Laura Miller...Has your opinion changed?

[gc]

Why I've decided to quit being surly and love Laura Miller.
D Magazine by Wick Allison
http://www.dmagazine.com//article.asp?articleid=595

The mayor has made me a convert.

D Magazine has never been a big fan of Laura Miller. As an investigative reporter, she was tendentious, egotistical, sloppy, and usually wrong. As a City Council member, she was tendentious, camera-hungry, mean-spirited, and usually wrong.

But as mayor, she's a dynamo. She's the best thing that's happened to Dallas in decades.

I know she has her faults. She's no management genius. She's always going in so many directions that it's hard to believe her when she tells you that she's going in yours. She's not overly burdened by the need to tell the truth. Nobody in elementary school ever said she plays well with others.

But we all have faults. One of our faults at D Magazine is that we don't often believe that people change to fit their roles. As an investigative reporter, Laura Miller was tops in her field. You may have hated her, but you had to read her. As a City Council member, she battled for her Oak Cliff constituents like nobody else, and she wasn't shy about jamming a stick in the gears at City Hall when she thought something needed to be stopped.

As mayor, she has taken up the banner of change. She has launched constructive initiatives to revitalize downtown, to make the Trinity River project work, and to focus the city's attention on the little things that leave big impressions, such as fixing the potholes and enforcing the codes.

The mayor of Dallas has no power, except to appoint Council members to the Council's various committees. It takes a majority of eight to get anything done. Ron Kirk showed that to be successful, a mayor must forge a coalition of willing partners through the use of carrots and sticks. He also showed that a successful mayor needs to forge a relationship with the city manager.

I'm sure Laura Miller has tried to learn those skills, but she's hampered by three things. The first problem is her temperament. Having never managed anything more than a desktop computer, she's not equipped with a lifetime's training in how to get people to do what she wants. Another problem is her city manager, Ted Benavides, whose weakness is compounded by a paralyzing fear that he will lose his job before his pension is vested. Lastly, her fellow Council members don't always trust her good intentions, although I sense that many of them, like me, are slowly converting.

Miller has succeeded on several fronts. She has enlisted the Dallas business community in the fight for downtown, and they are among her biggest supporters. She has made North Dallas voters her partners in backing what needs to be done, because they trust her to be a financial watchdog. Her energy has gotten other people scurrying to keep up with her. When she sees a problem that needs to be fixed—like our former police chief—she stays on it until everyone else collapses in fatigue.

But, most of all, she has instilled a new spirit in this city. In her inaugural address, she spoke of the
he mayor has made me a convert.

D Magazine has never been a big fan of Laura Miller. As an investigative reporter, she was tendentious, egotistical, sloppy, and usually wrong. As a City Council member, she was tendentious, camera-hungry, mean-spirited, and usually wrong.

But as mayor, she's a dynamo. She's the best thing that's happened to Dallas in decades.

I know she has her faults. She's no management genius. She's always going in so many directions that it's hard to believe her when she tells you that she's going in yours. She's not overly burdened by the need to tell the truth. Nobody in elementary school ever said she plays well with others.

But we all have faults. One of our faults at D Magazine is that we don't often believe that people change to fit their roles. As an investigative reporter, Laura Miller was tops in her field. You may have hated her, but you had to read her. As a City Council member, she battled for her Oak Cliff constituents like nobody else, and she wasn't shy about jamming a stick in the gears at City Hall when she thought something needed to be stopped.

As mayor, she has taken up the banner of change. She has launched constructive initiatives to revitalize downtown, to make the Trinity River project work, and to focus the city's attention on the little things that leave big impressions, such as fixing the potholes and enforcing the codes.

The mayor of Dallas has no power, except to appoint Council members to the Council's various committees. It takes a majority of eight to get anything done. Ron Kirk showed that to be successful, a mayor must forge a coalition of willing partners through the use of carrots and sticks. He also showed that a successful mayor needs to forge a relationship with the city manager.

I'm sure Laura Miller has tried to learn those skills, but she's hampered by three things. The first problem is her temperament. Having never managed anything more than a desktop computer, she's not equipped with a lifetime's training in how to get people to do what she wants. Another problem is her city manager, Ted Benavides, whose weakness is compounded by a paralyzing fear that he will lose his job before his pension is vested. Lastly, her fellow Council members don't always trust her good intentions, although I sense that many of them, like me, are slowly converting.

Miller has succeeded on several fronts. She has enlisted the Dallas business community in the fight for downtown, and they are among her biggest supporters. She has made North Dallas voters her partners in backing what needs to be done, because they trust her to be a financial watchdog. Her energy has gotten other people scurrying to keep up with her. When she sees a problem that needs to be fixed—like our former police chief—she stays on it until everyone else collapses in fatigue.

But, most of all, she has instilled a new spirit in this city. In her inaugural address, she spoke of the "Emerald City" that Dallas once was and could be again. I grew up in that city, and I, too, believe we can have it again.

