Mayor Dick Davis and His People Fight to Keep University Park From Looking Like Lubbock

 

One of these photos is of Lubbock. The other is Beale Street in Memphis. It’s totally an easy mistake to make.

I heard from a reader who approached Mayor Dick Davis about the most recent mailer featuring photos of what Dick’s team says University Park could look like if the alcohol sales propositions pass next week. The reader told me Davis was distancing from the flier and that Davis had been told the photos (of a strip club and neon lit Beale Street in Memphis) were of the area adjacent to Texas Tech after Lubbock voted to become “wet.”  Come again?

So I speed dialed Mayor Davis. He told me that “the message of the mailer is correct” but “it was too glitzy.” Other than that, he didn’t have a problem with the content.

Then I asked him about the photos and he insisted they were of Lubbock. OK. Um. So…

Merritt: Who told you that?

Mayor Dick Davis: People. People in discussions we had about this.

47 thoughts on “Mayor Dick Davis and His People Fight to Keep University Park From Looking Like Lubbock

  • Pingback:UP Mayor Dick Davis: Lubbock Looks A Lot Like Memphis | FrontBurner

  • October 27, 2010 at 11:02 am
    Permalink

    Dick Davis comes off as: ignorant, incompetent, and/or devious.
    Is he serious?
    Is he the best we have to represent this neighborhood?

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 11:28 am
    Permalink

    Who cares where the pictures are taken? They look like Clip Art for purchase; but maybe not. My reading of the mailing, and the obvious point is, that UP residents don’t want any part of University Park to look like anythink like those images.

    Texas Tech, by the way, is also fighting the proliferation of bars, clubs, and lounges near the school and in nearby parts of Lubbock. SMU doesn’t want to go through that same experience.

    Who can blame them?

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 12:00 pm
    Permalink

    @N.F.
    The proposed legislation would make it much MORE DIFFICULT for a bar to open in UP. Proposal 1 require that the establishment generate at least 50% of revenue from food, and offer at least eight entrees on the menu. The current “private club” environment has no such restrictions.

    The proposals on the ballot would be a step in the right direction.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    Permalink

    Right, because as soon as beer is sold, neon is the first thing to go up…then the whores come in, shakin their watoosie for the men-folk.

    Drive down Beverly drive in that other neighborhood, where they sell the devil’s medicine, and you’d think it was Vegas, I tell ya!

    Never has this clip been more relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    Permalink

    There goes N.F. again with, who cares about the facts? On this one I have special personal first-hand knowledge. I can prove that Mayor Dick Davis knew before Merritt’s interview that the picture is not of Lubbock, and further, that he knew it is of Beale Street in Memphis. That ain’t right!

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    Permalink

    Merritt, great work as usual, but here’s the deal: Dick Davis thinks we’re stupid. So do the former mayors who signed off on the deliberately misleading flyers, and so does Gerald Turner. They think they can lie to us and that we’ll just fall for it. And when they’re caught lying (as you caught Mr. Davis regarding the photos), they just tell more lies to cover up the earlier ones (as Mr. Davis did in response to you).

    You know there’s something wrong when the “against” people have to lie and cheat to win. And it’s downright depressing that some of my (apparent) neighbors such as the commenter N.F. think that the lies are ok as long as the intentions behind them are noble.

    Regardless of the outcome, a lot of people in this community will remember how Dick Davis and his allies behaved when the next city council election comes.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    Permalink

    If flashy neon clad bars, strip clubs, whores and underage drinking is the real reason “they” want this law repealed, why do we just have boring old liquor stores that only sell to adults at our borders? What difference does a 100 yards make?

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    Permalink

    kmom’s right. I went to Centennial this week, on Northwest Highway, which sits within the glow of UP, and I couldn’t find a single strip club. If there were any prostitutes around, I couldn’t tell. Very disappointing.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    Permalink

    Don’t y’all know? Neon is how Satan finds you faster, and is God’s easy marker for when he decides to do the fire from heaven thing again.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 3:50 pm
    Permalink

    This last Sunday I sent Mayor Davis an email regarding the Beale Street mailer, the text of which is at the end of this blog link. http://www.parkcitiespeople.com/2010/10/20/university-park-former-mayors-could-benefit-from-a-cold-beer-im-just-sayin

    Monday at 10:20am, he emailed me this note:

    “Thank your for your note. I did not prepare, see or authorize the mailer. I have contributed money that may have been used in the preparation of the mailer. After receipt of the mailer I called to inquire about it and have been told the photograph on the mailer is from across the street from the Texas Tech campus after the city voted wet. I would have preferred the mailer to have not been sent.”

