Archive for the ‘City Hall’ Category

​Damn it. We got so caught up in the state Supremes' pole tax ruling at the end of last week we missed the far bigger one staring at us from the top of Friday's Opinions on Orders page: City of Dallas v. Keneth E. Albert et al., otherwise known as The Billion-Dollar Case.It's not a simple case to recap; when it comes to this particular legal matter, which went before the Supreme Court of Texas in December 2009, there is no such thing as "long story short." And then there's this: Both sides are claiming victory.This is a case that dates all the way back to a 1979 referendum: City of Dallas voters agreed to 15-percent pay raises for firefighters, police officers and rescue workers, but only with the caveat that "the current percentage pay differential between grades in the sworn ranks of [the Officers] shall be maintained." As Justice Phil Johnson so neatly summed it up last week:A dispute arose between the City and the Officers over whether the ordinance provided for a one-time pay raise or whether it provided for a one-time pay raise and also required the percentage pay differential to be maintained indefinitely so that if higher-ranking Officers received raises, lower-ranking Officers also received raises in order to maintain the differential.It got decidedly nasty in the late 1980s: Deputy chiefs began noticing that the pay differential between themselves and those lower down the ladder began shrinking. Then-Assistant City Manager Jan Hart issued a memo, which she later disowned, giving back pay to some top cops. Then, as The Dallas Morning News noted five years ago:Again, in 1991, Police Chief Bill Rathburn ordered that nine police executives receive raises based on the clause. In an interview, Mr. Rathburn said, "Mary Suhm was my senior administrative person, and anything like that that I would have signed would have come from Mary Suhm." She was then a top civilian manager in the Police Department and is now city manager.Three years later, officers who didn't get pay bumps sued the city -- and the city fought back with its own claim, insisting that "if the Officers had not been paid correctly," again according to Johnson, "they had been overpaid instead of underpaid and the City was entitled to reimbursement for the overpayments. The City eventually sought dismissal of the Officers' claims on the basis of governmental immunity, then later dismissed its counterclaim."Except the trial court said, no, the city doesn't get to claim immunity when it's countersuing for monetary damages. But the city protested: When it ditched its counterclaim, that right there should have been enough to reinstate immunity -- it is possible to get your virginity back. The officers suing the city said: Not so much. And a majority of the Supremes agreed, which is why they're sending it back to trial court -- to further argue issues of immunity.

​In '05, the city outsourced its parking-ticket operations to locally based Affiliated Computer Service; then, a year later, forked over an additional five figures so the company could mount a few AutoVu license plate recognition cameras, making it easier to spot and track drivers who couldn't, didn't or just wouldn't feed the meters. When City Hall renewed its contract with ACS last year, part of the deal was: "new state-of-the-art equipment, which is essential for locating scofflaws and gaining payment compliance. The equipment can also be used to locate stolen vehicles." Or, turns out, anyone else owing a dime to Dallas.On the other side is the complete packet of memos sent to the city council Friday night. On Page 5 you'll find First Assistant City Manager A.C. Gonzalez's note about how, any day now, the city will begin using LPR cameras as part of a pilot program to "locate individuals owning outstanding City of Dallas fines and fees by identifying their vehicles on Dallas streets and then posting notices on vehicles that may have outstanding bills with the Dallas Courts offices." That notice also follows, for those needing a sneak peek at the fine print.Not sure if the city's still using AutoVu cams, but it looks like Motorola has a nice set-up. Anyway. Last summer the Texas Observer ran a piece about how cops statewide are using the LPR cams without most Texans even aware they're at work; Big Brother, y'all. Local defense attorney Mike Lowe sums it up thusly: "That's right: Texas law enforcement is using 'mass surveillance' without your approval." Writes Gonzalez, hey, it's gotta be done: "While we understand that we are going through some tough economic times, we hope that this project will assist with compliance efforts."

​After our back-to-back items about redistricting last night -- one involving the city of Dallas, one concerning the Dallas Independent School District -- I received a missive from Bill Betzen, about whom Anna wrote a couple of weeks back as his proposed map for the city's new council districts worked its way through the Redistricting Commission. Bill's no stranger here, of course, but after participating in the city's extraordinarily transparent process and watching how the DISD handled redistricting (with attorneys, at a handful of poorly attended public forums, behind closed doors, posting to an "illustrative" and altogether unclear website), he had a few thoughts on the subject.I asked if we could share them here, he said sure, absolutely. Because, as he explained, "The more the public becomes aware of the contrast between DISD and Dallas City Council redistricting, the more they will understand redistricting and how it should be done. Expanding that knowledge benefits us all!" Jump for his thoughts.

