Sen. Royce West: "No Elected Official is Indispensable"

1

TxDOT's Proposals to the Corps: Do Nothing and Build a Pile of Dirt

2

They Don't Hate the Dallas Cowboys. They Hate Cowboys Fans

3

No Love Field Lost at Briefing Today

By Robert Wilonsky in Probably Insignificant Aviation News
Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 2:58PM
concessionhearing.jpg
Assistant city manager Ramon Miguez, at left, is having no fun today at the council's Transportation and Environment Committee briefing.
If you want to drive yourself insane, dial up the Dallas City Council's Transportation and Environment Committee meeting, where, at this very moment, the committee is discussing the Love Field concessions expansion. Because, in case you weren't aware, Love Field's getting a makeover, part of which will including adding more than 15,000 square feet in retail and restaurant-bar space. And, far as assistant city manager Ramon Míguez is concerned, the city will be best served by bringing in new concessionaires to work alongside the so-called "incumbent concessionaires." Because, look, competition's awesome, right?

Depends who you ask. DeSoto-based State Rep. Helen Giddings doesn't think so. She just got through saying as much as she spoke to the committee. Then again, she's had several concessions out there for years. Carolyn Davis also doesn't agree; neither do Pauline Medrano, who wants one local concessionaire to run the whole show, or Ron Natinsky, who says that "after 40 years in the private sector I'm having a rough time accepting the logic" of competition amongst vendors at the airport. Míguez long ago lost his patience: "Bottom line here is, what we're saying is ... it's in the city's best interest to provide a competitive environment." Says you.
9 comment(s) / Post a Comment
ignoreLander says:

"Bottom line here is, what we're saying is ... it's in the city's best interest to provide a competitive environment."

Something like the Wright Amendment, no?

Posted On: Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 3:04PM
Don Abbott says:

What is it about Love Field that it can't just be "normal"? Long before Enron, AIG, or whiskey for real estate came the Wright Amendment. When Jim Wright cobbled together one of the long-lasting scams of all time for his buds at American, everybody was taking notes. Someday, Love Field will have dozens (45-50) gates, a bunch of different airlines, and a place as one of the pieces in a collection of airports serving the most populated part of America between New York and Los Angeles, south of Chicago, aka Dallas-Fort Worth.

Posted On: Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 3:29PM
cp says:

I fly Southwest. Which means of course, frequent stops and waits at other airports. There is nothing worse than being stuck at an airport with a monoculture on one coffee shop that closed at 9pm. Or just wanting to grab a quick sandwich as I'm running to the jetway but my only choice is a sit-down restaurant. I think we know why these council people object. And shouldn't that be a conflict of interest? At Love Field, we have Chili's. Why can't we also have a Barbecue place?

Posted On: Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 3:39PM
rw says:

What is embarrassing is that our "government" officials (Giddings, Davis, etc.) have absolutely no qualms about using their positions to make money. I have seen it first hand when bidding on DISD, DART, City of Dallas jobs - certain names pop up as "consultants" on other bidders subcontractor list, calls are made, and magically the $$$ goes to the guy who has a politico on their payroll.

You could sit there until you are blue in the face explaining to them why it's wrong, but they don't think it is. Look at JWP's letter to the editor a couple of weeks ago concerning the Allen project in South Dallas, basically saying "Yeah, if you want to come into my part of town, you have to pay up". He admitted that certain people have to get paid a piece of the pie in order to do business there.

Look at practically any state legislator and you will see contracts they or their companies have with almost every public entity there is - and usually entities that they have direct control over. Whether it's a "consulting" company, "advertising" company, or Royce West's law firm with over $3 million in business with DISD, it is a pervasive problem.

And for anyone to sit there with a straight face and say that competition isn't good is insane. But then, it's the crazies that seem to run our city.

Posted On: Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 3:59PM
heart and soul says:

Uh cp, I think we only have a few things at Love Field because there is not room for a bunch of stuff as it is designed. If we are adding more space then I am sure we will be adding new options no matter who the operator is. I mean no one is going to try to add just more of the same. That's just silly and no business operator is going to suggest such a thing because it doesn't make business sense. Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up?

I am glad the council is asking questions and is just not going along with whatever staff recommends. Every time staff says we have GOT TO do something because it is best for the city we get screwed. They said the same thing about the Trinity Project too.

Posted On: Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 4:10PM
Wylie H. says:

Let's not forget that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (you know, our Congresswoman who sits on the House Aviation Subcommittee) has her snout firmly inserted in the retail piggy troughs at both DFW Airport and Love Field:

(from a 2005 DMN story):

Dallas legislator has airport business stake

Through a blind trust, (Rep. EBJ) owns 25 percent of a joint venture at D/FW with Hudson Group, which controls a newsstand and a gift shop.

Ms. Johnson also has a 15 percent interest in a separate joint venture with Hudson at Love Field. The venture's operation there includes a newsstand, gift shop and a sunglass retailer, said trustee Earl Bentley.

Mr. Bentley declined to put a value on the investments but said they were "considerable."

The D/FW and Love Field investments are "roughly comparable" in value, he added, and both are profitable.

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/wright/stories/081005dnbuswright.5d1b7454.html

Posted On: Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 5:42PM
anon says:

heart and soul, it does make sense to have more than one operator. Why would the city want to encourage a MONOPOLY? Monopolies strangle innovation and are bad for the consumer in terms of price and service. I am just shocked that something so basic has to be explained. These people need to take an economics class.

I watched the presentation and the council people looked like they were reading off of cue cards. Robert, you missed one key thing: who donates how much and to whom?

Posted On: Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 8:34PM
Anonymous says:

anon said: "who donates how much and to whom?"

Look for your answers here: http://www.pegasusnews.com/organizations/dallas-city-council/

Posted On: Monday, Apr. 13 2009 @ 8:50PM
rw says:

I'm not necessarily saying that staff is always on target with recommendations. But to think that just because someone is elected that they are "looking out for the best interests of the public" is ridiculous. Other than Rasansky and Hunt, I would say that the majority of our city council members are there mainly to look out for themselves and their financial supporters and/or hangers-on.

Posted On: Tuesday, Apr. 14 2009 @ 10:24AM


Comments may not show up immediately after submission. Please wait a minute after posting a comment for it to appear.

All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking "Post," you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.

  • Weekly
  • Music
  • Promotions
  • Dining
  • Events
  • Dallas After Dark

Now Click This

Backpage.com
Free Classifieds Dallas, TX