I have heard from many residents who went without power for days and who were frustrated by Oncor’s failure to communicate with them.  I also heard from residents who told me they often experience power outages and they would like an explanation was wel as a remediation plan from Oncor.  I look forward to talking with Oncor about these issues.

Here is the memo (click for a pdf version):

Today the City Council was briefed on the upcoming 2010 U.S. Census and what it means for Dallas.  Deputy Mayor Pauline Medrano is leading the city’s effort to ensure that all Dallasites are counted.  A complete count is critical to our city and state — it will determine how federal funds are allocated, how many U.S. Congressional seats Texas has, and how the boundaries for our state legislature and city council are redrawn.

A few quick facts about the Census:

• Counts every person living in the United States on April 1, 2010.
• U.S. Constitution mandates Census be conducted every 10 years (since 1790).
• Used to redraw city council districts, state legislative districts, and number of seats in U.S. House of Representatives
• Used for various city projects (e.g., number of children reported in an area determines if city should install play structures or other youth oriented equipment).
• Census data directly affects how $400 billion per year in federal funding is allocated:
   Emergency food & shelter
   Community Development
   Public transportation
   Road rehabilitation & construction
   Programs for elderly
   Head Start programs
   Title 1 grants to educational agencies
• Census questionnaires will mailed or delivered to Dallas households in February and March 2010.
• Census takers will visit households that did not return a questionnaire by mail from April to July 2010.
• Census questionnaire is easy! Shortest questionnaire in Census history, only ten questions, 10 minutes to complete.
• Answers are protected by law and strictly confidential; information collected is used for statistical purposes only and IS NOT shared with any other local, state, or federal agency.

Here’s the City of Dallas Census website, and check out the City Council briefing on the Census.

FIRST BRIEFING: The results of the 2009 Citizen Survey that analyzes residents’ satisfaction (or lack thereof) with a broad range of city services. High points:

Overall satisfaction with city services has improved greately during the past 2 years.
* Among 109 areas that were assessed on the City’s survey in both 2007 & 2009
- Ratings IMPROVED in 91 areas
- Ratings STAYED THE SAME in 6 areas
- Ratings DECREASED in just 12 areas
* Overall satisfaction with city services in Dallas is significantly higher than the national average

SECOND BRIEFING: An overview of the projects for which the city has requested Federal Economic Stimulus Funds.

I was most struck by Beasley’s and Leinberger’s lectures on creating dense, walkable, urban neighborhoods. They advocate large-scale, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use communities that provide a resident’s basic needs (grocery store, drycleaners, parks, elementary schools, etc.) to reduce car trips. Some highlights:

Vancouver has no freeways in or out of the city. They will not expand or widen any streets coming into the city. This prevents sprawl. Contrast that with Dallas, where we can’t make our freeways wide enough, where we spend billions of dollars to cart people back and forth from the suburbs to Downtown. Leinberger called this a form of socialism, where the people of the inner city (Dallas) are forced to subsidize suburbanites who have chosen to live far from the employment center. We could be spending this money on mass transit within the city to make it easier to get from one part of Dallas to the other without a car. We could be spending this money on making our city more pedestrian-oriented and bike-friendly. Instead, we keep feeding suburbanites’ dependency on cars. Not smart planning or an efficient use of our city’s money.

But what about all the congestion this might create? Beasley said “Congestion is our friend,” meaning that busy streets encourage people to live closer in, and are also safer because people are driving more slowly. Dallas’ response to congestion has been the same as an overweight person who simply loosens their belt in response to weight gain: we build bigger and bigger freeways instead of putting ourselves on a diet of mass transit and inner-city growth. Let’s not widen streets in Dallas, or if we do, let’s widen them only to provide more sidewalk space and bike lanes, not more room for cars. Beasley also said that we’ve got to create choice and balance in our transportation system: more streetcars, more bike lanes, more pedestrian-friendly streets. He also argued that creating walkable streets is the cheapest thing we can invest in, but also one of the most important.

The process for new development projects is also different in Vancouver. First, the vision for the city is clear. They have mapped out exactly where they want development (as well as where they do not). They have a ream of regulations defining exactly what is permissible — set backs, human scale design, streetscapes, etc., while maintaining the flexibility to provide trade-offs and incentives for the placement of schools, parks, etc. As Beasley said that in Vancouver, “Regulation is our friend.” Vancouver has serious land development regulations which require developers to create walkable, sustainable communities with plenty of greenspace, quality architecture, adjacent schools and senior centers, and housing for all income levels. They also require all parking to be underground, and have the lowest parking standards possible. In Dallas, we’re fearful that restrictive regulation will not only infringe on property rights, but also stifle development.

