson is not just about partisan gridlock but about financial preparedness. If American households—federal and private alike—had even a modest emergency fund, much of the sting would disappear.

Epilogue: Preparing for the Inevitable

Shutdowns are not a question of if but when. For the average federal employee earning approximately $6,250 per month (gross pay), setting aside 5–10% of their income could quickly build a safety net. Within two to three years, such a worker could accumulate two months’ expenses in savings—enough to glide through even the 35-day shutdown of 2018–19 without panic. The same principle applies to private-sector employees, who face even harsher risks with no guarantee of back pay. Theatrics will continue in Washington, but for workers, the best defense is the same as for any economic shock: live as though a disruption is always around the corner, and be ready when it arrives.

Beyond Government: A Call for Financial Common Sense

One final lesson extends beyond shutdowns: governments and all employers should take a proactive role in preparing their workers for financial resilience. Offering personal finance workshops—covering emergency savings, debt management, and budgeting—would give employees tools to withstand not just shutdowns but any economic shock. Teaching that a minimum of one month’s savings is essential could shift shutdowns from feared national dramas to mere inconveniences. In the end, the best safeguard against political theater is not another law from Congress, but households equipped with the discipline and knowledge to weather storms on their own.

Appendix: Common-Sense Financial Resilience Training — Questions for Employees

Premise: don’t be surprised by the predictable. Cars age. Roofs wear out. Water heaters (tanks) fail. Paychecks get disrupted. The goal is to plan for what will happen so you don’t add new debt when it does.

A. Paycheck Reality Check

If your paycheck stopped today, how many days could you cover essential bills (housing, utilities, food, transportation) from cash on hand?
Could you cover one missed paycheck? two? What specifically would break first?

B. Emergency Fund

What is one month of essentials for your household (in dollars)?
Do you have that amount in liquid savings?
What automatic transfer (5–10% of pay) will get you there in the next 12 months?

C. Predictable Replacements

Car: age, mileage, major repairs due? Tires, brakes, battery?
Roof: age, replacement cost target?
HVAC: age (12–15 year lifespan), plan if failure hits peak season?
Water heater: age (8–12 years), funds set aside for replacement?
Appliances: fridge, washer/dryer, dishwasher—what’s next to fail?

D. Insurance & Deductibles

Do you have cash equal to your health, auto, and home/renter deductibles?
Do you know your out-of-pocket max for health insurance?

E. Debt

Balances, interest rates, and minimums?
Which debts can be deferred in hardship?
Which must be paid first to avoid cascading damage?

F. Cash-Flow Triage

What subscriptions and extras get cut first?
Which bills stay on autopay, which switch to manual to prevent overdraft?
Who do you call in week 1 (landlord, mortgage servicer, credit cards, utilities)?

G. Banking Setup

Do you keep your emergency cash in a separate account?
Are due dates aligned with paydays?
Is overdraft protection turned off to avoid hidden fees?

H. Income Backstops

What side jobs or overtime are realistic in a crunch?
Do you have licenses/gear ready to activate them?

I. Documentation

Do you have account numbers, phone contacts, hardship scripts written down?
Are IDs and policies stored securely but accessibly?

J. Household Coordination

Does every adult know the cutback order?
What are the “spending freeze” triggers?

K. Shutdown-Specific Planning

Federal employees: do you have one month’s expenses in cash (back pay is coming)?
Contractors: do you have 2+ months saved (no back pay guarantee)?

L. After-Action & Rebuild

After disruption, do you rebuild the emergency fund before lifestyle upgrades?
What habit (auto transfer, monthly review) keeps the cushion growing?

Drones as a Core Municipal Utility: Policy, Training, and Future Directions for Texas Cities

September 22, 2025.Reading time 19 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain and AI

Executive Summary

Municipal drone programs have rapidly evolved from experimental projects to dependable service tools. Today, Texas cities are beginning to treat drones not as gadgets but as core municipal utilities—shared resources as essential as fleet management, radios, or GIS. Properly implemented, drones can provide faster response times, safer job conditions, and higher-quality data, all while saving taxpayer money.

This paper explains how cities can build and sustain a municipal drone program. It examines current and emerging use cases, outlines staffing impacts, surveys training options and costs in Texas, explores fleet models and procurement, and considers the legal, policy, and community dimensions that must be addressed. It concludes with recommendations, case studies of failures, and appendices on payload regulation and FAA sample exam questions.

Handled wisely, drones will make cities safer, smarter, and more responsive. Mishandled, they risk creating public backlash, wasting funds, or even eroding trust.

The Case for Treating Drones as a Utility

Cities that succeed with drones do so by thinking of them as utilities, not toys. A drone program should be centrally governed, jointly funded, and transparently managed. Just like a municipal fleet or IT department, a citywide drone service must be reliable, equitable across departments, compliant with law, interoperable with other systems, and transparent to the public.

This approach ensures that drones are available where needed, that policies are consistent across departments, and that costs are shared fairly. Most importantly, it signals to residents that the city treats drone use seriously, with strong safeguards and clear accountability.

Current and Growing Uses

Across Texas and the country, municipal drones already serve a wide range of functions.

Public Safety: Police and fire agencies use drones as “first responders,” launching them from stations or rooftops to 911 calls. They provide live video of car crashes, fires, or hazardous scenes, often arriving before officers. Firefighters use drones with thermal cameras to locate victims or track hotspots in burning buildings.

Infrastructure and Public Works: Drones inspect bridges, culverts, roofs, and water towers. Instead of sending workers onto scaffolds or into confined spaces, crews now fly drones that capture detailed photos and 3D models. Landfills are surveyed from the air, methane leaks identified, and storm damage mapped quickly after major events.

Transportation and Planning: Drones monitor traffic flow, study queue lengths, and document work zones. City planners use them to create up-to-date maps, support zoning decisions, and maintain digital twins of urban areas.

Environmental and Health: From checking stormwater outfalls to mapping tree canopies, drones help environmental staff monitor city assets. In some regions, drones are used to identify standing water and apply larvicides for mosquito control.

Emergency Management: After floods, hurricanes, or tornadoes, drones provide rapid situational awareness, helping cities prioritize response and document damage for FEMA claims.

As automation improves, “drone-in-a-box” systems—drones that launch on schedule or in response to sensors—will soon become common municipal tools.

Staffing Impacts

A common fear is that drones will replace jobs. In practice, they save lives and money while creating new roles.

Jobs Saved: By reducing risky tasks like climbing scaffolds or entering confined spaces, drones make existing jobs safer. They also reduce overtime by finishing inspections or surveys in hours instead of days.

Jobs Added: Cities now employ drone program coordinators, FAA Part 107-certified pilots, data analysts, and compliance officers. A medium-sized Texas city might add ten to twenty such roles over the next five years.

Jobs Shifted: Inspectors, police officers, and firefighters increasingly become “drone-enabled” workers, adding aerial operations to their responsibilities. Over time, 5–10% of municipal staff in critical departments may be retrained in drone use.

