|
David Tuthill
| |
8/27/9 Ward
politics makes weak people take chances.
Several weeks ago, a journalist friend who has gone on to much greener
pastures than local stuff asked me why I'm not writing more about the Don Hill
debacle. I started making excuses, but had to basically admit I don't seem to care so
much.
It's not summer doldrums. It's a
combination of disgust and "told you so"!
Following Jim Schutze's courthouse blog on UnFairPark/DallasObserver.com has
been fun reading. The testimony from the various cast of characters is
both shocking and not completely unexpected. Not unexpected, except for
the names of some of the side players.
Back before Judge Jerry Buchmeyer decreed 14-1 the law of the city, we had 8
council members elected from single member districts, 2 council members and the
mayor elected citywide. All the liberals who wanted single member
districts were happy to have a federal judge overturn an election that went
opposite to their plans. I had mixed emotions about the whole thing.
I had been President of the Oak Lawn Committee and knew how many on the council
thought all of Oak Lawn should be turned into office buildings and apartments.
We had to lobby the entire council frequently when bad projects were looming.
It was not up to only Lori Palmer to determine what happened in our district.
As a matter of fact, Palmer was not popular on the council, so we had to get
other council members to support our position. We developed relationships
with various plan commissioners and council members. We actually had
public hearings at City Hall in those days, where we never knew for sure how the
vote would go until the final tally.
After 14-1 went into law, plan commissioners and council members took
proprietary ownership of their respective districts. They are the
absolute authority on what happens in their districts. With
Laura Miller as mayor, there was a chance a wrong thing could be stopped,
like Bill Blaydes' efforts to change the zoning on the land where Hollywood
Overhead Doors has operated for over 50 years. Ironically, Angela Hunt
sided with Mayor Miller on that zoning fight. See
Council thwarts Bill
Blaydes' land grab plans
and
Taking other people's property.
And
Jim Schutze's
The Good Laura
Or, how Bill Blaydes locked up the Bastard of the Year
award
(DallasObserver.com, 5/30/07).
With Mayor Miller gone, there is no one to challenge a wrong zoning case.
When Plan Commissioner Neil Emmons and Councilwoman Angela Hunt decided that
Woodard Paint & Body is not up to their standards for Ross Avenue, no one on the
council came to their defense. Woodard wasn't even allowed to speak at Plan
Commission because Emmons told them he would move to deny their SUP application with prejudice if
they did. Little did they know that Councilwoman Hunt would deny them even
the crumbs offered by Emmons and the P&Z. We actually do not have public hearings at City Hall these days.
No one came to their defense at council like Mayor Miller did for Hollywood
Overhead Doors in 2007.
I used the example of Hunt/Emmons vs. Woodard Paint & Body because in
Dallas Morning News' Jason Trahon and
Gromer Jeffers quote Neil Emmons:
Plan Commissioner Neil Emmons, an appointee of District 14 council member Angela Hunt who has served on the commission since 2001, favors increased disclosure requirements for local lobbyists, a crew that may include lawyers, political consultants and others. Many of his fellow commissioners, he said, "lack the understanding of how lucrative the work of the consultants is."
Naive commissioners "risk taking the information we are provided at face value without considering all of the motivations of those who provide it," said Emmons, an Oak Lawn community activist.
|
This is the same guy who has forced developers to meet
with him and provide details of their project, which he promptly shares with
his buddies in the opposition. If you are one of Emmons' friends, your
client's project sales through. It's not lobbyists he disapproves, it's
lobbyists who aren't suitably deferential to Neil Emmons. Other plan
commissioners have had to call him down when he has been particularly abusive to
citizens speaking to the P&Z.
It's not the lobbyists or consultants who are causing the problems at City Hall
related to land use and development. It's the structure of the process.
Rather than address the ward politics and inherent climate for corruption with
the current Plan Commission format, the council is going after the non-voting
people who represent clients at City Hall.
Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert said Monday he will propose sweeping changes to the way City Hall handles zoning cases and the players involved in them.
His proposed overhaul includes:
?Requiring paid lobbyists to register with the city.
