UPDATED: Cedars district resident isn’t fond of the noise at Lee Harvey’s

Veracity, says:

Law dictates that Mr. Jones has every right to expect quietude in his residence. That the news team cites him as the only complainant is of no import. One does not require community support to demand peace and quiet at home. This is not an issue decided by the majority.

No one has the authority to impose excessive noise upon Mr. Jones's home, especially not a bar that hosts live music in an outdoor setting. I fail to comprehend why anyone thinks such a practice is acceptable. If the music were confined to an indoor facility, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Only bar patrons should be exposed to a bar's music. No one else should have to suffer through it.

Clay213, says:

Have you SEEN the cedars?

The last thing any person who lives(in a residence) there should be doing is anything that might close one of the ONLY businesses in the area..

Clarification, says:

I agree with Jones. No business has the right to disturb residential peace. It doesn't matter that Jones knew the bar was present before he moved in. He's there now and has all the rights that anyone has in any other neighborhood. Dallas law applies here. There's no such thing as Cedars law. And I find it unlikely that the bar wouldn't be able to survive without outdoor music. It's only a matter of time before they're ordered to stop doing that. As the neighborhood grows, newcomers won't tolerate bands in their bedrooms.

Clay213, says:

If Lee Harvey's wasn't there, I doubt anyone would move next door to it. Because whatever would be there in it's place would probably be.. an empty lot? A garbage dump? A whore house?

I looked at places in the cedars.. and well.. people who live there have bigger problems to worry about the Lee Harvey's!

DC, says:

1) TG: remember Valerie Plame 2) What a story! WFAA could run a story a day for the next three years on Greenville and in DPL if this is what passes for journalism around here. 3) Let's keep the press down on Lee's ok? Otherwise, it's going to start ending up like Saturday night at the Belmont.

winkytoon, says:

Chris Jones doesn't even have any furniture at his residence down the block from Lee Harvey's. Neighbors are unsure if he actually lives there. One theory is that he probably works for a real estate developer foolishly trying to run property values into the ground by closing businesses in the Cedars. That way, they can plow EVERYTHING down and build a prefab neighborhood including new shiny things called "lofts" that aren't really lofts but are really just more crappy condos. Just wait for what they'll do the Cedars. In fact, look around. It's already happening. And yes, you're right. Without Lee Harvey's, what else is there? Opportunity to put in another Texas Land and Cattle, Starbucks, corporate hell...Have you seen Project Pegasus?? http://www.projectpegasus.org/overvie...

kkibbel, says:

This is amazing to me that someone would move into a location where he knew a bar was and not have checked it out before hand. He does realize he lives in an area where there is commercial and residential? If he wants perfect quiet go to the burbs! I hope this guy realizes how unreasonable he is.

BethAnderson, says:

Back when I was a reporter in Fayetteville, Ark., we had much the same issue with one couple who built a loft apartment above a warehouse building that owned - across from a bar that had been open for about 50 years.

If I recall, part of the problem is this: While yes, the law may say the club has to do certain things (i.e., stay under a certain decibel reading, only serve those 21 and older, as well as any applicable city codes), if they are doing those things, there's really not much the residents around the club can do.

Sure, they can sue the club, I suppose, but in civil court, they'd have to prove that a reasonable person would have expectation of quiet in his abode. Well, would a reasonable person, knowing that living next to a club that has live music would mean noise, still move in and expect quiet at all times?

No, I don't think so.

lakewooder, says:

Having grown up in Dallas, I have heard fireworks from Fair Park all my life. Does that bug me? No, it makes me smile and warms the cockles of my heart.

A couple of years ago I could hear strains of Eric Clapton from the Crossroads Guitar Fest. I went up to my attic and I could even pick out a few lyrics from "Cocaine".

This Jones guy needs to move to the "Keeping Up With The Joneses" land up on the tundra below Oklahoma.

luniz, says:

Any way to find out who employs "Chris Jones"?

PAMPAS, says:

Carpetbaggers that come into a locale for entertainment purposes have little or nothing to say in the life of a neighborhood. Simply because a bar is unique, has been there for years or is convenient for its clients is pretty meager evidence that a bar should continue to operate.

One of the real reasons that bar patrons like certain bars is because they are more lenient and lax in their enforcement of legal stricutres and standards and cultivate the devil-may-care attitude.

That can probably be said about Lee Harvey's. Many of the approaches it took in currying favor with its patrons were patently illegal. When it was out of sight of authorities, and out of earshot of those who would eventually move into the neighborhood, that might have been a perfectly fine arrangement.

It no longer is. There are laws against disorderly conduct. The bar is now a purveyor or public lewdness and inappropriate behavior. The sounds emanating from the bar should be accomodating to the residents in the neighborhood, not the clients. The conduct of the patrons, while it might have been acceptable when the neighboorhood had elements of the wild west, is no longer so. Public urination and drunkeness are anathema to community enhancement.

If you like Lee Harvey's, you would be better served in seeing to it that the bar accepts its new role in the community. It should be a business which is commensurate with the ideals and standards of community building. It should not be a rogue element.

If you do not take to heart the infractions that Lee Harvey's has engaged in, you may very well see the last of Lee Harvey's. You should realize that loud bar noises which disrupt home life,as well as patrons engaging in public urination and disorderly conduct are not permissible in any location.

You should also keep in mind that anyone has a right to protest. If they are within the limits of the law, they should expect something to be done about their complaints. The failure of the bar to observe standards has a militating effect on all neighborhoods. If police or the city or unwilling to enforce laws designed to protect the community, eventually everyone will suffer.

You may not like what the resident is doing to protect his rights, primarily because it causes you inconvenience,but if any of you had any sense, you would fervidly protect his right to make changes if they are within the parameters of the law.

If you do not support his rights, you need to refrain from using the offices of the city to protect yourselves, and perhaps even swear off 911.

Clay213, says:

What is it with these people that makes them act like 'public urination' is right up there with murder and rape in it's horror?

Billusa99, says:

Needless Markup should donate 12 tubes of Bobby Brown lipstick for the pig. That way, it will look just like Obzeet, minus the palm trees and papier mache lanterns.

Then, Avi can go back to filming wizzers on Belmont and Jones can get another monkey on his back. Like, maybe, a dancin' basketball Jones name of Cuban. Mondays at 7.

