On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho San Antonio is a fast growing, fast moving city with something new happening every day.

That's why each week we go on the record with Randy Beamer and the newsmakers who are driving this change.

Then we gather at the reporters roundtable to talk about the latest news stories with the journalist behind those stories.

Join us now.

As we go on the record.

With Randy Beamer.

Hi, everybody, and thank you for joining us for On the Record this week, I'm Randy Beamer, and we are starting tonight with a look at something that the county has been dealing with, something we've all been talking a lot about but maybe don't know that much about.

Don't know the timeline of and that is project Marvel, the big project that could involve a Spurs arena downtown where the Institute of Texan Cultures is right now.

Tommy Calvert, County Commissioner, is here to tell us all about the latest that the county has had to deal with and where we are in the process of this.

And I guess, the Spurs had wanted to have a vote on a possible venue tax this spring, but that's not going to happen after a year.

Commissioners talked about it, looked at it and said, we don't know enough yet.

That's right.

And just to be clear, the Commissioners Court really doesn't know what Project Marvel is.

There's never been a briefing.

Certainly, as the commissioner who represents both downtown and the East side, I've never had a briefing from the Spurs on their Project Marvel or the city on their project Marvel.

I have some high level understanding from news reports, but until there's actually something written in front of us, we don't know.

I think it was important that the court figure out how do we transition the Frost Bank center if this if the voters approve, because it's not in the hands of the county commissioners, this would potentially be if the commissioners agree to a vote, a vote of the people on whether or not they want to use a car rental tax and a hotel tax for the new arena.

Estimated at $1.3 billion.

I don't have anything in writing.

The court didn't have anything in writing that was in the project.

Marvel itself is more or it's more city maybe than that.

We were talking about the Alamodome.

We're talking about convention.

The city owned facility, hotel, convention Center is also city owned.

And the convention center redoing that.

So that part of project Marvel did come out of the city.

But, one would have expected that by now.

If they're pushing for that, they were pushing for that vote by now for the venue tax with the county that you would have known more.

And also, I guess as much as that is important, what's going to happen to the Frost Bank center and that whole area?

Well, for 20 plus years, our community has been coned off from economic opportunity.

Those cones that are, pushing you in and out like you're at a hazmat event at this orange traffic cones.

The orange traffic cones, have have frankly, been a huge embargo to our community.

And so we're coming together on Saturday, the 25th of January at 10:00 at the Coliseum, and February 1st at 10:00 at the Coliseum to talk about what do we do if the Spurs leave?

What do we want?

Do we want to look at higher education opportunities?

Do we want to look at Willow Springs Golf Course and taking it out of the floodplain so that we can build housing?

Do we want to look at affordable workforce housing, on the Coliseum grounds from parking garages where you have housing on top of those parking garages?

How do you integrate the rodeo?

In the future of the arena, how do you make sure that there are going to be new Hvac systems to the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the current Frost Bank center?

All of those things are, up for discussion, as well as if people just want to say, I don't think they should have a new arena.

I think they should stay at the existing one and renovated, and we should use our funds on housing or food costs or something.

Whatever it is, it's a town hall and this is a kind of town hall.

We are going to let people actually speak from the mic.

We won't overdo it on presentations, but you're going to learn from the financial experts about what moneys may be available.

You're going to learn what are the acceptable uses.

And I think it's important to reconvene all of the stakeholders who were part of the 2008 venue tax election and the 99 venue tax election, because, you know, everywhere from McAllister Park to Northside Activity Center to the northeast, soccer fields to Michigan County Park on the south side, got a little piece of the pie.

Those were all the venues.

And it wasn't just one venue.

Correct.

And I think that tends to be the way we get citywide and countywide votes of venues funded is that there's a chicken in every pot.

And so I want to hear countywide from people from those institutions.

Do you need upgrades to your venues?

Chances are, 20 years later, you're probably going to have some capital infrastructure improvement needs.

So those are all going to be discussion points.

Is there concern that the Spurs you know, we have more investors from Austin now involved than if people at first were like, oh my gosh, they're going to move to Austin.

