Cityscrapes is a column of opinion and analysis.
The contest between Gina Ortiz Jones and Rolando Pablos feels like a different kind of mayoral race. Although it may well be about the same old thing.
Let me explain.
First, there was the free-for-all May general election, in which 27 candidates divvied up the just-over 100,000 votes cast. Those office contenders ranged from veteran members of city council to political newcomers to virtual unknowns who seemed to run just for the fun of it. Perhaps most notably, the council veterans who presumably had the advantages of name recognition and previous backing managed a remarkably poor showing.
For example, District 4’s Adriana Rocha Garcia, endorsed by the Express-News editorial board, managed to win just 9.9% of the total. District 6’s Melissa Cabello Havrda pulled in 6.6%, while District 9’s John Courage and former District 10 councilman Clayton Perry garnered a little over 5% each. District 8’s Manny Pelaez, widely seen as a likely frontrunner and the Express-News editorial board’s second choice, garnered just 7.3%.
While the sheer number of council veterans no doubt divided the support for any one, it’s clear the public — or at least that small fraction that actually voted in the May election — weren’t particularly enthusiastic about any of the council incumbents.
The reasons likely varied from voter to voter. But it may well be that the way our city council has handled two major public investment projects recently — the new Missions ballpark and the murky Project Marvel — didn’t reinforce public confidence in their performance.
Both deals appeared from behind closed doors, wrapped in special benefits and nondisclosures and included a sense of being rushed through before any serious public scrutiny or review. Why was no real provision for relocation aid to Soap Factory residents made before the Missions project went to council? Why was it so clearly structured to avoid a public vote? And why was the site fixed and determined with no real public discussion or input?
There are even more and larger questions about Marvel’s grand scheme. We still don’t have realistic cost figures, a fully articulated rationale or a plan for managing a little thing like parking. And there was an unusual press by city staff to have the lame duck mayor and council approve a change in the purpose of the “project financing zone” plan with no real discussion — and in the midst of a crucial city election.
So, here we are now, with a runoff between two local political outsiders.
Neither Gina Ortiz Jones or Rolando Pablos has served in a city elective office. And while the mayoral election is formally nonpartisan, each comes from a distinctly partisan political background. Jones twice ran for a South Texas congressional seat as a Democrat, and she served as Under Secretary of the Air Force under the Biden administration. Pablos’ political ties are clearly Republican, having been appointed Texas Secretary of State by Gov. Greg Abbott.
The support each received in the May election is also decidedly different. Jones finished first with 27.2%, while Pablos was a distant second at 16.6%. Jones ran strongly in a broad range of precincts throughout the city. Meanwhile, Pablos’ success was based on a particularly strong showing in a small number of precincts on the far North Side, mostly along Loop 1604 and including Encino Park, Far North Central, Stone Oak and the Dominion. He also did particularly well in precincts 3130 and 3076 near Shavano Park. That strong vote in upper-income North Side precincts was enough to put him ahead of third-place finisher Beto Altamirano’s 12%.
To succeed in the June runoff, Pablos and Jones will have to mobilize their existing base of support and build a far larger majority coalition in a race that historically draws an even smaller turnout and less visibility than the general election. Both also must move beyond traditional left and right political dimensions to deal with the pressing local realities of San Antonio.
No immediate city issue is as large in both fiscal terms and long-term implications as Project Marvel. After all, it bears a price tag approaching $4 billion — a number that’s still uncertain — and there’s a distinct likelihood it will effectively limit major capital investment for the next 30 years.
Yet it’s not clear that either candidate fully understands Project Marvel’s risks and the real cost of a failure to deliver. For example, Pablos has called the downtown development scheme a “jobs-creation program.” There’s no evidence to date that it can or will create any new jobs.
This is, after all, the city that built a dome for an NFL team which has never come, and then built an arena for the Spurs with promises and expectations that it would reshape the East Side. It’s the place that has invested in one convention center expansion after another based on consultant studies that said it would boost our convention business and create new jobs. And then the city financed and built the Grand Hyatt with the premise that it too would bring convention salvation and more jobs. It would be nice if city staff could actually document all the “job creation” they actually provided.
We don’t have a spare $4 billion to spend on hope and promises, much as we might support the Spurs or appreciate our hospitality industry. That’s something both mayoral candidates might be wise to keep in mind as they seek to broaden their coalition.
Heywood Sanders is a professor emeritus of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
Subscribe to SA Current newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed
Related Stories
Bad Takes: Gina Ortiz Jones is a better choice for San Antonio, but she can’t go it alone
Progressives hold strong majority on San Antonio City Council after runoff
Cityscrapes: San Antonio’s new elected leadership should call Project Marvel timeout until details become clear
This article appears in May 29 – Jun 11, 2025.