William 'Bill' McCalpin lays out the benefits to Richardson of having DART light rail.
"This is a ‘win-win’ for everyone in Richardson. The homeowners preserve the integrity of their neighborhoods, the businesses in Richardson are able to locate more of their employees here, the young and young at heart are able to live in apartments or other shared housing in a living urban environment, and mostly important, Richardson continues to grow."Read the whole essay. You'll feel better about Richardson and its future. You'll feel better about our local government. You'll just feel better period.
23 comments:
OK - I can't be as objective as you, Ed, but McCalpin really gets under my skin. He's all opinion, and his pontifications would drive a sane person crazy. Bless his devoted wife for putting up with him. Word has it he's positioning himself to be Murphy's successor - good luck with that - Murphy will be on through the end of his term limits, and, honestly, McCalpin has NO appeal outside of his mama's aged circle. Sorry, Bill, it's sad, but true; accept it. You might want to re-think sitting though all of those council meetings every Monday night 'cuz it ain't going to help you out long term.
Anonymous, I think you stumbled across something. I know Bill McCalpin. He suffers "analysis paralysis". Having served with him in various capacities, Bill will drive you crazy with his over analysis of every detail. You get nothing accomplished with him on your team. He has no tact or diplomacy and an overabundance of intellectual snobbery. If you disagree with him or his coalition associates, then you are branded as one of those "crazies".
Anonymous #1
Your comments have all the value of graffiti scrawled on an alley wall at midnight, since you won't tell anyone who you are and you don't have the courage to publicly stand by your words.
In truth, you have no idea what you are talking about, and are clearly and simply trying to anonymously badmouth a person you don't know very well to pursue your own personal agenda. Fortunately, most people in Richardson are too smart to be taken in by petty gossip.
You did make two true statements - I do attend nearly every Council meeting, which is much more than you do, and my wife does put up with me...can you say the same?
Bill
Anonymous #2 (assuming that this isn't just Anonymous #1 pretending to be someone else), you present a simpler case - you have no idea what you are talking about.
Your characterization of "having served with him in various capacities" tells me this is a bald-faced lie, since I know whom I have served with, and none of them are you. The people I have had the pleasure of serving with both in Richardson and across the world have moral courage, and wouldn't hide behind the facade of anonymity to create untrue rumors and spread false gossip.
It is clear that you have a personal agenda that will stoop as low as possible to smear people that you don't even know. I pity you, for your lack of scruples and intellectual cowardice.
You might be right about one thing, though; if I knew who you were, I might indeed correctly brand you as one of the "crazies"...as it is, you are merely a poor excuse for a person...
Bill
Ed, you may wonder why I bother to answer such unworthy postings. The truth is that I am a private citizen, not a politician. Despite the false claims, my whole world does not revolve around running for Richardson City Council; indeed, I have never seriously considered doing so (if so, I would have filed this time, wouldn't I?), and may likely never do so in the future.
It is clear, however, that my mere existence has excited some primitive minds, who feel desperately compelled to smear my name with lies and crude gossip, and who make patently false statements under the anonymity of the Internet. It's a sad statement on the mental and moral state of a few (or maybe even one - we can't know) Richardson residents.
You will notice that officeholders generally don't answer such nonsense; they understand that when you hold office, bitter jealousy eats at the souls of those who wanted the office and were denied it by the good judgment of the people. Thus, every officeholder deals with such garbage by just ignoring it, knowing that no answer would ever satisfy the malicious gossipers.
But I am a private citizen, not an officeholder, and if it is scandalous to falsely accuse officeholders of being liars and criminals, how much more scandalous must it be when the lowest form of rumormonger feels it necessary to slander private citizens because they might run for office someday, an office that the rumormonger desperately wants for him/herself.
Unlike these anonymous poster(s), who evidently still feel a sense of shame about what they post because they won't sign their names to it, all I have is my good name, and I will protect it. The fact that I do so alone will tell sane and reasonable people of my true intentions - to attend Council meetings and to be active in my City because it's what a good citizen does...not scrawl trash on the alley wall in the dark of night, afraid of the truth and light more than any legion of cockroaches...