What a complete waste of time.

(and if you are confused by this, then travel more)

PAMPAS, says:

It would be funny if not for its tragic implications: you fools go to a bar that is no more than an open latrine, and you call that a night of enjoyment. You clueless @!#$-faced drunks, reeking of flop sweat, believe that somehow a beer at Lee Harvey's makes you adventurous.

You pathetic shadows of human beings. You tout a bar as having had a salutary effect on a neighborhood. Most of you don't even live there. You venture there in a drunken stupor. How could you, with straight face, make that kind of declaration. You do so because you are too stupid to admit you know nothing about the dynamics of the neighborhood. You impose on it your simplistic views simply because they are self serving.

The tribe of admirers of the bar are of the lowest common denominator. You go to a bar that suggests a pig stye, you stand out in the open bobbing foolishly like a bunch of soused, pickled pigs to music you are probably too ripped to appreciate (if it were appreciable music, that is) and you, when the urges move you, make public displays of lewd behavior.

Of yea, you are just what the neighborhood needs. And the neighborhood is so indebted to a bar that attracts that kind of low life.

If you want to slum it, stay in your own neighborhoods.

PAMPAS, says:

Mike, who cares whether it furthers the argument. Sides have been chosen. Rational argument on the part of the aggrieved will do nothing to alter viewpoints.

You would think that reasonable people would treat others with reasonableness. If that is not the case, then all the approbation in the world will not alter those who take pleasure from the misery of others.

No one is trying to close down the bar if it will behave as a community member which recognizes that it has no more rights than the residents, or in this case, the resident who suffers from the full force of the music emanating from its outdoor setting.

It would be one thing if this was an isolated event, but it happens like clockwork every Friday and Saturday night. Rather than ask Mr. Jones to bear it, why not do your part in making the bar an asset to the neighboorhood rather than a liability.

If it bothers even one resident, that is enough to take a look at the bar's status.

PAMPAS, says:

What other reason would you have to walk down Gould Street at night than to go to the bar, unless you are a resident That's a rousing endorsement! Sadly for you, it does not put you at parity with a resident.

The fact is, Lee Harvey's does not get a pass simply because it "assisted" in "cleaning up" the neighborhood. What it could now contribute to the neighborhood since a higher class of resident is moving in (as opposed to a dilapidated vomitorim)is to curb its excesses and police its own patrons. Of course, it will not do that since that could also curb patronage.

And the analogy of Love Field, now that is gilding the lily. Love Field serves a function that only it can serve. It is publicly owned and the public has a right to preserve the location of the airport. People who move into the Love Field area, however, expect noises that accompany an airport and are willing to accept the inconvenience for a tradeoff of some sort, whether it be underpriced housing or nearness to downtown.

Why should one move into a residence in a neighborhood where a bar is located and expect to make the same forbearance. Now that really makes sense. When the bar is operating as an outdoor music venue, rather than an indoor venue which contains sound, anyone around that bar who is inconvenienced in any way is entitled to protest the bar's actions.

Bars are not in the vanguard of businesses in respectable neighborhoods, especially a bar as downtrodden as Lee Harvey's; they are a remnant of what is wrong with neighborhoods and the legacy which they continue to suffer. This neighborhood is taking on a different complexion; it is becoming residential.

You are the ones who are fighting a losing battle, and you know it. Best suggestion is to go find another cesspool.

PAMPAS, says:

rkisok, you do not have a command of the facts.

An attempt was made to work with the bar, but the bar decided to become obdurate because of the "special place it holds in the neighborhood."

It has done absolutely nothing measurable to diminish the noise. Seth knows that (he has made only token alterations). You might want to ask him why he keeps the bar one step away from razing. Is it that he doesn't want to expend the money to make the bar a better neighbor and a better watering hold for the patrons?

Bemused, says:

While forums serve as entertaining billboards for the otherwise impotent and insignificant, such rhetoric will inevitably prove dispensable. Patron support, petitions, special events, and infantile harassment will do nothing to preserve Lee Harvey’s tradition of unruliness. On the contrary, such measures may hasten the bar’s demise. Laws will not be dismissed simply because scores of untutored menials believe they possess a savage right to behave like barbarians. In the end, property rights and municipal standards will prevail, nullifying all peripheral nonsense. Lee Harvey’s is using a spoon to remove water from a sinking ship, and in concurrence with the down-and-out character of the bar, the spoon is composed of plastic.

I am horrified that individuals refer to such an unrefined establishment as “artistic.” The bar is undoubtedly a stronghold of philistines. True artists govern their conduct in a manner that elevates the intellect and would not demote themselves to such a ragtag setting. Lee Harvey’s is a trailer park with a liquor liscense, an undeserved privilege that is at risk of revocation.

DC, says:

Alternatively, we could suggest closing the thread until the three comma rule gets enforced.

It's a little strange to think of Lee's needing vomitoria.

lakewooder, says:

Several cloned Carrie Nations ride again! Or should that be Lizzie Bordens?

Whatever, prohibition was repealed some time ago.

Bemused, says:

Yes, "close the board" in the presence of divergent, irrefutable assertions. Dismiss logic in an effort to preserve your tenuous platform. Mirroring the integrity of Lee Harvey's, Pegasus News is clearly a first-rate publication operated by scholarly giants. What penetrating journalism you offer and how thoroughly informed your supporters are! I am beside myself with awe and aspire to soar to your apex of comprehension.

Bemused, says:

My comments are an “ode to redundancy”? How deplorably laughable. Is the vacuous claim that the "bar was there first" and thus reserves the right to uphold disruption and debauchery not repetitive in its absurdity? Have any of the drones among you proposed novel ideas in response to this matter? Your simplicity would be virtuous were it not emblematic of cognitive deficiency.

Omitting myself and a few other participants, the collective IQ of this forum is eighty-seven, a shortcoming I am pained to cite.

PAMPAS, says:

The character of those of you who patronize Lee Harvey's is marked by two distinct elements: one, you stake out extreme positions and two, you have no self respect.

As to the first, I mention the comment by one of the posters that public urination is not rape or murder. However, you should be aware public urination is an act so roundly detested that it occupies a space in the Texas Penal Code. It is always the refuge of the degenerate and hapless to point to another act, though unrelated to the circumstance, which ought to be considered worse. Now there is a compelling defense.

