By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
Forgotten inmates: "The Ex-Con Game" (August 1) is right on target. I've known and worked with Ned Rollo at various conferences. His rough exterior belies the softness of his heart. Tell Ned to keep his chin up and continue his great work for those forgotten inmates.
Dr. H. Clint Davis
I Want My Kittens
Empty Sack: As a manager of three amazing local bands in Dallas, I keep up with Zac Crain's articles religiously. I enjoyed reading his "Sack of Kittens" column immensely. My bands and I eagerly awaited the opportunity to be "in the sack" as well. We were very displeased to know that Zac's "Kittens" went missing. I commend you, Zac, for saying the things no one else had the balls for. Dallas has produced some amazing talent, and I believe that we are just getting started. So, Mr. Editor, please, let's pull together, send fliers, search every unturned rock and bring the "Kittens" back!
Editor's note: "Sack of Kittens" returns to the Dallas Observer in Full Frontal, our new column.
Us vs. them: Rose Farley's sensationalizing of the "nasty neighborhood battle" between the residents of more recently built contemporary-style homes (the so-called "McMansion-dwellers") and the residents of older Tudor-style houses (whom she labels "self-righteous homeowners") trivializes and mischaracterizes the conservation efforts currently under way in more than half a dozen Dallas neighborhoods ("Trouble in the House of Tudor," July 25).
Greenland Hills, established in the 1920s, represents one of the most significant collections of Tudor Revival cottages in the Southwest United States. For the past year and a half, residents of our neighborhood have created an unprecedented coalition of builders, owners of new homes and owners of older homes, and we have worked hard to make the process of conservation as inclusive as possible. Despite Ms. Farley's depiction of a polarized conflict between new and old, our conservation efforts are supported by more than half of our new homeowners who, like the residents of our older homes, appreciate the charm, history and unique architecture of our neighborhood. The atmosphere here is by no means the highly charged "us vs. them" struggle depicted in Ms. Farley's article.
Ms. Farley contacted me while researching her article, and she mentioned then that she was still looking for a "hook" for her story. It is unfortunate that her efforts to find an angle for her feature led Ms. Farley to focus on divisiveness and to give undue weight to the isolated incidents of negativity that are in no way characteristic of the efforts of the conservation movement as a whole. Ms. Farley's misrepresentation of the debate surrounding architectural conservation has done a disservice to the real issues underlying our preservation efforts: How do we balance property rights with the desire to protect part of Dallas' architectural history? How do we create a conservation district that both preserves the atmosphere of our neighborhood and allows for growth? These are serious questions that merit discussion, and they are questions that Ms. Farley has ignored.
The goal of "Save the M Streets" is not to ostracize owners of contemporary-style homes, nor is it to inflict some so-called elitist architectural standards on our residents. To the contrary, people who live in or buy existing contemporary-style houses are as much a part of our community as is anyone else. Our goal, rather, is simply to halt a gradual erosion of the unique and historical architectural flavor of our neighborhood and, in doing so, preserve a part of Dallas' history that will otherwise almost certainly be lost to bulldozers and incompatible suburban architecture.
Enjoy your conformity: What a ridiculous thing to start a war over! I've been walking past Mr. Eisenberg's house since before it was built. His home is so in the now. It's refreshing to see something different in the M streets. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can't do with their property. Just because someone doesn't want a cookie-cutter house like the rest of them on his block does not make him wrong. People like Mrs. [Angela] Hunt are wrong thinking they can make everyone see things their way and have a block of matching houses. Good for you--you want to restore your old-fashioned house. What gives you the right to think everyone should share your opinion? This is one man who decided on a fine neighborhood to build a spectacular new home. If "75 percent of the area's property owners" agree with Mrs. Hunt, it seems to me your precious M Streets are safe. Anyway, why wouldn't you want your house to stand out?
I'll say this, when I'm walking or driving down the street, it is houses like Mr. Eisenberg's that catch my attention. All the other matching Tudors just blend together to make one giant cookie-cutter neighborhood. Enjoy your conformity, Mrs. Hunt. Props to Mr. Eisenberg for taking a stand to not conform.
Sex Is Everywhere
Hooker ads: You guys recently did an article on your advertisements for escort services ("Sex Sales," July 25). The way people point you guys out disgusts me. Do these assholes not realize that escorts are listed in the phone book, the Internet and basically any resource possible for them? Being an "alternative" newspaper has little or nothing to do with this matter. It seems to me like these people are pointing the Observer out as the bad guys without doing their homework first. Everyone who has a problem with these advertisements should take a step back and realize that sex is everywhere, and no amount of hate mail or protesting will change this fact. I love you guys. Keep doing what you're doing!