600 Elsbeth, in concept and reality​We came in late to the fight over 600 Elsbeth: Back in October, we discovered that Jane Bryant was selling, through Heritage, a door to Lee Harvey Oswald's old Oak Cliff apartment, on Elsbeth and Davis. The apartment building itself is mentioned here in the Warren Commission Report; Lee and Marina moved there in November '62, though it doesn't sound like a place that holds terribly good memories for the former Mrs. Oswald. Nevertheless, there's no doubt they lived there. But it's hardly a protected landmark. In fact, if you've driven by it recently, you'll note that the place is barely standing.Which is why, for the last three years, the city of Dallas has been trying to demolish 600 Elsbeth, taking Bryant to court over a structure it insists is "dilapidated, substandard, unfit for human habitation" and generally in desperate need of a date with a bulldozer. Back in November of last year, though, Bryant -- who says this is what she has planned for the property, a Gateway to the Bishop Arts District -- and the city came to an agreement: She had till June 15 of this year to have the place studied, secure her permits and restore the structure. Or else. That or else came at the end of July, when Administrative Judge Victor Lander told the city to bring out the wrecking ball, we're through.You'll find all that recap on the other side, in legal docs affixed to Bryant's complaint against the city filed on Wednesday. In it, she claims "the Municipal Court Proceeding was tainted with numerous procedural and evidentiary errors that materially prejudiced" her rights, and that "600 Elsbeth Street does not constitute a public nuisance or a hazard to the public safety and welfare." Says the suit:Upon information and belief, the July 26 Order and the interlocutory orders merged into it would, if carried into effect, constitute a taking for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. [And] the judges of the City's municipal courts are not elected, but rather are appointed by the City to represent the City's interests. The City lacks the separation of powers of the state and federal governments. Entities have fewer procedural protections before municipal courts exercising civil jurisdiction than they do before county and district courts. And finally, the question of whether 600 Elsbeth Street constitutes a public nuisance is a mixed question of law and constitutionally relevant fact, and must therefore be reviewed de novo under the Takings Clause.Jump for the docs.

600 Elsbeth, in concept and reality​We came in late to the fight over 600 Elsbeth: Back in October, we discovered that Jane Bryant was selling, through Heritage, a door to Lee Harvey Oswald's old Oak Cliff apartment, on Elsbeth and Davis. The apartment building itself is mentioned here in the Warren Commission Report; Lee and Marina moved there in November '62, though it doesn't sound like a place that holds terribly good memories for the former Mrs. Oswald. Nevertheless, there's no doubt they lived there. But it's hardly a protected landmark. In fact, if you've driven by it recently, you'll note that the place is barely standing.Which is why, for the last three years, the city of Dallas has been trying to demolish 600 Elsbeth, taking Bryant to court over a structure it insists is "dilapidated, substandard, unfit for human habitation" and generally in desperate need of a date with a bulldozer. Back in November of last year, though, Bryant -- who says this is what she has planned for the property, a Gateway to the Bishop Arts District -- and the city came to an agreement: She had till June 15 of this year to have the place studied, secure her permits and restore the structure. Or else. That or else came at the end of July, when Administrative Judge Victor Lander told the city to bring out the wrecking ball, we're through.You'll find all that recap on the other side, in legal docs affixed to Bryant's complaint against the city filed on Wednesday. In it, she claims "the Municipal Court Proceeding was tainted with numerous procedural and evidentiary errors that materially prejudiced" her rights, and that "600 Elsbeth Street does not constitute a public nuisance or a hazard to the public safety and welfare." Says the suit:Upon information and belief, the July 26 Order and the interlocutory orders merged into it would, if carried into effect, constitute a taking for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. [And] the judges of the City's municipal courts are not elected, but rather are appointed by the City to represent the City's interests. The City lacks the separation of powers of the state and federal governments. Entities have fewer procedural protections before municipal courts exercising civil jurisdiction than they do before county and district courts. And finally, the question of whether 600 Elsbeth Street constitutes a public nuisance is a mixed question of law and constitutionally relevant fact, and must therefore be reviewed de novo under the Takings Clause.Jump for the docs.

Vonciel Jones Hill takes careful aim at her own foot ...​In case you haven't noticed, the map that the Redistricting Commission voted to forward to the city council on Tuesday night has one major change: It would place both Vonciel Jones Hill and Dwaine Caraway in District 4, meaning that the two council members would have to run against each other the next election to keep their seats."I'm not running against her," said Caraway just now, when we called to ask him what he thought about this whole thing. "Please don't print that. Don't give me an aneurysm, now."What he meant, of course, was that his district doesn't change, but Hill's would, something that Caraway maintains was deliberately done on the part of Hollis Brashear, the commissioner for District 5 appointed by Hill herself."I was safe and happy where I was," he said. "They invaded my house. They invaded my house. So that's something that they did." He said Brashear fought hard to put a small portion of Bar Harbor into District 4 in map 16 -- a portion where Brashear and Hill both live. Basically, Caraway said, "they abandoned their district to come into mine."It's not that he's concerned about winning any race in the future, Caraway added. What upsets him is the weakened representation for Dallas's black community. When two African-American council members are "pitted together" in one race, he said, African-Americans will lose a council seat. "We lose representation on the planning commission, the park board," he said. "We lose representation on each and every board that comes under that.How do you put yourself in someone else's area and then not understand that the fact that it's retrogression?" Caraway asked, probably rhetorically. "We went backwards."

