Heartfelt Platitudes

April 6, 2008 Jim Carson 33 comments

There are several new websites for candidates, and one of a political action group. The pac (which I don’t capitalize because I don’t know their election law status,) is called Positively Keller, and the address is http://positivelykeller.com.

It seems to be spearheaded by Doug Newton, and includes lots of Keller luminaries, past and present (mostly past.) The Supporters page lists them by name and claim to fame. Be sure to click on the highlighted names to see what they’ve written about their beloved Keller and the supposed sad state of its city council.

I’m not going to bother refuting anything specific they’ve said, mostly because they’ve said almost nothing specific. Instead I’m going to borrow a literary device from former councilman Jim Badalamenti, and ask of these luminaries, “Where WERE you?”

Where were you when Keller’s taxpayers were being fleeced out of $20,000 for a nonsense award bestowed by a fraudulent (and now bankrupt) marketing firm?

Where were you for eleven consecutive years that the city manager enjoyed unearned job security through an employment contract that was flatly prohibited by the City Charter?

Where were you when our former mayor was playing small town power politics at its ugliest with a plan to bypass the voters to build the library that they had already voted down? Where are your names on the petition that stopped that travesty?

Where were you when the scheme was hatched whereby public art was funded by a contractually-mandated kickback from our garbage vendor?

Where were you when another high-rise apartment complex was proposed in the heart of Keller’s commercial corridor? Where were you when we were researching Keller’s Unified Development Code (written by several of you) and discovering that not just Keller Station, but Arthouse as well, is not even close to complying with our ordinances?

Of course, the answer to all these questions is that these folks were either silent on or actively part of these problems.

2008 Keller Election none

Comments

Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

Where were you when Keller’s taxpayers were being fleeced out of $20,000 for a nonsense award

The money you refer to was spent to promote Keller, not to get an award as you’ve twisted it around. Keller had a budget for this purpose. As a city without major highway access, you have to work to attract quality economic development….it doesn’t just come rolling in. Many of the things the previous council did that you constantly criticize, were primarily for the purpose of promoting Keller, improving the image of Keller, or making strategic decisions for the purpose of attracting quality economic development to Keller.

From reading many of your posts, Jim, I get the impression that you don’t care much for economic development. In fact, I believe you mentioned at one time or another that you would just assume pay for roads, police, fire, and water/sewer services purely out of our pockets rather than offset the costs by a good commercial tax basis (or accept money from grants, which, oh by the way, comes from our tax or toll money).

Not everyone succumbs to your philosophy on this matter. Personally, I would prefer to shop in Keller to purchase goods, and have some of the sales tax revenue go into Keller’s coffers, rather than shop elsewhere and have that money go into other cities’ coffers. I can choose to, or not to, make purchases depending on my financial situation. Open the right kind of businesses here, with unique services/products, and people from other cities will come to Keller to shop too. How do you think Westlake gets by without any property taxes? It’s called Commercial tax base. It can be significant, and it can hold down, if not eliminate property taxes (as in Westlake’s case). It takes a committed council and city staff, with a vision and plan to attract quality economic development.
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

Where were you when our former mayor was playing small town power politics at its ugliest with a plan to bypass the voters to build the library that they had already voted down?

…*sigh* here we go again. Jim, it is YOUR spin on the library issue that the council and city staff did not listen the first time the Library was voted down and it was you and your Taj Mahal campaign that brought politics at its ugliest. The reality is, the first time the library was voted down it was about cost, not location. The city DID listen and DID significantly reduce the cost when the 2nd library was proposed. Yes, you can criticize them for trying to accomplish it without going to vote, trying to take advantage of grant money, and build the library on land in Town Center with a deed restriction that a library must be built on it, and listening to indications that Town Center was the best place to put the library. But you can’t criticize them for “not listening the first time”. That is your political spin.
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

It would have been pretty silly for a city striving hard to attract quality economic development to thumb their nose at a proposed quality development, Arthouse.
Written by louis about 2 years ago.

Yes, you can criticize them for trying to accomplish it without going to vote, trying to take advantage of grant money, and build the library on land in Town Center with a deed restriction that a library must be built on it, and listening to indications that Town Center was the best place to put the library.

Linda, I think you are grossly minimizing these issues. The vast majority of voters disagreed with the basic approach and your campaign.

It should have been such a slam dunk for the TC library. The entire approach and campaign were deceitful and dishonorable. Of course, you can argue that the voters in Keller was misled and not smart enough to have voted correctly, but then you are really giving Jim and Monte way too much credit.

I think Positively Keller! might have a good chance of succeeding, but it’s finished the minute that the phrases “Town Center” and “new library” appear together in the same sentence.
Written by louis about 2 years ago.

