Lies My Mayor Told Me

by Jim Schutze of the Dallas Observer

How does Craig Holcomb and company keep getting away with putting-forth this idea that "if we don't build this tollroad, we lose $1 Billion dollars?"

Who says?

We haven't been able to get a straight answer on that one.

Jim Schutze observes: "The total cost of the road keeps flying all over the place. First it was $600 million. Then it went to a billion. A month ago the city said it was $1.2 billion. Later they said $1.3 billion. In a more recent debate Leppert said $1.4 billion. In Lindenberger’s story, the cost was back down to $1.2 billion."

Further: maybe somebody should point out that it might be better to lose $1 Billion, $5 Billion or $10 Billion rather than to do the wrong thing with it?

Read Jim Schutze's "Lies My Mayor Told Me" at the Dallas Observer

[Ed Note: No, Jim, we're still not talking.]

Tollbooths = Robbery

As nearly as I can tell, the figure fluctuates on how much they think they can loot out of the project just like anything else Dallas does. It'd doubled because they've gotten greedy. "We're going spend a billion of your dollars, which is twice what we said it would cost, and then we're going to charge you out the a$$ to drive on it when we're done." That's pretty much what I hear whenever anyone says "Tollroad."

You've all seen how quickly the tollbooths came down in the Dallas North Tollway and it's been paid off for decades. Now we have Bush which will never ever be toll-less even though, as a tax payer, I ALREADY PAID FOR IT ONCE WITH MY TAXES. To add insult to injury, they want to built 121 into a toll road - USING MY TAX DOLLARS.

Now this B$ - again USING MY TAX DOLLARS. And it will never be toll-less either. Worse yet, its planted in the middle of what should have been a park that I never understood anyway. I'm going to say this slowly....

The....Trinity....River....FLOODS!!!!!! That's right...it...floods....every...year.

What's a flood you ask? Oh, well apparently Dallas city management isn't familiar with this so I need to explain it to them. It rains a lot and the river goes up covering everything with rushing water. When it stops raining, the river goes back down.

What does a flood do? Well, it tears up and washes away all kinds of stuff you wanted and leaves you all kinds of stuff you didn't want. Buildings, bridges, park benches, restrooms, picnic tables, etc. get washed away or damaged. Left in it's place - trash, dead fish, mud, mold, rot, and general ick.

Why, please God, why would you want to put a park in a flood plain knowing that you'll be cleaning it up and making massive repairs every spring? There is a word in the English language that I feel compelled to use here - DUH!!!!

Not only is there a flooding problem, there's the problem of the Trinity River itself, which isn't the cleanest thing around. Let's just say that you see anything brown and floating in the river, don't touch it. There's been a long standing joke in Dallas, "Flush twice...Houston needs the water." But we're supposed to believe that people would want to sail on this and even swim in it.

So basically every tax payer in Dallas is getting double porked on this project. We're getting a park that will be flooded annually and need to be repaired afterward and we're getting a toll road with it, so that this retarded idea of a park will be all but unusable and we'll have to pay to drive through it.

Geez. What do you have to do around here to at least get some flowers and a dinner first?

Wait for Rain, Then Sue

I know, you know, this thing will get built the way the Dallas Citizens Council wants it built. So let them build it.

Then, when it floods, park your car in there. Let it get washed downstream. Then sue every darn person on the city council and the city manager's office for endangering your property! Come on Dallas! We can DO this! Just sue them all.

[Ed Note: Unfortunately, that's a difficult strategy to implement. There's this little thing called "sovereign immunity" that gets in the way! The best thing is to just decide the issue one way or the other, then live with it.]

Sovereign immunity

Ahhh, but sovereign immunity may be for the individual, but not for the city itself. Sue them, they have to get a lawyer until it gets tossed. That costs them money. Sue the city.

My point is, they should be held liable for what WILL happen. This vote only delays what is going to happen. Imagine a tourist family swept away---like the kids who drowned in Ft Worth's water gardens. How much did the city--and the park's designers--have to fork over to clear that up?

Has anyone addressed the liability issue?

[Ed Note: But the money thing works both ways! Remember: they are using your money to fight you as well--and to them, they'll spend however much it takes with no remorse!]

Lawsuits get attention

Yes, that means I am paying twice, but didn't I have to pay when Bolton fired those six officers? Didn't we all pay when Bolton sued after he got fired? Aren't we holding them more accountable now in the hiring of a chief, because of those lawsuits?

Anytime a government entity gets thrown into a lawsuit, heads roll. Trust me. My whole family has worked in government. Someone up the chain of command is a political appointee or elected official, and they want lawsuits to go away.

Building the Bridge?

What amazes me is that they have already started building the bridge as part of the Trinity Tollway project. Did they forget it has not been accepted by the voters? What a waste of money.