The fact is that public urination was never the gravamen of the complaint leveled by the resident of the Cedars. It was only when little or no attention was paid to the irritation of loud music by the owner of Lee Harvey's that it became obvious that something else had to be done in order to bring the bar into compliance with acceptable community standards.

Lee Harvey's could easily have spared itself the aggravation of all these other violations being pointed out if it had just done something to temper the sound. It is laughable that anyone would point to sound proofing above the stage as a laudable effort when the amplifiers, which project the music, are parallel with that roof. That certainly is [not] going to stop a lot of the gratuitious sound, you wankers.

Also, one's listening to music in a roach motel is not art. It amazes me that people could have so little self respect that they would deign to enter a makeshift, crumbling, converted residence that is falsely represented as a bar having outdoor plumbing, fire pits to keep the clientele warm in the winters rather than heaters, scarce indoor plumbing and health hazards abounding, and would pay for entrance. That is just charming.

You fools must know that this is merely a waiting game for the owner. He did not buy the bar to make a long-term go of it. He has invested heavily in real estate in the neighborhood. His intent is to sell the bar property to the highest bidder, along with his other property, when the price reaches his comfort level. (This should be obvious to you by his noticeable failure to invest in the structure and accomdations of the bar.) Then the "venerated" and "vaunted" Lee Harvey's will be nothing but an ugly memory, and you all will wonder what you saw in it. So go ahead, please yourselves with the loud music and obnoxious behavior, but realize this, you are merely feeding the profits of an organization that intends on terminating your love affair when it is convenient for it.

Nobody suggests that you supplant your excursions to Lee Harvey's with church attendance, although some of you act as if Lee Harvey's is the vessel of your worship. I would suggest you act more like humans who have some sense of decorum and empathy rather than knuckle draggers which have no sense of unity other than in a contrived tribal setting.

bfelps, says:

hey, did Avi move and buy a thesaurus?

PAMPAS, says:

No, bfelps,you are just parading your customary ignorance.

The problem with Lee Harvey's, i.e, it is a roach motel with no regard for the surrounding neighborhood, is manifest in its patrons: They act as if having a modicum of intelligence is pissy and should be abjured because it makes them feel like more than simpletons. I can hear the drawl -- we are just simple people who enjoy simple things.

Guess what? Nobody wants you to stop going to Lee Harvey's. Nobody cares if you piss your pants.

What is at issue is a relic of a ignominious past failing to respond to the stream of progress.

You can't possibly think that Lee Harvey's, in the condition it is in, is an asset to the neighborhood. It is a blight. You can't possibly thing that Lee Harvey's presence does anything to deter crime. Bars are notorious for drug dealing and luring the unsavory element, such as robbers, who feed off the misfortunes of drunks (and not counting some of the patrons who exercise no self control).

The solution is not for Lee Harvey's to become a temple of worship; it is for Lee Harvey's to follow the law.

Failing that, it should be closed down.

Bemused, says:

While I elect to keep my indentity enshrouded, I can assure all that I do not know PAMPAS or anyone else who has posted here. I do, however, laud PAMPAS's remarks. It's refreshing to encounter a euphony of judgment amid a cacophony of daftness.

I agree that the owner of Lee Harvey's is an investor who does not wish to upgrade a dilapidated den. I cannot say I blame him for that. Perhaps the bar is more of a liability than an asset. In the interim, though, he should conduct business in an upstanding mode, something he has failed to do.

rkisok, you have a repellently limited grasp of reality. The number of people who oppose or support the bar is meaningless. You write as though Lee Harvey's can do as it wishes because Cedars alcoholics (and the area is shot through with them) are fond of it. That's pure poppycock and bears no relation to the tenets of logic.

Moreover, it is disgraceful that a bar is elevated to the status of the Vatican. You obviously have a personal investment in Lee Harvey's or a warped commitment to the practices it promotes. You are, of course, at complete liberty to endorse any business you wish, and I respect your right to do so, just as I hope you acknowledge my right to depart from your position.

terryorze, says:

I looked at this thread a week ago, and wanted to say something. Then I realized this horse was a goner.

ameripro, says:

Isn't there something decidedly wrong/unhealthy (mentally) when someone posts under multiple usernames and comments on his own posts under the other usernames?

"Veracity", "Clarification" and "Bemused" are all clearly Chris Jones. I am unaware of Avi Adelman ever doing this kind of stuff so please don't accuse of Avi of mentoring this guy.

Unfortunately, Chis Jones obviously has almost no history with the Cedars. Prostitution, drugs, theft, etc., etc. were rampant in many parts of the Cedars for years and an area of focus was just a couple of blocks from his current home.

What Seth Smith has done with Lee Harvey's has brought people into the area who leave with a positive impression, which would not have happened just a couple of years ago. With Seth's having his employees encourage the undesirables to move along, Chris Jones' life is much better and his property is more valuable than it would be without Lee Harvey's and Seth Smith.

Unfortunately, Chris Jones has no history and no appreciation for what makes a neighborhood safe. Studies have shown that diverse commercial activity (neighborhood stores that open early, commercial enterprises that are open during the day and evening entertainment sites open late into the night) which create almost 24 hour activity create the safest neighborhoods.

If Chris Jones is so unhappy with his situation, perhaps he should approach Seth and see if Seth would buy him out with Chis making a small profit.

That seems to be a wonderful solution but I suspect that Chris has no interest in selling or moving. It appears that he has a deep psychological investment in bitching and attempting to control.

Unfortunately, I don't think the city (whether police or code) have the option of ignoring him - like the Pleasant Grove elderly lady who had called police over 160 times because of the "loud" Hispanic partying (LEGAL loud Hispanic partying).

Can Chris Jones just go away? If not, is there any solution other than surrendering control of Lee Harvey's to him?

Bemused, says:

An outdoor music venue is not a national monument, nor is it the equivalent of an airport or freeway. Boisterous music may have been permissible prior to the introduction of housing in its path. But the neighborhood has altered, and Lee Harvey's and its disciples refuse to accept that status, a self-imposed denial that will serve as an ongoing burden until this conflict is resolved. And yes, one person, even if his or her views are unpopular, is a sufficient vehicle for the implementation of change. If you reject that premise, you have no apprehension of law.