Doug Newton’s article has two big disclaimers at the bottom:

Note that since this letter was written, the council did revisit the Clean Vehicle Fleet policy and approve it by a vote of 4 to 1, with Jim Carson casting the departing vote. We applaud the council for passing this important policy, which should have passed the first time around.

The council also rejected the agenda item to pull the funding from the Veteran’s Memorial Sculpture by a vote of 4 to 1, with Jim Carson casting the departing vote. The money was already approved for the Veteran’s Memorial Sculpture and this item should not even have been on the council agenda.

So in his view, the council (except Jim) shouldn’t get any credit for ultimately doing the right thing (in his view), or is he most upset that they didn’t get it right the first time?

I didn’t see Julie Tandy’s name on the list of supporters. Is that because she’s too polarizing?
Written by Jim Carson about 2 years ago.

The money was already approved for the Veteran’s Memorial Sculpture and this item should not even have been on the council agenda.

Mr. Newton can’t even get his facts straight on his corrections. There was NO agenda item to “pull” the funding for the sculpture—there was a resolution to spend $55,000 that even Mr. Baker would tell you was long overdue. By law, expenditures like these which are in excess of $25,000, whether budgeted or not, MUST be approved by a council vote.
Written by Jim Carson about 2 years ago.

The money you refer to was spent to promote Keller, not to get an award as you’ve twisted it around.

You’ll argue anything, as long as I’m on the other side, won’t you? OK, suit yourself. Here’s the video of Julie Tandy and Lyle Dresher boasting about our “award”:

Champion City

Mayor Tandy speaks of “this great recognition that we’ve received,” and Mr. Dresher described the process whereby they asked Keller if it would be “willing to compete for the award.”

Giving the contest judge 20,000+ taxpayer dollars makes you pretty competitive, apparently.
Written by Jim Carson about 2 years ago.

Yes, you can criticize them for … trying to take advantage of grant money, and build the library on land in Town Center with a deed restriction that a library must be built on it…

For the eighty-seventh time,

THERE WAS NO GRANT MONEY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF!

The grant money was taken off the table in late 2004, and it never came back. I’ve called you out on this before—Prove it, Linda!

I have never seen this deed restriction, and I’ve looked for it. Until you produce it, I just don’t believe you.
Written by Mike Sivertsen about 2 years ago.

Positivelykeller.com is one way communication, similar to the old media. They tell us, through dated, recycled Letters to the Editor for the most part, what they think is wrong and provide no opportunity for the reader to respond. This strikes me as a very old-fashioned way to communicate. It is also a chilling reminder of the governing style that was used with the $7 million Town Center library: Shut Up and Listen. We Know Best. If the state says I’m holding up FIVE fingers and you see FOUR, make sure you say FIVE.

Contrast positively.~~oldfashioned~~keller.com with Jim Carson’s KellerCityLimits.com blog where he freely debates the most inane comments at times, and provides background information on his votes and positions. A participatory blog allows every citizen to have a voice on public policy issues, and allows us to better understand the background and decision making process of candidates and elected officials, without spending time in interminable meetings.

I want somebody who fights for me, the taxpayer, on the City Council, not the public arts board and every other special interest that shows up with their hand out and a ‘good idea.’ In this age of soaring energy prices, Keller families need someone fighting to keep costs down at City Hall. Working families need Jim Carson and more like him on the Keller City Council.
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

Linda, I think you are grossly minimizing these issues. The vast majority of voters disagreed with the basic approach and your campaign.

It should have been such a slam dunk for the TC library. The entire approach and campaign were deceitful and dishonorable.

Louis, Please explain what you are referring to here? The Vote Yes campaign chose to fight a clean campaign and they lost for it. They didn’t fight back and refute the barrage of negativity brought on by the Taj Mahal campaign. I participated in meetings where it was discussed to take the high route and not stoop to their level.
Written by Jim Carson about 2 years ago.

The Vote Yes campaign chose to fight a clean campaign and they lost for it.

Here’s the original No Meant NO! campaign, which you call a barrage of negativity. Show me what needs to be “refuted.”

http://kellercitylimits.com/nomeantno

Also, I suspect the deceitfulness Louis refers to is the November, 2005, vote to build it without voter input.

You might could have won if you hadn’t tried to steal it without a vote of the people, but I don’t agree that a Town Center library could ever have been a “slam dunk.”
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

THERE WAS NO GRANT MONEY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF!

