It’s not often anymore that we have a chance to read dueling editorials, at least not since the Times Herald bit the dust oh so many years ago. Since then, it has generally been the DMN’s opinion on the issues of the day, and that’s about it.
But as a follow-up to last week’s brouhaha about the zoning responsibilities of individual city council members, both the DMN and the Observer came out with unique perspectives on the same issue.
Here’s the real problem: A part-time council member doesn’t have time to educate himself or herself on every single zoning project/request in the entire city of Dallas. Plain and simple, it’s too big of a job for someone pulling down less than $40,000 for city duties while generally holding down a quasi-full-time job, too. So for as long as I’ve been in town, council members generally (not always, but most of the time) defer to their colleagues on zoning issues in individual members’ districts; that councilman is in the best position to know the terrain, research the issue and talk with the neighbors who are affected. And as we all know, a council person who betrays his/her neigborhood on a zoning issue will have hell to pay for that misstep.
The News argues that the council members need to get a spine, act like Ron Natinsky and the mayor, and start thinking on their own. The Observer argues that the mayor needs to learn to count (as in, make sure he has a council majority) before attempting to slam-dunk a fellow council member.
Who’s right? That’s for us to decide … although if you ask me, the editorial writers at the News need to stop checking their common sense at the office door and make sure their ivory-tower academic arguments are rooted, at least somewhat, in reality.