Ronald Reagan had a sign on his desk that read, "You can get anything done, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it." I could buy one of those signs for Mayor Miller, but she'd ignore it the next time she saw a camera. So maybe the next best thing is to buy it for her City Council partners. As a whole, they are a competent and responsible group, one of the best we've ever had. Con-sidering the mayor's strengths, which are many, and her faults, which are legendary, the City Council should support her.

In other words, let Laura be Laura. She's an amazing woman, and, if given the right backing, she could do amazing things for Dallas.

[mikedsjr]

If i lived in Dallas, I would have voted for her. I love her. I love her attitude. I love her zeal. She is passionate. There really hasn't been someone as mayor in Dallas for awhile that has had the passion that she has.

She is not going to take crap from people who are holding down what she beleives are important to the betterment of Dallas. That even includes the smoking ban. I love her for her stance on that.

But what the heck. She wants a better Dallas that has responsible citizens and punishes those who think they have rights to legal activities like smoking and drunkeness.

[boozo]

Powerful women are so appealing.

Judge Judy, Laura Miller...just order me around.

[TexasStar]

I sort of hated the thought of her at first. But, I held my nose and chose Miller over Mary Poss.

Now, Madam Mayor is definitely starting to grow on me a bit.

The story will be if she manages to get the Cowboys complex built downtown. (Or manages to stay out of the way so it CAN be built.) If she can do that, her tenure as mayor would have been successful. Fail that, and her stay was a dismal bust.

[dallastophoenix]

What will interesting, texasstar, is if she goes for the cowboys stadium DT, but refuses to use taxpayer money for it (which she vowed she wouldn't do)... it could really hurt her politically.

[TexasStar]

But, it may not hinge on cash coming directly from the City of Dallas. As I understand it, the government subsidy the Cowboys will seek only involves voters passing a hotel/motel tax increase at the Dallas County level.

The Mayor can easily stay out of this fight altogether. We get a massive new development downtown and she gets to keep her campaign promise.

[rantanamo]

I always thought she would be good for what she wanted. But she still has not changed when it comes to things she doesn't like or want. I think that non-compromising spirit is what still rubs many the wrong way, and what keeps her from being great in my eyes.

[evdallas]

I have to say I didn't like her in the beginning, the whole pajama Sunday thing had me thinking we had a soccer mom for a mayor, but with time I like her alot better. She really seems to be trying to make Dallas a better place.

[boozo]

Originally posted by TexasStar
The story will be if she manages to get the Cowboys complex built downtown. (Or manages to stay out of the way so it CAN be built.) If she can do that, her tenure as mayor would have been successful. Fail that, and her stay was a dismal bust.

This will never happen. The downtown site is a red herring. I was thinking about it. It makes sense if you think it out.

If Jerry wanted to say he was moving downtown, the vote would be in the bag. Everyone here mostly on this site has said they would vote for the downtown site. He would get his money. Dallas would get a great downtown draw.

On the other hand, if he has secretly choosen Las Colinas (which I think he has), he knows that he will have more trouble getting the votes. So, his advisers probably said, "We need to appeal to a bigger demographic - Center city will give us a wider core of yes votes. Let's offer this as a choice."

Then, they bypass Mayor Miller, because she is known for her integrity and they know she will scrutinize any proposal they give her. She doesn't believe in welfare for millionares and as the elected representative for Dallas, she would fight for equal benefits under the deal. Unlike AA Center, where Hicks gets all the profits.

The final coup; Jerry and his advisors go to the Dallas County Commissioners which are more agreeable to big deals. And following the quid pro quo of Dallas politics, they are probably making something under the table(just guessing here). For we all know that one of the commissioners is John Wiley Price, the reputed figure behind the rapid rise of Terrel Bolton and the mortal enemy of Laura Miller.

Also, downtown does not have the space that the Las Colinas site has.

Please don't take this as a negative post for the idea. I would love it downtown.

[TexasStar]

I have no idea how this will play out and prefer not put words into the Mayor's mouth on this subject. So, for now, I will continue to be very optimistic.

But, if the chosen site for the new Cowboys complex is Los Colinas...
not only will I vote against it. I also promise to vigorously assist in any campaign to kill it.

[dallastophoenix]

I agree! down w/ Las Colinas! It's not as if the Dallas Cowboys will up and move to Iowa or something if they were defeated on this proposal...

Kidding... I think I would still vote for it... it's still money for the region...

[bloodandpopcorn]

If it is set to be in Los Collinas, I will also help anyone opposing it. I really think if that becoms the decision, there is going to be a massive backlash. There are very few people who would be passionate about that, I think, most people being rather indifferent, and then us leading a brigade to crush the plan.

[snooch]

Just a fact: I'm a non-Cowboys fan who would go to the downtown site to watch a game. But Las Colinas? Thpppttt!!! No thanks.

[rantanamo]

I know we want this thing downtown, but aren't we giving Las Colinas a hard time. Remember the time frame of Jerry World vs the DART time frame vs current and future construction/direction of Las Colinas. Don't get me wrong. I really, really would like to see this thing at the Trinity site. I think this would be the true catalyst for the Cedars area.

