Schutze v D Mag


Schutze to D: Stick with what you know best. Speaking of, know where we can get a good burger?

Tim Rogers posted a long item today on the D magazine blog FrontBurner accusing me of writing deceptively about the Trinity River project. Some personal innuendo was made, which I will get to at the end of this way-too-long post. But first, it?s actually a very good thing that we?re wading back into some of the issues surrounding the Trinity project, a multibillion-dollar public works endeavor to rebuild the river where it flows through downtown.

At the top, I have to say that this is a huge, complex story that I have covered for almost 10 years, dating from when I was Dallas bureau chief for the Houston Chronicle. Tim?s idea of an investigation was to call Rebecca Dugger, the city bureaucrat in charge of the project, and allow her to write him in an e-mail message about it. Her message appears to be totally unchallenged by Tim. So I?ll do it for him.

In her message to Tim, Dugger takes me to task for saying the city waited until after it had voter approval of a $246 million bond package for the project and then dramatically shifted priorities, changing it into a plan quite different from what voters had approved.

In her rebuttal, Dugger lists the items in the original bond package and then states, ?We are doing all these things! And with exactly the money allocated to each one.?

This conveniently ignores a new system of accounting for the project, introduced five years after the bond election, in which crucial elements of the plan were moved out of the ?basic phase 1? element of the plan (the one paid for in the 1998 bond issue) and into ?expanded phase 1? and ?ultimate? (not paid for).

By this not terribly clever sleight of hand, the city basically de-funded major elements of the plan voters thought were to be included in the 1998 bond package and moved them to later ?phases? that are not funded.

Just to move to the ?expanded phase 1? portion of the plan, for example, the city would have to get a new bond issue passed in an amount estimated three years ago at $110 million. The ?ultimate? plan would require an additional $563 million bond package, according to the city?s 3-year-old estimates.

Let me list some of the things that will not be built until the third bond package gets passed (using the city?s descriptions): ?whitewater rafting course, West Dallas Lake/wetland area; active recreation terraces (two), amphitheatre, concession/event facilities, downtown levee top roads, South Lamar Street upgrade to boulevard.?

But that doesn?t give you anything like the whole picture. Three years ago Victoria Loe Hicks reported in The Dallas Morning News that ?the latest construction schedule and cost estimate for the Trinity project quietly moves more than $32 million once earmarked for the downtown lakes and park to other aspects of the complex project.?

The Trinity River Parkway, however, remains fully funded in the first or real phase of the project. Originally a 45-mph road on both sides with frequent access to the park, the ?parkway? has transmogrified into a high-speed limited access toll road. In the meantime, its estimated cost has jumped by between $200 million and $800 million, starting out at $400 million and now hovering somewhere between $600 million and $1.2 billion.

Those costs are shared among the city, the state and the North Texas Tollway Authority. The toll authority is fairly frozen in at about $150 million last time I checked?the most it can contribute. The state has made it clear that it will not be funding anything close to the difference.

All kinds of accounting and word games are played with these so-called phases. Lots of money that is really going to the highway is described as not going to the highway but to collector routes and so on. The fact is that the transportation costs in phase 1 jumped by $160 million in the 2003 ?re-design? while the investment in parks and lakes plummeted.

If and when phase 1 is ever completed, there will not be anything in it that you or I would recognize as a recreational lake. There will be a mud-lined pit created by excavation for the platforms for the highway, with virtually no amenities and no access roads at all.

In her rebuttal to Tim, Dugger cites a quote from councilman Mitchell Rasansky in my most recent column. This is the quote:

Rasansky: ?You can check back on city council tapes. At least a dozen times in the last year, year and a half, there?s always this money being spent out of the $246 million bond issue.

?I keep asking, ?Now if we approve this, are we going to have enough money for the bridges?? And every time, [Assistant City Manager] Jill Jordan answers, ?Yes,? or [Assistant City Manager] Ramon [Miguez] or [City Manager] Mary [Suhm] says, ?Yes, we have enough money.?

?And guess what! We don?t have enough money.?

Dugger says of this quote: ?He doesn?t say on what, but he seems to imply that it?s been spent on non-Trinity stuff.?

Because of somebody?s odd construction?Tim?s or Duggers?, I can?t tell?it?s not clear to me if Dugger is accusing me or Rasansky of making the implication that the money has been misappropriated outside the project. But neither of us said that or anything close to it.

The accusation here is exactly what I said it was in my column: The project as it exists today is not the project that we voters approved in 1998. And my challenge to Dugger would be: If you think it is, take it back to the voters as it now stands and see if they will vote for it again.

It?s disturbing to me that a D editor would write about this project in such hortatory tones without making what I think is an important and absolutely requisite disclosure?that D has published at least one entire ?advertorial? edition of the magazine promoting this project. For those of you who aren?t familiar with that term, it means D sold ads to the contractors and other people who will make money off of this project and wrapped those ads around laudatory articles?ad copy, really?extolling the benefits of the project. In my opinion, D sold its integrity on this issue when it sold that edition.