Bill
"Anonymous" #1 and #2, thanks for reading and commenting, but I prefer to see commenters critique the message, not the messenger. Your criticisms of William J. "Bill" McCalpin contain a lot of subjective opinion, few objective facts, and are largely irrelevant to the question of DART's value to Richardson.
Just saw these posts - I don't know Bill, but it seems to me that his 2,000 word essays above tend to give some credibility to what Anonymous #1 and #2 are saying. As far as Bill's comments about being a private citizen. I disagee. You see, the moment that he entered the blogsphere using his real name, writing at times about political things, he became a political person, and opened himself up to all kinds of comments and critisms. Sadly, this is a struggle that elected officials have faced for years; Bill, shrug it off - ignore it. As far as using a real name - forget it - remember, Bill, even our friend "Ed Cognoski" uses a nom de plume (fake writers name) - as there are a lot of nuts and "crazies" out there.
"Anonymous" at 6/03/2009 12:56 PM, thanks for the feedback. I think one's arguments need to stand on their own. I don't give extra respect to a well-known name or less respect to anonymous posts. That said, if a commenter claims some private knowledge not available to the rest of us, knowing something about the claimant does help to judge the claim.
@Anonymous at 12:56 p.m.
Thank you for your more reasoned comments. I do tend to write long answers, because I feel it important to give supporting data to my "opinions". Just giving my opinions (which is what the other anonymi do) adds no value...but I grant that not everyone is like this.
We will have to agree to disagree on whether I am a political figure. I haven't run for public office or served on a city board for more than 20 years. If the act of writing the equivalent of a letter to the editor exposes someone to the slings and arrows that officeholders have to endure, then a lot of private citizens will quickly become intimidated by these people, and we as a free democratic republic will lose. Needless to say, I have witnessed this intimidation personally over the last two plus decades, hence my interest.
Shrug it off? Yes, that's what officeholders have to do...but I defend my name on behalf of all the private citizens who might want to make a statement but who are threatened by the thought that anonymous rumormongers will come after them. If I can at least demonstrate that anonymous postings have no inherent value (with apologies to you), then I will have helped the public discussion.
P.S. yes, I consider it a great irony that Ed Cognoski is a nom de plume...however, look at the calm and reasoned way in which s/he writes. What did we learn as kids? "If if walks like a duck and talks like a duck...". "Ed" has shown through a myriad of examples that s/he is reasonable; the anonymi by and large show that they are not...
Bill
I use an alias to provide some buffer from the nuts out there, but, just as important, because I believe that my opinions should be able to stand on their own and not be given any more or less weight depending on who I am. If I can't persuade people from the force of my arguments alone, maybe my arguments just aren't strong enough.
P.S. I'm not sure whether that last sentence is another example of irony or not. Readers can decide for themselves. ;-)
I still like you Bill.
....maybe because I talk a lot too. :) we're kindred.
Destiny, you are a peach...well, maybe a plum, hmmn, maybe an apple or an orange...aw heck, pick your own fruit! ;-)
I am delighted that you, unlike others, do not choose to hide your identity; thus, your opinions - usually heartfelt, often funny, and occasionally even agreeing with me ( ;-) ) - have a real value, if for no other reason than to show that serious public discussion depends on people willing to stand by their own statements...
Let's hope that you and I "talk a lot" because we have something to say ;-). See you at the next civic event!
Bill
So Bill, I have a few questions for you.
1) In what way do the homeowners "preserve the integrity of their neighborhoods" while entertaining the notion of "urban living"? What specifically do you mean by that?
2) And how does one measure those specific benefits? And is there a less desirable impact?
3) What is our local governments' participation responsibility to the integrity of our neighborhoods and what is there definition of integrity?
4) In the 2 decades that Richardson has been involved with DART, what benefits have we received? And can you measure those benefits? And how much has it cost the citizens?
5) How do you believe Richardson should grow and what is your opinion of an acceptable rate of growth? What has our rate of growth been over say....the last 2 decades?
6) What is the outcome of that growth that citizens will find beneficial to living or owning property in this community? And what is the downside?
7) Who benefits from all of this growth most?
8) And how much is all of this going to cost and what is the return on investment of the costs? And to whom?
