Gerald, What’s That You Said About Alcohol?

I really didn’t understand the quote by SMU President R. Gerald Turner regarding the alcohol props on the ballot in University Park this November.

“I think it would be best for the proposed changes to be rejected to preserve the character of the community near the campus.”

But now I think I get it. Maybe he’s afraid the area AROUND campus will become a lot LIKE campus. Based on these photos of his university last Saturday afternoon, I see his point.

20 thoughts on “Gerald, What’s That You Said About Alcohol?

  • October 25, 2010 at 9:27 am
    Permalink

    “Preserving the character of the campus” is not something that springs to mind watching SMU kids doing beer bongs. IJS. Pithy observation for an early Monday morning, Merritt.

    Reply
  • Pingback:SMU President: Keep Alcohol Sales Out of Our Neighborhood (But on Our Campus) | FrontBurner

  • October 25, 2010 at 10:47 am
    Permalink

    Touché, Merritt.

    I’m still waiting for Dr. Turner to at least admit that he “misspoke” about the actual content of the measures when he wrote about them in his letter.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    Permalink

    “Do as I say, Not as I Do……”

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    Permalink

    Let the kids be free

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    Permalink

    Gerald is not the only one who “misspoke”. The flyer I got last week from Dick Davis with the pictures of bawdy neon signs and even people at a topless club was ridiculous! None of that would be allowed under current or proposed legislation. (Shoot, the beautiful neon signs we used to have along Lovers are now illegal.)

    Gerald Turner & “The Mayor’s Forum” or whatever they’re calling themselves are just plain dishonest. Makes me shudder that they (including Turner) are running the city.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    Permalink

    @ UPDad

    I agree. Why is a person who professes high morals, would think that lying isn’t a good thing, etc., think it’s okay to turn around and blatantly lie about something “political”. How do they sleep at night?

    So from now on, whenever Dr. Turner tells us something, do we need to “wink, wink” at him and ask “So, is this the ‘truth’ truth or is this a ‘political’ truth?” I mean if it’s okay for him and others to just make stuff up and mail it to us, then I guess it’s okay for them to make stuff up in board meetings, meeting with professors, donors, football recruits, etc.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 1:35 pm
    Permalink

    It’s really wild and you have to wonder why? What do they stand to gain from this not passing or lose if it does pass.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    Permalink

    Hmmm…To be upfront: I didn’t go to SMU but I do live in UP. I don’t know Gerald Turner or Dick Davis. But it seems like Gerald has a job that includes something of a protective role for the students attending his school. so it seems pretty reasonable that he would think that anything that would make acquiring alcohol any easier to be (even to a small extent) as lessening the safety of SMU. I did not interpret his “preserve the character” comment to indicate that he thought there was no underage drinking on campus. I simply interpreted it to mean that he thought prospective student families would like the culwell/chikfila/J.D.’s Chippery “look.” I am not sure what I think about the proposition but I think Gerald Turner seems like a reasonable guy, taking a position that is appropriate for his job.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    Permalink

    Hypocrites on the Hilltop.

    This is your “Community League” at its’ finest trying to run the city and “preserve some false sense of ‘We’re better than you!'” through lies and deceit.

    I predict Dick Davis and all of the grandfathers on council will not be re-elected in 2012.

    This is our community, we are its future and we can make our own decisions.

    This is irresponsible government at its finest.

    No City For Old Men!

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 4:54 pm
    Permalink

    Coty good comments. We need a younger set of leaders, but the positions don’t pay, so all you get are retired old fuddy duddys in there.

    UP Mayor’s race is more a right of succession than an election. Old people get together and deem who is going to run and win. We need to have a 30 / 40 something revolution in UP so measures like this are presented in a correct manner.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 6:15 pm
    Permalink

    @ John,

    That all may be true about Turner, but doesn’t he have the responsibility (along with the ex-Mayors) to actually understand the propositions, and speak accurately about them? I certainly hold a university president to that standard.