The net result is redistribution rather than reduction. Drones are not eliminating jobs; they are elevating them.

Training in Texas

FAA rules require every commercial or government drone operator to hold a Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate. Fortunately, Texas offers many affordable training options.

Community colleges such as Midland College and South Plains College provide Part 107 prep and hands-on flight training, typically costing $350 to $450 per course. Private providers like Dronegenuity and From Above Droneworks offer in-person and hybrid courses ranging from $99 online modules to $1,200 full academies. San Jacinto College and other universities run short workshops and certification tracks.

Online exam prep courses are widely available for $150–$400, making it feasible to train multiple staff at once. When departments train together, cities often negotiate group discounts and host joint scenario days at municipal training grounds.

Fleet Models and Costs

Municipal needs vary, but most cities benefit from a tiered fleet.

Micro drones (under 250g) for training and quick checks: $500–$1,200.
Utility quads for mapping and inspection: $2,500–$6,500.
Enterprise drones with thermal sensors for public safety: $7,500–$16,000.
Heavy-lift or VTOL systems for long corridors or specialized sensors: $18,000–$45,000+.

Each drone has a three- to five-year lifespan, with batteries refreshed every 200–300 cycles. Cities must also budget for accessories, insurance, and management software.

Policy and Legal Landscape

Federally, the FAA regulates drone operations under Part 107. Rules limit altitude to 400 feet, require flights within visual line of sight, and mandate Remote ID for most aircraft. Waivers can allow for advanced operations, such as flying beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS).

In Texas, additional laws restrict image capture in certain contexts and impose rules around critical infrastructure. Local governments cannot regulate airspace, but they can and should regulate employee conduct, data use, privacy, and procurement.

Transparency is crucial. Cities must publish clear retention policies, flight logs, and citizen FAQs.

Privacy, Labor, and Community Trust

For communities to embrace drones, cities must be proactive.

Privacy: Drones should collect only what is necessary, with cameras pointed at mission targets rather than private backyards. Non-evidentiary footage should be deleted within 30–90 days.

Labor: Cities should emphasize that drones augment rather than replace workers. They shift dangerous tasks to machines while providing staff new certifications and career paths.

Equity: Larger cities may advance faster than small towns, but shared services, inter-local agreements, and regional training programs can close the gap.

Community Trust: Transparency builds legitimacy. Cities should publish quarterly metrics, log complaints, host public demos, and maintain a clear point of contact for concerns.

Lessons from Failures

Not every program has succeeded. Across the country, drone initiatives have stumbled in predictable ways:

Community Pushback: Chula Vista’s pioneering drone-as-first-responder program drew criticism for surveillance concerns, while New York City’s holiday monitoring drones sparked public backlash. Lesson: transparency and engagement must come first.
Operational Incidents: A Charlotte police drone crashed into a house, and some agencies lost FAA waivers due to compliance lapses. Lesson: one mistake can jeopardize an entire program; training and discipline are essential.
Budget Failures: Dallas and other cities saw expansions stall over hidden costs for software and maintenance. Smaller towns wasted funds buying consumer drones that quickly wore out. Lesson: plan for lifecycle costs, not just hardware.
Legal Overreach: Connecticut’s proposal to arm police drones with “less-lethal” weapons collapsed amid backlash, while San Diego faced court challenges over warrant requirements. Lesson: pushing boundaries invites restrictions.
Scaling Gaps: Rural Texas counties bought drones with grants but lacked certified pilots or insurance. Small towns gathered imagery but had no analysts to use it. Lesson: drones without people and integration are wasted purchases.

Recommendations

Invest in training through Texas colleges and private providers.
Procure wisely, choosing modular, upgradeable hardware.
Adopt clear policies on payloads, privacy, and data retention.
Prioritize non-kinetic payloads such as cameras, sensors, and lighting.
Prepare for BVLOS, which will transform municipal use once authorized.
Ensure equity, supporting smaller cities through regional cooperation.

Conclusion

Drones are no longer experimental novelties. They are rapidly becoming a core municipal utility—a shared service as essential as public works fleets or GIS. Their greatest promise lies not in flashy technology but in the steady, practical benefits they bring: safer workers, faster response, better data, and more transparent government.

But the promise depends on choices. Cities must prohibit weaponized payloads, publish clear policies, train and retrain staff, and engage openly with their communities. Done right, drones can strengthen both city effectiveness and public trust.

Appendix A: Administrative Regulation on Payloads

Title: Drone Payloads and Weapons Prohibition; Data & Safety Controls
Number: AR-UAS-01
Effective Date: Upon issuance
Applies To: All city employees, contractors, volunteers, or agents operating drones (UAS) on behalf of the City

1. Purpose

This regulation ensures that all municipal drone operations are conducted lawfully, ethically, and safely. It establishes clear prohibitions on weaponized or harmful payloads and sets minimum standards for data use, transparency, and accountability.

2. Definitions

UAS (Drone): An uncrewed aircraft and associated equipment used for flight.
Payload: Any item attached to or carried by a UAS, including cameras, sensors, lights, speakers, or drop mechanisms.
Weaponized or Prohibited Payload: Any device or substance intended to incapacitate, injure, damage, or deliver kinetic, chemical, electrical, or incendiary effects.
Authorized Payload: Sensors or devices explicitly approved by the UAS Program Manager for municipal purposes.

3. Policy Statement

The City strictly prohibits the use of weaponized or prohibited payloads on all drones.
Drones may only be used for documented municipal purposes, consistent with law, FAA rules, and City policy.
All payloads must be inventoried and approved by the UAS Program Manager.

4. Prohibited Payloads

The following are expressly prohibited:

Firearms, ammunition, or explosive devices.
Pyrotechnic, incendiary, or chemical agents (including tear gas, pepper spray, smoke bombs).
Conducted electrical weapons (e.g., TASER-type devices).
Projectiles, hard object drop devices, or kinetic impact payloads intended for crowd control.
Covert audio or visual recording devices in violation of state or federal law.

Exception: Non-weaponized lifesaving payloads (e.g., flotation devices, first aid kits, rescue lines) may be deployed only with prior written approval of the Program Manager and after a documented risk assessment.

5. Authorized Payloads

Authorized payloads include, but are not limited to:

Imaging sensors (visual, thermal, multispectral, LiDAR).
Environmental sensors (methane detectors, gas analyzers, air quality monitors).
Lighting systems (searchlights, strobes).
Loudspeakers for announcements or evacuation instructions.
Non-weaponized emergency supply drops (medical kits, flotation devices).
Tethered systems for persistent observation or communications relay.

6. Oversight and Accountability

The UAS Program Manager must approve all payload configurations before deployment.
Departments must maintain an updated inventory of drones and payloads.
Quarterly inspections will be conducted to verify compliance.
An annual public report will summarize drone use, payload types, and incidents.

