The Yea and Nay of Angela Hunt

By Robert Wilonsky Tue., Apr. 21 2009 at 8:20 AM

Categories: Politics

Had a couple of items related to the pro-hotel'ers yesterday; and we're headed to another introductory how-do this morning at the Stoneleigh Hotel, where Enough is Enough makes its formal what-up -- as if folks needed to be introduced to the likes of Ray Hunt, Roger Staubach, former city manager John Ware, John Scovell, Ebby Halliday and Willis Johnson, among some of the bold-faced names affixed to the organization. Till then, then, Angela Hunt yesterday posted to her Web site her stance on the two propositions on the May 9 ballot. The short and sweet version? Yes on Prop. 1; no on Prop. 2. The longer versions?

Concering Proposition 1: "In theory, the hotel would be able to pay for itself through its own revenue. But if the hotel doesn't meet the Mayor's rosy projections for occupancy, taxpayers get stuck with the bill."

And, regarding Proposition 2: "There are areas of our city that need incentives to convince developers to build there, and developers won't stick around for a public vote. They'll simply go elsewhere -- Las Colinas, Irving, McKinney -- where they can get the same incentives without waiting months for a vote. Bottom line is, Prop 2 has the potential to make Dallas non-competitive and seriously damage our city's ability to provide reasonable economic incentives to businesses."

