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.

Don’t get me wrong — I like expensive, fancy things as much as the next gal. But expensive, fancy things are only great when they actually exist. A diamond ring is great. My husband promising me a diamond ring and handing me a brochure from the jeweler, not so great. Our expedited version of the Trinity park won’t boast lakes or sailboats or solar-powered water taxis. But what it lacks in extravagance it will make up for by simply existing.

Transforming the Trinity River basin won’t require a herculean effort. The greenbelt between our levees is already lush and beautiful — there’s just no way to get to it and nothing to do once you get there. We can change that.

We can start with a simple amenity that has proved incredibly popular in Dallas: a hike-and-bike trail that will draw runners, cyclists and nature-lovers to the river basin. We can build a multi-use recreational trail stretching from the Sylvan Avenue bridge to Moore Park, forgoing expensive concrete trails for low-cost, graded dirt paths.

Next, we make the park accessible. Right now, there are few public entry points into the floodway. There are, however, numerous restricted-access maintenance roads that cross the levees. Let’s unlock the gates and turn these roads into park entrances for pedestrians and cyclists.

Since it’s Dallas, we’re going to need to create some parking. But instead of wasting time and money building expensive paved parking lots, let’s use some of the existing, unused private parking lots adjacent to the park. We can also designate the public right-of-way along the outside of the levees as parking areas.

Lastly, we must connect our new Trinity park to the surrounding neighborhoods and major destinations: downtown, West Dallas, Oak Cliff, the Katy Trail and Fair Park, for starters. New wayfinding signs and dedicated on-street bike lanes can link these areas to the Trinity.

To bring this project to life, we’re going to have to draw on resources outside of City Hall — people and organizations more accustomed to getting stuff done quickly and doing it on a shoestring. Fortunately, we already have several community partners willing to help.

Among them is Oak Cliff’s Jason Roberts, who will help us construct a great park on a budget. His nationally recognized Better Block Project has proven that neglected urban spaces can be transformed quickly and cheaply into vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.

We’re talking with Groundwork Dallas, a local nonprofit, about helping us design and construct our trail system. This group is part of a national organization that converts derelict land into parks and public spaces, and their volunteers are already hard at work building trails a little farther south, in the Great Trinity Forest.

By moving forward on the Trinity park now, we do not abandon the larger vision, nor do we concede our respective positions on some of the more controversial aspects of the project. Instead, we fulfill the most fundamental promise of the Trinity River project: transforming our most under-utilized, under-appreciated natural asset into a vibrant urban park.

Well, no, actually the park debate (by which I assume the DMN means the referendum to remove the toll road from the floodway) did not slow, even by a day, improvements to our levee system or lack thereof.  But let’s set that aside for a bit.

Perhaps the more important question is:  Is the fact that critical levee improvements have been hijacked by the Trinity Toll Road actually news to anyone who’s been following this issue?

Let me take you back over a year ago, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers informed the city that our levees were rated “unacceptable” under the new federal standards.   The day after that announcement, the council voted to fund a study to determine the extent of the failures and plan for remediation.  It was crystal clear then (and frankly, before then) that the city’s insistence on intertwining the levee improvements with the toll road had slowed flood control improvements for years.  Take a look at the council meeting beginning at 01:59 where I point out that the mayor and council’s fixation on placing the toll road within the floodway has hopelessly intertwined the toll road with the levee improvements, thus grinding critical flood control measures to a halt.  That were it not for the toll road’s interminable delays, we could move forward on much-needed levee improvements.

That’s not news over a year later.  What’s news is that the mayor, city council, and city manager still refuse to acknowledge this reality and sever the two projects.  We can move forward on our levee improvements if we have the political will to put the safety of our residents ahead of this toll road.

In his article, Lindenberger states without attribution or explanation, “[I]n 2007, council member Angela Hunt led a referendum aimed at preventing a toll road from being built within the levees, citing worries about costs and impact on the parks. Things came to a halt again.”

Absolutely not true.  Take a look at 02:27.  No one at the city, NTTA or Corps ever stated that the referendum was slowing down their ”progress” (or lack thereof) on flood control matters.  To the contrary; city staff was adamant that the project was proceeding full-speed ahead, despite the referendum.

So I challenge Michael Lindenberger to back up his statement that the referendum delayed much-needed levee improvements by even one day.  What particular aspect of the levee project “came to a halt”?  At what point did flood control plans halt due to the referendum and later resume and who made those decisions?  What evidence exists to support this unsubstantiated claim?

Aside from this clearly erroneous assertion, there is no news in this article.  The city has known for decades that our levees are in critical condition.  The mayor, council, and city manager have known for years that by interlocking the toll road with levee improvements we are irresponsibly and interminably delaying flood control safety.

Recently, city staff estimated that bringing our levees up to federal standards will cost somewhere in the range of $50 to $150 million.  Right now, $46 million remains of the 1998 bond funds allocated to the toll road.

What will be news is when the mayor and council decide to actually put flood control safety first and not just talk about it – when the city finally decides to cut its losses on the failed, unfunded, and unapproved toll road and shift that $46 million to critically-needed levee improvements.  That will be news.

We must fix our levees immediately. We cannot let the toll road continue to delay our levee improvements.

UPDATE: Here is a link to part of the Corps’ report.

The Dallas Morning News ran a story today about my decision not to use taxpayer dollars for city council-related travel. The story might have inadvertently left some with the impression that I called a press conference or sent out a press release to announce this. I didn’t. Reporter Dave Levinthal regularly reviews how much the council is spending on travel, and he asked me about my reimbursement to the city. I explained my personal decision: that I didn’t think it was right to use taxpayer money for city trips when our economy is in such bad shape and we’re going to have to cut back on city services next year to meet the city’s budget deficit.

To be clear: I wasn’t proposing a ban on other councilmembers’ travel. I was just doing what seemed right to me.

Also, the story mentions a $1300 reimbursement for a trip to San Francisco. To clarify, I was reimbursing the city for several expenses: airfare to San Francisco, airfare to San Antonio to meet with a state rep about property taxes, and a registration fee for a green cities conference in Portland (where I’ll be touring their streetcar system and bicycle infrastructure with Councilmember Koop and DART officials).

With that in mind, I appreciated the Dallas Morning News’ recent advice to me in their editorial “Texans to Watch in 2009″:

“If Dallas City Council member Angela Hunt really wants a more prized seat at the horseshoe, this is her year to show she can broaden her appeal (and fundraising) beyond her East Dallas base. Our advice? It’s not enough to be against everything, no matter how loudly the peanut gallery might cheer.”

Evaluating the Editorial Board’s arguments led me to ask myself some hard-hitting questions. Do I want a “more prized seat at the horseshoe”? What am I “for” so as not to be “against everything”? Who is this “peanut gallery” and why aren’t they sharing their trove of peanuts?

On the “prized seat” thing, I mulled it over and decided that’s not really my goal. I like where I sit. But perhaps the DMN didn’t mean that literally. Maybe they meant it in a more figurative, high-school-popularity-contest way. Like maybe I could become more popular with the in-crowd if I just started nodding my head when bad ideas were proposed. It sounds like getting a more prized seat means toeing the line against my better judgment and resisting the urge to investigate, research, and understand complex, important issues like the city-owned convention center hotel and the Trinity River Project. And restraining myself from publicly objecting to the direction of these projects so as not to rock the boat. My conclusion is that there’s enough of that already. I like my seat just fine.

But I did appreciate the DMN’s point that “It’s not enough to be against everything.” That is very true. So I wanted to take a moment to be clear about what I am for:

• Transparent, open government.
• A lean city budget that anticipates less money flowing into the city coffers due to a tight economy, rather than an overly optimistic budget that requires cutting services mid-year.
• A dramatically expanded code enforcement department that is funded with more than 1% of the overall city budget, like, say 5% or more.
• A convention center hotel that doesn’t put taxpayers at risk if it fails.
• A Trinity River Project that gives the people of Dallas what they were promised in 1998: A vast, beautiful urban park with lakes and sailboats.

Those are just a few. I’ve got more, but that’s for another blog.

I was, however, more than a little surprised by the Editorial Board’s comment about the peanut gallery. For those who like definitions, a peanut gallery is “a group of people whose opinions are considered unimportant.” So who is this peanut gallery the Editorial Board was referring to? I certainly hope it’s not my constituents. Because they are my bosses, and whether the DMN likes it or not, that’s who I answer to. If my bosses are “cheering,” then I’m doing my job.

