Friday, May 3, 2013

Former Mayor Taking Up for Laura

Our former mayor take up for Laura Maczka. She claims he is trying to set the record straight.

Well, on the video Laura said what she said, and that was that Richardson is an inner city and not longer the suburb to the north. She has faced lots of heat for that statement, and may wish she had said something else, but the video does not lie.

On the apartment issue, have there been any apartments she has voted again? I don't know, but can't remember any such votes.

Here is the text of what he had to say:


 

Apartments, Wal-Mart and The Inner City

Many of you probably received a political mailer from Laura's opponent this week accusing her of being "anti-neighborhood." Please read a response from City Council Steve Mitchell, a person known as one of the strongest neighborhood advocates in Richardson.

Thank you Steve for setting the record straight:


I’ve served on the City Council with both mayoral candidates for the past two years, so I’ve heard their positions on practically every issue.

For the record, Laura has never supported building apartments in or adjacent to our neighborhoods; never promoted our community as an ‘inner city’, but simply as an ‘inner ring suburb’; and has never advocated to build a Wal-Mart near Canyon Creek.

Frankly, Laura is one of our most pro-neighborhood councilmembers. Any attempts to portray her as anything other than a neighborhood champion are simply not true.
She stands with - and for - our neighborhoods.

- Steve Mitchell, City Councilman and Former Mayor


 

14 comments:

  1. Who cares what Steve says? Anybody who listens to him is already voting for Laura. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gee - what a surprise!!!! At last, an issue that Mr. Mitchell didn't straddle. But why should anyone be surprised? He had already publicly supported Ms. Maczka. Perhaps he finally took a stand because he wants to be mayor pro tem.

    Another Richardson blogger (the one who advocates high density apartments coupled with retail as being Richardson's best choice for the future) is taking Mr. Omar to task for voting for apartments in the past. That's true. Whats also true is he never referred to Richardson as an "inner city".

    Please remember - Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Maczka voted yes for every apartment concept that has come before them as well. I guess Mr. Mitchell's saying Laura never advocated apartments "adjacent to" neighborhoods has a lot to do with what he thinks how far "adjacent to"
    means.
    As for the the blogger who advocates Richardson's future is tied to becoming "high density" - is he a resident of one of those high density developments? Well,no, he is ensconced in a very, very comfortable single family home. Guess he believes in do as I advocate, not what I do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The developemnet at Renner and Plano roads could not get any closer to a neighborhood. And I believe that will be the biggest concentration of apartments in the city. I got a "suggested page" on Facebook which is Scott Dunn's political page. He states that Omar will do anything to win, and gives an example, ending with "that is why none of the current council support him." It has been bandied about that the current caouncil will not work with Omar. It is my opinion that if Mr. Omar is elected Mayor, the current council should all resign. We don't need a childish and unprofessional council, who delight in acting like school yard bullies, in the city.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Votes were 6 to 1 as it was..... what would be different if they didn't work with him??

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve has maneuvered to be mayor pro tem but it is Scott Dunn who is the one being positioned by the Coalition. What a difference two years makes!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon @ 5:30 PM

    Surely you jest!!! Is the Coalition going to provide an interpreter for Mr. Dunn's speech whenever whomever is mayor is absent?

    Nothing brings back the "Emperor has no clothes" story better than thinking Mr. Dunn will be "chosen" mayor pro tem.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon @ 4:48

    What is the example Mr. Dunn cites for not working with Mr. Omar if he should be elected?

    What is offensive about Mr. Dunn's social network postings is he apparently doesn't realize how inappropriate such comments are for an incumbent councilman. One can endorse whomever they choose, but such public negative comments are unacceptable. He may not be able to improve the lack of his public speaking abilities, but he also appears not to be able to understand social etiquette.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dunn? Obviously that is a joke of some kind. The guy is dumb as a box of rocks. I am not just saying that to be mean. The guy IS dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scott Dunn for Mayor Pro-Tem? You have got to be kidding? Scott Dunn doesn't say anything during a meeting and when he opens his mouth he can't even put an intelligent sentence together. Him representing our city when the new Mayor can't make an event or outside meeting. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! Oh, I forgot...CHUCKY will tell him what to say.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr. Dunn on electing the Richardson Mayor - http://youtu.be/qy3ntkpqiLI

    ReplyDelete
  11. Having no backbone, Mitchell is a nobody bag of hot air.

    We can only wonder why Slagel hasn't openly and publicly (I know, ridiculous words in referring to a guy known to deal in secrets) spoke in support of the chosen one.

    That's probably the answer there. The name Slagel has a certain reputation that may be detrimental to his Coalitionist Party campaign effort.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Watched the http://youtu.be/qy3ntkpqiLI video and was stunned at the disjointed words and phrases, let alone thoughts, coming out of this guy's mouth.

    It is more than obvious that this guy operates in collusion with his allied counterparts in some sort of coalition on the council that has no more individual thought than a box of Cherios.

    As for single member districts, City of Dallas might be one of the worst, and most convenient examples. Across the state, there are countless examples where the needs of districts within a municipality are better served by individual representation rather than a collective coalition that would starve one district for the benefit of another.

    First, one would have to look beyond the horizon to see them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you thought the Coalition was upset over citizen's voting to require direct election of the mayor, think of the eruption when single member districts hit the horizon. That's the only way the Coalition loses their leverage. Having the four members in their respective districts subject only to their district voter's approval in election or reelection is crucial.



    ReplyDelete
  14. Can we say Charter Review?? Not sure what makes the other positions accountable to the people or why they are needed.

    ReplyDelete