This was going to be a very difficult column to write, and I spent much time fretting about the way to do it. But then I saw a story in Dallas’ Only Daily Newspaper and everything became a whole lot easier.
“It’s all love and kisses for Dallas bond issue” read the headline, and the piece went on to detail how there was no opposition to this month’s bond election, how everyone is united behind the $1.35 billion project, and that its passage is a forgone conclusion.
To which I say: Dream on. I don’t know if the bond election will pass or not; to paraphrase Sam Spade, Mrs. Siegel didn’t raise any children dippy enough to make election predictions in print. But there is opposition — serious, widespread, grassroots opposition that is fed up with the way the city is being run. Case in point? That our elected officials and their flacks and media toadies would actually say something like this, which demonstrates not only how arrogant they are, but how out of touch they have become.
In 15 years of doing this, I have never once told others how to vote or how I was going to vote. I have offered analysis and criticism, but I have always believed that the important thing was voting, not if anyone agreed with me. This time, I’m making an exception, because this council desperately needs to be put in its place. The only way to do that is to vote against each of the 12 items in the bond package, which will show the council they serve at our pleasure, and not vice versa. Yes, some of the improvements are needed and some are even in my neighborhood. But we’ve waited this long; we can wait a little longer.
So, when you vote, keep these points in mind:
• There is no guarantee any of the money earmarked for specific projects will be spent on these projects. Legal types can check out Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities, et al., v. City of Dallas, Cause No. 00-9761-G and Ex Parte City of Dallas, Cause No. 01-6364-J, a court decision that says just that. Otherwise, at dallascityhall.com/pdf/Bond/2006BondProgramPropositionFinal.pdf, there’s a caveat: “The amounts identified for each project are estimated amounts and the City may reallocate the amounts among the various projects listed, modify the various listed projects, or substitute other projects of a similar nature, in accordance with the respective Bond proposition.” Which means that the $971,682 for renovations at Ridgewood Park that I’m voting for could be used on the Calatrava bridges.
• The council, led by mayoral candidate Ed Oakley and non-mayoral candidate Bill Blaydes, voted to give multi-national computer services firm ACS the contract to install and operate a camera system to catch red-light runners — even though its bid was one-half million dollars higher than the low bid and its technology wasn’t as good. That’s not $500,000 of Ed Oakley’s money or Bill Blaydes’ money; that’s our money. And I can think of a lot of things I’d rather use it for than to line the pockets of a company under federal scrutiny for stock manipulation, as well as for untoward business practices in a variety of municipalities, including Washington, D.C., and Edmonton, for the way it gets such contracts.
• We have the highest crime rate of any big city in the country. So what does the council do? Did it give police chief David Kunkel the 150 cops he told me he wanted when I interviewed him last spring? Nope. He got 100. The council played to the grandstand, looking ahead to next year’s council and mayoral elections — and to who knows what else down the road — and cut our property taxes so each of us would save $20 on a $200,000 home. That will cost the city $6.75 million, which, coincidentally, is about the cost of hiring 150 new cops.
The question is not whether I’m voting against the bond package. The question is how anyone can vote for it.
