June 3, 2026 • 36 mins
Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:
- A real headscratcher
- What's happening with the Iran Deal?
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense, the.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Youth consent, breaking down the world's nonsense.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
About how American common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Will see us through With the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston. This
is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by viewind
dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
Hey, welcome to our show today. We've got a lot
of things to discuss now, the least of which is
this story, which has to be scratching my head a
little bit because it doesn't make sense. When something doesn't
make that, that's my problem. That's my big problem in life.
I always try to make things make sense, and when
I hear something that doesn't make sense, I feel like
(00:53):
I'm missing information. And that's the problem I have. Sometimes
with a reporting that gets done, we're left with a
lot of fill in the blanks. And I want to
start with this. This is a shooting store. This is
a story involving an eighteen year old Texas team in
Brazoria County. He was shot supposedly accidentally by a Brazoria
(01:20):
Sheriff's deputy who evidently said that the gun accidentally discharged
it happened in the garage of the teenager, who was
still living at home with his parents. He was a
Texas State University student, and that much we seem to
know for sure. We also know that the team was
(01:44):
being pursued by this police officer for whatever reason, why
we don't know. We also know that the team did
not pull over why we don't know. We also know
that the police officer had been surveilling this teen and
some of his friends at a local park. The reason
we don't know. In other words, a lot of missing information.
(02:08):
But let's take a listen to the report. It's from
our television partner, KPRC two, and then we'll try to
figure this thing out.
Speaker 5 (02:15):
That video shared exclusively with KPRC two News tonight by
the family's attorney, Charles Adams. And while you can hear
a lot of things in that video, you cannot hear
the deputy appearing to shout any sort of commands before
opening fire. Then a little more than thirty seconds after
that gunfire, you can hear the deputy appearing to say
something to dispatch about an accidental discharge. A lot of
(02:38):
activity then picked up there in the neighborhood after this
This is more surveillance video, but you can notice from
the time it's about ten minutes later. That's when the
first ambulance appears to arrive on scene. Again, about ten
minutes after that gunfire, we are told that this teen,
identified as John Mendoza Junior, died at the hospital. He
just finished his freshman year at Texas State, and his
(03:01):
family tonight is demanding accountability.
Speaker 6 (03:04):
This is a senseless situation that could have been avoided,
you know, and it's just like, put them all, put
it all together. You know, my son was murdered in
his garage, and you know this, this just isn't right.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
So before this attempted traffic stop, the family says that
John had been hanging out at a park with some
friends that he'd known since childhood. They say that the
deputy pulled up and started watching them. These teens got uncomfortable,
so they decided to leave and go home, but the
deputy followed them. The family attorney says all of the
men inside that vehicle were unarmed. Tonight, the Brazoria County
(03:42):
Sheriff's Office still has not identified the deputy involved in
this shooting. They also have not told us how long
he has worked with the department, and most importantly, we
are still asking exactly what led to this traffic stop.
So a lot of questions, and now this new video
tonight showing the moments before all of this certainly raising
a lot more questions about the shooting death of this
(04:03):
team home from college for summer break.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Okay, so what we have here is a whole lot
of we don't know, but it has a slant to it,
And the reason why it has to slant to it
is because they're interviewing the father who believes that his
child was murdered, that this was a completely avoidable situation.
(04:30):
I don't know how the kid got shot. Let's assume,
for the sake of argument, that the weapon did go
off accidentally. At the very least, that is probably some
form of negligence on behalf of the officer for not
having control of his weapon. That's that's number one. But
(04:50):
there's a lot of other questions. Let's go Let's let's
go back to the beginning though. Let's go back to
the park. You've got a group of teenage men who
are sitting in the park doing whatever it is they're doing.
This deputy decides to pull over and check them out.
And this deputy checking them out is making these teams nervous.
(05:13):
So here's my question. Think back to yourself as an
eighteen year old, what is it about the police that
would make you nervous? In my case, the only thing
that could make me nervous about a police officer checking
out me and my buddies at the park is if
I've got something I'm doing that I don't want him
(05:35):
to investigate. But you know, I'm making an assumption there
that may or may not be true, but let's gather
some more evidence. So I'm nervous for whatever reason, this
police officer has made me nervous, me and my buddy.
So we're going to get in our car and we're
going to head home. And as we are heading home,
(05:57):
the lights come on from the police cruiser and the
sirens starts up. So, if you've got nothing to hide
and you're not doing anything wrong, what would you do?
What would even if you did have something to hide
in your world, what would you do? You pull over? Right,
(06:18):
You pull over, and you cooperate with the police. This
kid's not pulling over for whatever reason, because he's either
fearful of the police, for whatever reason, or he's has
something in the car that he wants to hide from
the police for whatever reason, he doesn't want to get
pulled over by the police. And then he pulls into
(06:38):
his driveway and goes into his garage as if okay,
I'm just I'm going to pretend you're not out here
and you don't exist, and the police officer follows him
into the garage, and that's when the shooting happens, which,
again we kind of assume for the sake of argument,
is is an accidental shooting. What could have happened and
(07:01):
they step in this process that would have completely de
escalated the situation. I would surmise that a minimal level
of cooperation. And if you want to say that your
kid was murdered, I understand you have a grieving father,
he's upset. But did anybody check the car after the fact.
(07:25):
Did anybody check any of the other young guys to
see if something they had might have attracted the police officer.
Maybe they weren't harmed, but maybe they had some substance
that that police officer thought might be in the legal
substance that they had. I don't know, a lot of
questions are going to have to get answered before you
(07:47):
can figure out this one. But the family is already
hired an attorney. They're already talking about murder. I think
we have to at the very least allow some more
facts come out before we start labeling this as some
sort of murder. All right, back with Morton. I'm a
Jimmy Vert show here an am nine fifty KRC. All right,
(08:20):
so let's talk a little bit about you, Ron. I
think I might have been complaining out loud or as
I'm known to do, over the last couple of days,
certainly over the course last week, about constantly hearing about
a deal. It's like every day we substantially have a deal. Well,
do we have a deal or we don't have a deal?
(08:44):
That that is the question. And it would appear to
me that we don't have a deal And the reason
why we don't have a deal is, well, it's complicated.
I hate to just say this, it is complicated, but
it is it. It's it's complicated why we don't have
a deal. And I thought the best way to explain
(09:05):
it would be the testimony of Secretary of State Marco
Ruby was in front of the Senator of your state.
Here he is talking with Senator Mike Lee being asked
about all the different layers that these negotiations have to
go through. And when you take a listen to this explanation,
you can see why it's so complicated.
Speaker 7 (09:23):
One of one of the things I've wanted, for example,
are whether the diplomatic Iranian channels are sort of crosswise,
at odds with or working hand in glove with the
I r g C, which is itself causing a lot
of these ceasefire violations, or is it is it all
sort of coordinated chaos to try to undermine and and
(09:45):
tip the skills in favor of Iran and the negotiations.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
Yeah, that's a great question.
Speaker 8 (09:52):
Let me try to give this answer to you in
a way that's not boring or wonky, because it's been
a shift. I mean, is the you know, the original
supreme leader, the one that was there, is no longer
with us, His son takes over. Nobody hears from them
for a month by all reports, open source reporting, I
think you've all seen it. He was severely injured in
the same strike and so forth.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Are you confident he's still alive, by the way, Yeah.