7. Data Controls

Minimization: Only record what is necessary for the mission.
Retention:
- Non-evidentiary footage: 30–90 days.
- Evidentiary footage: retained per case law.
- Mapping/orthomosaics: retained per project records schedule.
Access: Role-based permissions, with audit logs.
Public Release: Media released under public records law must be reviewed for privacy and redaction (faces, license plates, sensitive sites).

8. Training Requirements

All operators must hold an FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate.
Annual city-approved training on:
- This regulation (AR-UAS-01).
- Privacy and data retention.
- Citizen engagement and de-escalation.
Scenario-based training must be conducted at least once per year.

9. Enforcement

Violations of this regulation may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or contract.
Prohibited payloads will be confiscated, logged, and removed from service.
Cases involving unlawful weaponization will be referred for criminal investigation.

10. Effective Date

This regulation is effective immediately upon approval by the City Manager and shall remain in force until amended or rescinded.

Appendix B: FAA Part 107 Sample Questions (Representative, 25 Items)

Note: These questions are drawn from FAA study materials and training resources. They are not live exam questions but are representative of the knowledge areas tested.

Under Part 107, what is the maximum allowable altitude for a small UAS?
A. 200 feet AGL
B. 400 feet AGL ✅
C. 500 feet AGL
What is the maximum ground speed allowed?
A. 87 knots (100 mph) ✅
B. 100 knots (115 mph)
C. 87 mph
To operate a small UAS for commercial purposes, which certification is required?
A. Private Pilot Certificate
B. Remote Pilot Certificate with a small UAS rating ✅
C. Student Pilot Certificate
Which airspace requires ATC authorization for UAS operations?
A. Class G
B. Class C ✅
C. Class E below 400 ft
How is controlled airspace authorization obtained?
A. Verbal ATC request
B. Filing a VFR flight plan
C. Through LAANC or DroneZone ✅
Minimum visibility requirement for Part 107 operations?
A. 1 statute mile
B. 3 statute miles ✅
C. 5 statute miles
Required distance from clouds?
A. 500 feet below, 2,000 feet horizontally ✅
B. 1,000 feet below, 1,000 feet horizontally
C. No minimum distance
A METAR states: KDAL 151853Z 14004KT 10SM FEW040 30/22 A2992. What is the ceiling?
A. Clear skies
B. 4,000 feet few clouds ✅
C. 4,000 feet broken clouds
A TAF includes BKN020. What does this mean?
A. Broken clouds at 200 feet
B. Broken clouds at 2,000 feet ✅
C. Overcast at 20,000 feet
High humidity combined with high temperature generally results in:
A. Increased performance
B. Reduced performance ✅
C. No effect
If a drone’s center of gravity is too far aft, what happens?
A. Faster than normal flight
B. Instability, difficult recovery ✅
C. Less battery use
High density altitude (hot, high, humid) causes:
A. Increased battery life
B. Decreased propeller efficiency, shorter flights ✅
C. No effect
A drone at max gross weight of 55 lbs carries a 10 lb payload. Payload percent?
A. 18% ✅
B. 10%
C. 20%
At maximum gross weight, performance is:
A. Improved stability
B. Reduced maneuverability and endurance ✅
C. No change
The purpose of Crew Resource Management is:
A. To reduce paperwork
B. To use teamwork and communication to improve safety ✅
C. To reduce training costs
GPS signal lost and drone drifts — first action?
A. Immediate Return-to-Home
B. Switch to ATTI/manual mode, maintain control, land ✅
C. Climb higher for GPS
If a drone causes $500+ in property damage, what is required?
A. Report only to local police
B. FAA report within 10 days ✅
C. No report required
If the remote PIC is incapacitated, the visual observer should:
A. Land the drone ✅
B. Call ATC
C. Wait until PIC recovers
On a sectional chart, a magenta vignette indicates:
A. Class E starting at surface ✅
B. Class C boundary
C. Restricted airspace
A dashed blue line on a sectional chart indicates:
A. Class B airspace
B. Class D airspace ✅
C. Class G airspace
A magenta dashed circle indicates:
A. Class E starting at surface ✅
B. Class G airspace
C. No restrictions
Floor of Class E when sectional shows fuzzy side of a blue vignette?
A. Surface
B. 700 feet AGL ✅
C. 1,200 feet AGL
Main concern with fatigue while flying?
A. Reduced battery performance
B. Slower reaction and poor decision-making ✅
C. Increased radio interference
Alcohol is prohibited within how many hours of UAS operation?
A. 4 hours
B. 8 hours ✅
C. 12 hours
Maximum allowable BAC for remote pilots?
A. 0.08%
B. 0.04% ✅
C. 0.02%

Homelessness in America: Successes, Failures, and the Search for Lasting Solutions

September 18, 2025.Reading time 13 minutes.

AI Responses to questions posed by Lewis McLain

Introduction

Homelessness is one of the most visible tests of a society’s compassion and its ability to solve complex problems. Tents, makeshift shelters, and men and women sleeping on sidewalks remind us that, despite immense national wealth, millions of Americans live without the security of a home. The crisis is humanitarian, economic, and civic: homelessness drives up emergency room visits, policing costs, and erodes public trust in institutions.

Over the last several decades, billions of dollars have been devoted to ending homelessness. Some communities, such as Houston and Salt Lake City, have demonstrated that it is possible to reduce homelessness dramatically when resources are aligned around proven strategies. Others, most famously Los Angeles and San Francisco, have spent vast sums with disappointing results. Examining both sides — the promising and the faltering — alongside local initiatives in McKinney, Texas, shows what it takes to turn lofty goals into tangible outcomes.

Goals of a Comprehensive Homeless Program

A truly comprehensive homelessness program is not an ad hoc collection of shelters or one-time grants; it is a system designed to prevent homelessness, respond quickly when it occurs, and ensure that once people are housed they remain housed.

The overarching goals are threefold:

End homelessness, not just manage it — shifting the system’s focus from temporary fixes to permanent housing solutions.
Put housing first — recognizing that stability is impossible without a secure place to live.
Build stability and self-sufficiency — ensuring that once individuals are housed, they can remain so through employment, education, or long-term supportive services.

Achieving these goals requires several interlocking objectives:

Prevention and Diversion. Stop homelessness before it starts with rental assistance, eviction mediation, and utility aid. A few hundred dollars in short-term help can prevent years of instability.
Emergency Response. Provide dignified shelter, warming/cooling centers, and safety nets when prevention fails.
Rapid Re-Housing. Quickly place individuals into apartments with short-term support; the longer people remain homeless, the harder recovery becomes.
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). Pair affordable apartments with long-term case management, healthcare, and counseling for those who are chronically homeless.
Supportive Services. Case managers, mental health clinicians, job training, childcare, and transportation are the scaffolding of stable housing.
Coordinated Entry and Data. Use a single intake system and shared data to match people to the right level of support and measure outcomes.
Community Integration. Engage nonprofits, faith groups, healthcare systems, landlords, and local governments in aligned roles.
Sustainable Funding and Policy Alignment. Ensure zoning, land use, and housing policy are aligned with homelessness strategies, backed by stable funding.

