The city’s investment in a new and revitalized Lower Greenville is paying off in a big way: Today, Trader Joe’s announced it will be building a new store on the old Arcadia Theater site, to be completed by the end of next year.
This announcement is proof that they city’s investment in transforming Lower Greenville is paying off with dividends. The new streetscape improvements look terrific – wider sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, crosswalks, benches, and bike racks (soon to be installed) have completely transformed this stretch of Lower Greenville. These physical changes, in combination with the new late-night permiting process, have created a neighborhood-oriented, pedestrian-friendly environment that is attractive to retailers, like Trader Joe’s.
I remember talking with several retail brokers and restauranteurs a couple of years ago who told me the reasons they wouldn’t relocate to Lower Greenville: the perception of high crime; the fact that it was primarily a regional late-night bar strip; and the run-down appearance of the street. We have changed that. The new late-night permitting process is reducing crime and helping rebalance the day-night business ratio. The street and sidewalk improvements have cleaned up the street and created a welcoming environment for the surrounding neighbors.
But the proof is in the results: Of all the places Trader Joe’s could have moved to in Dallas – the Park Cities, Uptown, Lakewood, Far North Dallas, and elsewhere – they chose to come to Lower Greenville. Without question, this is a direct result of the changes we’ve made, and I have no doubt that without these changes, they would not have come. And this is just the type of business we wanted to attract — a daytime business focused on serving the surrounding community. It’s also a perfect fit for East Dallas.
But there are other, more subtle signs that our investment in Lower Greenville is paying off: Over the last two weeks I’ve seen some things that I’ve never seen on Lower Greenville: A dad with a baby stroller, relaxing on one of the new benches. Girls walking their dogs along the new sidewalks. An elderly couple taking a stroll. These are the types of things you see all the time in the surrounding neighborhood, but never on Lower Greenville. Now, Lower Greenville is once again part of the neighborhood.
It’s a great time to be in East Dallas. Welcome to the neighborhood, Trader Joe’s.
In June, the Dallas City Council approved a sweeping bike plan update that envisions hundreds of miles of on-street bike lanes that will link neighborhoods with off-street trails, DART light rail, schools, the downtown business district, public parks, and major city venues. Bike ridership has spiked in cities that have invested in bicycle infrastructure, and the hundreds of people who turned out to the dozens of city meetings in anticipation of Dallas’ bike plan were a testament to the pent up demand for such options.
At more than one of these meetings, after the bold vision of new bike lanes, buffered bike paths, and cycle tracks were laid out, an audience member would invariably (and reasonably) ask, “So, all this is great, but how do you propose to pay for it?”
Our consultant team responded: Future bond funds. Grants. And a little something called “routine accommodation.”
“Routine accommodation,” the lead consultant explained at the May 2010 public meeting, would allow much of the bike plan to be implemented as part of our city’s regular street re-paving and re-striping process. By piggy-backing on Dallas’ already-scheduled (and -budgeted) street maintenance, we would see the bike plan implemented quickly at negligible cost, then implement the rest of the plan as future funding allowed.
Fast forward to today, and a different tune is playing at Dallas City Hall. Now we learn that “routine accommodation” ain’t so routine, or cheap. Or accommodating. In fact, it’s going to cost millions if we want to piggy-back onto regular street re-striping. According to city staff, it costs $871 per mile to stripe a typical four lane street. To paint a bike lane on that same street would cost$24,500. Yes, you did read that right.
I’m at a loss to understand why this is being explained months after the city council approved the bike plan. I mean, city staff attended every one of the bike plan meetings. Never once, when the consultants assured the audience that “routine accommodation” would allow us to quickly and cheaply implement the bike plan, never once did city staff jump up and say, “That’s not feasible, Mr. Consultant. By our estimates it’ll cost about 30 times more to put in bike lanes as we restripe, and we don’t have the funding so don’t give anyone false hope.”
Not once did any staff member pull me or my co-chair Sheffie Kadane aside and say, “Look, this ‘routine accommodation’ business is much more costly than is being explained here. We’ll get you the actual figures but the bottom line is, striping new bike lanes costs a lot of money even if we’re already restriping the road.”
Never during the city council approval process earlier this year did staff interject that “routine accommodation” was a farce. Nor did staff shed any light on the matter during this year’s budget process.
It wasn’t until Fort Worth Avenue was about to be restriped without its planned bike lanes — and several of us councilmembers questioned why — that staff explained how incredibly expensive and onerous it is to put in bike lanes as part of regular street maintenance.
Now, I’m being somewhat facetious here because I still don’t buy that bike lanes are quite as expensive as staff is claiming. But putting that aside, what really troubles me is the utter silence from city staff as we went through the motions of approving a robust and exciting bike plan, if they knew that they would ultimately object to “routine accommodation” as impractical.”
When I asked why no one spoke up during the bike plan process, the silence was deafening.
It seems to me, the city loves to plan, plan, and plan some more. It’s implementing we’ve got a problem with.
Today at 1pm Dallas time, the federal government is conducting a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System in cooperation with local authorities. The three-minute test will run simultaneously on all radio and TV stations. You will also hear the outdoor emergency sirens.
This system test is the first of its kind designed to broadcast a nationwide message to the American public. The test message on TV might not indicate that it is just a test, so there is concern that the lack of an explanation might create panic.
Please share this information with your family and friends so they are aware of the test.
If you haven’t read D Magazine‘s most recent article on the Trinity Toll Road, go out and buy the August issue — the one with Dirk on the cover — right now. I’ll wait.
You read that right. You were expecting maybe “Let’s Keep Hoping and Wishing for the Trinity Toll Road: It Just Might Happen,” but no, D Magazine threw us all a curve ball. Instead we got four solid reasons to abandon the road and get moving on the park:
1. The Trinity Project’s funding does not depend on the toll road.
2. There’s no money to build it.
3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is never going to approve it.
4. Highways are bad for cities.
The piece is very well written by new D scribe Michael Mooney. (And no, I don’t just say that because he wrote “Hunt has been right all along when it comes to the toll road.” But that particular line was particularly well written. Kudos, Mike.) The only thing missing was an acknowledgment that The Dallas Observer‘s Jim Schutze has been right about the road since it was first proposed, but that may have been too much to ask for.
I know Jim and Buzz at The Observer are not as enthusiastic about this article as I am — noting that it didn’t come from publisher Wick Allison hisownself and there was no mea maxima culpa – but that didn’t bother me and here’s why: This position represents a profound sea change for D Magazine. D has long been one of the primary cheerleaders for this road and a good barometer for the powers-that-be. If D is confident enough to take this unequivocal stand, that means the support for this road has all but evaporated.
Now, according to D, we should look at modern transportation alternatives and get moving on the park:
Scrapping the road won’t speed up the parks and the lakes. Nor will it delay them. And there’s good news: because the original bond involved so many aspects of development, the money that remains can be redirected to other parts of the project. It can be used to get a fresh, 21st-century take on better transportation options.
History will show that the vote to build this toll road was a mistake. An expensive error, sure, but hardly the city’s worst. Now it’s time to move on.
If you would like to have your voice heard on the issue of gas drilling in Dallas, now is your opportunity to speak before the City of Dallas’ Gas Drilling Taskforce:
Tuesday, August 2
7pm
Dallas City Hall
1500 Marilla St. L1 Conference Room (the sub-level near the parking garage)
You don’t have to sign up beforehand to speak, so please plan to attend!
Yesterday, the Dallas City Council approved the members of the city’s gas drilling taskforce, which will evaluate the environmental and safety concerns related to urban gas drilling and craft an ordinance to recommend to the Council.
Six months ago, it didn’t look like we were going to get a taskforce. Luckily, after some discussion and persuasion, the Council agreed that a taskforce was necessary. So after debate, we agreed on the composition:
3 subject-matter experts;
3 environmentalists OR citizens affected by the issue;
3 representatives of the industry OR people with experience working in the industry such as oil & gas attorneys;
1 chair (former councilmember Lois Finkelman);
1 Park Board representative (unfortunately, much of the public land leased for gas drilling is parkland)
The selection committee was chaired by Linda Koop and included councilmembers Neumann, Natinsky, Medrano, Davis, Kadane, Margolin, and me.
Councilmember Koop did a great job ensuring the application and selection process was open and transparent — posting the application online and encouraging the public to apply (as opposed to a closed process where interviewees had to be nominated by councilmembers).
A little over a month ago, we had an open call for applications. After receiving 68 applications, we narrowed down the field to 18 interviews. At the request of then-councilmember-elect Scott Griggs and Councilmember Delia Jasso, we added John McCall, an Oak Cliff resident, to the list of interviewees, making it 19.
After interviewing everyone, each councilmember voted for their nine picks, and that was tallied to get the nine taskforce members. There was a tie for one of the environmental/citizen positions (Louis McBee and John McCall), and at Scott Griggs’ request we selected John McCall.
Finally, the council had to vote to approve the taskforce. The vote was originally scheduled for our last voting meeting of the council term (last week), but at the request of then-councilmember-elect Scott Griggs, we moved the vote to our Inaugural meeting so that he could participate.
Yesterday the Council voted to approve the recommendation of the selection committee.
Councilmember Griggs had proposed adding a person from the Mountain Creek area since it is most affected by this issue due to its place above the Barnett Shale natural gas formation.