But if they're talking about building a new stadium, could they build that stadium instead of downtown San Antonio, San Marcus, Hays County, somewhere between here and there as they try to expand the in New Mexico into Austin, their fan base?

And what that would do to San Antonio, to the east side, to downtown, do you think that will be part of our discussion and why they should build it here?

I think the only way for them to build in San Marcos is for them to pay $1 billion, for, the arena and and the venue tax in Hays County might give you 300 million, might I?

I don't really think they have the tourism, the hotel, but the Austin businesses wouldn't come in with.

Well, again, that would be that would be money that the team would have to, contribute.

Whatever it is, we've got to have economic opportunity for San Antonians, local businesses.

A lot of what this, is really about, is economic opportunity for, the community at large and improvement.

So we've got to figure out whether they do that or not.

What do we do with the Frost Bank center?

What are the economic opportunities that are needed?

And so that's really the conversation.

And some of the venue tax be put to the Frost Bank area.

Absolutely.

The venue tax legislation was created by Representative Ruth Jones McAlinden and State Senator Leticia Van depute, mainly for the Coliseum grounds.

And there's a lot more that we didn't do, like building parking garages with, I mean, you can't pay for housing out of it, but, you know, a parking garage is probably 10 million of the cost.

So that would help if we partnered with the private sector on workforce housing, housing that the residents around the East side can actually afford.

You can, put housing that is commensurate with the income level, at a time that we have the city at a time that we have a housing crisis and help people, get the American dream of homeownership, public private housing.

Well, certainly most of the housing will be built by the private sector.

That's where the county can help to incentivize.

I mean, look, we're incentivizing the highest rent and the highest mortgages today.

We only have a market rate policy.

So, you know, we have underwritten things all around the Pearl district.

And, you know, condos that are quite expensive.

It's just arithmetic.

Just add more money for the subsidy in order to make sure that the income levels can, reduce the excuse me, that the developer can reduce the rent for the income levels of our people.

So now, after the, a couple of town halls, the next couple of Saturdays that you'll have, what's the timeline, you think in terms of getting back with, say, the Spurs, the county, the city, hopefully getting better, communication with them and working on the project, Marvel, whatever that may be.

What do you think down the road?

How long is it going to take?

Well, I don't know.

It's taken this long to get a, to get a update on what are the, you know, what is Project Marvel?

I've never gotten a briefing on what is Project Marvel.

So, we'll have to maybe start there.

But in terms of, the election process, a state mandate, certain windows, there's a November window there will be the midterm election window.

The the November window, I think would be tough politically.

It's a much more conservative audience that turns out in November.

And the odd, interim.

So that's, really up to the community and the commissioners court, and I think that.

So maybe next spring after this, I really couldn't tell you.

I mean, it felt like with the request for May, it was as soon as possible.

So maybe it'll be November, I don't know.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

Tommy Calvert, Commissioner, precinct for appreciate your time and coming in.

Thanks for not cutting me off.

This week, on the night the president took office, he again talked about putting a tariff on Mexico and Canada.

He said, we're thinking in terms of 25% on Mexico and Canada, and I think we'll do it February 1st.

Huge impact on this area or it could have joining us to talk about that, a man who knows everything about the tariffs and trade between the U.S. and Mexico, Gerry Schwab, who is the executive vice president of IBC, also involved with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a member of the U.S. Mexico Economic Council, a trade policy working group.

You were involved in negotiating NAFTA, as well as the U.S., Mexico, economic agreement, I guess Usmca, right.

Where are we right now?

And actually having a 25% tariff imposed on Mexico?

A lot of people think that was just the opening salvo bluster.

But there's a lot of work behind the scenes to actually get an agreement done.

And how fast does it have to get done?

Well, first of all, thank you for inviting me today.

Sure.

But yes, tariffs has been has been a topic of discussion almost every day, every hour by the hour.

And, we have been working on this for not just now, but even during the previous Trump administration, because that's that's something way he's been talking about using it as a tool to achieve an ultimate end and as a, as a negotiator that he is.

And it's no different.

We're not none of us are surprised.