?Prohibiting people with zoning cases before the city from giving campaign contributions to council members for 60 days before and 60 days after their case is considered.
?Requiring a zoning case to have the signatures of three council members before the full council can consider it.
"We're putting it all together now, and that's what I'm going to put on the table," Leppert said.
... Leppert's proposal comes as the federal corruption trial of former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill and his allies has focused public attention on how City Hall is lobbied by special interests.
Currently, the city does not require the registration of lobbyists and consultants who are paid to persuade council members, city staff and plan commissioners to support their clients' projects.
... Hill, former Plan Commissioner D'Angelo Lee and others are being tried on bribery and extortion charges. They are accused of targeting two affordable-housing developers, James R. "Bill" Fisher and Brian Potashnik.
The developers testified that Hill and Lee threatened to pull their political support if the businessmen didn't hire the right consultants and contractors.
... It's the politics-as-usual argument by defense lawyers that's troubling some Dallas officials.
... As for requiring signatures from three council members before a zoning case can be heard, that might encourage individual council members to pay more attention to projects outside their districts.
Council members now exercise almost total control over the fates of projects within their districts. By custom, their colleagues almost always follow their lead in approving or denying those projects. ...
|
The council might want to get an outside opinion
as to whether it will be legal to require applicants to secure 3 council
signatures before their zoning case can be heard by the city council. With
the bad advice the council got when Councilmen Fantroy and Hill were playing
fast and loose with the rules on conflict of interest, they really need legal
advice as to whether this proposed rule violates state law on zoning.
When I was on the P&Z, we had to take courses on the zoning process. At
one of the seminars, the speaker told us that state law requires certain
exceptions if a city is allowed by the Legislature to have zoning.
Houston does not have zoning. They have "deed restrictions". The
exceptions required by state law are that a land owner must have the opportunity
via public hearing to have the zoning and/or land use on his property change.
Cities are not required to change zoning to make the property owner happy, but
they are required to give him a fair hearing. Forcing an applicant to go
through the horrors of the Plan Commission and then erecting a new obstacle
before they can have their public hearing before the city council, seems
unreasonable and possibly illegal.
From the testimony in the Hill trials, Carol Reed and Kathy Nealy were high paid
firefighters. The fires were not started by consultants or lobbyists, the
fires (criminal activity) were started by public officials, city council members
and at least one plan commissioner. You can't call Sheila Farrington a
lobbyist. She was just a funnel for money. She had no lobbying
responsibilities, unless she was getting paid for sleeping with a married man.
From the testimony, that was happening before the financial remuneration.
The easiest way to eliminate opportunities for zoning-related corruption at City
Hall is to break up the Plan Commission.
After 14-1 was forced on the city, the Board of Adjustment was changed from a
one 5-member board to three 5-member boards so that every councilmember had a
direct appointment. For some reason that no one seems to know, Councilman
Dave Neumann has decided the Board of Adjustment being corruption free for over
2 decades is not a good thing. He has been obsessed with having the BOA
merged into one panel like the P&Z. That is a very dangerous proposition
since the BOA is quasi-judicial and it's decisions are not reviewed by the city
council. If you don't like a BOA decision, you must take your case to
District Court, not the city council.
ZOAC members have considered the matter and are recommending to the P&Z that the
BOA be merged from 3 panels into 2 panels. If it can't be left alone to
keep doing its corruption-free work, this change is light years better than
merging into one panel. The P&Z will have to act on ZOAC's recommendation
to change the BOA, and then the city council.
Splitting the P&Z into 2 panels would cut down on much of the opportunity for
bad guys to get themselves in trouble. That would be much more effective
than the Mayor's proposal as reported by Gromer Jeffers.
It's good that Mayor Leppert is not ignoring the taint the Hill scandal has put
on public service at City Hall. The only problem is that his plan is
bassackward. Rather than only put restrictions on lobbyists or consultants
and obstacles on zoning applicants, remove the ward politics from the entire
zoning process -- at least prior to the city council hearing.
We can't make crooks understand ethical standards of conduct. We can close
the door to ward politics and protect us and them from their avarice and greed.
sb
| |
|
