Veracity Anonymous

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.

11 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Clay213 Anonymous

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..

11 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Clarification Anonymous

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.

11 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Clay213 Anonymous

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!

11 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

DC Anonymous

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.

11 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

winkytoon Anonymous

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...

10 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

kkibbel Anonymous

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.

10 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

BethAnderson Anonymous

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.

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

lakewooder Anonymous

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.

9 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

luniz Anonymous

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

9 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Clay213 Anonymous

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?

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Billusa99 Anonymous

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)

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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?

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Bemused Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

DC Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

lakewooder Anonymous

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

Whatever, prohibition was repealed some time ago.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Bemused Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Bemused Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

bfelps Anonymous

hey, did Avi move and buy a thesaurus?

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Bemused Anonymous

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.

9 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

terryorze Anonymous

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

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

ameripro Anonymous

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?

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Bemused Anonymous

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.

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

DC Anonymous

Bemused rings the bell

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Clay213 Anonymous

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.

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Clay213 Anonymous

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.

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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.

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Clay213 Anonymous

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

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

PAMPAS Anonymous

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.

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

TWeller Anonymous

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!

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

OpusthePoet Anonymous

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

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Billusa99 Anonymous

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

How verwy prewcient, Mikey!

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Bemused Anonymous

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.

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Bemused Anonymous

"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.

9 months, 1 week ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

ameripro Anonymous

"Bemused [veracity/clarification/pampas (Chris Jon