Mike Perry
John Willis
                             

10/04/04  Can you spell C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T  O-F  I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T?

Get a cup of coffee, a coke or your favorite adult beverage and a bowl of nibbles because you have some serious reading ahead. 

It took me several hours to transcribe the discussion because so many of them "himmed and hawed" to justify their wrong vote.  The Ghost of Duh Walne was much in the room with many stating every reason why they should have voted AGAINST before they voted FOR. 

Guess they were dreaming of a future run for the Presidency.

You will hear council crook, after council crook talk about how bad it is for the city to allow more multi-family when we have thousands of vacancies and are way past any hope of absorption.  Those same council crooks then voted AS FANTROY WAS DIRECTING FROM HIS SPIDER HOLE OFF THE HORSE SHOE. 

You will hear several council crooks say it's what the councilman wants'when they are not supposed to know by first hand, second hand or even anonymous tips what he wants regarding a case where he has a conflict of interest.

Of course, some of them might not have known Fantroy had a conflict of interest (got a bridge to sell you if you buy that).  Beat that Indictment Fantroy did not file his statement of conflict of interest until the DAY AFTER THE HEARING.  Citizen Extraordinaire Joe Martin secured a copy of James Fantroy's filed Statement of Conflict of Interest, dated September 23, 2004.  The council hearing was September 22, 2004:

City Code 12A-3(c)(2) requires all public officials to promptly file with the city secretary a written statement disclosing the conflict on a form provided by the city secretary.

The following is the verbatim council discussion regarding the council and James Fantroy ignoring the Conflict of Interest rules.  You will find it very interesting, very long and tedious, but very interesting.  Some of it is inaudible and mumbled.  Many council members are not yet capable of speaking in complete sentences. 

What should disturb you most are council members specifically referring to what James Fantroy wants to happen with the zoning case, despite his conflict of interest.

How many elected or appointed public officials does it take to be a conspiracy to violate the law?

The text in italics is from the taped hearing.  My comments are preceded and ended with *** and are in the regular type font.

City Secretary:  Mr. Fantroy has a conflict and will not be participating in the discussion or voting on this item.  Agenda Item 75 is an application for and an ordinance granting a planned development district for MU-1, mixed uses on property on the north side of Simpson Stuart Road, west of Bonnie View Road and a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant with consideration given to an MF1-A multi-family district and an SA Neighborhood Service District.

Killingsworth (Staff):  Madam Mayor, we sent 26 notices to property owners within 400 feet of the area of request.  We received 2 replies in favor and 1 reply in opposition.  It will require a simple majority to approve this.

City Secretary:  The City Plan Commission recommends approval of the planned development for MU-1, mixed use district uses, subject to a development plan and conditions, subject to deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant.  At this time, the city council would like to hear from anyone in the audience that is in favor or against the City Plan Commission's recommendations to Agenda Item 75.

** Good afternoon, Susanne K ..., I'm here this afternoon in favor of the City Planning recommendation of approval ...  We have the applicant and principal, Bill Fisher from Provident Odyssey Partners; we have several community representatives:  Rev. Johnson, Maurice Dinka (does a lot of our environmental work). ... Thank you.

My name is Maurice Dinka ... we've done a lot of work for Bill Fisher, ranging from all types of environmental concerns ...

Mayor Miller:  Thank you for coming down. Anyone else like to speak on this item?  Dr. Reese.

M.T-Reese:  Thank you, Madam Mayor.  This item is in District 8, and Mr. Fantroy has a conflict, so he asked me to move it, so I recommend approval, following the City Planning Commission's recommendation to approve zoning case Z-034-244, close the public hearing and approve this item. 

MPT J.Loza:  Second.

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Dr. Reese.  Mr. Blaydes.

B.Blaydes:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I, in looking through this, was interested because of the size of it, more than anything else.  We had a unanimous vote at the Plan Commission, but we had a recommendation of denial by the staff.  Because of the size of the project, I would like to hear what the staff was concerned about when everybody else seems to be so much in favor.

Killingsworth:  As noted in the case materials, our primary concern was that there's a significant amount of multi-family zoning on the ground today within this area that is undeveloped.  Given our desire for both affordable housing in a denser variety and affordable housing in a lower density, single family style development, we didn't think it was appropriate to rezone additional single family land to multi-family when there's an adequate inventory on the ground at this time.

Blaydes:  Multi-family in the area?

Killingsworth:  Yes, sir.

B.Blaydes:  Thank you.  The only admonition I would add to that is THINK VICKERY MEADOW.  If you haven't seen it, you need to go see it.  If we are over-doing it in one location, we need to be real careful because it can get disastrous.  There's some folks sitting in the audience today that could add a lot of light to that.  I wanted to hear what they had to say.  I kind of felt like that was the reason, because I know the area, and I know there was a lot of multi-family zoning that's vacant out there that somebody can come in and do a project without being before us.  All they have to do is file and go.  So, be careful, thank you.