    Monday at 3:03pm, I sent him back this email:

    “Just as a follow up so that you have the proper facts, the pictures in the flier are indeed of signs on Beale Street in Memphis. You will recognize them as the same signs as I just pulled these off of Google Images for Beale Street. Here is the link. I have included your organization’s flier below.

    http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1676&bih=859&q=beale+street&gbv=2&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=beale+&gs_rfai

    It contained pictures Beale Street that the blog won’t let me post here, but are in the link, clearly showing the same signs as were in the Mayor’s Beale Street mailer.

    A day after that, Merritt interviewed him, and in her words “he insisted they were of Lubbock.”

    Now tell me how that is telling the truth? We deserve better and he knows better.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    Permalink

    @NF
    I was a senior a Tech when liquor by the drink passed in the spring of 1972. When I returned for Law School the following fall, you could hardly tell that it had passed. While there were a few new bars, Lubbock did not begin to resemble Las Vegas or Beale Street. In fact, the first bar to open in Lubbock was owned, in part, by Kent Hance. Yes, the same Kent Hance who is now the Chancellor of Tech.
    We did see the same knid of scare tactics from the people who opposed the passage of the proposal, including a wrecked car on a podium in the parking lot of the First Baptist Church and persons at the polls intefering with people trying to vote for that devil, whiskey. We also learned after the election that the churches and the liquor stores at The Strip had pooled their resources to try and defeat the sale of liquor within the city limits.
    These proposals will not bring about the end of the world as we know it!

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 7:37 pm
    Permalink

    Neal,

    Your SO right, but if it is the same old crew running ever time you can’t vote them out.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 8:22 pm
    Permalink

    So, the bottom line seems to be that some rather rude people owe Dick Davis an apology for falsely accusing him.

    I’m still interested in finding out why what pictures are shown in a mailer make a bit of difference when they illustrate a concept. My copy of the mailing didn’t identify the location of the pictures. It’s a big So What and Who Cares.

    It must be open season on nits.

    Buddy, looking at my copy of the brochure, there is not one picture; there are five. (The lines around them will make it easier for you to count.) Again, so what if they are of Memphis, or Waco, or Boston, or Lubbock, or Ann Arbor or what? They illustrate an idea, and don’t seem to be a travelogue. It’s quite fair to ask why Dick Davis should believe you about anything, given the content of so many of your nasty posts.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 8:58 pm
    Permalink

    I just learned from a neighbor that former University Park Mayor Don Houseman has abandoned the Pro-Bars side, endorsed the Anti-Bars side, and has even made a nice contribution.

    That’s the current Mayor, and seven of the nine living former Mayors opposing the law changes, and only two are supporting.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 9:13 pm
    Permalink

    N.F. Explain please. What’s the apology for?

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 9:34 pm
    Permalink

    N.F. Oh you are a sad case. I’m afraid to say that I’ve given up on you. Did I not give you the evidence that our current Mayor, at least this time and on this subject, has a problem telling the truth. You don’t care about the truth. It just ain’t in you my friend.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 10:11 pm
    Permalink

    Maybe because I grew up in a “dry” town, I”m happy to say I voted NO in early voting. It’s just not a big deal. We don’t need it. It will forever change the 7-11 on Hillcrest. For the worse.

    so have you all voted yet? Let’s see what happens –

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 10:14 pm
    Permalink

    By the way, it would be nice to know who is supporting the Davis/Coffee side with money. Their PAC report was due on Monday. It is late. The papers have been asking them for it because the papers are coming up to a print deadline, with no response. Hummmm! Gosh, if I didn’t know better, I might think that they don’t want something in there to make the papers.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 10:17 pm
    Permalink

    NF,
    You, Dick Davis and 7 of the 9 former mayors would have been opposed to the invention of the wheel if it was proposed.
    I will vote. I’m planning on voting “yes”, mainly because the props tighten laws, not open them up. I also think the TABC regs are archaic and oppressive. If you can actually enlighten me as to why I should change my vote, then please give me a reason. Note I said reason. Not innuendo and sky is falling scare tactics, but actual reason(s).
    As I understand(if I’m wrong, please tell me), I can open a bar tomorrow in UP.
    If the “yes”s win, I can’t unless I have a kitchen and sell 50% food and have 8 entrees on a menu.
    If the “no”s win in the election, I can still open said bar.
    Hmmm, maybe I just changed my own mind. Thank you NF, former mayors and most of all…Dick. Maybe I should try and franchise a Hooters, Buffalo Wild Wings, Bone Daddys or Twin Peaks.
    I will now vote “NO”. Oh, and I reserve the right to not allow NF, the former mayors and each and every Dick into my establishment.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 10:43 pm
    Permalink

