Could A Paid Mayor Improve Lubbock’s City Image

Lubbock does not pay its mayor. Maybe it's time to change that.

I began this article thinking, "Lubbock needs a cheerleader." I then started thinking, "Shouldn't the mayor be the cheerleader?" I guess they are, but they probably have limited time and little incentive to do so?

Read More: Challenges Ahead For 4th On Broadway Event In Lubbock

I just published another piece about Lubbock performing poorly in a national survey of "Best Towns." Our place as #44 in Texas is stuck in my craw because I know we're better than that. I would say managing our image and branding should be a top priority.

We have a "strong city manager" type of government here. For the most part, the city manager takes care of everything with some direction from the elected officials (I hope that's fairly accurate). It makes sense that the mayor isn't weighed down with day-to-day matters.

Should Lubbock Pay Its Mayor? A Case for a Full-Time Civic Leader

I would still think there would be untold benefits to having a mayor who could devote all of their energy to promoting the city. I can see how it would be easy to fill eight hours a day, fifty weeks a year, meeting locals, reaching out to prospective businesses, and so on.

The problem with being the mayor of Lubbock is, you have to be rich or retired to hold the position. This disqualifies a lot of incredibly dynamic people from seeking the position. If the position came with a salary, we could expand the talent pool and also avoid the somewhat shady ways politicians use influence to get paid in other ways.

Lubbock's budget for 2023-2024 was $968 million. Investing $100K for a mayor would be "chump change" compared to the potential return.