| Enlightment , Schutze and the Trinity |
|
|
|
| by Scott Bennett | Thu, Oct 18, 2007, 10:15 AM |
|
My side is not on the ballot. My side thinks the Trinity Park will be a very large homeless shelter without any shelter and the lakes are more likely to breed mosquitoes that sprout sails. My side always expected the park to resemble a Jasper Johns painting and not the Monet masterpiece Dallas Observer muckraker and former Detroit muckraker Jim Schutze is so upset about (full disclosure: I grew up on a ranch north of Fort Worth so big cities still baffle me). My side wants as big a road as we need to cut traffic on Stemmons Expressway and untangle the Mixmaster and we want it built on the cheapest piece of real estate available and as fast as possible. We understood perfectly well the road was going between the levees when we voted for it and we are sorry muckrakers from Detroit are a so naïve about Texas campaigns. My side is perfectly happy for guys named Hunt and Crow to get richer off the deal because if they get richer it will be because the city’s commercial tax base will have grown by leaps and bounds. If the tax base grows somebody gets richer and better hometown guys than Detroit guys. By the way the way you bring property taxes down on your home is to increase the commercial tax base owned by Hunt and Crow. You think “my side” pretty much consists of one North Dallas curmudgeon –me? I thought so too. In fact I considered my views so off the wall I mostly kept them to myself. But a month or so ago I began overhearing conversations in elevators, in restaurants and bars, at church, at my daughter’s soccer games, from perfect strangers about Dallas great experiment in democracy: the Trinity toll road vote. People seemed genuinely focused on the vote, and actually seemed to care – which of course they should. (Now, this is why I signed Angela Hunt’s petition even though I knew I would vote against her proposal. I thought actually giving, as H.L. Hunt would have said, “just folks” the opportunity to decide the destiny of their city might be a good idea. I still think so.) So I started to talking and not just eavesdropping. Some of the folks I knew but many were complete strangers. They fall into four categories. I’ll call the Vote Yes folks the Birkenstock crowd. Like their patron Saint Jim Schutze they believe brochures with Monet paintings should be on ballots and not a bunch of confusing words. They are sure Dallas can have its very own Central Park. Their numbers have been surprisingly modest. Next comes the very tiny band who believes anything and everything that happens in Dallas is always about Ray Hunt and Harlan Crow making a few more gazillion. I’ll call them the Nut Cakes. Shoot sometimes guys named Hicks and Perot get cut in. The third group is pretty much traditional Vote No types: No plan is perfect but this one is pretty darn good and if we move the road from the levees to Industrial Boulevard it will cost hundreds of millions more and take years more to complete and Feds and the state will send us to the back of the line where we will wait for a century for their handouts, and the road won’t be a big deal, and we’ll lose our designer bridges, and Jim Schutze is a Detroit nut cake muckraking for a lonely hearts rag that survives on topless bar ads which Laura Miller told us are bad. I’ll call this group the traditionalists. They are about equal in size to the Birkenstocks but maybe a tad smaller. Finally comes the group I shall call the “Enlightened Ones.” These are the ones that agree with me: screw the park and build our road. Let me tell you I am not a lonely curmudgeon. We are legion. And we don’t just live, as Rufus Shaw would say “north of Trinity.” We just mostly live north of the Trinity. But we are bigger than all of the other groups combined. We will vote “No” because our side isn’t on the ballot and of the two sides logic rests squarely and overwhelmingly with the traditionalists: We passed what we passed, let’s get on with it. But Mayor Leppert shouldn’t rest too easy even if he wins this November vote. I am so encouraged at the strength of my side I am considering launching a petition banning grass flowers and trees from levee to levee and requiring every square inch be covered with cement and asphalt suitable for driving on. I think us Enlightened Ones might win. And Schutze might flee back to Detroit.
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (42)
...
written by Jason K , October 18, 2007 So basically all you really want is a nice toll road and no real park. Can't say I agree with you and and I have to laugh about calling yourself and enlightened one, but oh well. And where is your poll about your group being the largest of all? Or is this just some type of unscientific you asked a few people you know kind of polls you did? And why do you think your group is largest? The initial bond vote barely passed, and probably wouldn't pass today knowing what we know now. About the only part of your "article" I agree with is about the lakes being a mosquito havens and the park being for homeless. This is a real possiblity, but that, by no means, should be a reason not to build a great park. If maintenance and other upkeep are done at the park, it could be a real crown jewel of the city... something the Toll Rd. could never be.
