|Another Vote No! Lie Exposed|
|by Sam Merten||Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 03:22 pm|
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Councilmember Ron Natinsky of the Vote No! campaign wasn’t truthful during Thursday night’s debate in
When an audience member asked about the ballot, Sam Coats of Vote Yes! described the language as confusing. Natinsky thanked Coats for bringing up the issue.
“I would like everyone in the room to listen very carefully what I’m going to tell you about this obtuse, confusing ballot language. It was written specifically by Angela Hunt,” Natinsky said. “The referendum and the petitions forced the City of
At this point, several members of the audience said, “That’s not true!” Natinsky responded, “That is true.”
Former Councilmember Sandy Greyson of Vote Yes! told everyone that it was not Angela Hunt that wrote the language. She said the City Attorney wrote it and the City Council approved it.
I didn’t include this in this morning’s story because I was waiting to hear back from City Attorney Tom Perkins. In the meantime, I contacted Angela Hunt for her take. She said her attorneys drafted the ordinance, but the language on the ballot was written by the City Attorney’s Office.
“I’m not happy with the ballot language,” Hunt said. “We had absolutely, positively no input in what will appear on the ballot.”
Then I got through to Jesus Toscano, assistant city attorney for the City of
“Our office, along with bond counsel, wrote the ballot language and presented it to the council and the council approved the ballot language,” Toscano said.
written by HSH , October 05, 2007
Now the question becomes who is the city's bond council? In 1998, it was Vinson & Elkins and its uber partner, Ray Hutchinson, otherwise known as husband of Senator and Honorary Vote No Chair Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Vinson & Elkins is now home to current TXU shill and former Mayor Ron Kirk.
Any questions as to the source of the confusion?
written by Mike , October 05, 2007
Natinsky is a liar and a fool, like every other single one of the clowns on the Pave the Trinity debate "team" and their flunkies at City Hall and at that joke known as Belo.
You can bet "bond counsel" is Mr. Kay Hutchinson or one of his subordinates. He and Kirk make a great pair, don't they?
written by Branden Helms , October 05, 2007
It is like they don't even care how much and how blatantly they lie. It just boggles my mind that someone who voted on this would believe the opposite. Maybe Mr. Natinsky is unfit to serve in a public capacity.
written by David , October 06, 2007
I'm sure Tomaso at the DMN will cover this like the fine, unbiased journalist he is. Or maybe he'll just wait until Hunt gets another haircut and do a front page piece on that instead.
written by sal costello , October 06, 2007
Of course he and the other revenue hungry politicos are liars.
Just look at the trickery in the logo/signage above "Vote NO! Save the Trinity". It was created to trick the voter that has not followed the issue enough.
Someone should and could begin a recall.
written by Janice , October 06, 2007
When we elected him in District 12, we thought he would be a fair and honorable councilmember like his predecessors, Sandy Greyson and Max Wells. He has shown that he is anything but with his lies on the Comprehensive plan, the Cotton Belt, and now this. I just hope Far North Dallas and the rest of the city survive this man’s stupidity and arrogance.
written by sal costello , October 06, 2007
Start a Political Action Committee and vote em out!
That's what I've been doing since 2004 with politicos who have been trying to toll our public highways with $910 million of our tax dollars (you know, the tax dollars TxDOT has claimed they have run out of):
written by Wylie H. , October 06, 2007
Why the heck was "bond counsel" involved in drafting the ballot language? And, by bond counsel, do we really mean, once again, Ray Hutchison (Kay Bailey Hutchison's apparent boss?) The same guy who said that Alliance Airport was okay, but not Love Field, thereby effectuating the transfer of over 20,000 jobs from Dallas County to Tarrant County?
written by nmlhats , October 06, 2007
TOM LEPPERT & CAROL REED'S DIRTY PUSH POLL
I just received a VERY misleading "Vote No" pitch disguised as a poll. What it was in fact was a very obnoxious push poll.
The very long proposition put to me as a voter contained all kinds of misinformation about losing all the funding, that if "Angela Hunt got her road" it would be a two lane winding road through the park and would not relieve traffic. I kindly informed the poor girl that works for the polling firm that the info she was reading was misleading and innacurate, gave her the truth, and told her I was voting YES.
written by Jeff Turner , October 06, 2007
DallasBlog readers interested in the Trinity River Referendum are invited to the next meeting of Grassroots Citizens of Dallas County on Wednesday, October 17 at 7:00 p.m. at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 10110 Shoreview Road, off of East Northwest Highway, not too far from the Dallas Police substation. GCDC will host a debate between the VoteYes and VoteNo campaigns. Come see the sparks fly over this important local topic! http://grassrootsdallas.org.
written by Objective Observer , October 07, 2007
Not that Sam would ever be fair in his writing, but here is the point behind Natinsky's comment: legally, the ballot language is REQUIRED to track the petition language. So when the lawyers wrote the ballot language, they were in fact confined by what was on AH's petition. That nobody likes the ballot language doesn't detract from the fact that it was legally required, based on the petition language. But hey, Sam, don't let the facts get in the way of your ongoing hatchet job.
written by Nathan , October 07, 2007
The language of the proposed ordinance is simple. It asks voters if they want to allow the construction of a high speed, controlled access road inside the Dallas Flood Way. If voters pass the ordinance such a road is banned. If they reject it, the TRP can continue as planned.
"On November 6, the following will appear on the ballot. TrinityVote urges you to vote FOR proposition 1:"
"An ordinance amending Chapter 32, “Parks and Water Reservoirs,” of the Dallas City Code by adding Article VII (composed of Section 32-84) to prohibit the construction, maintenance, or improvement of, or the expenditure of funds for, any roadways within the Trinity River levees unless certain restrictions relating to use, location, number of travel lanes, and speed limits are met, and to provide for enforcement of the ordinance by suit for injunctive or declaratory relief and penalties not to exceed $500."
"Note that this language was created by the Dallas City Attorney with no input from TrinityVote. The City Council had the option to amend the language and chose not to."
Folks, it ain't that hard. If it is that hard, you should be able to pull the lever.
written by dave c. , October 07, 2007
Objective Observer..er..I mean Ron, if you had a point you should have made it when you had the chance. Sam was more than fair. No use trying to cover your rear now. Angela didn't write the ballot language and it doesn't look like the petition. Guess you never saw it. Saying otherwise is a bunch of bull.
written by randye , October 07, 2007
Natinsky, as quoted by Sam, said "It was written specifically by Angela Hunt,” Natinsky said. “"
Sam's point- That Natinksy said Hunt wrote it and she did not, is confirmed by what you say.
“I would like everyone in the room to listen very carefully what I’m going to tell you about this obtuse, confusing ballot language."
Did Natinksy give the old Clintonian finger point and wag while delivering that?
written by jjc , October 07, 2007
OO - I think you missed the point. Natinsky said “I would like everyone in the room to listen very carefully what I’m going to tell you about this obtuse, confusing ballot language. It was written specifically by Angela Hunt”. That was an inaccurate and an oversimplification. Whether or not he did this intentionally or because he did not understand the process does not matter. If he did not know, he should have kept his mouth shut. But I have a feeling there was some storytelling going on. Don't put words in his mouth - he would have said that if that is what he meant.
|< Prev||Next >|