Thursday evening, the League of Women Voters of Richardson, in conjunction with the Richardson Chamber of Commerce, hosted a forum for candidates for the City of Richardson Mayor and City Council at the Charles W Eisemann Center in Richardson. This is a recap of what was said and editorial opinion of what I think were good answers (and bad).
Question 1 asked what are the biggest deficiencies in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan. I absolutely loved this question. I wasn't so enamored of the answers. I consider updating that plan to be the most important matter the next City Council will deal with. Bob Dubey wants to make the Comprehensive Plan and our zoning ordinances more flexible so that City staff can make decisions to grant zoning changes without needing to come to the City Plan Commission and the City Council. Janet DePuy agreed that the Plan needs to be more flexible and dynamic, a living document that can change as market conditions change. Neither offered an opinion on what changes are needed now. In my opinion, the traditional zoning rules that the land use plan is tied to (houses go here, shopping there, offices over there and factories way the hell out there) need to be relaxed. None of our recent developments (CityLine, for example) could ever have been approved under traditional zoning rules. That leads us to make every mixed-use development an exception, a so-called planned use development. Our land use plan and zoning need to not only allow for such mixed-uses, but facilitate them. Stephen Springs bravely brought up the simple fact that in a land-locked city like Richardson, "the only way to grow the tax base is density."
Question 2 asked how the City Council can help ensure the safety of citizens in public places due to gun violence. This was the worst question of the evening. Our elected officials in Austin and Washington have handcuffed local government on this life-and-death matter. The pro-death gun lobby has made it impossible for cities to do anything to deal with the proliferation of guns on our cities' streets. It's literally out of control, by intentional design of the gun lobby. That's not to say that the various answers, talking about neighborhood crime watch, mental health initiatives, etc., aren't good, it's just that nothing can solve the problem without attacking the root of the problem, which is guns. That said, G Scott Waddell gave a particularly bad answer, saying, "The first thing is that you've got to keep those guys out of Richardson." In fact, gun violence is everyone's problem. Gun violence strikes even the best homes. Waddell doesn't even recognize a problem in general. "The more you watch the news, the more it gets blown out of proportion." Tell that to the growing number of victims of gun violence.
Question 3 asked what can be done to address homelessness. Several candidates mentioned how the Richardson Police Department is developing programs for dealing with homeless people, not just giving them the bum's rush to the next city, but connecting them with programs, some with City funding, that can offer assistance or treatment. Springs added how zoning changes can help with creating more housing, not just apartments or shelters, but duplexes and accessory dwelling units, that are more affordable. That could keep persons who are on the edge of homelessness in homes they can afford. Dubey gave a particularly bad answer, seeking to blame the homeless themselves, saying "Homeless people will take advantage sometimes." Yeah, that's the problem, not that people are so down on their luck that they are living in their cars, but that they are "taking advantage." #sarcasm. DePuy's answer fell short as well, spending too much time saying we need to work with DART to keep Dallas homeless people from riding the train to Richardson. Sorry, but that's a way of making DART more attractive to riders; it doesn't reduce homelessness. In one of Waddell's better answers of the evening, he said, "First of all we need to have empathy without judgment."
Question 4 asked if the candidates favored a plan to elect council members from single-member districts. Seven of the eight candidates said "no." Dan Barrios was the lone "yes". Todd Harris Hunter gave a particularly bad answer. "It almost sounds like a disenfranchisement of the voter." Does he think Californians are disenfranchised because they can't vote for who represents Texas Congressional District 32, which includes Richardson? Having all voters of Richardson vote for every council member doesn't lead to more representative government. It leads to uniformity of opinion. If the same 3,000 people elect all seven council members, you can expect them to elect a council that shares their majority opinions to the extent that candidates with those opinions choose to run. The resulting council will be more harmonious, but it's not more representative of the diversity of opinion across Richardson. No candidate mentioned what I see as likely to happen in the not too distant future. Richardson is one lawsuit away from having single-member districts imposed on Richardson by the courts. Learn a lesson from Richardson ISD. For decades the RISD board of trustees had no minorities. Then, the one Black trustee, when he left office, filed a lawsuit. After spending a lot of money, RISD settled by creating a hybrid plan that features five single member districts. Four years later, RISD has two Hispanics, two Blacks, and three whites on its board of trustees, making it look like the district as a whole for the first time ever. Compare that with this election in the City of Richardson. Seven of the eight candidates this year are white. (The eighth has a Cajun father, which is a whole 'nother demographic altogether.) Coincidence or the result of Richardson's at-large system of electing council members? Make no mistake. Single member districts are coming. It's just a matter of when someone files the lawsuit. Richardson should draw up its own plan before then. Not only would that give Richardson control of the change, it's the right thing to do.
Question 5 asked what the candidates will do to ensure more diversity on boards, commissions, and council. What a great question to follow the previous one about single-member districts. None of the candidates drew the obvious connection, probably because seven of them are so reflexively opposed to single-member districts that they can't think out of the box that they put themselves in. Single-member districts might be the biggest thing that could be done to add diversity, not just on council, but on the boards and commissions that are chosen by that council. Instead of giving that answer, we got a lot of hand-wringing about how hard it is to attract minorities to apply to boards and commissions or run for council.
Question 6 asked if candidates support workforce housing, and in particular housing choice vouchers ("Section 8"). No one supported housing choice vouchers. Waddell put it succinctly. "I don't support government being involved in housing in Richardson." He went on to use himself as a victim of the housing shortage. Sorry, G. Scott, your house-hunting problem is not what this question is getting at. The supply of housing might be tight for you, but the supply is non-existent for the lower ranks of the workforce who can't afford even the cheapest rents. Waddell's solution is even more off the mark. "Bring jobs to the city that pay so that people can afford housing." Again, sorry G. Scott, but telling the working poor to, in effect, "get a better job" is almost as tone deaf as "let them eat cake." At least he understood how inadequate his answer was by concluding, "It's not a good answer." The audience laughed, but Waddell was right. Waiting for the working poor to get better jobs doesn't recognize that we will always have working poor and they need places to live. Barrios had a better take, saying, "I grew up in Section 8 housing...If it weren't for Section 8 housing, then I would probably be among the statistics of the homeless." In my opinion, if people can't afford food, health care, or shelter, those necessities of life should be subsidized by government. The federal government agrees. Richardson leaves money on the table by refusing to participate in federal programs. DePuy pointed out that Richardson does have some apartments that accept HUD money in the form of vouchers. Unless and until Richardson makes peace with the idea of subsidizing housing, and works to expand the availability of such options, the working poor will be on the outside looking in.
Question 7 asked the candidates their vision for the Innovation Quarter ("IQ") and Arapaho DART station area development. Everyone recognized the opportunity. DePuy wants to see housing along Duck Creek and at the Arapaho DART station. She wants to see a stronger partnership with UT-Dallas to create new businesses. Dubey said the City is going to "Envision" and the Chamber of Commerce is going to "Reimagine." He said he "is so excited to work with [the Chamber] on these projects." He sees "Green space. Mixed-use." If we want a cheerleader, Coach Dubey has the pep talk down. I wish he had shared with us some of the plays he plans to call. Despite the lack of specifics in any of the candidates' answers, there's an RFQ out. Let's wait and see what kinds of investments the market wants to make in the IQ.
My apologies to Curtis Dorian and Ken Hutchenrider. I didn't mention any of your answers in this recap. On further thought, maybe you should feel flattered.
Rereading all of the above, I realize I wrote less about what the candidates' answers were and more about what I would have said. But, hey, it's my blog. You, dear reader, get what you pay for.
No comments:
Post a Comment