"Dallas Right to Vote" City Charter amendment proposition

[dfwcre8tive]

Dallas group aiming to limit public subsidies to private developers says it will force May charter vote
6:17 PM Thu, Jan 08, 2009
Dave Levinthal
http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/dallas-group-aiming-to-limit-p.html

Last month, we wrote of a Dallas organization that wants to place a City Charter amendment proposition on the city's May 10 ballot in hopes of regulating public subsidies to private developers.

Called "Dallas Right to Vote," the group's lawyer, Deborah Deitsch-Perez of law firm Lackey Hershman LLP, tells us today that the organization plans to submit more than 20,000 registered Dallas voter signatures to Dallas City Hall, potentially triggering a May City Charter amendment vote. (The 20,000 voter signature figure is the minimum needed to force a charter amendment referendum.)

If so, it means two charter amendment propositions would appear on Dallas' May ballot, as a group aiming to block construction of a planned Dallas Convention Center hotel has already qualified.

"It looks like they're going to do it early next week. There are at least 20,000 signatures already," Deitsch-Perez said of the group submitting the signatures to Dallas City Hall for verification and, potentially, certification. "This is about municipal accountability."

Specifically, the group wants to amend the City Charter to require a public vote on city subsidies of more than $1 million for such private developments as hotels, convention spaces, large retail operations and condominiums.

...

[ksig121]

This has to be the dumbest idea that I have ever heard! Why don't we just abolish the council and establish a direct democracy? If people disagree with how the council awards these, they should participate in the process that is already established. Go to public hearings and let your council person know how you feel about it.

This amendment would essentially end private development in this city. If you can't even get people out to vote in their council elections, then how can you believe that they would come out and vote for a particular subsidy? What a waste of money and effort! :censored:

[Spjz]

Sorry ksig121, I'm going to have to pick on your post because it contains two increasingly cited propositions which are just flat out false.


This has to be the dumbest idea that I have ever heard! Why don't we just abolish the council and establish a direct democracy? If people disagree with how the council awards these, they should participate in the process that is already established. Go to public hearings and let your council person know how you feel about it.While a direct democracy at the national and state levels would probably not be the most prudent course of action, referendums are very important in local government. Our charter provides for them, our state constitution requires them in certain situations, and they are easy to facilitate.


This amendment would essentially end private development in this city.The best example I can think of to disprove that statement is Dave Spence and the Bishop Arts District. To my knowledge, the city had no hand in any of that development. Of course it's not a collection of 20-30 story highrises, but it is private development nonetheless. There have been numerous small projects throughout East Dallas as well that are not funded by taxpayer supported incentives.


If you can't even get people out to vote in their council elections, then how can you believe that they would come out and vote for a particular subsidy? What a waste of money and effort! :censored:That sounds more like a general argument against democracy. Just because somebody else doesn't bother to vote, doesn't mean you should take away my opportunity.

Now having said what that, I think that the one million figure in the proposition is way too low. While there are numerous examples of direct democracy at the local level, we still elect representatives and they should be given some discretion. Perhaps the magic number should be somewhere around 50 million?

[Hannibal Lecter]

^ If this city is so messed up that private development would totally stop, as you say, without massive taxpayer subsidies, then I think that's the proof that our priorities are totally screwed up and a massive overhaul is in order.

[Mballar]

I, personally, don't think it's going to make it to the May ballot.

[ksig121]

^ If this city is so messed up that private development would totally stop, as you say, without massive taxpayer subsidies, then I think that's the proof that our priorities are totally screwed up and a massive overhaul is in order.

It is not this idea in and of itself that I believe would harm development. It's just that this type of law adds to the perception of the city of Dallas as a political nightmare where it takes years to get the simplest things done.

People complain so much about development happening around Dallas proper, but not in Dallas. Silly ideas like this one are the reason. If I were a developer and I knew that I could still reach my target customer without having to deal with the red tape that is city hall, I would jump at it. I'm sure that every suburb and the city of Ft. Worth would love for this initiative to get on the ballot and pass.

If you really want to reign in what's going on at city hall, then throw the bums out! Don't handicap future councils because the one that we have now is corrupt. Why woud you want to put any more barriers than necessary to spurring development in the city? Why would you want to add to the perception that Dallas is the "can't do" city?

