Allen Gwinn  2007-10-06 17:51  City of Dallas   

"In 1998, this was about picnics and parks. In 2007, it's about a tollroad."

[$100 Finder's Fee for Video! Details below.]

Earlier this year, Dallas City Council member Angela Hunt collected almost 80,000 signatures aimed at forcing a referendum (a vote) on whether to nix a high-speed toll road from the middle of the Trinity River project that voters approved 10 years ago.

Voting "YES" scraps the high speed tollroad in favor of a low speed parkway.

Voting "NO" builds the tollroad down the middle of the Trinity.

Former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk has been hitting the lecture circuit pitching the tollroad (e.g. "vote no") to high profile crowds in Dallas accompanied by senior city staff members.

Everybody has questions. How about if I just limit mine to three:

First question: Where are the picnic blankets, lakes and boats?

I remember, distinctly, all the literature that came out in 1998 "pitching" the big Trinity River project to voters. I voted for it!

I remember the artist's rendering of mom, dad and the kids sitting on the picnic blanket next to their car with a sailboat in the middle of a beautiful lake.

It's been 10 years. Where are the lakes, the boats, the picnics?

Second question: Who says we're going to lose "the money"?

City staff, along with elected officials and business leaders, have been saying that if we don't build a high-speed tollroad right down the middle of where the 1998 artist's renderings showed lakes, boats and picnics, that we're going to lose "the money" -- and 9 figures worth of money at that!

Who says?

Somebody in the federal government?

Somebody overseeing federal funds?

Who?

Where is the letter from whoever is going to give us "the money" saying that if Hunt's petition is voted "up," and we sink the tollroad, that "the money" vanishes?

A very prominent and sagely member of Dallas' political community made another observation: "if we end up taking the money, and building the wrong thing, wouldn't we have been better off turning 'the money' down until we figure out how to build it right?"

Great observation in my book, but for now I'll settle for an answer to the question: "who says" (or is it all speculation and fear-mongering)?

Final Question: Why the need to shut me up?

Keep in mind that "SaveTheTrinity.net (aka ShutUpDallas.com)'s" original mission was to keep me from voting at all.

Never mind whether or not I was "for" the tollroad or "against" it.

It didn't matter if I wanted the tollroad.

It didn't matter if I didn't want the tollroad.

The purpose was to keep voters from signing the petition. The goal was to keep me from being heard as a voter.

Why?

I don't know about other Dallas voters, but trying to shut me up as a voter doesn't sit too well with me.

Is it because, like other times in our city's history, the few want to benefit at the expense of the many?

I would hope our new mayor, and our city council, would have welcomed the opportunity to win voters over to their side. I'm extremely disappointed that, regardless of what I thought (and apparently 80,000 others thought), nobody "downtown" wanted to hear it.

Well now, my downtown friends, you're going to hear it!

So have you lost my "no" vote?

At the risk of alienating those who are cheering this message: maybe not. I'm frequently accused of having an "unfairly open mind" from time-to-time; always being able to see a "good intention" in even the most unconscionable of actions.

But the "Save The Trinity" crowd has a lot of explaining to do.

And, by the way, and having paid senior city staff members campaign against the petition isn't scoring any "no" points either.

So how about starting with those three questions: "where'r the boats," "who says," and "why did you try to shut me up?"

After I get a good answer to those, we can move on to the rest of the things you want to tell me.

Better hurry.

[NOTE: Dallas.Org is looking for video and audio of city staff members "pitching" any aspect of this project. If we use your video or audio on this website, we will pay a $100 finders fee! So get those video cameras rolling!]

Naphtha9  2007-10-14 07:38   

Reading about the small strip of land that needs to be acquired to get the bridge and the difficulties in wresting it away from Oncor, left me wondering, why not apply public domain law? Or does that only apply to small pocketed land owners who are more easily bullied?

[Ed Note: They can take it through eminent domain. Where's the link?]

Ramesh (not verified)  2007-10-09 13:50   

We have enough mediocre parks in this city. Adding a Tollway to a park will ruin it. Adding another highway will not resolve traffic issues, we need better public transit: light rail etc. The public officials supporting the tollway will never accept a big noisy road near their big homes or parks. They are using the excuse of delays to push the project, but it is better to get it RIGHT than get it earlier and useless.

I would vote YES, and create a Dallas landmark that we would live to VISIT and not another green belt on the map.

Nathan (not verified)  2007-10-09 08:31   

You answered your three questions when you reminded everyone of the original mission of the Citizen's Council/Trinity Commons/Trinity Trust/Save the Trinity...whatever name they are going by these days.

I like your name, shutupdallas.com.

Their original mission was to have us not vote again.

They said we already voted on this once, forget the fact that it was nine years, one billion dollars and a major revision ago.

They want to turn dirt and spill concrete along the river and they want us to subsidize their private ventures while leaving us with the liability of faulty flood control and a highway inside the flood way. How dare you step out of line and ask three questions of them!

I hope Bush vetoes the new Water Resource Development Act. That would really throw a wrench in their machine. Of course they would find away to blame Angela Hunt for the veto.