Cornyn, Perry and Sessions: Who Is Most Conservative?
Republican politicians in Texas have been competing recently to
claim the most conservative wingnut talking point. First,
it was Senator John Cornyn Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) saying that the Republicans had to
become more like the Taliban to regain power. Then, it was Governor
Rick Perry (R-TX) offering secession as an option in the face of a
Democratic administration in Washington. This week, it's Richardson's
own Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX)
wearing the tin foil hat. According to Todd Gillman in The
Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, Sessions sees a conspiracy
in Washington to "diminish employment and diminish stock prices" as
part of a 'divide and conquer' strategy on the part of Democrats. What
would be the point of such a self-defeating strategy? Sessions says
President Obama intends "to inflict damage and hardship on the free
enterprise system, if not to kill it."
As Ray Teixeira, author of The Emerging Democratic Majority says of Republicans, "Their biggest problem is that they really believe what they believe."
Correction: Max Edison and Alex Rotenberry tell me that it was Pete Sessions, not John Cornyn, who said the GOP should model itself after the Taliban. They are correct. I shouldn't have relied on memory and instead should have done some fact-checking.
How about this for Cornyn? Remember Inauguration Day when he used a parliamentary maneuver to delay Hillary Clinton's Senate confirmation by one day, just to embarrass Clinton and Obama on Inauguration Day?
Trash: Not In My Back Yard
It might seem like this next story about trash is related to the previous item about Cornyn, Perry and Sessions, but I assure you the juxtaposition is merely coincidental.
The Dallas Morning News reports that some Richardson residents who live near the Lookout Drive trash transfer station aren't happy that they built or bought houses near the Lookout Drive trash transfer station. Now that the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD), who owns and operates the station, has plans to renovate the 35 year old building, expanding its size and fully enclosing it for the first time, nearby residents see an opportunity to correct their fundamental mistake in ignoring the first rule of real estate: location, location, location. The residents say they just want to limit the size of the station. NTMWD argues that the larger capacity is needed to add flexibility to the system, allowing load shifting during temporary shutdowns of other transfer stations.
Residents want NTMWD to add capacity for flexibility somewhere else, anywhere else, just not Richardson, at least not in their neighborhood. So far, the residents haven't offered an alternative that doesn't just shift the burden to someone else's neighborhood. As long as it remains a classic NIMBY argument, the local residents are not likely to prevail. All the city council candidates, who are elected by the city as a whole, support the plans to renovate and expand the Lookout transfer station.
19 comments:
As is stands right now, that transfer station handles most of the trash from richardson. That amount comprises 50% of the capacity of the station. Why would Richardson want to allow them to quadruple the size?
Andy, why would McKinney or Melissa want to allow Richardson to dump its trash in their cities?
And I forgot to add, that it might be a little disingenuous to fault the residents for ignoring a transfer station so close to their house. As the station exists today, it is fairly innocuous. However, a 4x increase in capacity (which should translate into what square footage increase???) makes a big difference to nearby residents.
Disclosure: I live in Owens Park. However, I live the farthest outlying street before you hit Campbell.
Ed,
To answer your question, I believe every municipality should take responsibility for their trash. This would require a transfer station for each city. One would expect a city to take care of a proportional amount of their own trash. I don't understand the behemoth that is NTMWD. I also am not privy to their agreements with surrounding cities.
Sorry for the rambling posts.... =)
As I understand it, all of the trash ends up someplace else in the end. I presume it is ending up in Melissa at the main dump. The NTMWD owns this land?
Andy, the added capacity will likely increase the truck traffic, although NTMWD argues that the added capacity won't all be utilized, except temporarily on occasion. Residents are right to be skeptical about that.
In exchange, the new building will be fully enclosed, which promises to cut down on noise, odor and escaping trash that gets scattered into the neighborhood and down the creek.
I can understand how the residents want the best of both worlds, a new fully enclosed building and no increase in traffic, but we can't always get what we want.
Andy, as I understand it, the NTMWD is a grand compromise by north Texas cities so that each city doesn't have to build its own dump and transfer stations. If Richardson were to drop out of MTMWD, where would you propose Richardson build a new dump?
The NTMWD is also a collective effort to supply water to north Texas cities, but that's another issue. Where it overlaps with the trash question, would be if Richardson wanted to drop out of NTMWD and build its own reservoir. Not too cheap. Not too likely.
Ed,
As I understand it, the transfer station has already been exceeding its rated capacity.
The enclosure will hopefully make a difference. I dropped some boxes off there the other day and the place looks like a dump (no pun intended). That is a welcome change.
The truck traffic, however, will have more effects than just noise. It adds to the wear and tear on roads.
In the end, Ed, it won't matter what the residents want. The transfer station will be increased in size. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
But hey, we're getting our walls redone around our neighborhood. So maybe we should just shut up, lube up a little with KY, bend over, and take it. =)
Ed,
Never said anything about dropping out. I just am not familiar with the 'arrangement'.