When Dallas issues permits for housing to be built in the Cedars, it does not inject clauses such as "One must tolerate and frequent Lee Harvey's throughout the course of occupancy." Residential rights do not diminish in proportion to one's proximity to Lee Harvey's. The bar is mutable, not eternal, and its standards must adapt to a setting in transition. Even if Mr. Jones moved to the Cedars with the singular intention of complaining about Lee Harvey’s, a very unlikely motive, he would be well within his rights to do so. And if the Cedars were really the realm of diversity and creativity that it is touted to be, should not the views of a dissenter be celebrated rather than scorned? Freedom of protest is selectively embraced among Mr. Smith’s confederates.

Lee Harvey's history in the Cedars does not convey immunity to the bar. In fact, any institution that strives to be beyond reproach is inherently corrupt, as stricture is our only means of sustaining ethics. This is not a “we were here first” contest. If you suggest that Mr. Jones flee his residence to silence his complaints, you must also posit that Lee Harvey's shut its doors to eliminate the nuisance it creates. Otherwise, you are operating under a principle of territorialism, an archaic view that is without application in the contemporary legal system.

Alas, we are tediously crawling in circles, an unproductive exercise. PAMPAS is correct; sides have been chosen, and little can be done to alter views. Such are the frail limitations of our species.

This blog, like every element related to this issue, is infused with wrath. Nothing noble can stem from such sentiments. And it's lamentable that bridges have been burned that cannot be reconstructed. Regardless of what insensate emotion may foster, I believe we are all above petty insults and misinformed accusations. I wish no one harm or misfortune. Hell, we’ve never even met.

Bemused formally withdraws from this forum, a decision that will delight most of you. I truly hope your beloved bar is successful in its reformation. If it isn’t, it embraces its own downfall.

DC, says:

Bemused rings the bell

Clay213, says:

I don't know if bemused/veracity/clarification/pampas are Chris Jones.

Because from what they say, I have serious doubts they have ever even been to the area they are talking about.

Seriously, complaining about public urination, staggering drunks etc.. and then saying the patrons of the bar are the problem? Hardly. Have bemused et al taken a look at the local natives?

Also: Chris Jones is more than likely a renter. I called about the place they showed him living in just a few days before the news report.. as the sign was still hanging from the gate about a loft for rent.

Clay213, says:

And as for their complaints about the noise-- Sorry but the LAW says they are in compliance. The noise levels have been tested and meet the requirements..

Here's my recommendation: Find a therapist. You need help.

PAMPAS, says:

You dimwits seem to think that publicity is welcomed, especially if it results in greater patronage. You seem to have subscribed to the notion that any publicity, whether negative or positive, is good. A starlet may make that pronouncement, but you need to consider the source when you adopt it as your own declaration.

Let me explain something that either you don't understand, or you're unwilling to understand.

The reason this bar is garnering publicity is because of the bad things being said about it, and deservedly so. Unfortunately for you dimwits,and I assume you are the dimwits that frequent the bar (if not, shut your holes), there is valid reason for the negative comments. The actions and omissions by the bar are subject to laws.

Now, the commonly repeated defense that the music was found to be within limits shows how little you dimwits are inclined to look into what is really happening. It is simply not true.

Citations have been issued for noise violations. Warnings have been issued by government agencies and bodies.

If you think that Lee Harvey's has reached heroic proportions, you may be quite astonished to see that when laws are enforced, Lee Harvey's will be a stepchild. It will be brought into compliance with the laws, or it may be closed down. The more you encourage the bar to flout the law, and you fancy yourselves with the notion that you are "gunslingers" unwilling to bow to progress and decency, the more you hammer that last nail into the bar's coffin.

The only thing that has made the bar the subject of concern, at least by the resident whom you wish to heap disdain upon, is excessive noise. Without that, the bar can die a slow death of its own making.

But if it refuses to submit to the law in curbing its noise level, it will be met with even more of a tidal wave of complaints that will leave it a shadow of itself, if even operational.

Encourage the bar to be a good neighbor. It is not the victim; it is the perpetrator. If you want a carnival atmosphere, join the circus where most of you freaks will be valued members.

Clay213, says:

Dallas code enforcement officers measured the noise in mid-July and determined Lee Harvey's was not violating city standards.

PAMPAS, says:

You idiot. Have you researched that yourself, or are you regurgitating what was told you.

It was recognized as an improper reading.

If you are going to participate, do so with a little knowledge.

You people base your arguments (that's being charitable) on untrue information and data.

TWeller, says:

Oh Pampas your life is about to get worse,guess what 'cause Dallas wouldn't build us a skatepark were about to build our own ,real close to you BUDDY!

OpusthePoet, says:

This reminds me of the idiots in Fairview, who built developments under the approach and departure paths of McKinney airport, and then complained about the airplane noise. I have seen nothing in the media about the noise measurements at Lee Harvey's being done incorrectly, except in The Clones' postings here. As for the other complaints about obnoxious behaviour, is there any proof the miscreants were in fact patrons of the bar?

Opus

Billusa99, says:

http://files.blog-city.com/files/O06/...

How verwy prewcient, Mikey!

Bemused, says:

The preceding comment is vile and negligent, revealing the insurmountable stupidity of its author. Even dunce-driven jest makes such a suggestion unseemly. Pegasus News will be noted for permitting the promulgation of illicit proposals should anything untoward unfold.

Bemused, says:

"Lee Harvey's is one of my favorite places not only in Dallas, but out of all of the cities I have visited or lived in. There is nothing like it elsewhere."

Precisely. No other place would tolerate it. Uniqueness does not warrant automatic praise. Hitler was unique, but he is not to be celebrated.

And do you really believe that use of the firepits was terminated exclusively in response to an arbitrary complaint? If that were the case, someone could just as easily complain about the bar's name and it would have to be changed. The city demanded that the pits be extinguished because they are illegal. If you find fault with the fire code, pressure the city to change it.

Here's a revelation: Business rights do not exceed residential rights. If a resident makes lots of noise and can be penalized for doing so, so can a bar. And defining an area as "mixed use" does not mean that businesses have unlimited reign and that residents must submit to their will. Rather, it means that businesses are expected to operate as self-contained entities that do not impose themselves upon neighbors. Lee Harvey's fails to meet that standard.