    And he chose to weigh in on this to “preserve the character” of SMU (that he previously said he would stay out of since it was UP’s business), yet he chose not to make a statement regarding an issue that he directly controls, which is the amount of alcohol on the Boulevard.

    If he had the facts straight, hadn’t gone back on an earlier committment to stay out, and applied the same concern for UP to his campus, then I’d be fine with his statement.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 6:49 pm
    Permalink

    John, I appreciate your observations on Gerald Turner. I’m sure that he is a really nice guy. But when he took a stand on something that he admits SMU does not get not normally take a stand on, he opened himself up and SMU up to criticism. Unfortunately, it looks like he did it without looking at his own house first and without much research. He forgot about the Boulevard parties that he sanctions on the campus. Did you know that alcohol is even allowed at the games in the suites? He speaks of the danger of “series” of package stores, when (1) neither Proposition will allow for package stores, and (2) they don’t and won’t exist in UP but they do exist today a couple of hundred yards up Mockingbird. He speaks of a “series” of restaurants with “happy hours” forever changing things, when this supposed evil has existed for years with all restaurants in UP, not to mention the numerous bars on SMU Boulevard directly next to property they own and all the bars and restaurants in Mockingbird Station and lining Mockingbird. To be clear, nothing being voted on here permits bars in UP–you have to sell more than 50% food–that is a restaurant. So though he may be nice and reasonable, he didn’t think this one through. I just don’t know how anybody could ever vote against Prop 2 if they think it through. It forces at least 50% in food sales which is not a requirement now, customers won’t have to fill out silly cards, the State of Texas will not need to be informed when you order a drink and customers and vendors will save money. Highland Park is perfectly fine and has been wet since prohibition, which is when I think that some of these ex-mayors were in office. We have other ex-mayors that are for it along by what I am told by one councilman, a majority of the current council. They are just not as boisterous forcing the religious views of a particular church upon us. Let’s not be the only backwards area for 15 miles in any direction. No matter what these guys tell you, that will hurt your local businesses and your quality of shopping and restaurants.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 7:00 pm
    Permalink

    I have lived here all my life and have never driven or walked farther than the Centennial on Preston Road for anything I need. It is plenty close and convenient for all of us.
    You have ignored, in your posting, a lot of what the law says that the city has no control over. That is the issue here.

    Reply
  • October 25, 2010 at 7:01 pm
    Permalink

    @ John

    I’m sure he’s a nice fellow also. But he basically lied about what is in the propositions. This has nothing to do with the “character” of the campus – it has to do with his statement that we will be inundated with a series of package stores, which is a blatant lie.

    Reply
  • October 26, 2010 at 12:09 am
    Permalink

    @ Lifelong Parkie- You hit the nail on the head! The real issue is that our city currently has no local ordinances to control the sale of alcohol. Meanwhile, our sister city Highland Park is leading the way:

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101710dnmetunderagecriminal.29addfe.html

    If that were not bad enough, some of our current and past civic leaders are defending the slippery private club rules that were designed to evade the State mandated dry area rules. Let’s stop pretending that all is well and face the fact that we need to update our laws.

    Reply
  • October 26, 2010 at 5:54 pm
    Permalink

    @Buddy – please correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t everyone running for City Council say they were in favor of the propositions before the election?

    Reply
  • October 26, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    Permalink

    jj: To my knowledge they publicly have said nothing. I am aware of one councilman that signed the petition, but no public statements that I know about.

    Reply
  • October 26, 2010 at 8:06 pm
    Permalink

    SMU’s student body is practically swimming in cocaine. Dr. Turner needs to get his own house in order before spouting off “preserving the character” of the neighborhood.

    Reply
  • November 17, 2010 at 9:08 am
    Permalink

    Just to inform you upon reading yoursite half of it didn’t load in my opinion I’m running win7 plus the newest verison of firefox dunno what went wrong.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Max Fuqua Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *