PAMPAS

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.