I?m sure Tim would disagree, but at the very least he needs to make this disclosure when he writes about the issue. This is not different from ?journalists? who are paid to write op-ed pieces for newspapers promoting the point of view of the person who pays them. You need to put that on the table.

Tim opened his piece with a very personal note about me. He said of my writing on the Trinity project, ?He?s so wrong that I find it hard [to] believe he?s doing it by accident. Honestly, I?m troubled.?

That?s an accusation of lying.

I think I need to put this in an even more personal context. Less than 24 hours before this piece appeared on FrontBurner, Rogers wrote to me finally conceding the fact that I was not going to accept his repeated offers of employment at D, which he has made in person and by e-mail over a period of a year or more. During this time, I tried my best to be diplomatic about why I belong only at the Dallas Observer and would never consider working for a publication like D.

I was way too damn diplomatic. ?Jim Schutze

Editor's comments:
D Magazine writers don't like people who defy the ODB.
D Magazine writers sold their souls to Dickless and his keepers.
D Magazine writers are threatened by anyone who speaks the truth.
D Magazine writers do not understand the concept of principles.
D Magazine writers' idea of a news story is who wore what with who at what current eatery and/or which hot spot is cold and closing.
Below is what triggered Jim's above response. Out and out trash and so typically D Magazine. sb

FROM FRONTBURNER:
http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/archives2/016879.html#more
THE OTHER SIDE OF JIM SCHUTZE

We spill a lot of virtual ink here praising the Observer columnist. And some real ink, too. Last year we called him the best muckraker in town, in our Best of Big D issue. I admire the man. I think he's the best city columnist working in Dallas. (Okay, he's the only city columnist working in Dallas.) But Schutze is so far off-target on the Trinity Project that it gives me the fantods. He's so wrong that I find it hard believe he's doing it by accident. Honestly, I'm troubled. Just doesn't make sense. Here's what I'm talking about (prepare yourself for a looong jump):

This week, Schutze got all cuddly with coucilman Mitch Rasansky. And he wrote some things about the Trinity Project that simply are not true. I asked Rebecca Dugger, the city's project manager on the Trinity Project, to address these falsehoods. (Actually, I asked city manager Mary Suhm, who asked Rebecca Dugger.) Dugger is a very smart, capable woman. She knows what she's talking about. She's not going to lie. In an e-mail, here's what she had to say:

Schutze B.S.: He writes, "Predictably, the main thrust of the project has detoured 180 degrees away from the grand central park proposed to voters. ... The project has departed so wildly from the public promises made in 1998 that it has become a kind of standing joke."

The Truth: Dugger says, "I cite the 1998 Capital Bond Program Summary In-Brief, which is the official city document issued before the 1998 bond election. It explains each proposition and lists the programs for the Trinity project as being:

Dallas Floodway Extension - $24.7 million
Elm Fork Levee - $30 million
Transportation Improvements - $118 million ($84m for Parkway, $28m for Woodall, $6m for Beckley/Commerce improvements)
Great Trinity Forest - $41.5 million
Chain of Lakes - $31.5 million

We are doing all these things!! And with exactly the money allocated to each one. Now, specifically, as written in detail in the document, we are doing a levee at Elm Fork, although not as large as is written. And the Parkway is smaller than was originally envisioned (but that?s not a bad thing). But other than that, we?re doing what we said we were going to do."

Schutze B.S.: Schutze quotes Rasansky as saying that money from the $246 million bond has been spent already. He doesn't way on what, but he seems to imply that it's been spent on non-Trinity stuff. Schutze follows the quote by writing, "There's no question Rasansky's right, as far as he goes." He goes on to write, "The vast majority of the public probably do not understand yet the degree to which the whole project has been hijacked to fund that freeway/toll road, whatever it's going to be."

The Truth: Dugger says, "We have a spreadsheet that I would be glad to share with you that shows where every dollar has been spent. We underwent an audit from the City Auditor?s Office this past year, and they found no issues with any of our records, our bookkeeping, or our funding. Of course, I?m sure Mr. Schutze has little to no faith in our auditors either."

But hang on. That's not all. Schutze wrote a cover story a couple weeks ago attacking the Calatrava bridge(s). To say the least, he thinks they're a bad idea. Dugger told me that the article drove her so crazy that she composed a series of rebuttals. She shared them with me. So I'll share them with you:

Schutze B.S.: He wrote, "The first one is sort of a bridge to nowhere."

