Posted on September 26, 2008 at 10:43 a.m.

spohn- maybe try reading the article? 1) Same questionnaire/provider used by DPD. 2) Sheriff hadn't even seen the questionnaire. She wasn't micromanaging the training, as she shouldn't have been. 3) First sheriff to authorize standard law enforcement diversity training for sheriffs department. If that's your beef, fair enough. But lets not dress it up as something else.

On Lupe Valdez supporters say anti-gay politics at play in Dallas sheriff's election

Posted on June 30, 2008 at 5:55 p.m.

So, we're gonna find out that Leppert sold out most of Deep Ellum, the most recognizable bit of continuity in the metroplex, in a back room deal. Real smart. Real far sighted.

We should all pitch in to hire Richard Florida to come down here and beat some sense into him before he turns the whole city into a bigger Las Collinas. This has nothing to do with benefiting Dallas, even in a strictly money-motivated economic development sense, and everything to do with graft for the construction/real-estate developers.

Continuity in built stock makes for nice, flourishing central cities, but doesn't make construction companies any money, as someone pointed out above. Well, we knew who Leppert was, and shouldn't have expected better, but a wholesale razing of Deep Ellum is more brazen than I would ever have believed that Dallas would ever let happen. In some other places those responsible would be up in the Hague!

I'm not averse to a neighbourhood evolving culturally, growing up, up-scaling a bit; its inevitable; but the built feel of the place should remain. Replacing the classic, solidly built brick main-street façades with more cheap and fast sticks and stucko/facing a-la west village, addison circle, firewheel, legacy, etc. will NOT be an improvement- those places will be trash in twenty years. Look at what happened to Vickery Meadows.

How can Dallas expect to compete with surrounding bedroom communities complete with their schlocky so called "new urbanist" monstrosities if it abdicates its only real advantage, that of being an actual, organic city to imitate them? Its beyond comprehension. The suburbs build these vapid, pale facsimiles of real urban neighbourhoods they don't have to try to compete with real cities, and what does Dallas do? Tear down the real urban neighbourhoods it has to try and imitate its suburbs.

Its not gonna work, folks.

Remember Boeing!

On Mayor Leppert's Deep Ellum Town Hall meeting draws crowd, answers prefab questions

Posted on June 27, 2008 at 10:05 a.m.

I don't find Hunt's vote surprising at all; I think the bill has some real deficiencies. Animal abuse and irresponsible ownership are a problem, and something needs to be done, but before passing more laws why not try enforcing some of the ones on the books now? Well, maybe its because passing laws is free and visible, whereas actually enforcing them is expensive and largely thankless.

A couple of issues that trouble me are:

150 sq. ft. as a one size fits all requirement is excessive and unreasonable, and denies residents the flexibility to implement the solution most appropriate to their circumstances. That is perhaps what would be appropriate in a case where the dog is never removed from the enclosure, but that is a very broad brush to paint us all with (and in my personal opinion that kind of isolation is mistreatment in itself, regardless of square footage). I walk my dog 5-6 miles/day, bring her in whenever I am home, and give her play time in the yard. She doesn't need 150 sq feet to sit in for a few hours (when mostly she sleeps anyway). More importantly this is simply not doable for a lot of residents given lot sizes in the city. The result of this, if enforced, will be a lot of dogs that are now safely confined in 75-100 sq ft. dog runs during the day and otherwise well treated being confined to 50sq foot bathrooms and 6sq ft crates, and running loose yards with 4ft fences they can easily jump to become strays or present a danger to the neighborhood. It will also inevitably result in a lot of dogs being euthanized at the shelter because they had to be put inside and started chewing things up.

I agree that non-breeding pets (including mine) are better off spayed or neutered, but when this is best done is something about which reasonable people (and reasonable vets) disagree. My dog is in the house, on a leash, or in a six ft high chain link kennel with a roof at all times. I don't need big brother telling me when would be best to spay her because I'm presumably incapable of controlling her liaisons. Spaying is major, invasive surgery, and comes with all of the attendant risks and trauma thereof. I will certainly spay my dog, but I will do so when I decide that it is the right time for her and for me. When the government starts mandating that we subject our animals to major surgery on demand, things have gone too far. Today its our animals, tomorrow?