...
written by Bobbi , October 18, 2007 As always, debase and degrade the opponent and not address the core issues. Typical of the "No" side. Scott, meet Jan. Her pic's just below you today. And her writing is just as "canned" as yours.
...
written by No Tollway for you! , October 18, 2007 My side thinks Nov.6th will be a wonderful day when the citizen's voices will be so loud that Tom will have no choice but to acknowledge and respect them, something he has failed to do so far.
...
written by Brian74 , October 18, 2007 Might want to check your facts Scott. The Balanced Vision Plan called for the road to go on top of the levees, not in between them. Nobody voted for a road between the levees. Remember that this is a flood control system first and foremost. Putting a structure that large in bewteen the levees will displace lots of flood water and make our flood control system less effective. If that's what you want, by all means Vote No.
...
written by jjc , October 18, 2007 I think we now know who designed the mixmaster. Heck of a job, Scotty!
...
written by Lonnie , October 18, 2007 I spent several years driving across the Trinity bridge to my job at the Dallas Housing Authority. Every day I shook my head at the idea anyone could turn the Trinity into anything but a jungle for druggies, gangs and the homeless. It is fine to see someone who understands that is all this park can ever be other than a total waste of taxpayer's dollars. If the road will get anyone off Stemmons then by all means build it. Why put it along Industrial Blvd. when you have to fight all sorts of property owners who will want exaggerated payoffs. Build it where nothing else will go.
...
written by john k. , October 18, 2007 Sometimes certain positions make me sick. Sometimes. Otherwise their visions of roadways, parks, lakes, sailboats,waterfalls,swimmers, sunbathers,and well dressed homeless are what visions to voters should be. I still vision a bottomless well for our money to go into.
...
written by David , October 18, 2007 Central Park has homeless people. Guess they should just pave that over, too. It's thinking like this that makes the Boeings of the world choose Chicago over Dallas. It's thinking like this that pushes our tax base out into the suburbs. And it's thinking like this that, if the Vote No! team prevails, will leave Dallas wallowing in mediocrity (and a lot of concrete) for decades to come.
...
written by Rawlins , October 18, 2007 If I lived in North Dallas (God forbid) with everyone else who moved here from somewhere and spends all their time trying to get up a game at Brookhollow or even be invited to Dallas Country Club (which is not in Dallas) and calls 'driving south' when they meet someone for lunch in Uptown, I wouldn't care about an 8000 are forest or a 10,000 acre park or 'that river' either.
...
written by John Loza , October 18, 2007 Scott, Your columns are generally well-informed and rational, you could even say "enlightened". But reading this one, I have to wonder if we're talking about the same city. I have been to several debates in all parts of Dallas and have talked to hundreds of people about the Trinity River tollway issue. Voters are a lot smarter than most give them credit for. Common sense says it's not a very bright idea to put a major highway in a floodway. Most of the people I've talked to understand this, and most (though not all) are at least leaning toward voting "Yes". I haven't talked to anyone who wants to see the whole Trinity River basin paved over. People also understand that what they voted for in 1998 and what they're getting now are two very different proposals. When we on the "Yes" side talk about Austin's Town Lake and New York's Central Park, we're just echoing the campaign materials that were used to sell this bond package back in 1998. I don't wear Birkenstocks, but I do think that the Trinity River Park, if done right, will be a real asset for Dallas. About Jim Schutze, I have to give him credit for asking questions and digging deeper than any other reporter with regard to this issue. Sam Merten has also really distinguished himself in this manner. I say this about Schutze as one who, when I was on the City Council, was a target of his on more than one occasion. Dallas needs Schutze and more like him, now more than ever. You certainly don't see any balanced reporting from the Morning News.
...
written by John B. , October 18, 2007 A Simple Plan: I think what is needed for the Trinity Project is to build a big stadium around the part of the river adjacent to downtown. During the "wet" months, the interior of the stadium could be flooded and the city could charge admission to the public and watch mock naval battles ala the Persian Gulf. Then, during the "dry" months we could empty out the over-crowded Lew Sterret building and provide its tennants with clubs and various weapons for Ultimate Fighting contests broadcast on HDNet. This would bring bring more of the public into downtown to revitalize the area, solve the overcrowding of the jail systems, and bring a new source of revenue and tax base to the city coffers. During peroids of economic upheval it would provide an enticing distraction from all the misery and hard times. Any sponsors Mark?