You can't legislate your way out of every problem. Sometimes, you have to fix what you have first. If the problem persists, then go another route. Instead of spending this time and money on trying to get an initiative on the ballot that is doomed to failure, we should spend time and money educating people about the system that we have and the people that are running it.

[Spjz]

People complain so much about development happening around Dallas proper, but not in Dallas.Refresh my memory, how many cranes are there hovering over construction projects right now? Perhaps you should take a quick look at some of the photos posted by some of the forum's photogs. I think that they would quickly put to rest any notion that Dallas is losing development to the 'burbs.

[ksig121]

Refresh my memory, how many cranes are there hovering over construction projects right now? Perhaps you should take a quick look at some of the photos posted by some of the forum's photogs. I think that they would quickly put to rest any notion that Dallas is losing development to the 'burbs.

I was referring to people complaining every time there is a project announced that is outside of Dallas proper. I'm not an idiot, you don't have to address me like one. Don't forget that a lot of those cranes that you mention are there due to subsidies and tax abatements that the developers received to build their projects.

[tamtagon]

Would the referendum apply to relocation incentives, like the $5 million that helped bring ATT to Dallas? It seems obvious this is a response to the conv ctr hotel, but it's fatally stupid to ask Dallas residents to act as the regulators for all municipal development incentive proposals.

[Someone]

having lived in all the largest cities in Texas and several smaller and medium size ones I believe the number one issue with dallas id the weak mayor weak council form of government

the larger cities I lived in with a strong mayor had a clear vision for the city after each election and usually for a number of years and did not suffer from the "my area" syndrome that I see ruining dallas.....one of the smaller places I lived with the exact same set up as dallas is falling into the exact same issues.....nothing can be done for the entire city because some "my area pimp" has to bring up race or poverty and cry that it will only help "the rich" or the "rich areas" and the longer that goes on the more "trading" that has to be done and you finally fall in a pit where you are trading nonsense for nonsense just so that the "my area" people can get reelected for bringing something to "my area" even if it is something worthless and a waste and every common sense project has to be paired with a total waste of time, effort, and money

and in the mean time the people really running the city are held to zero accountability because there is no direct election for them and no one on the council wants to bring up that issue because it will get in the way of "my area" politics

I don't think this is 100% the issue with this plan, but I think this plan comes 100% from that issue...most the council members think with this plan that all the projects they are against will die in the vote and they can "rouse the rabble" to get what they pimp for passed....even if it is nonsense

[Spjz]

I was referring to people complaining every time there is a project announced that is outside of Dallas proper. I'm not an idiot, you don't have to address me like one. Don't forget that a lot of those cranes that you mention are there due to subsidies and tax abatements that the developers received to build their projects.I'm sorry if I was being smug, but now that I've put a little volunteer time into the political arena I get frustrated when I hear arguments like this...
This amendment would essentially end private development in this city....I can't help but point out the absurdity behind the statement. And I don't think that it fosters the most productive debate. Dallas has been giving out some pretty generous incentives in the last decade, yet despite those incentives, there is still plenty of development that occurs in surrounding suburbs, free of any public subsidy. I'm pretty sure that the reverse would occur if city hall, or the voters, turned off the spigot all together. There would still be private development in Dallas proper. Perhaps on a smaller scale though.

Ksig121, you're in good company though, the Mayor and councilman Natinsky have made similar statements and agree with your position. I'm pretty sure that this proposition would fail if it appeared on the ballot in May.

And I'll repeat myself. I agree with this group in spirit, but I think that there one million dollar qualification is WAY too low. I firmly believe that direct, popular democracy should have a prominent place in local government, I also believe that our elected officials should have some sphere of discretion, and the one million dollar trigger in their proposition clearly intrudes on that discretion.

[exurbanist]

OK, so who is behind this thing? Speculation in the blog comments section that it is SEIU, Dallas city employees union.

[warlock55]

I'm a big fan of citizens participating in their government, but I'm also a big fan of professional administration. At some level there has to be a division between policy and administration, and this referendum takes political decision making way too far into what should be the realm of administration. At the $1 million level, there are hundreds of decisions made that change the city's actual operating budget by greater amounts. It'd be chaotic to have referendums on each of those changes. Why should a $1 million expenditure for development be held to a different standard?

Secondly, on the practical side of things, if voters have to approve all these expenditures there's the matter of elections only happening twice a year - unless they want to have multiple special elections, any one of which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold. Which is the bigger waste of public money there?