The question is, do we how do we measure the impact of such a tariff?

We left it back in, during his first term in 2018 when he when he did look at the, tariffs on, on steel and aluminum.

But this is this is a temporary element because one thing is to say there are some targeted tariffs.

And I think to say there's a blanket tariff on all goods and products.

So it's something that we will continue to monitor, track and, and be at the table of dialog, a discussion with the administration.

How is there a table of dialog and discussion now?

Because right now we think it's the president.

We just hear of what he says.

We hear of Claudia Shane, the president of Mexico, talking about the threat of putting tariffs on U.S. goods coming into Mexico.

Who's talking aside from them, really?

Or are they talking?

Well, do you have you have the new players or the new cabinet members?

And then for the United States, the, the focus will be with the Department of Commerce, Secretary of Commerce, Howard, Ludwig.

And, and then you're going to have U.S. Trade Representative, which is the actual, person and the team that will be at the table negotiating what they call a, Free Trade Commission, where you have representative for each country in the negotiations.

But the private sector also is engaged.

The U.S. chamber is engaged.

We have a coalition of trade organizations, National for Trade Counsel, National Association of Manufacturers.

We have the Business Roundtable, but the U.S. chamber has been the the leader.

That on on in this coalition.

And we did it back in the NAFTA years back then.

Believe it or not, Lee Iacocca was the head of that particular group, you know, and we did a Usmca where we were at the table, private sector companies talking about what it would be good.

What should we improve from the previous agreement.

So we'll get you to be engaged.

But no.

So now you're basically on the phone with some of these other people.

Will there be meetings in Washington, in Mexico City?

When do you expect those to happen?

It's been going on already since.

Since the elections.

And even during the process, we've been having ongoing meetings and discussions as well as working groups as to what if scenarios.

And in our particular case, in the Trade Policy Working group, we focused on, you know, protecting the integrity of the agreement and understanding, what the potential impact of any modification or changes.

It's a review process that, that, that is called for in the agreement.

Six year review process, which begins the fall of this year.

And and will will really, you know, culminate in, in, in 2026, a six year review.

But also, it's important to understand that, that the, the dialog and discussions of, of impending proposed changes because things have changed, you know, in these five years and going into the six years.

And so what is we want.

That have changed from that Usmca, he had called NAFTA the worst agreement ever in history, resource deal.

Pushed for things in the Usmca.

And now what's going to be pushed for what's what do you think is going to change?

Well, I think I think I think the important is that when you have new leadership in both countries are now pretty sure in Canada that the players understand that we are stronger together than we are divided.

So whatever the issues that impact our country, in our particular case, what's happened in the last four years for sure have been, the surge of, of of migrants that have come in and really, you know, created so some degree, you know, some so, so issues in our country.

In addition to that, we've had the increased, criminal elements of bad actors in Mexico, the cartels that that have contributed to, to, you know, the, the, the fentanyl, issues of those products coming into our country and impacted.

So when you look at it, what what role does trade play in that?

You know, President Trump needs to address this, addressing those issues with Mexico.

And we'll do it doing it with Canada.

What are the challenges as a result of the you associate that have not been to our benefit?

Let's let's understand one thing very clearly.

A trade agreement or any president will focus on protecting its key sectors and protecting jobs and providing national security.

Those are the three basic pillars of of what should be the trade policy.

So he's not doing anything different than Mexicans.

And President Trump is not doing anything.

They're doing.

Well now.

She said that Mexico has done more.

And since 23 to 24 there has been, you know, Mexico has done more to stop the flow of fentanyl, to stop the flow of migrants.

Now, troops are supposedly going to be coming to the border area.

As somebody who lives in Laredo looks over I-35, what are you most concerned about short term with these threats of tariffs and troops coming to Mexico?

A kind of a brinksmanship.

The major concern that we have, those of us who live and work on the border, I live and work every day is the disruptors of the supply chain network.

Trade is is the livelihood of trade, is focus on the flow of goods and people, secure flow of goods and people.

So and the disruption to that process and its cost to the consumer.

So we want that that disruption to be limited, to be avoided.