BUT, Las Colinas will be great by the time the Stadium is constructed. It will be rail accessible. It will be residentially dense. It will have a little urban flavor to it. It has freeway access to 114, I-35, 635, Royal Lane, and NW Highway. The Jerry World site would be right at the Urban Center, and only add to it. It could be the catalyst to finish the people mover, and actually cause even more residential and office to be constructed. I know the downtown site is where the Cowboys belong, and it would cause a great windfall for downtown. Las Colinas, though, would be a great site if downtown or Fair Park can't have it.

[TexasStar]

No, it wouldn't. Not a penny of my tax money to assist in developing a suburb at the expense of the core city.

By far the largest number of people in Dallas County live in the City of Dallas. If the county has to foot the bill to get this built, then clearly, Dallas proper should reap the greatest reward.

Man, how can we reverse this "suburbs are wonderful, Dallas sucks" mentality so pervalent in this metro? I think people here have been brainwashed with it since birth.

[rantanamo]

I never said the suburbs were wonderful and Dallas sucks and went out of my way to say what site I prefer (downtown). I have not been brainwashed. BUT, the county is the county and not the city of Dallas. When it comes to actual tax burden, the suburbs of Dallas County may hold more of it, as well as maybe having more voters that will vote. I'm not exactly sure, but Dallas proper does not by far have the largest number of people. The rest of the county is very close to the Dallas County population of Dallas proper. (remember that a couple hundred thousand actually live in Collin, Denton, and Rockwall Counties) That was not some rah, rah, speech about the 'burbs. Just reality. This is a Dallas County project. Dallas should have no more right to project than any other proposed site. DFW airport and many of the business nodes with lots of hotel space are probably responsible for a lot of the hotel and car rental tax in the county anyway. We can't be one sided about this, because it may be our only choice. We really need to learn the facts about what comes from where, and what's a fair site. Either would be a great host, though I want it downtown.


I know we are downtown cheerleaders on this board, but lets look at Las Colinas seriously and what would be so bad about it. I'm still waiting for answers besides it not being downtown. I want the place downtown, but that doesn't have to mean Las Colinas would suck. As I pointed out, by the time Jerry World is built, Las Colinas will have population and infrastructure that will be more than suitable. As well as a good metroplex location. The downtown site will simply have more of what makes the Las Colinas site great. I for one would vote for either site, as the benefit is to the county as a whole. Why should we fight regional benefit if that's the only choice we have. I believe this will be the only choice we have, because I smell AAC type opposition again, causing the loss of TX/OU, Final Fours, Superbowls, Mega concerts, etc to the city of Dallas. It will come down to Miller. Why do you think the Jones duo met with her? She can be a big cheerleader or a big opponent. Also remember that the convention center hotel will be competing for this money. So expect Las Colinas or bust.

[bloodandpopcorn]

What's so bad about the Los Collinas location? It's a suburb. Plain and simple. No more needs to be said. Oh, a suburban office park? With mock urban development and commuter rail (as that's what the light rail is, rightly in a way, becoming) connecting it to DFW and the Dallas urban center.This is bad because you put this stadium in Los Collinas, at the sales tax money goes to Irving, not Dallas. As does the property taxes paid by Jerry and the increased property taxes around the development. Because something that could spawn massive development and health for our Urban Center is lost to a suburban imitator.

So yes, when you come down to it, Los Collinas fails because it isn't downtown. It really isn't enough to say "Well, downtown would be nice, but Los Collinas is ok too." It's the Dallas Cowboys, and if Jerry wants my money to give them a new home, then by-god it will acutally BE in Dallas.

And the majority of voters in Dallas County are in Dallas proper. I think it's 60-65%, maybe almsot 70%, but I'm not sure on actual numbers. And it's very likely that the only people to be passionate about this either way are a) people in Dallas or b) people in Los Collinas. The percentage of Dallas citizens is far, far greater Irving citizens in Dallas County.

I think it could still pass in Los Collinas. As a region, we've made tons of miserably horrible decisions before. But that sure as hell doesn't make it right, anymore than the Dallas soccer team moving up to Frisco.

A central place to go for sports, arts, other entertainment, work, living, eating, shopping, gaming, and just general urbania is what we as a region need. Downtown Dallas already has made giant strides towards that Los Collinas will never achieve that. It may become a nice suburban office complex, but it will never see a Nasher or DMA or Pegasus Square or Kirby Building or Davis building or even First Baptist. Downtown Dallas makes the most since for that area, so that's whee the football needs to be. Anywhere else is a mistake that will feed our sprawl and eventaully kill DFW as a region.

[rantanamo]

LOL

Nice campaign for downtown Dallas. Still nothing that makes Las Colinas a bad location for a football stadium. It would make a cool shot from the News 8 DFW cam that looks over Las Colinas towards downtown, LOL. Seriously though, I think different sports have different neighborhood impacts. A football stadium can never do what Wrigley Field, Pac Bell, or Fenway do. A football stadium can't do what an AAC or Minutemaid Park can. Then, no park will bring tons to what isn't already there. See Texas Stadium and the Ballpark. The point of making downtown a more complete jack of all trades though is a compelling argument for Downtown, though. None of that though, makes Las Colinas a bad choice. Just not the best choice.

Remember, though, I'm on your side, but you don't have to convince me as to what makes downtown a better site. You have to convince the mayor who doesn't care, and wants only her agenda met.

[TexasStar]

Sorry, Rantanamo. I didn't mean to sound as if I were accusing you personally. It just bothers me too much that ANY site besides downtown is considered. Geez, even New Orleans figured that out 30 years ago while Dallas didn't. By the way, the Superdome is credited with putting that city on the map as a top convention destination and the Nr.1 SuperBowl host city. That type of benefit is out of the question for Dallas in a suburban location.

Back to the original discussion, it all may hinge on what Mayor Laura Miller does or does not do. And I suppose the truth is we should be very, very afraid.

[gc]

I'll admit that putting it in Las Colinas would not be catastrophic, but I do think it would be a mistake. I would also vote for it if the site were there. However, I think it would be very shortsighted if we could get it near downtown and voted it out. We need more venues in the core of the city that are either walkable to each other or walkable to hotels, restaurants, etc. That has always been one of the major complaints about Dallas...lack of continuity with developments...we always gotta get in a car and drive forever to get to the next venue!

anyways, as hot as this topic is....we have no clue what is gonna be laid out on the table. In fact, we may be wasting our breath...fingers...whatever

besides, this friggin thread is supposed to be about Laura Miller not the cowboys stadium!

[JBB]

I think the reason this thread has shifted to Cowboys stadium talk has a great deal to do with its connection to the legacy of Laura Miller's tenure as mayor. If she manages to help bring the stadium to downtown and further bolster the development in the area, she is going to look like a hero. If her actions force the Cowboys to stay in Irving, she will look like the goat. As far as the Las Colinas location, it is not preferred, but I could think of worse alternatives. At least it won't end up in Frisco.

[gc]

Lysol Miller
Enough with the Martha Stewart act. Fix some potholes, will ya?
BY JIM SCHUTZE - jimschutze@mindspring.com
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-03-04/schutze.html/1/index.html

OK, time out, is it just me? Or is anybody else getting tired of the Scrubbing Bubbles routine from the mayor?
Mayor Miller, here's a page from your organizer: Get rid of roosters. Check. Pass a law against smoking. Check. Pass a law against people taking shopping carts home with them. Check. Pass a law against panhandling. Check. Force downtown owners to beautify their parking lots. Check. Give 325 speeches about Dallas, "the city on the hill" that you visited as a teenager, and how the most important thing is for Dallas to look that way again. Check check check.

And here's a little memory check: What damn hill? Around that same time in your life, is it possible you visited San Francisco? Time plays strange tricks.

Anyway, wait a minute. I never said I wanted to live in a shopping mall. What? When you're done, we'll rename the city "The Shops on the Trinity?"

And wait another minute. May I ask a question? Whatever happened about the damn potholes? I thought that was your big campaign issue. I don't remember voting for you because you were the candidate who reminded me most of Martha Stewart. Although you're starting to.

Right off the bat, I admit: This has been building, but the straw that broke my back was Laura Miller's pronouncement last week that all news boxes downtown are "litter on the sidewalks" and should be eradicated. That box happens to be my ox.

I'm not exactly in an ownership position around the Dallas Observer. Whenever I encounter the people who are, they always re-introduce themselves. I feel like the guy with the pop-bottle glasses in the movie Office Space. Long after the owners have disappeared, I'm still muttering, "I have stated on several occasions that there is no L in my last name."

But news boxes are how I make my living. Dear reader: Where did you happen to get this copy of the Observer that you're reading right now? I would say it's amazing that the mayor doesn't remember her own recent past as an employee of this particular free-distribution newspaper, but it's not amazing. Not anymore. We all know she doesn't remember.

Here's the point. The scrubby-dubby spritz-spritz business, the Windexing of Dallas, the Lysol Doctrine (all of which is beginning to look more than a tad compulsive) is the closest I can find to a consistent theme in her tenure. Meanwhile, I'm driving down the street here, and the potholes are so bad I feel as if my family and I should be wearing crash helmets.

"INCOMING!"

Another Sunday ride in Dallas. I don't know why anybody buys a new car here. Next street cruiser I buy will be one of those big '80s Detroit felony cars. I never want to own another car I'd feel bad about abandoning on the street.

"INCOMING!"

"OK, on the count of three, throw the doors open and we all break for the DART bus."

We could almost do a deal on the news boxes, if she would agree to put them in the potholes. That would be better for my car than what we have now.

This isn't just a joke. It's serious. Last week I wrote about the city's approach to the issue of homeless people downtown. I had spoken at length with advocates for the homeless, worried that some kind of fascist bug-spray approach might be looming. Since then I have spent another week talking to people on several sides of the issue, and I am not cheered. If anything, I think I may have undersold the story. Few people will talk on the record about it. (What is with this town? I could get more candor in Baghdad.)

But the picture that emerges more and more clearly is one of very strong pressure to somehow sanitize downtown of all homeless people.

Let me declare a few personal biases here. I am not a major defender or proponent of people going to the bathroom on the street in front of me. I do not like getting "panhandled" so aggressively that it's really a stick-up. I do not sympathize with the cops for refusing to enforce the law on aggressive panhandling because they're mad about their pay raise. Get a chief. Get those troops lined up. Go out and enforce the law. That'd be my plan. There can be no life downtown as long as the hard-core anti-social and criminal homeless roam the sidewalks with impunity.

But that doesn't mean it is possible or morally defensible or even especially desirable to make a whole class of people go poof. The impulse to eliminate problems by eliminating people is real bad. And dangerous. No Scrubbing Bubbles for human beings. Got that?

This is all about one major choice: where to put the city's new $3 million homeless "intake" center. An element of the real estate community downtown is pushing for a plan to put the new center at a considerable distance from downtown--farther than the homeless could walk.

There is some legal strategy here: The theory is that such a center would satisfy court rulings requiring cities to create some kind of safe haven for the homeless. In this case, the city would have met the requirement and might feel it was then OK to declare open season on homeless people who refuse to be relocated.

The other choice is to put the new center in or near downtown. The center would refer everybody who is referable to organized programs and then provide some kind of minimal assistance to the hard-core who refuse to be referred. Of course, that leaves some number of homeless people downtown. It's not a perfectly antiseptic solution, in other words.

One of the people I spoke with was Bennett Miller, who has been a successful developer of close-in residential property here since the early 1980s. He has an interesting attitude toward the homeless. I asked him if eliminating the homeless population downtown would not give all of his property values a major bounce.

"Of course," he said. "But that's not in the cards."

He says you can't make the true hard-core go poof. You have to play with the cards that are dealt you, and in an urban environment that includes a certain quotient of homelessness. He has bought properties where the homeless were living in the woods like Indians when the pioneers arrived, and he has turned those properties into sophisticated, successful urban venues. He clearly believes in doing everything possible to reduce the numbers and steer as many homeless people as possible into programs.

But he doesn't see any reasonable outcome that entails scouring downtown clean of all homeless people, if clean is a word we should use for the removal of human beings. He knows from his own experience that businesses can succeed in a fairly cheek-by-jowl relationship with the homeless, if everybody is patient and if everybody works hard at it. He says lots of people say they want to help, "but they don't want to get dirty."

He didn't say this, but I think in many people's minds not getting dirty means dealing only with the nice homeless, the meek and mild homeless, the biblical poor who are always with us. But that still leaves the scrungy bastards. Somebody still has to deal with the scrungy bastards.

Bennett Miller points out that even some of the scrungiest are susceptible to help, if you catch them at the right moment. "You can pick them off a few at a time," he said.

It's the same point homeless advocate James K. Waghome made to me in an e-mail: "Fact is, if you ask these people, they have tried our services, but we failed to make the proper connection to help them.

"Two years ago, there were 11 people who lived at Lovers and Greenville. They are the ones people call 'eyesores, chronically homeless, service-resistant.'

"Today, go to the same intersection, and you will find they are no longer there. Eight are now clean and sober. All live in some type of housing, saving the taxpayers money. Two still have not dealt with their problems but are also not spending time on our streets with panhandling signs or in jail at $150 a night."

Waghome is a former homeless person himself. Bennett Miller has been a developer for decades, but he comes originally from a background in social activism. They both accept the basic right of the homeless to go and to be where they want to go and be, as long as they do not unfairly or illegally infringe on the rights of others.

That's the difference. The other view--the one I hear from the mayor almost every time she speaks on these issues--is that all basic rights are trumped by the need for tidiness. It goes back to one of her first campaigns on the city council, when she wanted to drive up and down Jefferson Avenue and force all of the Mexican tire shops to either pretty up or shut down.

Hey. What if I think junky Mexican tire stores are beautiful? What if I look at all that rotting rubber and peeling paint, the clang and the bang, the kids loitering on a stack of tires after school waiting for their dad to give them money for an ice cream, what if I look at that and I see a glorious saga of American self-improvement? Huh?

I don't want the city to look like upscale Connecticut. I don't want to live in upscale Connecticut. I sometimes wonder what Laura Miller would do if she suddenly became the mayor of Rome.

"OK, you expletive-expletive expletives, you're gonna get some fresh plaster on that dump of a Coliseum, or I'm gonna take that Venus de Milo and ram her so far up your ass that she'll think she's crossed the River Styx."

She doesn't talk that way anymore. I wish she would. I just wish she'd talk that way about the damn potholes.

[trolleygirl]

I guess it was a slow week at the Observer.

You know, I know both of these two personally and pretty well. They are two peas in a pod, they are both "Damn East Coast Liberals" (a favorite joke.....) She used to be Schutze before she ran for council. She was a populist on the council. Citizens appealed to her when they felt like thier own council reps weren't listening to them. She responded to the needs of everyone. She read stuff, did her homework and scrutinized everything, especially on the Trinity River Project. And she asked questions, questions that Ron Kirk did not want her asking. Anyway, the deal about LM now that she's done a really good job of is not responding to those early and outspoken supporters. It's been that way for over a year. The last time we had breakfast was in August of 2002! Before her last election.

The Miller/Dunning/Garcia campaign was just amazing. I can't tell you how many people from both sides of the river came together to do door-to-door canvassing, phone banking, nailing and delivering signs, you name it. LM probably had more volunteer hours on her campaign than all others combined in this city's history. She was responsive, affable, reachable, realistic. People just wanted to be around her, just wanted to work for her. We wated her to win. And she did. Becasue the hardest working people I have ever seen worked even harder for LM during those weeks between the runoff with Dunning. And it wasn't just for her, it was for us. We the people who campaigned so hard and supported and voted for her really wanted the potholes fixed, really wanted the parks clean, we really wanted the police to have better pay, we wanted all of the back-to-basics stuff that she campaigned about, the things that made her the populist candidate that she was. We still want that. We still need that. Badly.

And we had reason to believe her. As I said, she was very responsive to the public when she was on council. When the City voted to close down the wading pools in poor neighborhoods in West Dallas, she went and found some private funds to pay for them. This is not the work of someone who doesn't care about the service part of public service. She gained our trust and we elected her as our mayor.

Now, we're not sure what's going on except that, she's either politically the stupidest person alive- which I seriously doubt becasue she is married to one of the brightest politicians alive, or she is deliberatley distancing herself from the ones that brung her, or she has some secret reason that she has yet to reveal. Maybe she's just biding her time, trying to frustrate those that brung her to the point that the all go crazy and run for City Council next term and she'll finally have the council that she needs to fire the City Manager and the City Attorney and finally get some real work done. Maybe she's trying to galvanize the masses by making this City seem like the most impossible place to live. Maybe she's just a terrible Mayor. Maybe she's a control freak. Maybe she's an evil dictator, but I doubt that too.

It's highly implausible that she would work so hard for the community for so many years, pounding into our brains the motto of "Back to Basics" ("gotta eat your broccoli before you can have desert"), only to abandon those very principals that brought her there in the first place. I think she found some "low hanging fruit" to pass some oridanances that she figured her supportes would like (smoking ban, anti-panhandling, shopping cart ban, etc.) to keep those supporters happy for a while so she could buy some time to get the Wick Allison's and Bob Dechard's signing her praises. She can't do that while she's actually doing real basic and boring stuff that the great unwashed masses actually want done. After all, running a city is a little bigger than simply potholes and green parks. It's about balance and we still have to make nice with all those Park Cities people who own property and are very powerful in downtown. See, these people don't care about parks in South Dallas- or any other part of Dallas for that matter- because they have their parks, and police and smooth streets in the Park Cities where thay live. All they can see is Big Picture- Arts District, Victory, Calatrava bridge, Olympics, Cowboys Stadium. So there is a line that any Mayor will have to walk.

I think the great unwahed masses are seeing through what we elected. She needs to talk to us the same way that she did when we first elected her. Candidly and sincere. She hasn't done that in over a year and I think that's why Schutze is so critical now- he's reflecing our collective disappointment in our mayor- the one that we elected to get our needs taken care of.

[tamtagon]

I havent lost faith in Laura Miller. After the power surge of being the mayor settles, she may regain some of the candid and sincere talk of the past. But as mayor, she doesnt have the same opportunity to ask the difficult questions in the same demanding way. She is supposed to have the answers. I'm glad she has responsibility for the big picture. A better Dallas usually seems to motivate her actions rather than political positioning for her next resume entry. With some very big projects likely to begin while LM is mayor, Dallas has the right person as mayor, she will demand the best implimentation. It's cool that you know her, TG. I think it may be your job (and those in a position similar to you) to take over where LM left off once she became mayor. If you can demand as much from her as she demanded from Ron Kirk, Dallas will be that much better.

[trolleygirl]

it may be your job (and those in a position similar to you) to take over where LM left off

Hmmmm........good advise.......I 'll take it under consideration.
;)

[texcolo]

I actually attended Laura Miller's victory party at Eddie Dean's when she won the first election. Nice lady.

Just felt like bragging.

[Columbus Civil]

I hear she cusses a lot.

[trolleygirl]

I hear she cusses a lot.

Privately, yes, well to a degree. The problem here is that some reporters would see a very polished-looking woman use the F-bomb three times in a sentence- as a noun, verb and adjective- and they gasp, "Oh my GAWD! Did you hear what that woman said??? And she's on the City Council! We must print this in our newspaper!!"

I work with a lot of the downtown big-shots. I work with a lot of the staff at City Hall. Most the guys (and some of the women) swear like sailors. You should hear what it's like in some of these board meetings. Nobody ever saw a "lady" Mayor swear like a sailor, and expecially not in a place like Dallas where women don't do that sort of thing. So it's news. She's brash. Big f***ing deal!

By the way, Ron Kirk was ~ two synapses away from having full out Touret's Syndrome. Remember his little diatribe, caught on television? (For those of you who don't, he was at Love Field being interviewed after testifying at Al Lipcomb's trial in Amarillo and some passengers were leaving the plane behind him. One of the passengers muttered, "You're next, Kirk" and old Ron, without missing a beat and in mid-sentence turns around and yelled, "you go to hell!" And politely resumed his interview as if nothing had happened.) It was pretty funny. But yeah, he cussed and swore a lot more than LM, but since she's woman....................

[gc]

Originally posted by Columbus Civil
I hear she cusses a lot.

My kind of girl...

[texcolo]

Nixon cussed alot.

[Columbus Civil]

I blame Hollywood.

[boozo]

Originally posted by trolleygirl
(For those of you who don't, he was at Love Field being interviewed after testifying at Al Lipcomb's trial in Amarillo and some passengers were leaving the plane behind him. One of the passengers muttered, "You're next, Kirk" and old Ron, without missing a beat and in mid-sentence turns around and yelled, "you go to hell!" And politely resumed his interview as if nothing had happened.)

LOL! I saw it on TV.

That was awesome! Immediately it made him the best mayor ever!

I love politicians who don't kiss ass!

[Columbus Civil]

con jerk

[trolleygirl]

To quote a famous Texan, Ron Kirk was "slicker than owl shit."

[Mballar]

Originally posted by tamtagon
I havent lost faith in Laura Miller.

Neither have I . . . I never had faith in her to begin with. She is a lightening rod, a divider not a uniter . . . Qualities that do little good in Dallas City Politics, as alluded to many time on this board by people who cite the lack of a "Strong Mayor" style of local government. In my opinion, many Laura Miller supporters fall in love with her "critical evaluations" of "perceived problems" in the city. However, those same supporters would have to acknowledge that in Dallas, if the Mayor can't get the council members to cooperate with her, she will have little to no impact on effectuating change of those "perceived problems." Thus, I must ask the following question:

What good does it do to have a Mayor who is outspoken on your issues of concern, if he/she lacks the political capital to do anything about them?

[dallastophoenix]

what i liked about kirk is that he was able to get corporate dallas behind him - it may have alienated some, but he got things done... it almost seems that miller is anti-corporate dallas. she seems to want to regulate everything....

[trolleygirl]

What good does it do to have a Mayor who is outspoken on your issues of concern, if he/she lacks the political capital to do anything about them?

You choose those politicians, if you vote in a Council District in the City of Dallas. If not, then you can point the fingers at yourself if you don't like way the council gets along. It's a two way street. Maxine Thornton-Reese is an idiot and she will never vote along with anything Laura Miller, no matter how hard Laura Miller tries to extend an olive branch. The voters of District 4 put Maxine T-Reese there, and if they don't like the lack of code enforcement in their district, it's not the Mayor's fault. They need to elect someone else to represent their intrests on the city level. If they didn't vote at all, then they have no reason to complain.

Your question completely lacks the recognition and the role of the 14 other elected people at the horsehoe. If you don't like the way it's not working for you, then run for city council! Or campaign for someone else.

[freewaytincan]

Originally posted by dallastophoenix
what i liked about kirk is that he was able to get corporate dallas behind him - it may have alienated some, but he got things done... it almost seems that miller is anti-corporate dallas. she seems to want to regulate everything....

Well, what do you expect? She's a woman...

[Foucault]

Oh my god...

[AviAdelman]

I am the proud designer of another infamous website

(after Barking Dogs (http://www.barkingdogs.org)

which has the video of Ron Kirk's classic quote

Ron Kirk Soundbite (http://www.mayorkirk.com/soundbites.shtml)


Avi

[tamtagon]

Avi, that's hilarious.

[aceplace]

Trolleygirl, you make a good point about politicians being responsive to citizen complaints.

But there is another way to look at one point you made.


If they didn't vote at all, then they have no reason to complain.

Actually, the people who DID vote have no right to complain. By availing themselves of the franschise, they have agreed beforehand to support whatever the election brings about. That is the basic foundation of majority rule in a democratic government.

The people who did NOT VOTE are the ones who have preserved their honor and have the right to criticize the system... their boycott of the election eliminates any complicity they may have with the corruption inherent in the political process.

By the same token, I have a right to criticize the Mafia, because I avoid any association with it. If I joined the Mafia, became a "made man", took the Mafia Oath, I could no longer honestly criticize it, now could I?

[trolleygirl]

Ace..........*sigh*

Where should I start??

The basic foundation of majority rule in a democratic society...........has exactly what in common with the Mafia? You are likening the Oath of Office to the "Oath of Mafia Brotherhood"? Or whatever the mafia does to swear in it's esteemed delegates......


Ace, I understand your philosophy. You are certainly leaving no stone unturned in this debate. You are explaining a purely mechanial process. However, you aren't giving any regard to actual societies. And real people. And the Rule of Law. The actual system that we have is unique in that it allows a process from citizens.

If you voted for a candidate in an election and that candidate did not win, then you can complain about everything that candidate does or does not do. Because you didn't vote for that candidate. You didn't believe in that candidate's message. SO you voted for the one you liked and he happened to loose. It's not the same as not voting. It's entirely different. When you're a part of the process, you're a part of the process. If you choose not be, then you're not. It's just that simple.

And, to answer this silly question:


If I joined the Mafia, became a "made man", took the Mafia Oath, I could no longer honestly criticize it, now could I?

The answer is yes, it's called progress. The mafia runs a business, so if there's a better way to do business, then someone has to pipe up and say it. That's known universally as leadership, weather it's in the mafia, the government or private enterprise.

[aceplace]

Trolleygirl,

We should discuss the purpose of elections, what they are all about.

An election is a means of getting the citizens to comply with the government of the day, or at least its decisions. To provide each citizen with the illusion that he or she is part of something that he/she should be loyal to.

In reality, the impact that an individual voter has on a decision of government is slim to nonexistent. The only effective check, or restraint, on a government is when its behavior outrages an entire community.

If you look at every totalitarian state in the world, one of the things they always do is hold an election as a method of legitimizing their rule. Sometimes there is only one candidate, sometimes the party in power handpicks a choice of 2 or 3 candidates... the effect is the same... getting people to put up with the use of force by a government.


you aren't giving any regard to actual societies. And real people. And the Rule of Law.

Yes, I think I am. I have studied various societies that conducted elections, from Hitler's Third Reich, to a succession of "People's Democracies", and even to the behavior of the Republican Party in the 1860s... what they had in common was the use of an elective system to disempower and coerce individuals...

The bottom line... the existence of elections does not materially benefit a citizen. What does benefit a citizen is the ability to escape the territory of his rulers... whether we're talking aout people fleeing East Germany or even fleeing Dallas for Plano.

[Columbus Civil]

Fort Worth is charming this time of year.

[trolleygirl]

WOW! Talk about hyperbole! And I though we were discussing local politics vs. the Mafia!


what they had in common was the use of an elective system to disempower and coerce individuals...

I guess you've never caucused or been a party delegate. Open for everyone willing to try.


whether we're talking aout people fleeing East Germany or even fleeing Dallas for Plano.

Perhaps that's the difference between you and me. I love this city (and I love this State and this Nation). I want to do what I can to make Dallas the best Dallas possible for everyone. I believe that the best way for me to achieve that goal is through becoming aware of the issues and by being invloved in that process. That means going down to City Hall to protest or to speak out against- or for- a zoning issue or an ordinance issue or something that will have a de facto impact on my life. It also means voting for our leaders. That's what I call it, choosing leaders, not laboring under an "illusion" provided by our "rulers". We are not governed by totalitarianism.

I am willing to fight for what I percieve is right. I am not willing to flee to Plano. The purpose of elections in this city is to choose the leaders of the city to make informed desiscions on the very things that affect our daily lives- the little things, like paying for the police and fire departments and maintaining parks.

[JaeTex]

Thank-you CC, that gave me a good laugh; I was thinking along the same lines.

[aceplace]

I love this city (and I love this State and this Nation

Trolleygirl, I love the DFW area for its urbanity and desirability, but I have no reason to "love" the municipal government calling itself "City of Dallas".

Most of the Metroplex shares my opinion. If they did not, they'd be living there, instead of plano, Arlington, Garland, etc.

As far as thinking that the Dallas City Council is going to create Heaven on Earth, or even that they will provide more than an average performance as a municipality... I think you're dreaming.

If you think that speaking to the Dallas City Council on Wednesday is going to change anything.... well, you are eloquent in your own way, but any impact you'd have would be marginal... the world is not ruled by rational discourse.

You'd have just as much impact on our lives by giving speeches at the TXU shareholders' meeting.

My view of a municipality, such as Dallas, or Plano, is that they are businesses... they function best when they compete among themselves for my business... and I reward one and punish the other by taking my business to the one that suits me best...

I'm not obligated to drive a Chevrolet, and I don't feel I have to "work with" General Motors, or vote in their meetings, to get the kind of car I want. What I will do is shop around to get the exact make and model I want, from whatever manufacturer suits my taste.

And I select a municipality the same way.

If I don't like what the Dallas City Council does, I take my business to some other municipality. I could care less about the illusion that I could "reform" them by voting once every few years.

[dallastophoenix]

Originally posted by aceplace
If I don't like what the Dallas City Council does, I take my business to some other municipality. I could care less about the illusion that I could "reform" them by voting once every few years.

I think that is a sad attitude... "i don't like the way things are here... and it's much easier to move than to attempt to correct the problem..." i'm glad that there are numerous businesses and residents that have a hope and desire for something better for the city of dallas (and therefore vote and speak their mind).

otherwise, a sense of pride would not exist. and it's just so simple to move to plano (etc) and ride the coattails of someone else voting for better mayors/council members... if everyone did that - eventually no one would be voting, no one would care about their city's progress.

[trolleygirl]

So, I guess I can't count on your vote then, Ace.