The appropriate thing to do is for voters to make sure their elected officials are making the policy decisions that they want to see in regards to overall levels of developmental subsidies.

[trolleygirl]

but it's fatally stupid to ask Dallas residents to act as the regulators for all municipal development incentive proposals.

That's a good point. Consider all the idiots in the City of Arlington who voted to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a football stadium that they can't even afford to see a football game in. And all the idiots in Dallas who still "blame" Laura Miller for "losing" the Cowboys.

[UrbanHope]

OK, so who is behind this thing? Speculation in the blog comments section that it is SEIU, Dallas city employees union.

It's not SEIU. It's some group out of New York. Their campaign expenditures include several for people to travel from other places to Dallas to get this done.

According to the finance report, these are the people behind the tax abatement referendum.

http://www.unitehere.org/


http://www.unitehere.org/about/localdb.php

http://www.unitehere.org/about/localdbjb.php?local_aff=Southwest%20Regional%20Joi nt%20Board

Here’s their campaign report

http://campfin.dallascityhall.com/FinalReports/rpt0000000232_20090115_065340.pdf

[tamtagon]

Labor group seeks limits on Dallas subsidies for developers

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/012309dnmetreferendum.4025b2b.html


10:53 PM CST on Thursday, January 22, 2009

By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
dlevinthal@dallasnews.com

Members of a New York City-based labor union are trying to amend Dallas' city charter to sharply restrict large public subsidies to private developers – a move derided by top elected officials with rare uniformity.

The labor officials, collectively calling themselves Dallas Right to Vote, are soliciting petition signatures from Dallas voters in hopes of prompting a November charter amendment referendum on whether to require city subsidies of $1 million or more to face a public vote.

Five hundred registered Dallas voters would have to sign a petition to trigger a citywide vote on such public subsidies, according to the text of Dallas Right to Vote's proposal.

"There's a real concern in the community about how Dallas' tax dollars are being spent," said William Gonzalez, a Dallas resident and an employee of Unite Here, a labor union that represents hotel, casino, laundry and other service workers. The group says it has more than 450,000 members.

But Dallas City Council members argue that such a charter amendment would hamstring the city's economic development efforts, effectively delaying for months projects critical to building the tax base.

"Something like this would put Dallas at a huge disadvantage," Mayor Tom Leppert said, noting that if Dallas Right to Vote succeeds in triggering a citywide charter amendment referendum, "we will strongly deal with it because you have to explain to people what the implications of this are."

District 14 council member Angela Hunt, often Leppert's political foil, agreed.

Hunt specifically criticized Dallas Right to Vote for initiating its petition drive because the union is upset that the city isn't granting it work guarantees associated with a planned, publicly owned Dallas Convention Center hotel, which almost certainly will employ hundreds of service-industry workers.

"It's a completely wrong-headed idea," Hunt said. "I'm very pro-union, and I'm proud pro-union. But some union reps here have gotten way off track. I don't think this group should be using an important public tool to bully the city. There's a time and place for referenda, and this isn't the time or place."

Labor officials' displeasure with convention center hotel labor discussions is "part of this but not all of this, because this is much broader than the hotel," Gonzalez said.

That thousands of Dallas voters are willing to sign the petition proves that they're concerned the city government is too quick to give away taxpayer money, he said.

Gonzalez said his group already has collected upward of 30,000 signatures. To prompt a citywide charter amendment referendum, the group by mid-February must submit 20,000 valid signatures of registered Dallas voters to the city secretary's office for verification.

"If a project is beneficial to the city and needs subsidies, then people won't have a problem with it, and you won't get the 500 signatures to put it to a vote," Gonzalez said. "This ensures people have a voice. This is creating a system of checks and balances."

Dallas Assistant City Secretary Rosa Rios confirmed that Dallas Right to Vote has regularly communicated with her office, and Dallas residents have reported being approached by signature-gatherers toting the group's petition.

Dallas Right to Vote has not, however, enjoyed financial support from Dallas residents.

The group raised more than $35,500 in December – all funds coming in the form of in-kind contributions from the Unite Here union, according to a mandatory campaign finance filing that covers the period between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2008.

It certainly is beginning to appear -- I believe it has been revealed -- that this effort to amend the city charter has absolutely NOTHING to do with reversing a projected trend that the city council is more responsive to the directives of big corporate entities more than the directives of city residents. This initiative has been brought about because union leaders are not getting what they want.