***Blaydes' comments were absolutely on point that the last thing we need anywhere in Dallas is another concentration of hastily built multi-family, much less changing single-family zoned property to multi-family.  Remember his comment later when you hear his justification for voting for the zoning change.***

MPTem Loza:  Thank you, Mr. Blaydes.  Mr. Hill.

DMPT Hill:  Thank you, Mayor.  Mr. Blaydes, thank you for that comment and that admonition as well and we are trying to learn some of the lessons from some of the experiences that you had in the North and in the East as we approach this issue and a number of issues regarding some of the multi-family projects we have in the pipeline.  Many of them are tax credit projects.  As you may know, early next month, we will examine a potential policy about how we will deal with the Vickery Meadows issue, the whole concentration issue.  But, what this does do is it gets the property at least with the proper zoning to do it, and then we'll address those issues that you're raising as we go through in the month of October this entire issue of multi-family in the Southern Sector, along a very important corridor of the Southern Sector.  We are going to address it.  We are going to deal with it.

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill, you've got the next item which is similar, taking single-family and turning it into multi-family on a tax credit deal with the same applicant.  Are you going to defer yours, or are you going to approve yours?

DMPT Hill:  I'm going to defer mine for two weeks.

Mayor Miller:  OK.  Is that until we come back with criteria?

DMPT Hill:  We will have had that hearing and will have had that discussion at housing .. do some additional work with the applicant about, as you will see from 75, it's got a really significant (in my mind) single-family piece, and we're gonna try to see if we can maximize our opportunities there in conjunction with that and see if that can work.  So, that's we're going to take a few weeks to breathe and see if we can get that done.

Mayor Miller:  I know Mr. Fantroy isn't out here to discuss this, but I remember so well last Wednesday when we were discussing something at briefing about the Southern Sector and the need for growth, and Mr. Fantroy specifically said "I really need single family development in District 8."  And, we do.  And, what I'm concerned about is that we are being asked the first week of October to give our blessing to -- Is it 14 different tax credit multi-family projects?

Killingsworth:  Yes. ... 12, it will be more.

Mayor Miller:  Mr. Killingsworth (staff) could you come to the podium please.  12 and potentially more different multi-family projects.  And the state's just -- the last year -- been just gleefully deciding to subsidize these apartment complexes and the new wrinkle is that we have to give them our blessing.  Well, we don't want to create another Vickery Meadow, like Mr. Blaydes says.  I respect the fact that we need to do more single-family, nice looking development in the Southern Sector.  I'm hesitant to take single-family zoning and turn it into multi-family for these projects.  I know that Mr. Killingsworth has done a lot of good work recently trying to come up with some kind of criteria for how many of these can we absorb.  There are some of these projects that we've built in the last year, year and a half, that aren't even half leased in the Southern Sector.  I'm worried about saturation.  Mr. Killingsworth, can you tell us what it is your doing?  What you're looking at to determine how much multi-family we should be building in the Southern Sector?

Killingsworth:  Yes.  The first thing that we're doing is that we are taking the MPF reports, the local MPF reports and looking at market absorption.  The applications that we have before us that we will be bringing before the HNDC on October 4th and our final recommendations on October 27th for the council to vote on will deal with how many of those projects can the market absorb.  To date in the four sub-markets, MPF defined sub-markets, the annual absorption rate of all apartments, tax-credit, market, whatever, is 2070 units.  Out of the 12 projects that are before us right now -- And, as someone mentioned that the TDHCA has extended the application period, so we are expecting to get some more.  But right now, out of the 12, we've got 2886 units.  So, roughly 800 more units that we're being asked to approve, more than what the annual absorption rate is.  This is just tax-credit projects related to the total market absorption.  Now, granted, most of these projects in these districts, the new projects will be tax-credit projects.  We're still, I'm going to estimate, roughly 1000 units more than the absorption rate right now is what we're looking at.  So, with that and because of that, on October 4th, we will be bringing before the HNDC what our final recommendations are for the criteria that our policy that we should -- recommended policy that we should have for looking at these projects.

Mayor Miller:  I like the Don Hill approach, which is to wait until we get the recommendations back before we move on these projects.  I think it is the right thing to do.  I admire Mr. Hill's position on it.  He wants, obviously, to hear what the criteria is before he makes a decision.  I can't ask Mr. Fantroy to defer because he's not here, but I don't know --- Dr. Reese, would you consider deferring it until we get the criteria back so we can look at all of these projects and determine if we want to recommend any of them?

T-Reese:  I've talked to Mr. Fantroy, and he said that he did not want to defer it, that someone had approached him to with that.  Now, we can still ask him now to make sure, but he said he did not want to defer it, he wanted to pass it, and he asked me to carry it and I'm doing as he asked.