9) What is the recoup time of that investment?
10) What Richardson businesses have expressed their wish for more apartments and urban lifestyle for their employees? Did the employees expression an opinion? How did you gather your information?
I just want to understand your logic for the conclusions you have made. Just curious!
By the way, I agree with Ed that there are valuable benefits to anonimity when the focus is on the issues at hand. Otherwise one could get entangled with the personality imperfections that we all possess. Depending on what you deem as an imperfection! Some of the greatest gifts are attributable to my greatest weaknesses! Hahahahaha! In any event, one loses the discussion content as one can blatently see in the distracting, irrelavant and off point personal comments noted in this dialogue chain.
Does it matter who I am? Probably only to my mama! :-)
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 12:51 PM, my you ask a lot of questions! I'll let "Bill" answer if he chooses. I'll just suggest that you can help the conversation along if you offer your own assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of Richardson's support of DART.
Thanks Ed. I am clear that my opinion is worth only what I think it is....hahahaha! Actually, I am still forming one as you can assess by all the questions asked. Currently, my opinion is that it is the vehicle to more federal grant money for something or someone. Question then becomes what is next since DART seems to be operating at a deficit and some of the news stories I have seen indicated a lack of conservative budget oversight.
So how about a general reading from you and your followers as to the advantages to Richardson citizens. So Bill, I would have great interest in your responses!!!
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 10:37 PM, I thought the article by William J. "Bill" McCalpin already laid out a good case for DART for Richardson. Your questions seemed to indicate you wanted more financial analysis, a dollars and cents calculation of the benefits and costs. That's been done elsewhere (sorry, I can't give any links without research), but it never settles the debate. There'll always be room to argue.
Thanks Mr. Ed, but the issue is a bit more complex. Yes, I believe that fiscal financial conservatism is highly, highly important, and living within one's means(whether government or business or family) is a reasonable and conservative approach within a democracy. Or it ceases to be such. Heard a speaker recently say, "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth and Socialism is the equal distribution of misery. It is the imbalance of one that leads to the other". So which direction do you believe we are headed?
It seems rather obvious that DART's usefulness can only be measured if you make use of the product. Some will -- some won't. I am not opposed to it's existence, just to it's viability as self supporting.
Within any business engagement there comes a time when a profitability timeline defines whether it continues to play the game. Ask some of the business owners who have failed and why they failed. There is a sizeable list these days.
Let's take the Eisemann Center as an example. Bonds were sold to build the facility; charitable donations were taken to accompany the bonds; federal grants received; revenues are generated from programs offered and after the first decade it still operates at a multimillion dollar deficit. When will Eisemann ever sustain itself? And how long is long enough to accept this trend of negative cashflow?
So back to DART. DART is already upside down and another offer has been put on the table by Corona for an even greater $1m a mile contruction effort around the metroplex and one can smell the air full of tax increases for all.
Does anyone really understand how the dimishing value of the dollar is affecting our economy every day the Treasury runs the printing presses printing notes payable to the Federal Reserve. In 1900 the total tax was 15% max. Today we are upwards of 50% across the board and that will soon change as Bush's tax plan finalizes. And we are at federal debt levels matching almost 1/2 production in this country. And Obama has commited to more bailouts.
There are many economists across the nation and abroad questioning the reasoning of what is now coming to fruition with our currency system. Crude rose over50% (from $42/bbl to $66/bbl) in the month of May alone! The economic indicators are manipulated and results are sending mixed signals through the markets as noted all around the world. Unemployment is officially reported at 9.7%. Economists I have heard say double that amount and this lay-off cycle is not over yet. If 20% of the people are not working who is paying in to the tax system for all this money to be spent?
So Mr Ed, I respectfully ask you what does DART do for Richardson that won't cost our kids and grandkids 3 weeks and 4 days out of a months' work to repay?
I like to play golf and head to the spa and drive luxury cars and fly in private jets and stay in high priced resorts, but I love my kids and grandkids more.
Entitlement is grossly over rated!