[cowboyeagle05]

I agree they are touting the American way and checks and balances all over the place so they can hide behind the flag waving crowd to get what they want. I try to accept unions but when they go and do this stuff running around like they are "protecting the people" they are doing the same thing as most politicians using the patriotic message to get what they want no matter if its fair and logical.

I swear if the Chinese president came into this country and asked to run for president all he would have to do is wave an American flag, sing the anthem, and talk about protecting the people and he would at least get the nomination.

[LH_Newbie]

If unions ever break into the IT industry and require that I join, I'm retiring.

[Spjz]

I don't have strong opinions about unions either way, but when a city like Dallas regularly engineers a gravy train, the what do you expect? When you empower government to spread wealth around (Merc, AAC, TRP, CC Hotel, TIF Disticts, etc.) then the pigeons are going to flock. It's no secret, Dallas wants to be like Chicago or NYC. Guess what; those cities have a strong union presence! If you want to keep unions out of city politics, then I'd suggest keeping the City out of private development altogether.

[AeroD]

If unions ever break into the IT industry and require that I join, I'm retiring.

Unions really only exist in sectors of the economy where competition is limited or non-existent e.g. Auto industry, airline industry, public school system, telecommunications, etc.

That is partially a reason why you don't see IT, financial services, or fast food unions.

[ancientshoes]

this is so stupid

[TheMapman]

If this passes I'm gone. I'll be out of here so quick I won't even bother to say goodbye to Fuel City's tacos. I'm sure the voters of Dallas have better sense than this.

[Spjz]

If this passes I'm gone. I'll be out of here so quick I won't even bother to say goodbye to Fuel City's tacos. I'm sure the voters of Dallas have better sense than this.Mind if I ask what business you're in?

[AndyIvey]

How does this proposal benefit the union that is driving it?

[tamtagon]

^It's an exercise to help with posture, because without good posture, one cannot be successful.

[ksig121]

I don't have strong opinions about unions either way, but when a city like Dallas regularly engineers a gravy train, the what do you expect? When you empower government to spread wealth around (Merc, AAC, TRP, CC Hotel, TIF Disticts, etc.) then the pigeons are going to flock. It's no secret, Dallas wants to be like Chicago or NYC. Guess what; those cities have a strong union presence! If you want to keep unions out of city politics, then I'd suggest keeping the City out of private development altogether.

The difference between Dallas and the cities that you mentioned is that it is in TEXAS. The unions can try as hard as they want to, but nothing like this will ever gain traction here. I'm about as pro-union as a native Texan can be, but even I know that these kind of shenanigans won't fly. They are wasting their money.

If this does make it to the ballot, I can guarantee you that they will be squashed handily by the powers that be in this town. The fact that they haven't raised funds from the local area is enough to defeat this.

[electricron]

The difference between Dallas and the cities that you mentioned is that it is in TEXAS. The unions can try as hard as they want to, but nothing like this will ever gain traction here. I'm about as pro-union as a native Texan can be, but even I know that these kind of shenanigans won't fly. They are wasting their money.

If this does make it to the ballot, I can guarantee you that they will be squashed handily by the powers that be in this town. The fact that they haven't raised funds from the local area is enough to defeat this.

I agree. Who cares if it makes it to the ballot. Local interests will make sure to spend what is necessary to defeat it at the polls.

[Spjz]

The difference between Dallas and the cities that you mentioned is that it is in TEXAS. The unions can try as hard as they want to, but nothing like this will ever gain traction here."Nothing will like this will ever gain traction here?" I don't know if I'd go to that extreme. Dallas is hardly exemplary of the rest of the state. The mantra in Austin is "don't tax, don't spend, don't regulate." The mantra in Dallas is "tax, spend, build, subsidize, cosign away the city's credit...." Just listen to the different attitudes that local leaders have towards a new bailout/recovery initiative in Washington. Perry, Dewhurst, et al think it's crazy while our local leaders have their palm out with one hand and a wish list in the other.

And needn't I remind us all who is our president. The composition of the NLRB is going to change quite a bit I'm going to bet.


If this does make it to the ballot, I can guarantee you that they will be squashed handily by the powers that be in this town. The fact that they haven't raised funds from the local area is enough to defeat this.I'm not so sure that this is about winning. It sounds to me like teamsters are making their move on the Big D. We've created an environment that's ripe for them to exploit. It sounds like they're sending the message: "Give us our piece of the pie or we'll exploit every legal or political device that we can until you understand that it's more efficient to just deal with us upfront."