It's amazing that people are enraged by the expectation that Lee Harvey's comply with law. The thinking seems to run, "But Lee Harvey's has embraced these practices for five years, and no one has ever complained. Why is someone complaining now? Surely this person is unreasonable."

That conclusion has no basis in logic or law. If the complainant were unreasonable, the city would not seek to modify Lee Harvey’s mode of operation. In many ways, however, it has already succeeded.

ameripro, says:

"Bemused [veracity/clarification/pampas (Chris Jones)] formally withdraws from this forum"

What happened???

amandax9362, says:

Bemused [veracity/clarification/pampas (Chris Jones)] has never been to "Hole in the Wall" or to a Keller's. He also doesn't like to listen to what his mother told him. DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY IT'S COVER!!!! You keep saying a bar is not a "national monument" you are the only one that said it was. Why do you take issue for someone standing up for a local landmark? The above restaurants are also local landmarks and they do not look like the Taj Mahal. Can you please in ONE paragraph and without airs please list what your complaints are with Lee Harvey's? If you went to the bar manager/owner with the attitude you exhibit on here I would have ignored you too. Another great saying "you get more flies with honey, than with vinegar."

PAMPAS, says:

A fatwa on you fat wads.

When are you going to get it through your heads that no one is trying to close the bar. Revere it, revel in it, repair it -- do whatever you want.

Just aim the amplifiers in another direction or put the music in a contained, enclosed setting.

If you have a neighbor who plays music in his backyard, and his yard is contiguous with yours, you would most probably ask him to reduce the sound of the music if he were to play too loudly or, better yet, you could ask him to start playing inside.

What would you say about someone who does neither? It is obvious they have no respect for your rights. You have a right to be left unassailed in your house by loud music emanating from a backyard. In fact, it is against the law for a neighbor to do such.

If your neighbor would be given a ticket, why would you think a bar should be spared the same kind of treatment? What makes that bar have any more rights than your backyard neighbor?

It shouldn't. It is up to the bar to exercise its rights and suffer its obligations, and not infringe on anyone else's rights nor foist on anyone else obligations not their own, as if it were a good neighbor. Failing that, it should be brought into the same compliance demanded of any resident in a neighborhood.

If you think this bar doesn't owe that duty, it says volumes about who you are as well.

CourtneyPo, says:

Hate to keep this going but yeah, this person has never been to Lee's and I have to defend it. There is no outdoor plumbing (?), no one ever pays to enter as it's a bar, not some dumb club, and many many improvements have been made including adding the outdoor bar and more covered seating. I agree with the other comment that Lee Harvey's is a cool, fun place in a city that doesn't appreciate that. It is my favorite place in Dallas and it breaks my heart that they took away the fire pits. I loved going in the winter and buying a Smores kit and cooking my marshmallows over the fires. Yum! If you haven't tried the onion rings, do so ASAP. And who can forget Bacon, the best bar cat ever. Long live Lee Harvey's and its laid-back, non-obnoxious crowd. If you want to see people stumbling away drunk and peeing on things try going to McKinney Ave and I'm sure you will find all the frat boys doing it there!

Bemused, says:

CourtneyPo, no one is calling into question Lee Harvey's menu, and the relationship between onion rings and law baffles me. (An onion is an edible bulb used as a vegetable.) But a resident cat at an establishment formally defined as a restaurant is likely a violation of city code. Although dogs are permitted in some patio settings, cats and other pets are uniformly verboten. And I am certain that felines are not at liberty to parade through kitchens or lounge on barstools.

Thanks for the helpful information. Your emotional and irrelevant defense has done wonders to bolster the feeble position of your favorite bar. Please encourage your wealth of brilliant friends to post similar comments, if they can break away from their Mensa activities.

lauriek6, says:

All of this drama over one bar? What about the open air drug market on Ervay in very close proximity to the new condos. I live in the Cedars and have rented and now I own. I know there are prostitues, drug dealers, and open containers. Why don't those that want to help the Cedars think about the true crimes in the 'hood. Stop wasting the time of the police when they need to work on the crack heads on Hickory, Beaumont, and the nice little no tell motels on Hickry and Gould, but I guess the new neighbors can't fathom driving down Hickory and see how the real residents live. Drug deals, prostitues, etc. Please take your lily white problems and move back to the burbs. If you want to live in the city deal with it, and check out a 'hood in the day and NIGHT, before you close on a property. Get over it and move, we 'folks in the hood and LH' will help you pack. I even have a truck.

Bemused, says:

rkisok, I believe you have made use of the term "douchebag" 21,817 times in this blog. Your writing style is your own affair, but please seek variety. My eyes are beginning to burn.

You write of the beer cans and trash that befoul your yard as fixed elements of your neighborhood that cannot be avoided. I disagree. If you wish to tolerate such transgressions, feel free to do so, but they remain illegal, and it makes perfect sense that a property owner would want to stamp out such violations. Something is not acceptable merely because it seems to be the hallmark of a given area.

Rather than fault property owners for complaining about illegal behavior, why not reprove the people who engage in it? Arguing that the police force is too busy to address noise complaints and similar issues is ridiculous. The DPD's role is not limited to detaining drug dealers and murderers. And perhaps if officers spent less time at the 7 Eleven in Deep Ellum and more time observing Dallas's problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

It's just plain pathetic that the Cedars, which claims to be so bloody diverse and liberal, is so stridently opposed to philosophical opposition. The neighborhood is more oppresive than a right-wing compound. And Lee Harvey's does possess the attributes of a church: It tricks the throngs into believing they are supporting something worth preserving when in fact they are only fattening the purses of those who are indiffernt toward them.

lauriek6, says:

I go to LH on occassion. Believe me we deal with many issues. Again, you do not address the real plight on the 'hood. the no tell motels, the beer stores. Why on earth are you so down on LH? They have music two to three nights a week until twelve. What about the crack heads that are on the streets at all hours. You protest too much, what about the KIDS, yes kids that have to walk by the open air drug dealers, prostitues, and crack heads to get to City Park Elem. Or did you not know that there IS an elementary in the 'hood. You will probably move away once you have kids, so hurry up and procreate. We are tired of you in the 75215, that is you zip code right????

