Tuesday, October 14, 2014

CCR/DW 10-14-14: Voting ID Required

TO:  CCR Tweet-less 

Here’s what you recently missed by not following
Dylan Westie  @DylanWestie1  on Twit-er.

Radical idea: Bring the ARK boutique back to council for re-vote to see if any Pet Rocks will atone for QueenBs (Irving mayor) misdirection!


PostScript:  Just think!  With all the negative comments and publicity floating around as to how QueenB VD led the Pet Rocks astray to satisfy her personal agenda of being anti-ARK, do you think any of the Pet Rocks would like to atone for their misdirected vote and set the record straight for the betterment of the city?  Sounds like a capital idea to staff of the CCR.

   To do so, three council members could request the ARK boutique hotel proposal be placed on the next city council agenda.  The queen could not prevent this item from coming back to the council for renewed consideration and a vote.

   If the item was put before the council again, the question becomes: Would any of the Pet Rocks actually consider changing their vote, or do they want the total embarrassment of their initial vote to stand as is?  Their previous vote was an embarrassment to the city, business community and voters…and probably had Dallas politicos chucking at Irving’s ineptitude.

   Knowing the decision to change their vote might cause them to fear being thrown into the queen’s Tower of Obedience, or not being invited to participate in a photo op with her, staff of the CCR would like to assist in the reconsideration of their voting again.

   Only one Pet Rock changing their vote will shift the tide and put Irving back on a course of doing what is right for citizens and businesses calling the city home.  

   Here are some gentle clues to assist the misled Pet Rocks:

Pet Rock LaMorgese:  After seeking any necessary nose procedures, purchasing a copy of "Business Microeconomics for Dummies" to assist in increasing his learning curve in understanding businesses do operate to make a profit.  Those businesses failing to make a profit will no longer be in business.  Hopefully, this isn’t too difficult for him to understand after reading the book, but then….. 

Pet Rock Spink:  Isn’t it time for him to discard his Ouija board and crystal ball for predicting upcoming development time lines when professionals, using real data, have discussed and related the reality of the ARK proposal?  The RFPs, for seeking a new Convention Center hotel developer, are being processed.  Hopefully, he is not attempting to fall into the single source developer pit like QueenB and forego the city conducting its business as it should…open, transparent and crony-less for any personally known developers.

Pet Rock Farris:  We searched and consulted with professionals, but to no avail.  Some folks are just lost, helpless and beyond reach.  This could fall into the category of voters not getting what they were promised…and it wasn’t a court jester for the queen.

Pet Rock Ward:  While following the queen’s dictates, his anti-ARK vote could have exponentially decreased the number of support votes — that do not represent a conflict of interest — for any Whistle Stop proposal when it comes before the council.  While council voting is not generally tete-a-tete, it is know most council members do have long memories and recall past actions and votes of their fellow members.  The ARK vote, similar to a radioisotope, will have the same half-life as the tax reduction vote the queen dictated for the Pet Rocks.

   CCR readers should understand that bringing the ARK boutique hotel proposal back for a re-vote is not to embarrass the Pet Rocks.  After all, they did this to themselves, the city and businesses on their first vote.  However, this would truly be a golden opportunity for them to demonstrate they are wanting to serve citizens of the city,,,and not the queen’s vindictive and egotistical agenda. 

   Is this really too difficult to understand?  Which is fundamentally more important: The queen’s ego or the betterment of the city?

   And while the consideration is floating around to consider if a re-vote would occur, the Pet Rocks should also remember how enthusiastic they were when they recently approved another boutique hotel near the city owned Entertainment Center property.  And this boutique hotel will not be able to assist the city in qualifying for the State sales tax rebate. 

   If the Pet Rocks have forgotten, the State sales tax rebate is one of the critical elements to ensure the success of the entire ICVB, Entertainment Center and Convention Center hotel development.

   Finally, one of the more salient points is if ARK should decide to build a boutique hotel, no city funding would be required.  What better reason is there to support this public-private partnership?  Pet Rocks should remember, ARK is the city’s partner, not their crutch to satisfy personal agendas.  Especially, those personal agendas which seem to be contrary to the city’s benefit.

   Want to do something good for the city?  Contact one of the non-Pet Rocks and request the ARK boutique hotel proposal be placed on the next council agenda.  They have already voted once for the city’s betterment and probably wouldn’t mind doing so again.  Let them know your thoughts.

non-Pet Rocks
John Danish (972) 554-0500
Allan Meagher (972) 313-0909
Joe Putnam (972) 259-2626
Dennis Webb     (214) 490-9749

Legal disclaimer and Glossary at: controversialcommittee.blogspot.com