We faced it northbound when we had the migrant surge going northbound in our ports, none of it created by those of us to live and work on the border that they called a border crisis.

It wasn't created by us.

It was created by Washington and or Mexico City as well.

So now we have now the that's as a deporting some of these migrants back to their countries, Mexico included, that will that be a disrupter?

That's one of the major concerns that we have.

The second, the second major concern is that what's going to happen to Usmca, what is what would that mean?

We have an agreement or an agreement that lasts basically set for 16 years, that six year review.

We have the means to have a discussion as to what good or bad has happened in the course of the first period of the review, what will discuss, what will address, how we will address it?

How will Mexico, Mexico's president chime will will address any concerns that we have, that dialog, that discussion needs to be had.

And that's where the private sector comes in.

We must be engaged.

But now, as you have that, discussion, do you expect that there will be, tariffs, you know, imposed to disrupt, to effect the negotiations that Mexico puts tariffs on?

There will be disruptions.

There will be, disruptions to the the supply chain prices will go up on both sides.

You think that will happen then while you talk and then it'll take months.

I mean, it took months for and years for the negotiations, for NAFTA and then for Usmca.

Are we going to are we going to go through a pretty tough period here?

I think I think any time you have any discussion of of what I just addressed, that impacts the livelihood of what's happening on the border definitely ends up at a cost to the consumer.

And for us, Laredo being the number one port of the, you know, in North America, all the eyes and ears will be on what happens.

And, in in a port like Laredo, I think it's important to understand that the impact will be measured almost on a daily basis.

It won't happen the first day, but it will begin to kind of take a trickle effect.

That's what we anticipate.

Now we've got to take President Trump for his word.

He campaigned on that.

And and it's important that that also that we that both Canada and Mexico, you know, really address what he's asking for, you know, in a very serious, methodical and really diplomatic, way to to achieve results.

In the meantime, you're bracing for some, some tough times on the border.

Well, you know, the more is, the more we say it's been.

It's been the most resilient part of the country.

We adapt to Mexico.

We adapt to the United States and the policies of both countries.

So we live it every day.

We live to benefit evaluations.

We live to policy changes in Mexico and the United States, and therefore we adapt and we adapt to the border, whether it's challenges of infrastructure that we may need, lack of understanding of what the border is even all about.

Well, good luck with that and good luck with the negotiations.

Please come back.

When?

When, we can talk more about what has been done.

Gerry Schwab, who is with the U.S. chamber of Commerce, executive vice president of IBC, also U.S., Mexico Economic Council, Trade Policy Working Group, and so much more.

Thank you very much for your time and your insight.

Thank you for having me.

On Reporters roundtable this week, there's not just new leadership in Washington this week, but also some in Austin.

And we are going to have a lot of new leadership here in San Antonio soon.

There's jockeying for position in all of that.

And here to tell us all about it is Andrea Drost, local government and politics reporter for the San Antonio Report.

Thank you very much for coming in, first of all, to Austin and the, speakership vote last week.

A little infighting with Republicans and, I guess kind of a surprise to some people.

What happened there.

Yeah.

So this time around, they're going back to work in Austin with more Republicans than they left with.

They've expanded their majority.

They, a lot of moderates lost in the primary, including some here, one here.

So there was this hope among the conservative wing that they were going to elect a conservative speaker, and they had picked out a challenger to House Speaker Dade feeling, who has been, campaigning for the conservative wing support and then at the last minute, last in December, did feel and decided that he wasn't going to seek the speakership.

So it opened up a race between, interestingly, the author of the Death Star bill, I think he's probably appeared in the San Antonio Report more times than even members of our own delegation.

And now the Death Star bill was the one that was very considered, very conservative, aggressive and against city leadership like this.

It shrunk what the cities could do.

It was in response to sort of the labor things that cities were trying to do with predictive scheduling or paid sick leave.

They said, actually, we're going to come back and preempt your ability to do any of those things.

But it was much broader than that.

And cities were very confused about how exactly it would work.

People were able to sue the city if there was an ordinance on the books that went beyond what the city is expressly given authority to do by the state.

