Mikespace, I agree, Mr. Tyler is a very well read attorney, had a very successful practice that the gave up to defend citizens of our county. He knows the law better than one of our judges (NO NAMES PLEASE) and I wish people would let him do his job. This county has had the good old boy alliance for over a hundred years and its time for it to go.............

Alton,

After the smoking ban in Victoria was passed, a few businesses considered going members only. The same thing was considered in Austin, however both the city of Austin and Victoria ruled similarly, that any building that is not a private residence is a public building and not exempt from the smoking ban.

I found the story Interesting and also the comments. While the comments defended the DA, they did not address the issue of the delay in issuing an opinion. And I support the Advocates in asking questions, because I found often not enough questions are asked. I want to know the answers and would think that the individuals making comments would also.

I found onestar's comment about the city ordinance 10-30 rather interesting, because the definition that limits private buildings to private residence just does not make sense. Because how does one explain buildings that are only accessible to members only, like the Victoria Country Club.

I have always supported a friendly disagreement of issues that includes facts, because an open mind will learn from them.

Obviously my previous comment was deleted. Like I said, I don't know why the advocate is constantly dogging the Da for doing his job. Should it be his fault that the city attorney is incompetant?

I commend Mr. Tyler's legal fundamentalism, and expect that any similar tournaments planned or contemplated in this community shall be cancelled. Furthermore, I am sure that the establishment of asst. city manager Bruce Ure as Bootfest coordinator had nothing to do with Mr. Tyler's interpretation of the law

The city has stumbled over its own ordiances and the Advocate didn't bother checking befoe it chose sides.
See city ordinance 10-30 Public building means any building other than a building used as a private residence.
Therefore the gambling operation would have been in a public bldg

"Only a three dollar processing fee"...I like how you minimize the illegal aspect of the venture.

How do YOU KNOW whether or not anything is happening in the 8-liner case? Is the DA obligated to report to you? Just another cheap shot....

"We think relations between the district attorney and the city remain strained"...well, with a biased Editorial Board trying to create issues is there any hope of better relations?

"This determination came after the city throughly researched the event". Really? It seems the city folded like a cheap lawn chair when faced with Tyler's opinion. The city attorney would not even cite the specific state statute he was using to say the event was legal. Why don't you editorialize about THAT?

"The city had no choice but to defer to Tyler's opinion"...yes, they did. They could have stood up and said we have confidence in our city attorney's research and the show will go on...but they didn't.

"What were Tyler's concerns specifically?" I think he stated them pretty well in the earlier article. Go back and read it. And if you have any questions, why don't you ask him?? You are an "award winning newspaper" for gosh sakes...act like it!

The Editorial Board needs to grow up, accept the fact that the person many of them did not support in the last election won with 53% of the vote...despite not buying ONE SINGLE AD in their newspaper, which you advertise as "the area's premier information source".

So, Editorial Board, answer the question ...
Would the poker game, as planned, be legal or illegal?

Your conclusion that the District Attorney and the city government should, 'work together' is obviously never going to happen. Taxpayers support both of them. So let's find out which is competent.
You state, "The plans have been in place for months with the city attorney researching the legality of the game." You also state about Tyler's decision, "This decision came after the city had thoroughly research the event." We, the taxpayers, foot the bill for all of this 'legal research'. Since the taxpayers are paying for both sides of the debate, we obviously end up losing ... but it would be nice to know which side is competent.

You bring an unrelated issue into this discussion and make the charge against Tyler, "Could this be selective enforcement?" This reader's opinion is that I would much rather see the D.A.'s office spend its time and resources locking up the gang-bangers in this town than prosecuting harmless 8-liner players ... or ... poker players.

It would be ideal if all governmental offices could work together. That is never going to happen with this District Attorney and with this city government. The editorial board obviously sides with the city government (or perhaps better said, against Tyler), BUT the question has still not been answered.

1. Did the taxpayers pay for 'months of thorough legal research' by the city attorney ... that was wrong?
2. Did the taxpayers pay for a 'decision by the District Attorney' ... that was wrong?
The Editorial Board would provide a service by finding out the correct answer to this question.

Is the glass half full or half empty..."I don't believe the DA is elected to volunteer opinions to the city or any other entity".
However, aren't we all trying to do our part to make Victoria a better place...What would it have cost Mr. Tyler to volunteer his services for the better of Victoria.
In my mind the DA's office went way beyond what was required and saved the players, city management and ultimately the taxpayers the cost and embarrassment of being held accountable in a court of law.
If this is what you believe....Then why did he not take the initiative to speak up sooner to prevent this embarrassment from getting to this point.
Your mentality reminds me of a co-worker...He would see you doing something wrong and not say anything....After the fact he would come up and say "If you would have asked, I would have told you...after all, we're a team, we have to work together"...

Sharing knowledge occurs when people are genuinely interested in helping one another develop new capacities for action; it is about creating learning processes.

Victoria Advocate,

Do you ever consider checking the facts before printing an editorial?

You compared this to "Cuero Chamber of Commerce conducts a Texas Hold 'Em fundraiser event". One big difference that led me to look further is "fundraiser event". My two minutes of investigative checking, with absolutely no newspaper training, revealed the rules for the Cuero event which state "Thousands of dollars in cash value prizes will be awarded to Winners". There is no mention of cash being awarded to the winning players, the cash stays with the organization as the fundraising activity. The event in Victoria was for cash winnings, not a fundraiser.

The Advocate's continued bashing of the twice elected District Attorney seems to be the issue here. This lapse of judgment falls squarely on the backs of the event planners, city management and the city attorney. If there was any question they could have requested the DA give them an opinion LONG BEFORE the event was announced.

I don't believe the DA is elected to volunteer opinions to the city or any other entity. The DA is elected to prosecute crimes and see that justice is served. In this instance he did the participants a huge favor by getting this illegal event cancelled before they potentially committed a crime.

In my mind the DA's office went way beyond what was required and saved the players, city management and ultimately the taxpayers the cost and embarrassment of being held accountable in a court of law.