Speaker 8 (10:13):
I think there's indications that in fact, we've not heard
from him publicly, we haven't seen him publicly, and I
would imagine, given what's happened to multiple leaders in that system,
being very public is probably not something that's recommended for them. Internally, well,
I think it was a design of the system in
the sense of regime survival and the ability to operate
in case there was decapitation, strikes or people are removed.
But let's go back to the essence of the negotiations.
(10:35):
What's complicated them is you ultimately are negotiating with people
who then have to negotiate within their own system to
see what they're allowed to give and what they're allowed
to agree to. What is abundantly clear is that Iron
is facing severe internal All the problems Ron had before
this conflict not only are still.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
There, but they're worse.
Speaker 8 (10:55):
All the things that led to the protests, all of
these are worse than they were before. And I think
there's deaf only elements within that regime that understand it,
and then there are other elements of it that are
more immune to it and perhaps more resistant to making agreements.
And so what we are working through is in many
cases is delays and getting the responses to people. And
this is why you see reporting about there might be
(11:15):
a deal in the next few days, because internally it
takes time to get responses from them, sometimes upward to
five or six days.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
So you could see why it's complicated, but maybe you
could also see why it's even more important not to
you know, tip that you think you have some sort
of a deal, because you don't know if you've got
a deal until every single layer signs off on whatever
it is. Now you gotta wonder, is there scenario under
(11:46):
which every single layer of that Doranian regime is going
to sign off on it? Because they're all very different
people coming from very different points of view, I don't
know that you'll get consensus, which means that maybe sitting
around waiting for a deal just is you know, in
addition to being frustrating, is just a waste of time.
(12:09):
I guess we'll see. Now. There are plenty of people
who are more than happy to give the Secretary of
States some advice about what we should be doing in
order to make a deal. One of them is Senator
Raan Paul. Here, he is questioning the Secretary of State
and he's trying to suggest that we just you know,
say you signed this deal and we're going to We're
(12:31):
going to let all the sanctions go. We're going to
give you everything else that you want. Here is that conversation.
Speaker 9 (12:37):
But I would say that as we are looking at
trading sanctions, you say there's some you can do on
your own, there's some that are congressional. I would be
bringing in the leaders in the Congress who can give
up on these sanctions and hopefully try to get their
voice saying yes if they will give up, because if
you give up, like oh, a few piddling ones, that
won't change things that the White House is he gooting
(12:59):
to do, and you still have all these congressional sanctions.
If you're on the other side of that equation, you
might say, we're not giving up. The one thing we
think is leverage the enriched uranium for maybe a little
bit of sanctions relieve. So I would say, really go
all in on it, because it would be verifiable. You
don't have to wait and prove it. You would have
to prove in the future whether they're enriching. But I
(13:21):
think that is a good step forward. But it's also
important for people to have a discussion of what diplomacy
is and that diplomacy doesn't always have a bad name.
And frankly, I'm glad to hear that the administration is negotiating,
and I wish you luck and I'd love to hear
your response in general.
Speaker 8 (13:37):
Well, first of all, the President's made clear the priorities.
Iron can never have a nuclear weapon. And what do
they need to have a nuclear weapon? They need a
couple of things. They need the ability to enrich that
has been substantially destroyed but could always be rebuilt over time.
And the second is the ability and highly enrich uranium.
It's it's sixty percent that could quickly be enriched to
ninety percent.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Weapons. Great.
Speaker 8 (13:56):
The second point you make is about sanctions, So that's
the goal here and the sanctions. First of all, there's
a combination of sanctions. There's sanctions that block direct sort
of activities that generate revenue, and that's problematic beyond the
nuclear program because they also use this revenue as fund
sponsors to sponsor terrorism like hesblon others around the region.
And then there's the frozen assets, which are related to sanctions,
(14:18):
but these are Iranian assets that have been frozen that
they don't have access to So what I would argue,
and again I don't want to get ahead of myself,
is because we're not engaged in this conversation with them yet.
But if you get into a situation in which the
reason why there are sanctions are because the nuclear program,
and so if they comply with what we're demanding on
the nuclear side of it, you know, zero enrichment, get
rid of the enriched uranium, they're complying with these things,
(14:40):
then I think that's the place where the frozen assets
could be discussed. The more they give, the more they
would get. I think ultimately we will still face other
challenges related to Iran separate from the nuclear program, like
what they use their money on, which is to sponsor
Hesbela and to sponsor Hamas and to sponsor terrorism around
the world. But on the nuclear question, which was the
presence been focused on now no nuclear weapon program, the
(15:03):
sanctions that are directly related to the nuclear program. The
more they give, theoretically, the more they should be willing
to get what they're not going to get. It is
a down payment they're not going to get as a
signing bonus. And I would also point out that negotiations
on nuclear matters are highly complex, highly technical, and so
it will take some time to work through that, as
is sanctions, by the way, highly technical and in many
(15:24):
cases multifaceted. There are UN sanctions, there are US sanctions,
there are US congressional sanctions, so there's a lot to
unravel there.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Again, how complicated is all this? And you know what
I get out of this? It doesn't sound to me
like we have a deal on any front. I mean,
we don't have a deal on opening up the straight,
we don't have a deal on the uranium enriched uranium,
We don't what do we have a deal on. It
(15:53):
doesn't sound to me like we've really got any sort
of a deal at this point in diamond. How long
has this been going on? And of course all that
spells bad news for President Trump because he needs to
get this thing out of the way before the midterm elections.
I mean, if that, if your goal here is to
get re elected, then that probably are and to get
Republicans elected, that probably is what needs to happen. And
(16:18):
I don't see that happening, not based on this lack
of progress. You know, we don't have an agreement really
on a solid agreement on anything at this point, then
what progress have we made. We've made very little progress,
if any, it sounds to me, which I think, again,
knowing how the Iranians think about this kind of stuff,
(16:39):
if this is all a great big delay tactic, they
would like Democrats to win. They from a practical standpoint,
If Democrats, you know, can take over the House at
least and possibly the Senate, then President Trump gets in
some of the things that he wants to do, and
that makes life a little bit easier for them. So
those delay this is long as they possibly can. You know,
(17:02):
that's the case. I mean, there's just no incentive there
for them to really do anything about it. All right,
coming up an you all live in Waller County. I've
spent a little time in Waller County, not a ton
of time, but the growth out there is just amazing.
The growth in Waller County is just amazing. It is
(17:23):
like something like five point seven percent in the last year,
they have had almost four thousand new residents. And that
doesn't sound like a lot, right, but Waller County used
to be a county of like forty three thousand people.