Models of Success

The most celebrated examples of progress share a common feature: they invest in housing first, then support individuals with tailored services.

Houston’s The Way Home

Houston has become a national model. Through The Way Home, a collaboration of more than 100 agencies, the city has placed over 32,000 people into permanent housing since 2012, with nearly 90% remaining housed after two years. Houston cut its homeless population by nearly two-thirds over the last decade. It accomplished this by streamlining entry systems, pooling federal and local funds, and incentivizing landlords. The city showed that a sprawling, high-growth metro can achieve large-scale reductions in unsheltered homelessness.

Community First! Village in Austin

Austin’s Community First! Village created an entire neighborhood designed for the chronically homeless: micro-homes, shared kitchens, gardens, and community spaces. It acknowledges that belonging and community are as essential as shelter. The model demonstrates how design and intentional planning can foster dignity and stability.

The 100,000 Homes Campaign

At the national scale, the 100,000 Homes Campaign (2010–2014) surpassed its goal of housing the most medically vulnerable people. By focusing on data, coordinated entry, and Housing First principles, it proved the strategy could succeed across dozens of cities.

Other Targeted Efforts

Deborah’s Place (Chicago): Specializes in housing and trauma-informed services for homeless women.
The Doe Fund (New York): Blends transitional work and housing for individuals with histories of incarceration or addiction.

Across all these successes, the key is the same: low barriers to entry, permanent housing as the anchor, and services that treat individuals with dignity.

McKinney and Collin County: Local Efforts

Smaller communities like McKinney, Texas, are also facing homelessness pressures due to rapid growth and rising housing costs.

Current Strategies

Coordinated Entry: McKinney participates in a system that assesses needs and directs individuals to appropriate programs.
Emergency Responses: The McKinney Emergency Overnight Weather Station (MEOWS) opens during freezes, while nonprofits like Streetside Showers provide hygiene and outreach.
The Samaritan Inn: Provides transitional housing with structured case management and life-skills training.
Shiloh Place: Focused on single mothers; reports show over 90% of graduates secure stable housing and increased education or income.
City Commitments: McKinney has pledged $3 million for affordable housing grants and loans, $1 million for a Community Land Trust, and plans to build 10 new homes/townhomes by 2026 (from city strategic goals, pending full verification).

Outcomes

Regionally, Dallas and Collin Counties have reduced homelessness by 19% since 2021, with more than 10,000 individuals housed. McKinney, however, recorded 239 homeless individuals in its 2024 Point-in-Time count — a 5% increase from the previous year, with children making up over a quarter of the total (local reporting, Community Impact, pending full verification).

The city is drafting its 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan to expand affordable housing and strengthen prevention efforts, but significant gaps remain: no full-time shelter within city limits and limited published data on long-term housing retention.

The Magnet Effect: Myth, Reality, and Regional Solutions

A recurring concern for communities is the so-called “magnet effect” — the fear that by building better services, they may attract individuals experiencing homelessness from neighboring jurisdictions.

Evidence

Research shows that most people remain close to where they lost housing, often due to family or community ties. Still, some migration occurs, particularly when:

One city offers low-barrier shelters while others criminalize camping.
Safer and more dignified conditions exist in a neighboring jurisdiction.
Housing slots or vouchers are more readily available.

For a city like McKinney, adjacent to Dallas and Plano, even modest inflows can strain resources.

Responses

Regional Coordination: Houston’s success rested on aligning 100+ agencies across Harris County — reducing duplication and sharing responsibility.
Shared Funding: Counties can pool funds to ensure no single city bears disproportionate costs.
Eligibility Prioritization: Programs may prioritize residents with local ties, though this must be balanced against fair housing obligations.
Permanent Housing Focus: Building permanent housing rather than endless shelters reduces churn across city lines.

The lesson is clear: the answer is not to scale back but to ensure regional systems. With shared responsibility, improved services do not overwhelm one city but uplift an entire region.

National Failures and Costly Lessons

For every Houston, there is a Los Angeles or San Francisco — cities where billions have been spent with limited results.

Los Angeles: Measure HHH

In 2016, voters approved a $1.2 billion bond (Prop HHH) to build 10,000 supportive housing units. By 2023, only about 1,100 were complete, and per-unit costs ballooned to $596,000–$837,000, with some projects nearing $1 million. Homelessness rose despite the investment.

San Francisco

San Francisco spends over $1 billion annually, yet its homeless population has remained between 7,000–8,000 for years. Navigation Centers and hotel conversions often saw exit-to-housing rates under 30% (per local audits), creating a revolving door of temporary care.

Seattle / King County

Seattle created a Regional Homelessness Authority in 2020 with a nine-figure budget. Audits soon revealed weak data, unclear goals, and little visible impact on unsheltered homelessness.

Hawaii

Despite declaring a state of emergency in 2015 and spending heavily, Hawaii remains the state with the highest homelessness rate in the nation (44 per 10,000 residents). Sky-high housing costs and tourism pressures outpaced program gains.

New York City

New York spends more than $4 billion annually, with over 80,000 individuals in shelters each night. Critics argue that the shelter system has grown while permanent housing production lags.

HUD–VA Vouchers

The HUD-VASH program reduced veteran homelessness nationally. Yet in some regions, thousands of vouchers went unused due to bureaucratic delays and landlords unwilling to participate — showing that funding without execution fails.

Common Themes in Failures

Exorbitant per-unit costs undermine public trust.
Glacial delivery timelines prevent timely relief.
Shelter-heavy spending traps people in temporary systems.
New bureaucracies add layers without results.
Housing supply issues (zoning, costs, land) remain unaddressed.
Weak outcome tracking — dollars are counted, but stable lives are not.

Lessons Learned

The contrast between successes and failures yields hard lessons:

Permanent housing works. Housing First and PSH consistently reduce homelessness when scaled.
Supportive services sustain results. Housing without counseling, healthcare, or employment support is fragile.
Cost control is essential. Programs must avoid $800,000 per-unit models.
Data must drive funding. Retention rates, returns, and time-to-housing are the key benchmarks.
Regionalism prevents “magnet” burdens. Shared responsibility avoids one city becoming a hub.
Adaptation to context matters. Houston’s model can inform McKinney, but strategies must match local housing markets and resources.

Conclusion

Homelessness is not an unsolvable problem. Evidence shows that with the right mix of housing, services, and accountability, communities can dramatically reduce it. Houston’s transformation proves that systemic, coordinated approaches succeed. Austin’s Community First! Village shows how design and belonging restore dignity. At the same time, Los Angeles and San Francisco stand as warnings of what happens when money is poured in without discipline, urgency, or accountability.

For McKinney and Collin County, the path forward is clear: build on existing programs, expand affordable housing, strengthen data systems, and work regionally to share responsibility. Without coordination, improved services risk attracting individuals from neighboring areas. With collaboration, however, every jurisdiction can contribute to — and benefit from — the solution.

The examples are before us: homelessness can be reduced, but only when programs are not just well-funded, but well-designed, regionally balanced, and rooted in the conviction that every person deserves a home.