    Buddy, without the sarcasm, I got a copy of the Anti side PAC report, and you’re not being honest. It was filed on-time according to the Clerk. It is the Pro side that has committed all of the Texas Election Law violations, has taken corporate contributions, concealed its source of funds, hid its expenditures, and which has over 60% of its funding from outside University Park and Texas. According to the County, the Pro side raised and spent money in violation of Texas Law without filing a treasurer or a PAC.

    The Anti side has accepted no outside contributions, is 100% entirely funded by individuals living in University Park, has filed its reports in a timely manner, and is operating within the law.

    I have good friends on both sides, so I hate to see the Pro “leaders” jeapordizing fine people who believe in following the law.

    Pull the reports yourself and see. But, you’re dead wrong that the Anti side didn’t file on time.

    In fact, some nut job here said something about “special intererests” on the Anti side. The facts are, ALL of the special interests are on the Pro side.

    Reply
  • October 27, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    Permalink

    Grump, the props don’t at all tighten the laws. They seriously erode them in terms of under aged drinking and identification. (Unlike some people, I actually checked out the facts before I voted.)

    Having talked to TABC again, I’m learning it’s all about the money. Bars will be easier to open, the license fees for serving alcohol will be much lower, the more cautious private club identification processes will be gone, and it will be much easier for kids to buy booze. In fact, establishments selling booze will only have to carry eight kinds of snack food to qualify. Also, ALL sales that are not alcohol related are credited to the 50% requirement for food. (That includes T-shirts, caps, pool chalk, balloons, or pictures of old cars.)

    TABC has fewer than 250 enforcement people on duty at any one time, and can only answer complaints. There is no way they can patrol restaurants or bars to assure they are following the law. They can’t even answer all of the complaints they get.

    I have family members who have been in the food service business for years, and I’ve watched the alcohol laws evolve over time. They were in business when TABC used to be the LCB.

    My reason for voting no is that I cannot see how these propositions do anything positive, and I see a number of negative consequences associated with them. I have kids, and don’t need drunks driving through UP neighborhoods.

    As I’ve said, the current system works just fine. Why break it?

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 7:41 am
    Permalink

    NF, you already have drunks driving through UP and many of them are the high school kids living there.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 9:11 am
    Permalink

    @Ostrea … yes, and a lot of parents I know, too. I have a list of parents my kids cant ride with!

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 9:20 am
    Permalink

    I wonder if our Mayor will continue to maintain that the picture in his mailer is Lubbock after it adopted the devil juice law? Yesterday, I sent a copy of the mailer to the Mayor of Lubbock, Tom Martin. He responded back this morning with this email.

    From: Tom Martin [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:31 AM
    To: Buddy Cramer
    Subject: Re: Bad Press

    Mr. Cramer,

    The picture with neon signs, etc., is not Lubbock.

    Tom Martin
    Mayor

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 9:22 am
    Permalink

    N.F., can you please elaborate on the statement “it will be much easier for kids to buy booze”? If the drinking age is still 21, how does changing things around here make it easier? Don’t think the kiddies will be walking up to any local counters to buy booze given that the neighbor or the lady who does cafeteria duty with your mom will see them. Buying it around here makes it more likely you’re going to get nabbed by the folks. I think they are already buying it outside the Park Cities, or, date I say, stealing it out of mom and dad’s bar. Also, how will the license fees go down? If you have facts from the TABC, please illuminate us.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 9:29 am
    Permalink

    NF, can you also tell me how the private club licensing identification process gives anyone the warm fuzzies? I recently went to a UP establishment, and the slip I had to sign had a partial address printed on it that was 13 years old. How careful do you think this process is?

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 9:45 am
    Permalink

    Let’s all agree to drop the “I have kids/loved ones/yard gnomes & don’t want drunk drivers in our neighborhood” comment. That is a given for both sides of the debate.

    NF, I’m not a big proponent of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. That’s how we’ve gotten stuck w/ Hair Perry for guv.