...
written by Wylie H. , October 18, 2007 What a hellish vision, Scott. I'm starting to have flashbacks to all your pontificating about the gloom and doom which would befall Dallas if we touched the Wright Amendment. You've been proven dead wrong on the Wright Amendment (much to the chagrin of DallasBlog's primary advertiser-- American Airlines) and you'll be proven dead wrong here, as well.
...
written by Bill Spurlock , October 18, 2007 I am one of the people that Scott talked to who fall into the Birkenstock category. My house is two blocks from Scott's house. I am originally from Vermont, but have called Dallas home for 20-years. Scott is a native Texan with a lot of typically Texas viewpoints. He does have his points. Central Park is in the middle of New York not on the edge of town. Making the Trinity into a place people really want to go to is a gamble. HOwever, I must tell everyone that his view is probably the majority view in our part of town. My neighbors don't care about the park and think it is probaby silly. They do want the road. Obviouslly Scott's last comments were tongue in cheek; no one wants to pave everything over. But there are a lot of people who plan to vote "no" because they think the park is a pipe dream but the traffic problem is real (as it is). We in the Birkenstock army had better realize there is a sizeable block that feels as he does (and he does) and convince them the park can be realized. Just saying the road will be the only problem isn't going to cut it.
...
written by Rawlins , October 18, 2007 Bill, not unlike New York's Central Park that you describe as being in the 'middle of New York', this project is in the middle of Dallas. Just not in your area of town mindset. Which of course will change after this project is an ongoing part of the Dallas norm future. Reality Check: When my parents moved to Dallas, South Dallas was 'the place to live'. Later 'the place' was Ross Avenue and later Maple Avenues. At that time, North Dallas was still for decades to come pastures and swamps. (Look at what was there when, say, NorthPark was built in early mid 60s). Do you think the future perceptions of what is and is not 'the place' in Dallas is now finite, and unlike Dallas' history has always been, ever changing? In fact 1) Every place I know in Dallas that is 'In' was in my lifetime 'Out' (Henderson East Dallas where I grew up is a prime example along with the 'M' streets and Swiss, etc.). And many a place that is the ultimate ghettos in this city's minds, was once the status part of the city. In other words, this is a young city that has a history of shifting its center of gravity to a full tilt away from the 'norm' of yesterday. What is happening right now is the absolute beginning of the end of North Dallas being a center of power. It'll take a couple of decades, but the result will be as breathtaking a reversal as when Ross and Maple were all but abandoned when the Park Cities became Mecca toward the end of the first quarter of the last century.
...
written by Jason K , October 18, 2007 Bill, How sad is it that people would rather have a toll road to drive through Dallas than to spend time with neighbors at a grand park (if done right)? I would think a park would help revitalize the area and bring more people to live in Dallas, which is what the city has been trying to get done with the downtown grocery store, etc.
...
written by David , October 18, 2007 If the Trinity Park is on the edge of town, where exactly is Oak Cliff?
...
written by Farinata X , October 18, 2007 What an inane article this is, full of stale snark and self-conscious posturing. No wonder your career has come down to writing for this amateurish blog.
...
written by 2cents , October 18, 2007 Go, Scott, go! Love the new slogan: SCREW THE PARK! BUILD THE ROAD! I want t-shirts, button and bumperstickers!
...
written by Nathan , October 18, 2007 If Scott wants the road, let him have it. Living in North Dallas he is going to pay for it's excessive price tag every time he drives on the DNT or PGB.
...
written by Mary Luck , October 18, 2007 When Laura Miller had Schutze job at the Observer she was an adamant foe of the Trinity project. Why not? Her job was to help the Observer hustle is paper. Then she became Mayor and decided the Trinity Project was AOK. But Schutze took up her banner. Could it be that the Detroit muckraker has just been trying to hustle his rag? Schutze wrote last week that he thought all of the people lined up to support the Vote No side were sounding like the Soviet Army Chorus. In other words they were arm twisted into singing in unison. Maybe they are all together because they are informed and reached the same logical conclusion. I too think the park is ridiculous but since Dallas seems to be infested with the Birkenstock crowd we may build it. What a waste of money.