It's getting ready to double that. And you've got all
kinds of things that are moving in there, and it's
(17:46):
kind of funny to me. It's like it's almost like
a self fulfilling prophecy. People want to go there because
they want to get away from the big city and
they want to enjoy a more rural lifestyle. And of course,
the more people in businesses that do that, the less
rural lifestyle there's going to be. But we'll visit with
Waller County's judge coming up next here on AM nine
fifty KPRC in the Jimmy Barrett Show. You know, I
(18:21):
think one of the trends that's kind of going on
in general here in the Greater Houston area is people
are looking to move a little bit further out. Get
away from the crowds, get away from the higher property
taxes in particular, get away from the crime, get away
from the noise, get away from all the things that
(18:42):
make you not want to be in the big bad city. Now,
you used to be able to travel as close as
Spring where I live and have all that going for you,
Well that's pretty much no longer the case. You know,
you want to get in your car downtown Houston and
head north to where I live in Spring, and it's
pretty much sprawl all the way up there. You know,
(19:02):
there's not that much land left out there anymore where
I live just south of the Woodlands. I mean that,
just in the nine years I've been there, the development
is just amazing. Everything is just developed, and people are
continuing to push further out and they're pushing on into
Waller County. In Waller County, it's still rural, although I
(19:23):
have to wonder how much longer it's going to be
rural because there's so many people moving out there. Waller
County is the second fastest growing county in the entire
United States of America, just based on percentage of growth.
It's still small, but at this rate is not going
to be small for long. We had Trade duhon on
he's the Waller County Judge, to talk about all the
growth and the problems that growth bring along with it,
(19:45):
and trying to balance that act between being rural but
still having some of the bigger city amenities. You know,
they're fifty miles northwest of Houston, so there's a lot
to be said for being that close to a big
city but being that small yourself. Here's my conversation for
the morning the tray, Douhon, What is leading to all
those rapid growth right?
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Well, you know, it's uh. I think it's a combination
of several factors.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
To be honest.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
I think after COVID, a lot of people were looking
for maybe.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
A little bit more elbow room, a little.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Bit slower pace of life, and they.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Saw Waller County as having that, you.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Know, and Texas is one of those places that you know,
is fast growing in and of itself. I mean there's
fifteen hundred people that come a day to Texas and
they're needing a place, and Waller County is one of
those areas northwest of Houston between iten and two ninety
where there's still there's still.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
Some land and some room to grow.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
And then and then I think a lot of people
are also coming out to Waller County because honestly, they're
you know, they're tired of you know, some of the
crime and some of the politics and stuff, and they're
heading out. We have good conservative leadership out here, and
you know, we value you know, that rural and agricultural lifestyle.
(21:08):
I think that's attractive to a lot of people, you know.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
I think I think there's a lot to what you
just said there. I think there's a lot of folks
who like the idea of living somewhere that's quiet and peaceful,
and as you say, that's got room to grow and
it's got that small town feeling. But you're still fifty
miles from the big city when you want to come
in and watch an Astros game.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Yeah, that's true. I mean, and we're a lot closer
now with you know, with the Grand Parkway used to be,
you know, folks would go, wow, you know, that's kind
of out in BF. But you know now with the
Grand Parkway, where you know, that's ten minutes from Waller,
So you're far enough out to kind of be away,
but you're close enough to where you can come into
(21:45):
Houston for shopping or go to a movie or do
those kind of things and still have access.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Well, I've oftentimes found that where people go, businesses will follow.
So is the business community also growing in Walla County?
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Oh gosh, yes, you know one one. Most people have
seen this if they've driven on I ten between.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
Between Katie and Brochure, you.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Can see some of the business development down there. You know,
companies like Goya, Igloo, Costco, Amazon, medline. I mean, there's
so many that have basically.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
You know, found a home in Waller County.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
We quietly, quietly, we have become the North American headquarters
for a lot of companies from Europe, Japan and elsewhere
that are relocating and setting down roots right here. So
we have we have a ton of growth on the
commercial and business side and a lot of jobs as well,
(22:51):
and that's bringing people out here too.
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Okay, well, all those things sound great, except I guess
there's probably that fine line you'd like to try to manage, right,
you're trying to stay world, You're you're trying to stay
a small town and you got all these companies and
people moving there, and that this makes you grow bigger.
So are you afraid that you're just gonna get too
big for your bridges out there? You're not gonna be
a small town anymore pretty soon?
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Well, yeah, it's it's really a challenge, to be honest.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
We do value you know, that that.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Agricultural and that rural lifestyle, but at the same time
you've got folks coming.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Out and you know, we.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
We have a private property system, so developers can buy
land and as long as they comply.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
With certain regulations. You know, we we don't have zoning.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
We can't as a county. We can't tell people that
they cannot build a subdivision here.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
But you know, we that all.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
That being said were we've.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
Been planning for growth for you know, over a decade now.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
But the growth level is so much higher than what
anyone ever anticipated. Back in twenty fifteen when I became
county judge, the estimates were we were at forty three thousand,
and they said we would double in population by twenty forty. Okay,
we're almost there and it's twenty twenty six. And not
(24:12):
only that, the level of growth is going to you know,
you said.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Earlier, we've added thirty.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Eight hundred people, you know, just in the last.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
Year or so.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
That number is not even close to.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
What it's about to be.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
We have eighty thousand residential lots under development right now
as we speak. So you do the math that the
growth is going to go even higher.
Speaker 4 (24:37):
Yeah, well, I wish your luck with all this because
it means new schools and new roads and a lot
of other things that people have to pay for with
their taxes. So that's that's always a that's also a
balancing act. Right, you'd like to keep your conservative county,
you'd like to keep the taxes low.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Yeah, we you know we've in Waller County, we very
quietly over the last twelve years, have lowered the property
tax rate almost a heard here in Waller County. And
we would love to continue to do that. But now,
you know, every year we're seeing where we're having to
add deputies for patrol employees to make sure we're still
(25:14):
providing those services. We still have to provide you know, elections,
We still have to provide vital records.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
We still have to provide courts.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
I mean, we've added a new County Court at Law,
but you know, with the growth, we're going to need more. So,
I mean it is a constant battle now to make
sure we keep up with this growth. It's all of
these things are the kind of things that keep a
county judge.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
Up at night.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
You don't.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
I'm struck by the phrase I'm a victim of my
own success. I think that's what I'm hearing coming out
of Waller County. They're victims of their own success because
it's it's kind of like a catch twenty two. It's
kind of like a big circle kind of thing. You
want to attract businesses not only for the amenities they
(26:05):
bring the people who live in your county, but also
for the jobs they bring and the tax base that
they bring. But you bring in companies, especially bigger companies,
and you've got employees that are going to want to
live in your county. So you're going to have to
build more houses, and you build more houses, and you
have to build more schools and more roads, and all
(26:27):
those things cost money. So even though you're bringing in
more of a tax base with the businesses, it, it
brings in its own set of issues. Now, the one
thing you can't do, at least successfully, I believe here
in Texas is you can't say, well, we're not going
to let anybody in. We don't believe that. We don't
believe that here, we don't. There are places that are
(26:49):
like that that have a lot of zoning laws and
regulations that would keep eighty thousand lots from being developed.
Right now, think about that eighty thousand lots that residential
lots that are being developed. That's eighty thousand homes. And
if the average per home is like let's say you
have three people per home, that's two hundred and forty
(27:10):
thousand people at some point in a county that just
the other day had forty three thousand people in the
entire county. Now you're talking about five times the population
of what you had, and all the things that go
along with it, the infrastructure and the roads and the
electric grid and everything else. Yeah, it's I don't envy
(27:34):
his position there. That's a tough balancing act to do.
You know, most places that are rural and want to
remain rural have the zoning regulations in place that will
help them do that. A place you used to be
close to in Virginia was called Hanover County in Virginia,
and they had very strict regulations about how much acoreages
(27:56):
you had to have to build a house. And I
want to say you had to have at least five
acres in order to be able to build a home.
