Metroplex
Sponsored by

I don't live in Dallas but these props seem terrible

3,160 Views | 23 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by dvldog
gabehcoud
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:20a, 10/13/24
Anybody convince me why I'm wrong?

Proposition S would allow Dallas residents to sue the city "if it doesn't comply with the city charter, city ordinances and state law."
Big D will be known as Big Defendant!

Proposition T would create a community satisfaction survey related to the city manager's job affecting compensation.
less dangerous than the others, but stupid.

Proposition U focuses on public safety. It would require 50% of all new city revenue to go to police and fire pensions. It would also require a minimum of 4,000 police officers.
arbitrary numbers that don't allow for discretion or common sense

Reply Quote
8
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to gabehcoud • 11:50a, 10/13/24
AG
Iirc the 4000 officers isn't random, and comes from the department. The issue is the ramp time to hire and train officers as it relates to the proposed requirements
Reply Quote
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:49a, 10/14/24
AG
They are horrible and getting loud opposition. The issue is tons of voters just mindlessly check yes.

DPD has been trying to ramp up the force for years. As a nation, we don't have enough people interested in being cops, and Dallas is no exception.
Reply Quote
7
double aught
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ol Jock 99 • 12:46p, 10/15/24
AG
I agree they would be bad. A lot of negative consequences (presumably unintended).
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to double aught • 12:48p, 10/15/24
AG
double aught said:
I agree they would be bad. A lot of negative consequences (presumably unintended).
They seem intended IMO. This group knows exactly what they are doing.
Reply Quote
4
double aught
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 12:49p, 10/15/24
AG
What do you think their goal is?
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to double aught • 12:56p, 10/15/24
AG
double aught said:
What do you think their goal is?
Being able to assert control over the City of Dallas while not living there. IIRC most of this group lives in the Park Cities.
Reply Quote
3
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:27p, 10/15/24
AG
Monty Bennett is the money man. He fancies himself as a Tim Dunn or Wilks Brother, but doesn't have quite the same level of influence ($$, not $$$). But he has enough to insert himself into causing chaos in Dallas.

And yes, he lives in HP.
Reply Quote
3
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:17p, 10/16/24
AG
My one political sign for this pathetic election.

Reply Quote
2
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:00p, 10/16/24
AG
I've been seeing a "Dallas Express" article floating around in support. Be aware: Dallas Express is owned by….drum roll…Monty Bennett.

He's buddies with the Scorecard/Empower crew, so I wouldn't be surprised to see something from them too.
Reply Quote
2
Robert C. Christian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ol Jock 99 • 9:28a, 10/17/24
AG
Ol Jock 99 said:
My one political sign for this pathetic election.


Is there a prop F that could be added? I don't live in Dallas and would put that one in my yard.
Reply Quote
2
Coates
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:10a, 10/17/24
What's the downside of more police?
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Coates • 11:12a, 10/17/24
AG
Coates said:
What's the downside of more police?
The downside is how the proposal requires it. DPD agrees they need more police.
Reply Quote
7
Coates
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 11:39a, 10/17/24
powerbelly said:
Coates said:
What's the downside of more police?
The downside is how the proposal requires it. DPD agrees they need more police.


So how should they go about it?

We've needed more officers for years and no one is doing anything. The city is poorly run, crime is increasing, and more people are moving here, somethings got to give.
Reply Quote
FTAco07
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:32p, 10/21/24
AG
Everyone, including police chiefs, rank and file, and union leaders, agree it would be impossible to meet the required number of new hires and equally impossible to train them all. In addition, the wording requires that 50% of new city REVENUE goes towards police and fire pension and salaries. Doing that would be fiscally irresponsible and crippling to any city.
Reply Quote
7
Carlo4
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:57p, 10/21/24
AG
Reply Quote
7
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAco07 • 9:38p, 10/21/24
AG
FTAco07 said:
Everyone, including police chiefs, rank and file, and union leaders, agree it would be impossible to meet the required number of new hires and equally impossible to train them all. In addition, the wording requires that 50% of new city REVENUE goes towards police and fire pension and salaries. Doing that would be fiscally irresponsible and crippling to any city.


The department would have 4000 officers today if they could find 950 qualified applicants to take the job. They cannot and putting it into the city charter will not change that.