***At this point, the City Attorney (if we had a real one) should have asked the Mayor to go into Executive Session.  There should have been no further action on this case at all because the integrity of the hearing was completely compromised.  T-Reese absolutely confirmed that she was discussing the case with Fantroy beyond just being the moveant in his absence.  He is allowed to ask her to make a motion on a case where he has a conflict of interest.  He is not allowed to advise her which way he wants the case to go, approval or denial.  T-Reese is prohibited from asking him whether he would agree to delaying the case, as he is prohibited from telling her his preference in that part of the case.***

MPT J.Loza:  Thank you, Mayor.  I'm going to support this particular request because Mr. Fantroy agrees with it, and it's in his district.  But, I just wanted to comment that further upon the issue that we've been visiting and as Vice-Chair of HNDC, Mr. Fantroy ... obviously not present right now.  We did have this discussion on Monday.  First of all, Mr. Killingsworth, I'm sure you will agree with the proposition that staff will not recommend, nor will council approve all of the applications for tax-credits that we have in front of us.

***How does Loza know that "Fantroy agrees with it"?  Unless he discussed the case with Fantroy?  Loza is a lawyer.  He knows the Ethics Code -- not that he has let personal integrity or anything in the Ethics Code guide his decision-making since he was first elected to the council.***

Killingsworth:  Yes, sir.  That's a good assumption.

MPT J.Loza:  OK.  And, also, colleagues, I wanted to let you know that this issue, which is very important, the Texas Dept of Housing and Community Affairs is having a public hearing on September 28th, which is next Tuesday, at 3 pm, here at the Dallas Public Library.  I'm going to make an effort to attend.  I believe other of my colleagues will be probably doing so, and I want to let you all know that because one of the things that we discussed within the context of HNDC last Monday was that the state does have a lot of money available which they're using to incentivize multi-family projects, more so than we can absorb or that we would actually support.  So, maybe we need to make that recommendation to TDHCA that they try to look for other avenues in which to provide funding.  Like, for example, Ms. Lill on Monday brought up the example of assisted living, which I think our Senior Affairs Commissioners and our other advocates would agree there is a tremendous need for assisted living projects.  Maybe, the TDHCA could incentivize more of those and less traditional multi-family.  So, I would encourage all of you, or those of you who are available to do so to attend that hearing next Tuesday because as  general rule they don't usually hear from --- they haven't in the past, traditionally, heard from us.  It was only recently -- it was only after Mr. Killingsworth took over that even the Housing Department bothered to show up at those hearings.  When I first got here, sometimes they didn't even go to these hearings.  So, since that is the part of the policy-making body determining housing policy here in the State of Texas, I think it would behoove us to attend that meeting if at all possible.  Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Mr. Loza.  I will be there with Mr. Loza, and I encourage our colleagues to also go because it's very, very important -- this issue.  Ms. Greyson.

S.Greyson:  Thank you, Mayor.  I know you all know that I've made many statements about multi-family as we've considered these various projects, and have warned, as Mr. Blaydes has warned, please don't make the same mistakes we made in the northern part of the city, where we've got way, way, way too much multi-family.  And, I remember distinctly being told by several council members around this horse shoe when I expressed these concerns and said that I wasn't going to be voting for them that "Well, Ms. Greyson, you know, it's all multi-family zoned property, we're not changing any single-family zoned property into multi-family."  Yet, that's exactly what we're doing here.  So, that reassurance that was given to me apparently has disappeared.  So, for me not to support this would be consistent with what I've been saying all along for the last several years, which is -- I wish that we would -- and I'm really pleased that we're going to take a look at how much multi-family can we absorb in the Southern Sector, and please let's not build that out the way we built out the North with way, way too much multi-family.  What is the ratio in this city, Mr. Killingsworth, 60% that residential is multi-family, and 40% is single-family.

Killingsworth:  45-55, something like that.

S.Greyson:  45-55, but that is higher than almost any other city

Killingsworth:  That is correct.

S.Greyson:  I really do think we need to take a serious look at this and stop before we make the same mistake again.  Thank you.

***Sandy Greyson's comments were in line with her subsequent vote against the project.  Everything she said is correct, but it fell on mostly deaf ears.  The good ole boys on the council voted with their good buddy, JL.***

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Ms. Greyson.  Ms. Finkelman.

L.Finkelman:  Thank you.  First of all, I absolutely, totally and completely agree with Ms. Greyson.  As someone who represents an area -- true of many areas in North Dallas -- where there is an over abundance and saturation of multi-family complexes that were built a couple of decades ago, and have changed ownership more times than there are those of us sitting around the horse shoe.  As a result, with each new change of ownership have tended to deteriorate and become less choice properties, lower values on the tax rolls, higher impact on our schools.  There's a tremendous spillover effect, probably that no one on this horse shoe would see with these projects, but that those who follow you will.  I have made a suggestion to staff in terms of  one of the things they ought to look at -- and that was for those projects that might seem to make sense, perhaps one of the criteria ought to be that they tear down and demolish an existing multi-family complex in exchange for building a new one.  So that the overall number of units may not change significantly, but indeed would give many of us an opportunity to get rid of some of the bad apples.  My guess is that at your next Housing Committee that may be part of (at least I hope that's part of ) your agenda to discuss.  The other thing I might add is just an observation that the more we continue to saturate areas of the city with these tax-increment funded complexes, the more our existing housing stock of multi-family complexes will continue to degrade -- lower rents, lower occupancies, less maintenance and an increased blight on all of our neighborhoods.  So, I think there was some real significant issues in relation to this.  I hope we take a hold of it, that we don't approve those projects right now that are still questionable.  I look forward to Housing taking a good look at this.  Mr. Loza's right -- as many of us as can ought to appear at the hearing next week.  Thank you.