That was the minimum. So we kept developers from coming
in and just building a whole bunch of houses in
a subdivision. You know, it helped keep the rural field,
(28:16):
but that required the regulations to do it. They purposely
wanted to be that way. I don't think most Texas
communities want to have to regulate that way in order
to maintain who they are. All Right, quick little break
back with more in a moment. We're gonna talking a
little bit about free school lunches. Coming up next, Jimmy Bertschow,
you're a NAM nine fifty KPRC. All right, y'all remember
(28:49):
school lunches, right? What was your favorite school lunch when
you were a kid in school? Pizza? Yeah, I think
most people would say pizza. That would be the one
time that I would always I usually brown bagged it.
That's what we called it. Anyway, do you bring up
brown bag lunch? It was just like a sandwich and
some chips and maybe like a hostess ho ho or
(29:12):
tweakie or something like that. Back then, we weren't really
worried about, you know, the lack of nutrition. You know,
we're kids, We're burning off the calories anyway, And that
the only time I would ever buy school lunch was
when there was pizza. Well, there's a couple of things.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
I like.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
This will sound disgusting. Pizza, I like that that sounds normal. Uh,
spoon burger over mashed potatoes not Does that not sound disgusting?
It was actually pretty good. I have no idea. What
was in it? I'm guessing the nutritional value was less
than zero, but it was comfort food. It tasted good,
especially in the wintertime where I grew up, when we
(29:50):
get cold and snowy. Those are those are the two
favorites I think these days. Of course, we only had lunch.
That's it. Nobody was gonna be dinner. Nobody was going
to feed your breakfast, and nobody was going to feed
you all summer when the school was essentially closed, other
than maybe summer school. Yeah, I mean that was up
(30:11):
to you. That was up to the parents to provide
you with lunch. The note there was no free school
lunch program. If you wanted to have school lunch, everybody
paid for it wasn't very expensive, at least when I
wass a kid, it was very very cheap, but you know,
that was the parental responsibility. The thing I think I
am concerned about the most is it relates to free
(30:33):
school lunch programs. Is not even the fact that we're
giving away food to kids regardless in many cases, regardless
of what their income level is, because we don't really
seem to require any sort of proof on that anymore.
My biggest concern has more to do with taking away
that parental responsibility. We had Maya Flores, the former Texas congresswoman,
on her program this morning to talk about these free
(30:54):
school lunch programs. Here's my conversation with her about that.
Probably some people my room would be a little surprised
by this because they think that the school lunch program,
especially a free school lunch program, will exists during the
school year, but it doesn't. Is it exists in the
summer too?
Speaker 10 (31:09):
No, Absolutely, You're absolutely right. A lot of this food
is actually front and away. So I think it's a
it's the greatest it's a good decision. A lot of
these families already low income and already receiving the assistance
that they that they need. Any people need to understand
that those who need government assistants will continue getting government assistants.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Well, that's the part of those who have.
Speaker 10 (31:32):
Been taking advantage of this of the system will will
not because we want the people that actually needed to
get the government assistance. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of
people who've been taking advantage of this, and we are
putting an end to that. And I think it's.
Speaker 4 (31:47):
Great, you know what, and I'm glad that Houston i
SD is one of those systems that that's pulling away
from this number one. I'd like to think we could
all agree that feeding children is the responsibility of the parents,
and we have already. We have snap programs, we have
other programs, food banks, we have other programs that assist
with low income individuals being able to provide those nutrition
(32:10):
needs for their own kids. I always thought that this
was a bad idea, all these free school lunch programs,
because it just took another parennal responsibility off the plate
of parents.
Speaker 10 (32:20):
Absolutely, these are our children. We need to invest in
our children. It's time that we start instilling in our
children our values and not the government in stealing, you know,
their way of thinking into our children, educating our children,
doing everything when at the end of the day, it's
our responsibility. But you know, I want the American people
(32:42):
to know these kids are not being starved. Their families,
their mom and dad, if they needed government assistants will
continue receeding government assistants. But these school a lot of
these schools have been making money off of this AH
and we're putting an end. We're putting an end to it.
A lot of these schools have making a lot of
money off of this, off of these types of programs.
(33:05):
What we want is, like you said, the parents to
have that control, and they've been having that.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
Control for a long time, so there's a financial incentive
for these schools to do it. It's not about as
much about feeding kids as much as this. They're making
money for the program and maybe helping to supplevent their
income somewhat, which is also not good news for the taxpayers.
Here's what else I wonder maybe this is something that
should get tackled next. I want to get your thoughts
on this. We used to just feed kids lunch at school,
(33:34):
and we would provide for those who couldn't afford the
school lunch, those who could show that they couldn't afford
the school lunch. I think they did away with that
because it was too hard to ask for proof number
one and number two. They were afraid of stigmatizing the kids.
But then we took school lunch and we made school
breakfast and school dinner. And before you know, we're feeding
kids three meals a day. Should we be feeding kids
(33:55):
three meals a day even during the school year.
Speaker 10 (33:58):
Well, I do not like what they're seeing our children.
You know, I do not like the breakfast and the
lunch that they're getting our children. I would love to
see better breakfasts and better lunch because I'll tell you,
these politicians aren't eating that for breakfast and lunch. And
I'm one hundred present that these politicians children are also
not eating.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
This for breakfasts and lunch.
Speaker 10 (34:21):
We actually, you know, in this, I actually think we
need to feed our children better and more healthier food
so they can be able to focus more on school.
A lot of these children don't even eat the breakfast
because I don't even like it, you know, and and
lunch because I don't even like it.
Speaker 4 (34:38):
What are they serving for school breakfast these days?
Speaker 10 (34:41):
Not like it used to be. A lot of it
is very frozen. Oh okay, a lot of it's it's
frozen food. A lot of these foods have a lot
of alternatives.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
It's not healthy because.
Speaker 10 (34:57):
We could do we could do so much better for
our children. Our children deserve better than not the skill
the excuse the schools always get. Well, these kids are hungry.
They're arriving to school hungry. Do you think that is
legitimate or do you think that that's just the reason
they get for why they do what.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
They do well.
Speaker 10 (35:15):
I believe, you know, a lot of these kids could
be fit at home as well. But I do think
that that they have the opportunity to have breakfast with
their friends and have this lunch with their friends. But
I do believe we could do better. What they're eating
for breakfast and lunch is not healthy for them.
Speaker 4 (35:32):
All right, So.
Speaker 10 (35:34):
I would love to keep that program, but just healthy
and better for them.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
All right. See, I'm a little tougher than she is
that I think, you know, I get the school lunches
happening during the middle of the day while the kids
are there, you know, they get a break to have
something neat. I might even be able to be convinced
that the school breakfast program is a good idea just
because of the amount of time both parents are working,
the amount of time they have to get the kids
(36:00):
ready in the morning. But we've gone to three meals
a day in many different schools, and I don't think
I think again, that's just taking responsibility away from the parents,
and that's where that responsibility belongs. All right, We're gonna
have to leave it at that. You all have a
great day. Thank you for listening. I'll see you tomorrow
morning bright nearly five over on news radio seven k
t r H. We are back here at four on
(36:23):
a nine fifty kPr C
Well, what we need is more common sense, the.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Youth consent, breaking down the world's nonsense.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
About how American common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Will see us through With the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston. This
is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by viewind
dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
Hey, welcome to our show today. We've got a lot
of things to discuss now, the least of which is
this story, which has to be scratching my head a
little bit because it doesn't make sense. When something doesn't
make that, that's my problem. That's my big problem in life.