Rebuttal: Dugger says, "I?m sure the folks in West Dallas and Oak Cliff would take exception to their area being called ?nowhere.? The Woodall Rodgers Extension (now the Margaret Hunt Hill bridge) was identified in a 1998 study by TxDOT as being a reliever route needed to facilitate access from West Dallas and Oak Cliff to downtown and to the major highways. This bridge will actually spur economic development around each end, making this area no longer ?nowhere.? There have already been developers showing interest in this area to make it a destination for tourists visiting this bridge."

Schutze B.S.: He wrote, "The other two [bridges] replace bridges that don?t need to be replaced."

Rebuttal: Dugger says, "Both the I-30 and I-35 bridges are 50 years old, are structurally degrading, and under capacity. They need to be replaced to be widened and to have much needed HOV lanes constructed. The ?replacement list? that TxDOT keeps for its other bridges identifies just those bridges that need to be replaced ?as is,? i.e. not widened or changed in design. The I-30 and I-35 bridges will be widened and have their designs changed. It will be more feasible for TxDOT to replace these bridges than continue the constant maintenance (patching) that they now much do."

Schutze B.S.: He wrote, "These bridges weren?t even in the picture [bond program]."

Rebuttal: Dugger says, "The Woodall Rodgers Extension bridge (now the Margaret Hunt Hill bridge) was identified in the 1998 bond program, and $28 million was set aside (out of the $246 million) for its construction. An additional $1.22 million from the bond program was identified for 'public art' and this went toward the design of the bridge."

Schutze B.S.: He wrote, "[M]ost of those things [amenities] have been gutted because of the enormous growth of the amount of money to be spent on the bridges and on a freeway that wasn?t even in the bond package we voted on."

Rebuttal: Dugger says, "The Trinity Parkway WAS in the bond package, with $84 million of bond funds going toward it. In the 1998 Bond Program pamphlet, it stated that the Trinity Parkway 'is under consideration by the North Texas Tollway Authority for development as a toll facility.' No amenities have been ?gutted? based on funding needed for the Parkway or bridges."

Schutze B.S.: He wrote, "The city?s own table showing what will and will not be paid for from the 1998 bond issue is sad reading for people who thought they were getting a park."

Rebuttal: Dugger says, "The table that was cited is from the Trinity River Corridor Balanced Vision Plan (BVP), which is a master plan for the corridor. Master Plans typically identify improvements that can be done in several phases. The phases of the BVP are Basic Phase 1, to be done with current funding, Expanded Phase 1, to be done with funds acquired either privately or by other means over the next 5-10 years, and the Ultimate Phase, to be done over the next 20-30 years. The items listed in the Observer as not having funding are identified for the Expanded Phase, which is clearly spelled out in the BVP. The Basic Phase 1 DOES identify six parks, forest trails, the Interpretive and Equestrian Centers, lakes, a soccer complex, wetlands, and land acquisition, among other amenities. Many of these items are currently under design or construction."

Schutze B.S.: He wrote, "I didn?t vote for the bridges. Or the freeway. Neither did you. ... We voted for the sailboats on the lake. NONE!"

Rebuttal: Dugger says, "The Woodall Rodgers Extension bridge and the Trinity Parkway were both clearly identified as being in the bond program. The proposition was a complete package of interrelated projects that included waterways, levees, open space, transportation improvements, recreational facilities, and the Trinity Parkway."

Schutze B.S.: He wrote, "[M]oney has been shifted to the road and bridge items that we did not vote for. ..."

Rebuttal: Dugger says, "No money has been shifted from the park amenities or the lakes to supplement the bond funding for the road or bridge items. There is $29.22 million of City funding in the bridge, and $84 million for the Parkway. This is outlined in the 1998 Capital Bond Program Summary In-Brief, a document published by the City of Dallas prior to the 1998 Bond election."

Schutze B.S.: He wrote, "Every cent they put in those bridges comes out of the cool stuff."

Rebuttal: Dugger says, "As stated above, no money has been shifted. The City has NO bond funds in the I-30 or I-35 bridges. Those funds came from federal appropriations and private donations."

Are you still reading? It's a long list, I know. A lot to digest. But this is important stuff. We're talking about the future of our city. And our best city columnist appears to be flat-out prejudiced against that future.

Look, there are some good questions to ask about the Trinity Project and the bridges. Is a piece of art that functions as a bridge worth its price? I happen to think it is. But it's a good question. Do we really need three Calatrava bridges? How will economic development along the Trinity really shape up? When we move the river again, what are we going to do with all the trees that currently line it north of the Trinity Forest? Good questions. We should be discussing them.

But Jim Schutze's misinformation simply isn't helping the discussion.

Tim Rogers ? September 14, 2006 01:51 PM

September 14, 2006 Burning Bridges Filed under: Schutze www.dallasobserver.com/blogs/?p=1358#more-1358

September 14, 2006
Burning Bridges Filed under: Schutze
www.dallasobserver.com/blogs/?p=1358#more-1358