lauriek6, says:

One more thing, the next time you and the do gooders want to feed the homeless, please pick up the trash you leave on the street. Better yet invite the folks to your home for dinner. Get real and focus on the real plight of the 'hood and get off of you LH bashing agenda. By the way I don't hear any beef about the cantinas on Harwood or Corinth. Just a few months ago a person was murdered at the La Plata on Corinth. But I guess since it wasn't a white person, just another Spanish speaking resident of the Cedars it doesn't rate on the police attention and drama you have brought about for our 'hood.

amandax9362, says:

Duuuude, do you really think bagging on the cops will help you? I quote "And perhaps if officers spent less time at the 7 Eleven in Deep Ellum and more time observing Dallas's problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. " So now it is all DPD's fault that you are a panty-waist that can't handle music until midnight on the weekends? How old ARE you? BTW music from a neighbor and music from an establishment (that was there BEFORE you moved in) are 2 different things. Oh and are you freaking kidding me about your cat rant? You are going to have a heart attack or bleeding ulcers if you don't learn to CHILL.

lauriek6, says:

You really need to chill about how much time the cops are spending at 7eleven. If you didn't notice there is a central police dept.close by and many of those cops you see are not assigned to the Cedars. They are assigned to many places. SWAT is there and many different departments. What a clique/donut shop kind of mentality. And if you are such a true Cedars fan why are you spending so much time at 7eleven. Why not go the the Liquor Store on south Central and Hickory or the other store on the corner of corinth and South Central. But as I can figure out and the rest of us on the blog can figure out, the 7 eleven is safe because you recognize the establishment from the burbs. Try a little of the 'hood culture and support the LOCAL businesses. The business owner on Corinth and South Central took a broken down building and truned it into a working gas station for all of us in the hood. But as I suspect you might be a bit scared to shop that far south. Please do us all a favor and don't pretend to know the neighborhood I have lived in and WORKED in for the past 6 and 1/2 years. Move back up north.

Bemused, says:

lauriek6, you make some useful points, and the plagues you highlight should be addressed. In addition, I agree that feeding the homeless is a temporary solution to a permanent problem and only exacerbates an already out-of-hand situation. I do not support the mobile kitchens that offer subsistence to the downtrodden.

You make some rather rash assumptions regarding my absence of concern with other problems in the Cedars. Moreover, you label me a racist without the ability to substantiate that claim. Your assaults are lethargic shots in the dark that bespeak your undisciplined approach toward argumentation.

Are you purporting that Lee Harvey's is a paragon of virtue amid a backdrop of crime? That's preposterous. Lee Harvey's celebrates the criminal element of the Cedars in that the area's lack of standards allows the bar to operate without censure. In any developed neighborhood, Lee Harvey's would be seen for exactly what it is: a low-rate alchoholics' retreat that has no respect for residential rights.

amandax9362, says:

Your assaults are lethargic shots in the dark that bespeak your undisciplined approach toward argumentation. Thesaurus-man strikes again... News at 11

lauriek6, says:

Again, how many calls have you made about the other alcohol establishments in the Cedars, the ones on Harwood and Corinth? Have you seen the paintings on the outside of the bars on Harwood/Corinth? I didn't say you were a racist. It might be implied but the only establishment you target is the one where one might frequent if they were of a certain class/ race. You said it not me. What about the families on Hickory? What have you done for their well being lately. I believe a call to the police about drug deals on the streets/prostitution/homeless sleeping on the City Park playground might be a better use of your efforts rather than calling about LH.

Bemused, says:

First, lauriek6, my identity remains a puzzle to you, and you do not know that I have made any calls or that I even know someone who has. In fact, you can't be certain of the purpose of my partcipation in this blog. Second, you are in no position to take didactic stances regarding what might be "a better use" of someone's efforts. No one is issuing edicts that prescribe how you spend your time. Whether you choose to eat Poptarts, play in the snow, or skip down the street singing Justin Timberlake songs, a sad image, is of no importance to me. Again, this trend toward supression of all opposition is indicative of the double-standard that permeates the Cedars. You people wouldn't know an artist if one painted your faces.

Clay213, says:

ooooooo bemused you're so mysterious!

Take off the zoro mask and quit being a retard. No one cares what you have to say.

ameripro, says:

Does he really not understand that he is safer and his property more valuable with LH near him than not?

No prostitutes, no drug dealers, no homeless because the owner of LH will not tolerate that activity in that part of the Cedars and is willing to be a "man" about it and openly address the problems instead of hiding behind multiple pseudonyms.

Now, just WHO has improved the neighborhood?

Bemused, says:

"No prostitutes, no drug dealers, no homeless because the owner of LH will not tolerate that activity in that part of the Cedars and is willing to be a "man" about it and openly address the problems instead of hiding behind multiple pseudonyms."

Wrong, incorrect, erroneous, and fallacious! At least, however, you recognize the owner's status as a slumlord. And that's what's so desperately glum about the whole thing. A rundown structure gets a liquor license and suddenly it's a community-improvement organization, the owner exalted to pontifical proportions.

When the neighborhood grows (which is inevitable, although it will take time), do you really think anyone will buy into that nonsense? Investment is what makes the real estate world go round. This is 2007 and there's no such thing as tenure in a neighborhood. You suffer from a very parochial view of property ownership.

Do you not realize how perfectly your perspective serve's the owner's ecomonic aims? He's clearly a great deal brighter than his supporters. I applaud him for that.

Eventually, he'll get an offer he can't refuse for the place, and it will be converted to a respectable business. When bottom lines are examined, interwoven with analyses that weigh liability against long-term stability, it will be determined that sustaining a bar is not the best way to make use of the land. That's just the way business works.

Bemused, says:

Your statements, my dear Gilliland, despite their numerous merits, do not entertain an obvious fact: Dallas was a drastically different metropolis in 1981, the northern realm still ripe for development. The real estate scene has changed unimaginably, as have the demographics that propel it. It will be interesting to see what the Cedars becomes.