***With all that smarmy malarkey said, Finkelman still voted for the project.  She wants to run for Mayor so desperately and doesn't want to offend African-Americans.  If she thinks she's going to carry South Dallas with her cowardly sucking up, she's smoking something illegal.  There is nothing so infuriating as this patronizing woman who pretends she's some sort of intellectual, environmentalist and all things limousine liberal -- except her fraternal twin who we will get to later.***

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Ms. Finkelman.  Mr. Oakley.

E.Oakley:  Well, it's unfortunate that Mr. Fantroy -- I guess I can't have the conversation with him about whether he's for or against this project.  I'll just have to -- obviously, he's asked Dr. Reese to carry it forward.  But, I did attend the Housing Committee on Monday, as well.  Prior to that on Wednesday, I had a meeting with Mr. Killingsworth about projects -- and I've been very methodical about District 3.  Last year, I was very methodical about selecting 2 out of  about 4 that I would support because it made sense.  Now I've got a concentration issue.  I've got issues of 750 units coming out of the ground, all within the same concentration area.  Simply because of one project slipped in West Dallas that we were in favor of, the one that's just coming out of the ground in Pinnacle Park.  And, Mayor, the one at Keeneland, the one went out and looked at that August afternoon in the middle of the heat, the one on Keeneland off of Loop 12.  That one's coming out of the ground, which is a tax-credited multi-family.  I think we are getting to a point of crisis in certain areas of this city when you have 12, and I think this round I would have 3 or 4, which means I would have 1/3rd of the number of projects that would like to be in this same round for next year.  I would also think that if TDHCA has that much money, then why aren't we asking them to do some of the things we've talked about here -- that is fund is these projects but don't have a mixed use component with it -- have some other -- use it to lever the infrastructure we need to provide the housing that you are talking about, but not just .... but basically require the single-family to be a part of the component or give it bonuses to do that.  What I'm told is that you can't use this funding if you want to do mixed use development and you had the apartment complex on the rear, which drives the infrastructure costs up, you can't really do that to provide infrastructure for the housing component, or for retail component.  So, that's something -- there's so much money.  It would be great to have the money for housing, but not just to go and plop down 250 units systematically all over the Southern Sector.  They can be as quality as you want, but Mr. Killingsworth is right.  Once I sat down and looked at the map last Wednesday before going to the meeting on Monday, and realized --- I think when he plts the rest of the tax-credited multi-family over the last 10 years on to a map -- It's going to be a real eye-opening experience to see where those developments truly are and what's really taking place -- he's going to do that as I understand, so I -- if Mr. Fantroy wants this one to move forward, then he still has to come back to the council for the approval of the tax credits at some point.  But, I do think we do need to get a handle on a policy.  I think Mr. Hill is right to take his under advisement because he's realizing (I think) in looking at it -- even though they've worked all this time on it -- that this is a concentration issue in his district.  Well, not necessarily in his district, but the area that includes -- it's not just a district issue anymore.  It's a concentration that crosses boundary lines.  Mine goes up and touches Mr. Loza's district.  It touches Dr. Garcia's district and my district and (I think) some of Mr. Salazar's district.  It's more global than just one council district -- so, ...[tape stops here]

***Ed Oakley stated multiple reasons not to build another apartment in this city for several years, and then voted with Fantroy.  At the point when he mentioned "if Mr. Fantroy wants this one to move forward ...",  he should have recused himself from further discussion and refrained from voting because his statement confirmed that his vote would be based on the preferences of a councilman with a conflict in the case.***

[tape resumes with the following]

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Mr. Oakley.  Mr. Salazar.

S.Salazar:  Thank you, Mayor.  We have been able to see what the representative of the district wants to happen and obviously the Plan Commission voted unanimously, with no one voting against it.  There were 2 vacant positions when the vote was taken, so I'm OK with voting for this item today for the reason that my understanding that the Plan Commissioners do visit the site, do visit with the individuals involved, do due diligence to make sure that it's not something they're just going to arbitrarily approve -- just because one person says it.  This Plan Commission does its homework.  And, we have several members who have been former members of the Plan Commission can tell you that every project is very scrutinized.  For that reason, I have no hesitation to support the recommendation of the Plan Commission and support the motion made by Ms. Thornton-Reese.

