If you’ve been watching the presidential debates this campaign season, you know one of the issues that keeps popping up is the strategy for whether to breach other countries’ borders in our search for terrorists. One candidate says we should do it if we have to; the other candidate believes basically the same thing but says: Why telegraph what we’re going to do; that just cuts down on our options.
That’s the same thing I keep thinking every time Ron Natinsky opens his mouth about the convention center hotel "vote no" petition: Just yesterday, he told the Morning News yet again that "I’m not a lawyer, but I still don’t understand how they intend to enact a law in May 2009 to stop construction of a building that’s going to start going up in a couple of months.”
That kind of talk is frustrating, and not just because Natinsky and his pals
seem to have no respect for 60,000 or so Dallas residents who took the
time to sign a peitition asking for a vote on the issue. So what if he
thinks we aren’t smart enough to assess the situation and vote in favor
of the hotel, just like he already did; why does he need to keep saying
that over and over again? How is that going to help his cause and get
the hotel approved?
Anyway, I digress. The Morning News (which also has said a referendum on this deal is a good idea)
reports that the vote-no people turned in more than enough signatures
(assuming at least 20,000 are Dallas voters) to force a vote May 9.
That just so happens to be the day the entire city council also is on
the ballot, just about ensuring that we’re going to have plenty of
alternatives in most of the council districts from wanna-be council
members who don’t support the hotel deal as structured.
Of course, the council must conduct a hearing on the petition
signatures within 20 days of their certification, at which time they
have two options: schedule the referendum or simply approve the
petition as written and forget about the hotel deal as structured.
The timing of all of this is the ultimate issue, since the city
plans to get moving with the deal late this year, about the time the
council will be holding its mandatory hearing on the petition, putting
the city in the almost unconscionable position of launching a $550
million project that at least 20,000 voters have said they want to vote
on.
If that happens, wanna bet how much in legal fees we as taxpayers
will be fronting to pay for legal action against the wishes of at least
20,000 fellow Dallas citizens?
The Wine Curmudgeon 