As for your research on the denotation of my username, my hat, were I sporting one, would go off to you, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity. I am always pleased to encounter an etymologist. You have, though, overlooked that "to bemuse" means also "to absorb someone's attention." Or do I apply the term in accordance with the usage you've cited, framing it to signify your readers rather than myself? These are complexities we cannot ascertain, a limitaion that augments their splendor.

lauriek6, says:

Dear Bemused, why do you avoid the areas I have brought up? The homeless sleeping on the playground at City Park, drug deals on Ervay and Hickory, the small businesses in the Cedars, the area goes all the way to South Central, the no tell motels. I really think you have it out for the owner of LH. Did you know I can go with my husband to LH, have dinner and not, I repeat not have to have an alcoholic beverage. And I thank the spirits that since you hate the place so much I won't have to see you. But you better make sure your yard/property are well maitained. I have 311 on speed dial.

ameripro, says:

You gotta see his yard!! I understand he concreted both his front and back yard - COMPLETELY!! No grass. Nowhere.

Who thinks this guy isn't really, really weird?

PAMPAS, says:

It is amazing to me that you puppets think that you're so liberal. Otherwise, why would you endorse a bar which makes such a nuisance of itself, particularly in broadcasting music, and specifically by using amplifiers?

And then, someone has the guts to differ from you, for instance in taking up grass and putting down concrete, and you point to it as if it is some kind of weirdness. It has to do with the differing likes and dislikes of people.

You really don't think, do you? You make your own noises like a pathetic highschool clique.

PAMPAS, says:

Thanks to so many of you who have written me at home to tell me you support the cause.

You are correct. The City of Dallas is dragging its feet in enforcement, the City Council is negligent in enacting ordinances which deter loud music,and the zoning commission is derelict in placing residences in close proximity to a bar playing amplified outdoor music, particularly loud bands.

We are exploring our options. Just know this -- we will not relent. What we hope to do is change the direction Dallas is going in terms of mixed use development. Mixed use presently is haphazard, incoherent, and fails to consider the practical needs of the parties who will occupy a neighborhood.

The issue is ripe for litigation. Dallas needs to take steps voluntarily to remedy the problem. If not, Dallas could be an hour late and a dollar (or more) short.

PAMPAS, says:

Rick, don't let the door hit you were the god lord split you. (Get off the blog!)

If all you have to discuss is your bodily functions ("you ... crack me up"), go to WEB MD.

kat, says:

It has taken me quite sometime to succomb to the blogs on my neighborhood establishment but now I really feel I have to. I own a condo in The Cedars on Ervay. I lived two blocks down 20 years ago when Bennett Miller was the pioneer of sorts for what is a neighborhood of great potential and marked for growth. Twenty years ago I would have never thought to walk in this neighborhood that I do frequently to go have much deserved drink or dinner after working upwards of 16 hours. Mind you this would be hard to do if I were a low life as noted previously. The main reason I chose to purchase in this area is that all areas that involve upward and starting professionals that are owning to the past and have both artists, musicians and white collar workers alike are what makes a true urban neighborhood. Lee Harvey's is one of those places. With it's friendly staff, in the wake of harsh accusations, name calling and the like still walk the neighborhood (even walking me to my door to make sure I am safe) as well as make sure nothing is going bad. They do this at their own peril. One thing all that oppose the music and what not need to understand is that by calling people names, slandering the establishment they only make themselves look foolish. It really is a shame that things have escalated to such a level that residents who could really make some great friends, have a great time are depriving themselves of such things. Could everyone just stop for a little while, take a breath and remember we live in this neighborhood for so many different visions and that the cohesion of these could really result in what I believe will be an even greater place to live than it is. And by doing so you may just realize things are not as bad as you may think.

Bemused, says:

kat, if you reside on Ervay, you live nowhere near Lee Harvey's, so of course the music isn't a burden to you, just as those who dwell on McKee Street are undisturbed by it. Individuals removed from the path of outdoor amplifiers are unqualified to judge the extent of the imposition.

The staff of Lee Harvey's isn't chivalric for walking you to your car. What choice have they in the matter? The bar's owner is striving to disguise the limitations under which his establishment is operating. Do you think he is in the process of upgrading the grass lots that surround the bar? Guess what? He owns only one of them (the smallest of the three), and the others are zoned for residential purposes. Even if he owned them, he could not convert them to parking lots.

This quagmire exemplifies the makeshift nature of Lee Harvey's business practices. Everything is rigged, often involving illegal devices. Show me a pious bar owner, and I'll show you a canine who can recite Milton's Paradise Lost.

Your call for civility is admirable. I have nothing derogatory to say about it. You are likely an upstanding person.

Yet I must depart momentarily from courtesy. The comments posted about concrete replacing grass in a yard are really too painfully inane to process. lauriek6 and ameripro, you are a pair of colossal, sagging boobs. Your brains are to your skulls what artificial grass is to an Easter basket: a superfluous cushion that is easily dismissed.

ch0, says:

I had never seen a beagle/pitbull mix until the day I first set foot on the premises of Lee Harvey's, yesterday. This bitch is amazing, to which those who know her might attest. She alone is worth the trip. Her comprehension and obeisance of verbal commands is astounding, given her component breeds.

As for the dumbass who moved in next to a popular bar in search of "peace & quiet", I have but 1.5 words --> "dumbass!"

You live in a sh-hole dump in a sh-hole neighborhood, and have the nerve to complain about the only establishment in sight that attracts moneyed Caucasoids from up the street?

You have no rights, troll. Move to Cambodia and court toddlers. Every pretentious synonym you extract from your unclean nether-regions reek with the fustiness of a moppet-wooer.

You have no friends, aside from the flea-bitten cur chained up outside, and he would eat you if you fainted where you stood.

I'd be more worried about the constant crackhead foot-traffic who argue with their balled-up jackets, unless you too derive entertainment value from such antics.

Or perhaps you're a freelance retailer of proscribed pharmaceuticals, as well as a NAMBLA member? Now I'll definitely make sure DPD investigates your bagged and dated faeces collection!

ch0, says:

No, I agree - we are definitely on the same page here. Godspeed!

DC, says:

Is it really necessary to use the royal we?

Bemused, says:

Cho, your exceptional command of witlessness is unmatched. Your mind is an opaque abyss of wretchedness. The industries you allude to are repulsive as well, and although my sense of humor is pretty flexible, I can't help but shudder to envision the life you must lead. I salute Gilliland's assessment of your ingnominious character. And how grossly deceived you are of the concerns at hand.