I agree with that sentiment, and wish it had been made earlier in the process so they could have been included in our original 9-member selection rather than added as a proposed 10th at the end. Unfortunately, there were not enough votes on the council to add only one person. If we had added another citizen/environmentalist, the majority of the council also wanted to add another industry representative (“for balance”). The selected taskforce is very well-balanced and isn’t too industry-heavy, and if we began deviating from the selection process that the council had agreed on for several months, we risked a pro-industry taskforce.
In the end, I’m very pleased with the members on the taskforce. They are:
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
Former Dallas County Judge Margaret Keliher, who now servers as executive director of Texas Business for Clean Air (they fought the region’s coal plants)
Terry Welch, an attorney who advises cities in drafting strong gas drilling ordinances
Dr. David Sterling, chairman of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the University of North Texas Health Science Center
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY REPS
Professor Bruce Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University
David Biegler, chairman and CEO of Southcross Energy Group
Pat Shaw, an oil and gas attorney who has represented both landowners and gas drillers in crafting gas leases
ENVIRONMENTALISTS/CITIZENS
Cherelle Blazer, a Yale-educated scientist and director of the environmental group You Can’t Live in the Woods
John McCall, an Oak Cliff attorney and past president of the Oak Cliff Conservation League
Ramon Alvarez, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund
The following op-ed originally appeared in the June 10, 2011 edition of The Dallas Morning News.
In 1998, Dallas voters embraced a bold, visionary plan to transform the Trinity River floodway into a vibrant urban park. But 13 years later, a torturous federal approval process combined with a significant funding gap have conspired to stop the project in its tracks. Add to that the recent revelations that local and federal officials were less than forthcoming about the Trinity toll road’s viability during the 2007 referendum, and it’s not an overstatement to say the public has lost faith in the Trinity River project.
We can reclaim this project and win back the public’s trust, but only if we’re willing to change the way we do things at Dallas City Hall. The grander, long-term vision for the Trinity park is incredible, but it’s still years away. We must give the public a Trinity park they can enjoy today, and we must do it as quickly and as inexpensively as possible. That means no high-paid consultants; no elaborate, full-scale models and enticing watercolor pictures; and — most importantly — no multiyear timelines. MORE….
Ok. This is like the fifth time I’ve sat down to write a blog about the Trinity River Project this week. This is going to be a long one, so bear with me. Lots of catching up to do.
First, I was going to blog about Michael Lindenberger’s well-written article in last Sunday’s paper, “Trinity toll road’s backers told only part of the story to win 2007 vote,” contradicting claims made by toll road advocates during the 2007 toll road referendum that the feds had fully approved the road and it was fully funded.
Lindenberger cites documents (just released after his initial request two years ago) that showed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal officials were much less confident about the road than toll road advocates claimed publicly.
I took a couple of days to mull that over, but then DMN columnist Jackie Floyd weighed in, castigating Leppert for leading voters astray, especially those who might have been on the fence in such a close referendum. “Voters in 2007 toll road referendum were shortchanged.”
No doubt about it, then-Mayor Tom Leppert told folks. The corps says the route between the levees is safe. It can be done.
Well, not exactly.
What the corps said was “plausible,” Leppert and others portrayed as a slam dunk….
But their cocksure conviction did Dallas residents a disservice. Leppert and his allies offered a rose-colored, best-case scenario instead of allowing voters to make a fully informed decision about a significant and expensive project.
This newspaper — and likely plenty of voters — took leaders at their word when they proclaimed that the highway could be built in the floodway. While that may not be false, it wasn’t necessarily true. In the months leading up to the referendum, officials from the corps and other federal agencies wrote early and often that building within the levees would be difficult, that protecting the structural integrity of the levees was paramount, and that this had not been done before.
Proponents of the toll road, it seems, heard what they wanted to hear.
The Trinity has been a hot potato this week. So what’s a girl to do? Well, I figured I might as well get in on the action, so I wrote my own op-ed. I’ll include that in another blog, but here’s my take on all of these articles and columns and editorials:
I’m glad the truth has come out. I wish this had come out in the DMN four years ago, but better late than never. I’ll also say we’re very, very fortunate to have had guys like Schutze and Merten on the case, who dug into this issue during the referendum, who asked the tough questions (multiple times, if necessary), and who knew that just because the bigwigs were saying it, didn’t make it true.
Today at 1pm Dallas time, the federal government is conducting a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System in cooperation with local authorities. The three-minute test will run simultaneously on all radio and TV stations. You will also hear the outdoor emergency sirens.
Wow.
In 1998, Dallas voters embraced a bold, visionary plan to transform the Trinity River floodway into a vibrant urban park. But 13 years later, a torturous federal approval process combined with a significant funding gap have conspired to stop the project in its tracks. Add to that the recent revelations that local and federal officials were less than forthcoming about the Trinity toll road’s viability during the 2007 referendum, and it’s not an overstatement to say the public has lost faith in the Trinity River project.