No wonder Highland Terrace gets no love

Oh, man.

After publishing the meeting on the website, physically delivering newsletters with the meeting time/date to every house on every street in Highland Terrace, and at least one email blast, the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting were in real danger of being outnumbered by the speakers. I'm guessing there were 20 residents there, and half of those were HTNA board members or family of board members). If HT votes in those kinds of numbers it's no wonder the city thinks they don't need our input on projects like the MST Gym.

I would not fault the speakers if they opted not to accept invitations to our meetings; the turnout was so low that I cannot imagine it was worth their time. As a resident of HT I believe it was worth my time to be there, if only to hear the questions submitted by the audience.

Speakers included:

• HTNA board members who spoke about their respective efforts.
• Button's policy wonk was there to throw red meat to the right. Fair enough; that's the demographic here (for now).
• Lanet Greenshaw, RISD Board of Trustees, was there to remind us she's up for re-election (same ballot as the bond election). Don't know anything about her, but she seemed pleasant enough.
  
• Amir Omar (Place 7, at large) was there to talk about Tree The Town (April 18th, 2pm @ Galatyn Plaza). Gracious and impressive as always.
  
• Steve Mitchell (Place 6, at large) and Bob Townshend (Place 1, our member) both spoke. Mitchell more briefly and Townshend in a bit more detail about things happening on the east side. Don't care what anybody else says: I dig Mitchell's jeans-and-jacket vibe.
  
• Bill Keffler had the most speaking time: he was on-hand to provide background information on many land/development deals that came up during Townshend's talk; Keffler did a good job job filling this info in. Keffler also made the "Vote Yes on the Bond" pitch. He kept his cool during the pitch, stopping to answer questions or comments that came up. Audience participation was more civil than recent "baby killer!" or "you lie!" scenarios but there was a bit of heat in some of the tax rate increase comments. Others were very neutral and thought-provoking: "is it common for cities to build water towers on land they do not own?" This was a reference to the UTD land-lease-for-roads deal. I was not swayed to vote Yes on the bonds, but I did come away with a greater respect for Mr. Keffler's encyclopedic knowledge of development in Richardson.
• Non-speaking attendees of note. From other parts of the city: Nathan Morgan and David (DC). From COR: Assistant city managers Morgan and Thames.
  

If I forgot anyone, let me know.

Oncor admits meter-reading error

But it turns out the error was in reading the old meters during the changeover to the new meters.

If this is true only the first bill should be out of whack.

3/30 Spring Valley redevelopment meeting

The majority of the ~50 attendees were homeowners. There was a renter and some biz owners and some non SVC interlopers like me. Apparently some folks from Dallas were there. Mitchell and Murphy were there. The audience skewed distinctly Anglo, shall we say.


Executive Summary
What Richardson Heights doesn't want: Mexicans. Things that are Mexicany. Admitting that it's about Mexicans.
What Richardson Heights wants: {mumbling} uhhhh...... distinctive... uhhhh... destination..... mid-to-upper income... Did we mention no Mexicans already?
How Richardson Heights proposes to pay for it: {crickets chirping}

About 1hr of the 3hrs was productive: the table discussions and the feedback sessions using the little remotes. In the example to the right, we are voting on how well this mixed-use streetscape fits our vision. I timed it so you could see the voting graph overlaid on the image. The left of the graph is SUCKS! and the right is GENIUS!, so you can see the crowd seemed to like this image.

State of play
It appears the locals are ready to rip-and-replace the Spring Valley Corridor (SVC hereafter). I don't know that this is really necessary and I have to believe the project will die on the (expensive) vine without 100% buy-in from Dallas.

I think another approach would be simpler, faster, and would result in fewer property tax hikes and bond proposals. The overall idea would be to embrace what's productive about SVC and set postive expectations to change what's counterproductive:

Embracing the productive

• make use of the capitalist spirit and work ethic of the people who live and work in the SVC. Let's use a trivial example. Ever seen elderly heladeros pushing the ice cream cart when it's 105F outside? That's a work ethic. Buy a dingdang ice cream (they are generally $1, and quite good. I like vanilla; wifey likes fresa). Welcome the heladero; encourage him to follow the rules, and encourage residents to value him and his service: this is a churro. These are duros. This is how you buy them from the vendor. Learn to love the heladero. He could be as valuable as a Crime Watch Patrol member in watching your neighborhood.
  