Criticism is fine, and satire is a productive means of abating frustration. But I entreat all: Let us maintain a responsible guideline of expression. Communication is the one element that makes conflict tolerable.

Most important, contrary to Cho's despotic ramblings, we must acknowledge that all parties in this equation have rights. Lee Harvey's has rights, just as anyone displeased with the bar's actions has rights. No one is attempting to stamp out the bar's entitlements. It's essential, though, that the bar recognize the limits of its privileges.

ericthegardener, says:

Rawlins, for those of us not as in the know as you, why don't you come right out and tell us what you're suggesting about Mike?

Bemused, says:

Mr. Orren, you are running the show here, and I respect your requests. This thread could unravel interminably and to what end? It's ringing with the triteness of a high school hall and descending to desperate depths. I will kindly retire until something fresh and poignant is submitted, an unlikely event.

Just in case I never post here again, I want to emphasize that I do apologize if some of my lampoons have caused anyone offense, as none is intended. Fellows, this isn't about insulting people. It's about solving a complex issue that cannot be resolved through a blog. Still, it's good to have a bit of fun along the way. And believe it or not, I think the staff at Pegasus News does some pretty admirable work.

PAMPAS, says:

This is addressed to Mike Orren, Staff (I assume of Pegasus), and is in response to his request that missives from citizens supportive of CJ's view be published, albeit in redacted form.

Mike, you give yourself away. You might as well as be advertising for Lee Harvey's. Oh yea, that's right, you are. I am sure Pegasus can be fair, impartial and unbiased when the very blog on which this issue is being vetted is owing in part to the dollar of Lee Harvey's.

Only in a court of law would private correspondence be used as evidence which, you, although representing yourself as attempting to evenhandedly elicit invaluable information, are really attempting to bring disrepute on the arguments of those citizens supporting CJ.

Redacting is something best left to a disinterested third party, such as a court. No one who has a vested interest in an argument should be redacting materials which some would take as offending to the redactor.

Also, it is a sad commentary that you need private letters to CJ to fill up your blog. The intellectual arguments are being made by CJ. The ad hominen arguments are being made by his opponents. You know that as well as I do (although I myself have used a view derivise comments in response to others' attacks).

If you do not appreciate the fact that business, although questionably imbued with the same rights as persons by the State Legislature, has overreached its limits,you need only look at the claim by one neighbor against another for playing loud music. It is not tolerated that one person inflict such a nuisance on another. However, in the case of this bar, you and your supporters seem to think that whatever the bar does is perfectly alright.

Just one more thing -- it is a sad commentary that Pegasus would need to fill the pages of its paper, or for that matter, with personal missives, in order to make this dispute more even. The number of supporters for a particular viewpoint does render a dispute settled. Law doesn't work in terms of what the majority wants. Remember, this is a democracry, and minorities' rights need to be protected. Too many times it takes a prolonged period before people who support a stance come to their senses and realize the evidence is compelling, even though a change may be against their interests, and a different tack should be taken.

Perhaps you will come to that conclusion as well. We can only hope so despite the fact that you feed at the trough of Lee Harvey's advertising dollar.

PAMPAS, says:

Let's make sure before this blog is given the last rites that we all admit one thing -- what Mr. Jones does with his house is nothing more than cosmetic. If he wants to install concrete rather than grass, it may call into question his aesthetic, but it should not call into question his right to express it.

However, in Lee Harvey's case, the bar is making such a ruckus that a neighbor, Mr. Jones, feels he has a right to object to its intemperance (noise only).

You may rejoice in the trouble which Mr. Jones has had in enlisting the aid of the City of Dallas to rectify the problem, but you should recognize this -- if there is a problem which would be recognizable if it were one person against another person (and it would most definitely be actionable), then it is anarchy or even fascism that the City will not reign in the bar for the same conduct.

kirk, says:

Rawlins: I think your comment is correct. Caballa = mackerel. This thread grows stinkier by the day.

Catte_Nappe, says:

"I really don't want to close this thread, because every 8 posts or so, someone comes in with new information or a resident's point of view not yet heard. "

Mike - I know you really don't want to. I understand and appreciate why. Just noting that from my perspective - I don't LIVE here. I pop in once or twice every day (or every other day or so). It seems this has become the only topic under regular discussion. It was interesting at first. It no longer is. It was long since described as a dead horse (in multiple languages even). Maybe it is time to hold the funeral?

nicolrenee, says:

Are we talking abou the same Lee Harveys that has the junkie/burnout apartment complex directly across the street? I would think that His Holiness would have more interest in getting them out than the bar, which seems to attract nicer folk from outside the area than the local residents. Hmm. Thinking of it that way, Lee Harveys actually increases the property value, and there is a built in crime watch when the dog lovers are sitting outside with their pooches. One might think there are beter things to concern one's self with than a bar that was known to be there already when the resident in question moved in. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I don't like the look of a neighborhood and everything that immediately surrounds it, I don't move or go there. It's like beating yourself with a bat every day. Why would you want to, really? Ah, well. To each his or her own.

Bemused, says:

nicolrenee, no evidence suggests that bars increase property value. And half-witted inebriates who squander evenings at a restaurant/dog park do not deter criminal activity. If they can't find their way to the lavatory, they certainly aren't alive to the treacheries of vagrants. In addition, many patrons follow a code of etiquette that makes the homeless look like British aristocracy.

So far as accepting the neighborhood in its current state is concerned, that's simply incongruous with the spirit of urban settings. All conditions are open to scrutiny, and all features are prone to change. Compare the Hell's Kitchen (NYC) of twenty years ago to the Hell's Kitchen of today. It was once a sewer of prostitutes and dope pushers. Now you can't rent a one-bedroom flat there for under $2,000 a month. Dallas isn't NYC, but the overarching theme applies. (By the way, you will not find amplifiers pointed at residences in New York City.)

Why am I loath to tame my tongue and permit these posts to expire without retort? Why must I serve as a sentinel of truth amid a swarm of misguidance? Knowing I am beleaguered by the confounded, I should seek retreat and supplicate myself to higher authority.