Does the Dallas Observer ever have anything good to say... (Highlands: crime, hotel)

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by justme02

I guess one positive is that (thanks to the Observer) I know where all the Asian massage parlors are.

Good point. And a savy reader can easily distinguish between Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese and Japanese varieties.

[Pete53FR]

Truth is I pretty much do not have much good to say about City of Dallas except I think that Police Department is improving under Kunkle and current chief. Dallas needs to get their priorities straight. Infrastructure is falling apart.

[rantanamo]

I like the Observer because they do go into good detail about new developments. Yes, they have a negative vibe, but they do offer some good criticisms. They need better counterpoints though.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Pete53FR

Truth is I pretty much do not have much good to say about City of Dallas except I think that Police Department is improving under Kunkle and current chief. Dallas needs to get their priorities straight. Infrastructure is falling apart.

What is falling apart?
And relative to what other big cities is Dallas lacking?

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

I like the Observer because they do go into good detail about new developments. Yes, they have a negative vibe, but they do offer some good criticisms. They need better counterpoints though.

IMO that's a big part of their problem. There is no reasoned counterpoint at least not normally.

[dallasboi]

Originally Posted by Pete53FR

Truth is I pretty much do not have much good to say about City of Dallas except I think that Police Department is improving under Kunkle and current chief. Dallas needs to get their priorities straight. Infrastructure is falling apart.

Originally Posted by EDS_

What is falling apart?
And relative to what other big cities is Dallas lacking?

I want to know also.....Sounds like a general statement he thought he could get away with saying.

[Downtown Dave]

If you want to know what is really going on at City Hall read the Dallas Observer. Jim Schutze is incendiary but he does his homework.

If all you want is positive puff pieces and the aw' shucks country wisdom of Steve Blow then read the DMN.

[Macbeth2003]

Originally Posted by EDS_

That last part is fairly simple. In this case The Observer is anti-business unless that business is a topless club, bar, restaurant, alternative cinema or escort service.


The various Dallas City Govs over the years, like it or not, have left us a fiscal/physical and pro business vibe that leaves Dallas as one of two or three best positioned big cities in the US.

But these are not business projects. The arena, the bridge, the hotel. These are essentially great big public works projects.. or government owned or funded industries. It is kind of odd that huge government involvement in public works, and government run businesses are supported by the conservative outlets and opposed by the liberal ones.

As for the government, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. I love Dallas, but I know many people who have refused to move here because we cannot repair our streets, mow the grass in our parks, or keep half our pools open and repaired. We can, though, build hotels, bridges, theatres in the arts district, and a shiny new toll road. That is also a big part of the reason my parents (hardly anti-business big govt folk, my father is a fiercely pro business ex-oil company VP) keep debating moving away now my dad is retired. I've always thought repairing the city owned stuff we have should come before building more of it. To my mind that isn't even an issue of being pro or anti growth, or pro or anti such projects in principle. What we are doing now is like adding rooms to your house, while the roof and foundation crumble.

Originally Posted by EDS_

IMO that's a big part of their problem. There is no reasoned counterpoint at least not normally.

This is certainty true, though I think it is true of the DMN as well. Neither of those organs seem to be very good at weighin the counterargujments, showing the other sides logic, or in many cases disclosing all the facts.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Macbeth2003

But these are not business projects. The arena, the bridge, the hotel. These are essentially great big public works projects.. or government owned or funded industries. It is kind of odd that huge government involvement in public works, and government run businesses are supported by the conservative outlets and opposed by the liberal ones.

As for the government, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. I love Dallas, but I know many people who have refused to move here because we cannot repair our streets, mow the grass in our parks, or keep half our pools open and repaired. We can, though, build hotels, bridges, theatres in the arts district, and a shiny new toll road. That is also a big part of the reason my parents (hardly anti-business big govt folk, my father is a fiercely pro business ex-oil company VP) keep debating moving away now my dad is retired. I've always thought repairing the city owned stuff we have should come before building more of it. To my mind that isn't even an issue of being pro or anti growth, or pro or anti such projects in principle. What we are doing now is like adding rooms to your house, while the roof and foundation crumble.