I always try to make things make sense, and when
I hear something that doesn't make sense, I feel like
(00:53):
I'm missing information. And that's the problem I have. Sometimes
with a reporting that gets done, we're left with a
lot of fill in the blanks. And I want to
start with this. This is a shooting store. This is
a story involving an eighteen year old Texas team in
Brazoria County. He was shot supposedly accidentally by a Brazoria
(01:20):
Sheriff's deputy who evidently said that the gun accidentally discharged
it happened in the garage of the teenager, who was
still living at home with his parents. He was a
Texas State University student, and that much we seem to
know for sure. We also know that the team was
(01:44):
being pursued by this police officer for whatever reason, why
we don't know. We also know that the team did
not pull over why we don't know. We also know
that the police officer had been surveilling this teen and
some of his friends at a local park. The reason
we don't know. In other words, a lot of missing information.
(02:08):
But let's take a listen to the report. It's from
our television partner, KPRC two, and then we'll try to
figure this thing out.
Speaker 5 (02:15):
That video shared exclusively with KPRC two News tonight by
the family's attorney, Charles Adams. And while you can hear
a lot of things in that video, you cannot hear
the deputy appearing to shout any sort of commands before
opening fire. Then a little more than thirty seconds after
that gunfire, you can hear the deputy appearing to say
something to dispatch about an accidental discharge. A lot of
(02:38):
activity then picked up there in the neighborhood after this
This is more surveillance video, but you can notice from
the time it's about ten minutes later. That's when the
first ambulance appears to arrive on scene. Again, about ten
minutes after that gunfire, we are told that this teen,
identified as John Mendoza Junior, died at the hospital. He
just finished his freshman year at Texas State, and his
(03:01):
family tonight is demanding accountability.
Speaker 6 (03:04):
This is a senseless situation that could have been avoided,
you know, and it's just like, put them all, put
it all together. You know, my son was murdered in
his garage, and you know this, this just isn't right.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
So before this attempted traffic stop, the family says that
John had been hanging out at a park with some
friends that he'd known since childhood. They say that the
deputy pulled up and started watching them. These teens got uncomfortable,
so they decided to leave and go home, but the
deputy followed them. The family attorney says all of the
men inside that vehicle were unarmed. Tonight, the Brazoria County
(03:42):
Sheriff's Office still has not identified the deputy involved in
this shooting. They also have not told us how long
he has worked with the department, and most importantly, we
are still asking exactly what led to this traffic stop.
So a lot of questions, and now this new video
tonight showing the moments before all of this certainly raising
a lot more questions about the shooting death of this
(04:03):
team home from college for summer break.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Okay, so what we have here is a whole lot
of we don't know, but it has a slant to it,
And the reason why it has to slant to it
is because they're interviewing the father who believes that his
child was murdered, that this was a completely avoidable situation.
(04:30):
I don't know how the kid got shot. Let's assume,
for the sake of argument, that the weapon did go
off accidentally. At the very least, that is probably some
form of negligence on behalf of the officer for not
having control of his weapon. That's that's number one. But
(04:50):
there's a lot of other questions. Let's go Let's let's
go back to the beginning though. Let's go back to
the park. You've got a group of teenage men who
are sitting in the park doing whatever it is they're doing.
This deputy decides to pull over and check them out.
And this deputy checking them out is making these teams nervous.
(05:13):
So here's my question. Think back to yourself as an
eighteen year old, what is it about the police that
would make you nervous? In my case, the only thing
that could make me nervous about a police officer checking
out me and my buddies at the park is if
I've got something I'm doing that I don't want him
(05:35):
to investigate. But you know, I'm making an assumption there
that may or may not be true, but let's gather
some more evidence. So I'm nervous for whatever reason, this
police officer has made me nervous, me and my buddy.
So we're going to get in our car and we're
going to head home. And as we are heading home,
(05:57):
the lights come on from the police cruiser and the
sirens starts up. So, if you've got nothing to hide
and you're not doing anything wrong, what would you do?
What would even if you did have something to hide
in your world, what would you do? You pull over? Right,
(06:18):
You pull over, and you cooperate with the police. This
kid's not pulling over for whatever reason, because he's either
fearful of the police, for whatever reason, or he's has
something in the car that he wants to hide from
the police for whatever reason, he doesn't want to get
pulled over by the police. And then he pulls into
(06:38):
his driveway and goes into his garage as if okay,
I'm just I'm going to pretend you're not out here
and you don't exist, and the police officer follows him
into the garage, and that's when the shooting happens, which,
again we kind of assume for the sake of argument,
is is an accidental shooting. What could have happened and
(07:01):
they step in this process that would have completely de
escalated the situation. I would surmise that a minimal level
of cooperation. And if you want to say that your
kid was murdered, I understand you have a grieving father,
he's upset. But did anybody check the car after the fact.
(07:25):
Did anybody check any of the other young guys to
see if something they had might have attracted the police officer.
Maybe they weren't harmed, but maybe they had some substance
that that police officer thought might be in the legal
substance that they had. I don't know, a lot of
questions are going to have to get answered before you
(07:47):
can figure out this one. But the family is already
hired an attorney. They're already talking about murder. I think
we have to at the very least allow some more
facts come out before we start labeling this as some
sort of murder. All right, back with Morton. I'm a
Jimmy Vert show here an am nine fifty KRC. All right,
(08:20):
so let's talk a little bit about you, Ron. I
think I might have been complaining out loud or as
I'm known to do, over the last couple of days,
certainly over the course last week, about constantly hearing about
a deal. It's like every day we substantially have a deal. Well,
do we have a deal or we don't have a deal?
(08:44):
That that is the question. And it would appear to
me that we don't have a deal And the reason
why we don't have a deal is, well, it's complicated.
I hate to just say this, it is complicated, but
it is it. It's it's complicated why we don't have
a deal. And I thought the best way to explain
(09:05):
it would be the testimony of Secretary of State Marco
Ruby was in front of the Senator of your state.
Here he is talking with Senator Mike Lee being asked
about all the different layers that these negotiations have to
go through. And when you take a listen to this explanation,
you can see why it's so complicated.
Speaker 7 (09:23):
One of one of the things I've wanted, for example,
are whether the diplomatic Iranian channels are sort of crosswise,
at odds with or working hand in glove with the
I r g C, which is itself causing a lot
of these ceasefire violations, or is it is it all
sort of coordinated chaos to try to undermine and and
(09:45):
tip the skills in favor of Iran and the negotiations.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
Yeah, that's a great question.
Speaker 8 (09:52):
Let me try to give this answer to you in
a way that's not boring or wonky, because it's been
a shift. I mean, is the you know, the original
supreme leader, the one that was there, is no longer
with us, His son takes over. Nobody hears from them
for a month by all reports, open source reporting, I
think you've all seen it. He was severely injured in
the same strike and so forth.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Are you confident he's still alive, by the way, Yeah.