...
written by Steve , October 18, 2007 Buddy, I live in University Park, and your "Screw the park, pave the Trinity" slogan doesn't fly with me. Rich folks like tollway-free parks, too, ya know. And not to get too personal or anything, but from the looks of your mug, you could sure stand to put down the pork butt and get a little sun now and then. "Mary Luck:" Sorry to put a knot in your panties, lady, but there's going to be park even if the city votes "No." I know, tragic, right?
...
written by Lakewood Lawyer , October 18, 2007 Wylie H Good to hear from you. Like you I was four square for opening Love Field instantly and telling AA to take a hike and turning DFW back into corn fields. Actually, I thought Scott's idea of what would happen if we freed Love might be more true than not. So what. I live in Dallas. Unfortunately we lost and Scott's side won. The piddling number of gates at Love won't be all that helpful to Dallas, and sure won't challenge AA or DFW. A very limited Love Field is what they wanted all along. They got it. However, we part company on this issue. If a park means landscaping along the roadway I am all for it. If it means spending millions for what will in fact be a homeless shelter I am against it. I am also against spending a fortune to buy out the property owners along Industrial (I wonder if they might be funding the Vote Yes campaign?). Schutze is in fact a muckraker for a rag. If Dallas shut down its titty bars it would be out of business. I still read him every week because he is a hell of a lot more exciting than the Dallas Daily's Steve Blowhard. But I don't believe a word he writes.
...
written by Norman T , October 18, 2007 I take this as very good satire. I don't doubt the writer will vote NO but it is a pretty good stuff. As a North Dallas type myself I can tell you a lot of people here have the view of the park presented (not me). He stereotypes the various sides pretty well too. Actually both sides do a pretty good job of overstating their case and cherry picking their facts. That seems to kinda be the point. But I still think I'll vote YES. As they say: lighten up Dallas
...
written by dave c. , October 19, 2007 Scott or anyone, one question, who is going to pay for this toll road? Where is this billion dollars (over budget) coming from?
...
written by Bob , October 19, 2007 Hooray for Scott! Having lived in Dallas for 65 years and heard about a park being built in the floodway for at least 60 of those, if it happens--which I doubt--it'll never get used. Let's just pave the whole thing and relieve the traffic!
...
written by Lester Thompson , October 19, 2007 This park will never get used except by gangs and drug dealers. The homeless will be afraid to set foot in it. And won't it be nice for the convicts at the jail. We can just turn them out into the park where they can terrorize the picknicking families. Dallas cannot even hire new police to man its neighborhoods so I don't know where it will find police to patrol a massive park to the point anyone will want to use it besides the bad guys. I drive down I35 everyday to my job in downtown Dallas. The traffic is a nightmare. First, lets fix the road situation and then talk about the frills.
...
written by Right Wing Republican Volunteer , October 19, 2007 Scott, my neolib buddy, there is a 5th side: "screw the park" and screw the road too. I'm not artsy-fartsy enough to know what "a Jasper Johns painting" looks like but I know that your vision of a park built around that sewer known as the Trinity is absolutely right. I also know that there are a whole lot of places in Dallas that need new/improved roads more than the Trinity. "Screw" 'em both!! (And I'd bet there are more people that agree with my side than any of the other four!)
...
written by Nathan , October 19, 2007 Lester Thompson, if you work in Downtown, I would suggest riding DART rail. They have park and rides for your car and the trains move much quicker than a car in rush hour. Furthermore, you will not have to pay for a parking spot downtown. This road will be built to bypass Dallas and direct traffic towards the south east. It is not going to take much of the EXISTING traffic off of Stemmons or South RLT. You road warriors are quick to pave and slow to think. The billion plus in bonds (for 9 miles of six lanes) will be paid for by jacking up the tolls on the DNT and PGB. Why? Because you shouldn't build a road, or anything else for that matter, in a floodway! The graphics of the park are borderline ridiculous. Why? Because the same flooding that will flood the road will flood the park and destroy some of the fancy decoration. We do need a clean, green riverside though. And yes, believe it or not, people use the greenbelt even now. I regularly take my dogs for jogs down there. It is not as bad as it looks from the overpasses.