OMG! Someone who writes longer postings than me!!! ;-)
To save space, I'll use your numbers (apologies for making the response thereby a little more difficult to read)
1. When an area of single family houses becomes either too old or too derelict or too out-of-fashion, there is a tendency to start seeing a lot of rent houses. Once you have rent houses, then there is the tendency to start splitting up these rent houses into multiple apartments or rezone the area so that these single family houses can be reused for other purposes, or even just torn down and rebuilt as large apartment complexes.
Because Richardson in practice isn't that old, we really haven't seen this cycle here yet - but Dallas has experienced this in several areas such as Oak Cliff and Oak Lawn. Much of the damage done to Oak Cliff was precisely by "well-intentioned" city planners who thought that the single family neighborhoods like North Oak Cliff were doomed, so they rezoned areas willy-nilly in the hopes that some developer would come in and fix up or tear down.
I see you ask for proof; all I can say that this point is that I was a founder member of the Winnetka Heights Neighborhood Association where we began rolling back all those changes by means of the historic district and its planned development...as much as people in the area may have disagreed on this or that issue, everyone agreed that the rezoning driven by age of the structures and loss of owner-occupied homes was a disaster.
But as population increases, it's not unreasonable that people want to live somewhere - and not live 50 miles north of town with the insane commute. By increasing the density in the transit villages, you reduce the desire to convert or tear down single family neighborhoods into higher density. In short, the Council can more easily say to the developers, "Hey, don't develop here; do it over there." A win-win as the developers still get to develop but not in single family neighborhoods.
(continued)...
Bill
2. It's difficult to measure the benefits...because, after all, if you tear down a bunch of decrepit houses to build an apartment complex, you'll never know what the neighborhood would have been like if you had left the houses there for 10 years. Would someone have bought them and fixed them up? Would they have become drug dens? What I can say is that in areas that didn't preserve single family zoning and didn't have some outside mechanism for preserving value (in Park Cities for example there is a self-perpetuating sense of value to the location, so that derelict houses are still extremely valuable just for the land), that inappropriate rezoning accelerated the decay of the neighborhoods. Indeed, in Oak Lawn, some neighborhoods all but disappeared.
In 20 years, what do you suppose will happen to the area between Floyd and Waterview and between Arapaho and Campbell? Many of these homes were built as relatively cheap Fox and Jacobs homes, somewhat small and without much uniqueness (look at Kingswood, for example, where every 4th house is recognizably the same design). As these houses age beyond the willingness of people to maintain them, they will become rental properties and the pressure would grow to rezone parts of it to put in apartments or the like. Clearly, one of the big purposes of the tax rebate from the City for major work on your home is precisely to to keep the homes as well-maintained single family structures.
Why do we care? Because (unfortunately) the single family home is still the largest investment that a lot of people have. So the City has duty to help protect that investment. We do this directly by having police and fire departments, and we do this indirectly by having code enforcement that protects your property value by requiring a certain level of maintenance by your neighbors. The work that the City does on alleys and streets, on water and sewer infrastructure, on public works such as the walls around neighborhoods and neighborhood entrances - all of these things indirectly protect your property value. I have lived in a single family house next door to a single family house that housed as many as 20 young men of dubious documentation...believe me, that does not enhance your property value.
If nothing else, let's look at what other cities have done - and then don't do it when it turned out badly.
OK, I am off to the Council Workshop and Meeting...later on the other questions...
Bill
"Anonymous" at 6/08/2009 2:39 PM, I agree that we should live within our means. I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that. I guess the debate is over whether DFW's future growth and prosperity can afford DART or whether it can afford NOT to have DART.
It is not an issue of whether we can afford to have it because it already exists. The question is how much of it can we afford?!?
BTW, why does "growth" have to go along with "prosperity"? Can we have one independent of the other? And I guess the greater question is how much growth is enough growth before it becomes detrimental sand we lose the prosperity?
Crime seems to be on the rise the more people confined in smaller spaces! Terafurma is my friend!
"Anonymous" at 6/08/2009 9:01 PM, there's a lot of DART expansion that some argue is needed.
"Anonymous" at 6/08/2009 9:09 PM, most people want more, and that requires growth, because without growth, all you can do is rearrange what we already have. Some consider that socialism.
Post a Comment