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?

 

WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT, GARLAND? Listening to and respect for our citizens always should be the mantra of our city leaders, not the option of last resort

Instead of paying more money to take up the old foundation and parking lots at Garland's former Armory, some wonder, why not figure out a creative way to use it in the city's plan for a dog park where the armory used to be?

The citizen-input meeting on the dog park proposed for Garland's Central Park on Thursday night, June 28, proved one thing if nothing else: how difficult would it have been for our city leaders to listen to citizens in the first place?

Two very valid and workable solutions were proposed at the Thursday meeting—either of which would be miles and miles better than the previous proposals that created such political havoc in our city and gave non-Garlandites a very bad impression of our community.

One of the key choices in the concept drawings presented by Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers on Thursday night was how wide a buffer should exist between homes in the surrounding Embree neighborhood and the park itself—the question that should have been part of the original proposal to start with. And the solution about whether the choice should be A or B? Simple. Ask the neighbors whose homes are most affected. Is a small row of trees on a parking lot enough, or should the rows of trees be thicker? Who knows this answer better than the neighbors? Borrowing an expression today's youngsters have mastered, Duh.

The proposed 3-acre dog park at Central Park will go where the old Armory used to be. This is one (Plan A) of two concepts presented by Pacheco Koch at a citizens input meeting last week. The main difference in the two plans is at the top of the drawings, where  Plan A leaves a small parking lot with landscaping to protect the neighborhood to the north. Plan B eliminates the parking lot and adds more landscaping as a visual and sound barrier.

The dog-park proposal Thursday night also was separated from the more controversial idea of building a skate park in Central Park, too. Last year the two were lumped together, along with an unacceptable proposal to take out a baseball field that had been there for years and was valued by neighbors and the Little League leaders and parents.

In the midst of the tumultuous political dogfight that ensued on city council, Garland lost its sizable armory building to a bulldozer without a thorough evaluation of whether the building truly could be and should be saved.

Plan B, like Plan A, for  Garland's first dog park will incorporate land where the foundation still exists for the old National Guard Armory that was torn down amid fussing and squabbling on Garland City Council last year. Plan B removes the small parking lot (at top) and adds more landscaping.

What it took to get to that point Thursday night—a district in crisis, a recall petition against a city council member, a mayor's resignation, a city council race in which the armory issue was the springboard, and then one sitting city council member stepping in and redrawing a more citizen-friendly and citizen-endorsed plan, with some other councilmembers quietly saying they wish there had been a way out earlier before it got so contentious—was totally irrational and destructive to the goodwill so desperately needed in our city.

Was it really a hill on which to die, Garland? Was it really worth all the heartache that ensued?

The current discussion provides a choice about how much to landscape this area north of the proposed dog park to protect the nearby Embree neighborhood from the noise and visitors the city expects to draw to the proposed new dog park at Central Park.

If they had it to do over again, I'd bet that deep in their hearts almost every member of council at that time wishes he or she had acted differently. Unfounded rumors, impacted friendships, destructive statements—just some of the fallout. Respect for our leaders was severely harmed. The destruction was devastating to our city's reputation. So much of it was totally unnecessary. Listening to our citizens should be the mantra of our city leaders, not the option of last resort.

What seemed like a vendetta against the mayor that the majority of council didn't like or support turned into a nasty divisive and highly publicized feud that brought embarrassment to an entire town. We heard this loud and clear as we went door to door to campaign during the recent mayor's race. The topic of Garland's loss of respectability surfaced repeatedly as citizens voiced concerns. Let us hope that never happens again. Reasonable people ought to be able to hold rational, candid, open conversations without it exploding so unnecessarily.

The question now is, will it be difficult for our current city leaders to continue to listen to citizens? 

Interestingly, some of the key players in the fight last year were not present Thursday night as they had been last December when the dog park was last publicly discussed and political civil war was raging.

Some citizens who spoke on Thursday night still had concerns about pets' behavior toward each other once inside the park, about proper monitoring of the park, about hours of operation, about what happens if a party at a possible rental space gets out of hand, etc. Will these concerns be taken seriously and weighed as the final decision is reached? At the Thursday meeting citizens were asked to put colorful dots on posters containing examples of styles of shelters, water features, seating, etc., that they prefer. Will these remarks be taken seriously and will citizens have a chance to review the final product and continue to provide input? I certainly hope so.

And of course the ongoing concern about the Garland animal shelter predictably raised its head briefly during the meeting. While a majority of those present clearly didn't want to make this a part of Thursday night's discussion—and indicated they didn't want to hear from the one Garland citizen who tried to raise the issue—will citizens continue to have a voice in this matter also? Will discussions be allowed to continue and elected officials be responsive to our citizens? The contention expressed Thursday night was that if the city cares enough to spend possibly $900,000 on a dog park, will it care enough to continue to address ongoing issues at the animal shelter as they arise?

As I've said repeatedly for years, Garland desperately needs a new animal shelter. Questions such as how it should be paid for and funded, where it should be situated, and how it should be operated, are all matters that require public input. Nothing about those discussions should be threatening or frightening to our leaders. Will council simply push forward with its "tax-and-borrow" practice, of the past or will it rationally sit down with concerned citizens, listen seriously to all proposals, and hammer out workable, creative solutions for all concerned? Many of us who want a better Garland will be watching the style of this discussion very closely!

And to knock costs down for the proposed dog park, will our leaders and employees seriously study whether the existing concrete (the foundation and part of the parking lots of the old controversial armory) can be used in some creative fashion—thus keeping the simple three-acre dog park from possibly costing $300,000 an acre? Again, I hope beyond hope a serious study of this will occur.

Most folks attending Thursday night's meeting may have missed one rather interesting tidbit: Richardson, our next-door neighbor to the west, is winning major accolades for its new dog park opened in 2015 because of the creative way it was designed using what some would call unusable land underneath highway bridges. Congratulations to Richardson for displaying such leadership and creativity.

The renewed, revised discussion about the dog park in Central Park gives us a chance to start over and do it right in every way.

The 3-acre proposed site is currently surrounded with fencing as a result of City Council's haste to eradicate the former armory once located at the site where the City's new dog park may go.