As I see it, the NTMWD has a pretty good thing going with the cities. All of the cities are locked in. What recourse do they have for water and trash service?
Andy, less than a week ago Richardson elected a new city council. Every single candidate was in favor of the plans for the Lookout Transfer Station. If the Owens Park residents weren't happy with the plans, they had the option to lobby the candidates or recruit their own candidates to get a city council more aligned with their thinking. That's how politics works. The Owens Park neighborhood let it happen.
As for the cities being "locked in" to NTMWD contracts, that's true. You wouldn't be able to get anyone to build a reservoir and pumps and pipes and to build a dump and transfer stations if there wasn't a fixed agreement with cities to use it for long enough to make the investment pay off.
Ed,
I doubt Pris Hayes was for the transfer station. She lives in Owens Park. I never saw and indication on any candidates information sheet about supporting or not supporting the transfer station plans.
Part of the problem is the way the places are set up in the city. If I understand things correctly, only 2 places are tied to geographical locations. The rest are 'at-large' seats?
Your victimization angle is interesting and a little provocative. Your statement about the Owens part residents 'letting it happen' is akin to saying a rape victim is culpable for their plight because they decided to wear a short skirt.
Andy, Pris Hayes and every other candidate expressed support for the plans for the Lookout Transfer Station at a candidate forum.
I don't see any similarity between rape victims and citizens not taking an interest in local elections. Such a comparison would be an insult to rape victims.
Three of the council seats are at-large. Four require the council member to reside in that district. All seven council members are elected by the voters at large. See a map here.
Ed,
Thanks for the map. I was trying to find it after I posted. It'd be interesting to know if the additional at-large seats were added after the city had grown or if they were a part of the original city council make-up. Does the city reapportion the districts based on population?
As for my comparison, perhaps I took that a little too far. However, the point I was trying to make stands.
Aside from the candidate forum, where would this information be obtained? Not every citizen can attend such events due to work, care for family, etc.
I did a search on the cor.net site to see if there were any meeting minutes concerning the transfer station. I saw one link to a 2008-08-25 meeting. The link contained no information, other than that the council was going to discuss the transfer station.
So how exactly can an interested citizen obtain information other than going to every council meeting?
Andy, I don't know the history of the council or the frequency of redrawing district boundaries. My guess is it follows the census.
I don't think any candidate thought the Lookout Transfer Station was a big enough issue to discuss it in any of their campaign literature. That's where the Owens Park residents needed to be more vocal, asking the candidates about the issue.
What people did ask about, over and over again, was when city council meetings would be televised or streamed over the Internet. All the candidates supported that idea, so expect something to happen this next term. That'll save you from going to City Hall on Monday nights.
I believe it was Pete Sessions, not our junior senator, who suggested the link between the GOP and the Taliban.
Max is right, it was Sessions with the Taliban bit.
Cornyn has done other things to embarrass himself (and us) this year as the head of the NRSC. So glad we have "Big John" to represent us.
Yes, it was Sessions, not Cornyn. Thanks for the correction. I shouldn't have relied on memory and instead should have done some fact-checking.
How about this for Cornyn? Remember Inauguration Day when he used a parliamentary maneuver to delay Hillary Clinton's Senate confirmation by one day, just to embarrass Clinton and Obama on Inauguration Day?
Ed... I think the characterization of the reaction of Owens Park residents as "NIMBY" is an unfair over-generalization.
I live within sight of the Lookout Drive Transfer Station. When my wife and I bought our home nearly 12 years ago, we were well aware of it. As we sat on the steps leading to what would become our home, we discussed the transfer station, the power sub-station, and high tension wires. These things are not in my back yard. They're in my front yard. We decided to go ahead with the purchase based on the presence of two parks, the golf course, the hills, the cycling path, and old growth trees in the area.
For the most part, we've been happy with the choice. We are able to tolerate the fact that some trash does appear in our yard during the windy portions of the year. Otherwise, it is a lovely place to live.
Expansion of the facility, though, should be considered by all the parties affected. Perhaps the citizens of Owens Park are entering the conversation late, but we do deserve to have concerns heard and addressed. I do not want the quality of our neighborhood to decline, and I don't think it is in the interest of Richardson to have two of its parks and one of the premier public golf courses in the state negatively impacted because it was convenient to expand the Lookout Drive Transfer Station.
I did not give up my rights to be involved in the plans for the Lookout Drive Transfer Station simply because of my choice of "location, location, location."
Christopher, thanks for the feedback. Owens Park residents certainly deserve to have their concerns heard. Whether those concerns can be satisfactorily addressed is another matter. Unless residents offer solutions that don't just move the problem elsewhere, expect others to treat their complaints as a NIMBY atttude.
Post a Comment