The “peanut gallery” barb struck me not only as presumptuous, but as elitist. If a small group of wealthy, powerful Dallasites were cheering, I’m betting the Editorial Board would find that reassuring. But the unwashed taxpaying masses? Not so much. Perhaps they think I should aspire to win the approval of the Dallas Citizens Council, or better yet, a coterie of editorial writers, most of whom don’t live in Dallas. I’ve given it some thought, and I’ll stick with the peanut gallery, thank you.

Here’s my advice to the Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: People in glass houses shouldn’t throw peanuts.

As for their advice to me of “Go along to get along, don’t speak up, don’t rock the boat”?

Not going to happen. That’s my New Year’s resolution.

Happy 2009.

Since Mr. Blow had not called me at any point prior to writing his column about Jenny the Elephant (in which — in his words — he was going to “gig me”), I called to talk with him before his article went to print. (I later learned it was already online at 3:28 p.m.)

At 3:44 p.m., shortly after receiving the message from my assistant, I spoke with Mr. Blow about why I considered the matter of Jenny the Elephant important enough to travel thousands of miles to Puebla, Mexico and Hohenwald, Tennessee: No. 1, Since Jenny is our charge, we have a responsibility to ensure we find the best location for her to spend the rest of her life. And No 2. I’ve been inundated with e-mails, both from my constituents and from around the country, on this issue; I owe it to my constituents to be as informed as possible.

He asked why I didn’t agree with staff’s recommendation to move the elephant to Mexico. I explained that if the council never disagreed with city staff’s recommendations, there would be no need for a city council. In this instance, as I explained to Mr. Blow, the Dallas Zoo belongs to the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums), an organization that does not approve of relocating animals to facilities outside of its business association.

Because most sanctuaries are not members of the AZA (due to philosophical differences), the AZA opposed such a move and may threaten to sanction our zoo if we place Jenny with a sanctuary. I pointed out that, despite the AZA’s position, many other zoos across the country had relocated animals to sanctuaries over the objections of the AZA, and even referred him to a 2004 article in The Washington Post on a similar situation in Detroit.

I also mentioned that Jenny is an elephant with special needs. She has behavioral issues (part of the reason she is being relocated), some of which include being agitated by vehicles. The Mexican zoo is a drive-through zoo: Cars will drive past her all the time. The Tennessee sanctuary doesn’t allow the public to drive within the sanctuary and would further accommodate Jenny’s special needs.

When Mr. Blow pointed out that the Mexican zoo did not treat their animals cruelly, I noted that I never said that they did. But I did note that if he had a sick child, he would want that child to go to the very best hospital possible. That wouldn’t mean that all the other hospitals were torturing their patients, nor that the other hospitals weren’t the perfect fit for other children with other medical conditions. It would simply mean he had selected the hospital that would provide the very best care for the particular ailment facing his child.

I tell you all of this because none of it — not a single word of my conversation with Mr. Blow on this topic — will be reflected in his column tomorrow because “it’s already written.” When I asked Mr. Blow to please call me in the future prior to writing his column, he informed me that he knew exactly what I was going to say about Jenny the Elephant because he had spoken to a metro reporter (Joanna Cattanach) who told him what I had told her. That’s good reporting there.

First of all, his statement that “Ms. Hunt seems to have fallen under the sway of PETA” is absurd. I don’t think I’ve ever talked with anyone at PETA about this issue. PETA has nothing to do with my position on this issue or my interest in visiting both the Mexican zoo and the Tennessee sanctuary prior to taking a position on the issue.

Then he notes that he heard second-hand that I find zoos sad, and concludes I’d be a crummy date to the Dallas Zoo cuz I’m such a Debby Downer. (“Wouldn’t she be fun on a field trip to the zoo? Cotton candy? Snow cone? Prozac?” Ha!) The fact is, when I go to zoos where animals look cramped up in little cages and bored out of their minds, yeah, I find that kind of — what is the word? — sad. But to conclude I want to close the Dallas Zoo (“Given her feelings, perhaps Ms. Hunt should propose closing the Dallas Zoo at the next go-round of city budget hearings”) is ridiculous. That’s quite a leap, especially when Mr. Blow never asked me my opinion on the subject (or ever talked to me at all before writing his column). The fact is, I don’t think we should close our zoo, but I do think we should improve it, which is one reason I supported $3.5 million in the most recent bond package to make much needed improvements.