    I didn’t grow up here, but I have noticed over the last 15 years that this neighborhood seems to be quite self-corrective. By that I mean…look at the businesses that have come and gone. The ones that stick seem to have a common theme of what is best for the natives. Max’s store has been here for 60+ years(I actually have never been in it, sorry Max). How many similar stores have not panned out? Logos sticks, Ten does not.
    I understand the fear of the unknown, but Big Brother bothers me more. If I grab a beer/wine/liquor, it is not the state’s business. It’s absolutely none of their business.
    I understand trying to curb underage drinking, but we are asking Big Brother to do the job that Mom and Dad should be doing. Junior gets a MIP, find out where he/she got the booze and throw down the hammer. The sewing circle that is this neighborhood can ruin a business in no time by making them a pariah.
    I don’t have a business interest in this outcome. However, any time I can try to tell an intrusive Big Brother to take a hike, I will.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 9:54 am
    Permalink

    Buddy, I don’t think it’s Lubbock, but I don’t know why it matters where it is. Nothing on the brochure said or suggested where it was. Whatever it is, I’m sure the Anti people had to pay for it unless they sent a photographer to all of those places to shoot the pictures.

    If it’s really so important to you, why not pick up the phone, call Dick Davis, and ask him why he thinks it’s Lubbok. I can’t imagine why he would intentionally lie about something like that, and I doubt he spends a lot of time at bars in either Lubbock or Memphis so that he would recognize them.

    AMD, it’s been my experience and that of others in my neighborhood that the private club verification process in dry areas does more to protect against underaged drinking than at bars in wet areas. I don’t think any of the protections are perfect, but they are more careful in dry areas than in wet areas for obvious reasons.

    I didn’t ask TABC when the licenses officially go down if the props pass. But, you can call TABC and ask them. There’s an office in Dallas, and the main office in Austin.

    All I know is that they do go down.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 10:01 am
    Permalink

    NF- Below is the text of an email from Carolyn Beck, Director of Communications and Governmental Relations for the TABC. Her number is listed below so drop a dime any time to confirm:

    “A private club permit authorizes the sale of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests. Private clubs may be operated as bars, but they are required provide regular food service for its members, but it doesn’t have to be a restaurant.”
    “A mixed beverage permit authorizes the sale of alcoholic beverages to the general public. However, a food and beverage certificate requires that less than half of the gross receipts can come from the sale of alcoholic beverages. It must be a true restaurant, not a bar. No fewer than eight different entrees per meal period must be available to customers must be available to customers, and food service facilities must be maintained on the premises.”
    Carolyn Beck
    Director of Communications and Governmental Relations Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 512-206-3347

    Folks, here is the exact wording of Proposition 2:

    “The legal sale of mixed beverages in restaurants by food and beverage certificate holders only.”
    Which means- Beer, malt liquor, wine and distilled spirits only in a restaurant.

    Here is the law covering the food service requirements for both permits:

    CHAPTER 32. PRIVATE CLUB REGISTRATION PERMIT
    Sec. 32.03. QUALIFICATIONS FOR PERMIT. (g) The club must provide regular food service adequate for its members and their guests.

    CHAPTER 28. MIXED BEVERAGE PERMIT
    Sec. 28.18. FOOD AND BEVERAGE CERTIFICATE. (a) A holder of a mixed beverage permit may be issued a food and beverage certificate by the commission if the gross receipts of mixed beverages sold by the holder are 50 percent or less of the total gross receipts from the premises.
    (b) An applicant or holder of a food and beverage certificate shall have food service facilities for the preparation and service of multiple entrees. The commission shall adopt rules as necessary to assure that the holder of a food and beverage certificate maintains food service on the premises for which a food and beverage certificate has been issued.

    And here is what the TABC has to say about age verification:

    State Law
    Texas state law does not require that a person over 21 provide any identification to purchase alcohol in Texas. There is nothing in the law that declares specific forms of ID as “valid” for an alcohol purchase.

    The proof of identification may include a driver’s license issued by any state, a U.S. passport, a military identification card or any other ID issued by a state or the federal government.

    For that reason, since store clerks, wait staff, and bartenders can be held criminally liable for selling alcohol to a minor, they often require a photo ID issued by a governmental agency, to prove that the person really is 21.

    What’s acceptable in any establishment is a matter of that establishment’s private business policies. If the patron is obviously over 21, the establishment may not require any ID at all.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 10:06 am
    Permalink

    @N.F.

    I’ve been to the Dallas County Board of Elections (where PAC files are kept), and could not find the campaign finance reports for Mayor Coffee/Kelly Walker’s PAC. I spoke with elections administrator Bruce Sherbet, who checked the file four times over two days to ensure I was correct in my assessment.