[electricron]

I'm not so sure that this is about winning. It sounds to me like teamsters are making their move on the Big D. We've created an environment that's ripe for them to exploit. It sounds like they're sending the message: "Give us our piece of the pie or we'll exploit every legal or political device that we can until you understand that it's more efficient to just deal with us upfront.

Can you blame the Teamsters making a big push in the DFW area? Do you really expect them to roll over and die peacefully? After all, the DFW area is planning and developing the largest inland port in the World. I'd be extremely disappointed if they didn't try everything at their disposal.

[ksig121]

"Nothing will like this will ever gain traction here?" I don't know if I'd go to that extreme. Dallas is hardly exemplary of the rest of the state. The mantra in Austin is "don't tax, don't spend, don't regulate." The mantra in Dallas is "tax, spend, build, subsidize, cosign away the city's credit...." Just listen to the different attitudes that local leaders have towards a new bailout/recovery initiative in Washington. Perry, Dewhurst, et al think it's crazy while our local leaders have their palm out with one hand and a wish list in the other.

And needn't I remind us all who is our president. The composition of the NLRB is going to change quite a bit I'm going to bet.

I'm not so sure that this is about winning. It sounds to me like teamsters are making their move on the Big D. We've created an environment that's ripe for them to exploit. It sounds like they're sending the message: "Give us our piece of the pie or we'll exploit every legal or political device that we can until you understand that it's more efficient to just deal with us upfront."

Dude, what are you smoking? While Dallas is probably the city in Texas that is most "ripe" for a huge union influx, it is still extremely hostile to such influences.

[Spjz]

Dude, what are you smoking? While Dallas is probably the city in Texas that is most "ripe" for a huge union influx, it is still extremely hostile to such influences.Let me offer you some of what I'm smoking.

According to Texas A&M (http://recenter.tamu.edu/mreports/DallasFWArl.pdf) the largest employers in the DFW region are:


1. Walmart - it's non-union and pays some of the lowest wages around. Consequently it's a huge target for national unions who are pushing "Card Check."
2. AMR Corp.- it's union.
3. Dallas ISD - it's public sector, so no surprise, it's union.
4. Texas Health Care - I've no idea if it's union or not.
5. Baylor Health Care - ditto
6. AT&T - some of its laborers are represented by Communications Workers of American (CWA).
7. Lockheed Martin - union
8. U.S. Postal Service - union
9. City of Dallas - union
10. HCA North Texas - probably not union
11. Kroger - unlike most retailer/merchants it's union.
12. Verizon - also union (CWA)
13. Countrywide - non-union, but as of recent events, a welfare momma nonetheless
14. Citigroup Inc. - whatever...
15. Fort Worth ISD - union
16. Texas Instruments - not union as far as I know
17. UT Southwestern - no idea
18. Albertsons - not union to my knowledge
19. ChaseFinancial - not union
20. Target - not union, but like Walmart, it's got a huge Target painted on it's bum with "Card Check."

In other words, almost half of North Texas' largest employers are union. Combine that with a local government climate that is forced to politically accommodate various interest groups, an Obama appointed NLRB and an increased presence of Big Labor in Washington - remember, labor is mostly regulated by the feds - and you have a climate in North Texas that is pretty damn inviting.

Honestly, how do you think that Leppert and the DCC would react to such groups if they were to try and muscle their way in? My guess is that they'd make one bona fide attempt to send them packing and if that failed, they'd bring them to the table and chalk it up as a cost of doing business.

[ksig121]

Let me offer you some of what I'm smoking.

According to Texas A&M (http://recenter.tamu.edu/mreports/DallasFWArl.pdf) the largest employers in the DFW region are:


1. Walmart - it's non-union and pays some of the lowest wages around. Consequently it's a huge target for national unions who are pushing "Card Check."
2. AMR Corp.- it's union.
3. Dallas ISD - it's public sector, so no surprise, it's union.
4. Texas Health Care - I've no idea if it's union or not.
5. Baylor Health Care - ditto
6. AT&T - some of its laborers are represented by Communications Workers of American (CWA).
7. Lockheed Martin - union
8. U.S. Postal Service - union
9. City of Dallas - union
10. HCA North Texas - probably not union
11. Kroger - unlike most retailer/merchants it's union.
12. Verizon - also union (CWA)
13. Countrywide - non-union, but as of recent events, a welfare momma nonetheless
14. Citigroup Inc. - whatever...
15. Fort Worth ISD - union
16. Texas Instruments - not union as far as I know
17. UT Southwestern - no idea
18. Albertsons - not union to my knowledge
19. ChaseFinancial - not union
20. Target - not union, but like Walmart, it's got a huge Target painted on it's bum with "Card Check."