The revenue issue is an attempt to help solve the pension shortfall and keep increasing the salaries of public servants. It is so that unlike in the past, the city cannot claim poverty when it comes to paying police & fire and then immediately pay $100 million for a park over the freeway.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
1
Coates
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAco07 • 11:43a, 10/22/24
FTAco07 said:
Everyone, including police chiefs, rank and file, and union leaders, agree it would be impossible to meet the required number of new hires and equally impossible to train them all. In addition, the wording requires that 50% of new city REVENUE goes towards police and fire pension and salaries. Doing that would be fiscally irresponsible and crippling to any city.
All the people who have been in charge for years and got us into this mess think it's a bad idea? Also Clay Jenkins and his ilk are speaking out against these propositions.

Sounds like something needs to change, to me voting no is a vote for more of the same.
Reply Quote
1
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Coates • 11:51a, 10/22/24
AG
Coates said:
FTAco07 said:
Everyone, including police chiefs, rank and file, and union leaders, agree it would be impossible to meet the required number of new hires and equally impossible to train them all. In addition, the wording requires that 50% of new city REVENUE goes towards police and fire pension and salaries. Doing that would be fiscally irresponsible and crippling to any city.
All the people who have been in charge for years and got us into this mess think it's a bad idea? Also Clay Jenkins and his ilk are speaking out against these propositions.

Sounds like something needs to change, to me voting no is a vote for more of the same.
That's pretty short sighted. There are some decent ideas in the propositions, but the way they are worded, the execution is impossible and would cripple the city.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Coates
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 12:07p, 10/22/24
powerbelly said:
Coates said:
FTAco07 said:
Everyone, including police chiefs, rank and file, and union leaders, agree it would be impossible to meet the required number of new hires and equally impossible to train them all. In addition, the wording requires that 50% of new city REVENUE goes towards police and fire pension and salaries. Doing that would be fiscally irresponsible and crippling to any city.
All the people who have been in charge for years and got us into this mess think it's a bad idea? Also Clay Jenkins and his ilk are speaking out against these propositions.

Sounds like something needs to change, to me voting no is a vote for more of the same.
That's pretty short sighted. There are some decent ideas in the propositions, but the way they are worded, the execution is impossible and would cripple the city.
So vote no and don't expect anything to change. I doubt it will pass since there has been so much opposition, but I think there needs to be more police, happy to vote for something that will require it.
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Coates • 12:12p, 10/22/24
AG
Coates said:
powerbelly said:
Coates said:
FTAco07 said:
Everyone, including police chiefs, rank and file, and union leaders, agree it would be impossible to meet the required number of new hires and equally impossible to train them all. In addition, the wording requires that 50% of new city REVENUE goes towards police and fire pension and salaries. Doing that would be fiscally irresponsible and crippling to any city.
All the people who have been in charge for years and got us into this mess think it's a bad idea? Also Clay Jenkins and his ilk are speaking out against these propositions.

Sounds like something needs to change, to me voting no is a vote for more of the same.
That's pretty short sighted. There are some decent ideas in the propositions, but the way they are worded, the execution is impossible and would cripple the city.
So vote no and don't expect anything to change. I doubt it will pass since there has been so much opposition, but I think there needs to be more police, happy to vote for something that will require it.
No, vote no and advocate for solutions.

When the police union is against it, you know it is a bad idea (it would benefit the union to have more officers).
Reply Quote
2
Coates
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 12:17p, 10/22/24
I'll be advocating with my vote.
Reply Quote
1
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Coates • 12:19p, 10/22/24
AG
Good for you.

Reply Quote
dvldog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:16p, 10/22/24
AG
Here's what my Councilwoman had to say on the props;

Quote:
Early voting starts Monday, and when you go to vote, you're going to see 18 propositions from the City of Dallas at the end of your ballot. Each of these propositions have important ramifications for our city - some would result in harmful consequences. You may already be hearing mixed messages from politicians saying, "Vote down this one, but not that one."

My recommendation is to simply Vote NO to ALL 18 propositions.

You can read the full op-ed Mayor Eric Johnson and I wrote that was recently published in the Dallas Morning News. It details why we believe voting against all 18 propositions is what Dallas needs. (full article at the bottom of this email)

The truth is, the City Charter propositions on your ballot are a mixed bag. Too many of the proposed amendments are unwise, unnecessary, or underdeveloped.

What happens if every proposition fails? We have the chance for a do-over. But if even one proposition passes, we have to wait two years before any new charter amendments can be considered. This means voters have the opportunity to send a clear message to the City Council by demanding we go back to the drawing board.

We can live with the current charter for a little while longer.

So let's start fresh: Vote NO to ALL 18 proposed amendments, and send us back to work to get it right. Hold us accountable as we strive to make our city safer, stronger, and more efficient.
Reply Quote
2
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.