But big picture.

Also, some people might be familiar with Dustin Burrows from in 2019, when he was involved in the leaked recording of then speaker Dan Osborne and, which not only talked about challenging fellow Republicans in primaries, but also had a part were born and talked about making this the worst session in history for cities.

If anyone was if any mayor or county judge was dumb enough to come meet with him, that's what he was going to tell them.

And so at that time, he was very aligned with Abbott and against cities.

But they feeling they have made the cardinal mistake, being against school vouchers.

So that's why he was on the outs.

He didn't even want to run even though he won again.

As, legislator, he didn't want to run again for speaker.

So they had that impeachment vote and voted to impeach the attorney general in the last session.

And that also was hurting.

So did feeling he narrowly survived his own primary, decided not to seek the speakership.

But then you wind up with a majority of more Democrats than Republicans helping Dustin Burrows become the.

Speaker because, and that's against the wishes of Ken Paxton.

Dan Patrick, basically, although he didn't say a lot, Greg Abbott, who wanted someone who was more pliant, the Texas Republican Party said that anybody who voted with Democrats for a speaker could be.

Censured in the last convention.

They said, if you've been censured, keep you off the ballot.

But all the stops to try to prevent Republicans from peeling off here, but it wound up being this sort of interesting dynamic between David Cook, who is the the conservative choice.

He was a former mayor from Mansfield who was known as kind of being a collaborator who became the conservative nominee, and then Burrows, who Democrats were quite skeptical of, wound up becoming the moderate who agreed to allow them to keep their chairmanships or to uphold the practice of allowing Democrats to hold chairmanships.

And our delegation here in Burke County, we consider it sort of the seven Democrats and three Republicans that represent parts of Burke County.

They split on this.

All seven Democrats wound up helping boroughs, even though some of them even came from backgrounds in city government.

And then all of the Republicans wound up supporting cook.

And.

Do we know what that's going to mean in terms of how much Burroughs will work with Democrats from San Antonio, thanking them for their votes?

Or he can do what he wants anyway because of the Republican majority in the House.

This is the interesting question that it was at one point, speculation that he had rumors that he had made an agreement on school vouchers.

Trey Martinez Fisher, a Democrat from San Antonio who used to lead the Democratic caucus, had said this is one of the weirdest speaker votes because Democrats have the power to control this thing.

Neither a Republican can win it on their own.

And yet Democrats he didn't think were getting enough out of it.

He said that the Republicans weren't or weren't exactly getting deals.

They were just expecting Democratic support.

And so it's unclear exactly what they will get out of it.

But you did hear Dustin Burrows in his victory speech saying it doesn't matter if you're a rural lawmaker or an urban lawmaker.

Everyone's going to have a seat at the table.

After you win.

You can say whatever like that.

But usually before, right?

Yeah.

Well, yeah, it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Do you think, We'll see.

Well, a lot of surprises.

We don't even know really what they're going to be focusing on yet.

Some of the things they've talked about, anything on the horizon that hasn't risen to the surface that you see that we're going to be talking about over the next few months?

You know, the city normally does it sort of rundown of bills that they're eyeing, and they update it as more filed.

And we're still a ways away from the filing deadline.

But when they were bringing up things that they thought were of interest to San Antonio, it was pretty mellow so far.

They weren't finding things like the Death Star Bill to get upset about this early in the game.

But obviously school vouchers will take a lot of the oxygen out of the room and probably dictate sort of the tone of how things go from there.

Yeah, that's going to be interesting with that speaker vote.

But it'll make more work for you.

And next time, you have to talk about all the candidates running for city council and the mayor, which is web pages and pages worth by now.

Is that just open up and it runs till February 15th, so I can still.

Run February 14th, and you.

Can still and, All right.

Thanks very much, Andrea.

Just very busy local government and politics reporter for the San Antonio Report.

Thanks for coming in.

And thank you for joining us for this edition of On the Record.

You can see this show again.

You can watch any previous shows.

You can also download it as a podcast.

Just go to klrn.org I'm Randy Bremer.

We'll see you next time.

On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho