After the elections, there's this:

Open letters for all! Mayor Leppert: So I see, much like the Trinity vote, things have gone your way for the hotel, too. I'm sure you also realize that if this wasn't a lowly May election, things might've gone differently this time. People really didn't like this hotel thing. There's still a lot still don't. And at this point, I think acknowledging this might be good for you, even if you feel like walking up to Ann Raymond and spiking the ball. But mostly, I think you better make this work. I think it better be the best freakin' hotel in the history of hotels ever. Because anything less than what it was sold as will be considered by most to be a failure on your part. You will be the mayor that hitched an albatross to the city's neck. You'll be that guy. But also, if the hotel and the Trinity were meant to be your legacy pieces, you better get a handle on a few things quickly. There are a lot of people out there that voted for the hotel that were probably on the fence. If both the hotel and the Trinity fail - or even if just one does - do you think the voters will still be patient with you? Do you still think you'll get glowing reviews by the DMN editorial board? There are hurdles facing both projects that are flat out not in your hands. The levees on the Trinity and the whole mess with the Army Corps of Engineers reports - out of your hands. Trying to sell bonds in a market like this? Out of your hands. Cost overruns because of fluctuations in materials? Out of your hands. I'm intensely wary of city officials - well, officials period - that take on legacy projects. It can lead one to believe that perhaps that person is more interested in what the plaque on the project says, rather than what is good for the city. And you've taken on two. Dear Councilman Steve Salazar: I get more answers from people who are not my councilperson - like Angela Hunt, for instance - than I ever have from you. You are, by far, the least engaged councilperson on the horseshoe, and when my car needs realignment, I thank you. Or something. But you could've at least made a token effort to campaign. A few more signs. Maybe some door-to-door work. But you didn't. You knew you'd win because your opponent was young, and did not possess a war chest. So once again, you've missed a chance to talk to your constituents, see what's bugging them, give even a modicum of indication that you are interested. So even though you won, you fail. Dear Fernando Rubio: I know you're smart. I know you care about your community. But for gosh sakes, if you're gonna file, run. Just the investment of some shoe leather and some steno pads, and you could've possibly taken this thing from Salazar. All you needed to do was go to door to door and ask three things: "What do you love about your neighborhood? What do you hate? How can your council person help the most?" Indicating that you're interested and listening would've done wonders. But instead, nobody but a scant few knew who you were. And that ain't gonna win over the incumbent. Dear R.I.P. Dallas: Quit being such a tool. You won. Fine. But you pretty much wussed out anytime someone tried to engage you on the facts. You also are a music stealer. If you really care about this city, you and your co-horts now need to acknowledge the other things that can kill Dallas. Things like crappy streets, no entertainment offerings in downtown, crime, homelessness, etc. And then you're pretty much gonna need to help do something about it. Otherwise, you're just opportunists.

Some Help for RIP Dallas

The economy is tough, I know, and getting together a "grass roots" effort to make sure the powers that be build a hotel is tiring. There just is no "fun" in fundraising. And paying for music? An expense you just don't need. But you keep getting called out on it, which is probably embarrassing for an organization that has, up until now, done so well at avoiding such things. So I am here to help. I'm a giver. This is a list of songs that are part of the public domain. This means you - yes you - can use them for the low, low price of free. Now, it's just words and sheet music, no recordings, but I know with all the 200 or so people you have at the ready (with what, 400 more on call?), you can probably muster up a fine group of people to hum these tunes. Maybe there's even someone there with a guitar, or a glockenspiel or a triangle? Maybe a squeezebox or a couple of spoons? Don't say I never did anything to help the pro-hotel groups.

Just To Be Completely, Totally Clear

Although the Vote No guys keep telling us all voting no on Props 1 and 2 means you're for the hotel, let's be completely, totally clear: You can vote no on Prop 2 and still vote yes on Prop 1. Aside from the sentiment behind them, the two are different propositions altogether. Really - knock it off, Vote No. It's plain old misrepresentation to tell people a no vote on both means you're for a hotel. You do realize that, by doing this, it could conceivably backfire as well. People could extrapolate that voting yes for both means you don't want the hotel. So what if there are more people than you think that really, really hate the hotel? This could mean that while the hotel is defeated, the city is also saddled with Prop. 2 - a pretty asinine waste of ballot space, as I've explained before. So do the right thing, guys. Voting no on Prop 1 means you want the hotel. Voting no on Prop 2 means you want the city to run efficiently, without having to hold referendums for small expenditures. See? That wasn't so hard to explain.

Is It Just Me, or Is This Misleading?

So I took a real good gander at the Vote No! Web site today - and noticed immediately Angela Hunt's photo on it. Now, let's begin this by saying the Vote No! site is for both Prop 1 and Prop 2, and urges a no vote for both. But that being said, it doesn't do much on the front page to distinguish between the two. So just on first glance, it looks like Angela Hunt is urging people to vote no on both. And we know that's not true. While yes, she does urge people to vote no on the harebrained Prop 2, she's decidedly on the Vote Yes! side of Prop 1. But she's also popular. She's known as being one of the smartest city council members and - to me - it looks as if they're trying to capitalize on that popularity by hinting she's for everything the Vote No! camp stands for. Couldn't they have used a picture of someone else? Update: Angela Hunt responded in the comments, and reports the photo has been removed. And another update: Wilonsky has more at Unfair Park.

The Hotel Vote's Little Sister, Prop. 2

While the hotel vote - Prop. 1 - has been getting most of the press, Prop. 2 is equally important in many ways. Now, I don't mean for this to be a long post, but I did want to point a few of those ways out, and also why I think it was able to get enough signatures to be added to the ballot. Whether unions were behind its genesis or not, a lot of people signed this because the signature gatherers - I know, because I was approached by five, at least - presented it as an extension of the hotel issue. People all het up about the fact that the city decided to spend millions on a hotel that may or may not bring money to the city and may or may not lose money for the city were more than happy to sign something that would mean the city couldn't spend their tax money on such gestures again without taxpayer approval. At least, that's how it was presented to me. Every time. But Prop. 2 isn't just about the hotel. This hotel. The one everyone's got an opinion on. It's about slowing city business down to a halt every time they want to offer incentives to a developer to help revitalize downtown. Some incentives are good for bringing life to forgotten areas of Dallas. For instance - and this is just off the top of my head - wasn't the Urban Market born in part with city incentives and subsidies? Maybe this would have more relevance if it was a higher number, I don't know. But $1 million? That's the equivalent of not being able to write a check for more than $1o without your spouse's approval. In other words, and to be completely blunt, a colossal pain in the pants. To me, making sure my tax money is spent wisely is the job of the city councilperson. Don't like how your city councilperson voted on things? Vote a new one in, and encourage others to do so as well. Don't like how your mayor runs things? Vote in a new one, and encourage others to do so as well. That, my friends, is the provision already in place to combat the reasons behind Prop. 1 and Prop. 2. And sometimes, it works rather well. Much better than having the city ask my permission to write a check for more than $1 millon. One more thing, thought of on my way to work: If I were (and I'm not saying which side I fall on) in favor the hotel, and if I were (and I'm definitely not, don't have the hands for it) the mayor who brought it up and is championing it, the fact that there is enough hate for this hotel to essentially generate two referendums would give me pause. One, sure. Two? Maybe people really don't like this.

Just Plain Wrong Headed

Give all the explanations you want, either side, for why the convention center hotel should or should not be built. But there's one that's been floating around that opens up a slippery slope - and one that could very well defeat the exact reason the Vote Noers say we need to build the hotel - to drive business and development to downtown. Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price is the most recent proponent to use this bite-you-in-the-butt reasoning, per DO scribe Sam Merten's paraphrasing:

Price, who Haynes referred to as "our warrior," said the person who has the most to benefit from killing the hotel doesn't even have a vote because he's not a citizen of Dallas (italics mine).

OK. So are we saying now that people and businesses owners who are not Dallas citizens (and therefore cannot vote) do not have any say in what happens in the city they do business in? Are we going to take their tax money for our coffers, but deny them any say? I think that this is what the original, Colonial-era tea partiers had in mind when they threw their protest. So are we now going to travel down this slippery slope where we tell businesses the only time we really want to hear from them is when they write that check to pay taxes? Nobody denies that Harlan Crow has a dog in this hunt. But you know, there are plenty of people on either side with ulterior motives. It's what drives politics, and you'd have to do a complete blood draining followed by a transfusion of pure O neg to get that to change. So let's just drop this particular argument, and go to the meat and potatoes. I mean, is it really all that necessary if the Vote No group's quiver is as full of fully delineated arrows as it claims?

Oy ..

Back to you, Jim.

Uh...

So today I read a story about a contretemps at the Dallas City Council meeting. It was - surprise - about the Trinity River levees and was - surprise again - involving Angela Hunt and Mitchell Rasansky, who accused Mayor Tom Leppert and City Manager Mary Suhm of flat out not telling the council about the issues with the levees. But the weird part - or rather, the part that gave me pause? Dwaine Caraway's reaction. I can understand defending people you respect. But I dunno - a simple, "I knew about it, maybe you weren't paying attention," might have been a little more on point than what the story says happened. The pause button quote:

I know a bunch of stuff that ought to be out here in the public and that would be most embarrassing and everything else," Caraway said, quickly adding that he wouldn't do so. "If we ... keep on beating them up, then I'm going to start doing some beatin' 'em up. And if I get to beatin' 'em up, it's really going to be something."

So he says he wouldn't use it, but then it sounds like he's reminding Hunt and Rasansky he has dirt on them, and would use it if he needed to. Which sounds like he would use it. Which confuses me. I mean, if it's something that would make them poor public servants, if it's something the voters should know, isn't he duty-bound to say whatever it is? Don't get me wrong, Dwaine Caraway has done a lot of good for his constituents, and you'd be hard-pressed to find another council person so involved in his area of the city. But now it feels like he knows something bad, nefarious, evil, and any/or any other word that connotates that, about these two people. And now it almost sounds like he's willing to keep it hidden - for a price. And that, sadly, is politics as usual. Say it ain't so, Dwaine.

Re: What Say You, Dallas?

Like I said, not a bad idea.

What Say You, Dallas?

In a time of budget shortfalls in Dallas, all that irritation about Dallas becoming a nanny state with its raft of smoking bans may dissipate like so much Marlboro smoke, experts say. According to an Associated Press article today, many municipalities that just last year were discussing smoking bans or beefing up existing smoking bans have tabled the discussion because of the possible drop in tax revenue that would come from masses of people receiving just one more reason - besides saving money - to stay home and cook and drink as opposed to hitting a restaurant or bar for a night out. In other words, there are some cities out there that have decided that a wholesale ban of smoking could be knee-jerk and ill advised. Sure, the ban makes some constituents happy, but you know what makes more constituents more unhappy? Not having city services they've become accustomed to, or seeing those services reduced because of budget concerns. Long Beach, Calif., is mulling over the possibility of easing restrictions it already has in place. Kansas is finding passing a smoking ban to be a contentious issue. And, as the AP article explains, Atlantic City, N.J., Colorado and Wyoming are also having longer discussions about possible bans. I still say that cities are missing a huge revenue opportunity. Instead of banning smoking altogether, why not create a smoking establishment permit. It could be a set, uniform fee - or a fee based on a percentage of yearly or quarterly receipts. The permitted restaurant or bar can put their certificate near the entry, which alerts nonsmokers who feel strongly about it that it's an establishment that allows smoking, and they can choose to go elsewhere. The permit could possibly even be contingent having extra ventilation. It seems like it would be a way to make nearly everyone happy, and even help generate some additional revenue for the city. It also allows the businesses to make the decision themselves to allow smoking, and allows patrons to make up their minds themselves about where they'd like to eat or drink. Anyone else have any suggestions?

Who In Their Right Mind Would Choose to be Homeless?

Long ago, when I was much, much younger, I was essentially homeless for a few months. My entire family, in fact, was. If not for good friends and family who took a newly-divorced woman and her four young children in, we probably would've been, at least for a few weeks, living in a shelter - or in our run-down, caught-on-fire-twice station wagon named "Puff the Tragic Wagon." How'd it happen? It was remarkably simple for a family of five to become homeless. My father announced suddenly that he wanted a divorce. He left, and the court awarded my mother $450 a month in child support, which even in the mid-80s was a meager sum for one person, let alone five. Until my mother could find a way to make up the difference after being out of the workforce for nearly 10 years, and possessing only a high school diploma, $450 was not going to get us a home. So it's pretty much that easy to become homeless. I say this because the subject has come up after the City of Dallas announced it would be ticketing those that gave money to panhandlers. The subsequent discussions in various media comment boxes has ranged from the bleeding heart to the cold hearted. I'm torn. My experience does make me feel compassion for some - especially when children are involved. I have no hard numbers to back this up, but having covered this issue before, I believe that those people with children are likely not the ones panhandling that the city wants gone from downtown. Those people - the ones like my mother - are most likely at a shelter, and are trying to do whatever they can to attain stability and a home for their families. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty estimates that on any given night, 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless. According to a December 2000 report to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the numbers break down like this: 44% single men 13% single women 36% families with children 7% unaccompanied minors And according to a 1996 survey, 44 percent of those homeless surveyed had done paid work in the past month - telling me that the wages paid at the bottom tier are not - obviously - paying enough to live on. True, some of these people are probably working as day laborers, but this means that nearly half of the homeless polled in this survey worked - not panhandled. The same survey says that 66 percent have problems with alcohol, drug abuse or mental illness. If the able-bodied homeless person has trouble navigating the snarled boondoggle of aid available, how much harder must it be for someone who is impaired in some way? "Homelessness can thus be seen as a perverse game of musical chairs, in which the loss of "chairs" (low cost housing) forces some people to be left standing (homeless)," the National Coalition for the Homeless said in a report. "Those who are least able to secure a chair -- the most disabled and therefore the most vulnerable -- are more likely to be left without a place to sit." But really, who in their right mind would be homeless? According to the aforementioned survey, almost a quarter said they had been physically assaulted, and another seven percent said they had been sexually assaulted. Not to mention the environmental challenges involved. As it turns out statistically, not many actually want to be homeless. In fact, 30 percent of those surveyed had been homeless for more than two years. That - and bear with me, I'm not a math major - means that 70 percent were newly-homeless. One could expostulate that means that not many want to be homeless as a career path or lifestyle choice, and choose to get out of the situation as soon as possible. So who are these panhandlers? From experience, they seem to be able-bodied, and for whatever reason unwilling, perhaps, to work. I do remember from my days working downtown that you'd frequently have such people hanging about Union Station, asking for change to buy a train ticket. I found a simple litmus test for that - offering to purchase the ticket for them. More often than not, they'd decline that offer - sometimes respectfully, sometimes profanely. The one or two that took me up on the offer did so gratefully, and then waited for a train without continuing to ask people for money. I often marvel at those that stand on medians and such asking motorists for money. They do so in all kinds of weather, and I can't help but think that a shift at Wal-Mart, indoors, would be more pleasurable and probably has a better benefit plan. I'm not sure what it says for our economy that some people find begging for money to be more profitable than a normal, conventional workday. I'm equally unsure what it means for society that people would rather beg for money than stock shelves or wrap tacos. But I'm also not sure that a brute squad is the answer. There are a lot of reasons for why people panhandle, and why people are homeless. Until those underlying issues - transportation, affordable housing, job training, job opportunies - are addressed efficiently, meaningfully and seriously, throwing people in jail for panhandling will be like trying to catch the tide in a bucket. It's simply a choice of long, exhausting and futile, or long, exhausting, and fulfilling. I know which one I'd choose.

Dear City of Dallas:

If money's looking kinda tight, I know someplace where you can find a bunch. About $525 million, actually. Love, Me

Um....

OK, we all had a good laugh when the city's paper of record endorsed Mike Huckabee. Clearly, someone was pulling our collective leg, right? And then the inevitable McCain endorsement came. OK, sure. McCain. And although Jim Schutze would also throw the wholesale love of the Trinity project in that list, too, I'm sure, I would say that may be the only semi-legitimate endorsement the DMN has done in the past two years. I mean, at least there were some people other than city officials that were for it. It was a pretty even pitting of fors and aginners. But now, now you've got this convention center hotel thing. For those of you not from around here, the Dallas City Council, in its infinite wisdom, decided to fund a convention center hotel in the downtown area. I mean, sure, it undoubtedly is a sound investment, given that so many hotel chains are clamoring to build in the dow...oh wait. You mean, nobody in the hotel business thinks building a hotel in this economy would be a worthwhile investment? Crazy. We're gonna do it anyway, though, Mayor Tom "Big Hands" Leppert says. Even though there were enough signatures on an effort to defeat the idea that we pretty much have to put it to a vote now. We're going to forge ahead. Now, when for once the editorial board could maybe, I don't know, represent the thoughts and ideas of people that do not office within a two mile radius of them, and perhaps the thoughts and ideas of people who do not own property that will go up in value after a hotel is built, they turn around and do this. This. With the headline of, "Yes, build a city-owned convention hotel." Let me have just one more second of incredulity, and check that headline again. No, it still says, "Yes, build a city-owned convention hotel." And, upon a triple check, I also note that there is no mention of the fact that the parent company of the Dallas Morning News stands to fare very well if the hotel is built, since it owns a goodly chunk of the property near the proposed building site. So today, dear readers, I have a question: Do you actually read the editorial section of the Dallas Morning News, and if so, why?

Probably Not the Best Way to Say It ...

Dear NorthPark Center: I like you, I do. With your plethora of stores containing things I love, and that nice, clean movie theater, you are by far my favorite mall in Dallas. But you've gotta start sounding a little more concerned about the people who shop there. I mean, a lady got shot in the face. Your response was to make the mall safe from reporters. Yes, the last two times I've been there I've counted no less than 13 uniformed-type people there, but for those people who haven't been there in a while, all they have to go on is what is in the paper and on TV - and it ain't lookin' so good. Take today, for instance. There's a story about how the folks at Neiman Marcus are upset because the emergency call boxes in the parking lot adjacent to it do not work. Instead of saying, "As part of the audit we are conducting, we are determining the best use of those call boxes, and whether or not they possibly need to be upgraded," your guy or gal apparently tossed out this:

Mall officials said the call boxes near Neiman Marcus have not worked for years and they thought store officials knew that.

Haven't worked for years? Really? Best thing to say, you think? "Dear Customer, we care about you so much we haven't bothered to fix the emergency call boxes. If you press the buttons expecting help, you'll die before you get any. The stupidheads at Neimans should've known that. Hugs and kisses, NorthPark Center." Seriously? You guys do understand that the past year has been kind of this black eye image-wise, right? You understand that you're on track to surpass your previous crime report totals for the year, right? I think - and probably a lot more people do, too - that deserves a little more than a shoulder shrug and a "we thought you knew." Because once someone gets shot in the face waiting to pick her kid up from a movie, it's just not good enough anymore.

Dear City of Dallas:

Do you think perhaps you could maybe make it a city ordinance that if you own a nudie bar, you automatically lose your license if you're caught with help under the age of oh, I don't know, 18? Because a 12-year-old stripper just isn't sitting well with me, and the fact that Diamonds Cabaret is getting to keep its license because the city of Dallas didn't have the forethought to put an ordinance on the books that yanks a license and shuts down a club the moment they're essentially showing live kiddie porn is patently ridiculous. I mean, you've already zoned where they can be, what they can show, and how close they can can get and what parts can and cannot touch. But you didn't think to make a proviso that the dancers had to be of age or the joint would get shut down automatically? Really?