Speaker 8 (10:13):
I think there's indications that in fact, we've not heard
from him publicly, we haven't seen him publicly, and I
would imagine, given what's happened to multiple leaders in that system,
being very public is probably not something that's recommended for them. Internally, well,
I think it was a design of the system in
the sense of regime survival and the ability to operate
in case there was decapitation, strikes or people are removed.
But let's go back to the essence of the negotiations.
(10:35):
What's complicated them is you ultimately are negotiating with people
who then have to negotiate within their own system to
see what they're allowed to give and what they're allowed
to agree to. What is abundantly clear is that Iron
is facing severe internal All the problems Ron had before
this conflict not only are still.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
There, but they're worse.
Speaker 8 (10:55):
All the things that led to the protests, all of
these are worse than they were before. And I think
there's deaf only elements within that regime that understand it,
and then there are other elements of it that are
more immune to it and perhaps more resistant to making agreements.
And so what we are working through is in many
cases is delays and getting the responses to people. And
this is why you see reporting about there might be
(11:15):
a deal in the next few days, because internally it
takes time to get responses from them, sometimes upward to
five or six days.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
So you could see why it's complicated, but maybe you
could also see why it's even more important not to
you know, tip that you think you have some sort
of a deal, because you don't know if you've got
a deal until every single layer signs off on whatever
it is. Now you gotta wonder, is there scenario under
(11:46):
which every single layer of that Doranian regime is going
to sign off on it? Because they're all very different
people coming from very different points of view, I don't
know that you'll get consensus, which means that maybe sitting
around waiting for a deal just is you know, in
addition to being frustrating, is just a waste of time.
(12:09):
I guess we'll see. Now. There are plenty of people
who are more than happy to give the Secretary of
States some advice about what we should be doing in
order to make a deal. One of them is Senator
Raan Paul. Here, he is questioning the Secretary of State
and he's trying to suggest that we just you know,
say you signed this deal and we're going to We're
(12:31):
going to let all the sanctions go. We're going to
give you everything else that you want. Here is that conversation.
Speaker 9 (12:37):
But I would say that as we are looking at
trading sanctions, you say there's some you can do on
your own, there's some that are congressional. I would be
bringing in the leaders in the Congress who can give
up on these sanctions and hopefully try to get their
voice saying yes if they will give up, because if
you give up, like oh, a few piddling ones, that
won't change things that the White House is he gooting
(12:59):
to do, and you still have all these congressional sanctions.
If you're on the other side of that equation, you
might say, we're not giving up. The one thing we
think is leverage the enriched uranium for maybe a little
bit of sanctions relieve. So I would say, really go
all in on it, because it would be verifiable. You
don't have to wait and prove it. You would have
to prove in the future whether they're enriching. But I
(13:21):
think that is a good step forward. But it's also
important for people to have a discussion of what diplomacy
is and that diplomacy doesn't always have a bad name.
And frankly, I'm glad to hear that the administration is negotiating,
and I wish you luck and I'd love to hear
your response in general.
Speaker 8 (13:37):
Well, first of all, the President's made clear the priorities.
Iron can never have a nuclear weapon. And what do
they need to have a nuclear weapon? They need a
couple of things. They need the ability to enrich that
has been substantially destroyed but could always be rebuilt over time.
And the second is the ability and highly enrich uranium.
It's it's sixty percent that could quickly be enriched to
ninety percent.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Weapons. Great.
Speaker 8 (13:56):
The second point you make is about sanctions, So that's
the goal here and the sanctions. First of all, there's
a combination of sanctions. There's sanctions that block direct sort
of activities that generate revenue, and that's problematic beyond the
nuclear program because they also use this revenue as fund
sponsors to sponsor terrorism like hesblon others around the region.
And then there's the frozen assets, which are related to sanctions,
(14:18):
but these are Iranian assets that have been frozen that
they don't have access to So what I would argue,
and again I don't want to get ahead of myself,
is because we're not engaged in this conversation with them yet.
But if you get into a situation in which the
reason why there are sanctions are because the nuclear program,
and so if they comply with what we're demanding on
the nuclear side of it, you know, zero enrichment, get
rid of the enriched uranium, they're complying with these things,
(14:40):
then I think that's the place where the frozen assets
could be discussed. The more they give, the more they
would get. I think ultimately we will still face other
challenges related to Iran separate from the nuclear program, like
what they use their money on, which is to sponsor
Hesbela and to sponsor Hamas and to sponsor terrorism around
the world. But on the nuclear question, which was the
presence been focused on now no nuclear weapon program, the
(15:03):
sanctions that are directly related to the nuclear program. The
more they give, theoretically, the more they should be willing
to get what they're not going to get. It is
a down payment they're not going to get as a
signing bonus. And I would also point out that negotiations
on nuclear matters are highly complex, highly technical, and so
it will take some time to work through that, as
is sanctions, by the way, highly technical and in many
(15:24):
cases multifaceted. There are UN sanctions, there are US sanctions,
there are US congressional sanctions, so there's a lot to
unravel there.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Again, how complicated is all this? And you know what
I get out of this? It doesn't sound to me
like we have a deal on any front. I mean,
we don't have a deal on opening up the straight,
we don't have a deal on the uranium enriched uranium,
We don't what do we have a deal on. It
(15:53):
doesn't sound to me like we've really got any sort
of a deal at this point in diamond. How long
has this been going on? And of course all that
spells bad news for President Trump because he needs to
get this thing out of the way before the midterm elections.
I mean, if that, if your goal here is to
get re elected, then that probably are and to get
Republicans elected, that probably is what needs to happen. And
(16:18):
I don't see that happening, not based on this lack
of progress. You know, we don't have an agreement really
on a solid agreement on anything at this point, then
what progress have we made. We've made very little progress,
if any, it sounds to me, which I think, again,
knowing how the Iranians think about this kind of stuff,
(16:39):
if this is all a great big delay tactic, they
would like Democrats to win. They from a practical standpoint,
If Democrats, you know, can take over the House at
least and possibly the Senate, then President Trump gets in
some of the things that he wants to do, and
that makes life a little bit easier for them. So
those delay this is long as they possibly can. You know,
(17:02):
that's the case. I mean, there's just no incentive there
for them to really do anything about it. All right,
coming up an you all live in Waller County. I've
spent a little time in Waller County, not a ton
of time, but the growth out there is just amazing.
The growth in Waller County is just amazing. It is
(17:23):
like something like five point seven percent in the last year,
they have had almost four thousand new residents. And that
doesn't sound like a lot, right, but Waller County used
to be a county of like forty three thousand people.