This is certainty true, though I think it is true of the DMN as well. Neither of those organs seem to be very good at weighin the counterargujments, showing the other sides logic, or in many cases disclosing all the facts.

Excellent post as I've grown to expect from you.

A. I'd argue that projects like the hotel, bridge, bridge park, AA Center etc. are necessary publicly backed projects that all top tier cities need to compete for top companies who refuse to locate precious employees in areas lacking similar amenities. The hotel, I abhor government competing with private enterprise generally, was flatly required to re-set Dallas as a convention destination city. So I support the effort while holding my nose as it were. All that means I think these projects are nominally pro-business.

A1. Improved auto access to and from SOC/Bishop Arts ect. was flatly needed in order to continue the improvements happening south of the river. I would have been happy with a strictly functional/utilitarian design but a bridge was needed.

B. Sure the streets need more work - I travel all the time, which big city in the US does not need better streets? Also let's not co-mingle these things. Most of the time bond monies spent on big public projects could not be spent on roads. With our hot and occasionally cold and wet weather and shifting soils road maintenance is always going to be a problem here.

C. The pool closures et all are a bit of a contextual red-herring IMO. What other big cities have not done the same or more? And by the way where on public property is grass not being mowed?

D. Tollroads do not take monies from cities' road repair budgets at least not around here.

E. By the way Dallas has not stopped fixing streets. A large section of Royal between Inwood and Welch was just rehabbed as was a portion of Strait south of Royal. A long stretch of Inwood south of Royal was rehabbed recently. Lemon was just significantly rehabbed south and east of Inwood etc.

[Macbeth2003]

And as always, an excellent post form you.

A: I think this is where we part company in our views. I think any convention bounce from the Omni is likely to be short lived, but time, and I guess only time, will tell which of us is right on that.

A1:I'm not sure was needed, but it certainly didn't need to be a "showpiece" frankly no one I know outside of Texas has heard of it, so it isn't attracting the sort of attention we need.

B: We have sevral times over the last few years zeroed out the non emergency street repair budget. Our streets are in horrible shape largely because we don't fund the regular maintenance and wait until things reach an "emergency" situation. This is like never having a checkup, or physical, or disease screening, and then regularly paying a fortune for emergency medical care. Penny wise and pound foolish. As for spending bond money, granted we can't use bonds earmarked for thing A for thing B instead; however, if we didn't issue so many bonds for Thing A we might be able to raise funds for thing B instead.

C: I don't think the pool closures are a red herring. Especially since the current plan is to eventually close more and build more big waterparks (at $10 to $15 a head, and competing with the privately owned ones). I see it as apart of the generally misguided view of Dallas Government. Let a 70 year old asset (as some pools are) rot while spending money on the latest fad (city owned water parks). As for grass, it has been increasingly common for the city to reduce, reduce, and reduce again the frequency with which public areas are mown and watered. Certain times of year the parks reach a point where the grass is very unsightly. Other times of the year- like now - the ground is a patchwork of cracks so large kids can trip in them.

D: Agreed, and I probably was unclear on that. I was simply pointing out the difference in priorities. We spend a lot of time and money raising funds for controversial toll roads, and very little time and money maintaining our streets. I go back to my earlier point of we could be raising money for thing A not thing B.

E: True, but again only when it becomes a disaster, the day in day out maintenance does not get done. Things are left to deteriorate to a dismal status before they are addressed.

I think it just comes down to a different view. I'm sure I will be attacked as anti-dallas, which I am not, but I don't think we are ready to be a first tier city yet, and that is just fine. I think we should be putting internal problems in order before we attempt things that are largely outreach to the rest of the world. In this forum we often point out to people that while Dallas is a wonderful place to live, it isn't really a travel or tourist destination. I'm worried we are going to loose the former in the pursuit of becoming the latter. I understand the opposing view, and unfortunately too many on either side of these issues seem to feel the other side "doesn't care" about Dallas, or "The real Dallas," or whatever... I do wish both papers did a better job of presenting the full facts, and the opposing view, with eyes wide open but if we can't have that - and history seems to show we can't - I'm glad we have two papers presenting opposite blinkered views.