For the eighty eighth time, Jim, whenever I ask the people who actually served on the council at the time the decision was made why they decided to move forward with the TC Library without a vote, one of the reasons included taking advantage of grant money. My husband being one of these council members, and knowing that my husband is not a liar, and knowing that he took pride in his position on the council, and knowing that he spent a considerable amount of time studying information and preparing for council meetings, I am going to tend to believe him over you!
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

Here’s the original No Meant NO! campaign, which you call a barrage of negativity.

The barrage of negativity I was referring to, among other things, the deceitful incident where people from your group planted people in the library to disprove the commonly used counting methods that was used to count traffic through the library. For what? to claim that a larger library wasn’t needed? All you needed to do was step foot in the library, or count the number of children turned away from Children’s programs to determine that. Then these very people, turned around after the TC Library didn’t pass, and they wrote letters to the editor complaining that the Council didn’t move forward to expand the existing library. Was that not deceitful?

The numerous letters to the editor bashing the Library Director who did an outstanding job were exceedingly negative. The bashing that continues today of our former Mayor who dedicated countless hours to promoting Keller to bring quality economic development to our city. That is the negativity that I refer to.
Written by Doug Miller about 2 years ago.

And we found out later how non partisan our Library Director really was, didn’t we?

Don’t confuse them with facts Jim, they’ll spin them in to attacks.
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

Mayor Tandy speaks of “this great recognition that we’ve received,” and Mr. Dresher described the process whereby they asked Keller if it would be “willing to compete for the award.”

And why, please explain, would they be interested in participating if not to be able to promote Keller? I understand there was a promotional video that Keller received from this, that they wanted to put on the city website, but You, Jim, made such a stink about it that they never used it. Why would you make a stink about putting a promotional video on the city website? Aren’t you interested in promoting Keller?
Written by Jim Carson about 2 years ago.

The “award” was bought and paid for in September, 2004. I never even heard about it until Doug mentioned it, here, in 2006.

No stink.
Written by Jim Carson about 2 years ago.

I just watched the video from 11/15/2005, and the only mention of grant money was wishful thinking on the part of Russell Lake and Julie Tandy. If there was a real offer of money, they’d have trumpeted that from the roof of Town Hall.

Hope for grant money and an actual offer of grant money are two very different things. I really doubt Steve told you there was an offer of grant money at the time. I think you remember the story in ways that please you.
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

They tell us, through dated, recycled Letters to the Editor for the most part, what they think is wrong and provide no opportunity for the reader to respond. This strikes me as a very old-fashioned way to communicate.

uh…Mike, there is only 1 letter to the editor on there. We talked about including a blog on there, and we still may. The problem is, and I’m sure Jim will attest, managing a blog takes a considerable amount of time. I just don’t think anyone has enough time to do it. Besides, you seem to be doing a fine job just refuting it right here. I, for one, have never complained about the value of Jim’s blog as a communication mechanism.
Written by Rochelle Snow about 2 years ago.

Linda, the “people from ‘your’ group who planted people in the library” were Monty and I. We planted ourselves. We knew (and it didn’t take a rocket scientist) that the library numbers were inflated before we deceitfully and stealthily parked outside the library and counted while skulking about, but we didn’t know how much. We found the actual numbers to be about 35% lower than what the library counted. I forget the actual numbers but they were in the 600s. Numbers in the 800s were being claimed, and one city official announced in public that it was “about 1000.” The library’s counter was double and triple counting people for a variety of purely mechanical reasons. There were even occasions when it counted library employees who came out the front door and then went back in.

The reason we did it was simple. Neither of us can stomach the very deceit you are accusing us of practicing. We weren’t trying to “prove” anything except that the numbers being used were untrue. But let’s just say for the sake of argument that we were trying to prove we didn’t need a library in Town Center. At least we would have been doing it with the truth. We spent over 40 hours there, diligently punching a clicker and recording the numbers, day in and day out. That was insane, not deceitful.

The city was trying to prove we needed a library in Town Center using numbers that were NOT true. Like I said it did not take a rocket scientist to see that the library counting method had a built-in error factor – which turned out to be 35% – but the city never mentioned it. And WE were the deceitful ones? What’s wrong with this picture?

Then, we wrote letters to the editor complaining that action on the existing library was too slow. You say that was deceitful. I don’t understand why. We never said we were opposed to improving the library, and in fact we assured petition signers who asked that we would try to do so. You didn’t know this, but I voted FOR the Town Center Library in 1999. We ALWAYS favored improving the library, but there are two things we despise in government more than anything – arrogance and deceit. Both were used, initially in an attempt to deprive the voters of a voice, and once that didn’t work, to “snow” (ptp) the voters into approving the TC library with loaded “information.”

You have no basis for accusing us of deceit. Insanity, maybe. But not deceit.
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

If there was a real offer of money, they’d have trumpeted that from the roof of Town Hall.

Lol! Jim, you wouldn’t have listened if they did.
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

Rochelle, Where should the city have gotten all of these people to sit there with clickers and manually count people? The mechanism that was used is a common mechanism used to count people. There are instances where the counter mechanism wouldn’t have counted additional people. You didn’t happen to mention that did you?
Written by Rochelle Snow about 2 years ago.

They knew the numbers were inflated. Casual observation for a few minutes establishes that. If they wanted to use numbers to establish the library was too crowded, they had an obligation to at least disclose that there was a margin of error and explain why. If they didn’t want to go to the trouble, then they should have used different statistics and forget the number of visitors.

Where would they find people to manually count? I guess the same place they got the people to count how many paperback swap books (not owned by the library) went out the door. They didn’t care which paperback went out. They just wanted to know how many. What did they use those numbers for? Did they include them in the “official” circulation figures?

Of course there were instances when the counter mechanism wouldn’t have counted additional people. Anyone who went into the library once and came out once would have been counted correctly by both the counter and by us. That is irrelevant. Those people didn’t inflate the numbers. It was the people counted multiple times who inflated the numbers – by 35%.

Do you want to go on record as saying a number inflated by 35% is inconsequential? If you do, just say so.
Written by Linda Trine about 2 years ago.

Rochelle, Maybe you haven’t noticed, but I have come to respect Monty over the last few months. He eloquently speaks what he believes and on many occasions (not all) I find myself in agreement with him. You say you didn’t intentionally try to deceive people, and so I believe you. It was something that had always bugged me during that whole campaign. On the same token, I do not see how you can accuse someone of intentionally trying to deceive people because they presented data gathered using the tool that was available and widely used for that purpose. I know these people and I know they were not intentionally trying to deceive people. If there was literature provided with the counter indicating margin of error, then I agree that it could have been included in the report–I have no idea if they even had this information. If the counter is faulty, then go after the company selling the counter, not the people using it.

I agree with you on wanting an improved library, and I still haven’t seen any indication that there will be a referendum for the library expansion on the upcoming election.
Written by Paco Peterson about 2 years ago.

The one small flaw in Rochelle’s count is that they didn’t count the people who used the book drop on the west side of the building. As I recall, you also mentioned (disdainfully) those who just came in to get IRS forms, as though that wasn’t a legitimate function of the library. At any rate, I feel quite sure that there wasn’t anything sinister or underhanded on either side as each was doing what they thought was right. So now the issue is dead for, at least in my estimation, ten years.
Written by Jim Carson about 2 years ago.

So now the issue is dead for, at least in my estimation, ten years.

The issue of credibility of self-proclaimed Keller civic leaders, however, is very much alive.
Written by Grant Adams about 2 years ago.

I can’t believe so many people waste so much energy and stress arguing about a LIBRARY. Good grief.

I bet 80% of the residents have never even visited the Keller Library…. but I am sure someone on here will correct me on that statistic in the next few minutes.
Written by Paco Peterson about 2 years ago.

Sorry Jim, but those “self-proclaimed” leaders have an awful lot of backing therefore they, like you, are not SELF proclaimed.
Written by Jim Carson about 2 years ago.

I can’t believe so many people waste so much energy and stress arguing about a LIBRARY. Good grief.

Sorry to hear that, Grant. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Written by Grant Adams about 2 years ago.

Thanks for enlightening me Jim
Written by sue crain about 2 years ago.

We are Keller residents for the past 9 years, and have watched the various library efforts and other council activities that attempted to bypass the voters. We are not more than a mile from Town Center, but have no sewage system (we are still on septic), our road is in bad shape (Chandler Road) and there is no improvement in sight. Yet the Council thinks it is ok to spend money on art rather than on infrastructure improvements apparently. While we were OK with the statue honoring the veterans, it still used money that should have come back to the city for public works. If we as citizens want to spend money on art, we should vote for it,not assume it is the best way to spend money that would otherwise be better used. I am stll shocked at how little information is on the official City of Keller web site about development plans. Compare this to the Southlake site, which has plans, details, and offers citizen forums to discuss these BEFORE they are embedded in the city plan. Open government is essential.
Written by Kevin Jerome about 2 years ago.

AMEN, Sue Crain!
Written by Mike Sivertsen about 2 years ago.

Sue,

Your posts bring clarity, facts and common sense to the issue at hand. I also agree that the City of Keller web site needs to provide more information.
Written by Anonymous about 2 years ago.

“A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to Farce, or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
James Madison

Keller Citizen Legislature

Heartfelt Platitudes

Comments

Recent Posts

Browse by Tags

Categories

Meta