Plan v Pivot: Texas Municipal Leadership in the World of “Re-”

September 12, 2025.Reading time 9 minutes.

Suggested by Dan Johnson, written mostly by AI, guided and edited by Lewis McLain

Introduction

In Texas, city and county leaders live in the tension between plans that guide and pivots that save. Long-range blueprints for infrastructure, budgets, and land use are essential. Yet when storms overwhelm, revenues collapse, or the legislature rewrites the rules, leaders must step into the re- world: redoing assumptions, rewriting priorities, reallocating resources, reassessing risks, and reestablishing trust with citizens. Leadership is not static. It is a continual act of resilience, built on both discipline and improvisation. There is a rhythm, not quite a dance, but an orchestra conductor directing an Attacca, a performance instruction that means to go straight on without pause to the next movement.

The Discipline of Planning

Texas cities exemplify disciplined planning:

Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). Road expansions, water treatment plants, and fire stations are mapped years in advance.
Water Supply Projects. Regional providers like the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) develop 50-year strategies for reservoirs, pipelines, and treatment capacity.
Comprehensive Plans. Land use, housing, and growth corridors are charted to keep pace with booming populations.

Planning sets expectations, aligns departments, and reassures taxpayers. Without it, chaos replaces coordination. But even the most detailed plan must later be reassessed when conditions shift.

The Guadalupe River Flood: Forced to Re-Act

On July 4, 2024, relentless rains along the Guadalupe River brought flash floods that tore through Comal and Guadalupe Counties.

Plans Overwhelmed. Drainage systems designed for “100-year storms” were outmatched. Evacuation maps had to be rewritten in real time.
Immediate Pivot. Cities reallocated crews from parks to barricading roads, redirected budget reserves to emergency shelters, and reorganized communication channels for disaster alerts.
Aftermath. Communities began to rebuild, reestablish housing security, and rejuvenate battered neighborhoods with state and federal aid. Drainage master plans were redone with updated floodplain models, a stark reminder that plans are only drafts in the face of Texas weather.

This was not failure of planning but proof that leaders must be able to redo and rewrite without hesitation.

Planned Programs Interrupted by Necessary Pivots

Pivoting to State Legislative Changes

Just as floods force emergency pivots, state politics forces cities into the re- cycle.

Revenue Caps (2019). When Senate Bill 2 capped property tax growth at 3.5% without voter approval, cities like Austin, Plano, and may others had to recalculate their forecasts, reallocate funds from amenities to core services, and reassess debt capacity.
Annexation Restrictions (2017 & 2019). Cities such as San Antonio saw decades-long growth plans undone. Annexation strategies were rewritten, and economic development priorities restructured to adapt to shrinking boundaries.
Sales Tax Rebate Reforms (SB 878, 2023). Cities like Round Rock and Coppell, which had relied on rebate agreements with corporations, had to pivot to reforecast, redefine budgets, and reestablish trust with residents when revenues suddenly tightened.

In each case, local leaders could not cling to outdated forecasts. They had to redo priorities, rewrite budgets, and reframe commitments while keeping faith with their communities.

The Backbone of Data Management & Operations Flow Attacked

The Total Focus for Days, Weeks, or even Months

The Source and Power of “Re-”

I think back to when I taught budgeting in the SMU MPA programs, my introduction to the subject included an emphasis on “The Re Words.” The prefix re- comes from Latin, where it carried the simple meaning of “back” or “again.” Over centuries, carried into English through Old French, it grew into one of the most versatile and powerful tools in our language. To add re- to a verb is rarely neutral; it signals renewal, restoration, or fresh possibility. Rebuild, reconnect, reform, restore, redeem, resurrect—each carries the weight of beginning again, of not being bound by failure or finality. Even in ordinary civic leadership, words like reassess, reallocate, reimagine, and rejuvenate offer not just management strategies but visions of resilience. The “re-” family of words tends toward the uplifting: they invite us to believe that what is broken can be mended, what is lost can be recovered, and what seems finished can yet be begun anew. In that sense, “re-” is not merely a prefix but a promise—one that leaders must embody when guiding people and communities through change.

The Leadership Imperative: Living in the Re- Cycle

Texas municipal leadership is now defined by agility within the re- cycle:

Reassess: Constantly test whether assumptions still hold.
Reallocate: Shift funds and staff quickly to where they are most needed.
Rewrite: Adjust ordinances, plans, or budgets without waiting for the next five-year update.
Reestablish: Rebuild legitimacy and public confidence after disruption.
Rejuvenate: Use moments of crisis to breathe new energy into tired systems, outdated practices, or strained organizations.

These concepts do not abandon planning. It is treating plans as living documents, always subject to revision and renewal.

Conclusion: The Art of Resilience

In Texas municipal government, planning without pivoting is arrogance, and pivoting without planning is chaos. The art lies in combining the two through a constant rhythm of re- words: to redo when plans prove wrong, rewrite when policies are outdated, reallocate when funds are strained, reassess when risks emerge, reestablish when trust falters, and rejuvenate when systems tire.

Leadership is not about choosing plan or pivot once and for all. It is about repeatedly returning—to purpose, to mission, to the people—no matter how many times circumstances force change. It requires the supreme idea of agility. Some responses can’t wait hours or days. They must be well-oiled actions as if you knew an event was coming.

The July 4 flood showed that nature will undo assumptions. The Legislature’s actions showed that politics will redraw boundaries. But resilient leaders—those willing to live in the re- cycle—ensure that their cities not only survive, but renew themselves time and again. Interestingly, and sometimes strangely, the outcome will not be just a fix but rather an improvement.

The Re-Creed of Leadership

We plan with care,
yet we are ready to redo, knowing even the best blueprints must yield to reality.

We decide with courage,
yet we humbly reassess, for wisdom is found not in stubbornness but in learning anew.

We allocate with prudence,
yet we swiftly reallocate, remembering that resources serve people, not plans alone.

We write for the future,
yet we are willing to rewrite, because vision is alive and must grow with the times.

We stand for stability,
yet we daily reestablish trust, for legitimacy is not won once, but earned again and again.

We serve in the present,
yet we strive to rejuvenate tomorrow, so that what we build outlasts us and lifts generations to come.

For true leadership is not one act,
but the continual rhythm of resilience, renewal, and return.

Gerrymandering in America: Race, Party, and the Battle Over Fair Maps

August 30, 2025.Reading time 16 minutes.

Research by AI; Guided by Questions from Lewis McLain

I. Origins & Etymology

Gerrymandering derives from early 19th-century Massachusetts: In 1812, Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a partisan redistricting plan so oddly shaped it resembled a salamander. A Boston Gazette cartoon coined the term “Gerry‑mander,” merging his name with the creature’s form.

At its core, gerrymandering refers to drawing district lines to benefit particular political interests—resulting in bizarre, contorted districts. While most people associate it with partisan trickery, the truth is more layered: racial bias and partisan bias often function in tandem.

