Backpacks Needed for Annual SE Denton Back-2-School Fair
The annual SE Denton Back-2-School Fair is coming up on Saturday. August 11. See all the info on the flyer below. The organizers are in need of 1000 backpacks to help make sure local students can start-off their school year right.
Can you donate a backpack or money to get one? Please let me know and spread the word to others. You can contact me at kevin.roden@cityofdenton.com or 940-206-5239.
City Council Preview – July 17, 2012
I apologize for the late posting of this and for its brevity…
Today’s meeting begins with a Work Session at 3pm followed by a 6:30pm Regular Session, both at City Hall on McKinney Street. Go here to see the full agenda with back-up materials. Here are some things you might find interesting…
STREET BOND ELECTION UPDATE
For some time now, we have been discussing the possibility of going to the voters in November with a $20 million bond proposal for the purpose of doing some much needed repairs of streets in our city. I posted a very comprehensive look at the proposed projects (sorted by district) a few weeks back – go here to see it.
Today will will begin the discussion on how the ballot proposal might look – because there has been the desire to follow-through with a 2006 council resolution which provides 2-4% of every subsequent bond program monies to public art projects, there is a need to determine how to word that on the ballot. Specifically, we need to determine whether the public art proposal is part of the street proposal or a separate proposal altogether.
TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE
A proposal has been made by a private land owner to create a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone, allowing the owners to invest in needed infrastructure work with a promised reimbursement of their investment through increased property taxes over the years. The goal would be to jump start interest in the area from companies. We will be discussing the pros and cons of this proposal.
McKINNEY and MAHILL ZONING CASE
We will return to two zoning cases previously postponed by the council… One is near the corner of McKinney and Mayhill. The sticking point with this proposal is fear from nearby neighborhoods of development projects that will exasperate and already clogged street. Specifically, there have been questions about whether or not multifamily development projects are currently appropriate for this area.
FAIRHAVEN ZONING CASE
We will return to the zoning change request from the current owners of the old Fairhaven structure, one of famed local architect O’Neil Ford’s buildings. Go here to see my write-up for this when it was before us in May. This is an important case with many historic, planning, neighborhood, and business principles at play – some of which do not share similar ideals. According to the latest proposal, the owners of the building are willing to agree to not changing anything on the exterior of the building without prior permission from the council. This is akin to agreeing to come under many of the guidelines of local historic landmarks. That is a significant step from the last city council meeting – we’ll see if it is significant enough to find a path forward.
PASCHALL BAR
My friend, Historic Landmark Commissioner, District 1 citizen and part-owner of District 1′s own Paschall Bar (pictured above), Eric Pulido, invited me out for post-council discussions after the meeting. So perhaps I’ll see you there?
Serve Your City and Save Democracy: Board and Commission Openings
The City Council will soon begin the annual process of nominating interested individuals to serve on our citizen boards and commissions. This is a great way to contribute to this city and participate more fully in the democratic process. You might not realize this, but great improvements have been made during the past year which make the work of our boards and commissions more accessible to everyone. Under the leadership of our City Secretary, Jennifer Walters, you can now find out all sorts of things about each one – membership, agendas, minutes, as well as ways to contact members of each board or commission. Click here to see what I am talking about.
It is absolutely essential to the vibrancy of our local democracy that these boards and commissions thrive. A healthy city has many avenues available for substantial citizen governance. It is how a city keeps its ear close to the ground and best moves in accordance with the will of its people. A feisty, questioning, even ornery citizen board, though no doubt a headache for city administrators looking for a clean and easy way of running the city, is the beautiful symptom of democracy taking place.
You may have heard of Alexis de Tocqueville, the early 19th century Frenchman whose study of the American experiment in democracy resulted in the famous, Democracy in America. He argued that the uniquely American spirit of freedom came about through citizens practicing democracy primarily in their local cities, villages, or townships. Consider this profound quote on this subject:
It is nonetheless in the township that the force of free peoples resides. The institutions of a township are to freedom what primary schools are to science; they put it within reach of the people; they make them taste its peaceful employ and habituate them to making use of it. Without the institutions of a township a nation can give itself a free government, but it does not have the spirit of freedom. Fleeting passions, the interests of a moment, the chance of circumstances can give it the external forms of independence; but despotism suppressed in the interior of the social body reappears sooner or later on the surface.”
If you reflect on it, you come to understand this somber point: the freedom of our nation rests on our citizens learning to employ their citizenship in the context of local democratic institutions! It is why it is crucial that our generation turn its political focus back to the city, to where our democratic citizenship can more meaningfully be exercised. Motivated yet?
Below is a list of the anticipated open positions on Denton’s boards and commissions. There are people currently serving whose terms expires, but are eligible for reappointment – since most of those will be reappointed, I haven’t listed those as open, available positions. You will also see the council member who is responsible for nominating that particular position (we each have “spots” on each board and commission). An “ALL” means that they can be nominated by anyone on council.
| BOARD | # of POSITIONS | COUNCIL MEMBER |
| Airport Advisory Board | 1 | Pete Kamp |
| Animal Shelter Advisory Committee | 2 | Kevin Roden and Pete Kamp |
| Community Development Advisory Committee | 2 | Jim Engelbrecht and ALL |
| Health and Building Standards Commission | 2 | ALL |
| Historic Landmark Commission | 1 | Mark Burroughs |
| Library Board | 1 | Jim Engelbrecht |
| Parks, Recreation, and Beautification Board | 1 | Chris Watts |
| Planning and Zoning Commission | 2 | Jim Engelbrecht and Pete Kamp |
| Public Art Committee | 2 | Jim Engelbrecht and Chris Watts |
| Traffic Safety Commission | 2 | Dalton Gregory and Jim Engelbrecht |
| Zoning Board of Adjustment | 1 | Mark Burroughs |
If you are interested, here is what you should do ASAP:
– Click here to fill out an online application to serve on a board or commission.
– Email the appropriate council member – the one listed next to the position you are interested in. The above council names are hyperlinked – just click for their email.
– Email me to let me know that you are interested as well, especially if you are in my district. Although I only have certain positions to fill, I can suggest people for the benefit of other council members looking for great applicants.
- Stay tuned – we’ll be finalizing these at some point in August.
Denton is Open for Food Trucks!
Way back in September, the Denton City Council gave clear direction to the city staff to work on an ordinance aimed at allowing and encouraging a culture of food trucks within the city of Denton. You might even recall that I held a public event at my house prior to that meeting to get feedback from interested citizens. After months of waiting, council finally got to see a proposed ordinance at our April 3 meeting. The first go at a new ordinance was, in my opinion and seemingly the opinion of most other council members, too restrictive and overly-regulatory – see my comments on that here. After giving plenty of feedback, we were supposed to see a newly revised ordinance in June. Then it was delayed until August. Meanwhile, just about every city around us found a way to take advantage of this new food craze without much delay – lesser cities in the DFW area have already established food parks and are on regular rotation for DFW food trucks.
If you’ve been following this, you might recall the one element of our city ordinance that prevented food trucks, beyond the construction site lunch wagon, from doing business in Denton – a rule that limited mobile food trucks from stopping at a given location for more than 15 minutes.
While we are waiting on the final touches on our new food ordinance, the city’s Planning Director released an “Informal Staff Report” to the council in our weekly packet last Friday which read:
“Lacking any authority to support the restriction of a mobile food truck’s duration of stay at a given location, the City will discontinue the application of this practice, until such time, when and/or if, the City Council adopts such a restriction.”
In order to clarify that this meant what I thought it meant, I asked a couple questions of city staff and received this reply:
“The only thing Denton currently requires beyond the enforcement of the State regulations (§229.169) is the requirement of a valid food service permit, which must be kept in the vehicle at all times. This permit is issued through the Building Inspections Division, who also administers and enforce the requirements under §229.169.”
This effectively removes the previous barriers to mobile food truck operations in Denton. Spread the word!
I would encourage all interested mobile food truck operators to consult with our Building Inspections Division for what they need to do to get rolling in Denton.
Update on Denton’s West Nile Response and Why I Voted Against Spraying
The City Council met in a Special-Called meeting on Monday afternoon to get a briefing on the escalation of West Nile concerns within our city and to vote on whether or not to authorize the spraying of pyrethroids as a method of controlling the adult mosquito population in key problem areas.
The council voted 5-1 to authorize the use of spraying. I was the one who voted against the resolution to authorize this. Let me give you some background and the reason for my vote…
The city has a serious issue with the spread of West Nile and we now have two confirmed human cases of the disease, as reported by the Denton County Health Department. The two people happen to live within 1/3 mile away from each other in the neighborhood surrounding the Fairgrounds. This, combined with an increasing amount of mosquitoes found carrying the disease has led the city to bump up our risk level to Level 5 – the highest level. The city, in cooperation with researchers at UNT, have 16 mosquito trapping stations of various kinds in areas around the city. See the map below for a look at the situation:
This map has since been updated with even more instances found at various traps throughout the city – it will be found soon on the city website.
Here’s some helpful information relating to the city’s approach to this issue:
- City website outlining the current problem
- Denton Mosquito Response Plan – including info on the 5 risk levels
- Tuesday’s briefing to City Council on the current situation and our options
- Brochure on what you can do to help control mosquitoes on your property
What was clear from today’s presentation is that the elimination or mitigation of potential breeding habitats for mosquitoes is the MOST EFFECTIVE method available to control the mosquito population and the spread of West Nile. We all need to do our part to inspect our property for the presence of standing water (even in very small quantities) where mosquitoes multiply. Please take a look at the brochure above to learn how you can do your part and please share this with your friends and neighbors.
For many reasons, the use and spraying of “adulticides” is the least effective method of tackling the problem. This is precisely why the Denton Mosquito Response Plan reserves its use only after triggers have been met leading to Risk Level 5 – and only then in targeted areas and only after City Council authorization. I say this to make clear that, although I voted against the authorization to spray, I certainly understand the concerns and deliberations that led the rest of the council to vote for its use. Balancing competing health concerns is never easy and I commend my fellow council members for a very responsible discussion on this difficult and unfortunate topic.
At the end of the day, I was not convinced that the use of this spray – a combination of Sumithrin and Prallethrin, under the product name of Duet – is justified scientifically. There is not one study that can be pointed to in order to demonstrate its ability to lower the incidence of West Nile virus in a human population. It essentially boils down to a move to demonstrate that we are “doing all we can” to address the situation. I understand that sentiment, but I had to weigh it against my hesitation with spraying chemicals into our air and around our neighborhoods without much understanding of the long-term effect on humans or our environment.
My other key concern related to the important issue of citizen participation on this issue. I suggested that areas identified for spraying should have an opt-in/opt-out mechanism by which neighborhoods and citizens can weigh in on whether or not they want to assume the risks of spraying or the risks of not spraying. Each time I brought this up, my suggestion was met with reasons why such citizen and neighborhood sentiment would be difficult both to gather and assess. “There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue – how could we gauge public opinion on this issue adequately enough to act in a timely manner?”
Not a bad point, but I submit that such robust and vigorous public participation in specific city health issues is both important and worthy of pursuing. I can’t think of a more onerous form of big local government overreach than the unconsented spraying of chemicals into a city neighborhood. Surely with a bit of time and creative thinking we could conjure up a mechanism by which a group of concerned citizens clustered in a targeted area could say NO to spraying – or even YES to spraying, for that matter. As a local government, we must resist the urge toward technocratic decision making in such things and, though messy and inefficient, promote lively democratic engagement at every turn.
You will be hearing more specifics as we move forward and I assure you that we will seek the most aggressive notification system possible. Keep your eye on the city website for up-to-date information.
Special Council Meeting to Address West Nile Concern – June 25, 2012
You may have heard that the City of Denton has been elevating our Risk Level as of late in accordance with the Mosquito Surveillance and Response Plan. Most recently, on June 12, the city raised the Risk Level to Level 4 “Public Health Warning” in response to confirmed cases in the mosquito population. Because the Denton County Health Department has now confirmed two human cases of West Nile virus in the city of Denton, the City Council will meet for a Special Called Meeting on Monday, June 25 to discuss and possibly vote on the authorization of control measures that come along with raising the Risk Level to Level 5.
According to our Response Plan, City Council authorization is needed in order to utilize the targeted spraying of “adulticides” in order to control the adult mosquito population (ground-based Ultra-Low Volume (ULV) applications of pyrethroids). Because there are public health and environmental risks associated with such spraying, we will be meeting to assess the current situation and make decisions accordingly.
I want you to be informed of all of this. Check out the complete back-up material that has been given to the council. This includes some information on the current situation as well as the city’s Mosquito Surveillance and Response Plan which gives plenty of info on West Nile, mosquitos, and the progressive risk levels associated with the plan.
And because a wealth of information is key in helping us make such decisions, a concerned citizen sent me a couple of resources to learn more about the risks association with pyrethroids. I am providing these for your benefit as well:
I’ll update you on our decision – stay tune to the city website for more information on this as the situation develops.
Council Meeting Preview – June 19, 2012 with a Highlight on Street Bond Program
We begin today’s council meeting with a Work Session at 4pm, followed by the Regular Session at 6:30pm – all at City Hall on McKinney Street. Click here to access the full agenda and back-up materials online.
There are few items on today’s agenda, but the most notable is an update on the recommendations from the Citizens Bond Advisory Committee. As you may know, the city is contemplating going to the voters for a $20 million bond package in November for the purpose of getting a handle on some much needed street repairs. Each council member appointed three people to sit on this 21 person committee to advise the council on how best to allocate the funds throughout the five year life of the bond program. I appointed Joe Gregory, Gerard Hudspeth, and Michael Thomas – all District 1 residents who live in different parts of the district. They served the district and city well and I thank them for their time and contributions to this important project.
The committee has developed a set of recommendations that the council will formally hear during today’s Work Session. To see the Power Point presentation that will be shown to us this afternoon, click here. For your benefit, I have crunched the data and developed some tables to help you navigate the recommendations and suggested street projects.
To begin with, realize that there are over $94 million in needed road projects that were considered by this committee. With only $20 million to play with, it is clear that the committee had a difficult task.
Below I broke down the proposed street funding by council district. Please note that the spending is more or less proportionate according to the street repair needs of each particular council district. So while you see that District 1 is recommended to receive only 23% of the total funds out of the bond program, our district’s total need of street repairs is only 21% of the needs of the entire city. Another factor to consider (and you will see this in subsequent tables) is that streets are prioritized by a number of factors, with OCI rating being a key one (Overall Condition Index).
Below you will see a district by district breakdown of the recommended street projects (in alphabetical order) to be funded through the $20 million street bond program, should the ballot initiative pass in November:
What about the streets in need of repair which are not included in the recommendations for this bond program? I’ve sorted those by district and then by street name and posted them here as a separate PDF file. You will also see a list of reasons as to why those are not included (lack of funding being a key reason).
Something to point out… Often I hear an accusation that goes something like this: “I’ll bet the streets where the council members live are in top shape, while the rest of us fight for the scraps!” My street, Texas Street between Oakland and Bell, is in very bad condition and has been for some time. It is a much traveled route by TWU students, is a key route for heavy constructions vehicles working on TWU, and is also a main path for city vehicles coming into the center of town from the city’s service center on the other side of Mingo. Yet my own street is not recommended for funding under this bond program simply because it is not of the highest priority. All this to point out that politics is not a factor in these decisions.
We will be discussing these project recommendations more fully during our July 17 council meeting. In the meantime, if you have any feedback, please share it. Contact me at kevin.roden@cityofdenton.com or 940-206-5239.
| Name | From | To | District | OCI | Committee Proposal | Estimated Cost |
| Bayberry St | Canyon Ct | South | District 1 | 15 | Proposed | $ 41,746 |
| Bell Ave N | Administration Dr | College E | District 1 | 10 | Proposed | $ 142,680 |
| Campbell Ln | Charles | Woodford Ln | District 1 | 22 | Proposed | $ 40,590 |
| Cherokee Ave | Boyd | Redwood Pl | District 1 | 25 | Proposed | $ 13,386 |
| Cherokee Ave | Redwood Pl | Shawnee | District 1 | 25 | Proposed | $ 45,598 |
| Choctaw Ave | Redwood Pl | Shawnee | District 1 | 22 | Proposed | $ 45,454 |
| Deer Trail | Kenwood | Timberridge | District 1 | 13 | Proposed | $ 111,467 |
| Diane Cir | Christopher Dr | North | District 1 | 20 | Proposed | $ 19,164 |
| Fox Creek Ct | Longmeadow | North | District 1 | 11 | Proposed | $ 60,476 |
| Frame St | College E | Pirtle | District 1 | 9 | Proposed | $ 25,937 |
| Frame St | Pirtle | Schmitz Av | District 1 | 6 | Proposed | $ 39,676 |
| Frame St | Schmitz Av | Texas | District 1 | 8 | Proposed | $ 25,808 |
| Hettie St | Paisley | Davis | District 1 | 9 | Proposed | $ 156,027 |
| Hettie St | Davis | McKinney E | District 1 | 19 | Proposed | $ 52,387 |
| Hill Alley | Martin | Wilson | District 1 | 22 | Proposed | $ 21,186 |
| Kenwood St | Fox Hollow | Deer Tr | District 1 | 11 | Proposed | $ 33,512 |
| Kerley St | Duncan | Scott Dr | District 1 | 29 | Proposed | $ 191,733 |
| Kerley St | Scott Dr | Minor Cr | District 1 | 31 | Proposed | $ 38,905 |
| Kerley St | Minor Cr | Shady Oaks | District 1 | 37 | Proposed | $ 76,799 |
| Laredo Ct | Santa Fe | South | District 1 | 19 | Proposed | $ 17,334 |
| Mack Dr | Paisley | Doubleoak | District 1 | 16 | Proposed | $ 185,731 |
| May St | Henderson Dr | Pinckney Dr | District 1 | 16 | Proposed | $ 33,657 |
| May St | Pinckney Dr | Autumn Oak Dr | District 1 | 28 | Proposed | $ 24,027 |
| McKinney St E | Crawford S | Wood N | District 1 | 31 | Proposed | $ 159,895 |
| McKinney St E | Wood S | Ruddell N | District 1 | 31 | Proposed | $ 117,179 |
| McKinney St E | Ruddell S | Hettie | District 1 | 20 | Proposed | $ 96,854 |
| McKinney St E | Hettie | Jannie | District 1 | 22 | Proposed | $ 138,467 |
| McKinney St E | Jannie | Campbell | District 1 | 29 | Proposed | $ 223,359 |
| Morse St | Lakey | Bushey | District 1 | 30 | Proposed | $ 277,169 |
| Morse St | Newton | Baldwin | District 1 | 26 | Proposed | $ 196,525 |
| Morse St | Baldwin | Woodrow Ln S | District 1 | 18 | Proposed | $ 203,042 |
| Oak Park Dr | Whispering Oaks | Timber Trail | District 1 | 20 | Proposed | $ 26,097 |
| Oak Park Dr | Timber Trail | Oak Valley | District 1 | 30 | Proposed | $ 101,837 |
| Oak St E | Bradshaw N | Crawford N | District 1 | 29 | Proposed | $ 50,975 |
| Oak St E | Crawford N | Wood S | District 1 | 7 | Proposed | $ 57,523 |
| Oaktree St | Audra Ln | Oak Park Dr | District 1 | 17 | Proposed | $ 93,218 |
| Paisley St | Pace Dr | Meng Cr | District 1 | 18 | Proposed | $ 62,705 |
| Penniman Rd | Indigo | Mockingbird Ln | District 1 | 18 | Proposed | $ 78,725 |
| Phoenix Ct | Santa Fe | South End | District 1 | 21 | Proposed | $ 14,397 |
| Rio Grande Blvd | Dallas Dr | Rio Grande Bv | District 1 | 29 | Proposed | $ 36,883 |
| Rose St | Paisley | Lehrman | District 1 | 8 | Proposed | $ 81,662 |
| Rose St | Lehrman | Uland | District 1 | 18 | Proposed | $ 43,142 |
| San Jacinto Blvd | Colorado Bv | Piney Creek Bv | District 1 | 21 | Proposed | $ 273,110 |
| Sandy Creek Dr | Angelina Bend Dr | Sandy Creek Dr | District 1 | 20 | Proposed | $ 49,450 |
| Santa Fe St | Ruidosa Ct | Phoenix Ct | District 1 | 14 | Proposed | $ 54,458 |
| Santa Fe St | Phoenix Ct | Travis | District 1 | 21 | Proposed | $ 37,509 |
| Santa Fe St | Travis | Laredo Ct | District 1 | 17 | Proposed | $ 31,201 |
| Schmitz Ave | Bell Av N | Vine | District 1 | 9 | Proposed | $ 45,197 |
| Schmitz Ave | Vine | Frame | District 1 | 5 | Proposed | $ 57,138 |
| Schmitz Ave | Frame | Mingo Rd | District 1 | 6 | Proposed | $ 100,666 |
| Weston Dr | Pace Dr | Woodson Cr | District 1 | 17 | Proposed | $ 38,039 |
| Weston Dr | Woodson Cr | Bellaire Dr | District 1 | 18 | Proposed | $ 35,727 |
| Weston Dr | Bellaire Dr | Conditt Cr | District 1 | 17 | Proposed | $ 47,765 |
| Weston Dr | Conditt Cr | Mockingbird Ln | District 1 | 20 | Proposed | $ 37,653 |
| Wilderness St | Kenwood | Timber Ridge Cr | District 1 | 23 | Proposed | $ 109,782 |
| Wilderness St | Timber Ridge Cr | Colorado Bv | District 1 | 39 | Proposed | $ 21,042 |
| Wood St N | McKinney E | Oak E | District 1 | 13 | Proposed | $ 38,777 |
| Wood St N | Oak E | Hickory E | District 1 | 13 | Proposed | $ 38,263 |
| Wood St S | Mulberry E | Sycamore E | District 1 | 7 | Proposed | $ 41,345 |
| Wood St S | Sycamore E | South | District 1 | 15 | Proposed | $ 24,011 |
| Woodson Cir | Weston Dr | North | District 1 | 18 | Proposed | $ 18,832 |
| Amarillo St | North | Panhandle | District 2 | 15 | Proposed | $ 28,409 |
| Amarillo St | Panhandle | Egan | District 2 | 13 | Proposed | $ 46,513 |
| Anna St | Panhandle | Egan | District 2 | 9 | Proposed | $ 49,306 |
| Bolivar St | University Dr W | Sunset | District 2 | 14 | Proposed | $ 69,476 |
| Bolivar St | Sunset | Westway | District 2 | 10 | Proposed | $ 57,379 |
| Bolivar St | Westway | College W | District 2 | 15 | Proposed | $ 43,484 |
| Bolivar St | College W | Third W | District 2 | 12 | Proposed | $ 106,747 |
| Bolivar St | Third W | Crescent | District 2 | 24 | Proposed | $ 33,675 |
| Bolivar St | Crescent | Second | District 2 | 28 | Proposed | $ 54,258 |
| Bolivar St | Second | First | District 2 | 30 | Proposed | $ 93,328 |
| Bolivar St | First | Panhandle | District 2 | 21 | Proposed | $ 101,516 |
| Brandywine St | Misty Hollow | Copper Ridge | District 2 | 24 | Proposed | $ 32,598 |
| Brandywine St | Copper Ridge | Briarwood | District 2 | 24 | Proposed | $ 32,742 |
| Brandywine St | Briarwood | West | District 2 | 9 | Proposed | $ 16,467 |
| Cambridge Ln | Wellington Dr | Oxford Ln | District 2 | 22 | Proposed | $ 116,619 |
| Carroll Blvd N | Northridge | Magnolia | District 2 | 28 | Proposed | $ 71,562 |
| Cooper Branch St E | Quail Ridge Dr | Chaparral Ct | District 2 | 18 | Proposed | $ 39,820 |
| Cooper Branch St E | La Paloma Dr | Branch Crossing | District 2 | 21 | Proposed | $ 59,225 |
| Coronado Dr | Cordova Cr | Winchester Ct | District 2 | 36 | Proposed | $ 51,494 |
| Coronado Dr | Winchester Ct | Stuart Rd | District 2 | 36 | Proposed | $ 62,616 |
| Crescent St | Carroll Bv N | Anna | District 2 | 28 | Proposed | $ 50,991 |
| Denison St | Sherman Dr W | University Dr W | District 2 | 25 | Proposed | $ 61,391 |
| Egan St | Amarillo | Alice | District 2 | 14 | Proposed | $ 76,944 |
| Foxwood Cir | Hollycreek | South | District 2 | 11 | Proposed | $ 24,412 |
| Fulton St | Cordell | Crescent | District 2 | 35 | Proposed | $ 144,475 |
| Fulton St | Congress W | Grace Temple Av | District 2 | 26 | Proposed | $ 251,083 |
| Fulton St | Grace Temple Av | Gregg | District 2 | 40 | Proposed | $ 116,543 |
| Gaelic Ct | Glengary Wy | West | District 2 | 8 | Proposed | $ 52,532 |
| Gardenview St | Fallmeadow | Joyce Ln | District 2 | 11 | Proposed | $ 78,340 |
| Gardenview St | Joyce Ln | Brooke | District 2 | 17 | Proposed | $ 83,974 |
| Hanover Dr | Windsor E | Croydon Ln | District 2 | 26 | Proposed | $ 57,684 |
| Hanover Dr | Croydon Ln | Emerson Ln | District 2 | 12 | Proposed | $ 98,082 |
| Hercules Ln | Meadow Lane Pl | Redstone Rd | District 2 | 25 | Proposed | $ 120,878 |
| Hercules Ln | Redstone Rd | Atlas Dr | District 2 | 16 | Proposed | $ 145,889 |
| Hercules Ln | Atlas Dr | Stuart Rd | District 2 | 13 | Proposed | $ 145,771 |
| Hercules Ln | Atlas Dr | Camelot | District 2 | 16 | Proposed | $ 65,691 |
| Hercules Ln | Camelot | Stuart Rd | District 2 | 15 | Proposed | $ 160,328 |
| Kingfisher Ln | Oriole Ln | Meadowlark Ln | District 2 | 14 | Proposed | $ 37,364 |
| Kingfisher Ln | Meadowlark Ln | King Fisher Ln | District 2 | 9 | Proposed | $ 36,979 |
| Kings Row | Sagebrush Dr | Valley View Rd | District 2 | 16 | Proposed | $ 51,998 |
| Kings Row | Valley View Rd | Sunnydale Ln | District 2 | 11 | Proposed | $ 53,043 |
| Kings Row | Sunnydale Ln | Stuart Rd | District 2 | 9 | Proposed | $ 321,138 |
| Kings Row | Loop 288 N | Deerwood Pw | District 2 | 22 | Proposed | $ 129,470 |
| Kings Row | Deerwood Pw | Farris Rd | District 2 | 30 | Proposed | $ 146,478 |
| Mimosa Dr | Carroll Bv N | Bolivar | District 2 | 37 | Proposed | $ 100,296 |
| Monterey Dr | Yellowstone Pl | Sherman Dr E | District 2 | 20 | Proposed | $ 69,480 |
| Northwood Terrace | Edgewood Pl | North | District 2 | 18 | Proposed | $ 29,275 |
| Northwood Terrace | Greenwood Dr | Cherrywood Ln | District 2 | 29 | Proposed | $ 158,606 |
| Quail Ridge Dr | Cooper Branch E | La Palma Dr | District 2 | 17 | Proposed | $ 150,372 |
| Roberts St | Brown | Brown | District 2 | 39 | Proposed | $ 39,194 |
| Rockwood Ln | Mistywood Ln | Laurelwood Dr | District 2 | 23 | Proposed | $ 47,524 |
| Sagewood St | Willow Stone | Tanglewood | District 2 | 15 | Proposed | $ 35,968 |
| Shadow Trail | Meadow | Plum Hollow | District 2 | 21 | Proposed | $ 33,898 |
| Sheraton Pl | Sheraton Rd | Buckingham Dr | District 2 | 9 | Proposed | $ 55,228 |
| Sheraton Rd | North | Hercules Ln | District 2 | 17 | Proposed | $ 43,287 |
| Sheraton Rd | Hercules Ln | Sun Valley Dr | District 2 | 32 | Proposed | $ 53,687 |
| Williams Ln | Buckingham Dr | Royal Acres Dr | District 2 | 28 | Proposed | $ 40,590 |
| Windsor Dr E | Locust N | Inglewood | District 2 | 19 | Proposed | $ 482,728 |
| Windsor Dr E | Inglewood | Cedar Hill | District 2 | 21 | Proposed | $ 148,217 |
| Windsor Dr E | Cedar Hill | Bell Av N | District 2 | 22 | Proposed | $ 146,777 |
| Windsor Dr E | Bell Av N | Olympia Dr | District 2 | 20 | Proposed | $ 102,652 |
| Windsor Dr E | Windstream | Stuart Rd | District 2 | 38 | Proposed | $ 153,358 |
| Windsor Dr E | Sherman Dr E | Wilsonwood Dr | District 2 | 26 | Proposed | $ 97,972 |
| Windsor Dr E | Longfellow Ln | Glenwood Ln | District 2 | 26 | Proposed | $ 40,889 |
| Windsor Dr E | Glenwood Ln | Bristol | District 2 | 18 | Proposed | $ 64,545 |
| Windsor Dr E | Heather Ln | Pickwick Ln | District 2 | 23 | Proposed | $ 420,744 |
| Windsor Dr E | Nottingham Dr | Burning Tree Ln | District 2 | 26 | Proposed | $ 160,671 |
| Windsor Dr E | Old Orchard Ln | Broken Bow | District 2 | 19 | Proposed | $ 199,542 |
| Windsor Dr E | Broken Bow | Branch Crossing | District 2 | 19 | Proposed | $ 115,896 |
| Windsor Dr W | Riney Rd | Mesquite | District 2 | 27 | Proposed | $ 285,348 |
| Wolftrap Dr | Olympia Dr | Stuart Rd | District 2 | 23 | Proposed | $ 128,175 |
| Woodhaven St | Woodhaven | Brookfield Ln | District 2 | 36 | Proposed | $ 77,329 |
| Barrow Dr | West | Darby Ln | District 3 | 15 | Proposed | $ 39,194 |
| Barrow Dr | Darby Ln | Westgate Dr | District 3 | 22 | Proposed | $ 58,069 |
| Bellemead Dr | Emery | Thomas | District 3 | 21 | Proposed | $ 125,479 |
| Bernard St | Eagle Dr W | Fannin | District 3 | 13 | Proposed | $ 95,719 |
| Bowling Green St | Georgetown Dr | Vanderbilt | District 3 | 30 | Proposed | $ 153,984 |
| Bowling Green St | Vanderbilt | Auburn Dr | District 3 | 37 | Proposed | $ 80,025 |
| Carlton St | Gober | Malone | District 3 | 18 | Proposed | $ 74,873 |
| Carriage Hill | Windsor W | Brooklake | District 3 | 14 | Proposed | $ 24,653 |
| Carriage Hill | Brooklake | Brookhollow Dr | District 3 | 12 | Proposed | $ 80,266 |
| Cindy Ln | Lariat Rd | Tieszen St | District 3 | 15 | Proposed | $ 122,879 |
| Crestmeadow St | Windsor W | Westview Tr | District 3 | 9 | Proposed | $ 20,416 |
| Crestmeadow St | Westview Tr | Brookhollow Dr | District 3 | 13 | Proposed | $ 78,485 |
| Crestmeadow St | Brookhollow Dr | Westward | District 3 | 11 | Proposed | $ 30,431 |
| Darby Ln | Barrow Dr | Candy Ln | District 3 | 13 | Proposed | $ 134,435 |
| Fladger Dr | West | Darby Ln | District 3 | 14 | Proposed | $ 26,483 |
| Fladger Dr | Darby Ln | Westgate Dr | District 3 | 13 | Proposed | $ 56,239 |
| Greenway Dr | Thunderbird Dr | Augusta Dr | District 3 | 19 | Proposed | $ 92,277 |
| Greenway Dr | Augusta Dr | South | District 3 | 15 | Proposed | $ 72,503 |
| Hampton Dr | Lariat Rd | N Masch Branch Rd | District 3 | 28 | Proposed | $ 255,773 |
| Highland St W | North Texas Bv | Ave D | District 3 | 15 | Proposed | $ 162,779 |
| Highland St W | Ave D | Ave C S | District 3 | 23 | Proposed | $ 167,995 |
| Highland St W | Ave C S | Ave A | District 3 | 9 | Proposed | $ 347,885 |
| Highland St W | Ave A | Central Av | District 3 | 13 | Proposed | $ 83,780 |
| Highland St W | Central Av | Welch S | District 3 | 12 | Proposed | $ 79,882 |
| James St | Mission W | Fort Worth Dr | District 3 | 33 | Proposed | $ 172,955 |
| Lariat Rd | Hampton Dr | Lariat Rd | District 3 | 18 | Proposed | $ 269,544 |
| Linden Dr | Thomas | Hillcrest | District 3 | 16 | Proposed | $ 67,314 |
| Linden Dr | Hillcrest | Ector | District 3 | 25 | Proposed | $ 73,958 |
| Marshall Rd | University W | Lariat Rd | District 3 | 15 | Proposed | $ 126,731 |
| Marshall Rd | Lariat Rd | Tieszen St | District 3 | 14 | Proposed | $ 123,264 |
| Masch Branch Rd N | Hampton Dr | W University Dr | District 3 | 20 | Proposed | $ 381,113 |
| Panhandle St | Aileen | Gober | District 3 | 15 | Proposed | $ 176,518 |
| Ponder Ave | Broadway | Panhandle | District 3 | 28 | Proposed | $ 46,609 |
| Scripture St | Ector | Bradley | District 3 | 14 | Proposed | $ 62,852 |
| Scripture St | Bradley | Marietta | District 3 | 12 | Proposed | $ 115,993 |
| Scripture St | Marietta | Gober | District 3 | 12 | Proposed | $ 23,481 |
| Scripture St | Gober | Jagoe | District 3 | 11 | Proposed | $ 48,022 |
| Sena St | Bradley | Gober | District 3 | 34 | Proposed | $ 103,234 |
| Sena St | Gober | Malone | District 3 | 39 | Proposed | $ 57,780 |
| Thomas St | Panhandle | Scripture | District 3 | 30 | Proposed | $ 131,482 |
| Thomas St | Scripture | Houston Pl | District 3 | 17 | Proposed | $ 52,772 |
| Thomas St | Houston Pl | Houston Pl | District 3 | 12 | Proposed | $ 21,956 |
| Thomas St | Houston Pl | Alamo Pl | District 3 | 8 | Proposed | $ 25,423 |
| Thunderbird Dr | Colonial Dr | Glen Garden Dr | District 3 | 18 | Proposed | $ 81,272 |
| Thunderbird Dr | Glen Garden Dr | Greenway Dr | District 3 | 22 | Proposed | $ 82,508 |
| Thunderbird Dr | Greenway Dr | Carriage Hill | District 3 | 30 | Proposed | $ 122,761 |
| Thunderbird Dr | Carriage Hill | Brooklake | District 3 | 25 | Proposed | $ 73,327 |
| Thunderbird Dr | Brooklake | Westview Tr | District 3 | 14 | Proposed | $ 64,382 |
| Thunderbird Dr | Westview Tr | Crestmeadow | District 3 | 18 | Proposed | $ 61,381 |
| Welch St N | Oak W | Hickory W | District 3 | 13 | Proposed | $ 48,787 |
| Westway St | West | Fulton | District 3 | 20 | Proposed | $ 57,299 |
| Windsor Dr W | Carriage Hill | Westgate Dr | District 3 | 14 | Proposed | $ 49,993 |
| Abbot’s Ln | Pennsylvania Dr | East | District 4 | 19 | Proposed | $ 36,113 |
| Bentoaks Dr | Oakhurst | Oakhurst | District 4 | 9 | Proposed | $ 83,492 |
| Bentoaks Dr | Oakhurst | Manor Court | District 4 | 20 | Proposed | $ 39,050 |
| Briercliff Dr | Brighton Dr | Regal Dr | District 4 | 23 | Proposed | $ 144,980 |
| Goodson Way | Bonnie Brae S | West | District 4 | 10 | Proposed | $ 127,646 |
| Granada Trail | Seville Rd | Ryan Rd E | District 4 | 21 | Proposed | $ 135,205 |
| Highland Park Rd | Willowcrest Loop | Willowcrest Loop | District 4 | 19 | Proposed | $ 38,424 |
| Highland Park Rd | Willowcrest Loop | Willowwood | District 4 | 19 | Proposed | $ 38,424 |
| Highview Cir | Forrestridge Dr | Highview Ct | District 4 | 16 | Proposed | $ 161,303 |
| Highview Cir | Highview Ct | Forrestridge Dr | District 4 | 17 | Proposed | $ 163,614 |
| Kendolph Dr | Willowwood | South | District 4 | 11 | Proposed | $ 177,192 |
| Laurel St | Jasmine | Camellia | District 4 | 17 | Proposed | $ 37,509 |
| Laurel St | Azalea | Wisteria | District 4 | 15 | Proposed | $ 37,509 |
| Londonderry Ln | Kingwood Ct | Camden Ct | District 4 | 19 | Proposed | $ 80,448 |
| Londonderry Ln | Camden Ct | Westminister | District 4 | 21 | Proposed | $ 96,691 |
| Lynhurst Ln | Jefferson | Pembrook Pl | District 4 | 12 | Proposed | $ 102,222 |
| Lynhurst Ln | Tennyson Tr | Ticonderoga Dr | District 4 | 20 | Proposed | $ 42,372 |
| Montecito Rd | Hobson Ln E | El Paseo E | District 4 | 31 | Proposed | $ 553,404 |
| Oakhurst St | Bentoaks Dr | Oakhurst | District 4 | 11 | Proposed | $ 38,279 |
| Oakhurst St | Bentoaks Dr | Bentoaks Dr | District 4 | 23 | Proposed | $ 78,725 |
| Regal Dr | I35 E | Briercliff Dr | District 4 | 24 | Proposed | $ 77,570 |
| Santa Monica Dr | Hobson Ln E | El Paseo E | District 4 | 25 | Proposed | $ 458,088 |
| Wessex Ct | Waterford Wy | Winston Dr | District 4 | 26 | Proposed | $ 94,759 |
| Whitney Ct | East | Savannah Tr | District 4 | 9 | Proposed | $ 19,934 |
| Winston Dr | Wessex Ct | Waterford Wy | District 4 | 21 | Proposed | $ 124,291 |
| Woodbrook St | Southridge Dr | Hollyhill Ln | District 4 | 17 | Proposed | $ 53,061 |
On Backroom Deals and Run-off Elections: Clarifying the Convention Center
A recent backroom meeting of the Denton City Council where secret negotiations of convention centers were rumored to take place.
It is election season once again in Denton as voters take to the polls in a run-off for two at-large seats: Mayor Mark Burroughs is defending his seat against Neil Durrance and Place 5 Council Member Pete Kamp is running to a final term against David Zoltner. Regardless of your views, you need to vote – go here for more details. Our local democracy needs you.
Elections are at their best when they are about big ideas, when the citizens are challenged to consider the health or ailments and future direction of their city. This is why I love election season in Denton. I think this beautiful city of ours is worth fighting for, arguing about, and seeing what happens when men and women submit their civic visions to the market place of ideas.
Far too often, however, disease within a city finds its entrance with the very people who seek to lead it. Dentonites have come to expect the likes of Bob Clifton, Eli Gemini, and other recurring characters in Denton’s political landscape, who have seemingly found great joy in breeding cynicism and perpetuating distrust as they weave their fantastical and conspiratorial narratives together before all who would listen. But until now, their approach has been limited to them and a few anonymous online commenters on the website of our local newspaper.
As a council member, I sometimes disagree with certain ideas, nuances, perspectives, or approaches of my colleagues – and they with me. And though I am a city official, and precisely because I am a city official, I will be the first to point out many areas where we as a city are in need of drastic improvement. That is why I am there: to help make this great city even better. That is why I long for great ideas – our city needs them and deserves them. While this could have been an election of great ideas, the current challengers have adopted the Clifton approach to Denton politics: where there should be vision, they have brought confusion – where there should be optimism, they have intentionally fostered cyncism – where there should be statesmen, they play politics.
Today we saw an example of this in a much talked about post on the website of mayoral candidate Neil Durrance. In attempting to criticize the Mayor on recent developments of a proposed plan for a Convention Center, Durrance’s wide swing goes after the entire sitting council. This is the reason for my unorthodox wading into election affairs not of my own. Had he simply gone after an idea, a plan, or proposal, that would be fine – even and especially if I disagreed. But through misleading statements, falsehoods, and innuendos, Neil opted for the opportunistic Clifton route and questioned my integrity, honor, and commitment to the good of Denton and her citizens.
Let me set the record straight…
CLAIM: Citizens have been “sidestepped” and kept in the dark on plans for a Convention Center.
FACT: City participation in a Convention Center has long been a goal of the city, the Chamber of Commerce, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and UNT. Nearly 20 years ago, this was forwarded as a goal for our community and has been an official City Council goal for over 10 years. Various developers have been consulted throughout the 2000s, resulting in a substantial proposal (requested by UNT) by the John Q. Hammons group in 2009 (after a market study was commissioned as to the viability of such a project for our city and in our region). Because of economic and other factors, that project never materialized, yet the goal remained. In 2011, UNT received two unsolicited proposals – one coming from O’Reilly Hospitality Management (yes, the same family as the auto parts store), which is now made-up of former key players from the Hammons team.
Citizens have long been a part of the broad discussion regarding the need for a Convention Center and the role the city should play in such a project. The current proposal – again, not initiated by the city – involved the need for discussions among three separate entities: O’Reilly, UNT, and the city. Knowing that it has long been a citizen-driven goal to find a way to have a convention center in Denton, your representatives on council gave the direction to staff members to meet with the other two entities in order to ascertain the feasibility of the proposal and to begin hammering out parameters that would be in the best interest of the city. The Preliminary Agreement Durrance “exposed” was just that: an early preliminary, non-binding setting of basic direction and parameters for such a project. As it became clear that the three entities were nearing a workable proposal, we made clear that we wanted the proposal presented in an open session of the City Council. This happened at an open meeting of the City Council on May 15 with O’Reilly, UNT President V. Lane Rawlins, and members of the public in attendance – you can click here to see a video of the entire presentation. To add to the public nature of this presentation, I made a point of it in my regular Council Meeting Preview prior to that meeting.
And let’s be clear: this still has to be voted on and approved by the City Council. Nothing is set. Citizens have long been in favor of the idea of a convention center and they will surely have the chance to chime in on the specifics on this one prior to the approval of any such agreement.
CLAIM: The city is on the hook for $87 million for this project.
FACT: That figure represents the approximate total cost of the project, including the value of the land and the cost of building the hotel. $60 million of this is coming from private funding – the O’Reilly group proposes to fund the hotel and connected restaurant. The land is coming from UNT. If the plan is approved by council and goes through, the city’s investment in the project would be approximately $25 million.
CLAIM: The city is liable for the $87 million.
FACT: Once again, the city’s investment is much less – $25 million. This is still significant, which is why the council has insisted that the city lower its risk as much as possible. In order to pay off the debt associated with the Certificates of Obligation that would be issued in order to fund such a project, the ad valorem and hotel taxes generated from this project would be dedicated to pay this down. In addition, O’Reilly would make lease payments to the city for the convention center. And here is where the potential deal is great for the protection of our taxpayers: in the event funds generated from this project are not enough for the city to pay off the debt, the O’Reilly team will make up the difference.
I hope this helps clarify this issue for those who have been confused by various claims made recently. I guess it is more fun to conjure up images of slick politicians sipping on Scotch and smoking cigars in the seedy back room of some ambiguous local bar ran by the politically-connected. Sometimes I wish local government was that enticing. More often I find myself debating the nuances of setbacks during a 7 hour council meeting in front of an audience of about 3…
Please let me know if you have further questions.
Council Meeting Preview – June 5, 2012
My apologies – this preview is late and it will be brief. Been a busy week all around, but I wanted to give you an idea of what we were hearing and deciding at today’s meeting. We begin with a Council Work Session at 3pm, followed by the Regular Session at 6:30pm – all at City Hall. Click here to see the full agenda.
Here are some things you might be interested in…
PRELIMINARY BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
It’s that time of year again in city government when we take a look at our financial health and our plans to spend taxpayer money throughout the next fiscal year. In the next few days, I’ll post some basics about our budget for you to peruse – I find it fascinating. Now is the time to give feedback on budget expenditures, so I’ll be sure to keep you in the loop on more information as it comes available.
GAS DRILLING MORATORIUM EXTENSION
Tonight, we are set to approve an additional 120 day extension to the Gas Well Drilling and Production Moratorium we approved just 120 days ago. We are still working to complete the rewrite of our gas well ordinance, so this gives us more time to maintain the status quo and not subject our citizens or environment to certain practices that might be changed in the near future. This is a good thing for Denton.
CHRIS FLEMMONS ON PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE
Just saw that Council Member James King is set to nominate Baptist General frontman, 35 Denton founder, and Denton-phile Chris Flemmons to be on the Public Art Committee. Also good for Denton…
ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS
We have 5 items on tonight’s agenda related to zoning or special use request changes for properties around Denton. One involves turning the green space beside the downtown Wells Fargo into a “motor bank” drive-thru facility for that same bank (the current one is being demolished to make way for new apartments downtown). Two involve projects that may involve the allowance of more apartment building in town (one off McKinney near Ryan High School and one on the corner of Mingo and Nottingham). One involves a special use permit request for wind turbines in a neighborhood area and one involves a zoning change of a property near the Denton Water Park for an undetermined future development project.
As always, if you have thoughts, comments, suggestions, or concerns, contact me at kevin.roden@cityofdenton.com or 940-206-5239.
Friday Night A-Train Derailed by DCTA Board
Francis Paul, my strapping one year old whose appetite for household destruction is insatiable, often takes possession of certain toys of Rosie Lou, my decidedly more sophisticated three year old daughter. Filled with jealously and the seemingly natural proclivity toward private property rights, Rosie will often demand the toy back from her little brother. Once she regains possession of the toy in question, however, she typically wants nothing to do with it. Her aim, after all, is never really to play with the toy herself. She never has any real plans for it. Her sole motivation, the root cause of her protests, is simply to ensure that her little brother experiences no joy, no happiness from a toy she deems as rightfully hers.
I observed a similar display of maturity during Thursday’s DCTA Board meeting.
On the agenda were a number of items relating to upcoming service changes in August. After conducting a community-wide survey and several public meetings throughout the county, the DCTA staff were recommending a series of smart changes and additions to their public transit programs. The most controversial recommendation involved a plan to alter Friday night train service in order to better serve the needs and desires of riders. The DCTA staff was advocating a way to make it better with later hours in order to better accommodate nightlife and special events in both directions.
Truth be told, certain members of the board disliked the idea of Friday night (even Saturday service) for a few years. After a DCTA report indicated lower than anticipated Friday night ridership earlier this year, there were murmurings among some board members to kill it then. At the time, I did my own analysis of the data and took issue with several of the metrics being used to paint a negative picture of weekend ridership in general, and Friday night ridership specifically. One of my key findings was that Saturday service was actually OUTPERFORMING weekday commuter ridership with 65% more passengers per trip. That shows a market for non-commuter ridership that deserves further exploration. What that showed me is that if Friday night wasn’t working, it wasn’t because of a lack of interest. Alternate models of Friday night service would have been the right thing to pursue.
To see my complete analysis, provided in January to the City Council, Denton city staff, and DCTA staff, click here.
Despite the fact that the DCTA staff had found a way to adjust Friday night service in a way that added no additional costs to the operating budget and despite the fact that there was clear interest in continuing the service on the part of the three member (sales tax contributors) cities (Denton, Lewisville, and Highland Village), two DCTA Board members representing non-member cities decided to make the Friday night issue a display of their apparent “fiscally responsible” commitments. This becomes quite a silly stand when we consider the facts…
ALL THIS OVER $100,000?
Friday night service costs somewhere in the ballpark of $100,000 to $150,000 to run annually. This is out of an operating budget of $21 million dollars. That seems to amount to only about .047% of the total cost to operate DCTA this year. Do you know that a single traffic signal costs roughly $250,000 to purchase and install at one intersection. Did you know that the proposed I35 expansion will cost taxpayers anywhere between $4 and $6 billion dollars for a stretch of highway just about equal in length to the entire A-Train? $100,000…
FUN WITH NUMBERS!
Tom Spencer, the leading advocate against Friday night service, based his supposed “fiscally responsible” argument on a series of stats and data that he presented to the board. Putting aside his strange discussion of his personal conjectures about ridership demographics, Spencer’s most forceful analysis rested on a comparison of the total ridership levels of the various types of A-Train service. It went something like this:
- X number of people ride the train during normal weekday commuter times.
- X number of people ride the train on Saturdays.
- X number of people ride the train on Friday nights.
- Look at how little the number is on Friday nights compared to the number on weekday commuter hours? It looks really small.
- Divide the number of Friday night riders by the total number of weekday commuter riders and look at how really, really, really small the percentage is!!
It sounded good. It sounded convincing – and apparently it was. Not a single member of the board questioned his stats or his way of crunching them. Problem is, it was a meaningless analysis. Consider this:
- Monday-Friday commuter service consists of 45 one-way trips per day – that is 225 one-way trips per week.
- Friday night service, on the other hand, consists of a mere 5 one-way trips per day – in fact, only 5 one-way trips per week.
- Any analysis simply comparing “total riders” between these two types of service of widely different amounts of trips per week is unenlightening. I would point you back to my January analysis above for more info. A better way to do this is to look at average riders per trip.
Our apparent defenders of “fiscal responsibility” are either being intentionally misleading by offering such stats or are mathematically inept. Either way, no one should take their advice when they start crunching numbers – especially if it involves money. It is too bad no one else among the board caught this and called it out. If decisions were made on the basis of it, it seems there is good reason for another Board member to request a revisiting of the vote.
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO WITH ALL THAT MONEY?
If it was so important, in the name of “fiscal responsibility,” to kill Friday night service, thus saving a whopping .047% of the DCTA operating budget for the next fiscal year, then there is surely a plan in place by our “fiscally responsible” defenders of what to do with this money? In a surprising twist, they had no plan. In fact, they then passed the annual budget with this money still tied to the now defunct Friday night service. Without a single ounce of vision of what to do with this new-found savings, the crusaders of “fiscal responsibility” left the decision of its reallocation in the hands of the DCTA staff – the same people who, according to these board members, couldn’t be trusted with their initial recommendation of what to do with it in the first place.
With this move, this utter lack of interest for the allocation of this supposed precious amount of taxpayer resources, the naysaying DCTA board members tipped their hand and revealed their true political motivation. Someone else was playing with their toy. Once they got it back, their interest in it was removed. “I don’t care what you do with the money – just don’t give it to THEM…”
IT COULD HAVE BEEN GREAT
When building interest in public transportation in a state like Texas, you have to be patient and creative. Non-commuter, or discretionary, ridership offers a way for potential future riders to try out the train for the first time when the stress of getting to work on time isn’t present. We should be seeking new paths for selling public transportation to our car-centric culture.
And it is a shame. After only a year in service, we were just beginning to see signs of people catching the vision for what public transit could do for our community. The same day of the board vote, I announced a series of on-train concerts to be held on three Fridays in June – a chance for citizens to experience the train for the first time and a way for artists and musicians to explore the possibilities of performing in new, creative venues. The future of that initiative is now up in the air – it was designed to increase ridership on Friday nights.
The benefits to our city of the A-Train have been well-documented and the impact the Downtown Transit Center has had on the vibrancy of our downtown area is unmistakable. But it has long been my vision to make sure all parts of our community benefit from its presence. Just the other day , I met with Gracie Samano, owner of La Estrella, a small tacqueria/mini market on E. McKinney Street just on “the other side of the tracks.” Nestled on an otherwise undesirable street with little to no walkability or attractiveness, yet within walking distance to both the train station and the lower-income largely Hispanic neighborhood in Southeast Denton, La Estrella has quickly become a destination spot for neighborhood families and other Dentonites. Gracie has used outdoor taco sales, live Latino music, and Friday night dances to turn an area that used to be frequented by drug dealers and prostitutes into a place where mothers bring their children after dark. She now has plans to develop a regular Hispanic Market in the area – another potential unique destination in the greater downtown area.
It is the presence of the A-Train, and particularly its Friday and Saturday service, that has given Gracie this hope and vision to create a business that betters her neighborhood and community. This is just one example of the beautiful unintended organic results of the power of transit to transform a city.
This is the sort of vision we need from the DCTA Board. “Fiscal responsibility” is void of content – everyone knows we are committed to staying within financial constraints. How you do so requires vision and creativity.
In case you are interested, here are the men who voted against the continuation of Friday night service…
Tom Spencer – small cities
Dave Kovatch, The Colony
Bill Walker, small cities
Daniel Peugh, Corinth
Charles Correll, Denton County unincorporated
And one more I am working to verify…