***My councilman Steve Salazar (who trounced me in last year's election) has been very helpful to NW Dallas, but this was a lapse in judgment.  Councilman Salazar is an attorney and is supposed to respect the letter of the law, particularly rules of ethics.  When he said "We have been able to see what the representative of the district wants", he also confirmed that Fantroy had communicated with several council members.  Fantroy confirmed to Emily Ramshaw at the Dallas Managed News that "...  while he didn't go to any of the community meetings on the zoning change? a result, he said, of his conflict of interest ? his planning commissioner told him there was widespread support for the project on Simpson Stuart Road. (Miller accuses Fantroy of ethics lapse on zone issue; 9/23/04 by EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News)."  (See DallasArena.com's Final Nail). 

The Plan Commission operates as crookedly as the council regarding zoning cases.  It's all ward politics.  What the council member tells his commissioner is what the commissioner tells the Commission they are to do, which is what they do unanimously and send the recommendation or denial forward to the council to pretend they are also holding a hearing and using "due diligence" in their decision-making.   Councilman Salazar should have recused himself from the vote and discussion if he had "been able to see what the representative of the district wants".***

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Mr. Salazar.  Mr. Hill.

DMPT Hill:  Briefly, I did want to just say that our situation in the Southern Sector is a little different than how things developed in the Northern side.  And, what we are attempting to do by policy and by other individual efforts is to try to create infrastructures in place that -- certainly for a short-term and maybe even for a mid-term -- these projects are positive in their particular communities  -- the social service components.  And, for most of us we make the folks that want to do these deals do even more than what we would require at a minimum.  So, we're trying to build the necessary support structure.  There is also a reality that we face, which is that the level or the variety of incomes that you're going to have or did have at the beginning and maybe even in the latter years in the Northern Sector, you may not have those in the Southern Sector.  So, that multi-family will have to be a part of any affordable housing strategy in the Southern Sector.  And, as we go in and start working on these policies, we are going to still have to strike that balance of not giving a message that tax credit or otherwise multi-family just won't work.  But, I do think we need to be smarter in terms of it.  I think someone mentioned mixed-use and leveraging -- may have been Ed.  I agree with that mixed use, including single family, which is what I'm trying to do.  I think that works, but on this particular deal what we're saying is that with all the scrutiny that has been put on this -- this particular deal -- that District 8 feels as though this is appropriate, according to their planning commissioner.  We are going to have another opportunity to look at it.  Our experience with this particular developer is a good one.  He's done a good product.  He's done good products.  He has worked with the community very, very well in trying to build those support structures.  And, so, we will have a chance to fully examine this issue later on.  But, I'm going to be supportive of District 8 in being able to at least put this project here in the pipeline, in terms of the zoning being in place.  It may cause us a little bit of extra work later  on.  I don't know -- if this isn't one that makes it.  Hopefully, we'll just able to see.  But, I'm going to support it, and I hope everybody else will support it.  Your comments are certainly heard by everybody.  Just one quick thing.  I have 2 projects that I've done in the last 2 years.  Both of them have been consistent with what Lois said.  One was a tear down.  No, both of them were tear downs.  I had a drug-infested mess over with Pastor H J Johnson sitting over there, and it was a positive.  Another one, we had a project we couldn't get demolished, and we finally -- Mary Shum finally -- got that thing demolished.  And we put something up that's been a positive.  So, Lois, there's a lot of wisdom in what you're saying  -- a lot of wisdom in what you're saying.  But, we do have to look at how we can leverage these opportunities in a way that we can address these and be able to do more from a development standpoint.  But, I'm going to be supportive.  Thank you.

***DMPT Hill's source of information was tainted in that the District Plan Commissioner discussed the case with Fantroy despite his conflict of interest.***

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Mr. Hill.  Mr. Blaydes.

B.Blaydes:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I love it when we have to extend the lawyer.  He just can't help himself.  I, too, am going to support this motion, simply because of the fact that the gentleman just mentioned, Rev. H. J. Johnson has stepped up and said 'this is one that we will support in this area of the community.'  For that very reason, I will go ahead and support it -- that and the fact that J. L. asked us to.  He knows his area.  But, I'm awfully glad I got this conversation started because it is something we really do have to watch.  If you look at this development, you are talking about probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $12-15 million dollars -- off the tax rolls.  Be gentle.  Thank you.

***Bill Blaydes based his vote on the "fact that J. L. asked us to."  "J.L." is Fantroy.  Blaydes knows better than this.  He and "J.L." were on P&Z together.***

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Mr. Blaydes.  Mr. Griffith.

G.Griffith:  Jerry, is there a timing issue on this?  If this were held for a period of weeks, does that complicate this project?

Killingsworth:  Yes.  The developer has 150 days from when his bonds were induced.  His bonds were induced somewhere between August 23 and August 30th.  So, that he has to have construction started by approximately January 20 to 30th.  If you back that back, we have to have approved this deal by December 10th in order for all the things that need to happen at TDHCA in Austin for him to do the deal.  But, that's the latest date.  Now, we had planned to bring the initial group of properties to the council for vote on October 27th.  That gives them plenty of time.