Vancouver’s approval process also includes a panel of experts (architects, urban planners, landscape architects, etc.) that reviews development plans and makes the final decision. There is community input upfront, and it is a cooperative process with everyone working together to create a great development. The panel of experts has final authority on the project’s viability; there is no appeal. And politicians are cut out of the process.

This process sounds great, and I wish we could adopt it. I love the idea of setting up very specific standards for development, outlining where that development will be, then getting out of the way and letting the experts take over. With the most zoning cases of any councilmember, I would be more than happy to turn the reins over to a group of experts IF, and it’s a big if, the right planning and zoning rules were in place and the areas for redevelopment were agreed upon. Without those rules and protections, we’re just creating a developer’s dream: speedy approvals with no pesky neighborhood advocates to get in the way, and no bothersome elected official to have to negotiate with.

The Mayor liked the process Beasley outlined very much because it would, in his view, reduce the frustration that developers have with our city. But I worry. We can’t implement half the process (that is, cut out the elected officials) without ensuring that we’ve created the right regulations and identified the right redevelopment locations up front.

Beasley explained that Vancouver put a boundry, or “corralled” the areas they wanted to redevelop. They did this in concert with residents, and also made some neighborhoods off-limits. This, he said, eliminated the anxiety that neighborhoods experience when new development appears next door. Under their model, everyone knows the areas that are targeted by the city for the development, which creates a more certain environment for both developers and neighborhoods.

This discussion highlighted the most significant difference between walkable, beautiful cities with great planning and foresight, and Dallas’ more desperate approach to re-zoning. Both Beasley and Leinberger explained that great, walkable cities are in the driver’s seat when it comes to development. They are proactive, they know what they want, and they are not afraid to say “no” to bad development. Here in Dallas, we are reactive. We do not tell developers “Here are the areas we want to see grow and this is what we want it to look like.” Instead, we wait for developers to come to us, asking to put a denser development on whatever real estate they happen to own.

The name of Dallas’ planning department — “Development Services” rather than “Planning and Zoning” — underscores Dallas’ desperate desire to please developers at the expense of good planning. Dallas is terribly afraid that if we say “no” to poorly conceived re-zoning requests then our city will dry up. No new buildings will be built. We’ll become a ghost town.

But both Beasley and Leinberger agreed that the opposite is true. Beasley said it is critical to say “no” to bad development, both to ensure the quality of growth but also to entice good developers who want to be assured a piece of junk is not going to be constructed beside their investment.

Leinberger pointed out that there is no need for Dallas to fear saying “no.” Leinberger reminded us that we — the City of Dallas — hold all the cards when it comes to planning and zoning. We know what will happen in the future — where the city will put in new infrastructure, where DART will put in new light rail, where we are planning new hike & bike trails and streetcars. But today, developers are guiding development in our city not based on what is best for our city as a whole, but based on what piece of property they happen to own at the time and how they can best maximize their profits. I’m not casting developers in the role of villain here; profit maximization is their business and livelihood. But it is a failure on the City of Dallas’ part to take the reins and focus on the 20-30 areas in our city which, according to Leinberger, Dallas can sustain as walkable communities.

To begin, we must identify those areas where we want to see growth. We can’t allow density everywhere — density everywhere is density nowhere. No, we need vision. We need to get out our map and define those areas where we want growth and craft specific regulations for good development and design. If developers want more density outside those locations, too bad. They need to find some land inside the lines we’ve drawn and work within the regulations we’ve created.

We can make Dallas an amazing, walkable, beautiful city. We can cast off the chains of suburbanism and focus our funds and future on a city with great light rail, accessible streetcars, abundant bike lanes, and amazing streetscapes. But that will mean redefining what planning means in Dallas and having the political will to be more discriminating about development and rezoning.

The question arose about whether it was fair to pay these workers minimum wage ($5.85/hr), rather than a living wage. In Dallas, it’s not possible to live on $5.85/hr. To be just out of poverty level, you have to make more than $10/hr. The discussion was whether to require the contractor to pay their employees $8.16/hr. That figure is not based on any analysis of what a livable wage is within our city, but simply represents the lowest hourly amount that the City pays its part-time employees.

We talk a lot about “economic development” in the Southern Sector. That usually takes the form of tax abatements or other incentives to COMPANIES, with the assumption that the company will improve the lives of people in South Dallas. This is a trickle-down theory of improving the Southern Sector.