It's getting ready to double that. And you've got all
kinds of things that are moving in there, and it's
(17:46):
kind of funny to me. It's like it's almost like
a self fulfilling prophecy. People want to go there because
they want to get away from the big city and
they want to enjoy a more rural lifestyle. And of course,
the more people in businesses that do that, the less
rural lifestyle there's going to be. But we'll visit with
Waller County's judge coming up next here on AM nine
fifty KPRC in the Jimmy Barrett Show. You know, I
(18:21):
think one of the trends that's kind of going on
in general here in the Greater Houston area is people
are looking to move a little bit further out. Get
away from the crowds, get away from the higher property
taxes in particular, get away from the crime, get away
from the noise, get away from all the things that
(18:42):
make you not want to be in the big bad city. Now,
you used to be able to travel as close as
Spring where I live and have all that going for you,
Well that's pretty much no longer the case. You know,
you want to get in your car downtown Houston and
head north to where I live in Spring, and it's
pretty much sprawl all the way up there. You know,
(19:02):
there's not that much land left out there anymore where
I live just south of the Woodlands. I mean that,
just in the nine years I've been there, the development
is just amazing. Everything is just developed, and people are
continuing to push further out and they're pushing on into
Waller County. In Waller County, it's still rural, although I
(19:23):
have to wonder how much longer it's going to be
rural because there's so many people moving out there. Waller
County is the second fastest growing county in the entire
United States of America, just based on percentage of growth.
It's still small, but at this rate is not going
to be small for long. We had Trade duhon on
he's the Waller County Judge, to talk about all the
growth and the problems that growth bring along with it,
(19:45):
and trying to balance that act between being rural but
still having some of the bigger city amenities. You know,
they're fifty miles northwest of Houston, so there's a lot
to be said for being that close to a big
city but being that small yourself. Here's my conversation for
the morning the tray, Douhon, What is leading to all
those rapid growth right?
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Well, you know, it's uh. I think it's a combination
of several factors.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
To be honest.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
I think after COVID, a lot of people were looking
for maybe.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
A little bit more elbow room, a little.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Bit slower pace of life, and they.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Saw Waller County as having that, you.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Know, and Texas is one of those places that you know,
is fast growing in and of itself. I mean there's
fifteen hundred people that come a day to Texas and
they're needing a place, and Waller County is one of
those areas northwest of Houston between iten and two ninety
where there's still there's still.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
Some land and some room to grow.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
And then and then I think a lot of people
are also coming out to Waller County because honestly, they're
you know, they're tired of you know, some of the
crime and some of the politics and stuff, and they're
heading out. We have good conservative leadership out here, and
you know, we value you know, that rural and agricultural lifestyle.
(21:08):
I think that's attractive to a lot of people, you know.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
I think I think there's a lot to what you
just said there. I think there's a lot of folks
who like the idea of living somewhere that's quiet and peaceful,
and as you say, that's got room to grow and
it's got that small town feeling. But you're still fifty
miles from the big city when you want to come
in and watch an Astros game.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Yeah, that's true. I mean, and we're a lot closer
now with you know, with the Grand Parkway used to be,
you know, folks would go, wow, you know, that's kind
of out in BF. But you know now with the
Grand Parkway, where you know, that's ten minutes from Waller,
So you're far enough out to kind of be away,
but you're close enough to where you can come into
(21:45):
Houston for shopping or go to a movie or do
those kind of things and still have access.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Well, I've oftentimes found that where people go, businesses will follow.
So is the business community also growing in Walla County?
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Oh gosh, yes, you know one one. Most people have
seen this if they've driven on I ten between.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
Between Katie and Brochure, you.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Can see some of the business development down there. You know,
companies like Goya, Igloo, Costco, Amazon, medline. I mean, there's
so many that have basically.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
You know, found a home in Waller County.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
We quietly, quietly, we have become the North American headquarters
for a lot of companies from Europe, Japan and elsewhere
that are relocating and setting down roots right here. So
we have we have a ton of growth on the
commercial and business side and a lot of jobs as well,
(22:51):
and that's bringing people out here too.
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Okay, well, all those things sound great, except I guess
there's probably that fine line you'd like to try to manage, right,
you're trying to stay world, You're you're trying to stay
a small town and you got all these companies and
people moving there, and that this makes you grow bigger.
So are you afraid that you're just gonna get too
big for your bridges out there? You're not gonna be
a small town anymore pretty soon?
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Well, yeah, it's it's really a challenge, to be honest.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
We do value you know, that that.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Agricultural and that rural lifestyle, but at the same time
you've got folks coming.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Out and you know, we.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
We have a private property system, so developers can buy
land and as long as they comply.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
With certain regulations. You know, we we don't have zoning.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
We can't as a county. We can't tell people that
they cannot build a subdivision here.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
But you know, we that all.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
That being said were we've.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
Been planning for growth for you know, over a decade now.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
But the growth level is so much higher than what
anyone ever anticipated. Back in twenty fifteen when I became
county judge, the estimates were we were at forty three thousand,
and they said we would double in population by twenty forty. Okay,
we're almost there and it's twenty twenty six. And not
(24:12):
only that, the level of growth is going to you know,
you said.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Earlier, we've added thirty.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Eight hundred people, you know, just in the last.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
Year or so.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
That number is not even close to.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
What it's about to be.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
We have eighty thousand residential lots under development right now
as we speak. So you do the math that the
growth is going to go even higher.
Speaker 4 (24:37):
Yeah, well, I wish your luck with all this because
it means new schools and new roads and a lot
of other things that people have to pay for with
their taxes. So that's that's always a that's also a
balancing act. Right, you'd like to keep your conservative county,
you'd like to keep the taxes low.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Yeah, we you know we've in Waller County, we very
quietly over the last twelve years, have lowered the property
tax rate almost a heard here in Waller County. And
we would love to continue to do that. But now,
you know, every year we're seeing where we're having to
add deputies for patrol employees to make sure we're still
(25:14):
providing those services. We still have to provide you know, elections,
We still have to provide vital records.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
We still have to provide courts.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
I mean, we've added a new County Court at Law,
but you know, with the growth, we're going to need more. So,
I mean it is a constant battle now to make
sure we keep up with this growth. It's all of
these things are the kind of things that keep a
county judge.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
Up at night.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
You don't.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
I'm struck by the phrase I'm a victim of my
own success. I think that's what I'm hearing coming out
of Waller County. They're victims of their own success because
it's it's kind of like a catch twenty two. It's
kind of like a big circle kind of thing. You
want to attract businesses not only for the amenities they
(26:05):
bring the people who live in your county, but also
for the jobs they bring and the tax base that
they bring. But you bring in companies, especially bigger companies,
and you've got employees that are going to want to
live in your county. So you're going to have to
build more houses, and you build more houses, and you
have to build more schools and more roads, and all
(26:27):
those things cost money. So even though you're bringing in
more of a tax base with the businesses, it, it
brings in its own set of issues. Now, the one
thing you can't do, at least successfully, I believe here
in Texas is you can't say, well, we're not going
to let anybody in. We don't believe that. We don't
believe that here, we don't. There are places that are
(26:49):
like that that have a lot of zoning laws and
regulations that would keep eighty thousand lots from being developed.
Right now, think about that eighty thousand lots that residential
lots that are being developed. That's eighty thousand homes. And
if the average per home is like let's say you
have three people per home, that's two hundred and forty
(27:10):
thousand people at some point in a county that just
the other day had forty three thousand people in the
entire county. Now you're talking about five times the population
of what you had, and all the things that go
along with it, the infrastructure and the roads and the
electric grid and everything else. Yeah, it's I don't envy
(27:34):
his position there. That's a tough balancing act to do.
You know, most places that are rural and want to
remain rural have the zoning regulations in place that will
help them do that. A place you used to be
close to in Virginia was called Hanover County in Virginia,
and they had very strict regulations about how much acoreages
(27:56):
you had to have to build a house. And I
want to say you had to have at least five
acres in order to be able to build a home.