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

I love it when long-dead idealogue authors spell "incompetent" incompetently.
I would think you could cobble together sufficient federal, state and even regional funds to build the lines. Then either get DART to operate and maintain the streetcars or pay them on contract to do so.
So, is there anything else on the ballot besides the city council elections? I ask because there's this huge billboard off NCX and it's a pic of Kinky Friedman and Jenny the Elephant hanging her sad trunk over a fence and the fence is spray painted with the words "HELP ME" and the message says "VOTE MAY 9" Did those Concerned Citizens for Jenny slip something else on the ballot that we don't know about or are they just wasting their money on billboards that have nothing to do with the coming election?
@citicc: The city isn't taking a poll about whether folks want a convention center hotel. Instead, Dallasites will be voting on a particular ordinance that prohibits the city from owning a convention center hotel. To pass the ordinance, Dallasites must vote "YES," just as the council approves ordinances by voting "YES."
READ...before you vote on Prop 1. As usual whoever writes the Props...has pulled it again. Vote YES if you don't want the Convention Center Hotel. Vote NO...If you do want the Convention Center Hotel. Is this done on purpose to confuse the voters....OR is the Prop. writer...dyslectic?
Angela, I would think that if you had TIF dollars committed to repay a loan reasonable financing would be easy. OR Why not issue Trolley bonds again backstopped by TIF. These could be sold as a novel Green Investment. Of course as muni-bonds they have good terms on taxation. Daniel, my point is that it is the big wheeler dealers that are running these programs. This is indeed every bit as socialist as food stamps or after school subsidies. These guys have no qualm labeling programs that help the poor and struggling this way. I want us to remember that we dole out much more to people who don't frankly need the help. Gov't should INVEST in development but should seek to do so without prejudice. Highways, Parks, Hospitals, power plants, Sewage treatment does that. I am not making a radical argument here but we have deviated substantially from conventional use of gov't. I'd suggest to you that we'd have solar panels on near every roof if it were profitable for the electric company. Since we own our roof tops we won't find much help achieving this either.
@hobo: I wasn't trying to make it a partisan issue. Wanted to say that the voters haven't been as informed on Prop 2 as they have on Prop 1. Just as voting straight-ticket for a party is a bad idea (see Lupe Valdez and Jim Foster), voting Yes on Prop 2 because you also voted Yes on Prop 1 isn't good. It's nice to see people like Angela and Wick Allison (who posted D's endorsements on FrontBurner) discussing the pros and cons of Prop 2 in addition to all the focus on Prop 1. An uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all.
Scott, you make reasonable points and then sully them by interjecting the utterly hysterical notion that a municipality dispensing tax abatements to stimulate development -- and hence tax revenue -- is embarking on a perilous course of "socialism." It's called economic development. Last time I checked, everybody was fur it. You're right that a pay-to-play ethos is endemic to our city council, county commisioners, etc.
I encourage The Observer to start doing editorials and stand up for what they believe in. Snarkiness isn't enough anymore. Start here and now with this election.
The city council has shown itself to be incompetant and/or corrupt. Even Angela Hunt is unreliable, with her votes to use zoning to close a valued auto repair shop and her push to continue restrictions to Love Field. Neither move shows concern for individual property or consumer rights. So, vote yes on proposition 2. Limit the council's ability to giveaway our money for a while. If and when a quality council is elected, the propostion can be revoked. In the mean time, the council will be forced to focus on providing adequate services.
Inform me how this is a Republican or a Democrat issue. Tom, you seem to think that Democrats would all vote against the mayor, but it's the Fox News Tea-bagging populists (who I assume are 80% Republican) who are more likely to vote yes on Props 1 and 2. I may be totally wrong here, but that's the impression I get. I moved here from San Antonio, a city that has ZERO vision for its future and can only dream of the things we are doing here in Dallas. Whether it's mixed-use developments, revitalizing downtown Dallas, fixing the Trinity or whatever, we make things happen in this city because of leaders like Angela Hunt. If she says we need to vote no on 2, I will tell everyone I know to do what she says.
Robert, sorry to get off-topic here. Scott, I totally agree with you on the streetcar. Councilmember Koop and I traveled to Portland and Seattle last weekend to tour their streetcar infrastructure. Assistant City Manager A.C. Gonzalez (who oversees economic development) and Jay Kline (DART's streetcar coordinator) joined us. Both cities have used streetcars as economic calalysts, allowing considerable mixed-use development in depressed areas. The streetcar tool can be used in the same way in Dallas. We just have to figure out a way to fund it. I think a TIF is on the right track, but remember, TIFs have to generate money via economic growth in order to throw off future dollars. And "future" is the key. We need some start-up money NOW to get the line(s) rolling (so to speak), and that really can't be TIF dollars since those are future dollars. We're currently working on how we can structure this, but I think we've got some real buy-in now that our folks have gotten to talk with out-of-town developers who have created remarkable growth in other cities, and whose developments would not have existed but for the streetcar lines.
I'm glad to see that Angela is talking about the other proposition, since all the focus seems to be only on Prop 1. I'm worried that too many Dallas voters, now accustomed to going straight-ticket Democrat, will say Yes to both propositions. Will the Observer be writing and blogging about Prop 2 as the election approaches? I've seen very little about it in the Uncle Belo's publications and newscasts.
I agree with Angela's positions on the props; I know you all were dying to know how I was leaning. However, I really have a problem with how incentives currently work. The status quo is a horrible and cumbersome process that is by nature corrupt. We give incentives to developers one at a time. They still come to beg for TIF funds and the council takes a decision on whether this petitioner is worthy. This makes conflicts of interest or circumstances ripe for bribery, sorry campaign contributions. Rather, the city should focus on building infrastructure that will encourage the growth and development in that region. I sure wish Angela would use the language of the right to make her point. When these developers come to solicit funds we begin a SOCIALIST process. We've seen what is either supreme stupidity or corruption of venal representatives to support inanity. By building a trolley which would cost less than the latest petitioner asked for one building--$65million wasn't it?--we could accentuate DART rail, create a central business district that would have it's own draw. Rather, we have council members who dangle their TIF funds for a piece meal patchwork of whatever would best fund their political coffers. I am proposing a conventional exercise of gov't, for conventional market driven economics that would develop organically, more sustainably and more enduring than the incentives that are thrown to big projects that are too costly for the average citizen.
Literally anyone with a remote touch of buisness sense realizes Prop. 2 is a terrible idea and needs a no vote. Literally anyone who thinks Prop. 1 is a slam-dunk one way or the other has a firmer grasp of the issues than I.
The <em>Observer</em> doesn't take official positions -- no, seriously ... why is everyone laughing? Though I do believe Mr. Schutze has made his take on this particular proposition quite clear. http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/02/unite_here_the_new_york.php
Does this mean The Observer agrees with Angela Hunt and is urging everyone to vote No on 2?