{"id":1012,"date":"2016-01-29T23:02:10","date_gmt":"2016-01-30T05:02:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/truthinaddison.com\/?page_id=1012"},"modified":"2016-01-29T23:17:47","modified_gmt":"2016-01-30T05:17:47","slug":"were-public-servants-and-we-serve-the-community-if-were-not-listening-to-them-why-are-we-here","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/truthinaddison.com\/?page_id=1012","title":{"rendered":"We\u2019re public servants and we serve the community. If we\u2019re not listening to them, why are we here?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cWe\u2019re public servants <\/strong>and we serve the community.<\/strong><\/h3>\n

If we\u2019re not listenig to them, why are we here?\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n

By: Susan M. Halpern <\/strong><\/h3>\n

(Addison councilmember 1992 \u2013 99)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

With this simple thought, Councilmember Bruce Arfsten crystallized a fundamental disconnect with the current administration\u2019s approach to governance.\u00a0 Under consideration was the Sam\u2019s redevelopment project, opposed by the overwhelming majority of public participants in three key meetings (P&Z, Council I and Council II), as well as protesters who attended \u201cinformation sessions\u201d and even picketed to voice their opposition.\u00a0 Bruce\u2019s remarks were prompted by council dialog that followed a raucous public hearing at Council II, and that was far more focused on selling the plan (\u201cHow can I put you in a car<\/span> an apartment complex<\/u> today\u201d) than it was on addressing the significant issues raised by the protesters.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the entirety of Bruce\u2019s eloquent comments:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn five years that I\u2019ve served in this role . . . there hasn\u2019t been anything to my memory that\u2019s invoked this kind of interest and opposition.\u00a0 And I think it\u2019s incumbent on each and every one of us up here to listen to those voices.\u00a0 Because we were all elected to serve them.\u00a0 It\u2019s not about me and what I think and what I think is best, like I said I was generally OK with the plan.\u00a0 But I have to listen.\u00a0 Because if we\u2019re not listening to them, why are we here?\u00a0 Who are we listening to?\u00a0 I just don\u2019t understand why some of us are trying to sell<\/em> this to the community.\u00a0 That\u2019s not our role<\/strong>.\u00a0 The person that needs to be selling this to the community is the developer, Mr. Liu, and he\u2019s made a good presentation.\u00a0 The [community] has said loud and clear: \u2018No, we don\u2019t want this.\u2019\u00a0 But we\u2019re going to sit up here and try to sell it and say, no, these are all the many reasons why that I think that it\u2019s better that we do this, and that we know better than you do.\u00a0 And that\u2019s just not right.\u00a0 That\u2019s not our role to do that.\u00a0 We\u2019re public servants and we serve the community.<\/strong> And I feel bad that you \u2013 that we\u2019re doing this.\u00a0 Because I see where this is going, and I\u2019m just very disappointed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Sam\u2019s redevelopment exemplified the struggles of anyone disagreeing with the current council.\u00a0 In this case, by an overwhelming margin, citizens participating in the three key meetings were unquestionably and vociferously opposed to the project.\u00a0 And yet, members of the Council repeatedly claimed that the opposition was a minority position, and ultimately ignored the opposition.\u00a0 The basis for the claim to have identified a contrary \u201cmajority\u201d was never provided, despite several requests.\u00a0 Seriously: was there a survey or poll in which those opposing this project were not included?\u00a0 Despite the absence of any rational explanation, the opposition was nonetheless labeled as a \u201cvocal minority.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meier reinforced this attitude, and otherwise made efforts to marginalize the opposition.\u00a0 Meier claimed that the opposition was not present at an earlier public meeting held by a study group that proposed a concept plan for the Sam\u2019s site. That wasn\u2019t true, as there was no dispute that concerns about removal of the Beltway wall and inclusion of a street connecting Belt Line and Beltway \u2013 key components of the opposition to the present plan \u2013 were both raised at that committee\u2019s public meeting.\u00a0 Undeterred by the facts, Meier made his argument about alleged non-attendance in excruciating fashion at Council I, where the attending public was packed into a clearly too-small-for-the-expected-crowd Town Hall, and then forced to endure a lengthy meeting, unnecessarily prolonged by Meier\u2019s trial-type of examination of staff.\u00a0 Using leading and suggestive questions dripping with sarcasm, Meier chastised the opposition for supposedly not attending that concept plan meeting, even as he had to also acknowledge that the redevelopment proposal differed in significant ways from the concept plan.\u00a0 More to the point, Meier\u2019s suggestion was that if the opposition hadn\u2019t protested (apparently to his satisfaction) then, it was just too late to have a place in the discussion.<\/p>\n

Of course, the alleged \u201cmajority\u201d that supposedly supported the redevelopment never showed up.\u00a0 Even if you combine<\/em> P&Z, Council I and Council II, the speakers in support barely broke double digits.\u00a0 And consider that Council II was a Meier-orchestrated second \u201cbite at the apple,\u201d at which he unquestionably urged proponents to appear.\u00a0 It didn\u2019t work.\u00a0 46 people spoke at Council II, a mere 7 in support.\u00a0 The fact was that if there was a \u201cmajority\u201d as Meier and others claimed, it was a decided no-show.\u00a0 And yet, even as Meier so harshly chided the opposition regarding the committee meeting, there was nary a mention of the absence of the alleged \u201cmajority\u201d at the three key meetings, including Council I and II.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to view these facts and fail to notice the uneven treatment of those opposing the plan.<\/p>\n