• Make our Hispanic brethren feel more welcome and wanted. Rework business buildings as needed, but retain a esthetic that says "we value what you bring to the table." Solicit Hispanic leadership in the SVC process. Sponsor a food fair where Mexican regional dishes are prepared and tasted. Simple cooking classes given by matriarchs would be delightful.
• Sponsor "tours" of mercados and other businesses so that nearby residents will experience the astounding vegetable/fruit/cheese/meat counters our Hispanic residents already know about.
  
• There are some lovely old apartments on the SVC; I lived in Spanish Trails (now Lakeside or something) and the physical area was really nice. Calming. Interior courtyards, ducks, a pond. It was cheap, quiet, and safe. Which brings up the next point...
• retain a place in Richardson for hardworking blue collar people to live. Seriously, folks. We can't (and shouldn't) push out our working folks of modest means to Garland or whatever. We need all types. We are them.
  
• etc
  

Changing the counterproductive

• require (or strongly suggest) that all rentals require background checks. When I lived in the SVC the crime was largely youth from Dallas preying on Hispanic folks living in the SVC. Still, criminal background checks would weed out the few bad apples and would soothe the concerns of nearby residents.
• Provide "this is how Richardsonians behave" information to all newcomers so they know how things are done in our city. They may not know. Follow this up with bilingual beat cops who are dedicated to the enduring success of the SVC.
  
• Enforce traffic laws rigorously; the SVC is a deathtrap of terrible driving, DUI, and lack of insurance. I have affection for the SVC and still avoid it much of the time because the drivers are so predictably bad. It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.
  
• etc
  

Ok, that's enough Pollyanna for tonight. I certainly don't have the answers, but perhaps these disjointed thoughts will inspire someone smarter, better organized, and better connected than I am.

Strongest case

An anonymous writer laid out a compelling, rational argument to vote against the upcoming bond proposals.

It's worth reading, even if you are voting for the bond proposals.

Tree fixation @ work session 3/23

[this was a draft I started and didn't finish. But it contains a dig at the datacenter millions, so I'll go ahead and turn it loose as-is.]


I may have made some errors while making this transcription. Better check it against the video yourself. :-)

Mitchell: I'm digging this "visually obscure 25% of the front door or porch" bullet. I mean, we're interested in making Richardson look good.

But there's this detail where the law only allows us to use this kind of tactic for "health & safety" issues. Still, we really like to be ahead of the curve.[0] Do you really think we are we going to be able (with a straight face) to claim in court this is about health and safety and not about looking good, despite what I just said 10 seconds earlier?

Don: Oh, hells yeah. We've been pulling this crap for years, since at least 2001; we were the first ones in North Texas to twist the law this way. We're way ahead of the curve. And now Mesquite is doing it, too! We haven't been sued yet by the residents or slapped down by the A.G. so we're golden. Masters of the universe and all that. It may be a dilrod thing to do, but our lawyers say it's totally defensible[1] and can be tied back[2] to health, safety and general welfare[3].

Mitchell: Man, you're good. Ok. Next question. My neighbor has this big old oak tree. I mean, this thing is annoying, what with all the birds, the acorns, the shade and all that crap. Is is this a stump, based on your new language?

Don: Believe it. If you don't like it (and you've got some pull) then it's a stump. They'll have to cut it down even to the level of the lawn.

Slagel, interrupting: Let me just ask. Is there any way we can pay some completely transient, unstable company five or ten million dollars to cut that tree down and then relocate some kind of datacenter or insurance company where the tree was? We could call it LumberTech or something. I like that branding, and I think it might yield the city thirteen or fourteen cents over the next six centuries.

Tex Keffler: I know some people who are perfect for that. I was playing golf with them Saturday morning. Or was it drinks in the hotel lounge? Regardless, it'd probably have to be closer to 10mil to "get their attention", if you know what I mean.