...
written by Pat Wilson , October 19, 2007 Nathan Right now if you want to take Dart you need to live where Dart runs. If you live in NW Dallas or Carrolton or that area there is no Dart. That is why you drive down Stemmons. That will eventually change but not for several more years.
...
written by Nathan , October 19, 2007 Pat Wilson, By the time this 1.3 billion dollar toll road breaks gound (or should I say mud) Dart will have 3 trains servicing residents who live Northwest of Dallas. The Green line, the Orange line and the existing TRE. Furthermore, the Denton County Transit Authority will have a Commuter Rail as well. This alignment will serve traffic that is headed to the southeast, that is where the rive flows. The Trinity River Toll Road is built for inland port trucks. DNT, PGB, and maybe 121 commuters foot the bill.
...
written by Brian74 , October 19, 2007 Would it be a little too forward thinking to figure out how to get $1.3B for more mass transit so we don't have to pave everything in sight? You can't pave your way out of the traffic nightmare that is DFW. It just can't be done. Everyone who drives here knows that the minute the road is complete it is already clogged. They can't build 'em fast enough. So when are we going to shift our thinking/infrastructure to the 21st century? By the way, my Birks are very comfortable.
...
written by Lou T , October 19, 2007 It looks to me like Scott still works for the Dallas Morning News - or at least the Dallas establishment. Isn't it odd that everyone seemed to open fire on poor old Jim Schutze at the same time? OK fellow ready aim shoot the messenger. Sorry Jim. Dallas Blog has ceased to be an alternative news and information source and become just one more establishment mouthpiece. Go Jim.
...
written by 1metroplexual , October 19, 2007 I have not yet made up my mind but am leaning toward voting against the proposal because I'm not convinced that the toll road will solve any more traffic problems than it will create. Also I don't see anything in the plans for the parks that will make them worth the investment that is being considered. The toll roads if proven to be vialby safe from flooding and properly connected to I 35 and I 45 (175) would serve us better than the proposed inside the levee parks even though I seriously question them as a better solution than a loop around the city. The Dallas City Hall complex and the downtown library took of a lot of planning and a lot of money was spent with a poor return for the citizenry. Both are very disappointing because they are under used and haven’t come close their potential. The problem is that neither is integrated into downtown, they're there but they're not there if you know what I mean. I fear a similar fate for the proposed floodway parks because they will not be integrated with any neighborhood, institutions, or downtown. They will be opportune places for predators and the homeless but not for lunchtime strolls, jogs or picnics. They are too remote for casual use and the Arts District already has the available venues that if located in the parks might attract people. Boston Common, Forest Park, Linclon Park, Central Park are integrated into their urban settings. They have multiple attractions, museums, zoos, concert stages, memorials etc on the grounds. They are great treasures for their respective cities. They are accessible by walking, by transit stations and have nearby universities, hotels, hospital complexes, restaurants and nearby residents. The Trinity Park has none of this and little potential for it as Dallas is now configured. The Trinity Park is indeed in the center of the city but it may as well be 10 miles away. The flood control project, the Trinity Forest, the equestrian center etc make sense. Anything other than trails, soccer fields and low maintenance stuff between the levees is risky and low ROI. Oh, and big time designer bridges over a dinky intermittent, polluted stream, while cool, seem to me overkill and narcissistic. I also question what maintaining these parks / lakes would cost. How much is projected for annual maintenance? How much for the periodic big flood clean ups? What will fund it? We've had problems maintaining a few swimming pools and some of the parks we do have. I appreciate our parks and recreation centers. I appreciate White Rock and several other Dallas parks and golf courses and the efforts taken to manage them. Will there be enough budget dollars for our existing places to be kept up and remain vital? The Vote Vote yes if you want to vote against the project. Vote no if you want to vote for the project. Who’s bright idea was that? If it was the proponents of the vote no side, congratulations to them for getting this through and tsk tsk to the vote yes folks for letting this happen. Resorting to this type trickery speaks for itself as to their true belief of the merits of the project. Why is there not more publicity on this Yes / No Vote issue? I see ads for the vote yes or vote no but it's not clear to me from a glance on what my vote would actually mean. That’s not effective communication in my opinion. If the Yes side wants to win this they need more effort to educate likely voters on what Yes and No votes actually accomplish. (Is this Clintonesque or what?) Surely Ms. Hunt and the Yes Group (or is it No?) realize the possible confusion. A word to the wise.... Great projects are not without problems: cost overruns, corruption, insider deals, etc. That plus a great deal of passion and energy at the top get big things accomplished. I can accept some of this if there is a worthwhile benefit. Famous examples include the Transcontinental Railroad, Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam etc. Regionally, DFW Airport was not built without such issues. What's best for the city vs. what's best for some special interests are not always mutually exclusive. However, before we sign up to spend over 2 billion dollars of the peoples’ money we need better information, better plans and stronger, accountable leadership. As for passion and energy? Angela Hunt seems to be the only leader exhibiting any.