Meier was so desperate to demonstrate an alleged majority that he directed the City Secretary to read selected emails into the record.\u00a0 Such a procedure is unprecedented and fraught with issues.\u00a0 There was certainly no public notice of a procedure for submitting such emails.\u00a0 And there was little doubt that the emails were solicited; two mentioned the same vacant Sam\u2019s on Greenville Avenue in Dallas, evidencing coordination of content.\u00a0 As well, the first email (in support, of course) was read for almost 4 \u00bd minutes, well beyond the 3 minute limit imposed on those who took the time to attend and waited patiently to be heard.\u00a0 When former Councilmember Neil Resnik asked where the procedure was posted for submitting emails to be read, his question was pointedly ignored.<\/p>\n

Opponents of the Meier-backed plan were also labeled in uncomplimentary ways in a clear effort to marginalize the substance of their comments.\u00a0 I was personally shocked to hear that folks associated with Truth in Addison are referenced as \u201chaters,\u201d and noted one speaker who suggested that the opposition was rooted in dislike of the current mayor and council, and was based on \u201cpersonal vendettas.\u201d\u00a0 It was apparently easier for some to ignore the substance of the opposition by applying such labels.<\/p>\n

When several citizens stated that their votes in the upcoming May elections would be influenced by the stance taken by councilmembers on this proposal, at least two members of the council characterized these statements as \u201cthreats.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s shocking.\u00a0 Citizens have a right to base their votes on criteria of their own choosing.\u00a0 Calling such statements \u201cthreats\u201d evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of council and the privilege of being an elected official.<\/p>\n

When we criticize the actions<\/em> of this mayor and council, there\u2019s no doubt that we are also criticizing the actors<\/em>.\u00a0 But that\u2019s the beauty of any democracy, and a fundamental premise on which our republic was founded.\u00a0 And by the way, some of the dialog is important, particularly when we are all subjected to a one-sided version of events.\u00a0 Don\u2019t believe me?\u00a0 Have a look at your tax bill and go back to the articles I\u2019ve written about taxes and the tax rate.\u00a0 Many of my warnings have come to pass.\u00a0 Taxes are up more than 20% in just the last 5 years alone.\u00a0 I hate to say \u201cI told you so,\u201d but, well, I TOLD YOU SO. Look at our tax rate, it is set above the rollback rate for the first time in Addison history.\u00a0 I TOLD YOU SO. \u00a0This council has overspent the last two budgets by more than $2 million.\u00a0 What?\u00a0 You haven\u2019t heard much about all that?\u00a0 Well, that\u2019s the problem with state-run media.\u00a0 None of it exemplifies a healthy government, and that should be of concern to everyone, without regard to who you support in an election.\u00a0 Bad behavior is bad behavior, and it shouldn\u2019t be tolerated.<\/p>\n

And yet, the double standard is there: those supporting the current administration seem to support anything they do.\u00a0 The opposition to the Sam\u2019s redevelopment was criticized for \u201cfearmongering.\u201d\u00a0 And yet the coordinated emails that mentioned the empty Sam\u2019s site over on Greenville were nothing less than fearmongering.\u00a0 So was Meier\u2019s suggestion that the site might be purchased by a 502(c)(3), and taken off the tax rolls altogether, the most unlikely scenario of all.\u00a0 Where was the same criticism of these arguments?\u00a0 Nowhere.<\/p>\n

Is it so hard to see the double standard that so many of us find troubling?<\/p>\n

At Council II, 39 of 46 speakers opposed the Sam\u2019s redevelopment.\u00a0 The opponents were an even larger percentage at Council I and P&Z.\u00a0 In the end, none of it mattered.\u00a0 All the meetings \u2013 Council II in particular \u2013 were a side show.\u00a0 The result was predetermined and indeed, the motion itself appeared to have literally been prepared in advance.\u00a0 The comments of the public were irrelevant and were ignored.<\/p>\n

And that brings us back to Bruce\u2019s comments, paraphrased slightly:<\/p>\n

The members of the Council are public servants, and they serve the community, not the other way around.\u00a0 It is incumbent on each of them to listen to the voices of the citizens, because they are elected to serve the citizens.\u00a0 It\u2019s not about them and what they think is best.\u00a0 It\u2019s not their job to \u201csell\u201d projects to the community.\u00a0 That\u2019s not their role.\u00a0 And to sit up there and say that they know better than the citizens do is just not right. <\/strong><\/p>\n

If the council isn\u2019t listening to Addison\u2019s citizens, then why are they there?\u00a0 Who are they listening to? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Good for you, Bruce Arfsten, for properly recognizing your purpose as a public servant.\u00a0 How unfortunate for Addison that others on the council did not seem to grasp these basic concepts.\u00a0 What we witnessed was not government by, for and of the people.\u00a0 It was government TO and AT the people.\u00a0 It\u2019s a bad governance model and it\u2019s not healthy for Addison.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n