Racial gerrymandering dilutes or overconcentrates minority voters, violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Partisan gerrymandering distorts maps to entrench the ruling party, regardless of overall vote share.

Though the two tactics are frequently inseparable in practice, the United States Supreme Court treats them differently:

Partisan gerrymandering is considered a nonjusticiable political question, outside the reach of federal courts, as established in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019).

Racial gerrymandering is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

II. Why & How Gerrymandering Happens

Redistricting, conducted every ten years after each census, is meant to reflect population changes. However, when controlled by legislators, it often becomes a tool for cementing political advantage through two tactics:

Cracking divides opposing-group voters—often minorities or supporters of another party—across several districts so they cannot form a majority.
Packing concentrates those voters into a few districts where they win overwhelmingly, wasting their votes elsewhere.

These techniques are the foundational tools of both racial and partisan gerrymandering.

While all states redraw district lines, gerrymandering intensity varies—some use independent commissions (e.g., Arizona) to constrain manipulation, while others are deeply partisan.

III. Do All 50 States Gerrymander?

Technically, every state adjusts its electoral maps, but not all do so with partisan intent. Some, like Arizona, employ independent commissions to limit political influence.

Recent trends point to a redistricting “arms race”: Texas enacted a mid-decade map boosting Republican advantage, triggering lawsuits over minority vote dilution. Meanwhile, California, New York, and Utah (the latter with a court-ordered redraw) exemplify ongoing tensions.

IV. Supreme Court & Landmark Cases

Foundational Jurisprudence

Baker v. Carr (1962): Established that redistricting is justiciable under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) & Reynolds v. Sims (1964): Reinforced “one person, one vote.”

Racial Gerrymandering Cases

Shaw v. Reno (1993): Race-based districts trigger strict scrutiny under Equal Protection.
Shaw v. Hunt (1996): Reinforced that race-dominated design must be narrowly tailored.
Miller v. Johnson (1995): Reaffirmed the unconstitutional nature of race-dominant districting.

Voting Rights Act Protections

Allen v. Milligan (2023): Required Alabama to add a second Black-majority district under Section 2 of the VRA.
Louisiana v. Callais (2025 Term): Now challenging whether creating race-conscious districts—even to prevent minority dilution—is constitutional. Oral arguments are scheduled for October 2025.

Partisan Gerrymandering Jurisprudence

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): Declared partisan gerrymandering a nonjusticiable political question, preventing federal courts from intervening.

State-Level Reform & Independent Commissions

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015): Upheld the right of voters to empower independent commissions for map-drawing under the Elections Clause.

V. Supreme Court Rejections of Partisan Gerrymandering Claims

The Supreme Court has consistently declined to address partisan gerrymandering claims:

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): Held such cases are outside federal jurisdiction.
Lamone v. Benisek (2019): Declined to intervene in a Maryland case, affirming Rucho.
Gill v. Whitford (2018): Dismissed due to lack of standing, without addressing the merits.
Benisek v. Lamone: Another Maryland case rejected on procedural grounds.
Gaffney v. Cummings (1973): Upheld a Connecticut map, issuing that minor political imbalances don’t violate Equal Protection.

VI. If Courts Treated Partisan Bias Like Racial Bias

In current jurisprudence, racial gerrymandering is justiciable—courts routinely strike down districts when race is used as the predominant factor without sufficient justification. But in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot hear claims of partisan gerrymandering, declaring them political questions beyond their reach.

But what if that changed? If courts treated partisan bias the same way they treat racial bias—with strict scrutiny and intervention—many current maps would likely be invalidated. This shift in doctrine could dramatically rebalance political power in Congress.

Several prominent analyses help estimate the scale of potential change:

The Brennan Center (2024) found that current maps cost Democrats approximately 16 seats due to partisan gerrymandering.
A Center for American Progress (2012–2016) report found that up to 59 House seats were skewed in favor of Republicans through unfair redistricting.
A FiveThirtyEight simulation concluded that if all 50 states gerrymandered to their fullest extent, Republicans would gain roughly 30–35 extra seats.

In sum, correcting partisan bias through judicial oversight would likely flip between 16 and 59 seats from Republicans to Democrats, altering or even reversing the current House majority.

VII. State-by-State Breakdown: Where the Seats Would Shift

To understand how partisan gerrymandering distorts representation, it helps to look at specific states. Below are groupings based on how maps are drawn, their partisan bias, and expected seat shifts if redrawn under neutral or court-approved standards.

🟢 Independent Commissions (Low/Neutral Bias)

These states use nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions, reducing opportunities for political manipulation:

California: No bias; citizen-led process
Colorado: Competitive and balanced districts
Michigan: Commission adopted after 2018 reform
Arizona: Minor Democratic lean, but publicly accountable process

🟡 Moderate or Mixed Bias

States with recent court-drawn maps or commissions with imperfect balance:

Pennsylvania: Court intervention restored balance
Virginia: Map drawn after commission impasse
New Jersey: Tie-breaker rules favor incumbents; moderate Democratic lean

🔴 Extreme Republican Gerrymanders

These states are the largest contributors to Republican overrepresentation:

Texas: +6 to +9 seats due to cracking Latino and urban communities
Florida: +5 to +6 seats after DeSantis overturned a fairer court-approved map
Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin: Legislatures engineered consistent GOP advantages despite roughly even statewide vote shares
Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee: Minority dilution and urban fracturing yield additional GOP gains

🔵 Extreme Democratic Gerrymanders

Though fewer, some Democratic-controlled states also engage in biased line-drawing:

Illinois and Maryland each net 1–2 seats by concentrating rural GOP voters or diluting their influence

This breakdown illustrates how partisan bias—especially in large, fast-growing, or swing states—can significantly shift congressional outcomes.

VIII. Independent Commissions vs. Legislative Control

When comparing states that use independent commissions to those that rely on legislature-controlled maps, a clear pattern emerges:

Independent commissions result in fairer, more proportional representation, with greater competitiveness and fewer legal challenges.
Legislature-led states, especially those with single-party dominance, tend to produce maps with significant bias, often preserving or expanding partisan advantage regardless of voter shifts.

This contrast reinforces the conclusion that reform through commissions, transparency, and public engagement is the most viable path to redistricting fairness.

IX. Summary of Projected Seat Shifts

These projections combine data from simulations, court filings, and voting behavior models. The following states are the most affected by partisan bias:

Texas: 6–9 seats to Democrats
Florida: 5–6 seats
Ohio: 3–4 seats
North Carolina: 2–3 seats
Wisconsin: 2 seats
Georgia: 1–2 seats
Louisiana: 1 seat (restoring a Black-majority district)
Tennessee: 1 seat
Illinois and Maryland: 2–3 seats might flip to Republicans under a neutral standard

Nationwide impact: Correcting partisan bias through judicial scrutiny could flip between 16 and 59 seats. Such a shift would not only affect House control but also committee leadership, federal legislation, and the national policy agenda.ould shift—enough to reverse the House majority and shape national policy for a decade.