    Sherbet went so far as to call University Park officials, to check if the reports had been erroneously filed there.
    If Mayor Coffee’s PAC did file them correctly and I’m mistaken, please let me know; I’d like to see them.

    Two stories (regarding this topic) will run in this week’s Park Cities People: one breaking down each proposition and the private club law, and one regarding the finances of each side. I hope you all find them informative.

    Thanks for the banter.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 10:11 am
    Permalink

    NF, you are saying you are speaking from experience with the private club verification process. I am simply asking you to share your experience. You seem to believe that it is provides protection, and I am trying to understand how. If we’re going to use a position to bolster support for a no vote, please help me to understand how you came to your conclusion (I haven’t voted yet). Only one person in a party has to present ID at a restaurant, so where does the sense of protection come from? How are permitted premises “more careful” in dry areas than wet areas? Are you saying that Lubbock has less college student drinking than Austin because it is dry? With so little to do in Lubbock other than drink, I don’t believe that is the case.

    If you’ve spoken with the TABC, I would like to understand the statement “bars will be easier to open” as well. The changes here do NOT change overall liquor licensing requirements–which are quite stringent and often nonsensical. The hurdles to receive a liquor license are not much different for private clubs versus a standard liquor license; the only difference that I can recall is operational paperwork. I dealt with each type of establishment in the past, and patrons still bought booze pretty much the same.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 10:49 am
    Permalink

    Bradford, I don’t have my copy in front of me, but I believe it was filed Monday at 4:25 with the Dallas County Clerk, one of two places where it could be legally filed. The copies of both campaign filings I have came from a friend in the campaign. But, I DID call the Clerk’s office to verify the filing.

    I hope as much interest will be shown to the repeated and multiple Election Law violations by the Pro side; I’m sure they will.

    I also called a friend with the campaign to let them know you were unable to locate the filings. They may be calling you. I hope that’s okay.

    Did you also get word that Former Mayor Don Houseman has jumped ship from the Pro side, and has endorsed the Anti side (including giving them a check)?

    Thanks, as well, for your contributions to the discussion and your stories.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 10:59 am
    Permalink

    @NF

    I’m in the process of receiving the documents, and if they back up your point I will issue a correction to this week’s story. I spoke with Bruce Sherbet, who said there was a failure between the county clerk and the board of elections in transferring the file in a timely manner.

    Readers: As soon as I receive the finance report for Mayor Coffee’s PAC, I will post them. Thanks for your patience.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 11:21 am
    Permalink

    Grump, if you are really worried about big brother, plan to pay cash for your booze. Using your credit card and worried about privacy? Forget it. Think about Skyward in our schools…And AMD – I dont think Lubbock will appreciate your comment of their not being anything there to do but drink. Get some class and stop bashing a good town.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 11:25 am
    Permalink

    @Grump, Neal, BM and the rest talking about who we elect:

    There WERE alternatives to who we could elect in this past election. For the first time in about 20 years, there was opposition to the slate of candidates that the “Community League” funds and ensures will get elected. There were three alternative candidates. I voted for those three (and only those three). I wish more had.

    Regardless of the year, the mayor, the council, and all of the important committees follow in lockstep with what the Community League instructs them. This may or may not be for the good of the city as a whole, but it’s clear that the Community League dictates what happens. I expect this Tuesday will be no different, but it would be a good indicator of the future if the city’s residents spoke up and said that we have a mind of our own. Then perhaps at the next election for council and mayor, the citizens will again remember and try to pick a couple outsiders instead of people who will just do what they’re told, even if it means lying.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 12:56 pm
    Permalink

    I trust there will not be a story in this week’s paper even suggesting that the Anti side did not absolutely comply with the law, especially since the filing was made by a Dallas County Judge at 4:25 on Monday (according to the Clerk’s date stamp), prior to the dealine, and was legally correct in every respect. I also confirmed with the Clerk’s office that the report was stamped in on time.

    I’ll also be interested to see what the paper says about the Pro side that has violated the Texas Election Laws multiple times, including raising and spending money with filing a treasurer and a PAC.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 1:02 pm
    Permalink

    I support both propositions because the current rules are antiquated and permitting sales will enhance not destroy our City. But standing in the booth to vote yesterday, I voted against becuase it seemed like the right thing to do.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 1:06 pm
    Permalink

    The last sentence should end, “WITHOUT filing a treasurer and PAC”.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 2:03 pm
    Permalink

    Resident: I am not sure what you are trying to say. You changed your mind? Or you did what you deem to be the right thing even though that isn’t how you truly feel?

