My Kingdom for a Sewer. But What About My Councilman?

Interesting fact of history not in Les Miserables, the summer musical: In 1848, Paris exploded in riotous protest, and soon barricades sprang up, and hungry, homeless, impoverished peasants began street warfare.  Soon, this Communard-led rebellion spread from city to country to nearly all of Western Europe.  The causes for this rebellion in 1848 were not political, but rather a result of the vast and unintended social and economic displacements that followed the Industrial Revolution, and typically, the cloistered elite had no idea what was happening.  

Thirty miles outside of the center of Paris, in Versailles, royalty for quite some time had noticed a horrific stench in the air.  Standing on the balcony of the Royal Summer Palace was torturous.  Why?  No sewer system. 

That's right, folks: While the city of Paris had exploded in terms of population in only a matter of years, the typical disposal of human waste was--oddly enough--in the medians between lanes of the magnificent city.  Huge piles of excrement made everyone miserable, and combined with rapacious exploitation by industrialists, farm owners, landlords and merchants, the peasantry, no longer willing to be victimized by a qualitative change in their status as citizens, almost took France down. 

The King?  He was to indisposed with luxury (read: toys) to think about actually ruling and coordinating a massive social and economic change that had tremendous political consequences.  Finally, some genius snapped and decided: We need sewers! 

In other words, when a government is charged with "the general welfare" and "the domestic tranquility" and that oddly-ignored little phrase in the U. S. Constitution's preamble, "...for the people...", does not embrace fundamental changes within the purview of its governance, people are eventually going to get angry and force change down the very throats of those too "indisposed" with luxury and special interests to notice that--nope!--they're not doing their jobs. 

Screw the real estate developments, Councilman Atkins.  While we all realize that development in South Dallas is a primary concern in terms of uplifting that sector of a major metropolitan area, we have to use our common sense here and remember the old axiom, "First Things First". 

 The money has been approved for sewer mains in the no-sewer zone. The city staff has even designed them already. But the city councilman for that district, Tennell Atkins, won't allow any sewer mains to be built for that part of his district. He says putting them in now might screw up some big development plans he has for the area later.

The money<-----------------------That has been approved must be some kind of magical money that won't lose spending value over time .Right ?

As in the day it is spent it will still have the same purchasing power as the day it was set aside ?

As a part of HUD's proposed settlement with the City of Dallas, aren't they demanding that the City of Dallas put everyone in South Dallas on the City's sewer system?

Would seem time for Pitrie or some other person affected by the opposition by Atkins might oughta file a civil suit that will give them the right to take Atkins deposition,  learn exactly what his opposition is based on.  Everything is discoverable under Texas Court Rules.  Unless, of course,  Atkins chooses to take the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination ...   Or,  unless he'll tell us what they are,  without a lawsuit.

One of 14 having "big plans" that aren't disclosed is another confirmation that new Rules are needed to avoid giving Council Members an all-powerful veto in their Districts.

I'll trade my Councilwoman (V. Hill) for a Trinity River Park without a toll road..

Trade?? Seems like with Atkins, they already got sewer. Or at least contents.

So Jim and others how is this one guy able to stop a project that has already been approved ?

<i>Which would you rather have: Tennell Atkins or a sewer?</i>  Well, let us have Mr. Atkins give details of his super duper plan for sewers later along with a blank check on his personal bank account to pay for sewer mains if his plans crap out. 

As someone who grew up in suburbs where septic tanks were the norm I guess I'm not feeling the horror here I might should be.

But your basic question is still a great one: what Dallas The World Class City amenities would you be willing to trade in? Just me:

1 - Google internet - wouldn't it be great to live in the First World?

2 - Bikes, walkability - if this isn't Amsterdam, see #1

3 - Sewers - see also First World, but .995 World isn't a dealbreaker

4 - Signature bridges - see #2

5 - Cobblestone streets - is that how we're marketing them now, or are you telling me this is Amsterdam?

@mavdog I never checked to see if it was appealed,  Judge Anne Packer of the Dallas District Courts ruled that just 'cause a bond package promo showed sailboats and board racing,  that was no guarantee or promise they'd actually be built.  Or some other specific that wasn't.  City has right to change it's reputed mind.  

As Louisiana Gov Earl K. Long famously put it,  when Teddy Kennedy's father-in-law, the bag man,  came running in after Earl vetoed a Bill he'd been paid to sign:  "Governor,  my clients, what am I gonna tell 'em?"   "You can tell 'em I lied to 'em!"

That's exactly what I was thinking...

@WylieH On the City's sewer system or in it?

@Voot If this is Amsterdam, where are the Hash Bars?

Jim, that is a facile, empty response. Plz explain the mechanism by which a single councillor can tell a civil service employee NOT to perform some work approved by the full council.

Thx

@JimSX But I thought you said 14-1 really was not a problem

That still is not an explanation. If it's approved by the council, that's the decision of the whole lected government. So why/how can one jerk sidetrack it?

Is this just a nudge nudge wink wink between council members to go along with these petty power plays? Who the hell started this crap, and why do we let it continue?

Still not explanatory.

So, councilperson dipshit can call the firehouse in his district and tell the chief there NOT to give legislated raises to his firemen?

WTF? And explain how/if my analogy is not apt.