A more direct way to help is to make sure that people who work for the city make a living wage. More than 63% of the men who collect our garbage live in South or West Dallas. Twenty-five percent of these men have been working as garbagemen from 1-3 years, and another 25% have worked more than 3 years. They fulfill one of the most fundamental services for our city, and are out there picking up trash during the heat of the summer, the rain of spring and fall, and the cold of winter. They deserve to make a living wage.

The council voted to approve the contract at the minimum wage, 15 to 5. I was among the five to vote against it (along with Medrano, Salazar, Atkins, and Davis). If we had required an increase to $8.16, it would have added $0.17 per month to our sanitation bills. That’s a very small cost to pay to ensure that our garbagmen are making a fair wage for their hard work.

In the coming months, we will have a council briefing on requiring contractors who provide temporary staff support to the city to pay those staffers more than minimum wage. If we decide to create our own minimum wage, then we can cancel the sanitation contract that was approved today, and have companies rebid at the new minimum wage for city workers.

The Council supported moving the bond election to November 2006.

Our Charter currently only protects city employees from discrimination based on race, sex, political affiliation, and religion. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed to my colleagues that we consider adding sexual orientation to this list. By and large, the response I got from the other councilmembers was very positive.

However, like most things in life, timing is everything. Also on the November ballot will be the proposed State of Texas constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Members of the GLBT community were concerned that folks who would come out to vote against gay marriage would also vote against the non-discrimination Charter language. If the proposed non-discrimination Charter amendment failed here in Dallas, it would be a blow to the GLBT community and might have legal ramifications for the non-discrimination ordinance already in place. So I tabled the matter for an upcoming Charter amendment.

I had seen the St. Louis site before, but going out and visiting all the sites, one after another, was very helpful. A number of business leaders are concerned that putting the center at the St. Louis site will hurt businesses and revitalization. The Blue Bell site is not easily accessible from Downtown (it’s across I-30 and hard to get to on foot). Same for the Industrial site, which is far from current homeless services (though the services could arguably move), and right in the middle of the Trinity Park.

When we got back to City Hall, one thing we all agreed on was the need to make single-room occupancy units (”SROs”) part of the bond package. We are NOT going to “fix” the homeless problem by building an intake center, and we would be wrong to try to sell it as such. It’s not a shelter, and it won’t house the 6000 homeless in Dallas. What it will do is direct the homeless to helpful resources (mental health, drug rehab, job training, etc.). In addition to the center, we need SROs to help some of the homeless back on their feet and back into society. Cities that have dealt successfully with the homeless problem also incorporate SROs.

Next week, we’ll discuss the size of the bond package to put before the voters in the November election.

There was a lengthy discussion and debate. Those supporting Mr. Lee’s removal (including myself) argued that Mr. Lee’s conduct on the Plan Commission violated Dallas’ Code of Ethics. Other councilmembers were concerned that Mr. Lee was being tried in the press, that he was innocent until proven guilty in the FBI investigation, and that this matter should have gone first to the Ethics Commission.

I supported Mr. Lee’s removal for several reasons.

First, l strongly believe that we at City Hall must keep our own house in order and hold ourselves to the highest ethical standard. My support for Mr. Lee’s removal is not based on the fact that he is being investigated by the FBI. That is a separate matter that will be dealt with on the federal level. The City Council’s responsibility is to enforce our Code of Ethics. Facts have come to light recently that Mr. Lee violated our Code of Ethics by accepting money from, and working for, a non-profit that was a direct beneficiary of a zoning case he then voted on. The facts are not in dispute. The only question is whether Mr. Lee’s actions violate our Code of Ethics. Our Code of Ethics prohibits a city official from taking any official action on a matter affecting the economic interest of his employer or client. In my opinion, Mr. Lee’s actions violate our Ethics Code and we have a responsibility to enforce it.

Second, as to the argument that this matter should have first gone before the Ethics Commission: Our Charter (Ch. XXIV, Sec. 17) states that the City Council may remove board and commission members “for any cause deemed by the city council sufficient for their removal in the interest of the public.” The Ethics Commission may investigate ethics violations, but the City Council also has the power, and responsibility, to remove board and commission members when it’s deemed in the public interest.

Third, our Charter provides due process to the removed commissioner. If requested within ten days, the commissioner may have a public hearing to respond to the City Council.

ACTION: The Mayor moved to remove Mr. Lee from the Plan Commission. FAILED 9-6 (AH voting to remove). Councilmember Oakley moved to delay the issue for three weeks. PASSED 9-6 (AH voting not to delay)