G.Griffith:  Well, I'm hearing some information -- and I'm not on the Housing Committee.  And, it sounds like there's some good work in the pipeline that's coming.  Some of us who aren't in that loop are anxious to hear that.  Mr. Blaydes raises some very important issues.  The Mayor raises some very important issues that I think make great sense.  I'm glad to hear that Mr. Hill is prepared to take a look at that next agenda item.  So, I -- and we don't know how Mr. Fantroy -- because he's not in this conversation really would recommend.  But, if this is like the last one we are going to do until we get this policy on the table and we really understand our criteria and we really look at the broad picture of what we're doing across this city.  Then, on that basis, I would reluctantly support it.  I think that's what we're all saying that we're going to put -- bring this on the table  and look at it in its broadest context.  I look forward to that briefing and those recommendations that you'll brong back to us.  Thank you.

Killingsworth:  Mayor, Miller.  I would like to make one correction that the council member mentioned, only because the council member asked me to.  These properties are not tax-exempt.  They do pay property taxes, but it's not based upon an assessed value, it's based upon the operating net income.  It's different, so they pay a lot less than on an assessed value, but they do pay property taxes.  They are not exempt.

Mayor Miller:  Thank you, Mr. Killingsworth.  Mr. Rasansky.

M.Rasansky:  Madam Mayor, Thank you.  Mr. Killingsworth, I was at the Neighborhood and Housing  Committee meeting, too.  What I understand is you're going to make recommendations -- there's just so much money to spend from the state -- or these tax credits.  And, you're going to make recommendations based (if I remember right) -- if it's a senior project, if there's no zoning change from R7-5 and if it's HFC over the Texas ---  Are those basically the 3 criteria?

Killingsworth:  Those are 3 of the criteria we talked about, plus the criteria that Mrs. Finkelman asked us to add.  But, those will be our policy recommendations that we will bring forward.

M.Rasansky:  Well, let's hypothetically say that this  is -- let's hypothetically say -- what I understand the community is for this and the council person is for this -- but, let's hypothetically say that this is zoned.  Let's say your recommendation doesn't fit the seniors.  It doesn't fit the zoning criteria.  It might or might not fit the HFC or the other one.  What happens if y'all do not make a recommendation?  Of course, council can override that.  Is there -- I mean --

***Based on what does Mitch Rasansky say "I understand the community is for this and the council person is for this"?  Carol Brandon (who has called my home and left a voice mail) is Fantroy's PZ member.  Fantroy told DMN's Emily Ramshaw that he talked with Brandon about the case, which taints any testimony Brandon might have.  Only 3 replies were sent back to the city (2 for, 1 against) after the PZ recommendation -- hardly an indication "the community is for this".  As soon as Rasansky said "the council person is for this", he should have recused himself from the vote because he clearly had received information directly or indirectly from Fantroy about what he wanted to happen on the case. 

Mitch Rasansky says the "council can override" staff's recommendations as if there's any chance they will not.  The council will do just exactly what Fantroy wants, whether they heard it directly from him or Brain-Dead Thornton-Reese or from Carol Brandon.***

Killingsworth:  We're going to come forward with a recommendation of the projects that we think fit under the guideline.  The council can elect to disregard those and vote all 12 or 14.  How ever they --

M.Rasansky:  Is this one anywhere near the 1-mile rule?

Killingsworth:  Yes, sir.  We have a 1-mile rule.

M.Rasansky:  I mean this particular property?

Killingsworth:  Yes, sir.  This property has a 1-mile rule issue on it because there is another property very close to this that is being proposed by another developer.

M.Rasansky:  So, if this one passes, whoever the other developers are -- I don't know who it is.  The other developer would get an "X" on one of those 3.

Killingsworth:  No, because today all we're doing is approving the zoning.  We still have to come back and approve [M.Rasansky talks over making Killingsworth inaudible.]

M.Rasansky:  We'll still have another bite at the apple.

Killingsworth:  Right now, it's scheduled that you would have a "bite at the apple" on October 27th.

M.Rasansky:  So, we'll have another bite at the apple, and we'll have a look at it with your recommendation?

Killingsworth:  Yes, sir.

M.Rasansky:  Thank you so much.  All we're doing today is talking about zoning.  No way are we talking about approving any tax credit for it?

***This is so incredible.  Mitch Rasansky says "all we're doing today is talking about zoning".  He knows that no change in zoning is one of the criteria for getting the TDHCA tax credit.  When the issue comes up, the zoning will have already been changed from single-family to multi-family.*** 

Killingsworth:    No, sir.

M.Rasansky:  OK, Thank you so much.  Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Mayor Miller:  You know to me, we are a little bit missing the boat.  Whether this project's on there, or another developer's project's on there, WE ARE TURNING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TODAY INTO MULTI-FAMILY.  No matter what goes on there, it's going to be multi-family.  We have a lot of multi-family in the Southern Sector that's sitting vacant that's sitting vacant.  We have plenty of multi-family.  Now, we're taking single-family and turning it into multi-family.  You know, I lived in Oak Cliff for 18 years until 2 months ago.  And, I got to tell you I spent my whole weekend, this weekend, thinking about these 14 projects that are coming at us.  Because it's like a lottery.  Who can get in on the lottery to go build a bunch of multi-family that we may not rent out.

