By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
Dallas' richest deadbeat
Having just finished reading your extensive article on Vance Miller's financial "woes" ["Deadbeat," January 15], this has to be, without a doubt, one of the most egregious examples of upper-class arrogance and refusal to accept responsibility that I have ever heard of. Hell, if the rest of us working schmucks tried something like that, we'd be charged criminally and thrown in jail. But, as they say, money talks. Lots of money talks even more.
Reading this story, the words "abuse of power" appeared to me right away.
Although Marxism has been proven to be a failed system, one has to wonder what Karl Marx would have said about the likes of Vance Miller. For that matter, what would Will Rogers have said if he had ever met Mr. Miller?
Politicians receiving contributions from this man should return them to the U.S. Treasury to help pay back the $26 million.
Absolutely great! I wish more of the parasites that lived high and still enjoy the fat life by neglecting their obligations could be exposed like this--at the very least, it should make them squirm, and hopefully might put a dent in their lifestyles that we are paying for.
Until recently, I had never read your publication--in fact, I had never heard of the Dallas Observer. However, your article on the Vance Miller family was called to my attention, and because of the especially vicious tone of your story, I decided it was necessary for me to read for myself what you were saying about the Miller family. Midway through your article, I began to wonder what your purpose was in writing this. If it were to present factual information contrasting his business life to his personal life, your story was so full of half-truths and speculation that it simply could be dismissed as pulp fiction. If your purpose was to embarrass Vance Miller on behalf of a very disgruntled collection attorney, you attempted to do so by not only attacking Mr. Miller, but also his wife and children, even one son who died tragically in an automobile accident shortly over a year ago. It is not Mr. Miller who should be embarrassed, but rather you for your unprofessional and shoddy journalism.
Mr. Miller's integrity? I think it is yours that is in question.
I am a family member. Vance [Miller] Sr. is a man who can speak for himself. I think that it is in bad taste to mention anything about Vance Jr. He is not here to defend himself.
I read with interest your article on Vance Miller. Thomas Korosec has confirmed two of my suspicions about Dallas: 1.) That beneath the thin veneer of class and respectability of many of Dallas' pretty people lies a rank and rancid core; 2.) That justice isn't color-blind--it recognizes green easily enough. Certainly, debt-dodging, lying, and fraud are all common enough occurrences in Dallas, but Vance, picking your nose in front of the camera? Poor Juanita and Tincy are probably prostrate with humiliation.
I really can't blame Vance Miller. The government on several levels tries to put its foot down to squash Mr. Miller, and he oozes out between their toes. I blame the agencies in charge of enforcing the laws that should apply, equally, without prejudice or concern for social status. Obviously, someone isn't doing their job. Perhaps those responsible for giving Mr. Miller a knife to loosen his noose will fall prey to a Dallas Observer expose.
Now, do you know what happens to the poor folk when they owe taxes? While going through a divorce in 1992, my ex-husband and I filed separately; however, his repair business owed $1,800. So what, you say? I, a divorced mother of three, felt the crushing force of the IRS within six months. They tried to garnishee my wages, and they froze my checking account. All was cleared up, and I was released from any obligation. But how is it Mr. Squish-between-the-toes can play a four-year game of hide-and-seek and owe $26 million, and I get hammered for $1,800? I guess they would like me to believe it's that damned El Nino's fault.
Not ready for prime time
Re: Your Buzz column of January 22 ["Winners and whiners"]. Throughout the arena discussions, I wondered who picked this strange woman with the banjo eyes and grating twang as spokesperson for "It's a Bad Deal!" I agree strongly with Sharon Boyd's position, but wish the "Vote NO!" forces could have found someone else to front for the cause, at least for the radio and television appearances. (Donna Blumer certainly wasn't the answer, and Laura Miller was too little, too late.) Nonetheless, Ms. Boyd should be praised for organizing a campaign that came within 2 percent of victory.
Never has the downtown oligarchy had such a close call! I don't fault Ms. Boyd's comments in the immediate aftermath of such a close fight.
Elections are usually nasty, dirty, and less than honest. We're just not used to seeing close political battles in Dallas, where full participatory democracy is a relatively new phenomenon. I hope "It's a Bad Deal" continues as an organized forum for the loyal opposition in Dallas politics. Just get a better spokesperson than Sharon Boyd.