The under-construction City Performance Hall​Upcoming is a chat I had this morning with Corinne Hill, the interim director of the Dallas Public Library system. I called her to talk about the new Arts, Culture & Libraries Committee debuted on Tuesday when Mayor Mike Rawlings sent word of his new council committee appointments. She said she didn't know much about the committee, which will be chaired by Ann Margolin and is tasked with coming up with a plan for finding "alternative funding sources for arts, culture and libraries." Hill suggested I ask the mayor or Paula Blackmon, his chief of staff. Blackmon offered a few thoughts, which will follow, after which she said the mayor would call. Which he just did.So, then. Why the new committee?"I believe that we'll never be this great city we all talk about from time to time unless we are a smart, cultured and creative city," Rawlings says. "I think we need to make sure we put structure around that desire in some manner. We spend a lot of time and money at City Hall talking about things, and I realized we didn't have that voice in that dialogue. So that's it from a strategic standpoint."From a tactical standpoint, I think there are people that want more funding for the libraries. And the AT&T Performing Arts Center, we're not funding it as we should be -- we're committed to $2.5 million and have only paid $1.5 million. And, there are our many cultural centers and the new City Performance Hall coming online. I wanted to make sure we had the wisdom of some of the city council people" involved in those funding discussions.

Via.​Theresa O'Donnell, director of Sustainable Development and Construction for the city of Dallas, confirms: Sylvan Thirty's zoning ordinance won't go before the City Plan Commission till October 6, a month later than originally scheduled. The delay is due, in part, to a request made by the Belmont's Monte Alexander on Monday, in which he writes that "more time is needed to evaluate the case."This, of course, follows revisions to the ordinance requested by the CityDesign Studio, as detailed in the item below. They involve, among other items, making the development caddy-corner from the Belmont more "transparent" (which is to say, the buildings have more windows) and more accessible from Sylvan Avenue -- better able to "activate the public realm," in the words of CityDesign Studio head Brent Brown.But while the city waits for the revisions, which we may have shortly, letters of support for the project continue to roll in -- not just from the West Dallas and Oak Cliff chambers of commerce, as we've noted this week, but from the likes of state Rep. Rafael Anchía, Dallas County Commissioner Elba Garcia and state Rep. Eric Johnson. O'Donnell also forwards one from Jason Roberts, who writes in his letter of support that "as designed, Sylvan Thirty advances the sense of community that it vitally important. It is highly pedestrian oriented and integrates well with Sylvan Avenue and Ft. Worth Avenue." (Update: Roberts followed up with a note to O'Donnell enumerating several concerns with the original zoning ordinance. It follows in full in the comments.)Anchía, Garcia and Johnson's letters follow.

Via.​So, back to that Sylvan Thirty item from earlier in the week. Got an email this morning from Monte Anderson, the man who resurrected the Belmont. Said he wanted to talk about the development going in catty-corner from his -- one he's long supported. Matter of fact, says Anderson, he helped Sylvan Thirty president Brent Jackson "get that land, and I introduced him to Cox Farms," so far the only tenant announced for the mixed-use development scheduled to go where once the Alamo Plaza Hotel Courts stood.Anderson still wants Sylvan Thirty: "I'm kinda lonely over there by myself," he tells Unfair Park." He just doesn't want it the way it's configured in zoning plans scheduled to go to the City Plan Commission come fall. (Word is the scheduled September hearing regarding Sylvan Thirty's zoning has been pushed till October.)Specifically, says Anderson: "The biggest problem is he's building a suburban-style development with pad sites that have their backs to the road. He won't put it in the code where the front doors can face the major roads, and he's made the sidewalks so narrow it looks like the backside of a building. It's like an outlet mall where you have these blank walls on the front and all the life happens inside."He dismisses those Lake-Flato renderings we looked at earlier this week. "I am not talking about the pretty pictures," Anderson says. "I am talking about the zoning. Those are pictures."Anderson's opposition comes as the West Dallas and Oak Cliff chambers of commerce sent their respective letters of support to the city. Former council member Bob Stimson, head of the Oak Cliff chamber, tells Unfair Park today his group's just fine with the plan: "Our goal is to make sure good things happen, investments get made and businesses move in." And Sylvan Thirty does that.As for Jackson, well, he insists all will be well."Until all information is known from city staff and is published and made public," he tells Unfair Park, "there will continue to be questions, and that's understandable."

Click to see a bigger version of the plan being sent to council. But the biggest version is here.​Behold, Dallas, the shiny new city council districts the Redistricting Commission has drawn for you! Don't uncork the champagne just yet, though. The commissioners themselves certainly didn't seem to be in the mood for it.Near the end of last night's six-hour meeting (yes, yes it was), the commission voted 11-4 to approve cPlan16d, the submission drawn by commissioners Domingo Garcia, Brooks Love and Billy Ratcliff, adding on a few smallish last-minute amendments, mostly based on suggestions by citizens at Saturday's public forum. The commissioners voted the plan forward with varying degrees of enthusiasm; they were also strikingly honest about saying what they thought went right with this process, as well as what didn't."I thought redistricting was about people and populations," said commissioner Mary Hasan at one point, who has seemed ever-more dissatisfied during the commission's meetings. "But I found out I was a little bit delusional. ... It seems certain people in certain parts of town have a stronger voice. You have to fight a lot harder when you live in the southern sector."