That was the minimum. So we kept developers from coming
in and just building a whole bunch of houses in
a subdivision. You know, it helped keep the rural field,
(28:16):
but that required the regulations to do it. They purposely
wanted to be that way. I don't think most Texas
communities want to have to regulate that way in order
to maintain who they are. All Right, quick little break
back with more in a moment. We're gonna talking a
little bit about free school lunches. Coming up next, Jimmy Bertschow,
you're a NAM nine fifty KPRC. All right, y'all remember
(28:49):
school lunches, right? What was your favorite school lunch when
you were a kid in school? Pizza? Yeah, I think
most people would say pizza. That would be the one
time that I would always I usually brown bagged it.
That's what we called it. Anyway, do you bring up
brown bag lunch? It was just like a sandwich and
some chips and maybe like a hostess ho ho or
(29:12):
tweakie or something like that. Back then, we weren't really
worried about, you know, the lack of nutrition. You know,
we're kids, We're burning off the calories anyway, And that
the only time I would ever buy school lunch was
when there was pizza. Well, there's a couple of things.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
I like.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
This will sound disgusting. Pizza, I like that that sounds normal. Uh,
spoon burger over mashed potatoes not Does that not sound disgusting?
It was actually pretty good. I have no idea. What
was in it? I'm guessing the nutritional value was less
than zero, but it was comfort food. It tasted good,
especially in the wintertime where I grew up, when we
(29:50):
get cold and snowy. Those are those are the two
favorites I think these days. Of course, we only had lunch.
That's it. Nobody was gonna be dinner. Nobody was going
to feed your breakfast, and nobody was going to feed
you all summer when the school was essentially closed, other
than maybe summer school. Yeah, I mean that was up
(30:11):
to you. That was up to the parents to provide
you with lunch. The note there was no free school
lunch program. If you wanted to have school lunch, everybody
paid for it wasn't very expensive, at least when I
wass a kid, it was very very cheap, but you know,
that was the parental responsibility. The thing I think I
am concerned about the most is it relates to free
(30:33):
school lunch programs. Is not even the fact that we're
giving away food to kids regardless in many cases, regardless
of what their income level is, because we don't really
seem to require any sort of proof on that anymore.
My biggest concern has more to do with taking away
that parental responsibility. We had Maya Flores, the former Texas congresswoman,
on her program this morning to talk about these free
(30:54):
school lunch programs. Here's my conversation with her about that.
Probably some people my room would be a little surprised
by this because they think that the school lunch program,
especially a free school lunch program, will exists during the
school year, but it doesn't. Is it exists in the
summer too?
Speaker 10 (31:09):
No, Absolutely, You're absolutely right. A lot of this food
is actually front and away. So I think it's a
it's the greatest it's a good decision. A lot of
these families already low income and already receiving the assistance
that they that they need. Any people need to understand
that those who need government assistants will continue getting government assistants.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Well, that's the part of those who have.
Speaker 10 (31:32):
Been taking advantage of this of the system will will
not because we want the people that actually needed to
get the government assistance. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of
people who've been taking advantage of this, and we are
putting an end to that. And I think it's.
Speaker 4 (31:47):
Great, you know what, and I'm glad that Houston i
SD is one of those systems that that's pulling away
from this number one. I'd like to think we could
all agree that feeding children is the responsibility of the parents,
and we have already. We have snap programs, we have
other programs, food banks, we have other programs that assist
with low income individuals being able to provide those nutrition
(32:10):
needs for their own kids. I always thought that this
was a bad idea, all these free school lunch programs,
because it just took another parennal responsibility off the plate
of parents.
Speaker 10 (32:20):
Absolutely, these are our children. We need to invest in
our children. It's time that we start instilling in our
children our values and not the government in stealing, you know,
their way of thinking into our children, educating our children,
doing everything when at the end of the day, it's
our responsibility. But you know, I want the American people
(32:42):
to know these kids are not being starved. Their families,
their mom and dad, if they needed government assistants will
continue receeding government assistants. But these school a lot of
these schools have been making money off of this AH
and we're putting an end. We're putting an end to it.
A lot of these schools have making a lot of
money off of this, off of these types of programs.
(33:05):
What we want is, like you said, the parents to
have that control, and they've been having that.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
Control for a long time, so there's a financial incentive
for these schools to do it. It's not about as
much about feeding kids as much as this. They're making
money for the program and maybe helping to supplevent their
income somewhat, which is also not good news for the taxpayers.
Here's what else I wonder maybe this is something that
should get tackled next. I want to get your thoughts
on this. We used to just feed kids lunch at school,
(33:34):
and we would provide for those who couldn't afford the
school lunch, those who could show that they couldn't afford
the school lunch. I think they did away with that
because it was too hard to ask for proof number
one and number two. They were afraid of stigmatizing the kids.
But then we took school lunch and we made school
breakfast and school dinner. And before you know, we're feeding
kids three meals a day. Should we be feeding kids
(33:55):
three meals a day even during the school year.
Speaker 10 (33:58):
Well, I do not like what they're seeing our children.
You know, I do not like the breakfast and the
lunch that they're getting our children. I would love to
see better breakfasts and better lunch because I'll tell you,
these politicians aren't eating that for breakfast and lunch. And
I'm one hundred present that these politicians children are also
not eating.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
This for breakfasts and lunch.
Speaker 10 (34:21):
We actually, you know, in this, I actually think we
need to feed our children better and more healthier food
so they can be able to focus more on school.
A lot of these children don't even eat the breakfast
because I don't even like it, you know, and and
lunch because I don't even like it.
Speaker 4 (34:38):
What are they serving for school breakfast these days?
Speaker 10 (34:41):
Not like it used to be. A lot of it
is very frozen. Oh okay, a lot of it's it's
frozen food. A lot of these foods have a lot
of alternatives.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
It's not healthy because.
Speaker 10 (34:57):
We could do we could do so much better for
our children. Our children deserve better than not the skill
the excuse the schools always get. Well, these kids are hungry.
They're arriving to school hungry. Do you think that is
legitimate or do you think that that's just the reason
they get for why they do what.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
They do well.
Speaker 10 (35:15):
I believe, you know, a lot of these kids could
be fit at home as well. But I do think
that that they have the opportunity to have breakfast with
their friends and have this lunch with their friends. But
I do believe we could do better. What they're eating
for breakfast and lunch is not healthy for them.
Speaker 4 (35:32):
All right, So.
Speaker 10 (35:34):
I would love to keep that program, but just healthy
and better for them.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
All right. See, I'm a little tougher than she is
that I think, you know, I get the school lunches
happening during the middle of the day while the kids
are there, you know, they get a break to have
something neat. I might even be able to be convinced
that the school breakfast program is a good idea just
because of the amount of time both parents are working,
the amount of time they have to get the kids
(36:00):
ready in the morning. But we've gone to three meals
a day in many different schools, and I don't think
I think again, that's just taking responsibility away from the parents,
and that's where that responsibility belongs. All right, We're gonna
have to leave it at that. You all have a
great day. Thank you for listening. I'll see you tomorrow
morning bright nearly five over on news radio seven k
t r H. We are back here at four on
(36:23):
a nine fifty kPr C
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.