...
written by Branden Helms , October 22, 2007 From 1met "Vote yes if you want to vote against the project. Vote no if you want to vote for the project. Who’s bright idea was that?" A yes vote approves the proposition that eliminates the road. A no vote rejects the proposition and keeps the road on course.
...
written by Crunchy Conservative in Manolos , October 23, 2007 Ask anyone who is not native Dallasite what they think of Dallas as a city and they immediately tell you about its plastic show-ey vapid materialistic personality and that it is an overwrought high maintenance concrete jungle devoid of natural self respecting beauty (which can describe alot of other things about Dallas, too). Sure, we may be living large and thinking big, but we are and continue to be a "natural disaster". With all the investment in downtown, it is high time that Dallas integrates into the area a magnificant central park that connects and expands the city's core. Such a destination must be developed for people (not cars) as an open PUBLIC pedestrian dedicated venue. Every great city at its core has at least one grande expansive public park for this purpose, which is a venue that becomes an important tourist and local go to greenspace destination of its own, preferably one that looks out onto water views worth looking at and abundant natural greenspace. Today, a tourist walking from the Convention center to those great new restaurants on Main sees constant street level views of ugly concrete amidst burned out storefronts and garage entrances. So what makes us believe that we can get the proposed foliage decor along the concrete tollway to look right when our own everyday streets remain ugly? The same folks who brought to you downtown development on steriods want to ramrod you into foregoing a dedicated nature loving lakefront vista accessible park destination so we can have more rampant concrete tollroads and street level ugliness to accomodate more cars into the downtown core... VOTE YES - Dallas deserves to have a magnificent dedicated park venue that is both visually memorable and is truly pedestrian-centric. The real estate development concrete happy machine needs a soul. Note specifically to Scott: Birkenstocks are as ugly as a big tollway through a nature park. Whether one wears Manolos or Nikes or the aforementioned ugly Birkenstocks, Dallas voters are smart enough to want to vote YES to question all the concrete madness.
...
written by joseph raines , October 23, 2007 I can't believe that I am agreeing with a Conservative, but the take on Dallas is quite accurate. Vote YES. We need a grand park in the city. By the way, I wear Birkenstocks -- they are quite fashionable! :-)
...
written by Ty , October 24, 2007 I'll at least hand this to Dallas Blog it does cover all the sides. You couldn't get much further apart than Sam Merten and Scott Bennett. I am afraid Scott is probably right about the park but Sam is right about what is going on out there.
...
written by joseph raines , October 25, 2007 Please wake me up from this nightmare -- only in Dallas would nearly everyone think that is is ok to have a highway go through a park. I knew I should have tried harder to get a job in Austin after I graduated from UT!
...
written by Donnat , October 25, 2007 Has any major artery in Dallas eased the traffic problems during rush hour? This will cost well over a billion per mile to build, will stand under water at least two months a year and commuters will still be stuck in traffic on I-35. If I had Crow's money, I'd be waging a campaign to build NOTHING there, it's a flood plain and an urban green space, for God's sake and why that's not good enough, I don't know. Of course, Crow's money (and the Hunts and a few other's money) is what this battle is all about. They have a lot, they want lots more and this is how they'll get their hands on it. If you think any fat cat in Dallas ever lost a minute of sleep worrying about how you poor jerks in Lewisville manage to drive your commute every day, you are truly delusional. If nothing ever gets built there, that will be the best situation for all of us, but if something has to go there, let it be a park. Ease up on the concrete Dallas - your hot, dirty and unattractive enough without adding to it. Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