As to Mr. Blow’s statement that I’ve got more important issues to deal with, he failed to ask me what else I’ve been working on this month during council recess. If he’d asked, he would have learned that I have been going through the City Manager’s proposed budget line by line, that I’ve been gathering information on upcoming District 14 zoning cases, that I’ve been preparing for judicial candidate interviews, and that I’ve been working on a living wage for our sanitation workers.

In 1893, a clever salesman and self-proclaimed cowboy by the name of Clark Stanley began selling a “miraculous” tonic at the World’s Fair in Chicago. Promising immediate relief from everything from rheumatism to sciatica, the tonic quickly sold out and remained quite popular until the public realized that Stanley’s elixir was little more than turpentine, mineral oil, and a touch of camphor.

Like Stanley’s tonic, the current strong mayor proposal has been promoted as a cure-all for our city’s ills. Tired of running over potholes? Think we need more police officers on our streets? Want to see our parks revitalized, our economy thriving, and the Trinity ditch rebuilt into a glorious river? Just sip a little Strong Mayor Tonic, dab a touch behind your ears, and things will be better in no time.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. There are few things more attractive than change when the status quo doesn’t seem to be working, but this proposal is not the change we need. It puts too much control in the hands of one person, the mayor, with no checks and balances.

While giving our mayor more control over some aspects of city governance may be a good idea, it’s important to be clear that we aren’t voting on the general concept of a strong mayor system. Instead, we are voting on a very particular amendment to our city charter that eliminates the city manager, transfers all authority to the mayor, and renders our city council impotent.

Putting all governmental power into the hands of one person is like sipping Stanley’s concoction of turpentine and mineral oil. It not only fails to cure the problems you have, it creates a new set of ailments.

The mayor’s powers under this proposal are expansive and range from the most momentous to the most mundane. The mayor would have the power to create and eliminate city departments at will, to condemn privately-owned buildings, and to hire and fire all 13,500 city employees, including police officers, with or without cause. If any of those employees wanted to appeal the mayor’s decision, they would have to go before a review board selected by the mayor.

The proposed charter amendment would also change our city’s board and commission appointment process. Currently, each council member appoints citizen volunteers to the city’s 40 boards and commissions, ensuring that neighborhoods from across Dallas have a voice at city hall. Under this proposal, the mayor alone would appoint all 500 board and commission members (except plan commissioners), threatening broad-based public representation on such boards as the Board of Adjustment, Park Board, Landmark Commission, Library Board, and Cultural Affairs Commission.

Most troubling is the mayor’s new authority to enact “orders” that would have the same force and effect as ordinances passed by city council. With no oversight or public debate, the mayor alone would have the power to create new law by decree.

In addition to these sweeping powers, the mayor would also oversee such day-to-day tasks as selecting secretaries for council members and appointing clerks to the municipal courts.

With so much power concentrated in one person, residents who aren’t “in” with the mayor will be shut out of Dallas city government for four to eight years and their council members will be powerless to help them. Right now, there are fourteen other people who can champion a cause or give voice to concerns that may not be among the mayor’s priorities, whether it’s downtown revitalization, our non-discrimination ordinance, historic preservation, or arts funding. If the new plan is enacted, unless the mayor is on your side, you will not have a seat at the table.

Still not convinced the Strong Mayor Tonic is bad medicine? Consider this: Dallas’ much-criticized ward politics, the so-called “fiefdom” mentality in which council members allegedly take care of their own districts to the detriment of the city as a whole, would only get worse under this strong mayor proposal. Under “Boss” Daley, the strong mayor of Chicago, council members who didn’t see eye to eye with the mayor saw trash pickup in their district reduced to once a month, while the mayor’s buddies enjoyed smooth streets and clean parks. That’s ward politics. And let’s not even talk about the corruption and cronyism that can arise in a system with no checks and balances.

This proposal is fraught with problems not because many of its primary financial supporters are from the Park Cities, and not because of the questionable motives of its chief proponents, but because, on its own terms, it is a poorly conceived change to our city government. The argument that some change is better than none ignores the dangers posed by this proposal. The citizens of Dallas deserve the opportunity to develop a reasonable alternative that gives the mayor additional authority while preserving balanced government and equal representation at city hall.

The real medicine of sensible charter reform may not offer the promise of a quick fix that the Strong Mayor Tonic does, but it also won’t leave the citizens of Dallas with the bitter aftertaste of a flawed form of government peddled as a cure for everything.