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm
    Permalink

    Well. It’s clear from his/her blizzard of comments above that N.F. is an “against” crowd insider, and perhaps even the sock-puppet of someone very close to Mayor Davis. N.F. has said misrepresenting the facts is ok as long as the intentions behind the misrepresentations are good (e.g. there’s nothing wrong with the fake photo of “Lubbock” because it helps to make the point they want it to make). Shouldn’t we assume his fellow againsters, Mayors Davis and Coffee, share that view?

    We also now know (from Buddy’s postings above) that Mayor Davis had actual knowledge that the photo was fake before he told Merritt that he still believed it was of Lubbock. Furthermore, we now know that Mayor Davis (along with Roy Coffee) are the principal funders of the “against” effort (see here). Davis’s attempt to distance himself from the misleading flyer don’t ring true. He was never merely a passive supporter of the campaign. He was in on it all along.

    I’ll say it again: There is nothing wrong with opposing the propositions if that’s how you feel, although if you look at the facts, I can’t see how anyone would oppose Proposition 2 in particular for any reason. But the mayors and their allies won’t engage us on the facts, probably because they know the facts aren’t on their side. Instead, Davis and Coffee have financed deeply misleading flyers and robocalls because they think we’re stupid enough to believe their lies.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 4:15 pm
    Permalink

    Neal, I’m an insider on both camps. I’ve got good friends on both sides.

    I never said the photo(s) was of Lubbock. The brochure didn’t say any of the photographs were Lubbock. It was, apparently, the Mayor’s understanding that the photographs were taken in Lubbock, and he wasn’t informed that the photographs had been switched out for generic photos available from photo stock companies for graphics people. He is one of the leading attorneys in Dallas, and not a graphics design person.

    So, why do you care WHERE the photographs were taken?

    To date, it has been my experienced that the Pro side has produced the misleading statements. Starting with the outsider (many Latinos) who were pushing the petitions, it is incredible what they said to voters about what the petitions were about. So, you might want to do your own fact checking.

    University Park is not Stepford! Most citizens of University Park value the opinions of city leaders because the quality of life here has been carefully preserved by them for generations. But, people also think for themselves.

    If the current mayor, and almost all of the former mayors, feels strongly enough about an issue to get this involved, I think many intelligent people will conclude their reasons are well worth considering.

    You may disagree.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 4:54 pm
    Permalink

    Dear Another Mother
    No, I don’t think I voted contrary to how I truly feel. I still think the better arguments favor changing the rules and don’t believe that bad things will happen to the City when the rules change. But, rational or not, when it came time to cast my ballot, I simply didn’t feel comfortable voting for the change. I don’t think the vitriol and name calling weighed on my decision but it may have been a factor.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 5:09 pm
    Permalink

    @N.F., please explain your statement: “Starting with the outsider (many Latinos) who were pushing the petitions, it is incredible what they said to voters about what the petitions were about.”

    Where and when were these “outsider Latinos” pushing the petitions?

    What are the “incredible” things they said to voters?

    They couldn’t be any more “incredible” than what I read in the mailing and heard on my phone.

    I am deeply grateful that current and former leaders of UP have carefully preserved our quality of life. But they aren’t infallible and have made plenty of mistakes–remember when they deemed front-yard basketball hoops a blight on the neighborhood?

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    Permalink

    Laurie, the worst case was some guy saying the petition he was pushing was only to get rid of Unicards. That’s not a true statement at all, and passage of the law would do a lot more than get rid of Unicards.

    Another one, who was marginal on English at best, said he got paid by the name, and needed the money.

    I’m still angry that UP got rid of white picket fences in front yards. But, comparing our property values holding against most diving into the dirt around the country, I’d say the leadership had it right.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Permalink

    As a former Red Raider, Texas Tech has always had bars near campus, Lubbock becoming “wet” didn’t change that. The only thing that has changed is that now you can buy beer at the gas stations in town and several liquor stores have opened within city limits. As far as I’m concerned, Lubbock becoming wet has made the city safer since drunk college students are no longer making the trek out to “the strip” to buy alcohol.

    Reply
  • Pingback:There Are No Poor Children In Park Cities, And Other Gems | FrontBurner

Leave a Reply to Imfromlubbock Cancel reply

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