X. Conclusion: One Standard, Two Outcomes

America currently applies two legal standards to what is often one strategy:

When race is the explicit factor in redistricting, courts scrutinize and often strike down maps.
When race is used as a proxy for party advantage, courts defer to the political process.

The result is a system where millions of voters—especially those in diverse, urban, or competitive regions—are systematically underrepresented, while entrenched state governments shield themselves from competition.

If courts treated partisan gerrymandering with the same seriousness as racial gerrymandering, it would transform American representation and restore fairness to the democratic process.

Begging the Question

✅ 1. Clarify the Core Question

Should the distribution of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives roughly reflect the ratio of votes cast for each party in presidential elections (or other statewide totals)?

This involves a deeper question:

Should representational fairness be tied to aggregate voter preference, or to district-level dynamics?

🧩 2. Define Evaluation Criteria

To weigh the pros and cons fairly, establish the principles or goals you care about. For example:

Criterion	Explanation
Democratic Fairness	Does the system reflect the will of the people as expressed in their votes?
Constitutional Integrity	Does the idea respect the U.S. system of government and its legal framework?
Representation Quality	Does it allow local communities to elect candidates who reflect their specific interests?
Feasibility & Stability	Is it workable, and does it produce stable, trusted outcomes?
Manipulation Resistance	Does it reduce incentives or tools for gerrymandering?

⚖️ 3. Weigh Pros and Cons Under Each Criterion

Criterion	Pro-Alignment Argument	Anti-Alignment Argument
Democratic Fairness	Vote-seat alignment ensures majority rule and legitimacy	Split-ticket voting and turnout variation mean alignment may misrepresent intent
Constitutional Integrity	Could guide mapmakers without requiring reform	The Constitution guarantees single-member districts, not proportionality
Representation Quality	Prevents distortions where 45% of voters get 20% of seats	House members serve local areas, not national party shares
Feasibility & Stability	Easy to measure; can inform fair redistricting practices	May encourage radical reforms or undermine federalism if applied rigidly
Manipulation Resistance	Presidential vote benchmarks expose gerrymandering	Could mask subtler forms of bias not captured in statewide totals

🧠 4. Synthesize: Which Principles Matter Most?

Ask:

Is vote-seat proportionality a core democratic value?
Or is local, district-based representation more important, even if it causes some mismatch?

If your priority is majoritarian fairness and anti-manipulation, you may favor alignment.
If your priority is constitutional tradition, localism, or district-level nuance, you may favor flexibility.

🧭 5. Conclusion: Nuanced Recommendation

You could logically conclude:

Presidential vote ratios should not rigidly dictate House representation, but they should serve as a diagnostic benchmark. When vote-share and seat-share diverge significantly, it often signals manipulation—not natural variation. Therefore, they should be used to identify potential gerrymanders, but not as a constitutional requirement.

Another Major Question: The Independence of Commissions?

Independent redistricting commissions are designed to reduce partisan influence—but they’re not immune to bias or manipulation. Here are the key ways that even these commissions can be bent to political advantage:

⚠️ 1. Commission Composition Can Be Politically Engineered

Who selects the commissioners? Often, political leaders (e.g., legislative leaders or governors) nominate or approve members.
This can lead to:
- “Bipartisan collusion”: Democrats and Republicans may agree to protect incumbents rather than ensure fairness.
- Hidden partisanship: Individuals labeled as “independent” may still have partisan loyalties or donor histories.

Example:
In New Jersey, the bipartisan commission includes a tie-breaking member chosen by both parties—often leading to deals that entrench both sides’ incumbents rather than create competitive maps.

⚠️ 2. Data and Criteria Can Be Manipulated

Commissioners choose how to interpret criteria like “compactness,” “communities of interest,” or “competitiveness.”
If partisan operatives influence data models, mapping software, or community testimony, the final map can reflect subtle bias.

Example:
In Arizona, although the commission is independent, critics argued that some early cycles were swayed by Republican-linked consultants who shaped how communities of interest were defined.

⚠️ 3. Deadlock or Commission Failure Can Default to Partisan Actors

Some commissions require supermajority or bipartisan approval. If they deadlock, the decision reverts to courts or legislatures, which reintroduces partisanship.

Example:
In Virginia, a bipartisan commission deadlocked in 2021. The state supreme court appointed two special masters, both tied to past partisan mapmakers, prompting concerns over impartiality.

⚠️ 4. Public Input Can Be Staged or Stacked

Open hearings are meant to encourage civic participation, but parties can mobilize supporters to dominate public comments, creating the illusion of grassroots consensus.

Example:
In Michigan, activists warned that coordinated testimony from party-aligned groups overwhelmed independent perspectives, subtly shaping the map outcomes.

⚠️ 5. Reform Language Can Be Vague

Some “independent commissions” are only advisory, with their proposals subject to legislative override.
Even binding commissions may be poorly defined, allowing backdoor political influence through legal loopholes.

✅ Summary: Commissions Reduce Risk—Not Eliminate It

Weakness	Description
Composition bias	Selection process favors party insiders
Data manipulation	Criteria interpreted to favor outcomes
Deadlocks & defaults	Process can revert to legislature/courts
Staged public input	Manufactured testimony shapes perceptions
Weak enforcement	“Independent” may lack legal authority

Conclusion:
Independent commissions are generally more fair than legislature-controlled redistricting—but they are not foolproof. Ensuring true independence requires transparency, oversight, citizen engagement, and strict conflict-of-interest rules.

Texas State vs Local Government Powers: A Struggle for Control in the Lone Star State

August 29, 2025.Reading time 11 minutes.

Introduction: The Central Tension

There are two major forms of government. There is the Federal Government, and State Government. Everything else is a subdivision of the state. This post was written with the help of AI while guided and edited by Lewis McLain.

In Texas, the tension between state power and local self-governance has deep roots and wide-reaching implications. From its early independence days through Reconstruction and into the 21st century, Texas has oscillated between fierce localism and assertive state control. Today, that struggle plays out in the form of state-imposed limits on local autonomy—through legislation, finance, judicial decisions, and bureaucratic mechanisms. Understanding this dynamic requires a detailed look at the history, structure, legal frameworks, fiscal policies, and political motivations that shape the relationship between the State of Texas and its local governments.

I. The Historical Backdrop: From Colonies to Constitution

1. Mexican Rule and Texian Rebellion

As early as 1832–1833, Texian settlers resisted central control from the Mexican government. Their political conventions were declared illegal by Mexican authorities, which insisted that petitions flow through the ayuntamientos (local councils). This early conflict introduced the lasting theme: local populations versus centralized power.

2. The Constitution of 1876

After Reconstruction, the 1876 Texas Constitution sought to sharply limit centralized authority. It fragmented the executive branch, constrained legislative power, and emphasized local control. Yet paradoxically, it also embedded structural dependence: counties and special districts have only the powers the state explicitly grants them, while only cities of 5,000+ population can adopt home-rule charters. Even home-rule cities are bound by laws of general application.

This setup hardwired state supremacy over counties and most special-purpose governments while allowing limited autonomy for larger municipalities.

II. The Architecture of Local Governance in Texas

1. Sheer Volume and Fragmentation

Texas has the most counties of any U.S. state—254 in total. In addition:

Over 1,200 municipalities, divided into general-law and home-rule cities
More than 1,100 independent school districts (ISDs)
Over 3,250 special-purpose districts (utility, water, MUDs, etc.)
An estimated 5,300 distinct local governments across the state

This staggering fragmentation leads to overlapping authority, duplication of services, and vastly differing levels of governance capacity.

2. Counties and Their Limits

Counties are administrative arms of the state: they manage jails, elections, public health, and roads—but cannot enact zoning laws or ordinances. Their governance is handled by a commissioners court, not a traditional executive council. They hold no inherent regulatory powers and rely entirely on statutory authorization for fees, facilities, or services.

3. Regional Councils of Governments (COGs)

In 1965, the Texas Legislature passed the Regional Planning Act, creating voluntary Councils of Governments (COGs). Today, there are 24 COGs serving as regional coordinating bodies. Two of the most significant are:

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)

Formed in 1966, NCTCOG is the largest, covering 16 counties, 169 cities, 19 school districts, and 24 special districts over 12,800 square miles.
Based in Arlington, NCTCOG facilitates transportation planning, environmental coordination, GIS mapping, emergency preparedness, and more—but has no taxing or regulatory power.
In 2025, NCTCOG allocated $3.5 million to rescue the Amtrak Heartland Flyer—stepping in where the Legislature had declined support.

Houston–Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)

Established in September 1966, H-GAC serves 13 counties over roughly 12,500 square miles, with a population exceeding 6 million.
Headquartered in Houston, H-GAC enables local governments to coordinate on transportation, air quality, economic and workforce development, emergency preparedness, and environmental planning.
It also functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for eight core counties, overseeing federally funded transportation projects and regional emissions planning.
Its Board of Directors, composed of local elected officials, sets the organization’s policy direction through a General Assembly structure.

Both NCTCOG and H-GAC demonstrate the potential for regional cooperation—but also underscore the limits of voluntary, underfunded bodies without enforcement authority.

III. State Preemption: The Legal and Legislative Mechanics

1. Home-Rule vs Dillon’s Rule

While Texas allows home-rule cities greater self-governance, state law—and state courts—have held that state legislation overrides local ordinances unless local authority is explicitly protected. Courts traditionally require “unmistakable clarity” in legislative intent to uphold preemption, but recent laws have blurred those lines.

Texas operates under both a home-rule framework and the legal philosophy of Dillon’s Rule, which holds that local governments have only those powers: (1) expressly granted by the state, (2) necessarily or fairly implied from those express powers, or (3) essential to the purposes of the government. If there’s any doubt, the presumption is that the power does not exist.

Named after Iowa Supreme Court Justice John F. Dillon (1868), this rule is a bedrock principle in Texas constitutional law—especially for counties and general-law cities. Even home-rule cities, which have broad authority under Article XI of the Texas Constitution, are subordinate to state law in areas of general application.

Thus, while home-rule cities may regulate broadly in the absence of conflicting state laws, any new state law—such as HB 2127—can override them unless clearly unconstitutional. Counties, meanwhile, are strictly creatures of statute and can act only when authorized by state law.

2. The Death Star Bill – HB 2127 (2023)

HB 2127, known as the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act, severely restricts local governments from regulating labor, agriculture, natural resources, property, or finance unless state law expressly permits it.

It invalidated numerous local ordinances (e.g., paid sick leave, wage theft protections, tenant protections).
Lawsuits argue it violates the Texas Constitution’s home-rule provisions; though a lower court struck it down, it remains in effect pending appeal.

IV. Fiscal Shackles: How the State Controls Local Budgets

1. Revenue Caps & Rollback Elections

The Truth-in-Taxation framework restricts local tax hikes:

3.5% above the previous year’s revenue is allowed without voter approval; 1% under proposed legislation.
Local governments face procedural burdens to raise revenue effectively.

2. Central Appraisal Districts (CADs) & Appraisal Caps

Property values are set uniformly by CADs—state-regulated but locally governed, limiting flexibility.
A 10% homestead appraisal cap restricts rapid valuation increases, compressing revenue potential.

3. Tax Abatement Loopholes and Reforms

Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Public Facility Corporations (PFCs) had exploited loopholes to extend tax breaks across jurisdictions.
HB 21 (2025) closed the loophole, restricting housing finance agency activity to their constituents.

4. Robin Hood Plan – School Finance Recapture

Property-rich districts must transfer surplus tax revenue to the state for redistribution—more than $1.8 billion annually.

5. Chapter 313 Tax Agreements

Firms receive tax breaks in exchange for jobs; these abatements have cost local schools $10.8 billion (2006–2020).

6. Sales Tax Rebate Abuses and Reform

In recent years, some cities created sales tax rebate agreements allowing businesses to collect sales tax on transactions across the state, then receive a large percentage back—sometimes for decades.
These deals have allowed small cities to capture tax revenue from remote or online sales with no real economic connection to the transaction location.
While cities like Round Rock, which built costly infrastructure for Dell, argue for retaining those revenues, abuse by other jurisdictions led to public backlash.
In response, the state passed Senate Bill 878 (2025) to reform these incentives by:
- Capping rebate agreements at 25 years
- Requiring public hearings before approval
- Mandating online transparency and reporting
- Including performance metrics and clawback provisions

These reforms signal a new phase in the state’s effort to prevent local deals that distort statewide equity in tax policy.

V. State Actions Triggered by Local Abuses

The Tenaha asset forfeiture scandal involved law enforcement seizing money and property from drivers without charges—used locally without oversight—prompting state restrictions on civil forfeiture.
The Houston ISD takeover followed governance failures, prompting state intervention amid accusations of ethics violations.
Floodplain development and disasters exposed gaps in county zoning authority—fueling arguments for stronger centralized land-use regulation.

VI. Motivation: Why the State Seeks to Control Localities

Partisan Dynamics – Urban centers often pursue progressive policies that contrast sharply with conservative state leadership.
Business Interests & Uniformity – Corporations and developers favor consistent regulations across jurisdictions.
Legislative Efficiency – Texas’s biennial sessions incentivize centralized governance in place of a patchwork of local rule.
Corrective Oversight – High-profile local abuses have increased public tolerance for state intervention and financial limits.

Conclusion: Democracy in the Balance

Texas’s governance framework blends one of the most fragmented local government landscapes in the nation with robust state oversight and restriction. From NCTCOG and H-GAC to counties, school districts, and beyond, local governments face legal curbs and financial constraints even as citizen demands increase. At times, these constraints are reactions to real abuses—but often, they undermine local democracy, responsiveness, and innovation.

In a state that prides itself on independence, the real question becomes: Whose independence counts? The state’s? Or the people’s, acting through their cities, counties, and school boards?