[Mitch Rasanksy in the background:  That's right.  It's a lottery.]

It's a lottery.  And, we've got an enormous number of these things that are coming at us, and it's just crazy.  You know it used to be in Oak Cliff that we would accept whatever we could get because we were so desperate for development.  And, we don't have to do that anymore, because things are different.  We are more single-family housing permits pulled last year than North Dallas.  T.D. Jakes just did a ground-breaking on the Accopella single-family residential development with a beautiful school and a community center and single-family homes that are being sold for $350,000 when they're built.  So, we don't have to build all this multi-family.  We don't have to take the single-family that we have in the Southern Sector and turn it into multi-family.  And build Vickery Meadow all over again in 50 different places in the Southern Sector.  I don't support any of these tax-credit projects.  If we had to vote today on them, I would vote NO on every single one of them.  Every one of them.  And, there's no rush to turn single-family into multi-family today.  And I wish we could defer it and think about this, and when we get our briefing, put a big map up on the wall and identify where all 14 are, and where last year's 12 were.  And all the ones that we've been building in the last year and a half, what their occupancies are.  So we know what we're looking at.  This is development by the seat of our pants, and it's not right.  So, I'm voting NO and I wish we could defer it instead.  It's a shame.  People of the Southern Sector deserve quality homes.  People would buy them if they were built.

***People of Dallas deserve better than to have a huge geographic area of our city off the tax rolls and blighted and generating crime and draining our police and firefighter resources.  You cannot have lived in this city for even 15 years without seeing example after example of what happens to stable and habitable areas when multi-family comes in.*** 

Mayor Miller:  Dr. Reese moves to close the public hearing and to approve Agenda Item 75.  Mr. Loza seconds the motion.  All those in favor say "Aye".  Record vote is requested.

City Secretary:  Dr. Garcia.  All members voting.  11 members voting FOR the motion:  Loza, Hill, Griffith, Lill, Finkelman, Thornton-Reese, Chaney, Rasansky, Salazar, Blaydes, Oakley.  3 members voting AGAINST the motion:  Miller, Greyson, Garcia.  Fantroy absent when vote taken because HE HAS A CONFLICT.  So, the motion carries.

[END OF AGENDA 75 DISCUSSION AND VOTE]

So, the motion carries and several formerly respectable people sold their souls to the devil. 

I don't care about whether one of Fantroy's clients gets a tax credit at this point.  I do care that single-family zoned land has been changed to multi-family, but I care more that zoning cases are being decided in illegal and unethical manners.

This particular hearing is proof positive of a conspiracy at City Hall among some members of the Plan Commission and among certain members of city council to violate City Code restrictions relating to council communications where a member has a conflict of interest. 

I have been ranting about this travesty since September 23rd, Crooks in Low Places and Another Nail.  Please read the text of Sec. 12A-3 (in blue box below) again (relating to conflict of interest) and tell me whether you think there were blatant violations of this Section in the council's deliberations on September 22 relating to Agenda Item 75. 

The council and the public already know Fantroy is shaking down zoning applicants for contracts with his security guard business from a previous zoning case where it was disclosed he's security guard company had a new contract with a zoning change applicant, Provident.  So, there is not one person on this council unaware of Fantroy's special relationship with Provident (the developer who benefits from a FOR vote on 9/22/04 Agenda 75).  Provident is the same developer who benefits from Brain-Dead T-Reese changing the zoning on some District 4 retail property to multi-family over strenuous objection from the community. 

Let's review the FOR votes:

John Loza:   I'm going to support this particular request because Mr. Fantroy agrees with it, and it's in his district.  Loza is an attorney and is in his 4th term on the council.  His vote should not be counted due to his public affirmation that he was voting per Fantroy's prefrence.

Don Hill:  "that District 8 feels as though this is appropriate, according to their planning commissioner."  Fantroy discussed the case with his planning commissioner.  Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Hill is an attorney and in his 3rd term on the council.  He knew he was walking on shaky ground by talking about what "District 8 feels".  Like T-Reese did to Fantroy, Fantroy pulled the rug out from under Hill by telling DMN's Emily Ramshaw that he discussed the case with his planning commissioner. 

Gary Griffith:  "So, I -- and we don't know how Mr. Fantroy -- because he's not in this conversation really would recommend."  Griffith knew exactly what Fantroy wanted because T-Reese told the entire council she had talked with Fantroy and told them what Fantroy wanted.  Following the conflict of interest restrictions does not just mean a council member leaves the room during the discussion and vote.  Griffith has served on several city boards, including Plan Commission.  He knows the rules.

Veletta Lill:  For a change, the ever-so pompous Princess Velveeta did not open her mouth to expound in multi-syllabic hot air something typically nonsensical.  She would be hard pressed to oppose this project after promoting all the big hair over-development in Oak Lawn/Uptown/Turtle Creek.  Besides, Lill's dreaming of running for Mayor in 2 years and wants to curry favor with the African-American elected crooks who hate Mayor Miller.