The bill does not nearly enough to address the most pressing animal welfare and public safety issues and is insufficiently thought out with respect to effect and consequences, but smacks of "big brother knows best" paternalism and political tokenism. Angela is dead right. Its political showmanship that does little to improve animal rights, whose publicity payoff for the pols comes entirely at the expense of the common resident.

Go Angela.

The funny thing is that most of the comments and journalism (for and against the laws) seem to make the assumption that this is a left/liberal move simply because it involves increasing government intrusion (hence the dismay about the Hunt vote and Medrano abstension). Note that while it levies its mostly arbitrary mandates and restrictions on those with the least political enfranchisement to oppose it, it leaves the most egregious abusers (puppy mills, pet shops, etc.) completely untouched and contains several peons to the veterenary and pet supply industry. This is more characteristic of right wing authoritarianism than left, wherein (at least per the idealist theory) the commercial sector is presumed to be "cooperatively" engaged with the government for the public good, and where the people must be controlled to bend them to the public good as defined by the interests of the governing, commercial, and syndicalist bodies.

Because of our political history, a lot of people seem to reflexively associate government interference with the left, and associate the right with libertarian idealism. Well, that's the sheeps clothing the right likes to wear around here, because that is what sells to Americans. But if you look closely, you see a very different agenda that is at least as disconcerting as that of the far left for those who value traditional American ideals.

There's nothing liberal about it. Its very Dallas and very Leppert. It is entirely consistent with policy direction on development, etc. Expect more.

On City of Dallas passes animal ordinance, 10-3

Posted on May 27, 2008 at 9:02 a.m.

Well, if by "anchor baby" you mean patra-lineal ancestory that dropped anchor on the Virginia coast in 1626 then perhaps so. Or perhaps you mean someone with an ancestor whose name is "anchored" to the wall of the Alamo? Got me there too.

What a backwards, parochial bigot. I know Bet you're from Farmer's Branch.

On Irving solicits citizen input on boulevard design project

Posted on May 22, 2008 at 6:08 p.m.

...Of which it should be well proud- and lay claim to much more convincing cosmopolitan cred than, say, the parochial, reactionary communities of Farmers Branch and Carolton, which have brought national shame and ridicule to our region.

As a 6th generation Dallasite, I'm exceedingly proud that Dallas was one of the earliest of the so-called "sanctuary cities".

On Irving solicits citizen input on boulevard design project

Posted on November 30, 2007 at 11:59 a.m.

Alex,

My post was less normative than I think it came across. I have nothing against the Mag. In fact I quite like the place. The only theater I find myself going to more often than the Mag is Cityplace Lowes. Why? I happen to live down the street from both (and have been there quite a bit longer than the Mag has). I have nothing against the "West Village" either (other than the cringe inducing name that prevents me by way of embarrassment from taking out of town friends there). I find it very convenient, and a heck of a lot more use to the area than what it replaced (effectively nothing). I spend more time and money there than I should. But one shouldn't try to make it more than it is. It is effectively a mall. An upscale mall, to boot, and I gather square footage there is quite pricey. It has a very mass market appeal (and disproportionately suburban clientèle).

The mag runs a wide variety of stuff from very mainstream to sometimes quite daring.

That said, on average, if there is a smaller distribution curiosity of a film opening in Dallas, of artistic interest but with lower revenue expected and with less industry hype around it (viz, recently, Park), I have found that is is more likely to open at Inwood. That is not a criticism of the Mag. It is quite logical. I like both. I'm just really glad Inwood is still around. If this movie had been slated at Inwood, I wonder if it would have been pulled. That said, in other places that I've lived, the "art house" theatres that were the genuine article stayed in business by locating in places significantly lower rent than Inwood, much less the West Village. Once again, thats not a criticism, but lets call a duck a duck.

