Is Garland applying a double-standard about when it's cool to be a citizen here?

Appealing puppy and kitty faces, calling attention to the need for adoptive homes, have appeared more frequently on city media outlets since concerns about the animal shelter have been raised.

So, let's get one thing straight. Exactly how cool is it to be a Garland citizen?

On Tuesday night (July 17) Garland city council amended the open-mic guidelines for council meetings, stipulating that Garland residents get priority when addressing council during the citizen-comments section.

Speakers who live in other cities now must wait until all Garland residents are finished at the microphone; then they would have their turn. That might mean they might not get the floor until the next council meeting, usually 2 weeks later.

OK, understandable. As Councilmember Jim Bookhout stated, "Our citizens pay the bills, and we need to give them the opportunity to speak way before anyone else." During my campaign for mayor I contended that Garland citizens' opinions don't seem to count for much. I raised the question about whether city council really takes Garlandites into account. I was glad to hear this councilmember and others chime in about holding citizens in high regard.

I'm happy to see city council put it in writing that Garland citizens deserve special consideration and need to be treated with dignity and given first priority in the city where they live, pay taxes, rear their families, and vote. That's a good first step, albeit a tiny one.

Of course, we all know why the new policy was passed. During discussions about concerns over the animal shelter, some people who did not live in Garland became quite vocal. One Dallas resident whose Facebook posts including videos gathered quite a bit of attention in trying to expose wrongs; as a spinoff, she rankled some city council members—though on the positive side the overall controversy itself did cause the city to dramatically amp up its advertising and promotion of adoptable animals in our shelter (a good thing!).

As we all know, the new speaker-policy amendment arose after some out-of-town citizens became involved in efforts to improve the Garland Animal Services facility on Tower Drive. Many people also became more interested in volunteering there to help out. This photo of volunteers is found on the animal services' Facebook page.

Some others that testified or wanted to on this issue were out-of-towners who had become watchdogs for the Garland animal shelter. Under the new policy, in future meetings these citizens will have to wait until others have addressed council to get their turn. Ironically, as soon as the policy was adopted, only one citizen showed up for the citizen-comments portion of council; her issue had nothing to do with the animal shelter but instead focused on deterioration of her Garland neighborhood.

But wait. Explain this. A Garland resident who had a concern about the animal shelter was virtually shut out during the June 28 public hearing to let citizens express themselves about how they'd like to see Garland's new dog park designed. No city representative present spoke up to defend that Garlandite's right to speak an opinion. The Garlandite's contention was, in effect, that the city needed to take animal shelter needs as seriously as officials were working to create a new dog park. When this participant spoke, the sentiments of those present were vocal and negative: it seemed clear they didn't want this subject broached at this hearing. Garlandites count at public-hearing time too, right? Didn't seem much like it at that moment.

Double-standard policy, or what?

Garland citizens, who vote, pay taxes, and take an interest in our community should be allowed to speak their minds about community issues freely—regardless whether they are of the majority or minority opinion. Freedom of speech is a foundation stone of this country! It was a "hill on which to die" for many of our nation's founding individuals and is one which many of us today hold dearly.

Garland--a place where its residents count? A much-needed look at a possible double-standard is necessary.

Then, of course, comes the real conundrum—our city's tolerance of a variety of high-profile individuals that play a major role in our city's day-to-day affairs yet who live outside Garland city limits.

Don't expect city council to address this matter directly any time soon. It's a sleeper issue that's a hot potato—way too heated for our council to handle.

One of my recent blogs reported that less than 5 percent of those with the job classification of Garland firefighter are Garland residents. Yet through their association, PAC, political activism, and financial muscle this group dramatically helps shape our city's destiny by its over-involvement in Garland municipal elections.

I could recite a whole laundry list of other people too that you, dear reader, may think are Garlandites but who actually are not. At night and on weekends, these business, church, and civic leaders slip off to Plano, Dallas, Frisco, Allen, McKinney, Rowlett, rural East Texas, and other cities some consider more "exciting" than ours. Pinned down each one can cite an excuse for why they actually live elsewhere ("our horses","my children's schools", "my spouse's employment", "my friends", "my elderly mother", etc.).

Many of these people have a loud voice in the direction of our city while our average citizens don't. 

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", as the old saying goes. If we're going to tell non-Garland residents that they must wait their turn at the podium, then let's be kind to the Garland residents that do desire to speak up. And if it's important enough to pass a council amendment about, isn't it high time we insist that those who lead us and speak for us be those that live within the confines of our city's boundaries?

Some might argue that it is illegal for an employer to insist that employees live in a particular place. I'm not sure that rebuttal has ever been tested in court. And I also doubt that it could truly hold water in this era of "America First" politics flowing out of Washington these days.

"A Most Desirable Place to Live . . . Garland" stated this promotional item of bygone days, touting Garland's one-time handle, "City of Beautiful Homes". Lovely homes still exist here. Why is Garland not chosen more often by many who influence major decisions for our city?

Three decades ago when I was editor of the Plano Star-Courier and editorial coordinator for the other Harte-Hanks newspapers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, the publisher made it quite plain to me—and expected me to make it equally plain to my employees—that the management certainly preferred its employees to live in Plano. Some chose not to, and they were not punished. But the ideal was definitely held out for all to understand. Plano city officials who knew the policy saluted it and actually worked together to implement their own version of it.

At that time Kay and I had wanted to live in Garland near my wife's aging parents but knew our jobs would be on the line if we dared defy the prevailing sentiment.

Garland is in the process of interviewing for someone to coordinate activities in the downtown area. I certainly hope that those who hire this individual look for a hire who already lives in Garland or commits to moving here immediately! How can someone truly understand the needs of our city unless they are part of the ebb and flow of our residential life on a daily basis?

Garland, let's stop sending this mixed message. If the voices of Garland citizens count above all others in our community, let's start making this clear across the board—not just selectively when the decibel level is rising and our leaders are feeling uncomfortable. If we don't want "outsiders" crowding the podium at the end of our city council meetings, let's also do something about those who shape our public perspective yet do not live here, do not vote here, do not pay taxes here, and clearly don't want to move here.

It's still a free country. People have the freedom whether to live in Garland or elsewhere. Let's find out why others who have loud voices in our community don't want to be Garland residents, then make the improvements that would entice them to move to Garland—and give them the choice of putting their money (families and lives) where their mouths are! 

This charming redo in an older part of town is an example of an outstanding home for consumers. What can be done to help more high-profile leaders of our city to find Garland residentially appealing?