In other words, almost half of North Texas' largest employers are union. Combine that with a local government climate that is forced to politically accommodate various interest groups, an Obama appointed NLRB and an increased presence of Big Labor in Washington - remember, labor is mostly regulated by the feds - and you have a climate in North Texas that is pretty damn inviting.

Honestly, how do you think that Leppert and the DCC would react to such groups if they were to try and muscle their way in? My guess is that they'd make one bona fide attempt to send them packing and if that failed, they'd bring them to the table and chalk it up as a cost of doing business.

So, because you picked out the 20 larget employers in NT -- 8 of which are confirmed union employers-- that makes us a union area? They may be the 20 largest, but they represent a tiny percentage of the actual working populace. Nice try, though.

[Spjz]

So, because you picked out the 20 larget employers in NT -- 8 of which are confirmed union employers-- that makes us a union area? They may be the 20 largest, but they represent a tiny percentage of the actual working populace. Nice try, though.Well, at least I presented a case. You're logic seems to be: "Texas is non-union today, therefore it will always be non-union." I believe the Dallas County GOP relied on that premises for the last two elections. ;) I also think that you're discounting the significance of the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check). Union representation is at an all time low, but their influence in government is starting to reemerge. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and then wait for the results. And by results I don't mean this election in particular but the overall union climate from here on out.

[ksig121]

Well, at least I presented a case. You're logic seems to be: "Texas is non-union today, therefore it will always be non-union." I believe the Dallas County GOP relied on that premises for the last two elections. ;) I also think that you're discounting the significance of the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check). Union representation is at an all time low, but their influence in government is starting to reemerge. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and then wait for the results. And by results I don't mean this election in particular but the overall union climate from here on out.

That's a very valid point. My argument was pretty surface. I wish I had time to elaborate. Today is pretty hairy at work.

I agree about disagreeing, though.

[TheMapman]

Mind if I ask what business you're in?

Doesn't matter - the city will become an economic graveyard, at great benefit to the suburbs. And I don't have any interest in living or working in the suburbs. I'm young, single, and employable, so I'll find another big, vibrant city to live and work in.

[freewaytincan]

I'm young, single, and employable, so I'll find another big, vibrant city to live and work in.

The reality of this is something that seems to get away from the urban Texas set. There are other places to live, and many of them are better than here.

Heresy, I know.

[Spjz]

...the city will become an economic graveyard...Clearly it's worse than that! If voters approve of this charter amendment, Dallas will become an apocolyptic waste land! (http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/ghosttown_broc_Layout%202.pdf)

It's a good thing that Dallas's greatest Blowviator has finally weighed in on the situation. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/sblow/stories/DN-blow_15met.ART.Central.Edition1.4a7b63d.html)


And what makes the proposition especially galling: It's just a union strong-arm tactic.

New York-based union Unite Here had hoped to get its foot in the door at a new convention center hotel.

Representatives met with Mayor Tom Leppert. They promised to support the hotel if the city wrote union-friendly language into its deal with the hotel operator, he said.

Leppert declined, saying labor issues are up to the hotel operator.

Next thing you know, the union was circulating petitions to amend the city charter. Its proposal would severely restrict subsidies to developers.

Any city subsidy over $1 million for a hotel, retail or "luxury condominium" project would go to a public vote if just 500 people signed a petition.

And that would be devastating for Dallas, the mayor said. Developers wouldn't even consider doing deals here. "The world is such that it's very easy to just take your project someplace else," he said.

And Leppert said he has no doubt the proposal is pure union retribution.

"Sure," he said. "And they're probably thinking that if they can get this through in Dallas, it will give them tremendous leverage with the next mayor they walk in on.

"They can say, 'Look, let me tell you about Dallas and the mayor there who wouldn't talk to us.' "

My oh my this publicly financed hotel is just paying this city dividends. I doubt the union will wage a strong campaign. They'll likely give in and save their resources for the next round. And boys and girls, there will be a next round.