On UPDATED AGAIN: Redacted will not open in Dallas, says distributor rep

Posted on November 30, 2007 at 10:38 a.m.

Well,

As saddened as I am by the decision, I think Landmark PR's response is pretty credible, and pretty refreshing in its candor; Sounds pretty authentic to me. don't blame Landmark, Dallas, blame ourselves. Its giving us what "we" want.

That said, characterizing Magnolia as an "art house", as much as I like the place, is a bit of a stretch, and the so-called "West Village", is a pretty mainstream market location in the first place that attracts more freeway traffic than anything else because its easy to find (Dallasites have lots of other places to go). It surprised me that this flick was opening there at all, rather than Inwood, which seems to be where most of the more progressive stuff gets on.

On UPDATED AGAIN: Redacted will not open in Dallas, says distributor rep

Posted on September 26, 2007 at 5:04 p.m.

Finally,

Something I can agree w/ Yost on (albeit for totally different reasons).

As someone who takes my religious beliefs seriously, there is nothing scarier to me than having the government get involved with them and twist them to its own purposes.

Frankly, I don't believe school prayer in public schools has anything to do with religion. It has to do with nationalist indoctrination, and associating nationalist symbolism and allegiances with things to which students attribute absolute good.

I can't speak for other religious ('cause I'm not that familiar), but if any Christian doesn't see the idolatry in this I think they need to spend a lot more time with their scripture!

As for questyouth, he sounds like an unfortunate victim of the above.

On New God-referencing Texas state pledge awaits Metroplex students

Posted on September 20, 2007 at 11:32 a.m.

Yost,

There is no shortage of ideas on what to do, but there is little need for originality as there are plenty of models elsewhere. Unfortunately, most of them presuppose a pragmatic concern with addressing the issue, and so tend not to have much appeal for those who are primarily concerned with self-validating ideologies.

Fortunately, others in the city are implementing some of the obvious steps, and the voter support for such programs should be informative to you. It appears that there will be positive progress, provided that you and your kind are not successful in undermining your own interests by obstructing it. It will, however, be no thanks to draconian clearance efforts like "Operation Rescue".

I will offer you an apology for the last three and a half lines of my paragraph five above, which was unnecessarily antagonistic while adding nothing to the post. It was speculative, unfair, and maybe even inaccurate. Unfortunately, I can't edit the post, so a verbal retraction will have to do.

I will also offer one example of where pragmatism and your ideology conflict. No one likes to encounter excrement (or any other bodily emissions) in public, whether they emanate from the homeless or anyone else who happens to be downtown when they develop an urgent need. The obvious solution implemented by most cities to this problem is to emplace public restrooms. Some of these are technological marvels that clean themselves after each use. On a per-capita basis, such a move costs very little. No more poop. Of course, if your ideology prevents you from endorsing the public provision of anything, this solution is not available to you. In this case, you will just have to put up with the poop while, ironically, diverting a similar magnitude of public resources to trying with futility to prevent the pooping or get rid of the poopers. Believe me, no one enjoys having to poop behind your building, and I promise you that even the most degraded find it degrading.

A regrettable consequence of your particularly vocal stand on this issue is that, while I once enthusiastically patronized downtown businesses as a matter of principal, I now can't help but wonder how deserving of business their owners really are. This is an unfair, but inevitable and largely sub-conscious generalization. I know of others, however, who have been given the same pause. Consumer choice is a complicated beast. I think, for the good of the city, you should consider the damage you are doing to the image of downtown businesses in the eyes of many. Business owners downtown really do need to realize how utterly provincial this entire issue strikes those from other places with downtowns we envy.

Your business makes a needed contribution to the life of downtown. Contrary to your wife's assumption, I, like many, do appreciate what you offer. Your rhetoric, however, counteracts the good that you are doing.

On Dallas police to reach out to homeless with Operation Rescue

Posted on September 19, 2007 at 5:19 p.m.

OK. thats rich. I would be offended but I can't stop laughing.

On Dallas police to reach out to homeless with Operation Rescue