Status: Well, folks, the Mayor never responded. So I gather that he's probably been asked these questions a few too many times--or they're not questions that the "Vote No" side really wants to answer. We'll let you know if this changes.
One of the things we've tried to do is to keep dialog flowing. When someone disagrees with a point we've made, we try to post the comment. In other words, we try not to make things look completely one-sided.
The outcome of the Trinity River vote ("yes-means-no," and "no-means-yes" to the tollroad) is one that will shape what downtown looks for decades. It is an extremely important issue--and it is important the we have all sides of the story.
It is with this in mind that we've offered Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert the opportunity to answer what we see to be the core issues for voting "yes." I'll also say that Mayor Leppert is a stand-up guy, and I truly believe he wouldn't knowingly damage Dallas for his own personal gain.
Like so many other things, this vote is not so much of a debate over the "ends" but a debate over the "means."
We also have every reason to expect he will respond to these questions. When he does, we'll post his responses--unedited.
So let's begin...
Mr. Mayor,
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. I'm sending them to you in a "no-holds-barred" kind of format because these are the kinds of questions many of us are asking--and the way we're asking them. Accordingly, please feel free to provide "no-holds-barred" responses. If you think I'm out of line, please feel free to express that! Obviously, I'll post these questions and your answers verbatim and unedited.
Blocking the Petition Drive
First, I would like to address the issue of "blocking" this referendum. Out of all the things the "vote no" supporters have done, this is the thing that slaps me in the face the hardest. I have always believed that you can never go wrong by letting voters have their say in a matter. I have heard the argument that the referendum puts "un-needed delays" in the process, but when it's an issue that this many people have concerns about, perhaps a short delay, to let voters reaffirm their position, is a good thing. It gets us back to the basics of democracy. Why is letting "the people" revisit this issue such a bad thing? Why did this vote need to be blocked so vehemently?
Figures, figures and more figures - Where Did They Come From?
Several figures (e.g. "$100 billion, $150 billion, $120 billion" [Oops! Our typo. I think the real figure is around a billion--give or take $500 Million]) have been tossed about as funds that Dallas will lose if we don't build the toll road down the Trinity river. What is the accurate figure? Who, specifically (in other words a "purse string holder"), is actually saying we'll lose this money? Is it just speculation we'll lose the money if the "vote yes" crowd has their way? Put another way: "how much, and who says?"
On the topic of money, assume we would lose $100bn (or whatever the figure is) if we nix the toll road, as is, in November. When an alternate route is found, wouldn't there be similar money to construct the toll road in an alternate location? Who says so (or not) and why?
The Concept Won't Fly, Says the Army Corps of Engineers
The "vote no" crowd produced and distributed a conceptual video showing how the toll road would look when completed. The Army Corps of Engineers responded by saying the concept wouldn't fly. Why was this concept/design produced without, obviously, consulting the Corps? If what we saw won't fly, what's the plan?
Dugger Here, Dugger There, Dugger Dugger Everywhere
There have been numerous times when city employees (Rebecca Dugger, to be specific) have gone out virtually campaigning for the "vote no" side. Dugger's presentation is one-sided and she discusses why it is important for proposition 1 to be voted down. Further, according to the "Sink the Petition" website, Dugger is an ex-officio member of the organization's board of directors. If this doesn't cross the line under the city's code of ethics, it seems to me it's getting very close. Why is there a need for proposition 1's opponents to "live in the grey area" like this? Given the strong council opposition to proposition 1, do you think that city employees might feel pressured into "service for the team?"
One-Sided Debates
It seems that proposition 1's opponents are tending to favor one-sided debates. For instance, on October 29, council member Dave Neumann is sponsoring a debate where you will be the only speaker--there is no "vote yes" speaker. Why is it necessary to exclude the opposing opinion from a public forum? Don't you feel this is a trend toward "marketing" as opposed to "debating?"
What About The Parks, Lakes and Sailboats?
I've had this on the website for a long time: "it's been 10 years, where are my lakes, sailboats and picnics-on-blankets?" This is how the project was marketed in 1998. I remember! Where is the evidence that I'll ever see any of this? When I voted in 1998, the issue was "marketed" to me as a downtown park meant to enhance the quality of life as well as attract and spread new development. What assurances do I have that, if I vote "no," that the Trinity River project won't just become all about a toll road--letting the parks fall by the wayside?
After All The Fighting Is Over
This is obviously a contentious issue and, on November 6, it will all be over. Regardless of which "side" wins or loses, what are your plans as far as picking up the pieces and pulling everybody back together? Do you see "sour grapes" on the council if prop 1 passes? Do you see "sore winners" if it fails? What about the citizens of Dallas? Some of us feel pretty strongly one way or the other? What would you say to me, as a proposition 1 supporter, on November 7 if I lose and vice-versa?