Macy: It seems traditional in many places to cut off the tree trunk at a couple of feet high and use it as a flower planter. Are we allowing that?

Don: The people who do that are trashy, and may not even be White. Deeply, profoundly "problematic". Denied!

[unfinished, unedited draft ends here]



[0] ie, do things that wiser people might say is "unwise", "inadvisable", or "illegal".
[1] ie, "we will bill you $500/hr to defend it"
[2] ie, fig leaf successfully attached
[3] ...of the city

bond props, 1-4

First off, COR webmaster, stop with the unnecessary Flash animation crap, ok? I think there's an important metaphor in there somewhere but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

I think in future bonds we need more granularity. Instead of
Street Improvments
Parts and Rec
Municipal Public Buildings
Neighborhood Vitality

we could have
Street Improvments - Critical
Street Improvments - Optional
Parts and Rec - Critical
Parts and Rec - Optional
Municipal Public Buildings - Critical
Municipal Public Buildings - Optional
Neighborhood Vitality - Critical
Neighborhood Vitality - Optional

This would help prevent critical expenditures from getting bundled with "sure would be nice" issues.

Or, even better: think of how different borrowing would be if we actually got to vote on each item. That would be something like 34 items instead of 4. Would I be willing to take the extra 10 minutes at the poll? Believe it. I don't think it will ever happen because it would KILL pork, and pork is the lifeblood of politics. Starve the beast, people.

Prop 1, $24.7M
The question here is whether or not to spike this $24.7M prop because of the inclusion of:
Galatyn Overpass Extension $787,500
UTD Roadways $2,836,000

Am I willing to drive on worse roads for a couple of years in order to send a signal that the city shouldn't try to bloat up bond props? Yes, I am.

BTW, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the city building erosion features for what appear to be two private residences at 1709 Timberway Dr. and 1502 Braeburn Dr. Anyone know the dates of the work sessions or council meetings when those were discussed? I'd like to educate myself on that issue. My immediate reaction is that underwriting poor residential location choices increases moral hazard.

Prop 2, $22.6M
This one is easy. No.

We're likely required to do
City Wide - Park ADA Modifications $262,500
which we can do out of current funds.

As much as I'd like to see trails, I will take my own medicine here. This is not the time to borrow money for that.

Note: Hey COR, I understand your girlfriend Heights Park is hot and more than a little high maintenance. Promise her all the trinkets you want, just don't expect the rest of us to underwrite your adventures. We're trying to buy groceries and make the mortgage over here.


Prop 3, 10.5M
No.

Would I like to increase doggie ventilation? Sure. Do it out of current funds. Or get a corporate partner. Who wouldn't want to go on the record as helping adoptable dogs stay cool?

The 724K RFID project will probably save money in the long term, and if so should be in a reasonable bond prop.

Prop 4, $8.15M
No.

Seriously, this is how you're going to list it? How about a link of some kind.
HOA Requested NV Projects Screening walls, entry features, bridge aesthetics $2,100,000

I have no problems with sidewalk repair but 25% undifferentiated fluff in that prop seals it for me.

Man, I'm getting grouchier as I age.

Tree The Town == debt lever?

I'm getting a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I really, really hope this isn't the underlying rationale for Tree the Town:

Posted by Dollar Tree @ 2:04 PM Tue, Mar 16, 2010
The hidden story in this is how these sponsors are effectively bolstering the City's asset base by tens of thousands of dollars. Not long ago, the Texas Legislature enabled municipalities to place a dollar value on trees. This is intended to increase the net worth of the municipality, and thus make its financial solvency seem more plausible. Well, enter the Tree The Town project. For every tree that is planted, the City will gain additional credibility in the financial markets, thanks to the value of trees being added to the asset base. The only loser here are the citizens who have to repay the debt for which these assets will be applied as collateral.

I hope Amir addresses this in public somewhere.

Line in the sand: I will actively work against any council member/candidate who seeks creative ways to increase COR's ability to go deeper into debt. We need leadership that will help wean COR off debt.