Lois Finkelman:  "just an observation that the more we continue to saturate areas of the city with these tax-increment funded complexes, the more our existing housing stock of multi-family complexes will continue to degrade -- lower rents, lower occupancies, less maintenance and an increased blight on all of our neighborhoods.  So, I think there was some real significant issues in relation to this.  I hope we take a hold of it, that we don't approve those projects right now that are still questionable."  Then she voted FOR this travesty.  Like her good friend, Lill, Finkelman's dreaming of running for Mayor in 2 years and wants to curry favor with the African-American elected crooks who hate Mayor Miller.

Maxine Thornton-Reese:  "I've talked to Mr. Fantroy, and he said that he did not want to defer it, that someone had approached him, too, with that.  Now, we can still ask him now to make sure, but he said he did not want to defer it, he wanted to pass it, and he asked me to carry it and I'm doing as he asked."  The City Attorney (if we had a real one) should immediately have asked the Mayor to go into Executive Session.  T-Reese would have been OK had she simply said "NO, I will not defer the case".  No one in the chamber did not know Fantroy had told her what to do.  Still, she was not the only council member to leave the horse show to go back and discuss the case with Fantroy or ask him to defer it.  City staff saw more than one council member go back to visit with Fantroy.  One actually confirmed to me that he did -- but it was only to ask him about postponing the case .  I'm not kidding.

Leo Chaney:  With all his under the table shakedowns that have been recently exposed, he was wise not to offer any advice to this council for fear T-Reese would forget who she was carrying water for that day and start doing her Jack-A in the Box routine and begin spouting her one-note mantra of "racism". 

Mitch Rasansky:  "I understand the community is for this and the council person is for this".  Another point where the City Attorney (if we had one) should have cautioned the Mayor and council about the restrictions of conflict of interest.  There is absolutely no excuse for Rasansky's comments or his vote.  He know full well the disaster looming for the city with all of these tax-subsidized apartment complexes concentrated in one area.  After all, he has lots of rental property himself.  Mitch Rasansky served on the Plan Commission with Blaydes, Oakley, Chaney, Fantroy and Griffith.  He knows the rules.  He knows he and others violated the conflict of interest rules on September 22.

Steve Salazar:  "We have been able to see what the representative of the district wants to happen".  When and how was the council LEGALLY able to see what the representative of the district wants to happen?  Salazar is an attorney and served on the council in another district for 3 terms before being elected from District 6.  He knows better than how he spoke or voted.

Bill Blaydes:  "... I will go ahead and support it -- that and the fact that J. L. asked us to.  He knows his area."  Blaydes served on the P&Z for several years with "J.L." and Rasansky, et al.  When he said "J.L. asked us to", he joined T-Reese in specifically informing the council, the Mayor, the City Attorney and the citizens of Dallas that Fantroy violated Sec. 12A-3(c)(1) to "immediately refrain from further participation in the matter, including discussions with any persons likely to consider the matter (which would include the District 8 plan commissioner, staff or any council member).

Ed Oakley:  "if Mr. Fantroy wants this one to move forward, then he still has to come back to the council for the approval of the tax credits at some point".  Oakley carefully parsed his words in his little speech, but blew it by mentioning "if Mr. Fantroy wants".  Oakley is in his 2nd term on the council and served on the P&Z for several years before that.  He knows the rules.

The reality is that when the council votes on those tax-credits, we will hear the same excuses and bemoaning and dire warnings, but the vote will likely be similar to the vote on 9/22/04 with the last 2 or 3 honest people on the council voting AGAINST and the rest of them voting FOR.

Some might ask if this keeps a council member from representing his constituents.  No, the council member who knowingly entered into a contract-relationship with an applicant for a zoning change decided in advance to put his own interests ahead of his those of constituents. 

On September 22, 2004, there was a clear conspiracy among several on the council to assist James Fantroy in securing improper zoning that will benefit one of his clients.  Most of the sellouts were just playing ward politics and trying to buy protection for when some controversial zoning case in their district gets to council.

This is how Princess Velveeta Lill was able to force unreasonable amendments to the Oak Lawn Planned Development District through over the objections of most property owners in Oak Lawn. 

No honest person can say that we still have zoning hearings at City Hall.  What the council member wants is what the district plan commissioner does.  What the council member wants is what the city council does.  There is absolutely no chance the other side will prevail.  NOT A SINGLE CHANCE.

You have to grudgingly respect the chutzpah of Beat that Indictment James Fantroy and Brain-Dead T-Reese and Shakedown Chaney.  They at least go for the gold.  The other council crooks get bought off with promises of future support or an invite to a fancy dinner or lunch or art showing.

We might as well disband the Planning and Zoning Department, do away with the Plan Commission and put all zoning cases on the consent agenda if they get the district council member's approval.  We could save millions.  Not to mention the embarrassment of the whole world seeing the kind of losers Dallas voters have selected to represent them.

The council just needs to tell us they have done away with the City Code of Ethics and  spare us anymore Faux-zoning hearings at City Hall.

sb